the violence prevention and substance
management programs, and early indicators
suggested that these programs were motivating
positive changes in participants.

Core programs are receiving endorsements
from individuals other than participants
and Branch staff. In a recent case, a judge
reinforced the need for an offender to
complete a core program or face the
consequences of a jail sentence.”

Gladue Decision

In 1999, a Supreme Court decision” required
probation officers to produce specialized
reports regarding aboriginal offenders. The
decision provided interpretation of the Criminal
Code.’ During sentencing, judges were required
to consider alternatives to imprisonment “with
particular attention to the circumstances of
aboriginal offenders.”

As a tesult, probation officers were obliged to
provide more information to the court when
pteparing pre-sentence reports. This
information related to the background and case
management plans of aboriginal offenders.”
Community Corrections Division later
developed online training in response to the
Gladue decision.

Introduction of the conditional sentence

Public concerns regarding corrections most
often related to the release and monitoring of
offenders in the community. During the 1990s,
law reform and initiatives affected how
offenders were placed into the community.
Among these legislative changes, conditional
sentences had a major impact on corrections,
especially in the community.

Conditional sentences were created in
September 1996 (Bill C-41°?) as an alternative
to imprisonment, to reduce the number of
offenders serving their sentences in custody. A
conditional sentence was considered a jail
sentence, which was served in the community.
By imposing compulsory conditions that
restricted an offender’s liberty, conditional
sentences were intended to be more stringent
than probation orders. For example, a judge
could meet treatment objectives by requiring an
offender to attend a program.

While institutional counts for sentenced
offenders started to decline in British
Columbia, Corrections Branch assessed that an
increasing number of conditional sentences
were being imposed on offenders who would
have traditionally received probation orders. In
other parts of Canada, conditional sentences
had no effect on reducing the rate of
imprisonment.

29 CorrTech Quarterly, Corrections Branch, Spring 2000, p. 14.

30 R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688.
31 Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 718.2(6).

32 K. Roach and J. Rudin, “Gladue: The Judicial and Political Reception of a Promising Decision,” Canadian Journal

of Criminology, 42(3), 2000, pp. 355-388.

33 Bill C-41 introduced major changes to sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code.

The Era of Directing Change (1997-2001)

257