Open Collections

BC Sessional Papers

annual report of the CORRECTIONS BRANCH MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL for calendar year 1978 British Columbia. Legislative Assembly [1982]

Item Metadata


JSON: bcsessional-1.0378786.json
JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0378786-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0378786-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0378786-rdf.json
Turtle: bcsessional-1.0378786-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0378786-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcsessional-1.0378786-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 annual report
of the
for calendar year
  Colonel the Honourable Henry Pybus Bell-Irving, O.B.E., D.S.O., E.D.,
Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of British Columbia
May it please your Honour:
The Annual Report of the Corrections Branch for the
calendar year ended December 31, 1978, is herewith
respectfully submitted.
Garde B. Gardom
Office of Attorney-General
April 1979
  Ministry of Attorney-General
Corrections Branch
Victoria, B.C.
April 1979
The Honourable Garde B. Gardom, Q.C.
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C.
I have the honour to submit the Annual Report of the
Corrections Branch for the 12 months ended December 31,
1978. Within the Report a Branch Overview is provided for
complete quick reference to the major developments of the
year; it is presented in descriptive and statistical form.
Respectfully submitted
Bernard G. Robinson
Major Issues	
Reorganization of the Branch	
Youth Services	
Diversion Programs	
Community Supervision   	
Community Service Orders	
Attendance Programs	
Youth Custody	
Citizen Participation	
Adult Services 	
Pre-court Services 	
Pre-trial Services 	
Probation Services	
Community Service Orders	
Impaired Drivers' Courses	
Custody Services and Programs	
Psychological Services	
Medical Services 	
Facilities and Capacities (Summary Sheet)
Provincial Classification 	
Re-entry Programs	
Religious Programs 	
Citizen Participation	
This Annual Report was prepared in two major parts. A
general overview of Branch operations, some of the major
issues, future program priorities, and detailed statistics for
1978 are presented as the first part, for quick reference. The
second part, "The Report in Detail," is a comprehensive
description of major programs, activities, policies and
practices of the Corrections Branch for 1978 both with
respect to provincial and regional operations.
This Annual Report was prepared by Information Services
on behalf of the Office of the Commissioner.
Assistant to
Regional Director
of Corrections,
Regional Director
of Corrections,
Vancouver Island
Regional Director
of Dorrections
North Fraser
Regional Director
of Corrections
South Fraser
Regional Director
of Corrections
Regional Director
of Corrections
Inspection &
Resource Analysis
Program Analysis
Medical Services
Program Evaluation
and Data Systems
Religious Programs
  Corrections Branch
The Honourable Garde B. Gardom, Attorney-General
Bernard G. Robinson, Commissioner
A.K.B. Sheridan
Deputy Commissioner
J. Konrad
Regional Director of Corrections
South Fraser Region
A.E. Neufeld
Regional Director of Corrections
North Fraser Region
G. Chappie
Regional Director of Corrections
Interior Region
B.A. Sadler
Assistant to the Commissioner
E.W. Harrison
Regional Director of Corrections
Vancouver Region
W. Jack
Regional Director of Corrections
Vancouver Island Region
J. B. Graham
Regional Director of Corrections
Northern Region
Section Directors
J. E. Laverock
Staff Development
D. M. Hartman
Program Evaluation and
Data Systems
O. E. Hollands
Program Analysis
Rev. E. Hulford
Religious Programs
Dr. H. Stevens
Psychological Services
T. A. Stiles
Information Services
E. Schmidt
W. F. Foster
Inspection and Standards
H. Miller
Resource Analysis
Dr. R. Bulmer
Medical Services
Many forms of resolving social conflict exist in
society. The family, church and school are well
known institutions which, among other functions,
attempt to mediate and deal with the various types of
social conflict. Government interventions (such as
social welfare) and privately operated programs also
are aimed at the resolution of various forms of social
The justice system, on both the civil and criminal
side, is used to deal with more serious forms of social
conflict. The justice system attempts to mediate,
resolve, or otherwise respond to those forms of social
conflict which have been defined, by legislative
process, as unacceptable — conflicts stemming from
behaviour which violates the rights of others and
cannot be tolerated without some form of formalized,
state intervention. Within that framework, the justice
system in Canada has been developed to protect social
institutions and individuals in society, including the
offender himself, by preventing crime and
delinquency, by reducing the negative effects of crime
and delinquency, and by fairly and humanely dealing
with social conflict that comes within the context of
the law. Corrections is an integral and essential part of
that process and should be viewed as part of that
Jurisdiction overcorrections in Canada is divided
between the Federal and Provincial Governments. The
British Columbia Corrections Branch of the Ministry
of Attorney-General has the responsibility for
providing services, programs and facilities on behalf
of the Province. These services and programs include
services to courts, such as pre-court enquiries, presentence reports and bail supervision; supervision of
probationers, parolees, and those on temporary
absence; the development of special community
programs, such as community service and impaired
drivers' courses; youth programs, such as detention,
attendance and containment centres; a full range of
adult custody institutions; and family court services
for those approaching the court to find a legal
resolution to marriage problems. This involvement is
detailed in a later portion of this Report.
During 1978, increasing pressure on all of these
services has been felt, to the extent that virtually every
aspect of corrections potentially emerges as an issue in
terms of the quality of services provided. Some of
these issues are detailed in a following section of this
But the Corrections Branch is only one of many
government agencies which require tax dollars for
operational funds. The operation of the various
programs therefore tend to reflect the compromise
government must make in budgeting for its diverse
needs. Ultimately, however, the price of these
programs can only be measured in terms of human
resources and potential, human dignity and respect,
and the opportunity of offenders to life fulfilling lives
while being held accountable for their behaviour.
This compromise presents a dilemma for society
itself; and in particular for the Corrections Branch as
the agency that must deal directly with offenders. The
Corrections Branch, with its programs, attempts to
balance this dilemma between the need to protect
society, which is a prime responsibility, and a need to
provide adequate opportunity for offenders to grow in
responsibility to their communities. Corrections policy
with respect to its programs and the people involved,
reflect this twin responsibility.
Since 1974, the Corrections Branch has
committed itself to the following principles.
— A commitment to the dissolution of large,
ineffective, and outdated correctional centres.
— A commitment to the development and
utilization of a wide range of community based
programs as alternatives to incarceration.
— A commitment to the use of smaller and more
fully secure facilities for dangerous offenders.
— An increased involvement of the Branch in the
areas of prevention and diversion with both
juveniles and adults.
— A commitment to a program of Corrections
which stresses the responsibility of offenders to
their communities; a program that allows, where
possible, expression of that responsibility in
direct relation to the victims of their offences.
— A commitment to remain responsive and in tune
with needs of the community, and of the justice
system as a whole.
The Corrections Branch has guidelines covering
its behaviour towards offenders:
— Offenders must be accountable for their actions
— Offenders are members of society and are to be
treated with the same respect and dignity
accorded all society's members
— Within the limitation of court orders and
considering the risk to the community, the
offender has the right to exercise self-
determination and personal decision making
— Offenders should not receive greater
opportunities or rights than those generally
available to other members of society
The following is a brief overview of the places in
the justice system where the Corrections Branch now
has operational responsibilities: (services provided in
the Family Relations area are not included, but are
described in detail in a following section entitled
"Family and Children's Services." These are centred
around civil process, not criminal offence — an
important difference).
Pre-court Services
Alternative programs (diversion) for offenders
who do not require full formal court and corrections
experience; counselling and (or) referral provided.
Reports on juveniles' (and some adults') social
circumstances, including those around alleged
offences, provided for Crown Counsel with respect to
the decision whether to proceed with charges into
Pre-trial Services
Supervision for those persons requiring some
degree of control in order to ensure attendance at
court, precluding for some the necessity of full
custody remand.
Personal assistance to alleged offenders and (or)
the families of those held in custody pending the
outcome of their charge.
Provision of secure facilities for youth at risk,
pending disposition and placement.
Court Services
Information report for the court on offender's
background and future plans to assist the court in
sentencing. The availiability in court of a Probation
Officer to assist where on-the-spot information is
needed and referrals must be made.
Community Services
The supervision in the community of offenders
placed on probation.
Educational courses on the topic of drinking and
driving provided for offenders convicted on drinking
 and driving offences; attended as part of a probation
Facilities and programs which provide special
educational, training, recreational, community service
and wilderness experiences for juveniles and young
adults on probation.
The supervision of court-ordered reparative
activities undertaken by the offender with respect to
the victim of the offence, or to the community.
Institutional Services
Youth Facilities
A range of post-dispositional residential
programs and facilities for youth at risk, where other
community-based resources are deemed inappropriate,
or ineffective.
Adult Facilities
Maximum and medium security custody facilities
for persons sentenced to less than two years, and all
custodial remand for the Province.
Open-setting programs providing forest or farm
work; special young adult or alcohol abuse programs;
and community correctional centres in local
communities where inmates on temporary absence
may reside for work or educational purposes.
Community Re-entry Services
Permitted (temporary) absence from a
correctional centre in selected cases for employment,
training, education, medical treatment, maintenance
of family ties, involvement in community service.
Programs, and pre-parole/release planning.
Supervision in the community of offenders
paroled during the latter portion of their sentence of
imprisonment, in order to assist them back to full and
useful participation in the community.
Community assessment reports to provide
information to the administrative bodies making
temporary absence or parole decisions.
In April of 1974 on the advice of the Corrections
Branch, the Attorney-General of British Columbia
announced a detailed planning statement of overall
policy and programs throughout Corrections. The
principles of that policy are referenced previously; the
application of the policy has been as follows:
- The phase-out of Haney Correctional Centre
- The phase-out of the sentenced population of
Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre
with that unit being utilized as a remand-
classification centre
- Re-opening of Chilliwack Security Unit
- Opening of Jordan River Forest Camp on
Vancouver Island
- Expansion on the use of temporary absence,
particularly for work and education releases
- The opening of nine community correctional
centres throughout the Province, and the
contracted use of approximately one dozen
community-based residential centres
- The development of Bail Supervision in
Vancouver, Victoria, Surrey and Prince George,
with continuing expansion to other areas
- The expansion of Impaired Drivers' Courses to a
total of approximately 30 throughout the
- The transfer of juveniles under detention prior to
disposition in Vancouver to renovated
Willingdon facilities in Burnaby, and the razing
to the ground of the antiquated building on Yale
- The development of facilities and programs for
youth requiring post disposition containment,
including the development of private remand
homes throughout the Province
- Extensive planning and decision making with
respect to replacement for the remand and
sentenced facilities at Okalla Correctional
Centre, in addition to renovations and new
buildings for Prince George Regional
Correctional Centre and Kamloops Regional
Correctional Centre
-The assumption of responsibility forpre-trail
- The assumption of responsibility for all family
and childrens' services throughout the Province
 Highlights 1978
Diversion of offenders from the justice system
continues to be an important focus of much dicsussion
in the justice system, and in particular in the
Corrections Branch. It is an area fraught with exciting
possibilities and very real concerns about civil
liberties, due process of law, and so on. The
Corrections Branch has been involved in diversionary
procedures for years, in its service capacity to Crown
Counsel in the form of pre-trial reports on juveniles, to
the Bench with respect to sentencing options, and in
its own service delivery programs such as the use of
volunteers from the community.
Citizen participation in Corrections has been
viewed by the Branch as a major activity by which the
intention of seeking local involvement in the solution
to justice problems can be realized. Offenders come
from the community and return to the community, and
it is the view of the Branch that justice and corrections
are best handled by requiring appropriate offenders to
continue to participate in and be responsible to their
communities. In the last several years, this intention
has seen expression by the Branch in the use of
volunteer sponsors for those on probation and parole,
in correctional centres to increase community and
individual contact as well as increasing programming
potential, the development of citizen advisory groups,
citizen involvement on institutional disciplinary
panels, the development of attendance programs for
adults and juveniles under the auspices of private
specialized societies, the community service order
program, and so on.
In 1978, special impetus to increasing the range
and forms of citizen participation in Corrections
programs has been given in one Corrections region on
a project basis. This move has been to give increased
responsibility and scope to local offices to develop
innovative ways in which the community can become
involved in resolving its own justice problems.
A specific and interesting example of community
involvement was a move in 1978 by one community to
deal with some juvenile offenders through a
mechanism known as an accountability panel. With
the assistance of Corrections staff and other justice
personnel, a pilot project was started in an area of the
City of Vancouver. The basic concept of juvenile
accountability is that young people who have come
into contact with the police as a result of an alleged
offence, and who meet certain criteria, will be referred
to a panel of community members in order that an
appropriate means of restitution is worked out. This
type of response to juvenile offenders is also being
developed in other centres in the Province.
Also with respect to the provision of youth
services, Corrections personnel have taken an active
role in the Inter-Ministerial Children in Crisis Program
which commenced in 1978. This program has arisen
out of the involvement of senior level personnel in the
Ministries of Health, Education, Human Resources
and Attorney-General in an attempt to ensure that
those governmental and non governmental agencies
providing services to children are providing a
complementary set of resources, and to provide a
specific mechanism by which instances of children
presenting severe behaviourial problems, are dealt
with appropriately. The program has been
implemented through local, regional and provincial
co-ordinating committees comprised of
representatives from the various Ministries involved,
and Corrections personnel have been involved at all
As one component of government response to the
provision of a wide range of resources for juveniles, in
late 1977 containment centres for hard-core youths
who required control and who had exhausted every
other community resource, were opened by the
Corrections Branch. A B.C. Supreme Court decision
in April of 1978, which found the enabling legislation
 to be ultra vires provincial jursidiction, effectively
terminated entry to the programs as containment
centres. With modified program, these centres
operated as attendance programs, with youths
attending as a condition of probation or, in the case of
secure custody, under remand. In January of 1979, the
B.C. Court of Appeal overturned that decision with
one qualification, and these centres were designated
industrial schools under the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
The resolution to this question has now again provided
to government an effective program of control at the
far end of the range of resouces which are required to
deal with the variety of children who come into
conflict with the law.
In the area of adult services, 1978 has seen a
number of major activities.
During the past ten year period, the Branch has
reduced the average correctional centre population by
30%, from 2404 in 1967/68 to 1753 in 1977/78.
During the same period there has been a substantial
shift in the pattern of utilization of costly secure beds
to the use of less costly forest camp and community
correctional centre type programs. In 1967/68, 71% of
the population was in secure bed space and 29% in
open bed space. In 1977/78, by comparison, 55% of
the population was in secure bed space, and 45% in
open bed space. In late 1978, this trend had
culminated in a pilot project in two regions known as
"alternate entry."
Alternate Entry is an attempt to drastically alter
the pattern of entry to Corrections facilities from
secure reception centres to open settings for certain
categories of offenders. If this is successful, and the
findings will not be known until late 1979, it is likely
to further enhance the trend to the use of community
correctional centres where inmates can take further
education, and work in order that they may pay room
and board, support their families, make restitution,
and so on.
A major significant event in 1978 was the
approval by government of a pre-trial service centre to
be located in Vancouver. This centre, to cost
approximately $18,000,000 and open in 1981, is the
first tangible effort to phase-out Oakalla Correctional
Centre, which has been an intention for well over
twenty years. Final working drawings of the Pre-Trial
Services Centre will be completed by late 1979. The
Centre's design is the result of an examination of other
jurisdictions, and thinking with respect to physical
plant and the provision of a full range of pre-trial
services, all located in one spot.
The most cost effective use of resources in
Corrections is axiomatic in the Branch's provision of
services. There was a significant development in the
area of management information systems which has
increased the Branch's capability to make
management judgements about cost effectiveness,
allocation of staff and resources. During late 1978, a
series of staff briefings were held to familiarize
personnel with a computerized method for shift
scheduling for institutional programs. This work was
the outcome of work commenced by Corrections
approximately two years ago, when the Branch
identified posts in institutions in order to get a better
idea of personnel required to staff institutions.
Utilizing a computer program developed for
Corrections, it is possible to program information such
as the number of posts in an institution, annual leave
of employees, projected sick-leave, and
compassionate leave, shift type and a number of other
variables in order to arrive at a staffing configuration
which is cost effective, and drastically reduces the
number of manhours required to draw-up such
schedules. In addition, a shift schedule can be printed
out for each employee for the year. There is no
question that the Corrections Branch is in the forefront
of Corrections in Canada with this development. It
ensures that institutions are staffed appropriately, and
that employees receive the full benefits of their
contract agreements.
In addition to moving towards the streamlining of
the Branch's own correctional resources, bi-lateral
talks with the Federal Government were initiated in
1975 in order to attempt to reduce the duplication,
 overlapping, and lack of rational basis characterizing
the two separate systems of Corrections in this
province. A Federal/Provincial Task Force on
Corrections in British Columbia was established in
1975 to examine alternative models for sharing
Federal/Provincial responsibility in the delivery of
correctional services. This movement has taken new
impetus in 1978 through being placed within the
ongoing Federal Provincial constitutional review
context. A considerable amount of energy has been
spent, and 1979 may see a major announcement by
both levels of government with respect to a closer
alignment or integration of services.
One aspect of rationalization of correctional
services in 1978 was the revision to the Parole Act
made by the Federal Government which would allow
provinces to set up provincial parole boards for the
purpose of handling all parolees in provincial
correctional facilities. With the exception of the
definite indeterminate sentences in British Columbia,
which have been handled by the B.C. Board of Parole,
the Federal Government has been responsible for all
other paroling from provincial centres. During 1978,
both Ontario and Quebec have set up Provincial Parole
Boards pursuant to the change in legislation, and the
Corrections Branch has recommended to government
that this province do likewise. The matter is currently
being examined on the basis of cost sharing
arrangements and will likely see some resolution in
For the past three years, the principles of case
management, as an alternative to pure case work, have
been enunciated and adopted throughout the facilities
of the Branch, which has given an institutional
application to such principles adopted with respect to
probation services in 1975. These principles lend
emphasis to the Branch's view that 1) where possible,
community services should be utilized to lend support
to individual offenders, and those who come into
contact with the system; 2) the Branch and individual
persons must be accountable for seeing that offenders
in the correctional system are provided with
opportunities for self development and (or)
constructive use of time within each corrections
program or facility; and 3) a clearly defined internal
accountability and responsibility system must be in
place to achieve these ends.
During 1978, these principles have been given
further content with a major review of community reentry policies and programs. In view of the fact that
80% of admissions to correctional facilities are for six
months or less, and the average Iegth of stay is less
than one month, case management procedures at
initial program planning for each inmate must
emphasize re-entry needs. While a primary concern of
the Corrections Branch is to protect society from those
offenders who have demonstrated that they are a
danger to it, a major responsibility is to seek to
provide experiences and programs which will facilitate
the successful re-entry of offenders who are only in
our system for a relatively short time.
Related to the developments in case
management, and the decentralization of the Branch
which has taken place over the past two years, it is
incumbent upon the Branch to set provincial minimum
standards with respect to every aspect of the range of
correctional services, in order that offenders receive
equality of treatment regardless of geographical
location. In October of 1976, the Corrections Branch
put into motion a process by which such standards
could be developed, while realizing that the
completion of the exercise would take several years. A
Provincial Standards Committee was struck in 1978 to
examine all aspects of Corrections operations in
relation to standards. The Committee is chaired by the
Director of Inspection and Standards Division and is
comprised of representatives from each administrative
region of the Branch. One line manager has been
seconded since early 1978 on a full time basis for a
maximum of two years to co-ordinate the activities of
the Committee. This activity is seen as one of the most
important the Branch has undertaken for some years.
