Integrated Police and Parole Initiative

Evaluation Report

Integrated Police and Parole Initiative

Evaluation Division
Policy Sector
November 2008

Acknowledgements

The Evaluation team would like to thank all of the CSC staff, CCLOs, and police services personnel who took time to share their thoughts on the IPPI by completing a survey or participating in an interview.

We would like to thank staff who provided information and documentation utilized in this evaluation. In particular, we would like to express our appreciation to the Evaluation consultative group members, Angela Knoll (Community Reintegration Operations), Christine Laflamme and Nathalie Bigras (Performance Measurement), Kim Gillespie (Hamilton CCC), Wayne Michaluk (Regina Area Parole), Clare MacAuley (St. John’s Parole), and Ben Rosentreter (CCLO). Angela Knoll, Bev Arsenault, and Stefanie Darlow were extremely helpful in providing access to IPPI information and personnel, and Larry Motiuk provided valuable comments on early drafts of the report.

We are also grateful for the assistance provided by David Murphy, who conducted a peer review of the evaluation report and instruments. Personnel from correctional departments in various countries were also very accommodating in providing useful information regarding global correctional-police partnerships.

We would also like to thank Vanessa Anastasopoulos for her assistance with conducting interviews, Kelly Taylor for providing methodological advice and peer review assistance, Cara Scarfone for editorial assistance, and Giacomo Prinzo and Jean-François Durocher for their administrative assistance. We would also like to thank Pierre Desjardin for his contracting expertise, and Ian Broom for recommending the Government Operations Centre for assistance with geospatial analysis. The evaluation team also appreciates the expertise and assistance provided by Cameron Bouchard (Public Safety Geomatics Division).

For sharing their financial expertise and gathering relevant financial data, the evaluation team would also like to thank Jean-Pierre Rivard, Helene Meloche, and Robert Riel.

Evaluation Team Members

Kendra Delveaux
Angela Fabisiak
Tamara Jensen
Dennis Batten
Amanda Nolan
Christopher Rastin
Elizabeth Loree
Michael Henighan

Evaluation Report:
Integrated Police and Parole Initiative

Signatures

Lynn Garrow
Associate Assistant Commissioner
Policy and Research

Date

Pamela M. Yates
Director General
Evaluation Branch

Date

Executive Summary

Introduction

Over the last two years, there have been increases of 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the federal offender population under active supervision in the community. In 2006-07, there were 6,332 men and 450 women on active community supervision (Public Safety Canada, 2007). Increasing challenges related to the changing Correctional Service Canada offender profile highlight the need to be innovative and creative in addressing these challenges. One such approach has been to strengthen the link between criminal justice organizations by partnering correctional organizations with police services, and moving beyond strictly enforcement relationships to include the provision of services to offenders in the community.

Enhancement of partnerships between corrections, police, community organizations and stakeholders can be a means of providing strengthened community supervision in an attempt to ultimately reduce offenders’ involvement in criminal activity in the community. Such partnerships may allow for more enhanced monitoring of offenders in the community, and improved communication and information sharing among police, Parole Officers, and the community. The ultimate goal is to enhance public safety while contributing to the safe reintegration of offenders into the community.

Program Profile and Community Correctional Liaison Officer Position Description

The Strengthening Community Safety Initiative included a number of projects, one of which was the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI), also commonly referred to as the Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) Initiative. The objective of the initiative was to enhance information sharing between criminal justice partners, allowing for more effective follow-up and supervision of higher risk offenders and earlier apprehension of offenders who were unlawfully at large (UAL).

CCLO positions are occupied by police officers from Canadian police agencies who have a minimum of 5 years experience in active policing duties and a minimum of two years of experience in criminal investigations. CCLOs are assigned to Community Correctional Centres (CCCs) and/or parole offices, and retain their authority under provincial legislation (e.g., various Police Acts), their peace officer authority under the Criminal Code of Canada and their common law police authority.

According to the CCLO job description, CCLOs are expected to work with Parole Officers in the management of higher risk offenders in the community. As an integral part of the CSC case management team, CCLOs are required to participate in pre-release planning and decision-making via the development of supervision strategies to ensure specific follow-up with higher risk offenders. CCLOs are also expected to track and gather information on unlawfully at large (UAL) offenders and liaise with law enforcement agencies to assist in their apprehension. As part of their liaison role with police services, CCLOs are required to develop protocols to enhance the information sharing capacity between CSC and police services.

Integrated Police and Parole Initiative Budget

In May 2005, $7 million in funding was provided for the IPPI, over a five year period commencing in fiscal year 2005-06. The majority of the funds were designated for salary to hire the 17 CCLOs. Funds were also allocated for operating, common services, employee benefits plan, and accommodation. As a result of implementation delays, there have been several instances of financial re-profiling.

Evaluation Strategy

The goal of the evaluation was to provide information required to make investment decisions related to the IPPI prior to the expiration of funding at the end of March 2010. An evaluation strategy was developed by the Evaluation Branch (CSC-NHQ) in discussion with a consultative group, comprised of representatives from the Community Reintegration Operations Division, the Performance Management Branch, CSC staff working in the community, and a CCLO. The objectives were to assess the continued relevance, success, cost-effectiveness, design and implementation issues, and any unintended effects associated with the initiative. Given delays in staffing the CCLO positions, the evaluation was focused on the implementation of the IPPI. Where possible, the successes of the initiative related to the achievement of immediate and intermediate outcomes were assessed, given the state of implementation and the availability of reliable data.

Methods, Procedures, and Analysis

A multi-method approach incorporating qualitative and quantitative methodology was utilized to address the evaluation objectives. Information was collected through interviews with key stakeholders, automated data sources (CSC’s Offender Management System [OMS]), administrative file and data reviews, analysis of financial data and a review of other initiative-specific documents. With the assistance of Public Safety Geomatics Division, maps were created to provide a visual representation of the locations of CCLOs and the percentages of higher risk offenders supervised at each Parole Office and CCLO in each region.

An online survey regarding the relevance, implementation, success, and unintended effects of the IPPI evaluation was completed by 147 CSC staff and CCLOs through a link received via e-mail. Interviews were also conducted with 31 CSC IPPI management staff and 12 CCLOs in order to obtain more in-depth information regarding the implementation and success of the IPPI. Lastly, interviews were conducted with 11 senior police personnel who were familiar with the IPPI to gain a police perspective on the relevance, implementation and success of the initiative.

Summary of Key Findings

Evaluation Objective 1: Relevancy

FINDING 1: The IPPI remains consistent with CSC, police service, and government-wide priorities and objectives.

FINDING 2: The design of the IPPI, as an enhanced supervision partnership, including objectives of information sharing and UAL apprehension, is consistent with practices in other jurisdictions.

FINDING 3: The changing offender profile and the number of UAL offenders under CSC jurisdiction demonstrates a need for initiatives that address objectives such as increased monitoring and supervision of higher risk groups.

Evaluation Objective 2: Implementation

FINDING 4: Staffing challenges, related primarily to the contract negotiation process, police personnel shortages, and lack of interest and awareness of the CCLO position, resulted in significant delays in the implementation of the IPPI.

FINDING 5: The majority of stakeholders agreed that the organizational structure and reporting relationships for the IPPI were designed in a way that supported the continued activities of the initiative. However, regional variations in reporting relationships existed, and some stakeholders reported a lack of clarity in reporting relationships and a need for greater communication between NHQ and the regions.

FINDING 6: The majority of stakeholders agreed that the roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders were well-defined and appropriate. Some suggested that greater communication regarding roles and responsibilities was required, and that CCLOs’ roles should be expanded in some areas (e.g., structured intervention strategies, community outreach, gathering/sharing information with CSC) and diminished in others (e.g., UALs). Variability existed in the priority given to various aspects of the CCLO roles and responsibilities in each of the CCLO locations.

FINDING 7: Some stakeholders suggested that the most appropriate police officers for CCLO positions may be those who have attained more advanced ranks in the police service.

FINDING 8: A significant proportion of CCLOs have not completed IPPI training, and stakeholders viewed some training to be less relevant to CCLOs than others.

FINDING 9: IPPI data regarding CCLO contacts have not been entered into CSC databases according to guidelines, although there appear to be improvements in data recording practices since April 2008.

FINDING 10: Criteria for defining higher risk offenders for inclusion in the IPPI were not clearly defined or communicated. Offenders commonly involved in CCLO contacts through the IPPI included UAL offenders and those with histories of violence or previous criminal activity. Less than half of the offenders involved in CCLO contacts for enhanced monitoring/supervision were identified as high risk as determined by CSC risk instruments.

FINDING 11: Current CCLOs are situated in appropriate locations, although some of the geographic areas served by CCLOs are large. Several geographic areas with relatively high proportions of higher risk offenders were identified that do not currently have CCLO positions.

FINDING 12: Implementation delays have led to various instances of re-profiling, internal re-allocations, and lapses of IPPI funding. Financial data for the IPPI have not always been recorded consistently utilizing the appropriate project codes in IMRS.

Evaluation Objective 3: Success

FINDING 13: Communication and partnerships between CSC, police services, and community stakeholders – including access to information and the timeliness of access to information – have improved since the implementation of the IPPI. However, there is still some lack of clarity with respect to the type of information that can be shared.

FINDING 14: Respondents suggested that stakeholder perceptions of CSC’s mandate and strategies regarding the safe and successful reintegration of offenders into the community have improved since implementation of the IPPI, particularly among stakeholder groups including police personnel, CSC personnel, and community partners, but less so among the media and the general public.

FINDING 15: Results using available data revealed little impact of the IPPI on recidivism rates and percentages of new UAL cases pre- and post-IPPI implementation. The ability to detect impacts of the IPPI may have been limited due to short follow-up periods, data quality issues, and/or implementation issues related to the identification of appropriate offenders for inclusion in the initiative.

FINDING 16: A review of UAL data revealed a slight increase in the percentage of UAL apprehensions relative to the total number of UAL cases nationally (from 91% to 94%), and moderate reductions in time to UAL apprehensions in two regions (approximately 5 days), following implementation of the IPPI.

Evaluation Objective 4: Cost-Effectiveness

FINDING 17: Although the IPPI demonstrated some positive short-term outcomes, limitations related to the short implementation period, inconsistencies in financial coding, and issues related to the tracking of offender inclusion in the IPPI, precluded the ability to conduct a reliable cost-effectiveness analysis at this stage of the IPPI. Some evidence for the cost-effectiveness of police-corrections partnerships has been observed in other jurisdictions.

Evaluation Objective 5: Unintended Findings

FINDING 18: Re-analysis of the impact of a reported IPPI pilot program, utilizing more rigorous methodology, showed little impact on the number of days that offenders were UAL, despite previously reported positive impacts of this pilot program.

Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1: The current and projected offender population profiles should be reviewed regularly to verify that the IPPI remains relevant through the identification of any priority groups, trends, or changes in the offender profile that may require adjustments to the design and/or objectives of the IPPI.

RECOMMENDATION 2: CSC should review IPPI staffing methods and processes, with the goal of streamlining the staffing process, and increasing knowledge about the objectives of the IPPI and the role of CCLOs among police personnel.

RECOMMENDATION 3: The IPPI reporting structure should be clearly defined, formalized, and communicated to ensure clarity and consistency.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Roles and responsibilities should be reviewed to ensure their applicability and should be clearly communicated to all IPPI stakeholders. Any significant changes to roles and responsibilities would necessitate a review of the overall objectives and indicators of success for the IPPI.

RECOMMENDATION 5: CSC should review the police officer rank and/or experience level requirements to ensure the best fit with the responsibilities of the CCLO position and the objectives of the IPPI.

RECOMMENDATION 6: CSC should review the CCLO training package to ensure relevancy of CCLO training.

RECOMMENDATION 7: CSC should develop procedures to ensure compliance with CCLO training requirements.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Reliable data sources need to be implemented and used consistently. Procedures should be developed for regular data collection, monitoring and review to ensure reliability and validity of IPPI data.

RECOMMENDATION 9: CSC should ensure adherence to existing IPPI objectives, by clearly defining and communicating referral criteria and definitions of higher risk offenders to all IPPI stakeholders. Regional or district variations in these criteria (based on regional offender profiles) should be clearly defined, communicated locally and nationally, and adhered to.

RECOMMENDATION 10: CSC should review CCLO locations and service areas to ensure that locations with high proportions of higher risk offenders are considered for inclusion in the IPPI, and that the geographic areas covered by CCLOs are manageable within the context of their overall roles and responsibilities.

RECOMMENDATION 11: CSC should ensure accurate, standardized coding of IPPI expenditures in financial databases to ensure that expenditures are adequately recorded and monitored.

RECOMMENDATION 12: CSC should develop and communicate comprehensive, standardized information sharing protocols to identify the information needs of IPPI stakeholders and determine the type of information that may be shared.

RECOMMENDATION 13: CSC should consider the development of a standardized communication package that could be utilized as part of CCLO outreach to reach a broader spectrum of the community.

RECOMMENDATION 14: CSC should conduct a more extensive review of police-corrections partnerships in other jurisdictions, and actively engage with these jurisdictions, to determine any best-practices or lessons learned that might be applicable to the IPPI.

ACRONYMS

CAC
Citizen’s Advisory Committee
CACP
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
CCC
Community Correctional Center
CCLO
Community Corrections Liaison Officer
CCRA
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
CRF
Community Residential Facility
CSC
Correctional Service Canada
EXCOM
Executive Committee
HRMS
Human Resources Management System
HRSDC
Human Resources Skills Development Canada
IMRS
Integrated Management Reporting System
IPPI
Integrated Police and Parole Initiative
LTSO
Long Term Supervision Order
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
NEOP
New Employee Orientation Program
NHQ
National Headquarters
NPB
National Parole Board
OMS
Offender Management System
RCMP
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
RMAF
Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework
SIO
Security Intelligence Officer
TBS
Treasury Board Secretariat
UAL
Unlawfully at Large

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Operating Environment

Correctional Service Canada (CSC) is an agency within the Public Safety Portfolio. The portfolio brings together key federal agencies dedicated to public safety, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the National Parole Board (NPB), the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and three review bodies, including the Office of the Correctional Investigator.

CSC contributes to public safety through the custody and reintegration of eligible offenders. More specifically, CSC is responsible for administering court-imposed sentences of offenders sentenced to two years or more. This includes both the custodial and community supervision components of an offender's sentence. CSC also administers post-sentence supervision of offenders with Long Term Supervision Orders (LTSOs) for periods of up to ten years. At the end of the 2006-07 fiscal year, CSC was responsible for approximately 13,200 federally incarcerated offenders and 8,000 offenders in the community (Correctional Service Canada [CSC], 2007).

1.1.2 Offender Population

The increasing and changing offender population has created challenges for CSC in implementing its mandate to safely and securely reintegrate offenders into the community. The overall offender population has increased, with greater proportions of offenders receiving maximum security designations and serving shorter sentences. Gang-affiliated offenders are more prevalent, and offenders are more frequently identified as having serious mental health needs (CSC, 2008).

The population of men and women federal offenders increased from 2004‑05 to 2007‑08 (7% and 36%, respectively), and despite a slight decrease in the number of Aboriginal male offenders in custody during 2007‑08, there was an overall increase of 23% over the past ten years. In 2007‑08, an increasing proportion of offenders were admitted with shorter sentences (i.e., less than three years).

Although there was a slight decrease over the past two years, more than one out of ten of new men offender admissions during 2007‑08 were initially rated as requiring maximum-security (11%), reflecting an 83% increase in maximum security designations since 1996-97. There was a significant decrease in women initially rated as maximum security over the past two years (from 11% in 2006-07 to 6% in 2007-08 ).

While the proportion of new male offender admissions with existing gang affiliations has remained steady over the past three years, the proportion increased from 11% in 1996-97 to 14% in 2007-08 . Among male offenders in custody, gang affiliation increased from 12% in 1996-97 to 16% in 2007-08 . One-tenth of new women offender admissions during 2007-08 had gang affiliations and this has been steadily increasing since 1996-97 (5% to 13%, or 160%).

In 2007-08 , more than one-out-of-ten male offenders in federal custody were identified at admission as having mental health problems and this proportion has risen by 67% since 1996-97 (6% to 10%). In 2007-08 , one out of four women offenders in federal custody were identified at admission as presenting mental health problems, and this proportion has risen by 69% since 1996-97.

As the vast majority of incarcerated offenders are eventually released to the community, the criminal and demographic profiles of offenders in federal institutions have implications for the types of interventions required to increase offenders’ likelihood of successful reintegration.

1.1.3 Release to Community

After decreases in the federal offender population in the community under active supervision from 1999-2000 to 2004-05, there were increases of 1.2% and 1.9% in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. In 2006-07, there were 6,332 men and 450 women on active community supervision (Public Safety Canada, 2007).Footnote 1

In 1995, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) was amended to provide the NPB with the ability to impose a residency condition on Statutory Release for offenders who were considered likely to commit a Schedule I (violent) offence prior to the expiration of their sentence. When the amendment came into effect in January 1996, CSC observed a decrease in the number of detention referrals and a very significant increase in the number of residency conditions imposed at statutory release (Grant, Johnson & Muirhead, 2000).

In light of the increasing challenges, such as the changing offender profile faced by CSC, there is a need to be innovative and creative in addressing these challenges. One such approach has been to strengthen the link between criminal justice organizations by partnering corrections with police services, and moving beyond strictly enforcement relationships to include the provision of services to offenders in the community.

1.1.4 Police-Corrections Partnerships

Enhancement of partnerships between corrections, the police, community organizations and stakeholders can be a means of providing strengthened community supervision in an attempt to ultimately reduce offenders’ involvement in criminal activity in the community. Such partnerships may allow for enhanced monitoring of offenders in the community, and improved communication and information sharing among police, parole officers, and the community.

Police-corrections partnerships have earned widespread support because of the potential for such programs to contribute to public safety (Murphy & Worrall, 2007). There are several additional noteworthy benefits of police-corrections partnerships, including using the skills of staff in complementary ways, improving relationships between correctional and police organizations, achieving common goals through collaboration and information sharing, extending partnerships to include other community organizations, and generating support for collaborative efforts from policy makers and the public (Parent & Snyder, 1999). The ultimate goal is to enhance public safety while contributing to the safe reintegration of eligible offenders into the community. In fact, there has been some research suggesting that partnerships between police officers and corrections can aid in reducing rates of crime (Corbett, Fitzgerald & Jordan, 1998).

One of the main benefits of police-corrections partnerships is the opportunity for new and enhanced roles in the community. Whereas substantial attention has been given to the potential benefits of such partnerships, little attention has been dedicated to the potential for these partnerships to produce unintended consequences. Many police departments and corrections agencies do not have pre-existing operational guidelines to aid officers in navigating through the changes brought by these partnerships (Murphy & Worrall, 2007). This has the potential to leave officers in a position of having to establish post hoc what they can and should do as active partnership participants. Consequently, police and corrections partnerships often emerge in a context in which few organizational measures have been taken to ensure the success of the partnership (Murphy & Worrall, 2007).

Expanded roles for police and parole staff can also lead to problems among the partnering agencies, including mission creep, mission distortion and organizational lag (Corbett, 1998; Worrall & Gaines, 2006). Mission creep refers to the occurrence of an increase in demands on staff time and agency resources as roles and duties expand. In sites where partnerships are flourishing, participating corrections and police officers are engaged in a number of new collateral activities under the guise of community building that can take the officer well beyond the scope of his or her duties. Acting as a conduit for social services, attending community functions and responding to complaints unrelated to community supervision are a few examples. For police officers who are relieved of other responsibilities or who otherwise would be on patrol, the changes instigated by the partnership may not create as many challenges. For correctional officers still carrying their traditional caseloads, time constraints are evident and could easily compromise effectiveness. With the right organization and structural changes, these issues can be addressed; however, the need for such changes is often overlooked (Corbett, 1998).

Mission distortion refers to the blurring or confusion of the distinct roles of police and parole/probation officers. More specifically, it has been defined as

“the potential for police-probation partnerships to create conditions under which both police officers and probation officers experience a variety of changes to their daily activities and professional roles”

(Murphy & Worrall, 2007, p. 133). There are profound differences between the procedural guidelines that are followed by police officers and those followed by corrections agencies. Traditionally, the mission of police services is typified by enforcement – namely to restore and maintain order, enforce laws and investigate crimes – whereas traditionally, the mission of corrections agencies is focused on the rehabilitation and case management function with elements of law enforcement. Mission distortion has the potential to detract from the intended objectives of police-corrections partnerships, due to role confusion among police and parole personnel.

Organizational lag may occur when police-corrections partnerships are simply grafted onto existing organizational arrangements, and patterns of work assignment are not reconsidered. Patterns in work assignments, standards for information sharing and other bureaucratic/ administrative requirements need to be re-developed and replaced by broader and more flexible standards of practice in order to support the initiative (Corbett, 1998).

Despite the potential complications that may arise from police-corrections partnerships, these agreements can provide a practical and valuable means for the two agencies to work together to effectively pursue their goals. Such partnerships offer the potential to improve public safety by contributing to the ability of police and parole officers to effectively monitor offenders in the community through information sharing and other joint efforts. However, in order for partnerships to be successful in their goals, it is important that policymakers define what the particular partnership should look like, the goals it should seek to reach, how it ought to operate, and how policymakers believe it should affect both the community it serves and the criminal justice system (Parent & Snyder, 1999).

1.2 Program Profile

In May 2005, funding was approved for the Strengthening Community Safety Initiative, of which the IPPI was a part. Through the initiative, $52 million was allocated over a period of five years for a number of measures designed to strengthen community safety. The Strengthening Community Safety Initiative included three new programs or activities for CSC, including:

  1. the subject of the current evaluation - the IPPI;
  2. the Community Mental Health Initiative (designed provide a continuum of care to aid offenders with serious mental health disorders to reintegrate into the community); and
  3. the provision of expanded information to victims (to be provided within existing CSC resources). The initiative also included funding for several activities in other departments, related primarily to the provision of additional services for victims and offenders with mental health needs.

Other departments that also received funding through the Initiative included: National Parole Board, Office of the Correctional Investigator, Department of Justice, and Department of Public Safety.Footnote 2

Through the Strengthening Community Safety Initiative, the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI) was allocated funding of $7 million over a five-year period commencing in 2005-06. The objective of the Initiative was to enhance information sharing between criminal justice partners, allowing for more effective follow-up and supervision of higher risk offenders and earlier apprehension of unlawfully at large (UAL) offenders.

A key component of the IPPI, also commonly referred to the Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) Initiative, was the development and staffing of CCLO positions. CCLOs are dedicated Police Officers temporarily assigned to CSC. Seventeen CCLO positions were designated for 16 locations across the country (two CCLOs were assigned to one location in Montréal). CCLOs were co-located with CSC community parole offices in areas that were geographically linked to Community Correctional Centres (CCLOs) and in larger urban centres that housed and supervised higher risk offenders. Locations were selected by the Community Reintegration Operations Division and the Strategic Policy Sector staff who prepared the Treasury Board submission. The selection of locations was based on the following elements:

  • There should be a minimum of one CCLO per each of the eight (8) Community Corrections Districts;
  • CCLOs should be situated in communities where CCLOs were located or where there was a concentration of higher risk offenders;
  • the need to enhance CSC’s partnerships with national, provincial, and local police services; and
  • consideration of the 2004 Crime Rates by Census Metropolitan Areas (Statistics Canada).

Through the IPPI, it was expected that enhanced partnerships with the police, community organizations and stakeholders would strengthen community supervision. Such partnerships would allow for enhanced monitoring of higher risk offenders and improved communication and information sharing among police, parole officers and the community.

Objectives of the IPPI were to:

  • Improve partnerships with police forces through greater collaboration and communication among CSC, police and the community;
  • Obtain and share information from/with these jurisdictions;
  • Increase the monitoring capacity for higher risk offenders in the community;
  • Increase the ability to apprehend UAL offenders (i.e., impact on the number of UAL offenders, number of days an offender is UAL, and offences committed by them); and
  • Increase public confidence towards CSC’s community reintegration strategy.

