Insights on Isolation, Evidence-Based Practice, and Correctional Reform – Interview with Dr. Ivan Zinger

 

Based on the results of annual surveys of federal public servants, many employees report ongoing challenges that affect morale, well-being, and job satisfaction. These challenges are real and should not be minimized. Fortunately, they did not prevent me from thriving over the course of my 30 years in the public service.

 

I was repeatedly afforded exceptional opportunities, made possible by outstanding public servants who took the time to coach, mentor, and support me throughout my career. Early on, I had the privilege of joining the Task Force on Administrative Segregation (1997), while also completing my PhD in the Psychology of Criminal Conduct (1999) with Correctional Service Canada (CSC). During this same period, I contributed to the development of legal training for managers and correctional officers on the Rule of Law, in response to the recommendations of a Royal Inquiry (1997), and became the sole CSC representative on the Working Group on Human Rights (1997–1998). These formative experiences became the foundation of my professional life, and I remain deeply grateful to those who believed in me and invested in my development, including Dr. Larry Motiuk, Dr. Maxwell Yalden, and Commissioner Ole Ingstrup.

 

I entered the public service at a pivotal moment for federal corrections. Following serious human rights violations at the Prison for Women in 1994, the Commissioner of Corrections resigned, and a Royal Inquiry was established to examine the events. In 1996, the Inquiry issued 67 recommendations aimed at fundamentally reforming federal corrections. Joining CSC at that time was a defining opportunity for someone committed to progressive values and meaningful institutional change.

 

 

I spent the first decade of my career working in large federal departments, including Correctional Service Canada (CSC), the Department of the Solicitor General, the Department of Justice, and Public Safety Canada. From the outset, my work was focused on strengthening corrections and improving the broader criminal justice system. Much of what I drafted or contributed to during those years critically examined existing practices and challenged the status quo within public safety institutions.

 

Coming from a strong academic background, I was trained to value rigorous analysis, constructive critique, and evidence-based policy development. I firmly believe that sound public policy must be informed by research and empirical evidence. Over time, however, I came to appreciate that large government departments are not always receptive to internal criticism and can be cautious when it comes to change. After ten years and four departments, it became clear that my inclination to consistently question established practices was not always well aligned with the culture of large bureaucratic organizations.

 

At that point, I sought career advice from a colleague at the National Parole Board, who encouraged me to meet with Howard Sapers, recently appointed as Correctional Investigator of Canada. From our very first conversation, it was clear that the Office of the Correctional Investigator was the right fit for me. For the next 20 years, I had the privilege of working in an independent Ombudsman’s office where speaking truth to power, upholding the rule of law, and promoting fair and lawful decision-making were not only expected, but valued.

 

External, independent oversight is essential when institutions are granted extraordinary powers over individuals. This is particularly true in corrections, but also applies to law enforcement, the military, and national security agencies. In such contexts, the risk of human rights infringements is real, and meaningful public scrutiny is necessary both to prevent abuses and to maintain the credibility and legitimacy of these institutions.

 

 

I am a strong proponent of multidisciplinary education. While such approaches were relatively uncommon 30 to 40 years ago, many universities now recognize their value and have integrated multidisciplinary studies into their curricula. In corrections, the benefits of this type of education are particularly significant.

 

Correctional systems are typically large, complex, and decentralized organizations, and they have a tendency to operate in silos. These silos exist across functions: research and policy are often disconnected, security considerations frequently override clinical interventions, and policy advisors may lack a full understanding of operational realities. Individuals with multidisciplinary backgrounds are better equipped to bridge these divides, as they can understand, translate, and connect the perspectives of multiple sectors.

 

From an independent oversight perspective, penitentiaries function much like small societies. They provide health care, education, vocational training, religious and cultural services, library access, food services, and systems of discipline and accountability. Like society at large, prisons are diverse and include people of different cultures, races, genders, and individuals with complex needs, including mental health, addictions, and disabilities. The challenges present in the broader community are not only replicated in prisons, but are often more concentrated and more difficult to manage.

 

Effectively managing such environments requires a high level of education, experience, and understanding across a wide range of disciplines. Multidisciplinary perspectives are essential to addressing the complexity of correctional environments and developing practical, humane, and lawful solutions.

 

On a personal note, in order to make informed recommendations as Correctional Investigator across all aspects of corrections, I had to develop expertise in each of these areas. That breadth of knowledge is what made the work both challenging and deeply rewarding.