In the specific area of adult correctional centres
the Standards Project will support the intentions
 detailed in the revised Correctional Centre Rules and
Regulations which came into force in August of 1978.
The new Correctional Centre Rules and Regulations
were the result of approximately five years of work
and consultations and resulted in the elimination of
inappropriate and unnecessary regulations, updating
of others, the clarification of relative rights and
responsibilities of staff and inmates, and made major
changes in the area of discipline within institutions.
The revised Correctional Centre Rules and
Regulations and the standards process has resulted in
providing impetus and clarity to the Branch's response
to issues raised by the Royal Commission on the
Incarceration of the Female Offender in British
Columbia (1978).
In 1976, a major study of Corrections Branch
goals and objectives was undertaken and completed.
This extensive document enunciated and re-confirmed
in detail principles in the original 1974 plan, which are
noted throughout this Report. The recent study
included a range of activities by which the Corrections
Branch can work towards specific goals and
objectives. In 1977, these policies were widely
discussed and applied throughout the Branch and
provided the basis for the extensive field consultation
which is being undertaken by the Standards Project. In
1978, one region of the Corrections Branch initiated a
specific pilot project to examine the degree to which
broad statements of intent were consistent with staff
understanding of their roles and responsibilities. It is a
fundamental premise that Branch goals and objectives
can only be given meaning through clear
understanding and implementation by staff at all levels
of the Corrections Branch. A major on-going
commitment to staff training and development is
fundamental to Corrections Branch program planning.
Related to the question of standards was another
major development in 1978, the Quantitative and
Qualitative Analysis of Workload which was
undertaken in the Vancouver Region. This established
a process and model by which a more objective
judgement can be made with respect to staff allocation
on the basis of workload. This also is a vanguard
undertaking in Canada. It has been built into the
overall management information system which will in
1979 provide information to management which
allows an identification of complete cost benefits,
allocation of resources, and other analyses. As well as
providing the capacity for instantaneous tracking of
offenders in the system, the total M.I.S. provides a
wide range of operations information. This system
works in conjunction with the financial information
system and the personnel management system of the
In 1978, the Justice Institute came into being,
housing the training sections of the major components
of the provincial justice system. The Justice Institute is
the first in North America and is a joint undertaking of
the Ministry of Attorney-General and the Ministry of
Education, Science and Technology. It is intended to
provide cost effective broadly based and inter-related
training for personnel in all aspects of the justice
process, in order to further the long stated need for an
increased level of information sharing,
communication, co-operation and understanding of
the relative roles and responsibilities within all aspects
of the justice process.
There have been two major events which have
and will continue to have impact on the delivery of
service in the Family Relations area.
In the Interior and Island Regions of the
Corrections Branch automatic enforcement of
maintenance orders got underway as pilot projects
commencing in July of 1978. The background behind
this initiative emerges from the work of the committee
consisting of representatives from Corrections, Court
Services and the Ministry of Human Resources, in
order to develop a cost effective system whereby
payments due on court orders for spousal and/or child
maintenance would be monitored by the Court
Services Division of the Ministry. Rather than having
the onus placed upon the applicant spouse, should a
payment become delinquent, collection/enforcement
 action would be undertaken by Court Services
automatically, on behalf of the recipient spouse and/or
child. It is intended that this both reinforce the
spouse's responsibility to live up to separation
agreements, and to assist dependent family members
in order that they do not have to continually find
themselves in an economically insecure and unviable
situation. It is anticipated that automatic enforcement
may require re-negotiation of separation agreements,
and therefore cause increased pressure on family court
The other major event in the Family Relations
area has been preparation for the proclamation of
Bill 22 early in 1979. While not known at this time,
there are implications on work load from the increased
reporting requirements and scope of responsibility
given to family court counsellors. However, the Bill is
seen as a progressive move which will lend support to
families who have undertaken to seek legal remedies
to family problems.
Major Issues
Present Facilities
The upgrading or replacement of facilities for
those remanded in custody awaiting trial or disposition
is a major priority of the Corrections Branch. Each of
the major Regional Correctional Centres provides this
capacity and all the present facilities are deemed
inadequate for the task. As well as aged facilities, the
lack of program recreational space for those on
remand is compounded when the same space must be
utilized for sentenced populations. Replacement and
upgrading of facilities for sentenced inmates is a
second priority. Much of the focus of energy has been
with respect to Lower Mainland facilities, and in
particular the intention to phase out Lower Mainland
Regional Correctional Centre, now known as Oakalla
The capacity of Oakalla District is approximately
600, half of which is for remand. A number of
initiatives have been taken to phase out that centre
which has been a long standing recommendation to
government. The first major tangible evidence that
this centre can be phased down was the announcement
in Novemberof 1978 that the 150 bed, $18,000,000
pre-trial services centre located adjacent to Vancouver
Courts at 275 Cordova will go ahead. A second step is
the provision of an additional 150 beds for pre-trial
services in the Fraser Valley ^ This would entirely
phase out the remand capacity of Oakalla. Originally
plans called for two 75 bed facilities. While this will
provide optimum correctional programming, the
Ministry feels that it is not economically viable and is
currently exploring the option of locating one 150 bed
unit in the Fraser Valley. This unit will be similar in
function and design to the pre-trial services centre in
Detailed analysis and planning is currently
underway to determine the most appropriate solution
to the need for the 300 secure beds for sentenced males
at Oakalla. This requires the careful balancing of
correctional programming that reflects standards
adopted by the Ministry, economic realities and the
availability of suitable construction sites. Determining
the appropriate location is a key factor. No one
community should be expected to house all the
correctional problems for the province. It is therefore
desirable both from the point of view of correctional
programming and community planning to consider
breaking these 300 beds down into two 150 bed units.
The question of size of facility poses a serious
dilemma for the Branch. The Corrections Branch has
taken the position in consultation with others that we
do not wish to warehouse offenders. For effective
control and programming, institutions must be kept to
as small a size as possible in order that people can
know each other. Since the turn over in provincial
facilities is quite rapid (much more so than the federal
system) the size question in order to meet these goals
becomes very important. More latterly, the
Corrections Service of Canada has revised upward
their standards for the size of institutions against the
 recommendations of the Parliamentry Sub-
Committee, the Canadian Association for the
Prevention of Crime, and a number of other private
agencies. The matter of size is not easily resolved, and
an additional question with regard to placement of
these facilities rests with the final disposition of the
use of the present Oakalla lands.
There is similar concern with respect to facilities
for women in the Lower Mainland in particular.
Oakalla Women's Correctional Centre is the major
security centre for women in the province, and suffers
from some of the same deficiencies as the men's unit.
With the closure of the women's unit at Prince George
Regional Correctional Centre, pursuant to the
recommendation of the Royal Commission on the
Incarceration of the Female Offender (Proudfoot
Commission), all women requiring security are
transferred to the Lower Mainland. Indeed, with the
scarcity of facilities for women outside of the Lower
Mainland, virtually all women who are given
sentences of imprisonment in the province are
transported to this area.
The question of facilities for women, including
the two open settings operated by the Branch — Twin
Maples Correctional Centre and Lynda Williams
Community Correctional Centre — is further clouded
by potential initiatives of the Federal Government with
respect to the closure of the Kingston Prison for
Women. The Solicitor General of Canada announced
early in 1979 that he intended to close down that
facility, and to develop a women's centre at the
Mission Correctional Centre for those females from
the western part of the country. As a result of the
scarcity of facilities for women generally, women
always have had to be transported some distance from
their communities. However, to establish a female
offenders unit at Mission would be contrary to the
intention of the recommendation of the Proudfoot
Commission that no further co-correctional centres
should be established in the province. In addition,
with the Branch's intention of finding an alternate, or
renovating the Oakalla Women's Correctional Centre,
it is important that we work with the Solicitor
General's Ministry to ensure that facilities for women
are not being duplicated. This kind of planning takes a
considerable length of time, to the frustration of those
inmates and staff who have to continue to work under
very difficult circumstances.
Overcrowding and inadequate facilities remain a
problem at Vancouver Island Regional Correctional
Centre and the Kamloops Regional Correctional
Centre. The remand situation in Kamloops is
particularly urgent, as the cell space capacity is
severely limited. Sentenced offenders in K.R.C.C. are
housed in dormitory setting, which is not appropriate
for those on remand. With respect to the Vancouver
Island situation, the original feasibility studies for the
use of the Island Youth Centre for a mid Island
correctional facility did not bear fruit with that centre
being utilized in the Heroin Treatment Program.
However, statistics have shown that upper Island
communities are growing at twice the rate of southern
communities, and there is a need to consider the full
question of adult facilities for sentenced persons on the
Island. There is no centre at all at this moment for the
female offender. All sentenced offenders requiring
some security must be transferred to the Lower
Mainland. Vancouver Island Regional Correctional
Centre has been used for over two years essentially as
a remand centre, and it requires extensive renovations
or replacement. Planning with respect to the
requirements at both Kamloops Regional Correctional
Centre and Vancouver Island Regional Correctional
Centre are nearing completion, and will have to be
presented to Treasury Board with a request to proceed
to feasibility stages.
The Corrections Branch operates nine forest
camps and a number of open settings. The camps are
wooden structures with limited life time and all
facilities currently operated by the Branch are in need
of upgrading or replacement due to normal wear and
tear. Early in 1978, Treasury Board approved one and
a half million dollars forthe re-location of Clearwater
 Camp near Kamloops to the Bear Creek site with new
facilities, and the renovation/replacement of camp
facilities at Rayleigh, also near Kamloops. One of the
difficulties with older camp buildings is that they are
harder to protect from fires. In April 1978 part of
Jordan River Camp was burned. In November of 1978
Ford Mountain Camp was almost entirely destroyed
and only quick thinking of staff at Pine Ridge Camp in
December of 1978 prevented a fire there. Renovation
or replacement of camps will emphasize the need for
adequate fire protection.
Finally, the question of adequate housing for
those given intermittent sentences must be addressed.
On some weekends, Oakalla District receives over 100
persons serving intermittent sentences on weekends.
Furthermore, in locations where there are no
correctional facilities, local lock-ups have been
utilized in order that the Court may have the option
throughout the province of sentencing a person to an
intermittent period of incarceration. This has placed an
incredible strain on some local lock-ups, and curtailed
the use of this type of sentence in other places. While
it is too expensive to operate a correctional facility for
two days a week only, the Corrections Branch has
been addressing the question of transportable
correctional facilities which would be located near
areas where community service or other useful work
could be undertaken. This is a matter which will have
to see resolution in the next year.
Youth Custody
The Corrections Branch assumed responsibility
for youth detention centres in Burnaby and Victoria on
April 1, 1974. These are the only detention centres
available in the province of British Columbia for
juveniles considered "at risk" pending disposition
and placement. These centres were previously
operated by the municipalities, with very little remand
services being operated elsewhere.
As in past years, during 1978, the Willingdon
facility was chronically over-capacity. The Victoria
Youth Detention Centre experienced overcrowding at
certain times, necessitating the use of other facilities
on an interim basis. The Corrections Branch is in the
process of implementing and developing the concept
of private remand homes throughout the province, and
it is clear that this has lessened some pressure on
existing detention facilities. However, that has not
seemed to impact on the over crowding problem at
Willingdon in particular.
In 1975, several issues with respect to the "hard
core juvenile delinquent" problem became
particularly urgent. In October of 1976, the Branch
made recommendations for a three tiered containment
program to the Attorney-General and some aspects of
this program became available to the Courts in
December of 1977. In April of 1978, the Supreme
Court of British Columbia ruled that the legislation
was ultra vires the provincial jurisdiction, and the
existing facilities and programs were utilized as
attendance programs until the Court of Appeal could
rule on the matter. On January 3, 1979 the Supreme
Court finding was reversed but with qualification and
so these centres were designated Industrial Schools
pursuant to the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
Irrespective of the ruling in favour of
containment, the Corrections Branch has taken the
position that it must continue to ensure that these
facilities do not become "mere juvenile jails." They
are to be utilized only when all other community based
resources are inappropriate, and it is a last step before
transfer to adult court. The enabling provincial
legislation called the Corrections Amendment Act,
which authorizes development of containment centres,
also called for the development of a wide range of
community based programs for juveniles, as
alternatives to containment. The Inter-Ministerial
Children's Committee (Health, Education, Human
Resources and Attorney-General) supports this
intention to ensure that the containment program
option contains the widest possible community based
services. The Inter-Ministerial Children's Committee
also is providing a focus for the development of
resources for children, in addition to any of those
developments which might arise through the
continuing meeting of the Children in Crisis
Committees throughout the province.
Federal Provincial Constitutional Review
The Branch for several years has been concerned
about the overlap and duplication of services provided
 by the Federal and Provincial governments in
Corrections. The Federal and Provincial Correctional
systems work relatively independently; there is no way
of resolving the overlap and duplication question
without looking at the split jurisdiction question.
In 1975 the Branch had commenced a process
with the Federal Government with respect to bi-latteral
discussions, in order to focus on the possible ways in
which these matters could be resolved. As part of the
larger Federal Provincial constitutional review
throughout Canada, the Attorney-General's Ministry
and the Ministry of the Solicitor General have been
focussing increasing amounts of energy in this area in
1978. It has become clear that within the justice
framework corrections issues are being seen as being
the clearest ones for resolve, and potentially could be
dealt with first. It is considered possible that one of the
proposals put forward by the Federal Ministry would
be that Provinces assume full responsibility for
Corrections. This move has already been made with
respect to some areas of responsibilities for parole.
Federal Bill C 51 allows forthe Province of
British Columbia to establish provincial parole boards
to release prisoners from provincial institutions; or
delegates to the present B.C. Parole Board authority
for releasing all provincial prisoners. Currently, all
parolees from provincial institutions are handled by
the National Parole Board.
To date, Ontario and Quebec have established
provincial Parole Boards to assume these
responsibilities, and the Ministry of Attorney-
General in British Columbia is moving towards this
development. The Corrections Branch has
recommended to the Ministry that it can provide
parole supervision, and the Ministry is currently
engaging in talks with the Federal Government with
respect to cost sharing with respect to the provinces
assuming a former federal responsibility. It is
expected that this matter will be resolved and a
provincial parole board will be in place during 1979.
Re-organization of the Branch
The processes leading to a major re-organization
of the management structures of the Corrections
Branch were undertaken in 1976, and was effective
April 1, 1977. 1978 has seen the first year of
implementation of this new structure. The reorganization was undertaken so that administrative
structures reflected the intention of the Corrections
Branch to develop a full range of services required by
the justice system in a manner which is consistent with
local and regional needs.
In line with that intention the re-organization of
the Branch decentralized authority and decision
making to the lowest appropriate level. It also focuses
on an integration of services provided by what have
been categorized as institutional and probation
streams. This integration has been necessitated by the
development of new programs over the years. The
traditional scope of institution and probation services
had expanded so that institutions were running more
community based facilities requiring ongoing liaison,
and information flow, while probation services were
expanding to include more residential types of
programs. In some instances both probationers and
parolees have resided in community correctional
During 1978, considerable management training
was undertaken to assist directors with their new
responsibilities within the new organization. On the
premise that it takes approximately two to three years
for an organization to consolidate after a change, 1979
should see the conclusion of a number of questions
which manages and line staff at all levels have had to
resolve in relation to roles, responsibilities and service
to clients.
In 1978, statistics on Corrections Branch case
load, as in the last reporting year, reflect the actual
resource impacts of various selected groups on the
total Correctional system. Tables I through IV
document both the number of reports and the total case
months of supervision for adult and juvenile sub
groups forthe probation and family services of the
Branch. Tables V throuuh XII outline the average bed
 space utilization per day on sentenced and remand
populations forthe institutional component.
The change from previous years in the mode of
presentation is a reflection of an intention to provide
figures which are more appropriate for management
decision making. The traditional mode of analyzing
populations in terms of number of admissions can lead
to some mis-leading impressions. For example, an
individual who enters the Branch system with a one
day sentence of imprisonment would carry the same
weight as an individual who enters with a one year
sentence. Further, frequent admissions by the same
individual could lead to a mis-perception of the actual
population being incarcerated in provincial
correctional facilities.
Explanation of Tables
Table II illustrates that there was a net increase in
the number of reports prepared by probation and
family service personnel from 1977 to 1978. Also
pre-sentence reports, pre-court enquiries, and parole
reports decreased; the number of verbal, temporary
absence, ability to pay, and miscellaneous reports
As documented in Table III, the number of case
months of supervision for probation and family
services in 1978 was 140,513; this was 6,974 more
than in the preceeding year. This represents a total
increase of 5.2% from 1977 to 1978. It is interesting to
note that in virtually every supervision type save
parole, the number of case months of supervision have
Table IV indicates the relative usage of probation
supervision by region. The Table indicates that there is
a wide difference between regions in regard to the
proportion of total case months supervision they
deliver. The three regions highest in adult case months
supervised (Vancouver, Island, and the Interior) all
show lesser proportions delivered to juveniles. The
opposite finding is evident in the three regions
showing the lowest proportion of adult case months
supervised (Northern, South Fraser, and North Fraser)
where within these regions juvenile percentages are
higher than the adult. Finally, Table IV illustrates that
juveniles represent approximately one quarter of the
total case months supervised under probation orders.
Table V illustrates that females represent 13.6%
of total probation case months supervised as compared
to 86.4% for males. This discrepency is greater when
looking just at juvenile probationers, with females
representing 8.8% of the total.
Table VI shows that an average of 1,635 adult
institutional beds per day were delivered in the B.C.
Correctional system in 1978. Approximately three
quarters of those beds were filled by sentenced
persons; the remaining one quarter by those on
Table VII describes the offence type for which
sentenced and unsentenced institutional offenders are
held. While the largest category for sentenced
offenders is theft, for remand offenders it is for serious
crimes, as would be expected.
73.3% of the total average bed space days are
delivered to offenders between the ages of 18 and 34
as indicated in Table VIII. Although there are
proportionately more beds devoted to individuals on
remand under 18 as opposed to sentenced, there are
also proportionately more remand offenders over the
age of 30.
Proportionately more females are on remand than
sentenced as shown in Table IX. 93.3% of the total
average bed space utilization in 1978 was devoted to
male offenders with 6.7% being utilized by females.
The percentage of Native Indians occupying beds
in provincial facilities was 14.9% in 1978. This
represents a slight increase from the preceding year.
Table XI indicates that the average count in
provincial institutions is dropping over the three year
period recorded in the Table. At the same time, it can
be seen that the total capacity figure is increasing
within the provincial system. While a proportion of
secure beds to the total average beds utilization has
remained more or less constant over the three years,
open facilities are seen to have dropped while
community correctional centres have increased.
Table XII shows that 23.4% of average
institutional bed space days is utilized by individuals
with sentences less than 90 days (three months).
Previous analysis has shown however, that in terms of
the number of admissions into institutions that this 90
 day and under group accounts for approximately 50%
of institutional entries. In fact, in excess of 80% of all
admissions to provincial correctional centres are for
six months and less. It can clearly be seen then, that
although in numbers offenders with relatively long
term sentences are fewer than those with short term
sentences, the long term offenders utilize a much
greater proportion of the total average bed space days.
Table XIII is self explanatory.