Mechanisms were established to allow National Headquarters (NHQ) to provide oversight of the IPPI. Specifically, CCLOs provided activity reports on a quarterly basis and Districts provided an annual report to NHQ. CCLOs and staff members who worked with CCLOs with respect to some aspect of an offender’s case were required to record their contacts in OMS casework records. CCLOs were directed to input casework records for those contacts that do not involve a CSC staff member (e.g., UAL tracking), to ensure that duplication of records did not occur.

1.2.1 Community Correctional Liaison Officer Position DescriptionFootnote 3

CCLO positions are occupied by police officers from Canadian police agencies at either the municipal, provincial, or federal level who have a minimum of 5 years experience in active policing duties and a minimum of 2 years experience in criminal investigations. CCLOs assigned to CCLOs and/or parole offices retain their authority under provincial legislation (e.g., various Police Acts), their peace officer authority under the Criminal Code of Canada and their common law police authority. Although CCLOs remain police officers they do not wear police uniforms. They can carry their weapons, but are not able to exercise powers granted by the CCRA to CSC staff members (e.g., conducting searches). Any search of an offender or his/her room and its contents by a CCLO would have to be conducted under police authority (i.e., with a warrant, rather than under the provisions of the CCRA).

According to the CCLO job description, CCLOs are expected to work with parole officers in the management of higher risk offenders in the community. As an integral part of the CSC case management team, CCLOs are required to participate in pre-release planning and decision-making via the development of supervision strategies to ensure specific follow-up with higher risk offenders. CCLOs are also expected to track and gather information on UAL offenders and liaise with law enforcement agencies to assist in the apprehension of UAL cases. As part of their liaison role with police services, CCLOs are required to develop protocols to enhance the information sharing capacity between CSC and police services. Key CCLO activities (as per the job description) are described below.Footnote4

Key Activities
  • Participate in the release planning of higher-risk offenders;
  • Assist in the development of structured supervision and intervention strategies in the community for higher-risk offenders and for offenders whose risk has been elevated;
  • Review periodically the progress of higher risk offenders.
  • Assist in the supervision and management of offenders subject to LTSOss;
  • Gather, analyse and share information with police, CSC, government and other agencies;
  • Work with parole officers and law enforcement agencies in the apprehension of offenders who are unlawfully at large;
  • Perform police liaison activities;
  • Perform community outreach, community liaison and community engagement activities;
  • Participate as a member of the case management team;
  • Provide input into matters relating to staff safety in the community; and,
  • Provide practical information to police agencies concerning CSC’s policies and procedures regarding offenders under federal jurisdiction.
Responsibilities
  • Responsible for use of computers and related software (Offender Management System [OMS], RADAR, InfoPol, etc.);
  • Responsible for documenting key activities in the Offender Management System;
  • Responsible for completing statistics related to key activities;
  • Responsible for exchanging relevant information concerning liaison activities with the management team; and,
  • Responsible for developing on-going working relations with outside agencies.

1.2.2 CCLOStaffing Process

CCLOs were temporarily assigned to CSC under the Interchange Canada Program, and therefore selection processes to staff these positions were not held within CSC. However, staffing regulations within some police agencies required selection processes to be held for the CCLO positions. In most cases, CCLO positions were posted within the police bureaucracy and interested candidates applied through their respective police service. In some instances, the candidate was chosen by senior police personnel. In terms of the interview process, CSC was invited to participate in some cases, and in others, the candidate was chosen for CSC after the police service completed the internal staffing process. In the context of the Interchange Canada Program, CSC is required to abide by the internal staffing regulations of these external organizations.

Interchange Canada ProgramFootnote 5

The Interchange Canada Program promotes and facilitates the exchange of employees, through temporary assignments, between the federal Public Service and outside organizations both within Canada and internationally. It is a skills-exchange program with a developmental focus between the core public administration and other private, public and not for profit organizations. The Interchange Canada Program is the only legal vehicle by which exchanges can take place between the federal public service and outside organizations. During the assignment, employees work on-site with the host organization (i.e., CSC) but remain employees of the sponsoring organization (i.e., police agency). Regional Deputy Commissioners have the responsibility of signing the Interchange Canada agreements. Interchange assignments can be entered into for a period of up to three consecutive years. An extension of up to one additional year can be added to the assignment.

1.2.3 Financial Expenditures

Funding of $7M was provided for the IPPI over a five year period commencing in fiscal year 2005-06. The majority of the money was designated for salary dollars to hire the 17 CCLO>s. Funds were also allocated for operating, common services, employee benefits plan, and accommodation. The details of original IPPI funding are depicted in Table 1.

Table 1 : Original Funding Approved for Integrated Police and Parole Initiative
 

Fiscal Year

Item

2005-2006

2006-2007

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Total

Salary

$755,000

$1,004,000

$1,004,000

$1,004,000

$1,004,000

$4,771,000

Employee Benefits

$151,000

$201,000

$201,000

$201,000

$201,000

$955,000

Accommodation

$98,000

$131,000

$131,000

$131,000

$131,000

$622,000

Common Services

$51,000

$64,000

$64,000

$64,000

$64,000

$307,000

Operating

$345,000

         

Total FY

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$7,000,000

Note that there were delays in negotiating and implementing the Interchange Canada Agreements with police forces in the first years of the Initiative. Specifically, only one CCLO position was staffed in 2005-06. As a result of the late implementation and late receipt of fundsFootnote 6 in 2005-06, CSC received approval to re-profile $200,000 from the fiscal years 2005-06 to 2006‑07. Further, salary calculations were originally based on the assumption that police officers with one or two years experience would be assigned to the CCLO positions. Consultation with police services resulted in the availability of more experienced police officers and thus higher salary rates. CSC internally re-allocated an additional $900,000 over 2007-08 , 2008-09, and 2009-10 to the IPPI to offset the additional costs of these salaries. Table 2 reflects the revised IPPI budget.

Due to the fact that not all the CCLO positions were staffed in 2006-07 and 2007-08 , not all the IPPI funds were spent in these years. For this reason, two additional instances of re-profiling occurred in subsequent years. Specifically, $469,000 was transferred from the budget of 2006-07 to 2007-08 . An additional instance of re-profiling resulted in a transfer of $150,000 from 2006-07 and $400,000 from 2007-08 to result in a total of $550,000 transferred to 2008-09 in the third instance of re-profiling. The total revised budget for the IPPI, based on these transfers, for each of the five fiscal years are shown Table 2.

Table 2 : Revised IPPI Budget
 

Fiscal Year

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

Total

Original Budget

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$7,000,000

1st Re-profile

(-$150,000)

$150,000

$300,000

$300,000

$300,000

$ 900,000

2nd Re-profile

$0

(-$469,000)

$469,000

$0

$0

$0

3rd Re-profile

$0

(-$150,000)

(-$400,000)

$550,000

$0

$0

Total Revised Budget

$1,250,000

$  931,000

$1,769,000

$2,250,000

$1,700,000

$7,900,000

Note that these figures include salary, operating, employee benefit plans, common services, and accommodations.
Source: Comptroller’s Branch

Overall expenditures for the fiscal years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 are shown in Table 3 . Expenditures have increased from approximately $200,000 in 2005-06 to just under $1.4 million in total allocations in 2007-08 when most of the CCLO positions were staffed.

Table 3 : IPPI Expenditures for fiscal years 2005-05, 2006-07, 2007-08
 

Fiscal Year

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

Total

CCLOs (N)*

1

9

14

14

Salary (210)

$15,075

$190,548

$20,115

$225,738

Operating (240)

$16,678

$418,852

$1,168,801

$1,604,331

Common Services

$51,000

$64,000

$64,000

$179,000

EBP

$3,015

$38,110

$4,023

$45,148

Accommodation

$98,000

$131,000

$131,000

$360,000

Total allocation

$183,768

$842,509

$1,387,939

$2,414,216

Note that these figures include salary, operating, employee benefit plans, common services, and accommodations.
* “CCLOs” refers to the number of CCLOs in place during the fiscal year; however it does not mean that the CCLO was there for the full fiscal year.
Source: Comptroller’s Branch

2.0 Evaluation Strategy

2.1 Evaluation Plan

The goal of the evaluation was to provide information required to make investment decisions related to the IPPI prior to the expiration of funding at the end of fiscal year 2009-10. The Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) for the IPPI was used as the foundation for the evaluation. Based on this RMAF, an evaluation strategy was developed by the Evaluation Team (CSC-NHQ) in discussion with a consultative group, comprised of representatives from the Community Reintegration Operations Division, the Performance Measurement Division, CSC staff working in the community, and a CCLO. The objectives were to assess the continued relevance, success, cost-effectiveness, design and implementation issues, and any unintended effects associated with the initiative. Given delays in staffing the CCLO positions, the evaluation was focused on the implementation of the IPPI. Where possible, the success of the initiative related to the achievement of immediate and intermediate outcomes was assessed, given the state of implementation and the availability of reliable data.

2.2 Logic Model

The evaluation strategy was based on the activities, outputs and outcomes outlined in the IPPI logic model. The logic model is a graphical depiction of the key activities, outputs and outcomes related to the IPPI, and is presented in Appendix A.Footnote 7

Six activities were identified as being essential to CSC’s IPPI:

  1. Staffing;
  2. Training;
  3. Liaising and sharing of information activities with police and other relevant agencies;
  4. Involvement in the management of Higher Risk Offenders;
  5. Tracking of UAL offenders; and,
  6. Liaising with community stakeholders

Direct outputs of these activities include:

  1. Clear job descriptions established;
  2. Standardized national training package for CCLOs;
  3. Regular communication with police/other relevant agencies and communication processes developed;
  4. Participation in the pre-release and post-release case management process;
  5. Participation in gathering and sharing of information with police forces regarding UAL offenders; and,
  6. Communication processes for information sharing with the public and proactive outreach plan.

The expected results of the activities carried out were grouped into immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes. The immediate outcomes were:

  1. 17 CCLOs are hired;
  2. Increased awareness of CCLO role and responsibilities;
  3. Partnerships established with police forces;
  4. Collaborative approach to enhance the monitoring of high risk cases;
  5. Information shared between police and CSC/enhanced collaboration between police and CSC in the apprehension of UAL offenders; and
  6. Increased positive/neutral media reports.

The intermediate outcomes were:

  1. Increased quality and level of supervision and cooperation with police;
  2. Enhanced communications network between CSC and police;
  3. Improved risk management and supervision in the community;
  4. Facilitation of the apprehension of UAL offenders; and,
  5. Increased public awareness and understanding of corrections.

Ultimately, the expected long-term outcomes were:

  1. Offenders safely and effectively accommodated and reintegrated into Canadian communities;
  2. Enhanced public safety; and,
  3. Increased public confidence towards CSC.

3.0 Methodology, Design and Data Sources

3.1 Methods and Procedures

A multi-method approach incorporating qualitative and quantitative methods was utilized to address the evaluation objectives (refer to Appendix B for the Evaluation Matrix). Information was collected through an online survey, interviews with key stakeholders, automated data sources, administrative file and data reviews, analysis of financial data and a review of other initiative-specific data (e.g., annual and quarterly reports, training packages, protocol documents, minutes of conference calls, etc.).

Key Informant Surveys and Interviews

An online survey regarding the IPPI evaluation was made available to all CSC staff and CCLOs through a link distributed via e-mail.Footnote 8 Questions centered on the evaluation objectives of relevancy, implementation, success, and unintended effects. The survey consisted of dichotomous (“yes” / “no”) questions, 5-point Likert rating scale questions (e.g., ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”), and open-ended questions. The bilingual survey was open to all staff with access to the CSC InfoNet and was available 24 hours a day for approximately three weeks. Data from this survey were collected automatically using Snap Survey software and were then exported to Microsoft Excel for coding of qualitative (“open-ended”) themes and to SPSS for analysis of quantitative data and coded qualitative data. A total of 307 staff members responded, of which 147 (48%) indicated sufficient familiarity with the IPPI to provide data for analysis.Footnote 9

Whereas the general CSC staff survey was designed to assess perceptions of the success of the IPPI and general implementation issues that might be common to or observed by all staff members, it was expected that there would be additional implementation issues about which only certain staff members would be knowledgeable (i.e., CSC staff responsible for the management of the initiative and CCLOs). In order to supplement information from the general CSC staff survey, interviews were conducted with CSC IPPI management staff and CCLOs in order to obtain more in-depth information regarding some of the evaluation objectives. Interview questions were primarily focused on experiences that would be specific to this group of individuals (e.g., implementation issues such as CCLO staffing, training, and the roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders). Questions were dichotomous (e.g., “yes”/”no”), rating scale (e.g., “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”), and open-ended. A total of 43 interviews (12 CCLOs and 31 CSC IPPI management staff) were conducted by evaluation team members by phone or in person.

Lastly, interviews were conducted with 11 senior police personnel (e.g., Sergeants, Detectives, Inspectors) who were familiar with the IPPI to gain a police perspective on the relevance, implementation, and success of the initiative. A memo was sent via email to the Chiefs of Police for all police services that had previously or were currently participating in the IPPI (= 15). The memo invited the Police Chiefs and other police personnel familiar with the initiative to participate in the evaluation process. The Evaluation Branch followed up with the Chiefs of Police and/or their Executive Assistants on two occasions. Of the police services contacted, responses were received from 5 police services agreeing to participate in the evaluation. Interviews included rating scale, dichotomous (“yes”/”no”), and open-ended follow-up questions.

Qualitative data generated as a result of the interview process were organized by different stakeholder groups. Themes relevant to the evaluation objectives were then generated by evaluation analysts. Quantitative interview data were entered into Snap Survey software and then exported and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

Automated Offender Data

Data from CSC’s Offender Management System (OMS) were extracted and analyzed for research purposes. Data captured in OMS includes information collected during the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process, which involves a comprehensive and integrated assessment of offenders at the time of their admission. The process begins with an examination of immediate mental and physical health concerns, security risk and suicide potential, and is followed by completion of the Criminal Profile and the Dynamic Factor Identification and Analysis (DFIA).
The indicators analysed in the intake process included:

  • Static factors are based on historical information related to risk that is available at the time of the offender's admission to federal custody.
  • Dynamic factors are the seven domain areas that contribute to criminal offending. Interventions within these domains can reduce the risk to public safety and improve the likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.
  • Reintegration potential is a rating that is calculated to assist in the assessment of the risk that the offender presents to the community. The Reintegration Potential of male non-Aboriginal offenders is automatically calculated by OMS using the offender’s individual scores on the Custody Rating Scale (CRS), General Statistical Information on Recidivism (GSIR) and the Static Factor Rating. The Reintegration Potential of women offenders and Aboriginal offenders is automatically calculated by OMS using the offender’s individual scores on the Custody Rating Scale, Dynamic Factor Rating and Static Factor Rating.
  • Motivation level is scored as low, medium or high. A high motivation level is assigned to an offender who is self-motivated and actively addresses problem areas related to his or her criminality. A medium level of motivation is assigned to an offender who may not fully accept overall assessments but will participate in recommended programs or other interventions, and a low motivation level is assigned to an offender who strongly rejects the need for change or is unwilling to participate in recommended programs or interventions.

3.2 Analysis

Survey and Interview Data

Themes generated from open-ended survey and interview responses are presented in the appropriate Key Findings sections. Between-groups differences were analysed using chi-square tests for categorical (“yes”/”no”) questions and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for continuous scale questions. Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) with Bonferroni correction was used for post hoc comparisons when ANOVAs showed significant main effects. T-tests were used to compare mean differences between responses to two different questions (continuous data) by the same group of individuals. Summary data are provided in the text related to the relevant findings and more detailed data are reported in Appendix C.

Recidivism Analysis for Higher Risk Offenders

Because one objective of the IPPI was to supervise / monitor higher risk offenders, recidivism analysis was conducted only for those offenders who were high risk in each of the CCLO locations. Three types of recidivism (all returns, returns with a new offence and technical revocations) were investigated to measure the impact of the IPPI on the rates of recidivism for higher risk offenders released to the community. Using the OIA indicator of “high risk”, a pre-implementation group of higher risk offenders and a post-implementation group of higher risk offenders were selected from each CCLO location based on implementation dates. Pre- and post-implementation groups of released higher risk offenders were followed for a one year fixed period and the type of recidivism and the length of time until recidivism were recorded. Finally, to compare the effect of the IPPI on recidivism, the survival rates were modeled using Cox Regression analysis while controlling for reintegration potential, overall dynamic need, Aboriginal status, and age at release.

UAL Analysis

To investigate in the impact of the IPPI on the number of offenders who went UAL, a database was created from OMS containing the number of offenders who were UAL, the number of UAL offenders who were apprehended, and the length of time an offender was UAL before being apprehended. This database included all offenders who were being supervised within the areas where a CCLO was placed and covered a period of time that allowed for a comparison of measures before and after the placement of a CCLO.

Percentage of Offenders who went UAL

To compare the percentage of offenders who went UAL during pre- and post-implementation time periods, a two-sample independent t-test for proportions was used comparing the percentage of offenders who were being supervised and went UAL during the selected time periods.Footnote 10

Percentage of UAL Offenders who were Apprehended

To compare the percentage of offenders who were apprehended during pre- and post- implementation time periods, the percentages of offenders who were UAL and were apprehended were compared for the two time periods using a two-sample independent t-test.Footnote 11

Length of Time to Apprehension

To investigate whether there was any change in the length of time an offender was UAL before being apprehended, only those offenders who went UAL and were apprehended within each of the time periods were considered. The average length of time to apprehension was calculated, and a two-sample independent t-test was used to detect any differences from pre- to post-implementation.

Geospatial Analysis

With the assistance of Public Safety Geomatics Division, evaluation team members created maps using ArcGIS software to provide a visual representation of the locations of CCLOs and the percentages of supervised higher risk offenders at each Parole Office and CCC in each region. Map symbology identified the type of office (Parole Office or CCC) and the presence or absence of a CCLO at each office. Using automated offender data from OMS, map labels indicated the percentage of higher risk offenders in the community who were supervised at each office for fiscal years 2006-07 and 2007-08 . An additional goal was to examine whether the sites selected for implementation in 2005 were appropriate, given the proportions of higher risk offenders supervised at these sites prior to implementation of the initiative. Therefore, the national percentages of higher risk offenders supervised at each parole office and CCC in the community during 2003-04 to 2004-05 were calculated, to determine whether the original locations selected as CCLO sites had the largest percentages of higher risk offenders.

Document Review

The following documents were reviewed: conference call minutes, quarterly and annual reports, CCLO training packages, IPPI protocol documents, and research and evaluation literature on similar initiatives in other jurisdictions. A literature search using PsycInfo, Google Scholar and the Home Office UK website yielded research and evaluation reports related to similar initiatives. Search terms used to locate national and international literature sources included: police, partnership, initiative, joint, co-location, corrections. Specific locations included: Canada, France, Australia, United States, United Kingdom, South Africa, and New Zealand.

IPPI documentation was reviewed and themes were generated from quarterly, annual and monthly reports. The document review was used in the development of interview and survey instruments, and as a source of supplementary information. Further, the CCLO training package, and any protocols developed as a result of the initiative were examined.

Financial Data

Financial information was collected from the Integrated Management Reporting System (IMRS). Representatives from the Comptrollers Branch provided a complete summary of IPPI budgets, re-profiles in funding, and expenditures.

3.3 Limitations

Issues were encountered with regard to data tracking tools early in the initiative (e.g., identification of cases in which CCLOs were involved in release planning and supervision of higher risk offenders). In order to facilitate reliable, standardized tracking of this information, a Case Management Bulletin directing parole officers and CCLOs to enter data in OMS casework records was issued in May 2007. Some incorrect usage of this data capture method was observed based on a reliability check of the data in the summer of 2007. Specifically, only 8 CCLOs were found to be entering data into OMS casework records. Further, it appeared that a significant number of CSC staff were entering records into the CCLO designated casework record categories even though they did not have contact with CCLOs under the IPPI.

The ability to track the type of offenders involved in increased monitoring/supervision through the IPPI was limited during the early to mid-operational stages of the initiative. Significant limitations existed with respect to data quality and availability, which impacted upon the ability to profile those offenders who were involved with CCLOs. Furthermore, since offenders involved in the IPPI initiative could not be accurately tracked for any length of time, a clear measurement of outcomes for these offenders (UAL apprehensions and recidivism following release) was not possible. Therefore, outcome analyses were based only on comparisons of all offenders who matched the initiative criteria (i.e., UAL, high risk) during pre- and post-implementation time periods at all CCLO locations.

As a result of various staffing challenges, many CCLO positions were not staffed until 2007 or 2008. Late implementation of the initiative resulted in short-term follow-up periods for outcome analysis, and the inability to include some of the CCLO areas in the outcome analyses. Also, as a result of late implementation, the post-implementation follow-up period for analysis began immediately following CCLO staffing, allowing little time for CCLOs to learn their roles or to have an impact on the offenders with whom they might be working. This may have impacted upon the ability to identify potential positive impacts of the initiative.

Furthermore, there was a lack of an appropriate comparison group to examine cohort effects in outcome analyses (i.e., there were few major cities with comparable proportions of higher risk offenders that did not have CCLOs). As referenced in the program profile, CCLO locations were selected based on areas where there were large concentrations of higher risk offenders. As a result, virtually all large Canadian cities with significant proportions of higher risk offenders were included in the initiative.

3.4 Participant Profiles

General CSC Staff Survey Participants

A total of 307 staff members responded to the general CSC staff survey.Footnote 12 In order to ensure that general survey respondents knew enough about the IPPI to informatively respond to the survey questions, a preliminary survey item acted as a screening question to limit responses to those who indicated they were at least moderately familiar with the CCLO initiative.Footnote 13 Thus, subsequent analyses were limited to the sub-sample of respondents who were sufficiently familiar with the IPPI (48% of all respondents, = 147). Within this sub-sample, the majority of respondents reported that they were currently working in a location where a CCLO position was staffed (57%) or had previously worked in a location with a CCLO (5%). Further, 79% of these respondents reported that they “sometimes” or “often” had contact with the CCLO in their area; 13% indicated they seldom had contact, and 8% indicated they never had contact with a CCLO. As shown in Table 4, the majority of respondents reported having a major or minor operational role in the IPPI, indicating that they were responsible in some way for working directly with CCLO s and/or offenders involved in the initiative.

Table 4 : Type and extent of role within the IPPI among General CSC Staff Survey respondents

Extent of Role

Type of Role

Management

Supervisory

Administrative

Operational

Major Role

5%

10%

7%

50%

Minor Role

10%

8%

15%

20%

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100%, as some respondents indicated more than one type of role or no role in the IPPI.

Representation of current employment locations and regions by respondents is shown in Table 5. The majority of respondents worked in the community (79%, = 116), and most of the remaining respondents worked in a federal institution (16%, n = 24). The most common work locations of respondents were community parole offices (= 95), or CCCs/CFRs (= 17).

Table 5 : Location and regional representation of General CSC Staff Survey respondents familiar with the IPPI

Location

Region (N)

Pacific

Prairies

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic

NHQ a

Total

Community

35

37

16

8

20

--

116

Institution

6

11

3

2

2

--

24

RHQ

1

0

0

1

2

--

4

NHQ

--

--

--

--

--

1

1

Other / Missing

1

0

0

0

0

--

2

Total

43

48

19

11

24

1

147

Note: Community locations include Parole Offices, CCC/CRF, Healing Lodges, and District Offices; Institution locations include minimum, medium, maximum and multi-level security institutions.
a Due to an insufficient sample from NHQ, the one respondent from this category was eliminated from regional comparisons reported in the findings sections of the report.

Of the respondents who were familiar with the initiative, the majority (42%) were Community Parole Officers and 17% were Parole Officer Supervisors. Several respondents were Security Intelligence Officers (7%) and Area Directors (7%). The remaining respondents included Associate District Directors / District Directors (3%), CCLOs (3%) and Institutional Parole Officers (3%), as well as a variety of other institutional (11%) and community-based (5%) positions. Given the small number of CCLO respondents to the general CSC staff survey (n = 4), it was not possible to report CCLO responses separately from those of the remainder of the survey responses.

The length of time that respondents had worked in their organization ranged from three months to 32.3 years, with a mean of 13.8 years. The length of time that respondents had worked in their current position ranged from one month to 28.3 years, with a mean of 5.9 years. The majority of respondents completed the English version of the survey (93%, = 136).

