A Citizens Response to The Code On June 11, 2013 the Ontario Ombudsmans office released its latest report

concerning Corrections in Ontario and the prevalence of a sinister code-of-silence amongst front-line Correctional Officers when it comes to abhorrent jailhouse assaults against incarcerated inmates. Ive been following the Ontario Ombudsman via social media for over a year and have watched with interest the various interactions between the Ombudsman and the public in this forum. When this report on Corrections was released I read it and became concerned. Then I began to do my own research and reading. Below Ive tried to encapsulate my misgivings as concisely as I am able and offer them up simply as the thoughts and observations of a citizen: The report, titled: The Code details a disturbing, apparently entrenched codeof-silence which operates within the Correctional System here in Ontario. An unspoken code which the Ombudsman believes prevents front-line Correctional Officers from speaking-out against or preventing grievous physical abuse perpetrated by a reportedly small number of goon-like Jail Guards. As evidence the Ombudsman offers up several disturbing incidents from across the Province, complete with full page glossy photos. The report goes on to make no less than 45 recommendations meant to address this code-ofsilence and make the reader feel that now that this code is out in the open, the issue can be addressed and the offending Jail Guards will be brought to heel. For the average citizen reading the report published by the Ontario Ombudsman this may likely be the overall feeling; however if viewed critically The Code perhaps is not nearly as comprehensive or impartial a document as it should be. No one from either the Ministry responsible for the Ontario Correctional System, or the Union representing the Provinces 3500 Correctional Officers have denied that any of the incidents highlighted in The Code (which represent less than %1 of all useof-force incidents investigated) occurred. In fact, both parties have publicly stated that even one such incident is one too many. Issue arises when one reads the report and weighs the likelihood that front-line Correctional Officers have the kind of cart blanch authority and ability to conduct sweeping cover-ups of such abhorrent acts as alleged by the Ombudsman in the body of The Code against the fact that the Ombudsman omitted any meaningful investigative insight into the supervision, management and administrative culture within Ontario Corrections. There are passing references to front-line supervision and administrative involvement in a handful of the cases the Ombudsman uses to highlight his point that the use-of-force in Ontarios Correctional Facilities is systemically tied to this code among Correctional Officers, though the overall ascertation appears to be that Correctional Officers operate as reckless free-agents inside our prisons. The Ombudsman has effectively framed the front-line Officer as the problem, sensationalized a very small number of disgusting incidents some of which are still before the courts and intentionally or not, has tainted an entire segment of the professional Justice Sector. His investigation apparently relied upon the co-operation of the Ministry responsible for managing Ontarios prisons and Correctional Officers; a Ministry the Ombudsmans office had previously investigated on behalf of the

Ontario Provincial Police concerning the report In the Line of Duty which examined the issue of PostTraumatic Stress Disorder. That report revealed that the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (which runs the OPP as well as the Provinces Correctional Officers) was dismissive of officer concerns, overly bureaucratic and in need of change. Conversely, the Ombudsman complements the Ministrys co-operation in this investigation concerning use-of-force in the Provinces prisons. The Code addresses a very serious facet of Corrections in Ontario, a single facet of a complex often misunderstood and understudied sector of the Ontario Justice Community. While the Ombudsman was critical of the Corrections Ministrys approach to OPP PTSD concerns and painted a damning portrait of an out-of-touch and even uncaring bureaucracy that failed to recognize the stressors, concerns, needs and realities of front-line officers as all these elements pertain to PTSD and on-the-job performance; he takes a myopic view of the issue of use-of-force amongst front-line Correctional Officers and doesnt waste time detailing any of the contributing factors which may have played a role in the disturbing cases his report uses to re-enforce the hypothesis that a code-of-silence among front-line Correctional Officers is solely responsible for the serious assaults within the walls of Ontarios prisons. The lack of up-to-date officer training and (if Correctional Officer Union representatives are to be believed) massive overcrowding in most of the Provinces 29 prisons are touched upon only passingly in the Ombudsmans report. An arguably too brief note to the effect that Correctional Officers do an extremely difficult job in extreme circumstances is made at the beginning of The Code; but to what end is largely unclear. The overall conclusion the report reaches would seem to be that this code-ofsilence among front-line Correctional Officers needs to be eradicated and that the 45 recommendations made by the Ombudsman will serve to affect this need. In essence, the Ombudsman has concluded that Officers are the problem and the out-of-touch, uncaring bureaucracy that hed damned so definitively when looking into OPP issues, holds the key to ensuring that the code is broken. There have been no comprehensive studies concerning PTSD, critical stress management issues, day-to-day stressors or suicide/self-harming statistics concerning modern Correctional Officers in Ontario. Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick all have these stats available, but not Ontario odd. Stranger still is the total absence in all of the Ombudsmans 45 recommendations of any thought to look at the mental health issues which may be facing an entire segment of Ontarios Justice Sector. The Code goes on to passingly reference a handful of front-line supervisors within its pages (and only references those inextricably involved in specific cases) but generally any detailed examination of the management structure within prisons, the fluid qualifications required to become a supervisor or the checks and balances which may or may not be in place to ensure that the bureaucracy of the Ministry from the front-line up is held accountable, is entirely absent. Perhaps the reason for this omission can be found by looking at the Ombudsmans methodology when investigating these matters for The Code.