Jail Admissions
o   o   o   o   o   °
0       12       3 4       5       6
Sentence length in months
FIGURE I    Utilization of bed space by sentence length
12       13      14       15      16       17      18      19      20     21       22     23     2-
$1,149,677 PERCENT
Temporary Absence work release program statistics showing
use of earnings, 1978.
Provides for:
(a) administration and direction of all correctional programs, planning and development,
research and information regarding staff; inspection and standards, the physical
inspection of all institutional centres and development of standardized procedures in
security of these institutions;
(b) institutional services, the operation of institutional facilities for custody of convicted
(c) community services, an alternative to incarceration in large institutions by operation of
small community-based units with adult and juvenile programs, including Family and Children's
Court services.
Estimated 1977/78
Staff $
Institutional services
Community Services
Total Vote
Estimates, 1978/79
$ $
(226) 8,061,271
(1,246) 30,173,440
(592) 15,706,724
Classification by Standard Objects of Expenditure
29,784,332 (01) Salaries-established:
2,987,843 (04) Salaries — temporary
1,000,000 (10) Travel expense
1,966,000 (20) Professional and special services
300,000 (30) Office expense
71,880 (35) Office Furniture and Equipment
5,000 (40) Advertising and publications
3,000,000 (50) Materials and supplies
400,000 (55) Motor-vehicles
57,000 (60) Rentals —outside suppliers
50,000 (70) Acquisition —land and Buildings
290,258 (75) Acquisition — machinery and equipment
1,000,000 (80) Grants, contributions and subsidies
62,000 (90) Other expenditure
1978 VS 1977
Increase/Decrease (±)
 Report Type
Temporary Absence . . .
Ability to Pay	
Applications to Raise . .
Adult Juvenile
+ 140
- 22
- 90
+ 339
+ 27
+ 27
+ 141
+ 141
+ 159
+ 308
- 38
'Applications to raise juveniles to adult courts are included in this table for convenience.
1978 vs 1977
 Supervision Type Adult   Juvenile
Diversionary Counselling  2,055 9,265
Probation    91,097 30,140
Parole  1,259
Temporary Absence  1,729        —
Other  2,860 2,108
Totals       99,000     41,513
Community Service Order         4,808       4,438
Impaired Drivers' Course         9,808        —
1 This does not represent the number of cases supervised.
Increase/Decrease (±)
Adult   Juvenile
Adult   Juvenile
+ 564
- 299
+ 584
+ 1,199
+   903
-   299
+   584
727    +1,926
140,513     94,092     39,447    133,539    +4,908    +2.066    +6,974
+   464
617    +1,081
+ 1,049
Case Months
% of Total
Case Months
% of Total
Case Months
% of Total
Vancouver Island
North Fraser
South Fraser
Provincial (Totals)
Case Months
% of Total
Case Months
% of Total
Case Months
% of Total
Average Beds
Average Beds
Average Beds
Per Day
% of Total
per Day
% of Total
per Day
% of Total
Vancouver Island
North Fraser
South Fraser
Provincial (Totals)
Note:    This table reflects the utilization of Correctional resources within regions. It reflects the average daily bed utilization
actually provided by the various facilities within the region independently of the court of origin.
Average Beds
Average Beds
Average Beds
per Day
% of Total
per Day
% of Total
per Day
% of Total
Sexual and Morals
Community Order
Drink Driving
Other Motor-Vehicle
Other Property
Possessing Drugs
Traffic/Intent Drugs
Common Assault/Government
Liquor Act
Other Person/Community Order
Note:    The following are examples of the types of offences includes in each category:
Serious: Pointing a firearm, perjury, rape & attempt, negligence causing death, murder(s), kidnapping, etc.
Sexual & Moral: Incest, indecent exposure, procuring, bigamy, contributing to juvenile delinquency, etc.
Community order: Causing & disturbance, vagrancy, mischief, etc.
Drink/Drive: Impaired driving, above 0.08, etc.
Other Motor-Vehicle: Failing to stop at an accident, driving while disqualified, etc.
Theft: Theft over/under $200, breaking and entering, possessing of stolen property, etc.
Other property: False pretenses, fraud (public), forgery, and uttering, etc.
Other persons/Community Order: Unlawful assembly, riot, bribery of officers, harassing & threatening, habitual criminal.
Average Beds
Average Beds
Average Beds
Age Groups (Years)
per Day
% of Total
per Day
% of Total
per Day
% of Total
50 and over
Average Beds
per Day
% of Total
Average Beds
per Day
% of Total
Average Beds
per Day
% of Total
Racial Origin
Average Beds
per Day
% of Total
Average Beds
per Day
% of Total
Average Beds
per Day
% of Total
Native Indian
Average Beds
Average Beds
Average Beds
per Day
% of Total
per Day
% of Total
per Day
% of Total
Secure —
Open —
ccc —
Totals —
Sentenced Length (Days)
Average Beds Per Day
% of Total
1 -   10
21 -   30
31 -   60
61 -   90
91 - 120
121 - 180
181 - 270
271 - 360
361 -719
720 +
Average Beds Per Day
% of Total
Fine in default
Indeterminate (Section 64A)
All other sentenced
Immigration Hold
 The Report
in Detail
Youth Services
Helping offenders to become aware of their
responsibility to themselves and to their community is
the major goal of the corrections experience. All
Branch policy leads towards that end. The sooner (and
the younger) offenders acquire the sense of
responsibility, the less likely they are to break the law
The Corrections Branch feels that is has a
responsibility to encourage the community and other
government ministries to develop programs which will
reduce the probability of children coming into conflict
with the law in the first place. This requires ongoing
involvement with schools, particularly at the junior
high level, and a contribution to the planning of
appropriate programs to keep children involved in
school and community activities. The activities
include the development of alternative schools and
"grad awareness" alcohol education programs.
For those who come to the attention of the
probation officer, formally or informally, the
emphasis is always on referral to private or community
agencies. The Branch has a number of formal and
informal contacts with many private and public
agencies, which include contacts with the provincial
Ministries of Human Resources, Education, and
Health and links with the federal departments of the
Solicitor General, Manpower and Health and Welfare.
This sharing of resources and knowledge is an
important element to the overall effectiveness of the
British Columbia Corrections Branch. It is the context
out of which the Interministerial Children's Committee
(comprised of representatives of the Ministries of
Attorney-General, Education, Health and Human
Resources), has grown (see also Youth Custody
Diversion Programs
Wherever possible, it is the policy of the Branch
to resolve social conflict outside the justice system all
together. This is particularly important when dealing
with youth offenders. That is why under the authority
of Section 7 of the Corrections Act, youth in conflict
with the law are referred to a probation officer by the
Crown for a pre-court enquiry. An investigation is
done on the young person, and his/her behaviour in the
home, at school, and in the community is assessed.
Based on the findings, a recommendation for no
further action (if the matter has resolved itself),
diversion, or court action is made. On the strength of
that recommendation, the Crown may end its
involvement, or refer the matter to Court. During 1978
a total of 12,524 such enquiries were carried out by
probation staff throughout the Province.
As many as 50% of all juveniles brought to the
attention of the probation officers (through the pre-
court enquiries) are redirected (diverted) away from
proceeding to court, when diversion is a more
effective way to deal with the problem than the full
formal court process. Courts must be reserved to be
effective in dealing with those very serious or sensitive
offences which are a concern to the country.
However, when a youth is diverted as a result of a
pre-court enquiry, he or she may receive short term
counselling by a probation officer, perhaps with his or
her parents, and there is an attempt by the probation
officer to make the fullest use of community resources
and agencies on a referral basis. The probation officer
is often a catalyst or consultant in the development and
operation of both private and government sponsored
programs for juvenile offenders which may be used as
a diversion program, as well as for youths under a
court order of supervision.
 There are many good examples of diversion
programs, but a unique juvenile accountability
program was set up in 1978 by a community with the
assistance of a probation officer in one area of
Vancouver. Here, youths who have broken the law
appear before a panel of community representatives in
an attempt to work out a restitution of reparative
arrangement with the victim. This model is a striking
example of a community accepting responsibility for
its own justice problems.
Although a child can be brought into Family
Court and charged from the age of seven on, it is the
general practise in this province, if possible, to deal
with children under the age of fourteen on an out of
court basis. Corrections planning related to juveniles
involves attempts to formalize this process
administratively. Our ability to do that is often related
to the degree to which local communities will be
concerned about the provision of a wide range of
services to children in general.
Court Services
In 1978, a total of 21,179 reports (pre-court
enquiries, pre-sentence reports, verbal reports, and
others) were prepared by probation officers throughout
the Province with respect to juveniles. In this regard
the further refinement of the court resource officer's
role in both juvenile and adult probation contexts in
1978, found itself an acceptecUind important operation
practise. The availability of a probation officer in
court to facilitate information flow and do referrals,
short reports, and so on, is central to the court support
role of probation officers.
Community Supervision
Where, as a result of a pre-court enquiry, it is felt
that an element of supervision is necessary on more
than an informal basis, or there is no admission of
guilt relating to the charge, the matter is referred to
court. If the child admits to the delinquency, or is
found delinquent by the court, he or she may be placed
under formal probation supervision. In addition, a
number of specific conditions of supervision may be
applied to the juvenile, and a probation officer will
attempt to use all necessary community resources to
assist the juvenile in meeting these court order
Community Service Orders
The requirement that youth offenders perform
work for the benefit of the community or the victim
goes back many years in this Province. It was usually
arranged informally under the initiative of individual
probation officers (often during the pre-court process)
or judges (at the time of making a disposition).
It was not until the 1970's that community service
was first proposed on an organized basis for both
juveniles and adults. Since that time, Community
Service Orders have become a major program priority
of the Corrections Branch and is one of the clearest
responses to crime and delinquency we have. This
program allows a humane and effective consequence
for offences; consequences which are economical to
operate, which avoid the unnecessary use of more
drastic sentences, and is available to the many
offenders who are unable to pay a fine.
For the last two years Community Service
Officers, specialists hired to develop activity banks of
information and to supervise those given probation
orders including Community Service, have been
operating in every major location in the Province. The
Court and the community has been in support of the
program as shown by the increasing number of total
hours of community service completed by offenders.
During 1977, it was approximately 100,000 total, with
slightly less than half of that being undertaken by
juveniles. In 1978, juveniles did approximately
60,000 hours of community service of a total of
170,000 hours.
Community Service is a program in which the
Corrections Branch is in the very vanguard in the
implementation throughout Canada and the whole of
North America.
 Attendance Programs
For those cases where the community and other
agencies are unable to supply support services, or the
available services are not suitable or available at the
local level, the Corrections Branch has developed
programs which fall under the general rubric of
"attendance centres." Juveniles may be committed to
such programs by the court as a condition of
There are three categories of Attendance
a) Daily attendance, i.e. during the day, after school
or work; a program where there are specific
activities to be undertaken.
b) Weekend attendance, i.e., where the probationer
must attend and reside at the program from
Friday night to Sunday afternoon, until
successful graduation.
c) Full residential attendance.
These programs offer the court the option of
ordering supervision in a structured setting for a
specific kind of program for those persons who require
a more specific form of supervision than that generally
available within the community. The actual program
varies from educational training, recreation and
community service activities to involvement in
wilderness "outwardbound" types of experiences.
The Corrections Branch operates, staffs and (or) funds
these programs in close relationship with schools,
child welfare services, mental health programs, and
other community agencies. DARE (Vancouver),
Metchosin (Victoria), New Directions Program
(Victoria), Victoria Attendance Program, Lakeview
Youth Camp (Campbell River), Porteau Camp
{Vancouver), and DASH (Chilliwack) are the major
such programs operated by the Corrections Branch.
The New Directions Program in Victoria had an
average monthly enrollment of 18 during the course of
1977, with a total enrollment up to 34 in October. In
October, a very significant change in program focus
and concept was instituted and the program was given
its present name "New Directions Program." This
change was the result of an attempt to better meet the
needs of probation field staff in the greater Victoria
area. The new Directions Program during 1978 has
carried a main focus on academic upgrading and life
skills training during twelve weeks of a probationer's
involvement. The program accepts male or female
probation referrals between the ages of 13 and 17. The
goal of the program is to present students with a
structure wherein they can discover and embark upon
new directions — directions which will lead them to a
more successful life vocationally, educationally and
socially. 80 hours of academic upgrading is provided
together worth 50 hours of life skills, 30 hours of
recreation, after 70 hours of work experience. During
the three months of operation in 1977, the new
program experienced overwhelming support and a
great deal of positive feed-back from the field. Over
30 students attended the program with 15 on the
waiting list during that period. During 1978, the
program had a total enrollment of 48 which represents
25% increase over the previous year.
During 1978, workers in the Detention and
Recreation Extension program (DARE) provided
continued intensive supervision for selected juveniles
on probation who live in the urban area of the
Vancouver Region of Corrections. A total staff of 17,
consisting of six women and 11 men, supervised an
average number of 77 probationers during each
month. During the year 75 juveniles were terminated
and 72 probationers were assigned to the program.
This program is unique in that it provides a very close
level of supervision and a low staff client ratio which
allows normally "high risk" juveniles to remain in the
community and be directed towards constructive
 Porteau Camp provides weekend experiences in
the wilderness which stress group co-operation, the
development of positive work attitudes and improving
self image. In 1978, Porteau Cove saw 138 juvenile
males, aged 13 to 17 graduate from the weekend
program. Youths must attend at the camp from Friday
evening till Sunday evening. Porteau also offers a
month long summer full residential program called
Search and Leadership Training (SALT). 30 youths
graduated from that program during 1978. Also
operating under the auspices of Porteau, is a new mid
week program entitled "Learn How to Work" which
was started in October. This program handles up to 50
boys and is designed to teach them the techniques to
find a job, and then how to work to keep it.
The Metchosin Camp Program offers a weekend
residential wilderness program to male and female
probationers from the ages of 13 to 22. Referrals are
accepted from Duncan south on Vancouver Island.
During 1978, 51 juvenile probationers and 14 adult
probationers attended the program. 1978 marked the
successful implementation of a vigorous marine
oriented experience for probationers aboard the 55
foot motor vessel Freedom Found. A specialized
weekend program was also run specifically for
probationers from Salt Spring Island with the
assistance of the Sidney Probation Office.
DASH (Developing Attitudes Skills and Habits)
is a much more intensive nine week, three staged
probation attendance program for youths aged 14 to
19. It also uses the unique opportunity offered by
wilderness experience to challenge both mentally and
physically, to an extent far beyond every day living.
Young people must work together in small peer groups
to overcome unusual challenges for a sense of personal
achievement. The DASH program is often a last stop
resource before youth containment or transfer to adult
court. During the course of the year a total of 117
young men and women attended the course, 86 boys
and 31 girls.
Lakeview Youth Camp opened its doors officially
on the 26th of April 1978, and was originally to have
been a youth containment camp. However, just prior
to opening, the Youth Containment Legislation was
declared ultra vires and the camp became designated
an attendance centre to receive those on probation.
Since its opening, Lakeview has provided a wilderness
program and a specialized residential program set up
to offer a four to six month program for hard core
youngsters, for whom all other resources had been
exhausted and/or unsuccessful. The latter program
became extremely popular with the field and soon a
lengthy waiting list for referrals had accumulated. In
October 1978, it was decided to combine the
wilderness program aspect with the specialized
program. In the eight months in which this program
was operating in 1978, 37 referrals from all over the
province were accepted and with the exception of one
youngster, who had to be transferred out, all had
successfully completed the program with an average
length of stay being four months. With the Appeal
Court ruling on containment in January 1979, other
containment centres were designated industrial
schools, but Lakeview as a result of its success, has
continued to remain an attendance centre unless
pressure on capacities at the other programs require its
designation also as an industrial school and
containment centre.
Another major residential attendance program
utilized extensively by the Branch is the House of
Concord at Langley. This is funded entirely by the
Corrections Branch ($740,290 in 1978/79) but is
operated by the Salvation Army. House of Concord
provides educational, vocational, life skills and
employment experiences for juveniles and young
adults who attend as a condition of a probation order
by the Court.
The Branch also provides major funding for a
variety of other attendance programs throughout the
province, often developed from the efforts of local
staff. These are often funded under the auspices of a
local society of service group for the purposes of
funding and direction. Some of them are daily
attendance, and others are short term weekend
 attendance programs; some are short lived to provide a
particular experience which is helpful in a smaller
community. There are over a dozen of these programs
formed throughout the province, to a total of
$1,350,000 in 1978/79. The Branch views the
expenditure of these monies as supporting the most
efficient development or continuation of a wide range
of programs throughout the province, so that youths
may be dealt with as much as possible within their
own community, where the solution to the problems of
youth in conflict with the law resides and must be
Youth Custody
In 1974 the administration of Justice Act gave the
Province, and in particular the Corrections Branch of
the Ministry of the Attorney-General, responsibility
for the detention of youth (male and female) awaiting
trail, disposition or placement. This included the only
two detention facilities in operation — in Vancouver
and Victoria. These responsibilities had previously
been apportioned to municipalities under the Family
and Children's Act (1969). However, with the
exception of these two facilities there had been little
other development and the two centres had been
providing the major detention capacities throughout
the Province, with the attendant problems for youth of
dislocation from communities or places where plans
are worked out, travel, and so on. The alternative for
short stays had been police cells in local communities.
With the assumption of responsibility for these
services, the Branch commenced to phase out the
antiquated facility in Vancouver and move to
Willingdon in Burnaby, upgrade the newer Victoria
facility and set policy with respect to remand
throughout the Province.
The facilities at Willingdon originally were for
remand purposes, but with the development of
containment an additional capacity was added to
handle those requiring short term secure custody. The
Willingdon Centre has had a perennial overcrowding
problem; and during 1978 had a daily average
population of 40.28 boys and 8.88 girls, making a
combined daily average of 49.16 residents. This is
approximately a seven person increase over 1977. The
containment section of the, centre, forthe six month
period ending June 30 in which it was in operation
(prior to the Court ruling that the legislation was ultra
vires — see below) averaged on a daily basis 14.65
residents. Thus, for the six months period ending June
30, 1978 the Detention Centre housed a total daily
population average of 63.81 residents and a total daily
population average of 49.16 forthe remaining six
months. The total number of detention days for the
centre were up significantly over 1977: 17,897 in
remand, plus 2,666 for containment for a total of
20,563. A comparable latter figure for 1977 was
14,871. During 1978 the average length of stay at
Willingdon was 26.19 days. We may see from this
data that while the total number of individuals coming
in to the centre over the year has not increased
substantially (containment not withstanding) over
1977, the number of detention days and thus the
average length of stay has. In short, about the same
number of people are coming into custody as in 1977
but they are staying about one week longer than they
did in 1977. Finally, it is note worthy that
approximately 10% of the total number of the people
coming into the Centre for "social misconduct," that
is they are being sent by courts on other than criminal
The Victoria Youth Detention Centre also has
been designated as a secure custody centre for
purposes of short term containment, in addition to its
remand capacity. During 1978, a number of events
prevented the necessary renovations to the centre, but
these are underway in early 1979. This Centre does not
have the same overcrowding problem that Willingdon
does however, during 1978 the average daily count
went up from 11.5 to 15.2. The capacity is 20. The
 total number of admissions also were up from 917 in
1977 to 1,037 in 1978. The average length of stay of
residents during 1978 was 8.8 days for those from out
of town, and 4.2 days for those who were from the
Victoria area. The Victoria centre handles both boys
and girls. The program possibilities at Victoria centre
are much more limited than those at Willingdon, and
therefore the use of volunteers, while emphasized at
both centres has become integral to the operations of
the Victoria Youth Detention Centre.