CCLO and CSC IPPI Management Staff Interview Participants

These interviews were utilized to obtain supplementary information regarding the implementation of the IPPI. Where possible, results for CCLOs and CSC IPPI management staff are reported separately in order to provide perspectives from both of these two groups.

Community Corrections Liaison Officers

A total of 12 CCLOs participated in the CCLO and CSC IPPI management interviews. At the time of the evaluation interviews, CCLOs reported a range of 10.3 to 32.7 years as police officers, with a mean of 27.8 years. The length of time spent as a CCLO ranged from six months to 2.4 years, with a mean of 1.3 years.

CSC IPPI Management Staff

Of the 31 CSC IPPI management staff interviewed, the majority held the positions of Area Director (23%), Parole Officer Supervisor (14%), District Director (9%) and Associate District Director (9%).Footnote 14 The length of time respondents reported working for CSC ranged from 14 months to 35 years, with a mean of 19.4 years. The length of time working in their current CSC position ranged from three months to 12 years, with a mean of 3.7 years. 

Police Interview Participants

The 11 police services staff interviewed were from 5 of the 15 police services approached for participation in the interview. The police interview sample was comprised of three Sergeants or Staff Sergeants, two Inspectors, a Detective, a Constable Detective, a Deputy Chief, an Inspector and a Lieutenant.Footnote 15 The majority of police respondents reported working in the Prairie Region (55%, = 6), followed by the Atlantic (27%, = 3), Pacific (9%, n = 1) and Quebec (9%, n = 1) Regions.

The majority of respondents (64% reported that they interacted with the CCLO in their area often, and only one respondent reported that he/she seldom interacted with the CCLO.Footnote 16 Approximately half of the police respondents (45%) indicated complete familiarity with the objectives of the IPPI, while 27% indicated considerable familiarity and 27% indicated moderate familiarity.

4.0 Evaluation Findings

4.1 Evaluation Objective 1: Relevance

The extent to which the initiative is consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities, and realistically addresses an actual need.

4.1.1 Government and Departmental Priorities

FINDING 1: The IPPI remains consistent with CSC, police service, and government-wide priorities and objectives.

Government-wide Priorities

Canadian federal departments’ Strategic Outcomes and Program Activities are grouped into 13 long-term benefits to Canadians in three broad sectors (social, economic, and international) that are referred to as Government of Canada Outcomes. Through the Program Activities of Custody, Correctional Interventions, Community Supervision, CORCAN, and Internal Services, CSC contributes directly and indirectly to the social affairs sector, under the Government of Canada Outcome, Safe and Secure Communities (CSC, 2009). The enhanced partnership between CSC and the police, community organizations and stakeholders that characterizes the IPPI is consistent with CSC’s direct and indirect contributions to this outcome (Table 6 ).

Table 6 : CSC’s contributions to Government of Canada objectives

Government of Canada Outcome

CSC's Direct Contribution

CSC's Indirect Contribution

Canada's Social Affairs Sector
Safe and Secure Communities

  • Decreased levels of crime and victimization by offenders through the delivery of programs and services that reduce recidivism; and
  • Enhanced intelligence gathering and information-sharing capacity, both internally and with criminal justice partners, allowing for a more cooperative response to ensuring security and safety in institutions and communities.

Maintain safe and secure communities

The majority of general CSC staff survey respondents agreed that the objectives of the IPPI were consistent with those of the Government of Canada (91%, = 125).

CSC Departmental Priorities

The IPPI is consistent with CSC’s strategic priority of the safe transition of eligible offenders into the community. In 2006-2007, CSC established five priorities in response to the changing offender profile, the paramount importance of public safety, and the Government’s emphasis on crime prevention; these priorities remain in 2008-09 (CSC, 2009):

  • Safe transition of eligible offenders into the community;
  • Safety and security for staff and offenders in our institutions;
  • Enhanced capacities to provide effective interventions for First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders;
  • Improved capacities to address mental health needs of offenders; and,
  • Strengthened management practices

The majority of general CSC staff survey respondents (90%) agreed that the objectives of the IPPI are consistent with those of CSC.

Police Services Priorities

The mission of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP, 2007) is to lead progressive change in policing through advocating and promoting the following:

  • Legislative reform, resources allocation and policy improvements with the people of Canada and their governments;
  • Innovative solutions for crime and public order issues with partners and concerned people of Canada;
  • Community partnerships with the people of Canada;
  • Highest professional and ethical standards within the police community; and
  • Excellence through the provision of service, support and information to members.

The CACP believes that quality police services must enhance the safety and development of communities, require continuous learning for professional excellence and pride, are premised on integrity and accountability, and require empowerment to produce innovation and creativity. Within the CACP ethical framework, executive responsibilities of members toward others in the policing profession and those engaged in services related to the policing profession include building relationships, sharing knowledge, and cooperating and collaborating. Accordingly, the objectives of the IPPI, including improved partnerships, greater information sharing and increased monitoring, remain consistent with police services priorities. In addition, the majority of general CSC staff survey respondents (90%) and all of police interviewees (100%) agreed that the objectives of the IPPI were consistent with police services’ priorities.

4.1.2 Consistency with Other Jurisdictions

FINDING 2: The design of the IPPI, as an enhanced supervision partnership, including objectives of information sharing and UAL apprehension, is consistent with practices in other jurisdictions.

The IPPI is a formalized enhanced supervision partnership that includes aspects of UAL apprehension and information sharing in its design. In recent years, police and correctional agencies in many jurisdictions have formed a variety of partnerships in which their staff collaborate to share information or jointly perform services in ways that benefit both agencies. Some of these partnerships are formalized—they are the product of a detailed planning process, have multi-agency advisory or oversight boards, and operate pursuant to written procedures. Other partnerships are informal, having evolved because staff in two or more agencies began talking about better ways to do their jobs. Moreover, these partnerships have now expanded to include youth corrections, probation and programming for offenders in the community (Parent & Snyder, 1999). Police and corrections partnerships are typically classified into five categories:

  • Enhanced supervision partnerships, in which police and probation or parole officers perform joint supervision or other joint functions related to offenders in the community. The objective of enhanced supervision partnerships is to reduce crimes committed by persons on probation or parole by:
    1. increasing the likelihood that violation of their conditions of supervision will be detected, and
    2. intervening more quickly and effectively if offenders’ adjustment while under supervision begins to decline;
  • Fugitive apprehension units, in which police and correctional agencies collaborate to locate and apprehend persons who have absconded from probation or parole supervision;
  • Information-sharing partnerships, in which corrections and law enforcement agencies institute procedures to exchange information related to offenders;
  • Specialized enforcement partnerships, in which police and correctional agencies, as well as community organizations, collaborate to reduce the prevalence of particular problems in communities;
  • Interagency problem-solving partnerships, in which law enforcement and correctional agencies confer to identify problems of mutual concern and to identify and implement solutions to them (Parent & Snyder, 1999).
Examples of Partnerships in the United States

Police corrections partnerships have been employed in numerous jurisdictions, particularly in the United States.Footnote 17 Examples of partnerships between community corrections and local police agencies throughout the U.S. include the Operation Night Light Program (Boston, Massachusetts), Project One Voice (New Haven, Connecticut), theMinneapolis Anti-Violence Initiative (Minneapolis, Minnesota), the Smart Partners Program (Bellevue and Redmond, Washington), Neighbourhood Probation (Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona), Maryland Re-entry Partnership Initiative (Baltimore, Maryland), and Boston Re-entry Initiative (Boston, Massachusetts).

Boston’s Operation Night Light program is one of the oldest enhanced supervision partnerships, having begun in 1990. It is a partnership between the Boston Police Department and district court probation officers in which staff conduct joint patrols and curfew checks and participate in extensive information sharing with local, state, and federal agencies. Officials have reported that the program has had a significant impact on gang members who are on probation (by taking their conditions of supervision more seriously), and police and probation officers have developed a new respect for one another.

Project One Voice is a partnership between the New Haven Police Department and adult and juvenile probation and parole agencies with the purpose of intensive surveillance for high risk, gang involved offenders. Probation officers maintain offices at police substations, and probation officers and police officers conduct joint operations (e.g., patrols, home visits). Probation officers have indicated that probationers are more likely to conform to supervision requirements, and that persistent engagement in violations more often results in revocation of probation.

The Minneapolis Anti-Violence Initiative (MAVI) is a partnership between the Minneapolis Police Department’s Gang Strike Force and the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections that was started in 1997. It targets violent adult and juvenile gang members and provides intensive supervision, joint home visits and joint neighbourhood patrols. According to monitoring data, it has been noted that in 1997, murders declined 30% in Minneapolis, and assaults and weapons offences declined slightly. Further, probation officers assigned to MAVI indicated that conducting home visits with police reduced offenders’ scepticism about probation officers’ conducting home visits, and police officers reported being treated with more respect by community residents and by offenders since MAVI began.

The Smart Partners Program is a partnership between the Redmond Police Department and the Washington Department of Corrections Regional Community Corrections office in neighbouring Bellevue that started in 1994. Police officers receive probation officer training and conduct home visits for a small caseload of high risk offenders on community supervision. The partnership also involves information sharing between police and correctional agencies. Between 1994 and 1998, the program had expanded to more than 50 cities and counties in Washington State.

Neighbourhood Probation began in 1996 and is a program that operates neighbourhood-based probation services that are partnerships between the probation department, the Phoenix Police Department and community organizations. Officials have indicated that the programs are meeting some of their goals, including a decrease in crime in the Coronado neighbourhood, and a lower turnover among neighbourhood probation officers than among traditional probation officers.

The Maryland Re-entry Partnership (REP) Initiative in Baltimore, Maryland (Le Vigne et al, 2006; Roman, Brooks, Lagerson, Chalfin & Terescschenko, 2007)is a collaboration of diverse public and private partners with the objective of reducing recidivism, increasing offender accountability, and harnessing community resources to meet the needs of recently released prisoners. The primary role for police in the partnerships is to deter re-offending through exit orientation meetings, termed “notification sessions”. Using a cohort of prisoners released from the Maryland Transition Center in Baltimore between March 2001 and January 2005, it was found that REP was successful in reducing criminal offending, as fewer REP clients than non-REP clients (72% compared to 78%, respectively) committed at least one new crime in the study period, which averaged 38 months.

The Boston Re-entry Initiative (BRI) in Boston, Massachusetts (Le Vigne et al., 2006)Footnote 18 was developed in partnership with faith-based, community and criminal justice agencies. Its primary goal was to reduce violent offending and victimization by serious and violent offenders through

  1. focusing efforts and resources on the most serious returning offenders;
  2. a joint public safety and social service approach involving the partnership between law enforcement, government agencies, community providers, and faith-based organizations; and
  3. intervention services to address hurdles faced by offenders returning from confinement, grounded in research and past experience of several model programs run by the Boston Police Department and the Suffolk County House of Corrections.

Case managers (including probation/parole officers and transitional housing staff) and faith and community-based mentors then work with the offender to develop a re-entry plan and work towards achieving the outlined goals through accessing services. Participants are tracked up to one year post-release, and mentors and service providers complete monthly assessments outlining progress. Of the 71 released offenders who actively participated in the program, only 15% re-offended, and the majority of these arrests (91%) were for minor and non-violent crimes. A 2003 analysis showed an overall 4% decrease in violent crime in the violent crime “hot-spots” that are home to most BRI participants from the pre-initiative to post-initiative time period.

4.1.3 Need for Services for UAL and Higher Risk Offenders

FINDING 3: The changing offender profile and the number of UAL offenders under CSC jurisdiction demonstrates a need for initiatives that address objectives such as increased monitoring and supervision of higher risk groups.

The IPPI is designed to target an important need in the area of public safety. The increasing and changing offender population has created challenges for CSC in implementing its mandate to safely and securely reintegrate offenders into the community. The overall offender population has increased, with greater proportions of offenders receiving maximum security designations and serving shorter sentences. Gang-affiliated offenders are more prevalent, and offenders are more frequently identified as having serious mental health needs (CSC, 2008). Offenders recently admitted into federal custody are more likely than in the past to have extensive and violent criminal records. This changing offender profile, as well as trends toward shorter sentences, presents new challenges with regard to managing an offender’s risk and needs. The increase in offenders being actively supervised in the community and the number of UAL offenders are consistent with the goals and objectives of the IPPI and demonstrate a need for the initiative.

After decreases in the federal offender population in the community under active supervision from 1999-2000 to 2004-05, there were increases of 1.2% and 1.9% in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. In 2006-07, there were 6,332 men and 450 women on active community supervision (Public Safety Canada, 2007).Footnote 19

Figure 1 displays the total number of new releasesFootnote 20 granted in each of the fiscal years from 2002/2003 to 2007/2008, including a breakdown by release type. Statutory release comprised approximately 65% of new releases, day parole was granted in approximately 30% of cases, and full parole represented the remaining 5% of new release types. Results displayed in the figure below suggest that the types of releases granted remained relatively stable, with the exception that there appeared to be a very gradual increase in the total number of new statutory releases per year over the time period represented in the graph.

Figure 1 : Release Type

Description Figure 1:

This line graph demonstrates the number of federal offenders granted day parole, full parole, statutory release, and the total number of new releases.

The X axis, from left to right, lists the years of 2002-2003 to 2007-2008.

The Y axis, from bottom to top, represents the number of offenders granted conditional release, and increases at an increment of 1000, going from 0 to 9000.

The graph shows four series which represent the three types of conditional release analyzed in this chart, as well as the total number of new releases granted. These are seen as four separate horizontal lines which all showed a small increase from the beginning to the end of the time series.

The series are:

  • Day Parole Full
  • Parole Statutory
  • Release Total

The line representing day parole begins at 2290 in 2002-2003 and ends at 2494 in 2007-2008.

The line representing full parole begins at 374 in 2002-2003 and ends at 400 in 2007-2008.

The line representing statutory release begins at 5079 in 2002-2003 and ends at 5492 in 2007-2008.

The line representing the total number of new releases begins at 7743 in 2002-2003 and ends at 8386 in 2007-2008.

The data points for all four series of data will now be read aloud for each year in the analysis beginning with 2002-2003 and ending with 2007-2008.

The number of offenders granted day parole in 2002-2003 was 2290.

The number of offenders granted full parole in 2002-2003 was 374.

The number of offenders granted statutory release in 2002-2003 was 5079.

The total number of new releases in 2002-2003 was 7743.

The number of offenders granted day parole in 2003-2004 was 2310.

The number of offenders granted full parole in 2003-2004 was 434.

The number of offenders granted statutory release in 2003-2004 was 5102.

The total number of new releases in 2003-2004 was 7846.

The number of offenders granted day parole in 2004-2005 was 2352.

The number of offenders granted full parole in 2004-2005 was 404.

The number of offenders granted statutory release in 2004-2005 was 5095.

The total number of new releases in 2004-2005 was 7851.

The number of offenders granted day parole in 2005-2006 was 2470.

The number of offenders granted full parole in 2005-2006 was 396.

The number of offenders granted statutory release in 2005-2006 was 5212.

The total number of new releases in 2005-2006 was 8078.

The number of offenders granted day parole in 2006-2007 was 2379.

The number of offenders granted full parole in 2006-2007 was 404.

The number of offenders granted statutory release in 2006-2007 was 5252.

The total number of new releases in 2006-2007 was 8035.

The number of offenders granted day parole in 2007-2008 was 2494.

The number of offenders granted full parole in 2007-2008 was 400.

The number of offenders granted statutory release in 2007-2008 was 5492.

The total number of new releases in 2007-2008 was 8386.

Figure 1 : Release Type - This line graph demonstrates the number of federal offenders granted day parole, full parole, statutory release, and the total number of new releases.

Source: OMS data extraction, December, 2008.

A snapshot of the offender population on April 8, 2007 indicated that there were 8,071 federal offenders (35.9% of the total federal offender population) actively supervised and temporarily detained (including those on day parole, full parole, statutory release, and LTSOs). On this date, 21 offenders were under LTSOs, and 651 offenders were UAL (Public Safety Canada, 2007). It should be noted that the length of time an offender is UAL varies and a snapshot of the UAL offender population on a given date does not reflect the total number of UAL cases per year. Figure 2 illustrates the number of new UAL cases during each fiscal year, from 2002-03 through 2007-08 .

Figure 2 : New UAL cases during fiscal years 2002-03 through 2007-08

Description Figure 2:

This line graph demonstrates the number of new federal offenders unlawfully at large (UAL) for the fiscal years 2002-2003 through to 2007-2008

The X axis, from left to right, lists the years of 2002-2003 to 2007-2008.

The Y axis, from bottom to top, represents the number of federal offenders unlawfully at large, and increases at an increment of 500, going from 0 to 4000.

The graph shows one series which represents the number of federal offenders unlawfully at large. This is seen as one horizontal line which showed an increase over 4 years, and a decrease in the last year.

The series is:

  • New UAL Cases.

The line representing new UAL cases begins at 3309 in 2002-2003, and ends at 3629 in 2007-2008.

The data points for the series of data will now be read aloud for each year in the analysis beginning with 2002-2003 and ending with 2007-2008.

The number of federal offenders unlawfully at large in 2002-2003 was 3309.

The number of federal offenders unlawfully at large in 2003-2004 was 3382.

The number of federal offenders unlawfully at large in 2004-2005 was 3570.

The number of federal offenders unlawfully at large in 2005-2006 was 3686.

The number of federal offenders unlawfully at large in 2006-2007 was 3764.

The number of federal offenders unlawfully at large in 2007-2008 was 3629.

Figure 2 : New UAL cases during fiscal years 2002-03 through  2007-08 - This line graph demonstrates the number of new federal offenders unlawfully at large (UAL) for the fiscal years 2002-2003 through to 2007-2008

Source: OMS data extraction, December, 2008.

The total number of UAL cases per fiscal year represents any instance in which a warrant of suspension was issued for more than a day before being executed, which means that the offender's whereabouts was unknown for at least a day. It is important to note that there are many UAL warrants executed for instances in which an offender is unable to be located for at least one day. However, not all of these UAL cases are for extended periods of time and not all result in apprehensions involving police personnel as offenders may return to their designated location or report to their parole officer at some later date.

Overall, the current offender profile and the number of UAL cases suggests that there is a need for initiatives that focus on increased monitoring and supervision of higher risk groups. Given the objectives of the IPPI, the majority of staff survey respondents indicated that there was a continued need for the IPPI (89%), whereas very few indicated somewhat of a need (7%) or no need for the IPPI (4%). Similarly, 91% of police interviewees reported that there was a continued need for the IPPI. A comparison of responses across regions showed that general CSC staff survey respondents from the Pacific Region were significantly more likely than respondents from other regions to indicate that there was a continued need for the initiative. Of respondents who offered reasons as to why the IPPI was somewhat or not necessary, the most common responses were that CSC staff (i.e., Parole Officers/Security Intelligence Officers [SIOs]) can or should do the job, and that the CCLO position was unnecessary or redundant.

The CSC Review Panel (2007) also reviewed the IPPI and met with many of the CCLOs across the country. The Panel reported benefits of the initiative to be the exchange of operational information and finding offenders who were UAL. The Panel supported CSC’s continued efforts to build upon the initiative, and recognized the need to collect security intelligence information in the community that can be linked to similar information from penitentiaries to provide a complete picture of actual and potential criminal activity.

RECOMMENDATION 1: The current and projected offender population profiles should be reviewed regularly to verify that the IPPI remains relevant through the identification of any priority groups, trends, or changes in the offender profile that may require adjustments to the design and/or objectives of the IPPI.

4.2 Evaluation Objective 2: Implementation

The extent to which the initiative was implemented as it was designed, and whether the design was the most appropriate design for the delivery of the initiative.

4.2.1 CCLO Staffing

FINDING 4: Staffing challenges, related primarily to the contract negotiation process, police personnel shortages, and lack of interest and awareness of the CCLO position, resulted in significant delays in the implementation of the IPPI.

Most of the CCLO positions have been occupied at some time during the course of the IPPI, and there were 14 CCLOs in place at the time of the evaluation.Footnote 21 However, two of the sites that had been staffed originally were vacant at the time of the evaluation (Edmonton, Calgary). Although CCLOs typically work from one parole office or CCC, the geographic area that the CCLO serves extends beyond that particular parole office. The geographic areas covered by each CCLO vary by location and can cover large sections of the region, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Current CCLO Status & Areas of Service
District CCLO Location Status Area of Service

Atlantic

Halifax

Occupied

Halifax Area Office
Dartmouth Area Office
Carlton Annex
Carlton CCC

St-John's

Occupied

St. John's Area Office
Newfoundland & Labrador CCC

Saint John

Occupied

Saint John Area Office
Parrtown CCC

Montréal - Metropolitan

Montréal

Occupied (2)

Ville-Marie Parole Office
Masionneuve Parole Office
Longueuil Parole Office
Hochelaga  CCC
Ogilvy CCC
Sherbrooke CCC
Martineau CCC

Quebec East / West

Québec City

Occupied

Québec Parole Office
Marcel Caron  CCC
Chicoutimi Parole Office
Rimouski Parole Office
Trois Rivières Parole Office

Laurentides

Occupied

Lanaudière Parole Office.
Laurentian Parole Office
Laferrière CCC
Laval Parole Office
Hull Parole Office
Rouyn-Noranda Parole Office

Central Ontario

Toronto

Occupied

Keele CCC
Toronto Team Supervision Unit Office
Downtown Toronto Parole Office
Toronto West Parole Office
Toronto East Parole Office

Hamilton

Occupied

Hamilton Area Office
Hamilton CCC
Brantford Parole Office

Durham Region

Vacant

Durham Region Parole Office

Greater Ontario and Nunavut

Ottawa

Occupied

Ottawa Parole Office
Cornwall Parole (sub-office)

Saskatchewan / Manitoba / Northwest Ontario

Regina

Occupied

Regina Parole Office
Oskana CCC

Winnipeg

Occupied

Winnipeg Urban Parole Office
Osborne CCC

Alberta and Northwest Territories

Edmonton

Vacant

Edmonton Urban Area Office

Calgary

Vacant

Calgary Urban Area Office

Pacific

Vernon

Occupied

Vernon Area Office
Kelowna Area Office
Note - In terms of UAL tracking, equally involved with:
Prince George Parole Office
Kamloops Area Office
Victoria Parole Office
Nanaimo Parole Office

Vancouver

Occupied

Vancouver Area Office
New Westminster Area Office
Fraser Valley Area Office
Abbotsford Parole Office
Belkin Enhanced CRF
Chilliwack CCC

Source: Community Reintegration Programs Division, current as of September 18, 2008.

The IPPI was funded to commence in Fiscal Year 2005-2006. All sites were designated to be staffed by June 2006. However, it is evident that the majority of selected locations were staffed later than planned when examining the implementation plan against contract start dates. Table 8 details the original CCLO locations selected, the implementation plan, and actual CCLO contract start dates. Note that the Calgary and Kingston sites were not implemented as planned. Kingston did not pursue the CSC offer of one CCLO for the city, and resources originally intended for Kingston were subsequently moved to Durham Region. The contract for Calgary was never officially signed, although a police officer was acting informally in the position of a CCLO for over one year. According to the Community Reintegration Operations Division, restructuring of the CSC community districts was approved by the Executive Committee (EXCOM) in 2004, and delays in staffing management services functions in the CSC districts may have contributed to the delays related to the negotiation and staffing of initial CCLO agreements.Footnote 22

Table 8: Locations Selected and Implementation Plan for IPPI

Region

City

Actual Contract Start Date*

Phase 1: Immediate Implementation – April 1, 2005 - February 1, 2006

Ontario

Hamilton

April 3, 2006

Prairie

Regina

February 1, 2006

Phase 2: Intermediate Implementation – February 1, 2006 – March 31, 2006

Atlantic

Halifax

April 3, 2006

Quebec

Montréal (1)

June 11, 2007

Ontario

Kingston

Did not participate

Quebec

St. Jerome (Laurentides)

March 05, 2008

Prairie

Edmonton

July 1, 2006

Pacific

Vernon

March 19, 2007

Phase 3: Long-Term Implementation – March 31, 2006 – June 1, 2006

Atlantic

Saint John

August 28, 2006

Atlantic

St. John's

June 19, 2006

Quebec

Québec City

March 05, 2008

Quebec

Montréal (2)

June 11, 2007

Ontario

Toronto

September 11, 2007

Ontario

Ottawa

April 2, 2007

Prairies

Winnipeg

December 26, 2006

Prairies

Calgary

Contract not signed

Pacific

Vancouver

September 18, 2006

Note that the Calgary CCLO contract was not signed. This position was informally implemented with a police officer acting in that position beginning in December, 2006.
* Only initial contract start dates are listed, for a complete list of contracts refer to Appendix D
Source: CCLO Interchange Canada Agreements

Qualitative findings from CCLO and CSC IPPI management interviews provided some insight into the possible causes of implementation delays related to staffing. Despite the fact that approximately 71% of CSC IPPI management staff and 60% of CCLOs interviewed agreed that the CCLO positions in their respective regions were staffed in a timely manner, the majority of CSC IPPI management staff (62%) and some CCLOs (20%

Among CSC IPPI management staff who indicated that there had been staffing challenges, the most common staffing challenges reported included the requirement for approval at numerous levels of the partnering organizations, shortages in police staff, a lack of interest by police personnel, lack of knowledge of what the CCLO position entailed, or disputes over the terms of the agreement (Table 9).