 

 

The history of corrections is, unfortunately, not closely aligned with empirical evidence on what reduces recidivism, effective rehabilitation, or established best practices. Instead, correctional policy has often been shaped by the prevailing political climate of the day. Over the past 30 years, I have observed a recurring cycle in which governments emphasize “tough on crime” approaches, followed by periods where greater attention is given to rehabilitation and progressive reform. In this context, the priorities of the government of the day have had a direct and lasting impact on the successes - and failures - of corrections.

 

I have also observed that correctional systems have limited capacity to reform themselves from within. 

Meaningful change almost invariably requires external pressure to prompt reform and reinforce respect for human dignity. In Canada, nearly every significant correctional reform can be traced to public inquiries—such as Royal Commissions, coroners’ inquests, and reports from quasi-judicial bodies—into serious human rights violations. These public inquiries were often accompanied by sustained media attention.  Moreover, correctional reforms were introduced in response to successful individual or class-action litigation.  Finally, sometimes the pressure came from the international community, including the United Nations with its impressive body of international human rights instruments. 

 

Globally, one of the most significant positive developments in corrections has been the elimination or substantial restriction of solitary confinement. Over time, I have also seen a marked increase in awareness and understanding of domestic and international human rights obligations among senior correctional officials. Today’s leaders in corrections are generally far more knowledgeable about human rights than in the past, even in jurisdictions where compliance remains constrained by limited resources, corruption, or entrenched organizational culture.

 

Corrections has also benefited from the thoughtful adoption of technology, including the introduction of tablets, supervised email, and controlled internet access. In some jurisdictions, additional advances include the implementation of harm reduction measures as part of comprehensive drug strategies, as well as more appropriate placement of incarcerated persons based on gender identity and expression.

 

Finally, I have observed a growing desire to professionalize corrections and elevate it as a respected public service profession. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions have pursued this goal by modelling corrections too closely on law enforcement—through police-style training, uniforms, and weaponry. This approach misunderstands the distinct role of corrections. Corrections is not law enforcement; its mandate, purpose, and professional identity are fundamentally different and must be developed on their own terms.

 

 

The current geopolitical climate has seen a renewed emphasis in many countries on “tough on crime” policies, often accompanied by more restrictive approaches toward immigrants and refugees. In this context, prison populations are frequently portrayed as uniformly dangerous—comprised primarily of individuals who have committed heinous crimes, pose threats to social or political stability, or are associated with terrorism or organized crime. These narratives are then used to justify harsher sentences, mandatory minimum penalties, fewer opportunities for early release, and more punitive conditions of confinement.

 

While it is undeniable that some high-risk individuals are housed in prisons and must be managed with vigilance, they represent a small proportion of the overall incarcerated population. The vast majority of people in custody present a very different profile. In Canada, and likely in many other jurisdictions, prisons are disproportionately populated by individuals living with significant mental health needs, cognitive impairments, or long histories of substance use and addiction. Many have low levels of formal education and were unemployed at the time of their offences.

 

Correctional populations are also marked by profound social justice inequities. Visible and cultural minorities are overrepresented in most correctional systems worldwide and often face systemic barriers that limit access to the same socio-economic, cultural, and political opportunities as the broader population. In Canada, the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in federal custody remains one of the country’s most serious human rights failures. The overrepresentation of Black Canadians is also significant. Women constitute a growing segment of the incarcerated population, and the vast majority have histories of repeated psychological, physical, and sexual victimization.

 

How societies respond to and provide services for these individuals is a measure of their commitment to human rights. Policies that rely primarily on punishment—through harsher conditions, increased isolation, prolonged idleness, or restricted access to essential programs and services—are unlikely to enhance public safety. Even in correctional environments with limited resources, treating individuals with dignity, ensuring access to basic services, and addressing underlying needs can make a meaningful difference—for those in custody and for society as a whole.

  6.   How can independent oversight of corrections be strengthened to ensure accountability and protect prisoner rights?

 

In Canada, and in many other jurisdictions, corrections has historically been resistant to public scrutiny and enhanced accountability. Few correctional services fully embrace independent external prison oversight or consistently demonstrate responsiveness to the recommendations of oversight bodies. As noted earlier, correctional systems have a limited capacity to reform themselves from within. Internationally, external oversight mechanisms have almost always been established in response to serious human rights violations that governments could no longer ignore. Canada is no exception.

 

The Office of the Correctional Investigator was established in 1973 following a deadly riot at Kingston Penitentiary in 1971, in which both incarcerated individuals and staff lost their lives. The public inquiry into the riot concluded that it was precipitated by the Penitentiary Service’s inability to respond effectively to legitimate prisoner grievances. As a result, an independent, external, and informal avenue of redress was created to address such complaints and help prevent similar tragedies in the future.