From what can be gathered the Ombudsman approached the Corrections Ministry, stated his intention to examine incidents of excessive use-of-force in Ontario prisons, and asked the same Ministry Management responsible for running those prisons to provide witnesses and information to assist in the completion of this investigation. In effect the Ombudsman asked a culpable entity to provide evidence against itself. Is it a wonder that the reports overall findings seem focussed almost exclusively on a code-of-silence among front-line Correctional Officers? That all of the 45 recommendations are focussed on more scrutiny on front-line officers, their actions or inactions and that there isnt one recommendation to address the bureaucracy overseeing officers in their duties? Who watches the watchers? The Ombudsman has displayed either shocking naivety in failing to examine the role of frontline operational managers, prison administrators and the vast bureaucracy that make-up the bulk of the Corrections Ministry; or he has executed a wilfully calculated attack on an under-represented, publicly misunderstood group of public servants who have become an easy political target over the last decade and half. If a code does exist in Ontario Corrections it is ludicrous to believe that it is limited to frontline Correctional Officers, that front-line Managers who are on the scene with said officers and responsible for the day-to-day operations and that prison Administrators who are responsible for both staff and line-supervisors are not all aware of what goes on within the walls. The Ombudsman paints a picture of a sweeping, paralyzing code-of-silence front-line bottom of the heap if you wouldCorrectional Officers use to perpetrate grievous acts of violence and intimidation, which seems hard to swallow. Prisons in Ontario have policies and procedures in place to ensure the safety of incarcerated inmates and not too long ago Ontario Corrections ranked amongst the best in the world for professionalism, low recidivism, care and efficiency. If that has changed the fault cannot lie primarily with front-line staff. The Code has done little, other than to highlight %1 of all use-of-force incidents in Ontarios prisons in which incidents went horrendously wrongallegedly - as some of these featured cases are still before the courts. The recommendations made may or may not be of use in curbing the recurrence of such incidents and the accompanying cover-ups the Ombudsman references though the failure to address the measures in place to hold supervisors and prison management accountable raises concerns as it is these parties who are responsible for reviewing, processing and handling evidence. Inmates in the care of the Province, Correctional Officers, the Ministry which over-sees Corrections and the taxpaying citizens of Ontario would have been far better served had the Ombudsman actually investigated the inner workings of the upper bureaucracy responsible for running our prisons. Recommendations which would have made more of an impact towards addressing the handful of incidents The Code builds its premise upon might have included effective Whistle-Blower Protection for front-line staff (officers and low-level Operational Supervisors) and a review of the legislation and organizational structure of the Corrections arm of the Ministry which appears to be

lacking high-level accountability. Perhaps Corrections in Ontario would benefit from the inclusion of Correctional Officers and those responsible for their supervision under the Police Services Act; a step which would ensure those officers/supervisors attempting to cover-up anything would face the same strict and severe penalties any other Policing Official in the Province would. This step would also eliminate the need for duplicitous bureaucracy, resolve many labour issues and lay a functional way forward for the modernizing of not only Corrections but possibly Policing in the Province of Ontario. The Code as it stands addresses perhaps a third (at best) of the real issues behind the use-ofexcessive-force in Ontarios prison system. It fails to delve into the woefully misunderstood systemic issues facing front-line Correctional Officers, ignores the practices surrounding front-line supervision and avoids exploring the largely unknown, unspoken of, corporate world of the Provinces correctional system. The report taints an entire segment of Public Servants who have at best a limited public voice, and diminishes not only the men and women who work unarmed behind the walls of maximum security prisons, but emboldens a system which has made it common practice to download its own failings and embarrassments onto a group of front-line workers without recourse. In the end The Code may well prove to be more harmful to Correctional Officers simply trying to do a very difficult job than it ever may be helpful to the inmates whose complaints prompted the Ombudsmans investigation in the first place.

John Ruttinger.