Table 9: CSC IPPI management staff perceptions of CCLO staffing challenges

Staffing Challenge

CSC IPPI management
(% Agree)

Delays due to requirement for approval of agreement at numerous levels of the organizations

91%

Shortages in police personnel for regular police positions

67%

Lack of awareness of what CCLO position entailed

62%

Dispute over terms of Agreement / legal wording of contract

60%

General lack of interest in position by police personnel

58%

No opportunities for overtime

27%

Interruption of career advancement within police services for CCLO s

25%

Insufficient / Untimely advertisement of CCLO job postings

19%

Disagreement or lack of clarity over operational issues (e.g., weapons, vehicle use, uniforms)

17%

Lack of enthusiasm for IPPI among police agencies management staff

17%

Lack of enthusiasm for IPPI among CSC management staff

0%

Note: Only those who indicated that there had been staffing challenges responded to the follow-up rating scale questions shown in this table. Only CSC IPPI management staff responses to these questions are shown here, since the number of CCLOs and police staff who indicated that there had been staffing challenges were very small ( CCLO : n= 2/10; 20%; and police: n = 4/10; 40%). Given the small number of respondents, we were unable to detect any clear pattern of results in response to these follow-up questions regarding staffing challenges for these two groups. There was one exception, in that 28% of police respondents (n = 3) reported that shortages in police personnel for regular police positions was a challenge in staffing the CCLO positions.
Source: CCLO / CSC IPPI management interview

In addition to staffing challenges, CCLO and CSC IPPI management staff were asked if they had experienced any general challenges to the implementation of the IPPI. Several CCLO/CSC IPPI management staff interviewees indicated they had experienced general implementation challenges. The most commonly reported issues were related to staffing and contract negotiation (e.g., the development of the Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] between CSC and police, initial confusion over the role of CCLOs and reporting relationships, and arrangements regarding salary, weapons, and/or access to a designated vehicle). In order to address general implementation issues and staffing challenges, respondents suggested improved promotion and communication of the CCLO position to police staff, increasing staff awareness of the roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders, development of a standardized MOU that could be used across agencies or streamlining the contracting process, provision of overtime when necessary, and clarifying/defining the role of the CCLO and formalizing the objectives of the IPPI. General CSC staff survey respondents mentioned similar challenges to implementing the IPPI, and also suggested that additional CCLOs were required.

These findings are consistent with a review of IPPI documentation, including annual district reports, indicating that several of these issues impacted on the timeliness with which CCLO positions were staffed. A review of IPPI documentationFootnote 23 revealed a number of implementation issues related to the contracting and negotiation process of the Interchange Canada agreements. Many of the themes were similar to those reported by stakeholders, and some of the most common included:Footnote 24

  • Legal issues associated with the Interchange Canada Agreements: CCLOs were hired through Interchange Canada agreements, and during negotiation processes there were legal, administrative, and wording issues raised by the police organizations. Discussions between legal counsels for CSC police services, and police bargaining agents caused significant delays in the hiring process in some jurisdictions. Some of the specific issues related to the negotiation process were:
    • Levels of approval required for final signing of the agreements;
    • Issues related to honouring collective agreements of the participating police forces;
    • Dual reporting requirements, namely CCLOs reporting to the CSC Area Director and Police Services Supervisor;
    • Defining roles and responsibilities, as well as issues related to the CCLOs’ involvement in the apprehension of offenders;
    • Lack of availability of compressed work hours, paid leave and other employee benefits issues, and hours of work (e.g., ability to have a shift in place other than CSC day office hours);
    • Clothing allowance;
    • Weapons:Some concerns were raised about CCLOs carrying a weapon on their person while in the parole office or the CCC. A Human Resources Skills Development Canada (HRSDC) review of the situation in relation to the Canada Labour Code determined that CSC must ensure that necessary measures are taken to control any hazards associated with CCLOs having a weapon on his/her person while on CSC property; and
  • Access to vehicles: Having ready access to a vehicle has been problematic, as CCLOs are required to share CSC vehicles with parole office staff.
  • Issues related to informatics and technical issues (i.e., the ability of CCLOs to link to police information).

Although implementation issues affected the timeliness and success of implementation, it is important to note that each CCLO location was described as unique, with varying offender populations and crime characteristics, and different relationships with their respective police services. The vast majority of CCLOs (92%) and CSC IPPI management staff interview respondents (90%) stated that their parole office or location was unique with respect to the implementation of the IPPI. The most commonly mentioned aspects affecting implementation included the size of the geographic area that the CCLO had to cover, having pre-existing relationships with police agencies, and the large offender populations in their areas. The uniqueness of each of the CCLO locations may pose challenges to the systematic implementation of the IPPI and may therefore necessitate some flexibility in implementation. Although some consistency in implementation and objectives is necessary, it may be necessary to consider how consistency is defined and measured.

Furthermore, the majority of CCLOs (75%) and CSC IPPI management staff respondents (57%) stated that they had encountered challenges with bringing together people from different professions with different philosophies. These challenges related to the variety of approaches and philosophies towards offenders and the communication and achievement of a common understanding. Respondents suggested ways to resolve these challenges, including increasing trust and communication between organizations, educating police about CSC and the parole process, increasing staff awareness of the role of the CCLO and the objectives of the IPPI, and providing additional time for CCLOs to establish their roles by lengthening CCLO contracts.

In general, CCLOs stated that they decided to become CCLOs because they were interested in the nature of the work, they wanted to learn more about the criminal justice system, they had worked for CSC in the past, and/or because they viewed the position as an opportunity for career advancement. It is important to note that several CCLOs stated they took the position because they were assigned by their respective police force.

RECOMMENDATION 2: CSC should review IPPI staffing methods and processes, with the goal of streamlining the staffing process, and increasing knowledge about the objectives of the IPPI and the role of CCLOs among police personnel.

4.2.2 Organizational / Reporting Structure and Stakeholder Support for the IPPI

FINDING 5: The majority of stakeholders agreed that the organizational structure and reporting relationships for the IPPI were designed in a way that supported the continued activities of the initiative. However, regional variations in reporting relationships existed, and some stakeholders reported a lack of clarity in reporting relationships and a need for greater communication between NHQ and the regions.

No formal documentation regarding the IPPI organizational structure was available among the initiative documentation. Overall management of the IPPI is the responsibility of the Community Reintegration Operations Division (Offender Programs and Reintegration Branch, Correctional Operations and Programs Sector). The establishment and management of each of the specific CCLO contracts with the police services was ultimately managed by each of the CSC districts, through the District Directors. Some variations existed with respect to supervisory relationships for the CCLOs, as the CCLOs may report to the Associate District Director, the Area Director, the CCC Director, or the Parole Officer Supervisor for direction related to local operational and administrative requirements.

The majority of CSC IPPI management staff interviewees (66%), but a lesser proportion of CCLOs (36%) agreed that the IPPI organizational management structure was designed in a way that supported the initiative’s implementation and activities. Several respondents stated that the reporting structure was unclear and that NHQ should better communicate with the regions and districts.

The majority of general CSC staff survey respondents agreed that the IPPI received adequate support from stakeholders (see Table 10 ). Respondents differed significantly in their agreement across stakeholder groups, indicating a higher average level of agreement regarding adequate support from CSC Parole Office staff than any other stakeholder group. Overall, respondents’ average levels of agreement regarding whether the IPPI has received adequate support from CSC institutional staff and CSC NHQ staff were lower than the levels of agreement regarding the support received from all other stakeholder groups (Table 10 ).Footnote 25 The majority of police interviewees agreed that the IPPI received adequate support from police services staff (91%) and CSC staff (80%).

Table 10 : Staff perceptions of whether the IPPI received adequate support from various stakeholder groups
 

Extent of Agreement

Stakeholder Group

Disagree / Strongly Disagree

Neither Disagree nor Agree

Agree / Strongly Agree

CSC Parole Office Staff

3%

3%

94%

Police Services

5%

13%

82%

Community Stakeholders

3%

25%

73%

CSC regional staff

7%

24%

69%

Citizens Advisory Committee members

3%

33%

64%

CSC NHQ staff

8%

31%

61%

CSC Institutional staff

11%

31%

58%

Source: General CSC staff survey

Respondents to the general CSC staff survey, CCLO/CSC IPPI management staff interviews, and police interviews suggested ways to increase support from stakeholder groups or improve the overall design of the IPPI, including addressing staff shortages within police services, defining and increasing awareness of the roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders, increasing communication between community and institutional stakeholders, allowing for flexibility in the role of CCLOs based on local needs, and providing more human resources, financial resources, and clerical support.

RECOMMENDATION 3: The IPPI reporting structure should be clearly defined, formalized, and communicated to ensure clarity and consistency.

4.2.3 Roles and Responsibilities of IPPI Stakeholders

FINDING 6: The majority of stakeholders agreed that the roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders were well defined and appropriate. Some suggested that greater communication regarding roles and responsibilities was required, and that CCLOs’ roles should be expanded in some areas (e.g., structured intervention strategies, community outreach, gathering/sharing information with CSC) and diminished in others (e.g., UALs). Variability existed in the priority given to various aspects of the CCLO roles and responsibilities in each of the CCLO locations.


FINDING 7: Some stakeholders suggested that the most appropriate police officers for CCLO positions may be those who have attained more advanced ranks in the police service.

Perceptions of the Roles and Responsibilities of IPPI Stakeholders

CCLOs and CSC IPPI management staff most strongly agreed that the activities in which CCLOs participated included the gathering, analysis and sharing of information with the police and CSC, and providing practical information to police agencies about CSC policies regarding offenders under federal jurisdiction (Table 11). Additionally, the average agreement regarding the level of CCLO participation in other aspects of their roles was also very high, suggesting that CCLOs participated in all aspects of their assigned roles and responsibilities. The average levels of agreement among CCLO/CSC IPPI management staff interview respondents from the Atlantic and Prairie Regions were significantly higher than those from the Quebec Region regarding whether CCLOs are involved in the pre-release planning of higher risk offenders. In addition, the average level of agreement regarding whether CCLOs perform community outreach activities was significantly higher for respondents in the Prairie and Ontario Regions compared to those from the Quebec Region.

Table 11 : Agreement regarding CCLO s participation in various activities, and priority ratings of each activity
  CCLO Participation
(% Agree)
Priority Rating
Minimum Maximum
Activity CSC IPPI management staff CCLO CCLO Supervisors

Gathering, analysis, and sharing of information with police

100%

100%

1

7

Gathering, analysis, and sharing of information with CSC

97%

100%

1

9

Providing practical information to police agencies concerning CSC's policies and procedures regarding offenders under federal jurisdiction

96%

100%

2

10

Providing input in matters relating to CSC staff safety in the community

93%

92%

4

10

Development of supervision strategies

92%

92%

4

8

Pre-release planning

93%

83%

1

9

Working with Parole Officers and  law enforcement agencies in the  apprehension of offenders who are  unlawfully at large (UAL)

85%

92%

1

10

Supervision of  LTSOs offenders

84%

92%

2

10

Periodic review of offender progress

89%

83%

3

10

Performing community outreach, community liaison and community  engagement activities

81%

75%

4

10

Source: CCLO participation: CCLO / CSC IPPI Management Staff Survey; Priority Rating: CCLO Area Supervisor communication

It is also important to note that there was wide variability in the ratings of priority given to each of these aspects of CCLO responsibilities.Footnote 26 For example, among all CCLO responsibilities, working with agencies to apprehend UAL offenders was reported to be a number one priority in one CCLO office, but rated to be tenth on the list of priorities for another CCLO office. This suggests that even those activities in which CCLOs are engaging are not always a high priority within some areas. The level of priority given to a specific activity within an office may have impacted on the degree to which those activities were implemented within each of the CCLO areas.

Appropriateness, Clarity, and Communication of IPPI Stakeholders’ Roles and Responsibilities
CCLOs and CSC IPPI Management Staff Perceptions

One half (50%) of CCLOs and 60% of CSC IPPI management staff stated that CCLO involvement in several of their current activities should be increased, most notably in the development of structured intervention strategies, performing community outreach/ liaison/engagement activities, and the gathering, analysis and sharing of information with CSC. Several respondents suggested that CCLO participation should be increased in all of the above activities, and others stated that CCLOs should work more closely with Security Intelligence Officers, and should be more involved in staff training of police. A few CSC IPPI management staff respondents (10%) also indicated that the role of CCLOs should be diminished in some areas, most notably in activities related to UAL offenders.

Overall, general CSC staff survey respondents agreed that the roles and responsibilities of CCLOs, police services, and CSC staff were clear and well-defined, and that they were also appropriate given the goals and objectives of the IPPI (Table 12 ). The average level of agreement among Pacific Region general CSC staff survey respondents was significantly higher than that of respondents from the Prairies (mean difference = .57; p < 0.05) and Quebec Regions (mean difference = 1.09; p < 0.05) regarding whether the roles and responsibilities of CSC staff within the IPPI are appropriate. In addition, the average level of agreement among Pacific Region respondents was significantly higher than that of Prairie Region respondents regarding whether the roles and responsibilities of CCLOs have been clearly defined (mean difference = .77; p < 0.05).

Table 12 : Agreement regarding the roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders
Survey Question

Disagree/Strongly Disagree

Neither Agree or Disagree

Agree/Strongly Agree

Roles and responsibilities of Police Services Staff are …

Appropriate

6%

19%

75%

Clearly defined

19%

18%

63%

Roles and responsibilities of CSC staff are …

Appropriate

10%

18%

73%

Clearly defined

16%

16%

68%

Roles and responsibilities of CCLOs are…

Appropriate

13%

16%

72%

Clearly defined

19%

16%

64%

Roles and responsibilities of CCLOs have been communicated to staff

30%

10%

60%

Level of participation by CCLOs in case management is appropriate

17%

13%

70%

Source: General CSC staff survey

For those general CSC staff survey who disagreed that the roles and responsibilities of the personnel involved in the IPPI were clear, the largest proportion stated that all aspects of the police services roles and responsibilities related to the IPPI were unclear, while several respondents commented that CSC staff roles and responsibilities required further clarification. In addition, several respondents stated that all aspects of CCLOs’ roles and responsibilities required additional clarification. The majority of general CSC staff respondents (60%) agreed that the roles and responsibilities of CCLOs had been clearly communicated to staff, and 30% disagreed.Footnote 27

Police Services Personnel Perceptions

Police agreement as to whether CCLOs should participate in each of their assigned job tasks ranged from 73% (supervision of LTSOs offenders) to 100% (providing practical information to police agencies about CSC policies and procedures, and providing input into matters regarding CSC staff safety). The majority (91%) of police interviewees also agreed that roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders in general were clearly defined. Over half of police respondents (55%) indicated that changes should be made to the role of the CCLO; responses were highly variable, and included comments related to the need for clarification of roles and responsibilities, national consistency in the establishment of roles and responsibilities, and, conversely, the necessity for flexibility at the local level.

CCLO Rank

The ranks of the police officers in CCLO positions throughout the implementation of the IPPI have ranged from Constable to Inspector. The majority of police interview respondents indicated that the most appropriate rank for CCLOs was a Constable or Senior Constable, followed by Corporal or Detective. However, during the CCLO / CSC IPPI management staff interview, CCLOs most frequently commented that having a higher ranked police officer would be beneficial due to increased experience and contacts in the community.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Roles and responsibilities should be reviewed to ensure their applicability and should be clearly communicated to all IPPI stakeholders. Any significant changes to roles and responsibilities would necessitate a review of the overall objectives and indicators of success for the IPPI.


RECOMMENDATION 5: CSC should review the police officer rank and/or experience level requirements to ensure the best fit with the responsibilities of the CCLO position and the objectives of the IPPI.

4.2.4 CCLO Training

FINDING 8: A significant proportion of CCLOs have not completed required IPPI training, and stakeholders viewed some training to be less relevant to CCLOs than others.

CCLO Training Requirements

An orientation and training package was developed by the Community Reintegration Operations Division in collaboration with the Learning and Development Division. The orientation and training included an integrated learning approach that blended the use of traditional classroom learning with individual learning activities and assignments, e-learning components, coaching and shadowing with parole officers, as well as guided discussions and feedback exercises with supervisors. Regular telephone conferences also occurred to further address any ongoing questions or concerns. Detailed training requirements, along with expected timelines for training, are shown in Table 13.

Table 13 : Detailed Training Requirements for CCLO s
 

Timeframe

Training

5 Days

10 Days

15 Days

30 days

90 days

New Employee Orientation Program sessions

#2 "The Mission of the CSC"

"Introduction to the Case Management Process"
"Privacy Act, Access to Information, Government Security Policy
"Prison Sub-culture"
"Institution Handbook"

 

"Stress, EAP & CISM"
"Peace Officer Status"
"Family Violence Handbook"

5-day classroom program

Infonet

 

"CSC and the Law"

"Infectious Diseases"

   

Parole Officer Orientation Program

       

One-day session "Programs"

Other training programs

 

OMS
Infonet
Outlook
RADAR

Assignment - "Limitations on Police Officers' authority in the context of a CCC"

"Long Term Supervision Orders"

"Offender Strategy Groups" learning activity

Source: CCLO orientation handbook

In September 2008, the Evaluation Branch contacted the Human Resources (HR) Sector in order to access the Human Resources Management System (HRMS) PeopleSoft to ascertain the type of training programs in which CCLOs had participated, and the timeliness with which the training was delivered. The Evaluation Branch requested a report from HRMS using the following search criteria:

  • CCLO name and/or CCLO number; and,
  • course name and/or number.

HR personnel reviewed the HRMS database and did not find any records of CCLO participation in training. As such, stakeholders’ reports of training completion were requested.

Stakeholder Reports of Compliance with and Relevancy of CCLO Training
Completion of Training

The majority of CCLOs reported that they had attended the National CCLO Training Meeting, and completed training in CSC automated data systems (i.e., OMS, Reports of Automated Data Applied to Reintegration [RADAR]), and CCLOs and CSC IPPI management respondents suggested that these training sessions had been offered in a timely manner (see Table 14 ). However, average agreement among respondents in the Ontario Region was significantly higher than among respondents in the Quebec Region regarding whether OMS training was provided in a timely manner (mean difference = 1.93;p < 0.05). Job shadowing was completed by half of the CCLOs, and was perceived to be completed in a timely manner. A small percentage of CCLOs reported that they had participated in the New Employee Orientation Program (NEOP) sessions and the one-day session on CSC programs.

Table 14 : Reported Completion Rates and Perceptions of the Timeliness of CCLO Training Programs
 

Training Completed

Timeliness of Training
(% Agree)

Training

CCLO

CCLO

CSC IPPI management

Other CCLO-related training

86%

100%

86%

Offender Management System (OMS)

82%

80%

28%

RADAR

73%

89%

72%

National CCLO Training Meeting (NHQ, Nov 2007)

70%

60%

63%

Shadowing process and follow-up discussion with parole officers and supervisors for various job related tasks (e.g. on-the-job training) 

50%

100%

95%

New Employee Orientation Program (computer-based self-directed learning)

25%

80%

44%

New Employee Orientation Program (5-day classroom session)

18%

50%

39%

One-day session on 'Programs' contained in the PO Orientation Program

10%

50%

46%

Due to limited completion rates of CCLO training programs, CCLO response rates regarding the timeliness of training programs are based on those CCLOs who participated in each of the training programs listed in this table (Ns ranged from 2 to 10).
Source: CCLO responses to the CCLO/ CSC IPPI management Staff Inteview

Workshops and conferences were noted as being the most common “other CCLO related training” that CCLOs reported completing, followed by a one-day training with the Associate District Director, and training related to Aboriginal offenders and psychopathic offenders. Whether this additional training was taken or not, the majority of CCLOs and CSC IPPI management staff agreed that “other CCLO related training” was delivered in a timely manner. Several CCLOs (42%) and CSC IPPI management staff interviewees (59%) stated that additional training could be provided that would be beneficial for CCLO activities, including intelligence training, risk assessment and management, mental health awareness, and LTSOs training.

Relevancy of Training

The National CCLO Training Meeting, training in CSC automated data systems (i.e., OMS, RADAR), and job-shadowing were perceived by the majority of CCLOs and CSC IPPI management staff to be relevant (see Table 15 ). Although the one-day session on “programs” (from the parole officer orientation program), and the NEOP were perceived to be relevant by the majority of CSC IPPI management staff, a lesser percentage of CCLOs found these programs to be relevant to their positions. Given that the NEOP was only completed by approximately one-quarter of CCLOs, the perceived relevancy of this program among only those CCLOs who completed the program was also assessed. Of those who completed the classroom and/or computer-based NEOP training (= 5), 3 disagreed that the classroom training was relevant, and 3 disagreed that the computer-based NEOP was relevant. When asked to describe why NEOP training was not relevant, respondents most commonly reported that the training was too general (not specific to the CCLO role), that CCLOs were already knowledgeable regarding the NEOP training contents, that the training led to an “overload of information”, or that the training materials were outdated.

Table 15 : Staff Perceptions of the Relevance of Required CCLO Training
Training

Relevance of Training
(% Agree)

CCLO

CSC IPPI management

National CCLO Training Meeting (NHQ, Nov 2007)

91%

100%

Other CCLO-related training

86%

100%

OMS

83%

100%

Shadowing process and follow-up discussion with parole officers and supervisors for various job related tasks (e.g. on-the-job training)

75%

100%

RADAR

82%

93%

One-day session on 'Programs' contained in the PO Orientation Program

56%

89%

NEOP (computer-based self-directed learning)

40%

67%

NEOP (5-day classroom session)

22%

56%

Source: CCLO / CSC IPPI management staff interview

Across CCLO and CSC IPPI management staff respondents, regional differences were observed regarding the relevancy of training programs. Average agreement among respondents from the Prairie Region was significantly higher than among respondents in the Atlantic Region regarding whether OMS training was relevant (mean difference 0.79; p < 0.05). Regarding the relevancy of the CSC five day NEOP training program and the one-day parole officer Programs session, the average level of agreement among respondents from the Quebec Region was significantly higher than that of respondents from Pacific Region (mean difference = 2.67 and 2.90,p < 0.05 respectively). Regarding the relevancy of the one-day session on “Programs” from the parole officer orientation program, the average level of agreement among respondents from the Prairie Region was significantly higher than that of respondents from the Pacific Region (mean difference 2.83,p < 0.05) as well as the Atlantic (mean difference 2.36; p < 0.05) and Ontario Regions (mean difference 2.01; p < 0.05). It is possible that these differences between regions with respect to relevancy of training programs may reflect regional priorities in terms of CCLO activities and roles/responsibilities. More specifically, respondents may perceive some trianing programs to be more relevant than others, if the programs are more highly related to particular CCLO activities in that region.

RECOMMENDATION 6: CSC should review the CCLO training package to ensure relevancy of CCLO training.


RECOMMENDATION 7: CSC should develop procedures to ensure compliance with CCLO training requirements.

4.2.5 Data Reporting and Recording

FINDING 9: IPPI data regarding CCLO contacts have not been entered into CSC databases according to guidelines, although there appear to be improvements in data recording practices since April 2008.

