Vice lessons: a survey of prostitution offenders enrolled in the Toronto John School Diversion Program.

Introduction

The last quarter century, grosso modo, has witnessed the emergence of a myriad of strategies to prevent or control street prostitution in Canada. On the legislative front, a bill (C-49) was passed in 1985, permitting the prosecution of the client (or John) as well as the prostitute (Federal, Provincial, and Territorial (F/P/T) Working Group) 1998; Robertson and Morris 1991). (4) On the institutional level, changes in law enforcement practices have been introduced whereby police have begun targeting street prostitution through more regular patrol and increased large-scale "sting operations" (Wortley and Fischer 2002). In the social arena, experimental shaming practices have been promoted--including the publication of the names of Johns in local newspapers (Roach 1999).

This multitude of responses to the "prostitution problem" has been met with a singular dissatisfaction on the part of the general public (F/P/T Working Group 1998). This discontentment is particularly acute in certain urban neighbourhoods in which street prostitution continues to thrive. As a result, local pressure to find more effective strategies to deal with street prostitution has intensified. In the early 1990's, several political and law enforcement representatives from Toronto proposed the adoption of the American model of "John School" diversion for first-time male prostitution offenders (Small 1995; Larsen 1996). Originally created in San Francisco (Monto 2000), this approach represents an innovative solution to street prostitution--while simultaneously reflecting the current social and political orientation toward more cost-effective, victim-oriented and deinstitutionalized criminal justice measures (Fischer, Wortley, Webster, and Kirst forthcoming).

Launched in 1996 under the joint auspices of the Ontario Attorney General's Office, the Mayor's Task Force on Prostitution, the Toronto Police Service, and the Salvation Army, the Toronto John School Diversion Program is a post-charge, pre-trial option in the classical sense. Upon successful completion of a one-day education session, the initial prostitution charge is dropped and no criminal record is generated. This strategy is based on the expectation that the information provided by the educational program will cause the offender to abandon the use of street prostitutes. The Toronto John School has been heralded as a success by program stakeholders (Wortley and Fischer 2002) as well as the media (Prokaska 1996; Platiel 1996; Darroch 1996). Similar pilot projects have subsequently been adopted in other Canadian cities (including Ottawa, Hamilton, and Vancouver).

Despite the increasing popularity of diversion in Western criminal justice systems, very little research has explored the actual impact of such initiatives (Nuffield 1997). Indeed, the expansion of the ,John School model in Canada has not been based on any formal, published evaluations of its effectiveness. In response to this paucity of research, the National Crime Prevention Council and the Department of Justice sponsored a multi-component, independent evaluation of the Toronto First Offender Prostitution Diversion Program (Wortley and Fischer 2002). (5) This evaluation was carried out between 1998 and 2001. Spearheaded by researchers from the University of Toronto, this endeavour constitutes the first comprehensive evaluation of the John School program in Canada. (6) This paper presents findings from one component of this independent evaluation--a survey of John School participants. It begins with a brief description of the Toronto John School diversion initiative and the criminal justice process by which offenders come to participate in the program. After discussing research methodology, we examine, in detail, the extent to which the John School achieves major program objectives. The implications of our findings are discussed in the conclusion.

The diversion process

The John School is available for men who have been charged under Section 213 of the Criminal Code (communicating for the purposes of prostitution). Typically, the accused is given a court date by the arresting police officer and released at the scene. Men charged with the communicating offence are rarely taken into custody or held in detention before their first court appearance. Most of the individuals who attend the John School are caught in police sting operations which involve undercover police officers posing as prostitutes (Wortley and Fischer 2002). After arrest, the Crown determines whether the accused is eligible for the diversion program. Eligibility criteria are "no criminal record and the offender's complete lack of criminal antecedence" (Attorney General 1996). In court, eligible offenders are given the choice of attending the John School or following traditional criminal proceedings. If the offender chooses the John School, he must first enter a guilty plea and sign a diversion agreement with the Crown. This accordance stipulates that the charge may be withdrawn--at the discretion of the court--if the offender successfully completes the program. The offender is subsequently told to register for John School with Streetlight Support Services (the organization that is currently administrating the diversion program). Upon paying a $400 "tuition" fee, the John is assigned a date on which he is required to attend the John School educational day.