In August of 1976, the Corrections Branch
authorized a set of comprehensive guidelines and
policies for the development and funding of private
remand homes throughout the Province, in an attempt
to facilitate the development of local resources as
more appropriate alternatives than local police cells,
or transfer to the Willingdon or Victoria facilities.
Remand homes are homes of private citizens who for a
per diem rate provide room and board and supervision
to youths "at risk" pending disposition of the court.
The general per diem rate is as negotiated by each
Corrections Branch region. The use of private remand
homes, while still in its early stages of development,
increased substantially in 1978, and is considered an
important program initiative of the Corrections
Branch. Private Remand homes are being developed
in conjunction with third level containment
community resources, described below.
The very idea that youthful offenders should be
"locked up" at all, is on the surface very upsetting.
Yet for those who have exhausted every other program
offered by the Corrections Branch, or other
government ministries, some kind of special secure
programs are felt to be necessary. In October of 1976,
the Cabinet of Government decided that the
Corrections Branch should proceed with the
development of a three levelled containment program
for youths in the above category.
During 1977, the facilities and program were
brought on line, with staff hired and fully trained. The
enabling provincial legislation, known as the
Corrections Amendment Act, which in addition to
providing authority to the Corrections Branch for the
operation of containment centres, emphasized the
need for a wide range of community based programs,
was proclaimed on December 15, 1977.
The three leveled program consists of secure
custody for those juvenile offenders whose behaviour
is deemed to be dangerous to others or themselves. As
noted previously the present two youth detention
centres in Victoria and Willingdon have provided the
additional capacity to hold juveniles at the post
disposition stage in strict custody. The Willingdon
facility added a capacity of 20, and the capacity of the
Victoria facility was set as flexible within its total
capacity of 20. The program and security facility
focusses on work or school and supervised recreation
activities. Use of the full range of community
resources is encouraged to include the involvement of
volunteer services wherever possible.
The second level of the containment package is
camps, which provide the option of a more definitive
and active program for juveniles, and which are
centred on education and the wilderness program
concept. Centre Creek Camp at Chilliwack and
originally Lakeview Camp at Campbell River were
identified to each have a capacity of 30. Centre Creek
Camp was available at the time of the proclamation of
the Act, but Lakeview Camp opened as referenced
above in mid 1979. By that time, the Supreme Court
of British Columbia had ruled the Youth Program
Section Part IV of the Corrections Act, in reference to
containment, ultra vires. The third level of the
containment package, secure group homes, which
were to provide residential placement with close staff
supervision, had not seen much development, and was
held up pending a resolution to the legislation
At the time of the Supreme Court judgement, the
renovations for the Victoria Youth Detention Centre
had not got underway and so the centre was not
 holding any youth in containment. All youths on
containment at the Willingdon Youth Detention Centre
and Centre Creek Camp were returned to court and
either placed on probation with a condition to attend
an attendance program, or continued under remand
status. Youths at Lakeview Camp, also were returned
to court. Lakeview and Centre Creek Camps were
designated attendance centres pending the outcome of
the Appeal Court Decision. That decision did not
come until January 3, 1979 at which time the
containment program was back on line, with the
exception that Lakeview continued as an attendance
It is the position of the Corrections Branch that
containment does not supply long term answers to
juvenile problems. Containment is only one of a
number of options and the Inter-Ministerial Youth
Committee "Children in Crisis Program" is
continuing to look at the whole issue of services to
youth. This committee is composed of the Deputy
Ministers of Human Resources, Health, Education and
Attorney-General, with a working group of
representatives from each of those ministries.
Provincial, regional and local Children in Crisis
Committees have been formed in many locations
throughout the Province to ensure that youths do not
"fall between stools" when it comes to finding the
appropriate programs for special needs.
Citizen Participation
Corrections has taken the position that justice
solutions lie at least in part in the community itself, as
it is the community by its legislation that sets the limits
on acceptables modes of social behaviour. Not only
does the solution lie in the community, but some of the
most effective resources are provided by members of
the community and their involvement in seeking
solutions to the problems.
The use of one to one volunteer sponsors for
youths in conflict with the law has been used in
communities throughout the Province for many years,
but in 1970 the use of volunteer sponsors for both adult
and juvenile probationers became more focussed with
the appointment of volunteer co-ordinators. This
subsequently has led to expansion in the types of
activity of volunteers, into such areas as Youth
Detention Centres. Citizen participation and volunteer
sponsor activities in the adult area are dealt with below
in the section entitled Adult Services.
Volunteers can provide young people with
effective one to one relationships, with group
involvement, with entertainment and recreational
opportunities and with wider general life experiences.
Citizen volunteers give youths the kind of time that is
not possible for Branch staff as a result of budget and
manpower restraints, but particularly as a result of the
nature of the justice system process.
As a result of the work of volunteer sponsors, and
volunteer co-ordinators, the view of the role of citizen
participation in Corrections has expanded
considerably within the last few years. During the
latter part of 1978 there was a move to de-emphasize
the staff role of the volunteer co-ordinator, and to
place increasing responsibility on local directors of
offices and institutions to incorporate citizen
involvement in a wide variety of program operations,
with the support and assistance of the volunteer coordinators. The use of citizens in the justice process
through Citizen Advisory Boards, volunteer
sponsorship and so on, has been one of the most
difficult, intangible and problematic aspects of
providing effective services to offenders. However,
the successful and efficient use of citizens in a variety
of aspects in Corrections both at the policy and line
service level, will continue to require energy and
openness on the part of Corrections staff at all levels of
the organization.
Statistics do not adequately convey the extent and
energy of citizens who give their time to Corrections.
Thousands of hours of volunteer time alone have been
available to youths in the Victoria Youth Detention
Centre, and the kind of assistance this gives cannot be
 overstated. In economic terms, if the average hourly
rate of volunteers at approximately $6.66 is utilized,
in Victoria alone during 1978 some $140,260 worth of
time was provided to offenders by this form of citizen
involvement. The gross figure for the Province
therefore, including areas where there are volunteer
co-ordinators and other areas where Branch Staff are
co-ordinating these progrms in addition to other
responsibilities is substantial.
In conclusion, the juvenile justice system is a
complex business focussing around dealing with a
certain kind of social conflict — that relating to
contravention of the law — and the marshalling of the
wide variety of resources and programs available to
remedy the problem. A major requirement of the
justice system is to tie together the various aspects of
services available throughout the government and the
private sector in a way which will be helpful to each
individual youth, and where multiple services are
required, where they will be appropriately provided.
The humanity and effectiveness with which this can be
carried out with respect to young people sets a
standard for society, and can have a significant impact
on the quality of life in communities throughout the
Adult Services
For a number of complex reasons, beyond the
scope of this Annual Report, the community has
become much more concerned about criminal
behaviour, and in particular about the treatment of
offenders. This concern has tended to become
focussed around the issue of incarceration, and is
related to a number of critical incidents within
institutions, both federal and provincial, and the high
public profile these have achieved. But the concern
goes much deeper than that. On the one hand, the
Corrections Branch has come under public criticism
for giving out temporary absences too easily, or to the
"wrong" people, for coddling offenders and
providing them with job training in full competition
with the rest of society or perhaps assisting in job
searches, for attempting to provide decent living
circumstances for offenders, and for generally going
too soft on society's "outsiders". On the other hand,
the increased sophistication of offenders relative to
civil rights, and the activities of a number of
community action groups, have given strongly worded
alternate messages in relation to the perception of
harsh treatment that the Branch appears to meet out,
particularly in maximum security settings.
Somewhere in between these two extreme
attitudes is the attitude of the Branch itself, an attitude
expressed in the number of programs that try to help
most offenders help themselves get back into society,
and assume the full rights and responsibilities of such
participation. It is from within the context of
attempting to balance these dilemmas that the
following programs and initiatives are described.
Pre-Court Services
As with juveniles, it is sometimes preferable to
resolve a community conflict involving adults before it
starts its way through the justice system. Generally
speaking the Corrections Branch is not involved with
the alleged offender prior to a court appearance
because of the different nature of the justice process
for juveniles and adults. However, probation officers'
involvement in diversion initiatives with adults as with
juveniles, is sanctioned and encouraged, and there has
been extensive involvement with local police,
lawyers, courts, and private community agencies in an
attempt to make the court process only one of a
number of effective alternatives for adults. To that
extent, some jurisdictions have been testing the use of
the pre-court enquiry model for certain adult offenders
in an attempt to divert persons who clearly do not
require the full, formal court process. North
Vancouver has been experimenting successfully with
it since November 1974. During the calendar year
1978, Crown Counsel requested 77 Diversion Reports,
 up by 19 from 1977. The program has been well
accepted by the police, Crown Counsel, clients and
the community in North Vancouver. Kamloops and
area is another jurisdiction which has been utilizing
the diversion process for adults for several years, and
in 1978 handled approximately 40 cases. In both
areas, most of those diverted are referred to another
agency for assistance, or undertake some community
service activity.
A major project was underway during 1978 in the
City of Vancouver. By the end of the year, the staff on
the project had increased to two and 191 adults were
involved in the program during the year. This project
is an important one because it represents the first real
experimentation in this province in a large urban area.
The matter of diversion for adults is still one which
requires some clarity of definition, and this project has
been very specific about its target group and
standards, and therefore will provide useful
information for the start up of similar projects in other
parts of the province. At this time, there are a number
of other areas which are experimenting in a limited
way with adult diversion.
Pre-Trial Services
Increased involvement by probation officers as
available resources to the court, to provide
information to the court at the pre-trial stage, as well
as at the sentencing stage, has continued to be an
important part of the justice process in 1978. The court
resource officer role is a relatively new one, but has
been well received.
Most of the activities of the Corrections Branch
in the pre-trial services area is with respect to the
operation of bail supervision in Vancouver, Surrey,
and Victoria with areas such as North and West
Vancouver being serviced from the Vancouver office.
Originally all managed from the Vancouver area, this
service was regionalized effective April 1, 1977, with
all of the other Corrections Branch programs. In 1978,
Prince George and Coquitlam were added to the list of
those locations with Bail Supervision operations. The
following is a brief background to those
Prior to the Bail Reform Act in 1972, it was
customary for a person who had been charged with an
offence to be released on either a promise to reappear
by posting bail or to be remanded in custody, usually
in maximum security remand facilities operated by the
Corrections Branch. Indications were that a large
number of those remanded into custody probably did
not need to be incarcerated.
However, after the implementation of the Bail
Reform Act, which allowed increased discretion to the
police and courts in remand arrangements, there were
a large number of abuses by persons who entered into
an agreement to appear in court but who did not
appear, or who committed further offences during the
time when they were released on bail. This indicated
that, for some offenders, a more organized method of
pre-trial supervision was required. To that end in
September of 1974 the Bail Supervision Pilot Project
was implemented in the Provincial Courts of
Vancouver. By the end of 1975, Bail Supervisors
numbered eight in Vancouver, and expanded to supply
services to Victoria and Surrey. During 1976, the staff
in those areas each had an average case load of 50.
During 1977, Vancouver and Surrey supervisors
carried approximate average case loads of 80 and this
increased in 1978 to 100. In Victoria, with only two
supervisors, that figure had reached 110 each in
December of 1977. In 1978, these figures have
remained high. It is clear that the courts view bail
supervision as a worthwhile service both to the courts,
in ensuring that an alleged offender will meet
commitments and appear for trial, and in terms of
providing personal support to alleged offenders.
In April of 1976 the wider area of pre-trial
volunteer program responsibilities was assumed by the
Corrections Branch. This service involved volunteers
and one staff person (located at Oakalla District) who
provided a direct service to remandees at the centre.
The pre-trial services officer attempts to interview
 each person remanded into custody in order to assist
them by providing information, by providing them and
making bail applications or in obtaining a lawyer, by
contacting friends, and by dealing with any other
personal loose ends which might have arisen as a
result of a person's arrest, and subsequent remand into
custody. The facilities and services which will be
provided by the new Vancouver Pre-Trial Services
Centre announced in December 1978 (described under
Custody Services) to be completed in 1981 will set a
high standard in the provision of a range of services
required by those in custody while before the courts.
The extent of the resources of the Branch
available to become more comprehensively involved
in pre-trial services is limited at the time of writing. It
is a clear situation where citizen participation in
conjunction with staff efforts can provide some very
necessary human services to people who are
undergoing the first shock of incarceration while
awaiting trial.
Probation Services
The services provided by probation officers to the
courts emphasize court information to assist in the
sentencing process and in community supervision.
During 1978, probation officers completed 3,950 presentence reports on adults, 1003 verbal reports, 942
reports to the court with respect to an offender's ability
to pay a fine and 1,581 other kinds of reports. As one
aspect to the community role of the probation officer,
2,086 parole and temporary absence reports were
prepared during 1978. The total report workload was
up in 1978 from 9,226 to 9,562.
Community supervision for adults has placed
emphasis in the formal responsibilities of
offenders, and virtually all such persons supervised
by a probation officer have come to him/her via the
court, with specific conditions to be met. A wide
range of community resources always have been
utilized, but the major element of this supervision
has been the formal reporting responsibility. The
development of effective programs for adults under
probation supervision, or under voluntary
diversionary supervision, is still in its infancy. For
instance, with the exception of a few programs, for
young adults, there are no attendance programs
available for adults as there are for juveniles. (See
under Youth Services). Community Correctional
Centre programs have been used in some instances
for those who require residence in addition to
regular community supervision and for whom
there are no appropriate community resources.
There are two corrections programs which have
been developed and expanded over the past six years
to fill the gap between supervision in the community
and total incarceration for adults. These are the
Community Service Order Program and Impaired
Drivers' Courses.
Community Service Orders
The Community Service Order program has been
described at some length above under Youth Services.
More so than for juveniles, however, this program
represents a true alternative to incarceration for many
offenders, and for those who are unable to pay a fine
where a fine would be considered. The tasks which
might be performed are similar to those that juveniles
might perform, but with a greater degree of
responsibility. On a number of occasions, particularly
in the case of young adults, the experience of assisting
the elderly, the handicapped, or providing work for
community service organizations has been beneficial
and has resulted in continued involvement past the
time of the end of the probation.
During 1978, almost 110,000 hours of
community service were undertaken by adult
offenders across the province. As in past years, on the
average adults appeared to receive approximately
twice the number of hours as do juveniles, but the
number of orders given out to juveniles and adults
 across the province is approximately 50/50. The rate
of success for completion is estimated at over 95%.
This program in particular has expanded each year,
with 1977 registering approximately 100,000 hours of
work in total for juveniles and adults, with slightly
more than that amount being undertaken by adults
alone in 1978.
There is no question that the community is in full
support of this program, where it does not infringe
upon the rights of persons to be employed. This has
generally not been a problem. It should be noted that
the operation of community service was part of the
larger concern around fine option, which is the focus
of a Ministerial and Branch initiative which has seen
the development of two pilot projects on Vancouver
Island which will be implemented commencing early
in 1979. This project has emerged from statistics
which indicate that approximately 20% of admissions
to provincial correctional facilities are for fine in
default. Fine option programs in Saskatchewan and
Alberta have shown the ability to impact on those
kinds of figures, and the pilot project which is
underway at the time of writing is to be evaluated with
the view towards possible expansion throughout the
province. The pilot project incorporates the option of
community service which is applied to the amount of
the fine at a minimum wage of $3.00 per hour. The
findings of this project will be known in the next
reporting period.
Impaired Drivers' Courses
Impaired Driver's Courses are designed as an
informative and educational program for convicted
impaired drivers, and its operation represents an
important area of operations for the Corrections
Branch. The. program had its beginnings in 1973 and
since that time has expanded to over 30 locations
throughout the province. Originally a joint effort of
the Corrections Branch, The Alcohol and Drug
Commission, Insurance Corporation of British
Columbia, and the Motor Vehicle Branch, the
Corrections Branch is now responsible for funding and
co-ordinating this program which is attended by
offenders as a condition of probation.
The program consists of a four evening, two and
a half hour per evening format which involves
presentations by a number of persons in the
community who are likely to be involved in the
problem of drinking and driving, i.e. doctors, judges,
crown counsel, coroners, ambulance drivers,
alcoholism counsellors, Motor Vehicle Branch and
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia
representatives, and probation officers. A course
moderator is hired for a small honourarium by the
Corrections Branch. Impaired Drivers Courses are
unique in the justice system as they have sprung from,
and only continue as a result of, wide ranging
community participation in a formalized sentencing
option for the court.
The Branch has been concerned, however, that
I.D.C. is not a final solution to stem the tide of injury,
death, property damage, and human grief which arises
from this particular form of alcohol and driving abuse.
In 1977 and 1978 the Attorney-General has
spearheaded a comprehensive attack on the problems
created by drinking drivers in British Columbia which
is known as "Counterattack". Impaired Drivers'
Courses are only one of a number of important
initiatives taken to combat drinking and driving in
British Columbia. The extent of this problem cannot
be underestimated, with approximately 30% of all
probation cases comprised of drinking and driving
offences and 13% of locked admissions to Branch
institutions. This is not counting the number of those
incarcerated as a result of failing to pay some of the
larger fines which are now imposed for this offence.
(Over 40% of all admissions to institutions for failure
to pay a fine, are for defaulting on a fine imposed as a
result of drinking and driving offences.)
 The questions of possible sanctions and responses
to drinking and driving has been one of a number of
priority items for discussion by the Motor Vehicles
Task Force which was established in 1978, and which
will be submitting its report on a number of aspects of
the operation and licensing of motor vehicles in 1979.
Custody Services and Programs
Under the separation of federal/provincial
jurisdiction relating to the imprisonment of convicted
(adult) offenders specified in the British North
America Act, the Corrections Branch in British
Columbia is given the responsibility for providing
appropriate facilities for five categories of individuals.
1. All persons remanded into custody pending a
resolution of their charges before the courts.
2. All offenders being held in custody pending the
appeal of their conviction and/or sentence, (up to
30 days only where the sentence of imprisonment
is for two years or more).
3. Those offenders who have received sentences of
two years or over and are awaiting transfer to a
federal penitentiary.
4. Those offenders who have received a sentence of
imprisonment of less than two years.
5. Those offenders in federal institutions who are
transferred to the Province under the Federal
Provincial Exchange of Services Agreement.
Branch facilities are designated by the level of
security they afford. A custody facility is described as
maximum-medium security, and includes reception
and remand centres. Reception and remand centres are
areas within the major correctional centres which are
separated from the sentenced inmate population for
such purposes. Open (or minimum) security centres
include forest camps, community correctional centres,
and specialized facilities (for alcohol or drug
dependency problems).
After five years of work with regard to location,
design and program, in November 1978 Treasury
Board approved the construction of the pre-trial
services centre to be located adjacent to the Vancouver
Courts. The 150 bed facility will cost approximately
$18,000,000 and will require a staff of 130 when it is
opened sometime in 1981. It is intended to service the
Vancouver Courts — Provincial, County and
Supreme. It is the first step of a plan announced
publicly in April to ultimately phase out the entire
remand population of approximately 300 at Oakalla
Correctional Centre.