Issues were encountered with regard to data tracking tools early in the initiative (e.g., tracking of cases in which CCLOs were involved in release planning and supervision of higher risk offenders, tracking UAL offenders, etc.). In order to facilitate reliable, standardized tracking of this information, a Case Management Bulletin directing parole officers and CCLOs to enter data in OMS casework records was issued in May 2007.Footnote 28 According to the case management bulletin, parole officers were to remain the primary source of data entry in casework recordsFootnote 29 for the IPPI, and were instructed to record any CCLO consultations (e.g., related to pre-release planning, case management, CCLO accompaniment of a parole officer to a supervision interview, etc.). CCLOs were requested to enter casework records for offender-specific activities that did not involve contacts with parole officers (e.g., tracking UAL offenders).

CCLO Casework Record Entries

A review of casework record entries completed by CCLOs revealed that only 8 of the 18 CCLOsFootnote 30 were recording data into OMS casework records.Footnote 31 These 8 CCLOs completed a total of 665 entries (each entry representing a single contact with an offender). However, it is important to note that 80% of the entries were completed by just two of the eight CCLOs.Footnote 32

CSC Staff Casework Record Entries

Some incorrect usage of this data capture method was observed by IPPI program personnel based on reliability checks of the data in the summer of 2007. For example, some staff who were not actually working with CCLOs were reported to be entering data utilizing the designated CCLO casework record categories. Since that time, several actions were taken to address issues of data quality related to tracking of CCLO activities. First, consultation was initiated with staff from the Central District, Community Reintegration Division, Evaluation Branch, Information Management Services, and Performance Management Branch. As a result of these consultations, Community Reintegration Operations Division initiated a change in the OMS menu selections to clarify the purpose of the CCLO data entry category. This change required internal Information Management Services approval. Following that approval, changes to OMS were made and an OMS bulletin was distributed to all staff in April 2008, detailing the data entry instructions and the modifications that had been made. Clarification of data entry requirements with CCLOs and CSC management was also initiated during a national meeting in the fall of 2007.

One way to determine whether CCLO casework records were being entered correctly by CSC staff members was to review the location of staff members who were making the casework entries (i.e., casework entries in the CCLO categories would be expected to be made by parole officers from CCLO designated offices, but not from non-CCLO designated offices). Given that an OMS bulletin was issued in April 2008 to clarify reporting requirements, the location of staff casework records completed after April 2008 was compared to the location of staff entries prior to April 2008.

Approximately one-quarter of CCLO-related casework record entries prior to April 29, 2008 were occurring at non-CCLO locations, indicating non-compliance with recording requirements and questionable reliability of the data. However, there was a significant increase in the number of entries (from 74% to 98%) made from CCLO designated areas from pre- to post- April 2008 (see Table 16),Footnote 33 suggesting that there was an increase in the correct usage of the casework record categories after April 2005. It should be noted that this did not preclude incorrect usage of these CWR categories by CSC staff at these CCLO designated locations, and does not necessarily mean that all CSC staff have been recording all CCLO contacts.

Table 16 : Percentage of CCLO Casework Record Entries by Location Pre- and Post-April 2008
Dataset CCLO Casework Entries
CCLO designated location
CCLO Casework Entries
Non-CCLO designated location

Pre April 29, 2008 (N = 1322)

74%

26%

Post April 29, 2008 (N =  500)

98%

2%

Overall, there were delays in the implementation of necessary data collection tools for the IPPI and, once established, the data collection procedures were not always followed as prescribed. Specifically, only 8 CCLOs were found to be entering data into OMS casework records, and a significant number of CSC staff were entering records into the CCLO designated casework record categories even though they did not have contact with CCLOs under the IPPI. As discussed earlier in this report, Corbett (1998) suggested that patterns in work assignment and standards for information sharing and other administrative requirements need to be reviewed and re-developed to support new initiatives, in order to avoid organizational lag which may occur when police-corrections partnerships are grafted onto existing organizational arrangements. It would appear that an element of organization lag has occurred in this case, in that challenges were encountered in implementing a reliable data collection strategy.

Stakeholder Reports Regarding Data Collection Procedures

The majority of general CSC staff survey respondents (60%) and police interviewees (72%) indicated that there were effective data capture procedures in place for the IPPI. Almost three quarters of general CSC staff survey respondents (72%) indicated that they were aware of recording requirements regarding CCLO involvement in offender case management, and that they currently recorded information related to CCLO participation in case management activities. Among those who reported being aware of reporting requirements, the majority defined the requirements as entering information in casework records, entering information into casework records indicating that they had contact with a CCLO, entering information in community strategies/assessments, and entering casework record information as it pertained to UAL follow-up.

Among the CSC general survey respondents who indicated that they recorded information about CCLO involvement in case management, 85% reported recording this information in OMS casework records, 11% in other OMS documents, and 4% reported that they enter information into other non-OMS documentation. Among respondents who reported entering information into ‘other OMS’ documents, the majority indicated that they recorded information in Assessments for Decision and Correctional Plan Progress Reports.

Regional analysis indicated that respondents in the Pacific Region (88%) and the Prairie Region (93%) were more likely to report recording information related to CCLO case management activities in OMS records compared to respondents from the Ontario Region (42%). Respondents from the Ontario Region (25%) were significantly more likely to record information in other non-OMS documentation than respondents from the Pacific Region (0%).

The majority (86%) of general CSC staff survey respondents also stated that staff members in their office were aware of the information recording requirements related to CCLO participation in case management, and that these requirements were consistently being met (86%). This finding may be an effect of increased awareness of reporting requirements resulting from the case management bulletin distributed to all staff during the summer of 2008. Respondents offered suggestions to improve information recording, most frequently suggesting that CCLOs should enter casework records directly.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Reliable data sources need to be implemented and used consistently. Procedures should be developed for regular data collection, monitoring and review to ensure reliability and validity of IPPI data.

4.2.6 Identifying Appropriate Offenders for Priority Inclusion in the IPPI

FINDING 10: Criteria for defining higher risk offenders for inclusion in the IPPI were not clearly defined or communicated. Offenders commonly involved in CCLO contacts through the IPPI included UAL offenders and those with histories of violence or previous criminal activity. Less than half of the offenders involved in CCLO contacts for enhanced monitoring/supervision were identified as high risk as determined by CSC risk instruments.

According to the objectives of the IPPI, CCLOs were expected to work with higher risk offenders and other designated groups such as LTSOs and UAL offenders. In order to determine the profile of offenders who were involved in the IPPI, CCLO and CSC staff casework entries were examined. Because CSC staff casework records appeared to be more accurate after April 2008 (as discussed in the previous section), only records after that date were included in this review.

Casework Record Entries Regarding CCLO Offender Contacts

Approximately half (51%) of offenders included in CCLO entries and 36% of offenders included in CSC staff entries into casework records were related to UAL offenders. Only 2% of CCLO and 2% of CSC staff entries into offender casework records were related to offenders with a LTSOs.

In addition to UAL and LTSOs offenders, CCLOs were expected to be involved in the monitoring and supervision of higher risk offenders. IPPI documentation and reports were reviewed to determine whether any specific referral criteria or definitions of higher risk offenders were identified for the IPPI. No specific national referral criteria or definitions of higher risk offenders were identified, with the exception of one of the CCLO jurisdictions that had provided a definition of higher risk offenders in their annual district report:

The definition of high risk offenders depends on either CSC assessment tools, or on a classification evaluated as such by the district management. In regard to the Montreal Metropolitan District, we consider the following categories or targeted populations as representing a higher risk level: sexual offenders, statutory release with residency and offenders under supervision by the Intensive Monitoring Program or supervised by officers associated with the supervision of high-risk cases (integrated project).

Given that little was identified in the way of specific definitions of higher risk offenders for the initiative, various OIA indicators were examined for offenders identified in CCLO casework records. After excluding UAL cases, 36% and 51% of offenders identified in CSC staff and CCLO casework records, respectively, were high risk as indicated by the static risk factor scores; approximately half were high need, and between one-quarter and two-fifths had a low reintegration potential (see Table 17). It is important to note that a number of offenders involved in CCLO contacts under the initiative were low risk (17% CCLO; 21% CSC staff casework records), and more than one-third had a high reintegration potential (36% CCLO; 45% CSC staff casework records).

Table 17 : Risk, Need, and Reintegration Potential of Offenders involved in IPPI Monitoring/Supervision
Offender Characteristic CCLO Casework Records
N = 192
CSC Staff Casework Records (Post April 29, 2008)
N = 348

High Risk

51%

36%

Medium Risk

32%

43%

Low Risk

17%

21%

High Need

61%

46%

Medium Need

30%

38%

Low Need

9%

15%

High Reintegration Potential

36%

45%

Medium Reintegration Potential

25%

31%

Low Reintegration Potential

39%

24%

Note: Source of data was the Offender Intake Assessment (or the offenders’ first correctional plan since missing data was evident for these factors on the OIA for some offenders). Offenders who were UAL were excluded from these profiles. Although multiple casework records may have been entered for each offender, data in the table represent only one record per offender. Some missing data were evident for these variables (n = 191 for CCLO casework records; n ranged from 333 to 336 for CSC Staff casework records).

As documented in CCLO and CSC casework entries (excluding UAL cases), additional information regarding the characteristics of offenders who were included in the IPPI is shown in Table 18 . The majority of offenders who were identified under the IPPI had previous youth or adult convictions and histories of violence. A significant proportion also had histories of substance abuse, were young (less than 30 at the time of release), and were associated with organized crime or gangs. Smaller percentages of offenders involved with the IPPI were sex offenders or had mental health diagnoses.

Table 18 : Additional Criminal Risk Factors and Characteristics of Offenders included in IPPI Monitoring/Supervision
Offender Characteristic CCLO Casework Records
N = 192
CSC Staff Casework Records
(Post April 29, 2008)
N = 348

Previous Youth or Adult Convictions

82%

76%

History of Violence

62%

56%

History of Substance Abuse

48%

36%

Younger Offender (< 30 yrs)

42%

38%

Associated with Gangs/Organized Crime

30%

18%

Sex Offender

13%

17%

Mental Health Diagnosis

10%

9%

Note: Offenders who were UAL were excluded from these profiles. ‘Younger offenders’ refers to those who were under 30 years of age at time of release. Although multiple casework records may have been entered for each offender, data in the table represent only one record per offender. Some missing data were evident for these variables (n ranged from 166 to 192 for CCLO casework records; n ranged from 272 to 348 for CSC Staff casework records).

The majority of offender contacts related to enhanced monitoring and supervision reported by CCLOs and CSC staff appeared to be made after release to the community. Less than 10% of casework records were related to a first contact with an offender prior to their release to the community (Table 19). These findings should be interpreted with some caution, however, due to the fact that many of the casework records for CSC staff entries were only available for contacts ocurring after April 2008, so any contacts with offenders in the institution prior to that date were not available. Therefore, the number of contacts with offenders in the institution prior to release may have been underestimated. The majority of offenders involved in the IPPI were released on statuatory release,Footnote 34 followed by full parole, and day parole.

Table 19 : Release Status of Offenders included in the IPPI
Status CCLO Casework Records
N = 192
CSC Staff Casework Records
(Post April 29, 2008)
N = 348

Institution

6%

7%

Community

94%

93%

Full Parole

24%

36%

Day Parole

11%

15%

Statutory Release

62%

45%

Note: Offenders who were UAL were excluded from these profiles. Although multiple casework records may have been entered for each offender, data in the table represent only one record per offender. Some missing data were evident for these variables (N ranged from 181 to 192 for CCLO casework records; N ranged from 523 to 348 for CSC Staff casework records).

Stakeholder Perceptions of the most Appropriate Offenders for Priority Inclusion in the IPPI

Stakeholders considered to be most knowledgeable about the implementation of the IPPI, namely CCLOs and CSC IPPI management staff, were asked about the groups of offenders most often included under the IPPI. Respondents generally reported that, in their office or parole area, CCLOs most often worked with UAL offenders and offenders affiliated with organized crime, followed by offenders with histories of violent crime (Table 20 ). There was agreement by the majority of general CSC staff survey respondents that these were also groups that should be prioritized for inclusion in the IPPI. All CCLO respondents (100%) and the vast majority of CSC IPPI management staff interviewees (93%) agreed that the appropriate offenders have been targeted by the initiative. However, only a little more than half of CCLOs and CSC IPPI management staff (58% and 62%, respectively) agreed that procedures for defining priority groups of higher risk offenders for inclusion in the initiative were clearly defined.

Table 20 : Stakeholder Reports of Frequency of CCLO Contacts with Offender Subgroups / Respondents Agreement regarding Priority Inclusion of Offender Subgroups

Offender Subgroup
Stakeholder Reports of Frequency of CCLO Contact
(% Often) a
Groups that Should be Prioritized for Inclusion
(% Agree)
CCLO CSC IPPI management CSC General CSC staff

Unlawfully at Large (UAL) offenders

83%

79%

92%

Offenders affiliated with gangs or organized crime

75%

82%

94%

Offenders with histories of violence / violent crime

75%

81%

89%

Community Correctional Centre (CCC) populations

50%

88%

55%

Offenders under Long Term Supervision Orders (LTSOs)

42%

74%

88%

Offenders released on statutory release with a residency condition

46%

73%

75%

Sex offenders

67%

52%

83%

Offenders with low reintegration potential

58%

49%

63%

Offenders who are rated as high risk prior to release based on CSC standardized tools

42%

57%

77%

Offenders with mental health diagnoses

50%

38%

45%

Offenders with serious substance abuse histories

50%

28%

43%

Younger offenders (i.e., under 30 years)

46%

28%

33%

Offenders with previous youth and/or adult convictions

42%

25%

34%

Offenders released on statutory release without a residency condition

36%

19%

44%

a The majority of the remaining CCLO/CSC IPPI management staff interview respondents indicated that they “sometimes” worked with the offender subgroups identified in the table.
Source for frequency of CCLO contact: CCLO/CSC IPPI management staff interview.
Source for agreement regarding priority inclusion: general CSC staff survey.

Clarity/Awareness of Procedures for Identifying Offenders for Priority Inclusion in the IPPI

Only about one-quarter (27%) of general CSC staff survey respondents indicated that they were aware of specific criteria for the priority inclusion of offenders in the IPPI, and another 29% indicated being somewhat familiar with the criteria. Of those respondents who were aware or somewhat aware of IPPI inclusion criteria, the majority stated that gang-affiliated offenders and UAL offenders met the inclusion criteria, followed by sexual offenders and violent offenders.Footnote 35 These responses are consistent with general CSC staff survey respondents’ agreement regarding whether specific offender subgroups should be included as priority groups in the IPPI (from Table 20 ). However, it is important to note that approximately 44% of general CSC staff survey respondents were not aware of any inclusion criteria for the IPPI.

Given that community parole officers often initiate offender contacts with CCLOs, the level of awareness regarding the types of offenders who should be included in the IPPI initiative was also assessed specifically for this group. Among the 54 community parole officer survey respondents who indicated that they currently or previously worked in a CCLO location, only 33% (= 18) reported that they were aware or somewhat aware of the criteria for priority inclusion of offenders in the IPPI. Of the 19 parole officer supervisors who currently or previously worked in a CCLO location, 69% (= 13) reported that they were aware or somewhat aware of the criteria for the priority inclusion of offenders in the IPPI. The lack of definition and clarity regarding offender inclusion criteria for the IPPI seems to be consistent with the theory of organizational lag, as described by Corbett (1998). It appears that additional administrative direction and procedures will need to be put in place to ensure that the IPPI is implemented according to the originally stated objectives of the initiative (i.e., monitoring/supervision of higher risk offenders).

Other Jurisdictions

Other jurisdictions with similar initiatives have developed relatively specific criteria for targeting offenders. For example, the New Zealand Department of CorrectionsFootnote 36 has comprehensive inclusion criteria for selection of offenders for increased monitoring and supervision as outlined in an MOU. The High Risk High Profile Forum is a specific initiative organized through the MOU that involves collaboration of corrections and police. The purpose of the Forum is to strengthen the processes around the identification and release planning of offenders deemed to be at the greatest risk to the community upon release. This Forum meets monthly to manage the release of high risk and/or high profileFootnote 37 offenders.

The New Zealand Department of Corrections’ definition of “high risk” went through significant scrutiny across the department due to the relevance of certain combinations of eligibility criteria for risk classification and the fact that in-house definitions of high risk differed quite markedly between corrections and police. Initially, the Forum did not have a specific definition of high risk offenders. Prior to implementation of the Forum, New Zealand Corrections conducted a review of the offender population and determined that up to 50% of the offender population could be considered to be “high risk” in some manner. In order to ensure that the highest risk offenders were included in the Forum, the High Risk High Profile Guidelines were developed to refine and clarify the definition of high risk. This allowed for a significant reduction in the volume of offenders extended to the Forum and focused on the highest risk offenders. The guidelines are considered to be a ‘live’ document and are reviewed periodically to enable updates and incorporate emerging concerns.

RECOMMENDATION 9: CSC should ensure adherence to existing IPPI objectives, by clearly defining and communicating referral criteria and definitions of higher risk offenders to all IPPI stakeholders. Regional or district variations in these criteria (based on regional offender profiles) should be clearly defined, communicated locally and nationally, and adhered to.

4.2.7 Appropriateness of CCLO Locations

FINDING 11: Current CCLOs are situated in appropriate locations, although some of the geographic areas served by CCLOs are large. Several geographic areas with relatively high proportions of higher risk offenders were identified that do not currently have CCLO positions.

Geospatial Analysis of CCLO and Non-CCLO Offices Supervising Higher Risk Offenders

As indicated in the maps below, CCLO s appear to be in the most appropriate locations, given the percentages of higher risk offenders supervised at these offices. However, as suggested by the proportion of higher risk offenders supervised in the Kingston Area (i.e., Kingston Parole and Portsmouth CCC), London, and Peterborough in the Ontario Region, Prince Albert and Saskatoon Parole Offices in the Prairie Region, and Prince George in the Pacific Region, these offices might benefit from having a CCLO in place to assist with monitoring higher risk offenders.

Figures 3 through 7 illustrate the locations of CSC’s community Parole Offices and CCCs across the regions. The colour of the markers indicates the presence of a CCC/CRF with or without a CCLO (red), or a parole office with or without a CCLO (blue). The dot within the markers indicates whether the CCC/CRF or parole office has (white) or does not have (black) a CCLO. The percentages next to the office names refers to the percentage of higher risk offenders supervised by each office as of August 31, 2008.

Figure 3: Higher Risk Offenders and CCLO s in Pacific Region Offices (Post-Implementation)

Description Figure 3:

This map details the institutions in the Pacific Region that have and do not have a Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) as well as the percentage of offenders at each facility having been classified as dangerous offenders.

The data is current as of August 31, 2008

The description will list the facilities from the Province of British Columbia in the following order:

  • Community correctional or residential facilities with a CCLO
  • Community correctional or residential facilities without a CCLO
  • Parole Offices with a CCLO
  • Parole Offices without a CCLO
British Columbia
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No Percent of dangerous offenders at facility
Belkin Enhanced CRF CRF YES 2%
Chilliwack CCC CCC YES 1%
Kamloops Regional Centre CCC NO 0%
New Westminster PO YES 3%
Vancouver PO YES 3%
Vernon PO YES 0%
Abbotsford PO YES 1%
Kamloops PO YES 1%
Kelowna PO YES 1%
Nanaimo PO YES 1%
Prince George PO YES 2%
Victoria PO YES 3%
Chilliwack PO NO 0%
Maple Ridge PO NO 0%

This map details the institutions in the Pacific Region that have and do not have a Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) as well as the percentage of offenders at each facility having been classified as dangerous offenders. The data is current as of August 31, 2008
CCLO Legend

  1. Percentage (%) next to each office indicates the proportion of higher risk offenders supervised at each office.
  2. Current as of August 31 2008.
  3. Mapping: Facilities Branch, CSC

Figure 4: Higher Risk Offenders and CCLO s in Prairies Region Offices (Post-Implementation)

Description Figure 4:

This map details the institutions in the Prairie Region that have and do not have a Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) as well as the percentage of offenders at each facility having been classified as dangerous offenders.

The data is current as of August 31, 2008

Alberta
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No % With Mental Disorder
Calgary Urban PO YES 4%
Edmonton Urban PO YES 7%
Calgary Central PO NO 0%
Drumheller PO NO 0%
Alberta-NWT District PO NO 0%
Driftpile PO NO 0%
Edmonton Rural PO NO 1%
Wetaskiwin PO NO 0%
Fort McMurray PO NO 0%
Grand Prairie PO NO 0%
Lethbridge PO NO 0%
Medicine Hat PO NO 0%
Red Deer PO NO 1%
Saskatchewan
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No % With Mental Disorder
Oskana CCC CCC YES 1%
Regina PO YES 1%
La Ronge PO NO 0%
North Battleford PO NO 0%
Prince Albert PO NO 1%
Saskatoon PO NO 2%
Manitoba
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No % With Mental Disorder
Osborne CCC CCC YES 1%
Winnipeg PO YES 3%
Brandon PO NO 0%
The Pas PO NO 0%
Ontario
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No % With Mental Disorder
Thunder Bay PO NO 0%
Northwest Territories
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No % With Mental Disorder
Northwest Territories PO NO 0%

This map details the institutions in the Pacific Region that have and do not have a Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) as well as the percentage of offenders at each facility having been classified as dangerous offenders.
CCLO Legend

  1. Percentage (%) next to each office indicates the proportion of higher risk offenders supervised at each office.
  2. Current as of August 31 2008.
  3. Mapping: Facilities Branch, CSC

Figure 5: Higher Risk Offenders and CCLO s in Ontario Region Offices (Post-Implementation)

Description Figure 5:

This map details the institutions in the Ontario Region that have and do not have a Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) as well as the percentage of offenders at each facility having been classified as dangerous offenders.

The data is current as of August 31, 2008

Ontario
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No Percent of dangerous offenders at facility
Hamilton CCC CCC Yes 1%
Keele CCC CCC Yes 2%
Portsmouth CCC CCC No 2%
Hamilton PO Yes 2%
Team Supervision Unit PO YES 2%
Brantford PO YES 1%
Ottawa PO YES 3%
Toronto East PO YES 1%
Downtown Toronto PO YES 1%
Barrie PO NO 1%
Belleville PO No 0%
Guelph PO No 1%
Kingston PO No 2%
London PO No 2%
North Bay PO No 2%
Peterborough PO No 2%
Sault Ste. Marie PO No 0%
St. Catharines PO No 1%
Sudbury PO No 1%
Women's Supervision Unit PO No 1%
Toronto West PO No 1%
Windsor PO No 1%
Nunavut
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No Percent of dangerous offenders at facility
Nunavut PO NO 0%

This map details the institutions in the Ontario Region that have and do not have a Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO as well as the percentage of offenders at each facility having been classified as dangerous offenders. The data is current as of August 31, 2008
CCLO Legend

  1. Percentage (%) next to each office indicates the proportion of higher risk offenders supervised at each office.
  2. Current as of August 31 2008.
  3. Mapping: Facilities Branch, CSC

Figure 6: Higher Risk Offenders and CCLO s in Quebec Region Offices (Post-Implementation)

Description Figure 6:

This map details the institutions in the Quebec Region that have and do not have a Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) as well as the percentage of offenders at each facility having been classified as dangerous offenders.

The data is current as of August 31, 2008

Quebec
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No Percent of dangerous offenders at facility
Marcel-Caron CCC CCC Yes 1%
Laferriere CCC CCC Yes 1%
Hochelaga CCC CCC Yes 1%
Martineau CCC CCC Yes 1%
Ogilvy CCC CCC Yes 0%
Sherbrooke CCC CCC Yes 1%
Laurentian PO Yes 1%
Chicoutimi PO Yes 0%
Hull PO Yes 0%
Lanaudière PO Yes 1%
Laval PO Yes 1%
Longueuil PO Yes 1%
Maisonneuve PO Yes 3%
Ville-Marie PO Yes 3%
Quebec PO Yes 1%
Rimouski PO Yes 0%
Rouyn-Noranda PO Yes 0%
Trois Rivières PO Yes 1%
Granby PO No 1%
Estrie PO No 1%

This map details the institutions in the Quebec Region that have and do not have a Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) as well as the percentage of offenders at each facility having been classified as dangerous offenders. The data is current as of August 31, 2008
CCLO Legend

  1. Percentage (%) next to each office indicates the proportion of higher risk offenders supervised at each office.
  2. Current as of August 31 2008.
  3. Mapping: Facilities Branch, CSC

Figure 7: Higher Risk Offenders and CCLO s in Atlantic Region Offices (Post-Implementation)

Description Figure 7:

This map details the institutions in the Atlantic Region that have and do not have a Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) as well as the percentage of offenders at each facility having been classified as dangerous offenders.