 

At the federal level, I believe additional oversight mechanisms are needed to complement the mandate of the Office of the Correctional Investigator. Canada has not signed or ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), an international instrument that would strengthen human rights compliance through regular, preventive monitoring of places of detention. I am also encouraged by the growing number of individual and class action lawsuits brought against Correctional Service Canada. A more engaged and proactive legal profession can play an important role in improving correctional practices and in preventing future human rights violations.

 

 

Community corrections is often the under-resourced counterpart within correctional systems. Institutional corrections tend to receive priority in funding and attention, while community-based corrections are frequently overlooked. Yet research consistently demonstrates that interventions aimed at reducing recidivism are generally more effective when delivered in the community rather than in custodial settings. Given that approximately 90 percent of incarcerated individuals are eventually released, community corrections plays a critical—and often underestimated—role in public safety.

 

Despite this evidence, correctional authorities are often reluctant to expand early release opportunities or to adequately invest in community-based supervision and support. In Canada, for example, there is a growing population of aging incarcerated individuals who remain in prison despite posing little risk to public safety if managed in the community. Corrections should not be responsible for providing long-term palliative or end-of-life care to individuals, living with severe mobility limitations, bedridden, dementia or Alzheimer’s disease, or dependent on oxygen. Moreover, the cost of incarcerating such individuals can be two to four times higher than the average cost of incarceration.

 

Community corrections and restorative justice approaches have demonstrated that they can manage risk effectively while producing better public safety outcomes than traditional incarceration. These approaches are more consistent with respect for human dignity, are less costly, and are often more effective in supporting rehabilitation. A significant portion of the incarcerated population could be safely transitioned to community-based settings where access to appropriate services would be enhanced without compromising public safety. Unfortunately, in Canada and in many other jurisdictions, correctional systems remain reluctant to reallocate institutional resources toward community corrections to reflect this reality.

 

Following my work on human rights at Correctional Service Canada, Commissioner Ole Ingstrup—one of the founding members of the International Corrections and Prisons Association (ICPA)—invited me to attend ICPA’s very first annual conference in 1999, held in Budapest. If memory serves me well, there were only about 50 participants. I delivered a presentation on the importance of human rights compliance in prison settings and advanced the argument that corrections is, at its core, a human rights enterprise: one that must actively promote human rights, prevent violations, detect breaches when they occur, and ensure effective remedies.

 

In the years that followed, I attended ICPA conferences intermittently. That changed in 2017, when I was appointed Correctional Investigator of Canada. From that point on, I participated consistently, recognizing the value of sustained international engagement.

 

After my appointment as Correctional Investigator, I gave considerable thought to how best to contribute to the international corrections community during my mandate. I sought advice from Dr. Frank Porporino and later approached the late and much-respected ICPA President, Peter Severin, to explore the creation of a new network focused on External Prison Oversight and Human Rights. At the time, ICPA did not have a formal policy for establishing new networks. Nonetheless, Peter was enthusiastic and supportive. Within a few months, the Network was formally established in 2018 and has been thriving ever since. It now includes 100 active members from 45 countries. I am particularly grateful that Dr. Michele Deitch, along with Alycia Welch and Kate Eves, have agreed to assume leadership of the Network, and I am confident they will further expand its reach and impact.

 

Finally, one of ICPA’s greatest strengths lies in the diversity of professionals it brings together. Its conferences attract policymakers, operational leaders, academics, private sector innovators, architects, IT specialists, health care professionals, program staff, and prison oversight officials. No other international corrections forum offers such breadth of perspectives, and it is precisely this diversity that makes ICPA both unique and impactful.

 

 

Reforming corrections is not easy. Indeed, corrections shares many characteristics with other institutions that are traditionally resistant to change, including policing, the military, and national security agencies. Embedding respect for the rule of law and ensuring compliance with human rights in institutions that wield significant authority over individuals requires sustained effort, patience, and resolve.

 

After more than 20 years in the field of prison oversight and numerous attempts to reform the federal correctional system, I cannot offer simple solutions. Meaningful change demands persistence and a long-term commitment. Recognizing and celebrating incremental progress is essential—not only to sustain momentum, but also to lay the groundwork for more substantive reforms over time. Effecting change from within a correctional authority can be particularly challenging, as organizational culture may limit the uptake of more progressive approaches.

 

Nevertheless, I would strongly encourage those interested in reform to remain engaged in improving the criminal justice system. Despite the challenges, it is deeply worthwhile work, and the opportunity to contribute to a more humane, lawful, and effective system makes the effort both meaningful and rewarding.