The design of the pre-trial services centre is
indicative of an emphasis on programs and services, in
addition to custody. The physical plant provides for
containing all court services currently administering to
the Vancouver Courts, such as Sheriff staff, bail
supervisors, probation officers and ancilary personnel.
In addition, pre-trial service workers will provide
direct service to remandees, such as assistance on
application for legal aid and providing support with
regard to personal concerns of remandees. Space will
be made available for the use of relevant private
agencies for interviewing, visiting, and so on.
This centre represents a major step forward for
the Corrections Branch in its intent to provide humane
and effective facilities and programs for those persons
falling within its jurisdiction.
The incarceration of offenders has always been
closely identified with Corrections and suffers the
most intense form of public criticism, myths, and
stereotypes. Few people would argue with the notion
that some types of institutions will always be needed
to isolate dangerous and predatory elements from the
community. But in the past, people who were never a
threat to public safety were put into maximum (or
medium) security institution because the courts had no
alternatives. Even with the more liberal use of
probation supervision for appropriate offenders, there
is still a large percentage of our institutional
population serving time for offences involving Motor
Vehicle Act infractions, drunkeness, or the inability to
pay a fine.
 It is the position of the Corrections Branch that
only persons requiring secure custody should be held
in these settings. Based on extensive experience, and
in consultation with the police, courts, a variety of
community resource agencies and interested citizens,
Corrections follows the policy that sentence
management which is community oriented, and
requires continued participation and a responsibility to
the community is the most appropriate and effective
for many offenders.
In 1978, this intention was reflected in extensive
planning decisions for a project in two lower mainland
regions, entitled Alternate Entry. In October of 1978,
Corrections Branch Management Committee had
made the decision to proceed on a limited
experimental basis with the concept of using open
setting correctional locations to receive inmates. This
approach has been adopted as a result of the proposal
that the Branch shift its view of primary resource from
custody centres to open settings. The aim is to admit
inmates directly to open settings and classify upwards
in security only if necessary, rather than the reverse.
The initial concern has arisen out of attempts to
decrease the population of Oakalla Correctional
Centre and to take advantage of the under utilization of
camp programs. In 1979, the two projects will be run,
and evaluated with the view towards expansion in
other areas. Alternate Entry represents one of the most
significant developments in the use of corrections
facilities to take place in the Branch for some years. It
is a move consistent with the view that on average,
admissions to correctional facilities are for less than
one month, and that 80% of admissions are for six
months or less.
The concept of Alternate Entry has been utilized
on a limited basis since July of 1977 at the Terrace
Community Correctional Centre. The Centre has been
receiving inmates directly from courts at Prince
Rupert, Masset, Terrace, Kitimat, Burns Lake,
Smithers and Hazleton. Originally, sentence length for
direct admission was limited to under 90 days. The
program worked so effectively that inmates with
sentences up to approximately nine months are now
being admitted. The criteria limiting direct admission
includes the type of offence (to be consistent with the
open setting nature of the centre, unless transfer has
come through Prince George Regional Correctional
Centre); transients are not eligible, unless on relatively
short sentences. Since the intention of the centre is to
put appropriate inmates into the community either
doing community service work, forest projects or on
employment temporary absences, there is emphasis on
housing inmates at the centre whose residences are
within approximately 100 miles of it. The Terrace
Community Correctional Centre also has provided
space for a few offenders given intermittent sentences
(on weekends), and for selected remandees.
During 1978, more than $40,000 was saved in
transportation costs alone through this type of
program. The centre really is a community correctional
centre. (See also under Re-Entry Programs.)
Also in line with the Branch intention that
incarceration is utilized only as a last resort and that
offenders should continue to participate in and be
responsible to their communities, in late 1978 the
Branch has been considering alternative ways of
housing those offenders given intermittent sentences.
The administration of intermittent sentences is
problematic forthe Branch as reflected in the type of
concern caused in correctional centres by a massive
influx of persons for weekends only,.For instance,
Oakalla Correctional Centre may receive over 100
persons on the weekend on intermittent sentences. The
impact on police lock-ups throughout the province is
even more drastic. The cost of specific facilities for
intermittent sentences is not only exorbitant to build,
but to staff on only a two day out of seven basis. The
Government cannot afford to have facilities sit empty
for most of the week.
Since the Branch believes that this type of
sentence is very effective for some offenders, a
proposal is being considered for possible
 implementation in 1979 for mobile facilities located
close to community service projects, and moveable to
where the demand for facilities is. There are a number
of problems with this type of approach, however, this
may provide a solution to a very perplexing problem.
The types of programs offered at the various
correctional facilities throughout the province
operated by the Corrections Branch are circumscribed
by the security needs and correctional goals of each
offender. Over the years, camps have focussed on
bush work, slash and burning, road clearing, nursery
work, land clearing, fire suppression, mill work, and
so on, to provide inmates with a healthy and vigorous
way to do their time, plus providing the opportunity to
pick up some employable skills and work habits. In
custody facilities the emphasis has been on shop work,
carpentry, machining, tailoring, sewing, and soon,
with farming available on a supervised gang basis. In
all facilities there is kitchen work where skills in
butchery and mass food production may be learned.
The following are some selected examples of the
results of these kinds of work in 1978 from across the
- Clearwater Forest Camp (Kamloops)
Lumber produced:
Lumber shipped:
— To Forestry
— Highways
— To Parks
— To Corrections
Droppers produced
Fire wood produced for parks
Fire suppression
— Rayleigh Farm (Kamloops)
Vegetables produced
Beef slaughtered for local use
Beef shipped to Chilliwack Camps
Beef shipped to Alouette River Correctional Centre
Hay harvested
Silage harvested
- Haney Forest Camps
Stave Lake Cleanup Project
Fire Wood to Parks Board
Completed 416 hours of community projects
- Twin Maples Correctional Centre
Tailors shop
Farm operation
273,453 B.F.M.
159,185 B.F.M.
13,498 B.F.M.
19,937 B.F.M.
28,028 B.F.M.
35,700 Pieces
78 Cords
848 Man Days
66,652 lbs.
62 head, value $33,612.00
8 head, value $2,260.00
40 head, value $14,760.00
500 tons
500 tons
148 stumps cleared
20 acres debris burned
211 acres of snags cut
1.349 cords (10,000 hours
of manpower production)
205 squares
5,000 clothing items
316 cattle on the hoof
1.350 chickens housed
12,000 dozen egg production
11,000 bails of hay
50 tons of silage
 The total amount of lumber and wood products is
valued at approximately $200,000 with an additional
approximately half million dollars in man hours
worked on forestry projects during 1978.
As noted above much of the work undertaken in
custody facilities is of a maintenance nature, and
inmates are assigned to provide them with reasonable
activities during the day, while bearing in mind the
needs for security. Except in special circumstances, as
soon as it is appropriate, inmates are transferred to
forest and other minimum security settings. The
Branch has moved away from any focus on skills
development in vocational training at centres, but
interested inmates will pick up a number of work skills
when working with qualified staff.
Educational opportunities for interested inmates
are provided through a number of avenues. Every
attempt is made to make use of educational resources
within the community, often through a placement of
an inmate at a community correctional centre under
the authority of the Temporary Absence Program
(refer below to re-entry programs). For instance at
Kamloops the Community Correctional Centre has the
availability of a certain number of seats at the local
community college. In the Lower Mainland area, a
major education program for inmates is carried out on
a contract basis with the British Columbia Institute of
Funded in 1974, and focussing at that time on
Oakalla District, the purpose of the program has been
to assist interested inmates in readjusting to the
community through academic and vocational training.
In addition to a generally low level of formal
education and lack of job skills, many inmates have
alcohol (or) drug problems. The service provided
attempts to deal with these in conjunction with the
formulation of short and long term goals for education
or on-the-job training. The latter is often achieved
under the temporary absence program and also can be
a significant factor in pre-release parole planning and
application. From 1976 the service has expanded its
operations to a wide number of correctional facilities
in the greater lower mainland area.
Another major educational program, which is
conducted within an institution, is that at Prince
George Regional Correctional Centre, where the
Ministry of Education has sponsored a full time
educational program in the institution. Inmates have
been able to receive upgrading from qualified teaching
staff and obtain entrance to the College of New
Caledonia. One full time and one part time teacher
were hired and the school opened in October, 1977.
Since that time, during 1978 classes have averaged
eight to twelve students.
Other educational opportunities rely mainly on
the availability of correspondence courses for any
inmate who desires them and makes a request.
Community Correctional Centres and
Community-Based Residential Centres form an
important aspect of programs and facilities utilized by
the Corrections Branch. A typical community
correctional centre is a large house or converted motel.
It is the home base of the residents and he/she must
return to it immediately after work or school. Dinner is
usually communal, and each person has assigned
chores. After hours there is time for studying,
hobbies, and social events. Some residents spend their
evenings and weekends on a community service
project, worthwhile causes, and on volunteer work
with local community organizations. Those earning an
income are charged room and board at the centre. The
rest of their money may go towards paying off debts,
making restitution, supporting their family, or bank
savings for the time when they are released. (For
detailed statistics, refer to Figure III under Statistics,
and see also under Re-Entry Programs.)
Community-based Residential Centres offer
essentially the same kind of service as community
correctional centres but are not corrections staffed and
are run by a myriad of private agencies offering a
variety of different programs.
 Inmates attend community correctional centres or
community-based residential centres through the
authority of the temporary absence program, which is
dealt with in more detail in both descriptive and
statistical form below under Re-entry Programs. At
the time of writing, there are nine community
correctional centres operated by the Corrections
Branch throughout the province, and contracted
services with approximately one dozen community-
based residential centres.
In 1975, there had been an increase in the number
of unlawful absences from correctional facilities.
Although all unlawful absences directly from a centre
are considered escapes, it is important to qualify the
word by pointing out that the large number of these are
in fact walkaways from open settings such as forest
camps. With the increased use by the courts of
probation supervision, and with the phase out of
Haney Correctional Centre for young offenders, the
camps are receiving a much more troublesome type of
offender. Young offenders generally are more
spontaneous, impulsive, have more energy, and
require a more intense kind of programming than the
older offender previously received by the camps. As a
result of efforts directed at reducing escapes such as
more screening and intensity of program, in 1976
escapes dropped 20%, and in 1977 a further 25% from
359 to 291. In 1978, the number of escapes increased
by 11% over 1977.
Escapes or walkaways are usually individual,
spontaneous actions, and while they may be simply
the expression of the desire to "getaway", many
times escapes occur as the result of an individual need
to deal with something on the outside, such as a family
problem. Sensitive staff can often pick up on feelings
of anxiety of an inmate and provide that person with
the assistance required to overcome the problem
without adding the problem of having escaped.
Sometimes a referral for counselling or medical
services is indicated.
Psychological Services
The Corrections Branch has one full time Senior
Psychologist who is responsible forthe delivery of all
psychological services throughout the Corrections
Branch. These include direct service to adults and
juveniles within the lower mainland area as well as
seeing that psychological services are available to
other Branch regions via local psychologists employed
either in other government agencies or by the Branch
on a fee-for-service or sessional basis.
The major approach in providing psychological
services to the Branch continues to be in developing
community resources. However, the Branch
recognizes the need to provide direct service such as in
the case management of inmates with serious
psychological/behavioural problems. Branch
Psychological Services is responsible for the
recruitment of practitioners to provide this support
service. A focal point of this recruitment includes
taking an active part in the professional training of
psychologists at the University of British Columbia
and Simon Fraser University. In addition to this basic
university training program the Branch supports a
Psychology and the Law continuing education
program which has proved to be a highly practical way
of informing practising psychologists (and other
practitioners) of the current issues and concerns
involved in their working with people who may be on
probation, parole, etc.
A major activity of Branch Psychological
Services continues to be in the area of clinical
research. The Branch Clinical Research Committee is
chaired by the Senior Psychologist and includes the
Branch Senior Medical Officer and the Director of
Branch Program Evaluation and Data Systems. The
Committee is responsible for reviewing clinical and
related research proposals that are initiated from
within or outside the Branch. The aim of the
Committee is to encourage community scientists to get
involved in research related to Branch concerns, such
as violent crime.
 Medical Services
Medical Services throughout the Branch are coordinated by the full time Senior Medical Officer.
Each correctional complex has the availability of local
doctors and dentists who visit the facilities at recular
intervals. Where security is not an issue, and hospital
services are required, inmates use community
facilities. Where security is an issue, corrections has
the availability of limited hospital capacities at
Oakalla District, and Alouette River Correctional
Centre. Oakalla District Hospital has a capacity of 40
and one full time and one half time doctor and trained
staff. The Alouette River Correctional Centre Hospital
has trained staff and is visited by a doctor. It has a
capacity of approximately ten.
For a number of years, the Corrections Branch
has had the availability of a specially designated ward
at the Vancouver General Hospital for serious medical
problems where security is an issue. The ward has
been under-utilized, but its closure in 1978 is
considered a loss to the Branch.
An analysis of the statistical information on
medical services indicated that during 1977 there were
fewer psychiatric examinations carried out at
correctional institutions in the Lower Mainland. This
is explained by an increase in court referrals to the
Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission for
examination, rather than to the Corrections Branch.
This trend has continued through 1978, and continues
to be welcomed. It has taken some of the strain off the
facilities at the Oakalla District Hospital.
A second annual meeting of the Correctional
Physicians of British Columbia was held in November
1978 at which the major topic of discussion was the
possible instituting of medical accreditation standards,
taking as a guideline the set of standards developed by
the American Medical Association. The Prison Care
Committee of the Health Planning Council of the B.C.
Medical Association is actively pursuing the adoption
of these standards, and it is anticipated that this will
take place in 1979, in conjunction with the overall
look at standards which is being undertaken through
the Standards Project of the Corrections Branch,
which is described in this Report.
 Summary Sheet
Facilities and Capacities
Custody Facilities
1. Lower Mainland Regional Correctional Centre  567
2. Oakalla Womens' Correctional Centre  103
3. Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre     60
4. Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre  86
5. Prince George Regional Correctional Centre  139
6. Chilliwack Security Unit    30
Forest and Farm Operations
1. Pine Ridge Camp (Haney)    60
2. Steve Lake Camp (Haney)  48
3. Cedar Lake Camp (Haney) (closed December 15, 1978)
4. Jordan River Camp (Vancouver Island)  48
5. Rayleigh Camp (Kamloops)  30
6. Clearwater Camp (Kamloops)   30
7. Hutda Lake Camp (Prince George)     60
8. Ford Mountain Camp (Chilliwack)     60
9. Mount Thurston Camp (Chilliwack)     60
Specialized Facilities
1. Boulder Bay Camp (Haney)  51
2. New Haven Correctional Centre (Burnaby)  40
3. Alouette River Correctional Centre (Haney)    151
4. Twin Maples Correctional Centre (Haney)  60
Community Correctional Centres
1. Marpole (Vancouver)  20
2. Burnaby    14
3. Southview (Burnaby)  8
4. Lynda Williams (Vancouver)  10
5. Victoria (#1)  25
6. Snowdon (Campbell River)   30
7. Chilliwack     18
8. Kamloops  20
9. Terrace   21
 Provincial Classification
Provincial Classification provides services to all
Regional Correctional Centres (reception) for
sentenced inmates. At admission, each inmate is seen
by a classification officer for classification either to
one of the satellite programs of the particular centre,
or for transfer to another institutional complex in the
province. All decisions regarding such transfer are
made by a classification officer.
The classification of an inmate is an important
first step in an overall case management plan for the
individual inmate, and is made out of an assessment of
the information available (pre-sentence reports,
previous institutional records, police reports,
interviews) and with the participation of the inmate.
The classification officer then places him/her in an
available Branch facility best suited to assist in
working through the plan. Where security and control
are indicated, placement is made accordingly.
Provincial Classification was integrally involved in the
development of the case management system which
has been referenced in previous sections of this report.
Effective and ongoing case management in
institutions is difficult, but a key activity which assists
in the effectiveness of the plans is the "fleshing out"
by the receiving facilities. During 1978 different
methods of handling the task have been developed.
Some utilized a commitment plan approach of which
an example is the Chilliwack Forest Camps, where
every commitment plan is referred, upon completion,
to Provincial Classification for comments, prior to
formal approval by the District Director. Cases are
referred for re-classification either according to
sentence plan or by reason of subsequent changes of
sentence plan consequence upon fresh factors.
Provincial Classification in the Lower
Mainland/Fraser Valley area is conducted by a
Provincial Classification team which works out of its
Burnaby office. Provincial Classification
responsibilities in the other three regions (Island,
Interior and Northern) are handled by classification
officers who, for their provincial classification
functions are responsible to the Director of Provincial
Classification, but who have in addition other regional
responsibilities. The Burnaby office also undertakes
administrative functions such as processing of transfer
warrants, maintenance of inmate location card system,
preparation of weekly provincial institutional count
statistics, and so on.
With the closure toward the end of 1978 of Cedar
Lake Camp of the Haney Forest Camp complex, and
the temporary closure of Ford Mountain Camp of the
Chilliwack Forest Camps, due to fire, the Branch was
left with only two male facilities in the Lower
Mainland/Fraser Valley regions, of a non specialized
nature. (A list of these facilities and their special uses
is shown as Table I.) All the other facilities are
utilized to a greater or lesser extent as resources to the
whole province. The question of the intent for regions
to have self contained the full range of correctional
facilities is contingent upon the size of facilities
question which has been discussed elsewhere in this
For the first time in many years, the total number
of classifications and re-classifications effected has
shown a small decrease (see Table II), from 7,074 in
1977 to 6,682 in 1978.
Provincial Classification continues to process all
Corrections Branch applications under the
Federal/Provincial Exchange of Services Agreement
whereby inmates receiving sentences placing them
under either jurisdiction may spend their sentence
under the other jurisdiction. Table III shows
comparative figures of applications, approvals,
denials and returns for the last three years. These
figures show a reduction in the traffic both ways.
Provincial Classification also is mandated to process
all applications for transfer in and out under the recent
Canada/U.S. A. Treaty for Exchange of Offenders.
There have so far been no applications for offenders
under B.C. jurisdiction to transfer to the U.S., and
only one application to transfer from the U.S. to the
B.C. provincial jurisdiction.
YEAR 1978
Long term security & medical/psychiatric problems,
protective custody etc. — Oakalla District.
Short term security & evaluation — Chilliwack Security
Young offender programmes — New Haven, Boulder
First incarceration facility — Stave Lake Camp.
Alcoholic treatment & impaired drivers' course —
Alouette River Correctional Centre.
Female security — Oakalla Women's Correctional
Female minimum security — Twin Maples.
Temporary Absence Facilities — Marpole C.C.C.,
Burnaby C.C.C., Surrey C.T.R.C, Lynda Williams
House (female), Chilliwack C.C.C., various C.B.R.C.s
under contract.
General purpose camps for males — Mount Thurston
Camp, Pine Ridge Camp.
Jordan River Camp
Victoria C.C.C.
Snowdon C.C.C.
Marpole C.C.C.
Chilliwack Forest Camps
Security Unit
Chilliwack C.C.C.
Twin Maples
— Boulder Bay Camp
— Cedar Lake Camp
— Pine Ridge Camp
— Stave Lake Camp
New Haven
P.G.R.C.C. (Male)
P.G.R.C.C. (Female)
Federal to Prov.
Prov. to Federal
NOTE:    A further 6 cases were in process at Year's End.