The data is current as of August 31, 2008

Newfoundland and Labrador
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No Percent of dangerous offenders at facility
Marcel-Caron CCC CCC Yes 1%
St. John's CCC CCC Yes 1%
St. John's PO Yes 1%
Corner Brook PO No 0%
Grand Falls PO No 0%
Labrador PO No 0%
New Brunswick
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No Percent of dangerous offenders at facility
Parrtown CCC CCC Yes 1%
Saint John PO Yes 1%
Moncton PO No 1%
Bathurst PO No 0%
Fredericton PO No 0%
Grand Sault PO No 0%
Nova Scotia
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No Percent of dangerous offenders at facility
Carlton CCC CCC Yes 1%
Carlton Centre Annex CCC Yes 1%
Halifax PO Yes 1%
Annapolis Royal PO Yes 0%
Dartmouth PO Yes 1%
Kentville PO No 0%
Sydney PO No 0%
Truro PO No 0%
Yarmouth PO No 0%
Prince Edward Island
Facility Name Facility Type CCLO Yes/No Percent of dangerous offenders at facility
Charlottetown PO No 0%

This map details the institutions in the Atlantic Region that have and do not have a Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) as well as the percentage of offenders at each facility having been classified as dangerous offenders. The data is current as of August 31, 2008
legend for map

  1. Percentage (%) next to each office indicates the proportion of higher risk offenders supervised at each office.
  2. Current as of August 31 2008.
  3. Mapping: Facilities Branch, CSC

A comparison of the percentages of higher risk offenders supervised in each of the CCLO offices pre- and post-implementation shows little change in the percentage of higher risk offenders in any of the current CCLO locations, suggesting that these areas that were relevant for the initiative prior to the IPPI implementation remain relevant to the initiative at the time of the evaluation (Table 21).

Table 21 : Percent of higher risk offenders supervised in each CCLO area
District CCLO Area Higher Risk Offenders
Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation Pre-Post Change
Montréal - Metropolitan Montréal

10%

11%

1%

Pacific Vancouver

10%

10%

0%

Vernon

7%

7%

0%

Alberta and Northwest Territories Edmonton

7%

8%

1%

Calgary

5%

6%

1%

Central Ontario Toronto

6%

7%

1%

Hamilton

4%

4%

0%

Saskatchewan / Manitoba / Northwest Ontario Winnipeg

5%

5%

0%

Regina

2%

3%

1%

Quebec East / West Laurentides

3%

4%

1%

Québec City

3%

3%

0%

Atlantic Halifax

3%

3%

0%

St-John's

2%

2%

0%

Saint John

2%

2%

0%

Greater Ontario and Nunavut Ottawa

3%

3%

0%

Note: CCLO areas encompass all Parole Offices and CCCs covered by the CCLO in that area (e.g., St. John includes St. John Parole Office and Parrtown Centre CCC); refer to table 9 for a complete list of CCLO locations.
Note: Montréal – Metropolitan area is covered by two CCLOs, whereas the remaining CCLO areas have one CCLO each.

In general, a greater proportion of higher risk Aboriginal and women offenders are supervised at offices with CCLOs, relative to offices without CCLOs (Table 22), suggesting that there is a substantial opportunity to provide additional supervision and monitoring for these sub-groups of offenders at these locations through the IPPI. This is especially true for offices in the Pacific, Prairies, and Quebec Regions; offices in the Ontario and Atlantic Regions show equivalent percentages of these subgroups of higher risk offenders at CCLO and non-CCLO offices.

Table 22 : National Percentages of Higher Risk Aboriginal and Women offenders supervised at CCLO and non-CCLO offices by region
  Aboriginal Offenders
Pacific Prairies Ontario Quebec Atlantic

CCLO

19%

41%

5%

7%

1%

Non-CCLO

0%

21%

6%

0%

1%

  Women Offenders
Pacific Prairies Ontario Quebec Atlantic

CCLO

19%

25%

5%

18%

6%

Non-CCLO

0%

19%

8%

0%

5%

The majority of general CSC staff survey respondents agreed that CCLOs are located in the most appropriate geographic areas (83%), and a similar percentage (81%) agreed that the physical work locations of CCLOs were the most appropriate given the goals and objectives of the Initiative. Among those general CSC staff survey respondents who disagreed that CCLOs were appropriately located, most stated that the geographic area covered by CCLOs was too large. The size of the location covered by a CCLO could impact upon the CCLO’s workload if it means that the CCLO then has a larger caseload, more requests from parole officers, or more travel time is required to complete his/her tasks in various locations. CCLO workload challenges could potentially impact upon various work-related tasks (e.g., compliance with data entry requirements, training requirements, ability to complete various aspects of the CCLO job description effectively, etc.)

RECOMMENDATION 10: CSC should review CCLO locations and service areas to ensure that locations with high proportions of higher risk offenders are considered for inclusion in the IPPI, and that the geographic areas covered by CCLOs are manageable within the context of their overall roles and responsibilities.

4.2.8 IPPI Budget and Expenditures

FINDING 12: Implementation delays have led to various instances of re-profiling, internal re-allocations, and lapses of IPPI funding. Financial data for the IPPI have not always been recorded consistently utilizing the appropriate project codes in IMRS.

As a result of several factors, including the delayed receipt of funding for the first year of the initiative and delays in staffing, IPPI funding was subject to several instances of re-profiling and additional funds were internally re-allocated. This resulted in smaller than intended budgets in the first two years of the initiative, and increased budgets in the last three years of the initiative, 2007-08 , 2008-09, and 2009-10. An additional $900,000 in funding was also reallocated internally to the IPPI, resulting in a total budget increase over the five-year period of the initiative from $7 million to $7.9 million (see Table 23).

Table 23 : Revised IPPI Budget
 

Fiscal Year

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

Total

Original Budget

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$1,400,000

$7,000,000

1st Re-profile

(-$150,000)

$150,000

$300,000

$300,000

$300,000

$900, 000

2nd Re-profile

$0

(-$469,000)

$469,000

$0

$0

$0

3rd Re-profile

$0

(-$150,000)

(-$400,000)

$550,000

$0

$0

Total Revised Budget

$1,250,000

$931,000

$1,769,000

$2,250,000

$1,700,000

$7,900,000

Source: Comptroller’s Branch, CSC
Note that these figures include salary, operating, employee benefit plans, common services, and accommodations.

Due to the fact that not all the CCLO positions were staffed, not all the IPPI funds were spent in the first two years of the initiative. Expenditures for the fiscal years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 are shown in Table 24 . Expenditures have increased from approximately $200,000 in 2005-06 to just under $1.4 million in total allocations in 2007-08 , when most of the CCLO positions were staffed.

Table 24 : IPPI Expenditures for Fiscal Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08
  Fiscal Year
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Total

Salary (210)

$15,075

$190,548

$20,115

$225,738

Operating (240)

$16,678

$418,852

$1,168,801

$1,604,331

Common Services

$51,000

$64,000

$64,000

$179,000

EBP

$3,015

$38,110

$4,023

$45,148

Accommodation

$98,000

$131,000

$131,000

$360,000

Total allocation

$183,768

$842,509

$1,387,939

$2,414,216

>Note that these figures include salary, operating, employee benefit plans, common services, and accommodations.
Source: Comptroller’s Branch

Note that the original budget identified funds for salaries to hire CCLOs for the initiative. However, CCLOs were subsequently staffed utilizing the Interchange Canada Agreement, in which police services pay for the police officers’ salaries and which are subsequently reimbursed by CSC. Therefore, salary dollars for the IPPI had to be converted to operating funds to pay for the cost of these agreements. Because CCLOs are not considered to be CSC salaried employees, the funds spent on CCLO salaries should be recorded under Operating costs in IMRS.

IPPI budget and expenditures for fiscal years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, including salary, operating, employee benefit plan, common services, and accommodations, are shown in Table 25. The proportion of funds being utilized for the initiative has increased from the first year in which few CCLO positions were staffed. From 15% of the budget in fiscal year 2005-06, proportions of the budgets spent were larger in subsequent years (i.e., 90% and 78% of the budget in fiscal years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively). Note, that actual expenditures were higher in 2007-08 , when the initiative was more fully staffed, than they were in 2006-07. However, percentage of the budget spent was less in 2007-08 than in 2006-07 due to an increased budget in 2007-08 (as a result of re-profiling of funds).

Table 25 : Comparison of Budgeted and Actual IPPI Spending
Fiscal Year
2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008

Revised Budget

$1,250,000

$931,000

$1,769,000

Actual Expenditures

$183,768

$842,509

$1,387,939

Difference

$1,066,232

$88,491

$381,061

Proportion of Budget Spent

15%

90%

78%

Note: Budgeted and Actual expenditures are the sums of budgeted and actual Salary, Operating, Common Services, Employee Benefits Plan and Accommodation.
Proportion Spent = Actual Spent / Revised Budget
Source: IMRS – Comptrollers Branch. This includes Project numbers 11001 (Strengthening Community), 11004 (Community Review), 11005 (Community Safety), 11006 (Community Infrastructure) and 80115 (Integrated Police and Parole)

A specific project code was developed in IMRS to record IPPI financial expenditures. There were regional variations in the recording of financial data in IMRS. Specifically, some regions were coding financial data in various cost centres, but not systematically using the IPPI project code. These additional expenditures that were entered in IMRS, but not identified to the IPPI project code, were identified and verified, where possible, by the Comptroller’s Branch personnel.

RECOMMENDATION 11: CSC should ensure accurate, standardized coding of IPPI expenditures in financial databases to ensure that expenditures are adequately recorded and monitored.

4.3 Evaluation Objective 3: Success

To what extent is the initiative delivering the expected outputs, outcomes and objectives in relation to the resources used.

4.3.1 Communication and Partnerships

FINDING 13: Communication and partnerships between CSC, police services, and community stakeholders – including access to information and the timeliness of access to information – have improved since the implementation of the IPPI. However, there is still some lack of clarity with respect to the type of information that can be shared.

The majority of general CSC staff survey respondents agreed that relationships between CSC and police (85%), CSC and community partners (65%), and community partners and police (64%) have improved since the implementation of the initiative. On average, respondents rated their agreement significantly higher regarding improved relationships between CSC and police, relative to CSC and community partners, and improved relationships between community partners and police. In addition, respondents from the Pacific Region generally reported higher agreement than other regions regarding their perceptions of improvement in relationships between stakeholder groups as a function of the IPPI.Footnote 38

Regarding relationships between CSC and police, the majority of general CSC staff survey respondents and police respondents agreed that since implementation of the IPPI, there have been increased meetings between CSC and police staff, increased cooperation between organizations, increased trust between organizations, and increased understanding of the other organizations’ mission and/or goals, operations, and challenges (Table 26). Fewer respondents agreed that there have been increased MOUs between CSC and police; of note, the majority of general CSC staff survey respondents and police respondents indicated that they did not know, or failed to respond to the item asking about increased MOUs, suggesting that respondents were not aware of changes in the number of MOUs between organizations. Among CSC general survey respondents, there was generally greater agreement among Pacific Region respondents that that IPPI had lead to increased communication or cooperation among CSC and police services.Footnote 39

Table 26 : General CSC staff survey ratings of agreement as to whether the IPPI has led to increased communication and partnership activities between CSC and Police Services
Activities (% Agree)
General CSC staff Police

Increased cooperation

83%

100%

Increased meetings

80%

100%

Increased trust

77%

100%

Increased understanding of other organizations' operations

77%

88%

Increased understanding of other organizations' mission / goals

79%

75%

Increased understanding of other organizations' challenges

74%

75%

Increased MOUs

46%

33%

Several respondents to the general CSC staff survey and police interview mentioned that the IPPI resulted in a better understanding of partnering agencies, improved cooperation from police services outside their offices’ jurisdiction, increased collaboration between designated higher risk offender/UAL units and the CCLO, and that police agencies benefited from an increased awareness of CSC’s institutional operations, mandate, and strategies regarding offender reintegration.

Access to the type of information required by stakeholders, and the timeliness with which they have access to this information, has improved since the IPPI was implemented. The majority of general CSC staff survey and police respondents agreed that access to the information they required (72% and 88%, respectively), and the timeliness of their access to this information (73% and 100%, respectively) improved since implementation of the IPPI. The average level of agreement among general CSC staff survey respondents from the Pacific Region was significantly higher than respondents from the Ontario Region regarding whether the IPPI led to improved access to information.

Of the respondents who indicated they still required access to some information, follow-up comments included the desire to be included in information sharing in general, and the need for access to information regarding offenders’ community adjustment, phone activity, whereabouts when leaving a CRF, and information from CCLO follow-up with offenders. Nonetheless, several respondents to the general CSC staff survey and police interview mentioned that increased information sharing and having access to information from a different perspective have been beneficial to both CSC and police services.

The majority of general CSC staff survey respondents (65%) and police services staff interviewees (88%) agreed that formal protocols had been established for the sharing of information between IPPI stakeholders. Review of the IPPI documentation revealed the following information sharing protocols for the following locations:Footnote 40

  • Central Ontario – includes Toronto, Hamilton and Durham
    • ROPE notification
    • Arrest situations
    • Offender medication
  • Edmonton
    • Police Parole Intelligence Partnership (PPIP)
  • Vernon
    • Liaison with CSC
  • Winnipeg
    • Canada-wide parole warrants
    • Requests for police reports
    • Suspended at Large Offenders
    • Direction concerning parolees
  • Vancouver
    • UAL offenders
  • Newfoundland
    • Searches by police dog

The results of interview responses regarding improved partnerships and communication with the police and the community are substantiated by information reported in the CCLO Quarterly Reports.Footnote 41 The partnership/communicative activities most consistently reported by CCLOs were providing information to, and consulting with, police officers and parole officers. Also of significance was forming and maintaining contacts with other governmental departments (e.g., RCMP, HRSDC, Revenue Canada, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Crime Stoppers, U.S. Marshal’s Service) and being involved in community outreach, liaison, and engagement activities (e.g., John Howard Society, Citizens’ Advisory Committees). Other commonly reported activities included the regular attendance of intelligence sharing meetings, having regular contact with SIOs, and liaising with other CCLOs. Many of the CCLOs also documented attending numerous conferences and training sessions (e.g., Annual International Fugitive Investigators Conference, National CCLO Training Meeting), as well as presenting information and training sessions themselves (e.g., to police officers or institutional staff regarding the role of CCLOs).

Challenges Related to Information Sharing:

Less than one-third of general CSC staff survey respondents (30%) indicated that they had experienced challenges related to information sharing since the implementation of the IPPI. Of those who have experienced challenges, the most frequently mentioned issues included that information was not shared with CSC operational / intelligence staff, that CCLO schedules and availability created challenges, and that CCLOs are unclear about the type of information that can be shared and/or the type of information required by the Case Management Team. Thus, it is possible that CCLOs may also need information about CSC and other governmental policies and procedures regarding information sharing (e.g., Access to Information and Privacy [ATIP]). Respondents also listed additional resources or support required by IPPI stakeholders to improve information sharing, including more CCLOs / improved availability of CCLOs, updated and clearly defined protocols and processes for information sharing, and more clerical support for CCLOs.

Note that a review of the IPPI information sharing protocols indicated that protocols were being developed in some areas and not others, and were relatively diverse in topic areas. It may be beneficial for CSC to develop standardized national protocols / procedures that could be utilized (or modified accordingly) to address the needs of each of the CCLO areas with respect to information sharing.

RECOMMENDATION 12: CSC should develop and communicate comprehensive, standardized information sharing protocols to identify the information needs of IPPI stakeholders and determine the type of information that may be shared.

4.3.2 Stakeholder Perceptions of CSC’s Reintegration Mandate and Strategies

FINDING 14: Respondents suggested that stakeholder perceptions of CSC’s mandate and strategies regarding the safe and successful reintegration of offenders into the community have improved since implementation of the IPPI, particularly among stakeholder groups including police personnel, CSC personnel, and community partners, but less so among the media and the general public.

As reported by general survey respondents, the IPPI resulted in an increased positive perception of CSC’s mandate and strategies regarding the safe and successful reintegration of offenders into the community for several key stakeholder groups. The majority of respondents agreed that the IPPI improved perceptions among police services personnel, CSC personnel, and community partners. Slightly less than half of respondents agreed that the IPPI improved perceptions among offenders supervised in the community, the media, and the general public (Table 27). Half (50%) of police respondents also agreed that the IPPI led to improved public perception of CSC mandates and strategies.Footnote 42

Table 27 : Impact of the IPPI on stakeholder perceptions of CSC ’s mandate and strategies regarding the reintegration of offenders into the community among stakeholders
Has the IPPI led to increased positive perceptions among Degree of Agreement
Strongly Disagree/
Disagree
Neither Disagree
nor Agree
Agree/
Strongly Agree

Police personnel

10%

5%

85%

CSC personnel

12%

10%

78%

Community partners

16%

18%

66%

Offenders in community

18%

33%

49%

Media

26%

42%

32%

General public

27%

43%

30%

Note: A within-subjects ANOVA followed by paired comparisons revealed that respondents’ average level of agreement was significantly higher regarding whether the IPPI resulted in increased positive perceptions among police personnel, relative to any other stakeholder group. Respondents’ level of agreement was significantly lower regarding whether the IPPI has led to improved perceptions among the general public, relative to all other stakeholder groups, excluding the media.
Source: General CSC Staff Survey

Among general CSC staff survey respondents, the average level of agreement among respondents from the Pacific Region was significantly higher than those from the Prairies regarding whether the IPPI resulted in increased positive perceptions among CSC personnel, community partners, media, and the general public (mean differences ranged from .85 to .97,p < .01).

Respondents to the general CSC staff survey also offered suggestions for improving perceptions of CSC’s reintegration mandate and strategies. Suggestions most frequently mentioned included the use of proactive press releases about CSC’s successes, increasing public awareness of the IPPI and CCLO, and increasing public awareness of correctional processes, such as parole and community supervision.

RECOMMENDATION 13: CSC should consider the development of a standardized communication package that could be utilized as part of CCLO outreach to reach a broader spectrum of the community.

4.3.3 Increased Capacity to Supervise/Monitor Higher Risk Offenders in the Community

FINDING 15: Results using available data revealed little impact of the IPPI on recidivism rates and the percentage of new UAL cases pre- and post-IPPI implementation. The ability to detect impacts of the IPPI may have been limited due to short follow-up periods, data quality issues, and/or implementation issues related to the identification of appropriate offenders for inclusion in the initiative.

One of the goals of the IPPI was to provide additional resources to parole officers for the supervision and monitoring of higher risk offenders in the community, thereby contributing to public safety. Survival analyses were conducted to investigate whether the presence of a CCLO had an impact on the recidivism rates of higher riskFootnote 43 offenders released to supervising offices with a CCLO.Footnote 44 Recidivism rates (i.e., technical revocations and new offences) were compared pre- and post-implementation in CCLO areas.

Due to the relatively recent implementation of the initiative, only one year of post-release follow-up data was included in the analyses. In order to ensure that the follow-up time was the same for the pre-implementation group and the post-implementation group, the length of follow-up time for both groups was limited to a one-year fixed follow-up period. Furthermore, difficulties related to staffing of CCLO positions at some of the sites delayed implementation to an extent that some of the sites could not be included in this analysis. Based on the implementation dates, six sites had sufficient data for inclusion in the analysis.

To ensure independence of the samples, the implementation date for each parole area was determined. Next, to equalize time frames, periods of two years pre- and post-implementation at the site level were calculated. Next, to ensure there was no overlap between the two groups, the one-year fixed follow-up was established in relation to the implementation date of each site. Finally, all higher risk offenders released within a one-year period pre-implementation and all offenders released within a one-year period post-implementation were then included in the survival analysis (Table 28). Each of these offenders was followed for a fixed period of one year to determine failure or success on release.

Table 28 : Time Periods for Analyses

Area

Pre-Implementation Releases

Post-Implementation Releases

Start Date End Date Start Date End Date

Hamilton

2004-02-01

2005-02-01

2006-02-01

2007-02-01

Regina

2004-02-01

2005-02-01

2006-02-01

2007-02-01

Halifax

2004-04-03

2005-04-03

2006-04-03

2007-04-03

St. John's

2004-06-01

2005-06-01

2006-06-01

2007-06-01

Saint John

2004-08-28

2005-08-28

2006-08-28

2007-08 -28

Vancouver

2004-09-18

2005-09-18

2006-09-18

2007-08 -31

Note that in Vancouver the post-implementation period is 18 days short of one year due to the implementation date and date of data extraction of August 3 1st 2008. However, all offenders selected from that release cohort, 2006-09-18 to 2007-08 -31, were still followed for one year after release.

Results indicated that recidivism rates remained constant pre-implementation to post-implementation (see Table 29).

Table 29 : Recidivism Rates for one-year fixed follow-up (High Risk Offenders)
Recidivism Pre-Implementation
(N = 421)
Post-Implementation
(N = 440)

Any Return (New Offence or Technical Revocation)

53.92%

53.41%

New Offence

16.63%

15.91%

Technical Revocations

37.29%

37.50%

Survival Analysis

Cox regression analysis was used to examine differences in survival rates of higher risk offenders between the pre- and post-implementation periods. A separate Cox regression model was fit for each of the three types of assessments of recidivism outlined in Table 29 (i.e., any returns, new offences, technical revocations) in which reintegration potential, overall dynamic need, Aboriginal status, and age at release were statistically controlled (Table 30, Table 31, and Table 32, and Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10). Additionally, chi-square tests were run to determine if there were any differences between the pre- and post-implementation groups for each of the control variables. No significant differences were found, suggesting that the there was no difference between the pre- and post-implementation groups with respect to recidivism rates.

In each case, the Cox regression model provided a good fit to the data implying that the model adequately predicted appropriate survival functions. Results indicted no significant differences in the survival rates between the pre- and post-implementation groups. However, in the Cox regression models, reintegration potential and age were significant predictors of likelihood of any return and a return on a new offence, while age was the only significant predictor of a return on a technical revocation.

Any Return
Table 30: Parameter estimates for Cox regression analysis for Any Return
  ß SE Sig. Hazard Ratio
Implementation Period

Pre-Implementation

-

-

-

-

Post-Implementation

-0.008

0.094

0.9291

0.992

Reintegration Potential

Low

-

-

-

-

Medium

-0.302

0.126

0.0167

0.740**

High

-0.612

0.336

0.0680

0.542*

Overall Dynamic Need

Dynamic Need Low

-

-

-

-

Dynamic Need Medium

1.240

1.017

0.2226

3.456

Dynamic Need High

1.473

1.009

0.1447

4.360

Race

Non Aboriginal

-

-

-

-

Aboriginal

-0.057

0.110

0.6021

0.979

Age at Release

-0.021

0.005

< 0.0001

0.944***

Note: The omnibus test of model coefficients indicated that the model provided an adequate fit to the data, -2 log likelihood = 5819.719, total model χ2 (7) = 49.1936, p < .0001.
* p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .0001.

Figure 8: Cox Proportional Hazard Regression for Any Return

Description Figure 8:

Figure 8 is a line graph that presents a cox proportional hazard regression analysis for showing the time in days until any offence

The lines in the graph represent the following two series:

  • Time until any offence in the period prior to implementation of the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI)
  • Time until any offence in the period after implementation of the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI)

The X axis, going from left to right, is composed of a numeral scale representing the time in days until any offence by day. It increases in increment of 10, going from 0 days to 400 days, with major data points occurring at 100, 200, 300, and 400 days.

The Y axis, going from top to bottom, represents the proportions of offenders who committed any offence. It increases at increments of 0.01, going from 1 to .4 with major data points occurring at 1.0, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, and 0.4.

The lines representing the two periods are quite flat and close together until 60 days, at which point approximately 1% had committed any offence during the post-implementation period and approximately 2% had committed any offence during the pre-implementation period.

The lines then begin to go downward at a 45 degree angle and remain quite close together

At 100 days into both the pre and post IPPI implementation period, approximately 10% of offenders committed any offence.

