The Canadian Falls at Niagara, 13th September 2013
I have time this week to do some reflecting and further preparation for my full week of meetings starting on Monday with the John Howard Society of Canada (www.johnhowardsociety.ca) in Toronto and Ottawa. I've been looking at a pilot study which was facilitated by Correctional Services of Canada (the Prison Service here) which sought to determine how people with learning disabilities who were in custody could firstly, be identified, and secondly, be supported educationally during their sentence. The study evidenced that a critical factor in determining whether or not someone found their way into the criminal justice system was the completion, or not, of a high school diploma. (This echoed for me my conversation with Dwight back at the Delancey Street Foundation. ) The study went on to look at how someone with a learning disability, clearly disadvantaged in this area, could be supported to achieve a comparable outcome. The results showed that the greater the level of self-determination people had in identifying their own problems and thinking about how to address them, the more likely a successful outcome was. In other words, curriculum or content -led responses initiated by psychologists and educationalists worked less well than a collaborative approach between the educator (facilitator) and the person.
(Assisting Offenders with Learning Disabilities: Brown, Fisher et al 2003. www.publications.gc.ca/collections)
It doesn't sound like advanced chemistry but as I heard a guy in prison say recently, 'If the simple stuff works why don't we do more of it?' Indeed. This sounds to me a lot like the personalisation 'agenda' currently in the ascendancy in the UK and the question remains in this context, as it does there, 'Who is best served by the way we do things?' That very question is given some robust treatment in another study conducted here by the Learning Disability Association of Canada. In an iconoclastic article which blows away some sacred cows they have looked at why, when general crime rates in Canada have been consistently falling, have more mentally disordered offenders been coming before the Courts. The idea, also common in the UK in some circles, that this is due in part to the closure of big institutional care facilities is debunked on the grounds of history : given that most of these closed 30 or 40 years ago why would this suddenly be a problem? Good question. One likely alternative explanation they suggest is that the criminal justice system finds it more expedient to have more low level offenders identified as needing treatment rather than have them dealt with through the penal system. While this may seem like a good thing it may also have the side effect of people coming to Court who would never previously have been identified as 'offenders'. This is a complex argument but it at least leads us to question what the unseen pitfalls of diversion away from the criminal justice system may be. (www.ldac-tabac.ca ; www.ldac.net/files/Winter 2009)
What is the 'right thing' to do in these circumstances is tricky if we take the 'right thing' to be moral as well as effective. As Fyodor says through the voice of Pokerev, his provocative student:
'Duty, conscience, they say. I'm not going to speak against duty and conscience, but how do we really understand them?'
Canadian sunset, 16th September 2013.