 In addition to their classification responsibilities,
classification officers are involved in a variety of
duties including case management development,
involvement in alternate entry considerations, staff
development, studies of inmate populations, and so
The major needs identified by Provincial
Classification, as are indicated to them through their
perception of the needs of individual inmates, are as
follows, and should be seen in context with remarks
made in the previous section of this report, and in the
Major Issues Section in the beginning of this report.
1. Lack of security facilities for sentenced offenders
in the following areas: Vancouver Island,
Kamloops/Okanagan, and Kootenays. It should
be noted that for at least half of the year,
sentences of imprisonment from the Kootenays
are admitted directly to Oakalla District.
2. Lack of minimum security institutions (non
temporary absence) in the following areas: metro
Vancouver area, Kootenays, central Vancouver
Island (Nanaimo/Duncan vicinity).
3. Lack of community correctional centre facilities
in the following areas: Kootenays, Okanagan,
and central Vancouver Island.
4. Special program facilities in the province for
drugs (particularly heroin) addicts, security
programs for young offenders whose sole reason
for security is their inability of unwillingness to
stay put; programs for protective custody cases.
5. Re-creation of more meaningful activities for
young offenders in high security areas, especially
Oakalla District.
There are two of these needs which bear
emphasis. First is the lack of the range of facilities on
Vancouver Island. The potential use of the Island
Youth Centre referenced in the 1977 Annual Report,
was not realized with that centre being utilized as the
residential treatment component to the Heroin
Treatment Program, Ministry of Health. A feasibility
study has been underway to seek alternatives. The
other area of major requirement is for an open
setting/community correctional centre in the
Kootenays and Okanagan area.
Re-Entry Programs
There are two major types of re-entry programs
for an offender given an institutional sentence. These
are temporary absence, and parole supervision. A
period of incarceration plus probation is not
considered in the same context, though often a period
of parole is available to an inmate during the
institutional portion of his sentence, and this
supervision flows naturally into probation at the end of
the institutional portion.
All parole decisions are either made by the B.C.
Parole Board of the Ministry of the Attorney-General,
with respect to definite indeterminate sentences
(which will be terminated with the proclamation of
relevant parts of Federal Bill C-51 in 1979) or the
National Parole Board with regard to all other definite
sentences, whether the sentences are served in a
federal institution or a provincial one.
Probation officers of the Corrections Branch
undertake parole supervision, where there are no
federal officers available. In addition, probation
officers often prepare community investigations on
offenders who have applied for parole, so that this
information can be available to the paroling authority
in order to assist them in their decision-making
process. During 1978, probation officers prepared 434
such investigations and other parole reports.
The major re-entry program which comes under
the jurisdiction of the Corrections Branch, through the
Corrections Act, is the temporary absence program.
Temporary absences are granted for three distinct
1. Short term — For leave from a correctional centre
for a specific period of time up to a maximum of
15 days. These are granted for maintaining
contact with the family, or the event of a death of
a family member, for other socialization
purposes, and for other defined reasons.
 2. Employment/education — the authority by which
an inmate resides in a community correctional
centre or a community-based residential centre
while taking work, education, or training.
3. Medical — absences granted for the purposes of
obtaining medical attention in community
hospitals when it is not available within
correctional centres.
The crucial factor in the temporary absence
program is that the program activity which the
applicant plans to pursue in the community must be as
likely to benefit him/her and the community as would
any program offered within the centre. The inmate
must pose no threat to the community and be unlikely
to go unlawfully at large. Apart from the community
involvement made possible forthe inmate, the
program avoids wasting the community's own
resources and avoids costly duplications of resources
in institutions.
During 1978 there were 9,526 temporary
absences granted for the three categories as outlined
above, with a 97.9% success rate. The
employment/education temporary absence, which is
the backbone of the program, saw again an increase in
absences granted from 1,518 in 1977 to 1,658 in 1978.
With respect to revocations, the unlawfully at large
category rose slightly in 1978 from 93 to 103. this was
approximately the 1976 level. The positive trend with
respect to further criminal offences which had
decreased to 13 in 1977 rose to 26 in 1978, which was
slightly under the 1976 figure. These statistics are a
reflection that the screening process requires
continuing caution.
A major constructive aspect of the temporary
absence program is the employment program. In 1978,
an increase in the total amount earned by inmates
residing at community correctional centres or
community based residential centres and attending
work on temporary absence passes reached
approximately $1,150,000. Of that amount earned,
$27,558 was paid in restitution and fines, $60,977 in
room and board, $257,400 in family maintenance and
$111,226 in debts were paid. In addition, $214,817
was paid in income tax which was returned to the
Four year figures are now available on the work
release temporary absence program, from 1975 to
1978. These figures show that the total amount earned
was (figures rounded oft) $3,500,000 with the
following payments being made: $84,000 (restitution
and fines), $233,000 (room and board), $704,000
(family maintenance, $275,000 (debts), and $647,000
(income tax). This represents approximately 50% of
the monies earned returned directly or indirectly to the
community, with the balance being put aside to
cushion the inmates total re-entry to the community
when their sentences expire.
As in the case of parole, probation officers and
temporary absence officers are involved in the
preparation of community investigations before any
major temporary absence decision is taken. This
decision is made by a screening panel, which may
include representatives from police and community.
The degree of communications which this interchange
of information between a number of components
working in the justice system represents, is an
important aspect of the temporary absence program.
On a final note, with the proclamation of Federal
Bill C-51 some time in 1979, the B.C. Provincial
Parole Board will be phased out when the legislation
terminates the use of definite-indeterminate sentences.
Proposals have gone before the Ministry from the
Corrections Branch to suggest that a reconstituted
Provincial Parole Board should be formed, to have
jurisdiction over all parole decisions in relation to
provincial institutions. Presently the National Parole
Board has jurisdiction in these areas. Some thought
had been given to placing all re-entry authority in the
hands of the new Parole Board, including temporary
absence, but Branch Management have recommended
that the temporary absence program provides a degree
of flexibility at the local level which is desirable. A
resolution to the structure of re-entry programs should
be complete in 1978.
 Religious Programs
In December of 1975 the Senior Chaplain of the
Branch was named the Director of Religious
Programs, and this function became a separate
autonomous section of the Branch consisting of full
and part-time Protestant and Catholic chaplains and
the Director. The establishment of one senior position
with overall responsibility for all chaplains in
functions and programs, instead of the services being
broken up as part of each correctional centre, has been
beneficial in terms of consistency and
comprehensiveness of policy, efficiency in
administrative matters, more effective relationships
inter and intragovernmental branches and ministries,
and with the churches. It is a reinforcement of the
spirit of ecumenical co-operation which is evident in
the way in which the chaplains function within the
various centres. As a result, when all other
Corrections Branch programs regionalized effective
April 1, 1977, the Director of Religious Programs
continued to have on-going responsibilities.
Religious Programs has played an ever increasing
and wider role in the emphasis of the Corrections
Branch in involving the community in the correctional
process. Chaplains are taking individual clients and
groups of clients into the community for religious and
social functions at an ever increasing rate, and have
engaged community church groups in the development
of various volunteer sponsor programs. Chaplains also
have assisted in job placement, locating
accommodation, and contacting community resources
for the inmate who is re-entering the community.
Chaplains offer courses to inmates on such topics as
marriage dynamics, communications, life skills and
alcoholism and provide counselling for married
inmates for the purpose of resolving family conflict.
One chaplain has placed more emphasis on aftercare
and has continued contact with inmates once they are
released from an institution. The chaplains continue to
emphasize taking a strong role in treatment program
decisions, to give recognition to their extensive
involvement with inmates. This is particularly
important in matters pertaining to temporary absence
or parole release decisions. The number of chaplains
increased in 1977, in reflections of this extensive
involvement, and now number 18. Five chaplains
including the Director, are full time, with the others
providing services on a part time basis.
With the implementation of the containment
program, even in spite of legal and constitutional
issues explained elsewhere, there has been an
increasing involvement of chaplains with young
offenders. Chaplains working with these offenders
have noted an increasing interest in spiritual matters.
Counselling to staff on a number of personal
matters in an institution continues to be an important
role of the chaplain. Whenever morale of staff
fluctuates, chaplains are available to be supportive,
independent and a non biased listener for staff
concerns. In addition, chaplains play a key role with
staff in supporting their efforts towards providing
programs and working in difficult situations with both
juveniles and adults.
During 1978, the chaplains from across the
province met again with some of their federal
counterparts around the overall theme of
communications, both inside the organization and
external to the organization. Discussions were held
and papers were presented on such topics as Christians
in the Criminal Justice System, Citizen Participation,
Victim Restitution, Crime Prevention, Goals
Strategies and Beliefs in Corrections, and the
Correctional Centre Rules and Regulations. A series
of resolutions pertaining to these topic areas were
It cannot be overstated that chaplains form an
important contribution to effective corrections
operations throughout the province, help persons
within an institutional setting, and can offer
constructive guidance to inmates who may not accept
such direction from regular staff. As a result of their
wide ranging involvement with both staff and
offenders, chaplains continue to require of themselves
a high level of energy and dedication.
 Citizen Participation
The Corrections Branch has encouraged two
types of citizen participation: development of a direct
service role to offenders, and providing citizen input
to administrative and policy decisions of the
Corrections Branch.
The range of one to one sponsorship and
involvement of citizens within individual offenders or
groups of adults is similar to that described previously
under Youth Services. In summary, volunteers
involved in a direct service role with adults during
1978 were active in Bail Supervision Projects, the
operation of Pre-Trial Services (without whose
services this program would be seriously constrained),
with probationers and those on parole, for those on
temporary absence, and were integral in two such
Branch programs as Impaired Drivers' Courses and
the Community Service Order Program. The Elizabeth
Fry Society, John Howard Society, W2, M2 and other
volunteer non profit agencies continue to play an
important role in assisting inmates with a variety of
individual needs.
Implementation of a diverse range of direct
service roles for volunteers from the community is
problematic from a number of points of view. The
Branch is convinced that this kind of support and
participation of the community in solving its own
justice problems and in supporting individuals who
may need particular assistance, is not only appropriate
but necessary. Citizen participation is a clear intention
and goal of the Corrections Branch. That intention has
been expressed originally through the appointment of
volunteer co-ordinators to recruit and orient
In the past few years, the potential role of
volunteers has expanded from the original sponsorship
program and has required more involvement of a
wider variety of staff. This broader basis of working
with volunteers and involving citizens in other aspects
of Corrections has been difficult for some staff, and
the Branch is continuing to grapple with issues such as
confidentiality, the role of the citizen within the
confines of a maximum security institution, and so on.
In order to assist this process, one region has
made citizen participation an operational objective
which applies for each local service delivery unit,
placing responsibility on the director to implement a
program appropriate to particular needs. This has
changed the role of the volunteer co-ordinator to one
of staff support and the project intends to
operationalize citizen participation in a way which will
focus staff on new and creative ways in which citizens
can increase the level of service to clients. The results
of this experiment will not be known until 1979.
The other major form of citizen participation in
adult Corrections is in the area of community advisory
boards, and a major step forward was undertaken in
late 1977 with the establishment of a pilot project in
the Vancouver area. Over the last decade and a half,
increased activity, involvement, and influence of
public interest groups and citizen organizations have
become one of the most distinctive features of North
American government administrations, and in
particular in the area of corrections. A general
assumption has been that broadened participation is
desirable because it increases the representativeness
and responsiveness of our administrative and political
institutions, and most importantly, it heightens
citizens' sense of social problems and the inherent
dilemmas of operating correctional services. Feedback
on the Community Advisory Board indicates that both
the Vancouver administration, particularly the
Regional Director of Corrections, and the citizens and
other representatives comprising the Board, have
come to a greater understanding of each other's
positions and problems, and have provided valuable
input to policy decisions taken by the Regional
It is apparent that the Branch has some way to go
with respect to realizing the full potential of both
passive and active support of citizens throughout the
province. There are a whole range of programs which
 have been developed primarily in the last five years
which cannot effectively meet minimum objectives
without some level of general or individual support of
citizens. Realizing this potential will continue to
require considerable energy from Branch staff
throughout the province over a number of years.
The administration of Corrections with respect to
adults, particularly in the area of institutional services,
reflects the greatest number of paradoxes and
dilemmas forthe Branch. Corrections attempts to
provide for inmates the greatest opportunity to
enhance their likelihood for a successful return to the
community without becoming a repeat offender. At
the same time, the Branch is concerned about
protecting society and sometimes inmates themselves,
from some of the more dangerous and predatory
offenders who are in the system, and from those other
offenders whose behaviour tends to cause the
community grave concern with respect to personal
The solution to this problem requires an
offender's continued participation and accountability
to the community through such programs as temporary
absence, community service, increased education, or
employment in support of family while under a prison
sentence. It requires the increased use of community-
based programs and facilities such as community
correctional centres.and community-based residential
centres, and the fullest use of the more normal
environment possible at a forest or farm camp.
Corrections Branch policies and plans for expansion
reflect an attempt at balancing this dilemma. This
requires a broad understanding within the justice
system and within the community of what is
essentially a community problem.
Family & Children's Services
In December, 1973 a Royal Commission on
Family and Children's Law was established to enquire
into and make recommdnations with respect to all
aspects of Family and Children's Law enforced in
British Columbia, the administration of justice relative
to such laws, and ancillary services to courts in Family
Law matters. The Commission was not only given a
mandate to recommend changes in the law relating to
families and children, but also was authorized to
undertake projects and to implement and test proposals
for reform.
As a result, the Commission established pilot
projects to test the concept of a unified family court. In
addition, the Commission produced 13 Reports which
recommended both structural reform of the courts
operating in the Family Law field and major changes
in substantive Family and Children's Law.
The Commission's fourth Report entitled "The
Family, The Courts and the Community" dealt with
the expansion of the unified family court concept
throughout the Province, the delivery of family and
juvenile court counselling services, and in particular
the delivery of services to young people in conflict
with the law — one specific focus of the Corrections
Branch. In late June 1975 the provincial cabinet
accepted the recommendations of the fourth Report in
principle. On July 7, 1975, an implementation team
was appointed to bring about phased implementation
throughout the Province of the recommendations.
During 1975 the Branch continued to maintain
Family Relations Act services in most other areas of
the Province. The end of 1975 saw the issuance of a
jointly-prepared policy statement of respective
responsibilities of the Corrections Branch and the
implementation team. As a result of a further
government decision in early 1976, it was decided that
effective April 1, 1976 the Corrections Branch would
assume full responsibility for the Unified Family
Court Projects and for further development of services
in the Family Court area throughout the Province, in
 order to locate such services under one umbrella
organization. The existing Unified Family Court
projects were to be transferred to the Corrections
Branch and phased into regular operations. The
phasing in of these operations was completed in March
31, 1977.
The services provided by the Branch in the area
of Family Relations are as follows:
— Short term marriage and family counselling
— The screening of referrals to appropriate agencies
for long-term marital counselling or other services
— Assistance in negotiating the terms of separation
agreements in matters of financial maintenance,
child custody and child access
— Individual counselling pertaining to the problems
of separation
— Administrative enforcement of court orders in
the matters of maintenance payments, child
custody and child access. Includes automatic
enforcement project (1978)
— Custody and Access Reports forthe court
— The provision of general information on Family
Court procedures
It is the stated position of the Branch that
unification of the courts where possible should
continue to be undertaken. Priority given to Family
Relations Act services has been raised in the Branch
and the overall objective is the provision of full
services throughout the Province sometime in the
future. One aspect of the phasing in of the U.F.C.
project has been to define and utilize the innovative
procedures and practices implemented in the project,
and to take advantage of these with respect to the rest
of the Province. A major aspect of this was a
Handbook on Family Relations Act Services for field
staff which was distributed in early 1977.
The major issues now, as noted previously in this
Report, are with respect to expansion of the services at
a time of general government fiscal restraint. At
present, all new probation officers as part of their
training are given training in Family Court
Counselling techniques and related Family Law and
procedures in order that eventually, through additional
in-service training, officers throughout the Province
are in a position to provide Family Court Counselling
Services when designated. In the 1978/79 fiscal year,
virtually all staff requests in the community services
area were for Family Counsellor positions. Family
Counsellors are probation officers who are given
particular training in this area.
By the end of 1978 these activities led to an
increase over a one year period of almost 50% of the
number of Family Court Counsellors, full or part time.
This meant a 13% increase during that period in man
hours of services delivered spread around the
province. This increase capability to deliver the
service will allow the Corrections Branch to further
develop as appropriate the concept of conciliation
In 1979, it is anticipated that the proposed new
Family Relations Act will impact on some of the
activities of Family Court Counsellors. The
Corrections Branch has had significant input to the
Ministry Family Law Unit with respect to the
proposed Act, and has been engaged in the necessary
staff information sharing and development.
Management and Operational Services
With the administrative re-organization of the
Corrections Branch which was effective April 1, 1977,
a number of management and operational services
were maintained as the Commissioner's Office and
these are described below.
Some of these Sections (Inspection and
Standards, Staff Development, Provincial
Classification, Medical Services, Psychological
Services, Information Services, and Religious
Programs) provide a clear operational function as well
as providing policy input for issues which arise from
 across the province. Provincial Classification,
Medical Services, Psychological Services and
Religious Programs are described previously under
Adult Services, however, since their functions are
intertwined inextricably with the operations of
institutions, and are included in that context.
The management services group (Program
Evaluation and Data Systems, Program Analysis,
Resource Analysis) provide support for field
initiatives, provide a provincial perspective around
specific or generalized programs and services, and
provide important support for senior management with
respect to issues arising from other jurisdictions. The
intention is to provide a team approach to management
Inspections and Standards
In the fall of 1973 the office of the Directors of
Inspection and Standards was developed with two
inspectors appointed in July of 1974 to work under his
direction. On August 31, 1978 the role of the Division
was expanded significantly with the promulgation by
Order-in-Council of the new Correctional Centre
Rules and Regulations. In addition to the
responsibility legislated in the Corrections
Amendment Act of 1977, the Division now assumes
responsibility for dealing with appeals from awards of
disciplinary panels. This additional responsibility
resulted in the receipt often requests for review
between September 1 and December 31, 1978. Of
these, two were dismissed, two received alternate
determination, and six were pending at the year's end.
In sum, the legislated responsibilities therefore
1. To inspect all correctional centres, youth
containment centres, remand facilities, and other
facilities established under the Act;
2. To investigate any matter on the written request
of the Minister or Commissioner, including
escapes, suicides, and staff misconduct;
3. To investigate complaints received from inmates,
youths in containment or remand, probationers oi
parolees, youths on conditional release, and
parents of youths under Corrections Branch
Legislation provides the Director, Inspection and
Standards, with the powers, privileges and protection
of a Commissioner under Section VII, X, and XI of
the Public Enquiries Act.
During the calendar year 1978, grievances or
complaints were received from or on behalf of 278
inmates, listing a total of 307 separate complaints.
This represents an increase of 18% over grievances
received during 1977. Pending from 1977 were 13
grievances, listing 16 complaints, making a total of
323 complaints received from 291 inmates which were
handled by Inspection and Standards Division during
1978. Of the above grievances, three were in the form
of petitions signed by more than one inmate but
counted as one grievance.
A total of 45 investigations were carried out by
Inspection and Standards Division staff during 1978,
an increase of 50% over 1977. These investigations
involved escapes, incidents and disturbances, assaults,
suicides, deaths, and misconduct.