The lines then continue to go downward at a 45 degree angle and remain quite close together

At 200 days into the IPPI pre-implementation period, approximately just over 34% of offenders committed any offence

At 300 days into the IPPI pre-implementation period, approximately just under 49% of offenders committed any offence

At 360 days, the lines converge and begin to flatten out, which shows that 360 days into both the IPPI’s pre and post-implementation periods, approximately 51% of offenders committed any offence

Figure 8 is a line graph that presents a cox proportional hazard regression analysis for showing the time in days until any offence

New Offence
Table 31 : Parameter estimates for Cox regression analysis for a return with a New Offence
  ß SE Sig. Hazard Ratio
Implementation Period

Pre-Implementation

-

-

-

-

Post-Implementation

-0.045

0.172

0.7953

0.956

Reintegration Potential

Low

-

-

-

-

Medium

-0.654

0.265

0.0135

0.520**

High

-1.570

1.024

0.1251

0.208

Overall Dynamic Need

Dynamic Need Low/Medium

-

-

-

-

Dynamic Need High

0.380

0.340

0.2640

1.463

Race

Non Aboriginal

-

-

-

-

Aboriginal

0.113

0.190

0.5508

1.120

Age at Release

-0.041

0.010

< 0.0001

0.960***

Note: The omnibus test of model coefficients indicated that the model provided an adequate fit to the data, -2 log likelihood = 1688.234, total model χ2 (6) = 44.3887, p < .0001.
** p < .05, *** p < .0001.

Figure 9 : Cox Proportional Hazard Regression for New Offence

Description Figure 9:

Figure 9 is a line graph that presents a cox proportional hazard regression analysis for showing the time in days until a new offence

The lines in the graph represent the following two series:

  • Time until a new offence in the period prior to implementation of the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI)
  • Time until a new offence in the period after implementation of the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI)

The X axis, going from left to right, is composed of a numeral scale representing the time in days until any offence by day. It increases in increments of 10, going from 0 days to 400 days, with major data points occurring at 100, 200, 300, and 400 days.

The Y axis, going from top to bottom, represents the proportions of offenders who committed a new offence. It increases at increments of one half percent, going from 1 to .80 with major data points occurring at each one percent starting at .80 and going to 1.0.

The lines representing the two periods are quite flat and close together and decline gradually until approximately 80 days into both the pre and post implementation periods at which point approximately just under 1% had committed a new offence

The lines then diverge and at 100 days, approximately 2.5% of offenders committed a new offence in the pre-implementation period and approximately 1.5% of offenders committed a new offence in the post-implementation period.

The lines continue to diverge and at 140 days, approximately 3% of offenders committed a new offence in the pre-implementation period and approximately 5% of offenders committed a new offence in the post-implementation period.

The lines then converge at 185 days into both the pre and post implementation periods at which point approximately 7% of offenders committed a new offence

The lines then diverge and at 220 days, approximately 12% of offenders committed a new offence in the pre-implementation period and approximately 10% of offenders committed a new offence in the post-implementation period.

The lines then converge at 285 days into both the pre and post implementation periods at which point approximately 17% of offenders committed a new offence

The lines then diverge and continue downwards at a 45 degree showing that at each subsequent point in time, approximately new offences were about 1% more likely to occur in the pre-implementation period as compared to the post implementation period

Figure 9 is a line graph that presents a cox proportional hazard regression analysis for showing the time in days until a new offence

Technical Revocation
Table 32 : Cox Parameter estimates for Cox regression analysis for a return with a Technical Revocation
  ß SE Sig. Hazard Ratio
Implementation Period

Pre-Implementation

-

-

-

-

Post-Implementation

0.006

0.112

0.9554

1.006

Reintegration Potential

Low

-

-

-

-

Medium

-0.180

0.144

0.2136

0.836

High

-0.442

0.359

0.2181

0.643

Overall Dynamic Need

Dynamic Need Low

-

-

-

-

Dynamic Need Medium

1.074

1.024

0.2939

2.928

Dynamic Need High

1.277

1.014

0.2081

3.586

Race

Non Aboriginal

-

-

-

-

Aboriginal

-0.145

0.136

0.2852

0.865

Age at Release

-0.014

0.006

0.0246

0.986**

Note: The omnibus test of model coefficients indicated that the model provided an adequate fit to the data, -2 log likelihood = 4117.455, total model χ2 (7) = 18.8352, p= .0087.
** p < 0.05.

Figure 10 : Cox Proportional Hazard Regression for Technical Revocation

Description Figure 10:

Figure 10 is a line graph that presents a cox proportional hazard regression analysis for showing the time in days until a technical revocation

The lines in the graph represent the following two series:

  • Time until a technical revocation in the period prior to implementation of the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI)
  • Time until a technical revocation in the period after implementation of the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI)

The X axis, going from left to right, is composed of a numeral scale representing the time in days until any offence by day. It increases in increments of 10, going from 0 days to 400 days, with major data points occurring at 100, 200, 300, and 400 days.

The Y axis, going from top to bottom, represents the proportions of offenders who received a technical revocation. It increases at increments of one percent, going from 1 to .80.

The lines representing the two periods are quite flat and close together and decline gradually until approximately 60 days at which point approximately 2.5% of received a technical revocation in the pre-implementation period, while approximately 1% received a technical revocation in the post implementation period.

The lines then converge at 80 days into both the pre and post implementation periods at which point approximately 3.5% of offenders received a technical revocation

The two lines then continue very close together at about a 45 degree angle.

At 100 days into both the pre and post implementation periods, approximately 8% of offenders received a technical revocation

At 200 days into both the pre and post implementation periods, approximately 26% of offenders received a technical revocation

At 280 days into both the pre and post implementation periods, approximately 36% of offenders received a technical revocation

The lines then diverge and at 290 days, approximately 38% of offenders received a technical revocation in the pre-implementation period and approximately 36% of offenders received a technical revocation in the post-implementation period.

The lines then converge at 316 days into both the pre and post implementation periods at which point approximately 39% of offenders received a technical revocation

The lines then flatten out and begin to diverge slightly with technical revocations being more likely in the pre-implementation period as compared to the post-implementation period.

Figure 10 is a line graph that presents a cox proportional hazard regression analysis for showing the time in days until a technical revocation

Overall, no differences between the pre- and post-implementation groups were found regarding recidivism rates for higher risk offenders in CCLO areas included in this analysis. It should be noted that late implementation of the initiative resulted in short-term follow-up periods, and the inability to include some of the CCLO areas in the analyses. In addition, the post-implementation follow-up period started immediately following CCLO staffing, allowing for little time for CCLOs to learn their roles or to have an impact on the offenders with whom they might be working.

There have also been difficulties tracking offenders involved in the initiative, and the data capture system that was eventually put in place does not appear to have been accurately implemented in all areas. The accuracy of these analyses would likely be improved through tracking outcomes for those offenders who were involved in CCLO contacts related to release planning, increased monitoring/supervision, and UAL tracking, versus those who were not involved in the initiative. Finally, a review of recent data that had been entered to track offenders involved in the IPPI indicated that not all of the CCLO contacts were with high risk offenders, suggesting that implementation issues may have contributed to the findings reported in this section.Footnote 45

Offenders who went UAL

The number of offenders who went UAL over time was used as a proxy indicator of the success of the increased monitoring and supervision of offenders in CCLO areas.Footnote 46 In order to examine the impact of the IPPI on the percentage of offenders who went UAL, the number of offenders who went UAL relative to the total number of offenders being supervised in a CCLO area was assessed. The period of time post-implementation of each CCLO position was compared to the pre-implementation period of time for each of the CCLO areas.Footnote 47 To ensure comparable time periods for pre- and post-implementation comparisons, the length of time available after CCLO placement was calculated and an equivalent time period was calculated pre-implementation.Footnote 48

The number of offenders who went UAL appears to have remained relatively static from the pre-implementation period to the post-implementation dates (Table 33). There was little change in the number of offenders who went UAL pre- and post-IPPI implementation in most regions with the exception of the Atlantic Region where a significant reduction in the proportion of offenders who went UAL (from 36.0 to 29.9) was recorded. Based on the data available for the evaluation, no obvious reason for this decrease in the Atlantic Region, as compared to other regions, was identified.

Table 33 : Percentage of UAL cases as a function of the number of offenders supervised

CCLO Area
Time (Days) Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation T Statistic Percent Decrease
(Increase)
N Percent N Percent

All CCLO Areas

620

11,590

38.2

11,673

37.5

1.10

1.8

Atlantic Region

852

1,467

36.0

1,529

29.9

3.55

16.9***

Quebec Region

425

2,167

32.8

1,985

34.0

0.82

(3.7)

Ontario Region

659

2,078

34.0

2,182

33.7

0.21

0.9

Prairie Region

675

3,799

41.4

3,763

40.6

0.71

1.9

Pacific Region

637

2,079

43.8

2,214

44.6

0.53

(1.8)

Note: Time (Days) is the average number of days the initiative was implemented in each region based on the implementation dates for each CCLO area. N = number of releases in specified CCLO areas within the pre- and post-implementation periods.
*** p <.01

Stakeholders Perceptions of increased capacity to monitor higher risk offenders and improve the reintegration of offenders into the community

The majority of CSC staff survey respondents (66%) and police interview respondents (71%) agreed that the IPPI increased CSC’s capacity to successfully reintegrate offenders into the community. The average levels of agreement among general CSC staff survey respondents from the Pacific and Atlantic Regions were significantly higher than those of respondents from the Quebec Region (mean differences = 1.28 and 1.34, respectively; p < .01).

Several general CSC staff survey and police interview respondents provided suggestions to increase the overall effectiveness of the IPPI. The most frequently listed suggestions included staffing additional CCLOs, defining the roles, responsibilities, and objectives of the initiative and its stakeholders in concrete terms, and increasing awareness of the IPPI and CCLOs’ roles and responsibilities. Several respondents to the general CSC staff survey also provided suggestions for improving the capacity to assist in the reintegration of higher risk offenders via activities of the IPPI. The most frequently mentioned suggestions included hiring CCLOs for every parole office or area, emphasizing communication between police and CSC, and increasing CCLO involvement in monitoring and surveillance activities.

According to all police interviewees (100%) and the majority of general CSC staff survey respondents (83%), the IPPI increased the capacity to supervise and monitor higher risk offenders in the community. More specifically, the majority of general CSC staff survey respondents agreed that the IPPI increased the capacity to supervise and monitor non-Aboriginal offenders (71%), Aboriginal offenders (67%), and women offenders (54%).Footnote 49

General CSC staff survey respondents were somewhat more equivocal in their agreement as to whether the initiative helped to prevent offenders from going UAL, with similar proportions agreeing (38%), neither agreeing nor disagreeing (30%), and disagreeing (30%) with this statement.Footnote 50

Almost half of the general CSC staff survey respondents (49%) agreed that offenders in the community were aware of a CCLO’s participation in their case. A slightly lower proportion of respondents (44%) agreed that offenders who were aware of a CCLO’s involvement in their case were more likely to abide by the conditions of their release. Further, the majority of general survey respondents (80%) indicated that the quality of their relationship (e.g., communication, trust) with offenders in their community had not changed since the IPPI was implemented. Of those respondents who indicated their relationship with offenders had changed (20%), several commented that it had changed positively, and some respondents specified that offenders were more likely to see the police in a positive light and/or as a source of support since the IPPI had been implemented.

Several respondents to the general CSC staff survey and police interview mentioned that the IPPI also resulted in increased staff safety, increased knowledge of gang activity, increased capacity for risk management, and increased collaboration between designated higher risk offender police units and CCLOs.

4.3.4 UAL Apprehensions

FINDING 16: A review of UAL data revealed a slight increase in the percentage of UAL apprehensions relative to the total number of UAL cases nationally (from 91% to 94%), and moderate reductions in time to UAL apprehensions in two regions (approximately 5 days), following implementation of the IPPI.

In order to examine the impact of the IPPI on UAL apprehensions, two aspects of UAL cases were assessed: the percentage of UAL offenders apprehended and the length of time until they were apprehended. The period of time post-implementation was compared to the period of time pre-implementation of the CCLO positions for each of the CCLO areas.Footnote 51 To ensure comparable time periods for pre- and post-implementation comparisons, the length of time available after CCLO placement was calculated and an equivalent time period was calculated pre-implementation.Footnote 52

Percentage of UAL Apprehensions

One of the objectives of the IPPI was to involve CCLOs in information gathering and sharing to facilitate apprehension of UAL offenders. Overall, the proportion of UAL apprehensions increased, with significant increases in the Quebec and Ontario Regions, while the Atlantic Region showed a slight decrease (see Table 34).Footnote 53 However, it should be noted that while the Atlantic Region showed a small decrease in the number of UAL apprehensions it was the only region to post a significant reduction in the number of released offenders who went UAL (see Table 33). In addition, both the Atlantic (97.7%) and the Pacific (95.8%) Regions already had very high apprehension rates prior to the initiative. Given that apprehension rates were very high in these regions prior to the implementation of the IPPI, a ceiling effect may have been encountered, resulting in low statistical likelihood of improvement on apprehension rates in these regions.

Table 34 : Percentage of UAL offenders who were apprehended
CCLO Area Time (Days) Pre-Implementation Post-Implementation T Statistic Percent
Increase
(Decrease)
N Percent N Percent

All CCLO Areas

620

4,776

90.9

4,655

93.6

4.90

3.0***

Atlantic Region

852

530

97.7

477

95.8

1.71

(1.9)*

Quebec Region

425

785

86.4

777

90.9

2.80

5.2***

Ontario Region

659

828

84.1

757

96.6

8.31

14.9***

Prairie Region

675

1,697

91.3

1,605

91.7

0.41

0.44

Pacific Region

637

936

95.8

1,039

95.7

0.11

(0.1)

Note: Time (Days) is the average number of days the initiative was implemented in each region based on the implementation dates for each CCLO area.
N = number of UAL cases in specified CCLO areas within the pre- and post-implementation timelines.
* p < .1, *** p < .01

Length of time UAL

The average length of time from the date an offender went UAL to apprehension was compared for the pre-implementation and post-implementation groups.Footnote 54 To ensure there was no overlap of pre- and post-implementation UAL cases, only those warrants that were issued (offender went UAL) and executed (offender was apprehended) within each pre- or post-period were included in the analysis.Footnote 55 A two sample independent t-test was used to determine whether any change had occurred.

There were no significant differences in time to UAL apprehensions nationally (Table 35). However, there was a significant reduction in average apprehension time in the Quebec Region, and a trend toward shorter apprehension time in the Pacific Region. The opposite trend was observed in the Prairie Region with a trend toward a longer apprehension period.

Table 35 : Average Number of Days an Offender was UAL
CCLO Area Pre-Implementation Post Implementation p-value
N Mean (Days) N Mean (Days)

All CCLO Areas

4,157

24

4,086

23

0.2838

Atlantic Region

507

30

436

26

0.3486

Quebec Region

620

29

603

23

0.0254**

Ontario Region

684

12

710

12

0.000

Prairie Region

1,486

26

1,395

30

0.0745*

Pacific Region

860

22

942

18

0.0883*

Note: N represents the number of UAL warrants issued (offender went UAL) and executed (offender was apprehended) within the designated time periods.
* p-value < 0.1, ** p-value < 0.05

It is also important to note that the Ontario Region had a very low base rate of number of days to apprehension prior to implementation of the IPPI (i.e., 12 days). Therefore, there may have been little room for improvement in time to apprehension, given that UAL apprehensions occurred very rapidly within this region. Given the pre-existing high apprehension rates in some regions (Atlantic, Pacific), and the pre-existing rapid apprehension time in others (Ontario), one might question the need for intervention with respect to UALs. However, it is also important to realize that, despite high apprehension rates in Atlantic and Pacific Regions, the time to apprehension for these regions was still relatively high pre-IPPI (30 and 22 days, respectively). Similarly, despite the rapid apprehension time pre-IPPI in the Ontario Region, the overall percentage of apprehensions (84%) was not as high in Ontario as it was in some of the other regions (from Table 34). Thus, there may still be a need for initiatives related to UAL apprehensions; however, the specific need for intervention in this area and the nature of the intervention should be carefully reviewed.

Overall, a few regions showed positive impacts with respect to reducing the percentage of UAL cases, or reducing the length of time an offender was UAL, while other regions showed opposite trends, or little impact. It should also be noted that pre-post differences in UAL apprehensions, though statistically significant, were relatively small, and regional differences in outcomes were difficult to explain. Given that priorities for different activities (e.g., supervision/monitoring higher risk offenders, apprehending UAL offenders, information sharing, etc.) may differ from one area to another, each CCLO area was asked to rank their priorities for UAL activities compared to their other responsibilities. This ranking was utilized in further analyses in an attempt to determine if the priority given to UAL apprehensions among different CCLO offices might explain the regional differences observed here. However, no significant effects related to regional prioritization of UAL activities were found.

According to the majority of general CSC staff survey respondents (80%) and police interviewees (86%), the IPPI led to an increased capacity to locate and apprehend UAL offenders. The majority of general CSC staff survey respondents (64%) indicated they had not encountered any continued challenges in locating and apprehending UAL offenders since the implementation of the IPPI. Of those respondents who indicated having experienced continued challenges, the most frequent comments included the fact that locating UAL offenders was always difficult, and that they faced the same challenges as they had prior to the implementation of the IPPI. Several respondents commented that a lack of police staff to apprehend UAL offenders, and the amount of time spent on follow-ups with parole officers and documentation requirements, were continued challenges to locating and apprehending UAL offenders.

Several respondents to the general CSC staff survey offered suggestions to improve the capacity to locate and apprehend UAL offenders, including staffing more CCLOs or providing additional staff to assist with locating and apprehending UAL offenders, and establishing dedicated police units in each province. Other suggestions included increasing public notification of UAL offenders, increasing communication between CCLOs and police agencies, assigning CCLOs to locations where offenders posed a high risk to become UAL (such as at Community Residential Facilities [CRF]) and allotting dedicated hours or providing overtime for UAL cases.

4.4 Evaluation Objective 4: Cost-Effectiveness

Cost-effectiveness determines the relationship between the amount spent and the results achieved relative to alternative design and delivery approaches.


FINDING 17: Although the IPPI demonstrated some positive short-term outcomes, limitations related to the short implementation period, inconsistencies in financial coding, and issues related to the tracking of offender inclusion in the IPPI, precluded the ability to conduct a reliable cost-effectiveness analysis at this stage of the IPPI. Some evidence for the cost-effectiveness of police-corrections partnerships has been observed in other jurisdictions.

Several indicators of the success of the IPPI have been observed, including enhanced information sharing between key stakeholders, and a moderate impact on the number of UAL apprehensions and the time to apprehension. However, the most frequently reported successes of the IPPI included increased information sharing and positive perceptions of CSC’s reintegration strategy, which are difficult to quantify for the purpose of a cost-effectiveness analysis. Further, a cost-effectiveness analysis was not feasible due to the short implementation period, inconsistencies in the recording of initiative financial expenditures, and the inability to track specific offenders involved in the IPPI.

Cost-effectiveness of Similar Initiatives in Other Jurisdictions

A review of the literature related to police-corrections partnerships revealed few assessments of the cost-effectiveness of these types of initiatives. However, two articles were located detailing initiative cost information, and one included a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Maryland Re-Entry Partnership Initiative (REP)

The Maryland REP (Roman et al., 2007) initiative was established in 1999, and is a community-justice partnership in which public agencies and community-based organizations work together to provide continuous case management as prisoners transition into the community. It is managed by an independent non-profit organization. Returning prisoners are matched to programs and services delivered by community-based organizations that are designed to help them successfully reintegrate into the community. Corrections agencies and community service providers work together to coordinate services, share information, and ensure continuous case management. Agencies include the Maryland Division of Correction, the Maryland Division of Probation and Parole, the Maryland Parole Commission, the Mayor’s Office on Criminal Justice, the Mayor’s Office of Employment Development, and the Baltimore Police Department.

A study was conducted evaluating the impact of the REP on crime using a cohort of prisoners released from the Maryland Transition Center in Baltimore, Maryland, between March 2001 and January 2005. Retrospective administrative data were used to test the hypotheses that participation in REP reduced re-arrest and re-conviction and increased time to re-arrest, and to test whether changes in these outcomes were cost-beneficial.

REP clients (= 229) were compared to a cohort of 370 prisoners released from the Maryland Transition Center to neighbourhoods in Baltimore City that were not in the REP catchment area. It was found that the REP was successful in reducing criminal offending. Fewer REP clients (72% compared to 78% non-REP subjects) committed at least one new crime in the study period, which averaged 38 months. The total annual cost of REP was $1,210,301 and with 176 active clients at that time, the average annual cost per participant was approximately $6,900.

The REP program yielded about $3 in benefits for every dollar in new costs, proving this program to be cost-beneficial. The total net benefit to the citizens of Baltimore from the REP program was about $7.2 million, which shows a return of $21,500 per REP participant. While there was a small and non-significant benefit to public agencies from REP, the majority of the program’s benefit accrued to the citizens of Baltimore, whose risk of victimization was reduced. Much of the difference in cost-effectiveness was due to a difference in the incidence of serious crimes, as there were 11 attempted murder charges and two murder charges among the comparison group and no murders or attempted murder charges within the treatment group.

Savannah Impact Program, Savannah, Georgia

The Savannah Impact Program (SIP)Footnote 56 was developed in 2001 and included a collaborative effort among the Savannah Police Department (SPD), Chatham County Adult Education, State Board of Pardons and Parole, and the Georgia Department of Corrections, Juvenile Justice and Labour. The program targeted offenders identified as high risk for violent behaviour and/or those with a history of drug use, and involved the intensive supervision of offenders (e.g., home checks, curfew checks, electronic monitoring) by a team of probation officers, parole officers and city police officers. A second component of the program was designed to help offenders “Build Better Lives” by linking probationers and parolees with necessary services to aid in rehabilitation (e.g., drug counselling, educational programs, and job skills training).

In 2003, the budget for the program was $1.1 million. The City of Savannah provided $607,000 to cover operational costs, which included the assignment of five police officers to SIP, provision of a director, administrative support, and a building. Similarly, the Georgia General Assembly provided SIP with $539,000 for additional personnel in Pardons and Parole and the Departments of Labour, Corrections and Juvenile Justice to assist in the implementation of this initiative.

Results indicated that violent crime in Savannah was reduced by approximately 6% from 2000 to 2002, and was down by 30% by March 2003. Similarly, in 2002, revocations were only 14% for parolees, 8% for probationers, and 24% for juveniles. These numbers were stated to be significantly lower than national averages, suggesting that the program had a significant effect on violent crime and parole violation in this cityFootnote 57.

Summary

Some evidence has been observed for the cost-effectiveness of police-corrections partnerships in other jurisdictions. It should be noted, however, that the initiatives described in this section appear to be more comprehensive in nature, to include broader partnerships, and to be more expensive to operate, than the IPPI. Thus, findings from these studies may not be directly applicable to the IPPI within CSC. However, these findings do demonstrate the potential for police-corrections partnerships to contribute to public safety in a cost-effective manner. In addition, it is possible that lessons may be learned from an in-depth review and understanding of the goals and objectives, and program profiles, of other successful police-corrections partnerships.

RECOMMENDATION 14: CSC should conduct a more extensive review of police-corrections partnerships in other jurisdictions and actively engage with these jurisdictions, to determine any best-practices or lessons learned that might be applicable to the IPPI.

4.5 Evaluation Objective 5: Unintended Finding

4.5.1 IPPI Pilot Program

FINDING 18: Re-analysis of the impact of a reported IPPI pilot program, utilizing more rigorous methodology, showed little impact on the number of days that offenders were UAL, despite previously reported positive impacts of this pilot program.

As presented in the success section earlier in the report, it appeared that the IPPI did not significantly reduce the length of time that offenders were UAL. These results contradict those from a pilot program introduced in Montréal, Toronto, and Edmonton in the years leading up to the IPPI initiative, in which findings indicated that the length of time offenders were UAL was reduced by 50% over a four-year period ending March 31, 2005.Footnote 58

Given the discrepancy in the findings between the pilot program and the current evaluation, it was decided to extract data from OMS for the four years ending March 31, 2005 and to apply similar methodology used in the IPPI initiative. All offenders who went UAL within each fiscal year (2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05) were followed for a maximum of one year. A fixed follow-up period was chosen to ensure that each fiscal year was comparable to every other year.Footnote 59 For those offenders who were apprehended within one year, the length of time each offender was UAL was calculated. The analysis revealed findings similar to those obtained in the current IPPI evaluation, suggesting that the length of time an offender was UAL did not change appreciably over time.