Consistent with the concern expressed by
previous Directors of Inspection and Standards
Division, the role of the Division conducting periodic
inspection of correctional facilities continued
diminishing to the extent that no routine inspections
were conducted in the calendar year 1978. This issue  I
was addressed, however, by the adoption of an
inspection team model which will see all correctional
facilities, adult and juvenile, in the province receiving
routine inspection during the calendar year 1979. The
team concept will involve the utilization of other
government agencies, i.e. Public Service
Commission, Workers' Compensation Board,
Ministry of Health, Provincial Fire Marshal and local
fire departments, with additional resources from the
Commissioner's office in conducting facilities
 Due to the diverse nature of the functions of the
Division, a decision has now been made to organize in
such a way that ongoing responsibilities for specific
areas are designed to individual Inspector. These areas
include Occupational Health and Safety, firearms
inventory, sentence calculation, and issues that pertain
to juvenile programs. This specialization will ensure
that specific areas of responsibility are more
efficiently focused on and followed up by the
Due to the increasing workload the establishment
of the Division was increased in 1978 with the addition
of two positions. An additional inspector was
appointed in December 1978 to commence duties in
March 1979. The successful candidate comes to the
Division with a broad background in investigation,
both with the R.C.M.P., and the Ontario Ministry of
the Attorney General and Consumer and Corporate
Affairs in British Columbia. The other position was
utilized to appoint an office assistant in May 1978.
The responsibility for the development of service
delivery standards for Corrections Branch was housed
within the Division by Branch Management decision
in March of 1978. The Standards Committee, which
comprises six regional representatives, a full time
Coordinator, the Director of Inspection and Standards
Division, and other specialists as required, will
conclude their work in March of 1980 with the
finalization of a complete set of standards for the
delivery of correctional services in British Columbia.
To date this has been an extremely positive exercise
with a significant amount of energy and enthusiasm
being displayed not only by committee members, but
by the Branch staff, generally, who have been
responding to standards drafts.
The Director continues as chairman of the
Standards Committee for Wilderness Programs and
High Risk Activities which has been established to
evaluate such programs either operated or funded by
the Ministries of Attorney-General or Human
Resources. The Ministries of Provincial Secretary,
Lands, Parks and Housing, and Forests are also
represented on the committee. Members of the
committee evaluate the programs upon request and
provide recommendations and guidance to program
operators and government officials.
During 1978, the Division continued to monitor
reports of staff and inmate accidents, safety and health
committees, boards of enquiry, statements of
punishment, and escapes. There was a slight increase
(11%) in the number of escapes and walkaways
recorded by this Division during 1978 over that
recorded for 1977. A total of 216 staff accidents were
reported to this Division during 1978, an increase of
96% over 1977. There were 496 accidents concerning
inmates reported to this Division during 1978, a slight
increase (11%) over the previous year.
In the coming year it is anticipated that the
Division will be of increased assistance to correctional
management through the inspection team program.
The utilization of safety, fire and health "experts"
will add increased weight to the identification of those
areas of weakness in our correctional facilities. The
Division will continue to assist management in the
identification and rectification of areas of weakness
and efficiency in the delivery of Corrections Branch
Staff Development Division
The training, education and development of staff
has continued to be a high priority in the Corrections
Branch during 1978. A new set of policies and
standards for Staff Development were formalized by
the Corrections Branch effective April 1, 1978, which
include the following standards:
1. All new employees must complete required
training (Blocks I to III of Four-Phase training)
before the end of their six month probation
2. All staff must complete basic training (Block I to
IV of Four-Phase training) prior to promotion.
3. All staff who have completed basic training must
participate in advanced or refresher training at
least ten days every three years.
 4. All new supervisory or management staff must
complete basic management training either prior
to promotion or within six months of promotion.
5. All experienced management staff must
participate in advanced training of at least ten
days every three years.
6. All staff transferring from one functional area of
Corrections to another must complete required
on-the-job training within 30 days of transfer.
With the adoption of those policies, major efforts
were made during the year to "fine-tune" the training
system to ensure that training took place at the
appropriate stage of an employee's career and that
training took place at the appropriate stage of an
employee's career and that the training directly
reflected the identified needs of employees at all
levels. Content of all basic training programs was
analyzed and modified where appropriate to reflect
field needs. On-the-job training journals were
developed and/or refined for all work units during the
The role of Regional Staff Development Officer
was further refined and developed to ensure close
coordination with the Central Staff Development
Division. A system of monthly meetings between
Central Staff Development Division staff, and
Regional Staff Development Officers has assisted in
ensuring clear communication and an appropriate
division of responsibilities.
Organizational changes within the Central Staff
Development Division in April, 1978 resulted in the
reallocation of staff and tasks into three functional
a) Community and Management Basic and
Advanced Training (headed by an Assistant
b) Institutional Basic and Advanced Training
(headed by an Assistant Director)
c) Administration Support Services and Specialized
Programs (headed by the Director of Staff
Each functional area includes a Senior Staff
Development Officer and a number of Staff
Development Officers.
In April, 1978 under the Colleges and Provincial
Institutes Act, an Order-in-Council of the Ministry of I
Education established the Justice Institute of British
Columbia. In September 1978, Corrections Staff
Development moved its former operations from the
Marpole Training Centre and the Burnaby Training
Centre to the Justice Institute located at 4180 West 4th
Avenue, Vancouver. The Institute will be the
educational base of Courts, Corrections, Police,
Sheriffs and Fire Services.
In order to ensure that instructional staff have a
current understanding of field operational issues and
recent field experience to enhance their credibility, the
Corrections Branch adopted a policy of seconding all
new instructional staff for time-limited periods. This   I
system is intended to allow for a periodic rotation of
instructional staff, thus allowing experienced field
staff the opportunity to instruct other employees and
allowing experienced staff Development Officers to
contribute their knowledge and broadened experience
to field operations.
During the calendar year the Central Staff
Development Division provided a full range of off-
job-training programs involving 955 Branch
employees in a total of 1,580 man weeks of training
(7,904 student days). Courses carried out during the
year include the following:
• Probation Officer Block II Basic training — two
courses, 32 participants.
• Probation Officer Block IV Basic training — one
course, 24 participants.
• Probation Officer Advanced and Refresher
training — fourteen courses, 204 participants.
• Institutional Block II Basic training — six
courses, 212 participants.
• Institutional Block IV Basic training — four
courses, 89 participants.
• Youth Containment Basic Training — two
courses, 35 participants.
• Firearms training — three courses, 51
 • Institutional Advanced training programs —
thirteen courses, 228 participants.
• Basic Management training — two courses, 34
• Advanced Management training — one course,
16 participants.
• Seven additional training courses involving 116
participants included a three-day workshop on
Corrections Centre Rules and Regulations,
several two-day workshops for Record Staff, two
Crisis Intervention Workshops, a Community
Service Officer Workshop of three days duration,
a Staff Development Officer Workshop, and a
one-day workshop for introduction of new
Family Relations Act legislation.
The majority of Probation Officer Advanced
training focused on Family Relations Act training for
experienced probation officers. Institutional Advanced
courses were developed on a modular style, with a
variety of short workshops offered including "Power
Writing", "Interviewing Techniques", "Crisis
Intervention", and "Interpersonal Communications
In addition to courses provided at a Central
location, Staff Development personnel were involved
in providing courses at various locations in the
Province and acted as resources to field personnel in
numerous short courses, workshops, and planning
In addition to the training courses listed above, a
further 235 Branch employees participated in a variety
of training programs offered through universities,
colleges, and private agencies, and tuition
reimbursement was provided by the Public Service
Commission in the amount of $21,965,00. A further
84 Branch employees participated in Community
training programs, workshops and conferences with
tuition subsidy provided by the Staff Development
Division in the amount of $5,389,00.
During the year, five Branch employees were
approved for Education Leave with 75% pay to pursue
graduate studies in various graduate programs. A new
Education Leave Policy was adopted allowing Branch
staff to apply for Education Leave for both graduate
and undergraduate university programs.
During the year the Branch was able to establish a
full-time Librarian position within the Staff
Development Division in order to provide a research
and reference service to Branch employees and the
community, and to develop and monitor the book
collection to ensure a range of resource materials of
direct interest to Corrections and the field of
Criminology. With the move to the Justice Institute in
September, 1978 the Corrections Branch Library was
amalgamated with other Library holdings as part of the
Justice Institute Educational Resource Centre.
Although the year was filled with changes and
challenges for Staff Development, the refinements
made to the overall training system have assisted in the
development of a high quality comprehensive training
system which provides a wide variety of training
programs and opportunities to Corrections employees.
Program Evaluation and Data Systems
During 1978 this Section was involved in the
on-going development of the information system that
supports both the operational and management
decision-making processes of the Branch. All facets of
the system received attention, including field capture
of data, data entry/retrieval, analytic capability of the
system, master file structure, and output report
Some of the specific work projects undertaken by
this Section in 1978 were:
1. The development of a policy simulation model
capable of analyzing the effects of implementing
proposed programs.
2. Preliminary design of a Management Information
System for the Corrections Branch to outline
inputs, outputs, efficiency, and effectiveness of
Branch programs.
 3. A start of the reworking of the caseload statistics
system in an attempt to develop a better workload
analysis system for all community and family
services programs.
4. The development of a report structure that links
average beds utilized with staff allocations,
salary costs, and operational costs.
5. The publication of the fl.C. Corrections Branch
Research Report outlining research and
development undertaken within the criminal
justice field.
6. Support of the facilities plan dealing with the
future institutional requirements of the Branch.
7. Design and support of an alternate entry model
whereby non-secure facilities are utilized as
admission points into the B.C. Correctional
8. The publication of Incarcerated Women in British
Columbia Provincial Institutions.
9. The production of information for on-demand
requests from field personnel, Branch managers,
and non-Branch users.
10. Major progress on the Vancouver Island Regional
Correctional Centre project which will test the
feasibility of automated record keeping and
master file updating in a field situation.
The year 1979 should see further streamlining
and development of the total corrections information
system, both management and operational. The
development of a schedule forthe implementation of
the Management Information System will be a high
priority of this Section in the up-coming year. Overall,
the direction of Program Evaluation and Data Systems
will be the continuing improvement of all data systems
and evaluation functions performed within the Branch.
Resource Analysis
This Section of the Commissioner's Office was
created effective April I, 1977, with Branch reorganization, to bring together provincial expertise
from each of the previously existing operations aroun
issues of manpower and physical allocations. This
includes capacities in relation to construction and
maintenance, and specialized food service expertise.
This Section is responsible for provincial
compilation of quarterly fiscal reports, consultation
and processes with regard to Treasury Board and
Cabinet submissions for resources, liaising as a
provincial group with the Government Employees
Relation Bureau and Personnel Services over
manpower issues, maintaining a provincial set of
books on Corrections operations in liaison with
regional resource/business managers, preparation of
Branch submission for estimates 1978/79, and ongoing consultation and advice to senior management
with regard to use of contracts for services.
The Attorney-General's Ministry and the
Ministry of Forests were the two pilot project
ministries in government which developed their
budget submissions for the 1978/79 fiscal year
according to zero-based method. The Resource
Analysis Section, in conjunction with Ministry
personnel and Treasury Board Staff undertook a major
responsibility with respect to information sharing and
staff training and development around the
implementation of this new approach. The result
although at times appearing to be confused and
difficult, was viewed in retrospect as an extremely
worthwhile learning experience which was helpful to
managers at all levels of the organization with respect
to one of their key responsibilities. The Resource
Analysis Section, and in addition to the Resource
Analysis Team comprised of representatives from the I
Commissioner's Office Group and Regional
Business/Support Services Directors were mainly
responsible for this positive outcome. This experience
is being sought and utilized in other Ministries which
will be implementing zero-based budgeting in the next
fiscal year.
 During 1978, effective manpower utilization was
a key objective of the Resource Analysis Section.
Extensive training for all levels of management in
contemporary techniques for shift scheduling was
completed during the year. In addition the Section was
responsible for bringing on line a Computer Program
which would assist in the production of schedules and
analysis of manpower needs. The Section continues to
be a primary point of contact between the Branch and
central management information systems, (Financial
and Personnel), in order that these systems may
inform Branch Management's decision making.
The importance of these kinds of activities cannot
be overstated and in measure contribute to the
Branch's relative effectiveness in achieving the
appropriate resources to adequately run programs and
facilities. The role is a difficult one requiring
sensitivity to local management needs and authority
within a decentralized organization, and the needs of
central ministry agencies and central government
agencies. 1979 will continue to see work being done in
clarifying relative roles and responsibilities.
Program Analysis
As with Resource Analysis, this group was
created effective April 1, 1977 as a result of the
Corrections Branch re-organization, to include a
variety of program and analyst expertise which existed
in the previous operational organizations. The analysts
in this Section undertake on demand from
management a variety of analytical, data gathering and
consultative functions. They act as resources to field
managers on specific issues, and to Management as a
whole with regard to general directions, issues, and so
on which require policy decision. 1978 was the first
full year of operations of this Section, though it was
not at full strength until halfway through the year. The
analysts play a vital and diverse role in providing facts
and opinions for informed decision making at all
levels of the Branch and within the Ministry.
Additionally in designated areas, each analyst is
accountable for drafting provincial policy, standards
and procedures; contributing to the drafting of
legislation and regulations; and co-ordinating inter-
ministerial activities relative to the development and
implementation of the various programs and services.
in 1978
Requested By
Ministry 14
Branch (Commissioner's Office
& Branch Management Committee)   38
Region 8
Section 1
Federal 3
Other 5
Some significantly large pieces of analysis and
work activities were as follows:
— Branch Response to Ministry Priorities
— Administration of Impaired Drivers' Courses
— Fine Option Pilot
— Bill C-51 (1977) —Parole Act and Prisons and
Reformatories Act.
— Provincial Inter-Ministry Children's Committee
— Branch Response to Heroin Treatment Act.
Plans for 1979 include a seminar/workshop
entitled "Program Planning, Analysis and Evaluation
in Corrections". This training will better equip all
Program Analysts as well as the other members of the
Policy Planning Division in the skills, techniques and
concepts of program analysis.
Information Services
In May of 1975 the Director of Information
Services was permanently appointed within the
Branch with the responsibility for the design and direct
implementation of a progressive communications
function for the Corrections Branch. To date this has
been carried out in a two phased plan emphasizing
both management of Information (policy,
 development, communications systems examinations
and development, consultation) and specific
production responsibilities for Corrections Newsletter,
Annual Report, newspaper clipping service, Staff
Directory, Branch Management Committee Minutes
Ministerial briefing material, printed, audio visual,
and display materials update and development, news
releases, and a host of other information providing
Phase I of the two phased plan has been to
develop a comprehensive policy on information
sharing (May 1977), a comprehensive briefing book
on all facets of information about Corrections, the
Ministry of the Attorney-General, communications,
and so on, and finally a full range of publications and
audio visual presentations on Corrections operations.
These publications and presentations are available
from Information Services to the general public
directly or through Corrections Branch staff.
Phase II of the information sharing strategy has
been to facilitate regional development of specific
communications goals and objectives, responsibilities
and accountabilities with respect to both internal and
external communications, consistent with the policy
on information sharing. A major communications
project was started in North Fraser Region in late
1978, and the report will be available in 1979. It is
anticipated that this will provide a major blue print for
other regions to develop and implement appropriate
communications systems to meet their operational
strategies objectives, programs and services.
1979 also saw the involvement of Information
Services with respect to the establishment of a
Ministerial policy on information sharing and the
School's Legal Education Project. The latter subject is
of particular significance.
At the end of the year, a brief submitted to the
Management Committee of the Ministry of Educatior
Science and Technology which is currently looking at
revision to the Social Studies Curriculum, was
accepted and detailed goals and outcomes are being
worked on in 1979. While final decisions have not
been made, it would appear that the Ministry of
Education, Science and Technology has made a
commitment to the incorporation of a wide range of
legal education studies as part of the social studies
core curriculum in order that every person attending
school in this province will be provided with basic
legal education. This is a landmark move.
Incorporating legal education into schools as part of
the curriculum has been a major objective of
Information Services for over two years, and the
decision of the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology to examine social studies provided an
opportunity for Information Services to work with the
Legal Services Commission in the development of thi
Corrections Branch Personnal Classification Project
During the last several years, a significant effort
was made to attempt to grapple with issues of
anomalies and inconsistencies with respect to
classifications of personnel within the Corrections
Branch, and the lack of any real career planning
structure within the Branch.
As an organization, the Corrections Branch had
originally been two virtually autonomous and non-
relating correctional streams, i.e. probation services
and institutional services. In 1973, these divisions
were joined by a planning and development capacity,
in order to attempt to focus the intent of the Branch to
develop an acceptable continuum of correctional
services in the Province, and has already been outline
in the previous section of this Report entitled Branch  I
Re-organization. The results of these considerable
developments had seen a blurring of traditional roles,
and a number of new roles emerging, such as bail
supervisors, temporary absence officers, community  I
service officers, and staff support roles.
In September of 1976, a Correctional Manpower
Development Committee was struck by the senior staff
of the Branch. It was given the task of designing a
career stream classification model for an integrated
correctional system. The Committee was to start the
task conceptually from a clean slate, but, was to
develop a practical system which would effectively
rationalize all existing roles into one classification
series, into which new and developing roles could
easily be accommodated. The new system should
rationalize equitably the classification level for the
role being performed, it should spell out criteria by
which people could move up as well as laterally to
change "streams". It should allow career planning
and spell out staff training and development needs for
individuals and for groups. The Committee was made
up of representatives from the Corrections Branch,
Personnel Services of the Attorney-General's
Ministry, and the Public Service Commission.
After a number of efforts to grapple with the
complexity and size of the task at hand, the Committee
recommended to senior management that the
endeavour required full time co-ordination and staff,
with the part time availability of central agency
personnel, such as Public Service Commission,
Government Employee Relations Bureau, and
Personnel Services of the Attorney-General's
Ministry. These appointments were made in May of
1977, and the first phase of a six month feasibility
study was undertaken.
During the first stage, the project team
concurrently examined four possible options for the
creation of an improved classification system for the
Corrections Branch. The examination required an
extensive field consultation and review of existing
literature. The option which emerged as the most
appropriate one was built on a theoretical model which
received approval by Branch Management in
December of 1977. The model has three basic
elements and considerable detail associated with each
1. An integrated classification series.
2. based on factor/point analysis,
3. applied to functional areas of corrections work.
Phase II, which was to be commenced in 1978,
but has been delayed one year, will be directed
towards refining and testing the model and producing
a more thoroughly defined working framework.
Common Concern
The justice system is guided by and at the same
time sets out, standards of acceptable behaviour in our
modern, complex society. Every branch of the justice
system — the police, the courts, legal services to the
Corrections Branch — must share in the responsibility
of finding effective responses to those people who do
not meet society's standards — people involved in
contravention of the laws of the land.
But it has been shown throughout this Report,
that the Corrections Branch is committed to
emphasizing community based programs as
constructive alternatives to imprisonment, as it is
committed to increasing prevention programs in
conjunction with police and court initiatives, because
the real solutions to justice problems lie within the
community where they arise. Resolving justice issues
is a responsibility not only for the justice system, but
for the community at large.
 Appendix A:
Goals, Strategies,
and Beliefs,
Branch, 1976
Part I — Introduction
Many forms of resolving social conflict exist in
society. The family, church, and school are well-
known institutions which, among other functions,
attempt to mediate and deal with various types of
social conflict. Governmental interventions (such as
social welfare) and privately operated programs are
also aimed at the resolution of various forms of social
conflict. The justice system, on both the civil and
criminal side, has been used to deal with more serious
forms of social conflict and to act as a "back-up" to
those institutions and agencies previously mentioned.
In essence then, the justice system has been used
to mediate, resolve, or otherwise respond to those
forms of social conflict which have been defined, by
legislative process, as unacceptable; the conflict
stemming from behaviour which violates the rights of
others and cannot be tolerated without some form of
formalized, state intervention.
Although general and wide acceptance is lacking,
the basic purpose of the justice system in Canada is to
protect social institutions and individuals in society,
including the offender himself, by preventing crime
and delinquency, by reducing the negative effects of
crime and delinquency, and by fairly and humanely
dealing with social conflict which comes within the
context of law.
Thus, the purpose of the Corrections Branch is to
provide a range of services which vary in level of
supervision, control, and security, and which
collectively contribute to the achievement of the
justice system purpose. In working toward this
purpose the Corrections Branch has established as
(i) a statement of goals and objectives (see Part II)
which outlines what it is we want to attain;
(ii) a statement of strategies and actiivities (see Part
III) which indicates (he means employed in
reaching those goals and objectives; and
(iii) a statement of beliefs (see Part IV) which serves
as guidelines in determining how we implement
those strategies and guidelines.
Corrections is an integral part of the justice
system, initiating a number of programs which, it is
hoped, will contribute to the over-all purpose of the
justice system and thus serve society by playing a
significant role in the protection of society and the
mediation and resolution of social conflict.
Corrections must then be seen as an integral and
essential part of a co-ordinated and interdependent
justice system. Thus, it has a relationship and
interdependent justice system. Thus, it has a
relationship and interdependence with police, courts,
prosecution, and legal services as well as numerous
community agencies contributing their services and
advice in the justice area. Actions taken by police
frequently result in required Corrections involvement.
To a great extent, the courts dictate the level of
Corrections involvement in custodial and community
programs. And conversely, actions taken in the
Corrections area have substantial impact on police,
courts and, indeed, society itself.
 In summary, Corrections is part of a justice
system, has a purpose and goals compatible with the
larger system, provides a continuum of services which
collectively contribute to the achievement of the
purpose of the justice system, and the results of
correctional programs affect the basic protection of
Part II — Statement of Goals
and Objectives
Goal A
In co-operation with personnel in all components
of the justice system, to participate actively in
promoting reform throughout the justice system.
A1. Increased awareness and understanding of police,
courts, legal and corrections personnel of the
present state of correctional knowledge and the
effectiveness (results) of existing correctional
A2. Increased public awareness and
understanding of the state of correctional
knowledge and the effectiveness of
correctional programs.
A3. Devise and implement specific strategies of
reform within contemporary correctional theory,
practice, and legislation.
A4. Identify possible strategies of system-wide
reform, e.g., decriminalization,
depenalizaton, and diversion, and
communicate these to appropriate decisionmakers.
To assist the family in resolving those disputes in
which direct court intervention is being considered.
B1.  Provide counselling and referral services to the
family in response to applications for assistance
in resolving, without direct court intervention if
possible, disputes involving family and child
maintenance, custody, and access arising from
marital separation.
B2. Provide opportunities for out-of-court resolutions
of family-related criminal matters, e.g., assault,
threat, and nonsupport.
B3. Provide information when requested by the
Family Court to assist in making a finding on
maintenance, custody of, and access to children.
B4. Assist in the administration of orders made by the
Family Court in the above disputes, as provided
for by statute or court directive.
To provide information which will assist the court
in determining disposition.
C1.  Advise the court on available and suitable
dispositional alternatives and resources, both
within and outside the Corrections Branch.
C2. Supply the court with relevant information on the
offender, as provided for by statute or court
To administer those dispositions and orders
imposed by the court which fall within the jurisdiction
of the Corrections Branch.
D1. Identify, develop, and maintain a wide range of
correctional programs and facilities which
provide graduated levels of control, supervision,
and security.
D2. Provide to offenders program opportunities
which are conducive to active, self-determined
D3. Provide opportunities for offenders to exercise
responsible decision-making.
D4. Assist the offender in understanding that the
imposed sanction is a result of his infringement
upon the rights of others.
D5. Encourage the court to specify the purpose and
intent of the sanction imposed.
To increase community and individual awareness
of joint responsibility in preventing crime,
delinquency, victimization, and family breakdown.
El.  Provide information on social conditions
contributing to crime, delinquency,
victimization, and family breakdown.
E2.  Encourage and participate in the development of
programs which contribute to improvement in
those social conditions.
E3.  Encourage the reduction of opportunities for
criminal behaviour, e.g., Neighbourhood Watch.
E4.   Encourage the development of effective
mechanisms for community mediation and
resolution of social conflicts/disputes without
necessitating referral to, or intervention of, the
justice system.
To encourage effective co-operation among
justice system components.
Fl.   Identify and recommend to police and (or) CrowJ
counsel appropriate alternatives to court action.
F2.   Increased communication and information
sharing justice system personnel at all levels.
F3.   Ensure that goals and objectives of each justice
system component are mutually compatible and I
F4.   Participate in joint planning for more effective
service delivery.
Part III — Statement of
Strategies and Activities
Strategy 1
Investigation and reporting.
1 A. Provide information as required by the court.
IB.  Provide prosecutor and (or) police with
information on persons referred for possible
diversion or screening before court action.
1C.  Provide information to institutions and parole
boards on incarcerated offenders before their reentering the community.
ID. Provide relevant information and (or) reports to
other related agencies as appropriate and with due
regard forthe confidentiality of the information.
Stragety 2
Mediation and conciliation.
2A. Where appropriate and in co-operation with other
agencies, attempt to mediate mutually acceptable
resolutions of conflict as an alternative to court
 2B. Identify situations and make referrals for
intervention by social agencies other than those
of the justice system.
2C. Collaborate with police, Crown counsel, and
court administration to develop guidelines for
determining which conflicts should be resolved
through outside mediation.
Strategy 3
3A. Provide a range of custodial facilities to;
(1) separate dangerous and hard-core offenders
from the community;
(2) provide graduated levels of control for those
serving sentences of denunciation and
sentences resulting from wilful
noncompliance with a previously imposed
court order;
(3) provide separate containment for juvenile
offenders; and
(4) provide graduated levels of control for those
remanded in custody.
3B. Provide standards and procedures for gradual reentry and supervision of offenders released from
3C. Provide a classification process to determine the
level of control required for each offender
sentenced to a period of incarcertaion.
3D. Provide programs and activities in which the
inmate is encouraged to exercise personal
decision-making skills in areas of work,
recreation, spiritual development, education, and
life skills.
3E.   Ensure that rights and responsibilities of staff,
inmates, and the community as a whole are
upheld and that the respective responsibilities of
each are identified and communicated.
3F.   Ensure the availability of suitable medical,
dental, and psychiatric services to those
Strategy 4
Community supervision and control.
4A. Provide supervision, counselling, and (or)
referral to other agencies, thus ensuring that the
spirit and intent of the disposition is achieved.
4B.  Provide a range of community-based residential
and nonresidential attendance facilities and
4C. Develop and maintain mechanisms for
communication and information-sharing with
justice and social agencies concerned with
surveillance and control.
Strategy 5
Alternatives to imprisonment.
5 A.  For some offenders, where sentences or orders of
imprisonment have traditionally been indicated,
to recommend alternatives to imprisonment such
as the following:
(1) good conduct order;
(2) reporting order;
(3) residence order;
(4) performance contract order;
(5) community service order;
(6) counselling order;
(7) restitution and compensation order;
(8) absolute discharge;
(9) conditional discharge;
(10) day fines;
(11) bail and remand supervision.
 5B. Co-operate with other agencies in the search for
other alternatives to imprisonment by providing
incentive and opportunity for innovative
demonstration projects.
Strategy 6
Legislative review.
6A. Review legislation and recommend appropriate
revisions in order that laws remain consistent
with, and responsive to, changing standards and
values in society.
6B.  Interpret existing legislation in view of the goals
and objectives of the Branch.
6C. Develop and communicate rationale for existing
legislation and for possible changes.
6D. Support system-wide research to study society's
views on different crimes and to assess
appropriateness of existing sanctions provided for
in legislation.
6E.  Assess social costs of criminal activity and trends
to identify those offences that need not be
processed through the justice system.
6F.   Where appropriate, develop and communicate to
the Minister Branch positions on selected
controversial issues related to justice.
6G. Provide opportunities for joint criminal justice
personnel training, development, and education
concerning issues of legislative change.
Strategy 7
Community involvement and public awareness.
7A. Communicate information on Corrections Branch
activities generally, including those which are
unrelated to criminal behaviour, such as services
to families and individuals.
7B. Communicate information and statistics on type
of offenders, offences, sentences, expenditures,
expectations, and results achieved.
7C. Co-operate with and encourage public and social
service agencies to assist offenders.
7D. Encourage and provide opportunities for
voluntary participation of citizens and
community groups in correctional programs.
7E. Provide resources to community and private
agencies which assist in the achievement of
Corrections Branch goals and objectives.
7F.   Provide training opportunities for Corrections
staff to equip them to work with community
7G. Use existing community organizations, e.g.,
Justice Councils and Family Division
Committees, in promoting and facilitating public
awareness and communication.
Strategy 8
Staff management.
8A. Provide adequate compensation and benefits
consistent with the level and complexity of
responsibilities assigned.
8B. Ensure that staff are provided with adequate
support services to effectively carry out their
assigned duties.
8C. Maximize opportunities for personal and
professional growth and development through
education and training.
8D. Provide opportunities for job rotation, lateral and
vertical career mobility, job enrichment, and
improved working environment.
8E.  Periodically review and clarify job roles and
relationship to organizational goals.
8F.  Provide consistent standards of performance and
policy guidelines.
8G. Encourage staff participation in professional
 8H. Promote an atmosphere in which staff feel free to
evaluate current correctional and personnel
81.   Consistent with good labour management
practice, encourage co-operation between
management and union components to more
effectively achieve the common purpose.
Strategy 9
Management of resources.
9A. Reduce the fragmentation and duplication
represented by the current division of correctional
responsibilities between the Federal and
Provincial Governments.
9B. Provide an information system which will ensure
monitoring and evaluation of correctional
9C.  Determine the need for resources, secure
adequate resources, and establish a set of
priorities (Provincial, regional, and local) to
ensure the most effective use of those resources.
9D. Integrate resource management and delegate
decision-making to the lowest appropriate level.
9E.  Develop and maintain appropriate correctional
standards and policies.
Part IV — Statement of
Values and Beliefs
Society has an interest in upholding values and
has developed many forums for the resolution of social
disputes arising from a conflict of values. The justice
system exists as a "back-up" to deal with the more
serious forms of conflict which have not been or
cannot be resolved in other forums.
Correctional services exist as an essential part of
a co-ordinated and interdependent justice system.
Corrections Branch activities contribute to the
realization of the goals of the justice system generally.
Personnel of the Corrections Branch bring to the
performance of their duties a set of values which
predisposes them to carry out their mandate within a
certain framework of beliefs. These beliefs, which
include the following, serve as guidelines in
determining how we, as correctional personnel,
implement strategies and activities and work toward
our goals:
1. Offenders must be held accountable for their acts.
2. All offenders, regardless of their offence, remain
members of society, are to be treated with the
basic respect and dignity accorded all members,
and should not be subjected to cruel and unusual
forms of treatment.
3. Within the limitation of the court-imposed
sanction and considering the risks for the
community, the offender has a right to exercise
self determination and personal decision-making.
4. Although a minority reflect a consistent pattern of
criminal behaviour, offenders are capable of
responsible decision-making and of changing
their behaviour. Therefore, some correctional
programs ought to be designed to allow for, and
indeed, encourage behavioural change.
5. The majority of offenders, with the exception of
the commission of a specific act, function daily
within acceptable societal norms, and therefore
should be subject to only simple sanction and not
to programs designed for behavioural change.
6. Every opportunity should be provided for
offenders to "make amends" to society generally
and (or) to the victim.
7. Offenders should not receive greater
opportunities or rights than those generally
available to other members of society.
The term "offender" is reserved for those
persons who become identified through the
lock-step process of being observed, reported,
apprehended, charged, tried, convicted, and
sentenced for committing an act which is defined
as illegal. The term is not applied for those
persons who commit a similar act and are not
processed through the justice system; thus
offenders within the justice system represent an
unknown percentage of those persons engaged in
any given illegal activity.
Society must accept responsibility for those
conditions which contribute to criminal activity
and must work toward their improvement.
Social institutions and individual members of the
community have a right to protect from
victimization by an offender.
While the justice system is charged with the
responsibility of upholding certain values through
the imposition of sanction, we believe that law
should generally reflect current values held by the
community, though at times legislators in their
role as "law makers" should lead in the
formulation of community values.
Sanctions imposed by the court should be
influenced by the total circumstances leading to
the commission of the offence.
While the offender retains many of the rights of
other citizens, he does forfeit certain rights as
dictated by the explicit "limitation of freedom"
imposed by the court and the implicit limitations
dictated by the conditions and degree of custody,
security, and supervision.
14. The Branch has a responsibility to hold in secure I
custody those offenders so sanctioned until the
expiration of sentence, or until such time as there
are reasonable indicators that the risk they present
to the community has been reduced to the degree
that less secure, community-based programs can
be made available to them.
15. Since the community is the natural environment
and the environment to which offenders will
eventually return, as many Correctional Branch
programs as possible should operate in the
community in order to increase the effectiveness
of those programs.
16. We recognize that members of society are entitled
to a basic level of subsistence (food, shelter, and
care), and we recognize that we do not have the
right to force people to work or participate in
correctional programs, but we also believe that
offenders must be helped to understand the
consequences which resulted from their action,
and how their behaviour resulted in the violation
of the rights of others.
17. There must be a perceived balance of rights,
responsibilities, and respect between the
offender, the community, the victim, and the
staff responsible for administering the sentence oil
the court.
18. Some conflicts are best resolved through
mediation and conciliation of the conflict with
referral to the court only when other attempts at
resolution fail.
19. In attempting to meet its objectives, the justice
system should avoid excessive and unnecessary
intervention in the lives of members of the public
generally and specifically in the lives of
20. Within the justice system, due regard for
confidentiality of information is essential.
 Appendix B
As explained elsewhere in this Annual Report
(Re-organization of the Branch), each region is
administratively responsible forthe full range of
Correctional services within its geographical area as
illustrated in Appendix C. The following is a
breakdown of the operational units reporting
relationships throughout the Province.
Vancouver Region
Vancouver East District
North East Adult Office
South East Adult Office
South Juvenile/Family Office
East Juvenile/Family Office
North Juvenile/Family Office
Burnaby Community Correctional Centre
Vancouver Juvenile Services Intake
Vancouver Family Services Intake
Vancouver West District
South West Adult Office
West End Adult Office
Vancouver Court Team Adult Office
Vancouver Bail Supervision
Burrard Juvenile/Family Office
West Juvenile/Family Office
Marpole Community Correctional Centre
Lynda Williams Community Correctional Centre
North Shore District
North Vancouver Adult Office
West Vancouver Office
Porteau Cove Camp
Sechelt Office
Squamish Office
North Vancouver Juvenile/Family Office
Powell River Office
Oakalla District
South Wing
West Wing
East Wing
West Gate B
Central Control
Support Services
Oakalla Women's Unit
Youth Containment
Youth Detention Centre
South Fraser Region
Chilliwack Forest Camps
Ford Mountain
Security Unit
 District 2
Twin Maples Community Correctional Centre
Farms Programs
Maple Ridge Probation Office
Coquitlam Juvenile & Family Services
Port Coquitlam Adult Probation Office
District 3
Haney Forest Camps
Stave Lake Camp
East District
Boulder Bay Camp
Cedar Lake Camp (Closed December, 1978)
DASH (Pierce Creek)
Pine Ridge Camp
Chilliwack Community Correctional Centre
Abbotsford Probation & Family Services
District 4
Chilliwack Probation & Family Services
Hope Probation & Family Services
Alouette River Correctional Centre
Mission Probation & Family Services
West District
Interior Region
Delta Probation & Family Services
House of Concord
Langley Probation & Family Services
Richmond Unified Family Court
Richmond Adult Probation & Family Services
Surrey Unified Family Court
Surrey Adult Probation & Family Services
Surrey Bail Supervision
White Rock Probation & Family Services
Kamloops District
Ashcroft Probation Office
Kamloops Adult Probation Office
Kamloops Family Probation Office
Lillooet Probation Office
Merritt Probation Office
100 Mile House Probation Office
Williams Lake Probation Office
Surrey Community-Based Residential Centre
Okanagan District
Juvenile Containment Program
Oliver (Grand Forks and Princeton)
Centre Creek Camp
Support Services
Salmon Arm
North Fraser Region
Kootenay District
District 1
New Haven Correctional Centre
Burnaby Central Probation Office
Burnaby North Probation Office
Burnaby South Juvenile & Family Services
New Westminster Probation Office
|      68 1
Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre
Rayleigh Camp
Clearwater Forest Camp
Kamloops Community Correctional Centre
Northern Region
West Coast District
Terrace Community Correctional Centre
Queen Charlotte Island Probation Office
Prince Rupert Probation Office
Terrace Probation Office
Kitimat Probation Office
Smithers Probation Office
Prince George Regional Correctional Centre
Hutda Lake Camp
Activators Community-Based Residential Centre
North Central District
Dawson Creek Probation Office
Fort St. John Probation Office
Fort Nelson Probation Office
McKenzie Probation Office
Prince George Probation Office Adult Juvenile &
Family Services
Vanderhoof Probation Office
Quesnel Probation Office
Vancouver Island Region
South District 1
Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre
Community Correctional Centre No. 1
Victoria Adult Probation Office
Court Services Unit
Case Managment Unit (Administration)
Attendance General (Administration)
South Island 2
Jordan River Camp
Youth Detention Centre
Duncan Probation Office
Court Services (Victoria)
Metchosin Camp
Family Court Probation Office (Victoria)
New Directions Program
Sidney Probation Office
North Island District
Snowdon Community Correctional Centre
Lake View Youth Containment Camp (1978)
Port Hardy Probation Office
Campbell Probation Office
Courtenay Probation Office
Port Alberni Probation Office
Port McNeill Probation Office
Parksville Probation Office
Nanaimo Probation Office
 Appendix C:
See Map below for Lower
Mainland Regional Areas.
1. Vancouver Island Regional Office 3. South Fraser Regional Office 5. Interior Regional Office
209-2951 Tillicum Road c/o Room 200-33384 South Fraser Way       Room 18-546 St. Paul Stred]
Victoria, B.C. Abbotsford, B.C. Kamloops, B.C.
V9A2A6 V2S2B5 V2C5T1
North Fraser Regional Office
11965 Fraser Street
Ste. 303
Maple Ridge, B.C.
V2X 8H9
4. Vancouver Regional Office
Ste. 400-805 West Broadway
Vancouver, B.C.
6. Northern Regional Office
3rd Floor
444 Victoria Street
Prince George, B.C.
V2L 2J7


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items