Table 36 shows that the reduction in the length of time an offender was UAL did not approach 50%. Moreover, a closer look at the trend from one year to the next suggests that the length of time an offender was UAL remained static, with the exception of an overall 31% decrease in Edmonton.

Table 36 : Average Number of Days an Offender was UAL (Fixed Follow-up Period)

CCLO Area
Fiscal Year T Statistic Percent Decrease
(Increase) After 4 Years
2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005

All Districts

31

27

28

28

1.16

9.7

Montréal

35

36

37

36

0.16

(2.9)

Toronto

18

15

16

22

1.08

(22.2)

Edmonton

36

25

25

25

2.82

30.6***

Note: *** p-value < 0.01

The possibility that varying follow-up periods (rather than fixed follow-up periods) were used in the pilot program study was considered. The danger in not using a fixed follow-up period was that any comparisons made from one year to the next and over a longer period of time would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, it would provide an explanation for the findings. Given that the original data extraction date was April 10, 2005, a variable follow-up period would mean that those offenders who went UAL April  1st, 2001 would have four years to be apprehended, while those offenders who went UAL on January  1st, 2005 would only have three months to be apprehended, meaning that the fiscal years would be compared unequally. The results obtained using a variable follow-up period are displayed in Table 37.

Table 37 : Average Number of Days an Offender was UAL (Variable Follow-up Period)

CCLO Area
Fiscal Year Percent Decrease
(Increase)
After 4 Years
2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005

All Districts

41

33

31

22

46.3

Montréal

52

49

45

29

44.2

Toronto

20

15

17

16

20.0

Edmonton

39

26

25

19

51.3

Table 37 shows a nearly 50% reduction in the length of time an offender was UAL. However, it is not reasonable to suggest that this reduction can be attributed to the implementation of the pilot program. Rather, it is a direct result of the use of a variable follow-up period. Without the original data analysis, which was unavailable, it was not possible to definitively state that the results presented from the pilot program were produced with inappropriate methodology. However, it is a plausible explanation and the results presented in Table 36 should be used as an accurate representation of the effect of the pilot program. Overall, despite some moderate impacts of the IPPI since its inception in 2005, it appears that there was no noticeable impact of the IPPI pilot program that was conducted prior to that time.

References

Anonymous (1999). Enhanced supervision programs: Police/probation/parole partnerships. Alternatives to Incarceration, 5, 14-18.

Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (2007). About us. Retrieved from http://www.cacp.ca/index/aboutus.

Corbett, R. P. (1998). Probation blue? The promise (and perils) of probation-police partnerships. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 31-39.

Corbett, R. P., Fitzgerald, B. L., & Jordan, J. (1998). Boston’s Operation Night Light: An emerging model for police-probation partnerships. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions (pp. 180-186). New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Worrall, J. L., & Gaines, L. K. (2006). The effect of police-probation partnerships on juvenile arrests. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 579-589

Correctional Service Canada (2007). 2006-2007 Departmental Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2008). The Changing Federal Offender Population: Highlights 2008. Ottawa, ON: Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada.

Correctional Service Canada (2009). 2008-2009 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada Review Panel (2007). Report of the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel: A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Grant, B. A., Johnson, S. L., & Muirhead, M. (2000). Use of residency condition with statutory release: A descriptive analysis. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

International Association of Chiefs of Police & Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2005). Building an offender reentry program: A guide for law enforcement. Alexandria, VA: Author

Le Vigne, N. G., Solomon, A. L., Beckman, K. A., & Dedel, K. (2006). Prisoner re-entry and community policing: Strategies for enhancing public safety. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Murphy, D., & Worrall, J. L. (2007). The threat of mission distortion in police-probations partnerships. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 132-149.

Parent, D., & Snyder, B. (1999). Police-corrections partnerships. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Public Safety Canada. (2007). Corrections and conditional release statistical overview: Annual report 2007 (Cat. No. PS1-3/2007E). Ottawa, ON: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Roman, J., Brooks, L., Lagerson, E., Chalfin, A., & Terescschenko, B. (2007). Impact and cost-benefit analysis of the Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Worrall, J. L., & Gaines, L. K. (2006). The effect of police-probation partnerships on juvenile arrests. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 579-589.

5.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Logic Model

Appendix A:

This logic model outlines the Integrated Police/Parole Initiative. Going from top to bottom, the model explains the initiative’s process by describing its components which are:

  • Activities
  • Outputs
  • Immediate outcomes
  • Intermediate outcomes
  • Ultimate outcomes

The initiative’s activities are:

  • Training
  • Staffing
  • Liaison and sharing of information activities with police and other relevant agencies
  • Involvement in the management of higher risk offenders
  • Tracking of UAL offenders
  • Community Liaison

This description will describe separately each activity as well as their respective outputs and outcomes before describing the ultimate outcomes.

The output for the training activity is:
Standardized national training package for CCLOs

The immediate outcome for the training activity is: Increased awareness of CCLO roles and responsibilities.

The output for the staffing activity is:
Clear job descriptions established.

The immediate outcome for the staffing activity is: 17 Community Correctional Liaison Officers are hired.

The intermediate outcome for both the training and staffing activities is:
Increased quality and level of supervision and cooperation with police

The output for the liaison and sharing of information activities with police and other relevant agencies activity is:
Regular communication with police/other relevant agencies and communication processes developed

The immediate outcome for the liaison and sharing of information activities with police and other relevant agencies activity is:
Partnerships established with police forces

The intermediate outcome for the liaison and sharing of information activities with police and other relevant agencies activity is:
Enhanced communications network between CSC and police

The output for the involvement in the management of higher risk offenders’ activity is:
Participation in the pre-release and post-release case management process

The immediate outcome for the activity of  involvement in the management of higher risk offenders is: Collaborative approach to enhance the monitoring of high risk cases.

The intermediate outcome for the activity of involvement in the management of higher risk offenders is: Improved risk management and supervision in the community.

The output for the activity of tracking of UAL offenders is:
Participation in gathering and sharing of information with police forces regarding UAL offenders.

The immediate outcome for the activity of tracking of UAL offenders is:
Information shared between police and CSC / enhanced collaboration between police and CSC in the apprehension of UAL offenders.

The intermediate outcome for the activity of tracking of UAL offenders is:
Facilitation of the apprehension of UAL offenders

The output for the community liaison activity is: Communication processes for information sharing with the public and proactive outreach plan.

The immediate outcome for the community liaison activity is: Increased positive and or neutral media reports.

The intermediate outcome for the community liaison activity is: Increased public awareness and understanding of corrections.

All of the intermediate outcomes have the same ultimate outcomes, which are:

  • Offenders safely and effectively accommodated and reintegrated into Canadian communities
  • Enhanced public safety
  • Increased public confidence towards CSC

This logic model outlines the Integrated Police/Parole Initiative.

Appendix B: Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Objective: Continued Relevance
The extent to which the Initiative is consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities, and realistically addresses an actual need.
Evaluation Question Performance Indicator Source and Methods

Is there a demonstrated need for the Correctional Service Canada (CSC) to continue with the Initiative?
To what extent are the objectives and the rationale of the Initiative still relevant?

  • Profile of higher risk offenders in the community (#, trends over time)
  • # and trend UAL offenders (length UAL, rate of UAL's)
  • Stakeholder perceptions of the need and rationale for the Initiative
  • OMS
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews
  • Initiative related document review
  • Lit review
  • Data analysis – Population profile

Is the Initiative consistent with CSC and government-wide priorities?

  • Congruency between Initiative, CSC and government priorities and mandate
  • Consistency between Initiative rationale and CSC mandate
  • Stakeholder opinions as to the consistency between government priorities and mandate and the Initiative
  • Review of CSC mandate
  • Review of Government of Canada priorities
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews
Evaluation Objective: Implementation
The extent to which the Initiative was implemented the way that it was designed and whether the design was appropriate for the delivery of the initiative.
Evaluation Question Performance Indicator Source and Methods

Is the design of the Initiative the most appropriate mechanism for delivery?

  • Strengths/weaknesses in design of Initiative
  • Clear roles and responsibilities
  • Processes and procedures are clearly defined and understood
  • Stakeholder opinions with respect to the appropriateness of the delivery mechanism
  • Availability and feasibility of alternative designs, if any
  • Review of Initiative design
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews
  • Review of similar initiatives in other jurisdictions
  • Lit review
  • OMS

To what extent has the Initiative been implemented as designed?

  • Degree to which all CCLO positions were established, filled and timeliness of staffing actions
  • Extent to which procedures were implemented and followed
  • Degree to which CCLO training has been standardized and delivered
  • Degree to which formal protocols have been established for gathering and sharing information
  • Level of CCLO participation in the case management process 
  • Effective data capture procedures in place
  • Stakeholder perceptions of the level of satisfaction with Initiative implementation
  • Review of Initiative Agreement
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews
  • Review of data capture procedures and resulting data quality
  • Review of training manuals, other documentation
  • Review of meeting minutes, quarterly/annual reports, conference calls

What were some, if any, of the implementation challenges?

  • Type of challenges encountered and the degree to which the challenges have been resolved
  • Best practices/Lessons learned
  • Barriers to implementation in sites where Initiative was not implemented or implemented late
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews
  • Review HR policies
  • Review Police HR Procedures related to the Initiative
  • Review of any documentation (meeting minutes, correspondence) related to the Initiative between the Police and CSC

Have the appropriate offenders been targeted by the Initiative?

  • Profile of offenders impacted by the Initiative (UAL status, risk, release type, offence history, etc.)
  • Comparison of actual offender profile to initiative mandate to profile of inmate/community offender population
  • Stakeholder perceptions of appropriateness of targeting criteria
  • OMS
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews
  • Lit review
  • Arc View - Geo mapping of # of higher risk and UAL offenders in CCLO locations compared to Non-CCLO locations
Evaluation Objective : Success
To what extent is the Initiative delivering the expected outputs, outcomes and objectives in relation to the resources used.
Evaluation Question Performance Indicator Source and Methods

To what extent has the Initiative resulted in improved partnerships and communication with the police and the community?

  • Strengthened relations between CSC and police and CSC and community partners
  • # of meetings, conferences, communications between CSC (NHQ) and CCLO's, District Directors
  • # of MOUs resulting from Initiative
  • # of partnerships and community linkages developed during the Initiative
  • Stakeholder perceptions of the extent to which partnerships and communication have improved
  • Degree to which CCLO positions have served as direct line of communication between CSC and Police Services
  • Examination of minutes, memo's, conferences, initiative communication, quarterly/annual reports,
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews
  • Social Network Analysis of CCLO offices compared to no CCLO offices
  • CCLO communication activities documentation

To what extent has the monitoring capacity improved for higher risk offenders?

  • # of meetings, phone calls with higher risk offenders over time
  • Stakeholder perceptions of improved capacity to  monitor higher risk offenders
  • # of technical revocations for all and higher risk offenders over time compared to non-CCLO sites
  • # of offences committed by higher risk offenders over time compared to non-CCLO sites
  • OMS
  • CPIC
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews
  • Pre-post analysis of technical revocations and offences in CCLO sites, compared to late implementation or comparable site if possible
  • Time series pre-post

To what extent has CSC maintained a low level of UAL offenders and low number of days that offenders are UAL?

  • Trend in # of UAL offenders (pre-post levels)
  • Trend in average number of days offenders are UAL  (pre-post levels)
  • Compare # of UAL's and time to apprehension in CCLO versus non-CCLO sites
  • OMS
  • Key Informant Survey
  • Pre-post trends in UAL Offenders
  • Compared to late implementation sites, sites where the CCLO is vacant and comparable parole offices not designated for the pilot
  • Time series

To what extent has the Initiative increased positive stakeholder and general public perceptions of CSC's community reintegration strategy?

  • Stakeholder opinions of increased positive public perception of CSC's community reintegration strategy
  • Extent of positive perceptions of CSC community reintegration strategy in the community and media
  • Review of any opinion research
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews
  • Media scan
  • Lit review
Evaluation Objective: Cost-Effectiveness
To what extent does this Initiative demonstrate value for money.
Evaluation Question Performance Indicator Source and Methods

Has the funding been spent as allocated?

  • Comparison of budgeted and actual expenditures as per the Initiative
  • Review of re-allocated funds
  • Initiative within budgeted specifications
  • Initiative financial information (approved budget and actual expenditures)
  • Document review
  • Review of outputs

Is there evidence of value for money for the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative?

  • Stakeholder perceptions of value for money
  • Costs associated with positive outcomes (decrease in UAL and UAL days, decrease in re-offending) compared to costs with out the Initiative
  • OMS
  • Financial Review
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews

Do alternatives in design and delivery exist? If so, are the alternatives more cost-effective?

  • Stakeholder perceptions of alternative delivery approaches and impact on cost-effectiveness
  • Review of costing options, if feasible, given the availability of financial information
  • Examine other jurisdictions
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews
  • Lit Review
  • Review of Initiative documentation
Evaluation Objective: Unintended Effects
Have there been any unintended effects or impacts as a result of the Initiative.
Evaluation Question Performance Indicator Source and Methods

Have there been any other impacts or effects, intended or otherwise resulting from the initiative?

  • Stakeholder perceptions of any unintended impacts of the Initiative
  • Key Informant Survey/Interviews

Appendix C: Detailed Tables from Survey and Interview Responses

Table C1. General CSC staff survey ratings of agreement as to whether relations between IPPI stakeholders have improved since implementation of the Initiative
Relations n Degree of Agreement M SD
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

CSC and Police

143

3

(2.1)

8

(5.6)

10

(7.0)

60

(42.0)

62

(43.4)

4.19***

.94

CSC and Community Partners

116

4

(3.4)

10

(8.6)

27

(23.3)

51

(44.0)

24

(20.7)

3.70

1.01

Community Partners and Police

100

0

(0.0)

8

(8.0)

28

(28.0)

41

(41.0)

23

(23.0)

3.79

.89

Note: ***Significant main effect of respondent, F(1,97) = 49.01, p < .001.

Table C2. General CSC staff survey ratings of agreement as to whether the IPPI has led to increased communication and partnership activities between CSC and Police Services
Activities n Degree of Agreement M SD
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Increased cooperation†

131

4

(3.1)

7

(5.3)

11

(8.4)

66

(50.4)

43

(32.8)

4.05**

.95

Increased meetings

127

6

(4.7)

7

(5.5)

12

(9.4)

65

(51.2)

37

(29.1)

3.94*

1.02

Increased understanding of other organizations' challenges

129

5

(3.9)

7

(5.4)

21

(16.3)

60

(46.5)

36

(27.9)

3.89

1.00

Increased understanding of other organizations' mission / goals

129

4

(3.1)

9

(7.0)

14

(10.9)

68

(52.7)

34

(26.4)

3.92*

.97

Increased understanding of other organizations' operations

128

5

(3.9)

8

(6.3)

16

(12.5)

65

(50.8)

34

(26.6)

3.90

1.00

Increased trust

131

6

(4.6)

5

(3.8)

19

(14.5)

68

(51.9)

33

(25.2)

3.89*

.98

Increased MOUs

81

4

(4.9)

9

(11.1)

31

(38.3)

32

(39.5)

5

(6.2)

3.31

.93

Note: Significant regional differences, *p < .05, **p < .01. † Significant effect of respondent, F(3, 243) = 9.40, p < .001.

Table C3. General CSC staff survey ratings of agreement as to whether access to information has improved since implementation of the IPPI
  n Degree of Agreement M SD
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Improved access to information

127

6

(4.7)

9

(7.1)

21

(16.5)

37

(29.1)

54

(42.5)

3.98*

1.14

Increased timeliness of access to information

126

5

(4.0)

10

(7.9)

19

(15.1)

40

(31.7)

52

(41.3)

3.98

1.12

Note: *Significant regional difference, F(4,121) = 9.93, p < .05.

Table C4. General CSC staff survey ratings of agreement as to whether the IPPI has led to increased positive perceptions of CSC’s mandate and strategies regarding the reintegration of offenders into the community among stakeholders
Stakeholder group n

Degree of Agreement

M SD
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Police personnel

120

4

(3.3)

8

(6.7)

6

(5.0)

67

(55.8)

35

(29.2)

4.01*

.96

CSC personnel

124

7

(5.6)

8

(6.5)

12

(9.7)

66

(53.2)

31

(25.0)

3.85*

1.05

Offenders in community

110

8

(7.3)

12

(10.9)

36

(32.7)

40

(36.4)

14

(12.7)

3.36

1.07

Community partners

106

5

(4.7)

12

(11.3)

19

(17.9)

52

(49.1)

18

(17.0)

3.62*

1.05

General public

89

10

(11.2)

14

(15.7)

38

(42.7)

22

(24.7)

5

(5.6)

2.98*

1.04

Media

85

8

(9.4)

14

(16.5)

36

(42.4)

22

(25.9)

5

(5.9)

3.02

1.02

Note: *Significant regional difference, p <.01.

Table C5. General CSC staff survey respondents’ frequency of contact with the general public concerning CSC’s mandate and strategies regarding the safe and successful reintegration of offenders

Type of contact
n Never Seldom Sometimes Often
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Organized public events

9

1

(11.1%)

4

(44.4%)

2

(22.2%)

2

(22.2%)

Media relations/Press conferences

125

87

(69.6%)

19

(15.2%)

16

(12.8%)

3

(2.4%)

Informal contact during offender follow-ups

129

18

(14.0%)

20

(15.5%)

56

(43.4%)

35

(27.1%)

Other types of contact

37

19

(51.4%)

4

(10.8%)

10

(27.0%)

4

(10.8%)

Table C6. General CSC staff survey respondents’ ratings of agreement as to whether the IPPI has improved the capacity to reintegrate offenders into the community
Offender subpopulation n Degree of Agreement M SD
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

All offenders

130

1

(0.8)

12

(9.2)

31

(23.8)

53

(40.8)

33

(25.4)

3.81

.95

Higher risk offenders

132

1

(0.8)

6

(4.5)

16

(12.1)

51

(38.6)

58

(43.9)

4.20

.88

Non-Aboriginal offenders

119

1

(0.8)

9

(7.6)

25

(21.0)

48

(40.3)

36

(30.2)

3.92

.94

Aboriginal offenders

106

1

(0.9)

8

(7.5)

26

(24.5)

44

(41.5)

27

(25.5)

3.83

.93

Women offenders

98

1

(1.0)

8

(8.2)

36

(36.7)

26

(26.5)

27

(27.6)

3.71

1.00

Table C7. General CSC staff survey respondents’ ratings of agreement as to whether offenders are aware of CCLO involvement and whether this affects their likelihood of abiding of release conditions
n Degree of Agreement M SD
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Offenders are aware of CCLO involvement in their case

108

1

(0.9)

30

(27.8)

24

(22.2)

40

(37.0)

13

(12.0)

3.31

1.04

CCLO involvement increases the likelihood that offenders will abide by the conditions of their release

119

7

(5.9)

18

(15.1)

42

(35.3)

40

(33.6)

12

(10.1)

3.27

1.03

Table C8. General CSC staff survey respondents’ ratings of agreement as to whether the IPPI has led to an increased capacity to located and apprehend UAL offenders, and prevent offenders from becoming UAL
n Degree of Agreement M SD
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Improved capacity to locate / apprehend UAL offenders

137

3

(2.2)

12

(8.8)

13

(9.5)

47

(34.3)

62

(45.3)

4.12

1.04

Improved capacity to prevent offenders from becoming UAL

124

8

(6.5)

29

(23.4)

39

(31.5)

36

(29.0)

12

(9.7)

3.12

1.08

Appendix D: Summary of CCLO Contracts

Atlantic
Location Police Service Start Date of Contract End Date (or # of years)

Halifax

Halifax Regional Police

April 3, 2006

2 years

Halifax

Halifax Regional Police

April 3, 2008

2 years

St. John's

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

June 19, 2006

2 years

St. John's

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

November 5, 2007

2 years

Saint John

Saint John Police Force

August 28, 2006

2 years

Saint John

Saint John Police Force

August 29, 2008

August 28, 2009

Quebec
Location Police Service Start Date of Contract End Date (or # of years)

Montréal

Service de police de la ville de Montréal

June 11, 2007

2 years

Montréal

Service de police de la ville de Montréal

June 11, 2007

2 years

Québec City

La Sureté du Québec

March 08, 2008

2 years

Laurentides

La Sureté du Québec

March 08, 2008

2 years

Ontario
Location Police Service Start Date of Contract End Date (or # of years)

Central Ontario District (Toronto)

Toronto Police Services Board

September 11, 2007

January 1, 2009

Hamilton

Hamilton Police Services

May 7, 2007

1 year

Hamilton

Hamilton Police Services

April 3, 2006

1 year

Ottawa

Ottawa Police Service

April 2, 2007

2 years

Prairies
Location Police Service Start Date of Contract End Date (or # of years)

Regina

Regina Police Service

February 1, 2006

2 years

Regina

Regina Police Service

February 1, 2006

2 years

Regina

Regina Police Service

March 10, 2008

March 31, 2010

Winnipeg

Winnipeg Police Service

December 26, 2006

2 years

Edmonton

Edmonton Police Service

July 1, 2006

June 31, 2008

Pacific
Location Police Service Start Date of Contract End Date (or # of years)

Vernon

RCMP

March 19, 2007

March 31, 2009

Vancouver

Vancouver Police Department

September 18, 2006

3 years

Vancouver

Vancouver Police Department

January 2, 2008

2 years

Appendix E: Information Sharing Protocols

Region Name Description

Central Ontario

ROPE Notification

  • Purpose is to improve upon the communication that exists between CSC and the Ontario Provincial ROPE Unit in order to ensure that when federal offenders are deemed UAL that the ROPE Unit receive timely notification.
  • Business hours suspension: the Parole Officer who seeks the Suspension Warrant must phone the ROPE Unit to advise them that a warrant has been issued (must speak to a live person).
  • After hours or weekend suspension: when the Duty Officer issues the warrant it is the responsibility of the offender’s supervising Parole Officer to phone the ROPE Unit and advise them that a warrant has been issued (must speak to a live person).
  • High risk/emergency situation suspension: there is an on-call ROPE officer that can be contacted through the TOP Police Service Duty Operations Centre.
  • The CCLO is a resource for all CSC staff.

Arrest Situations

  • Purpose is to ensure that all arrests are conducted in a safe and timely manner in order to reduce the risk of violence and injury to police officers, CSC staff and offender when arrests are conducted on site.
  • Is accomplished through:
    1. increased communication between the arresting officers and CSC staff;
    2. the availability of up to date information regarding the circumstances surrounding the arrest; and
    3. situational control of the manner and timing in which the arrest takes place.
  • Procedures include the use of standard profile reports. 11 Division Notification, contacting ROPE during business hours, and contacting police through police communication after hours or when ROPE is unavailable.

Offender Medication

  • Purpose of procedure is to ensure consistency in the way medication is distributed to the offenders residing at the Keele CCC.
  • When medication is prescribed to an offender the offender must have the medication packaged in blister packs (done by Shopper’s Drug Mart). When the offender comes to the security booth and is required to take their medication, staff should:
    1. retrieve the offender’s blister pack and show the offender the labelling on the package;
    2. staff will then cut off the blister section that contains the pills for that time; and
    3. staff will then hand the required blister section to the offender who will then dispense their own medication.

Winnipeg

Canada Wide Parole Warrants

  • When encountering a parolee, parole must be contacted. Once parolee is in custody of the officer, call RCMP major crimes (between 8am and 4pm) or parole duty officer (after 4pm) to have warrant forwarded to PRC.

Requests for Police Reports

  • Daily reports regarding Suspended at Large offenders or offenders who are in the community and have been arrested for a Criminal Offence, will still continue to flow though the CCLO.
  • Historical reports requests should also be made through the CCLO. Bureau of Police Records not to be contacted.

Suspended at Large Offenders

  • Three criteria established before Duty Officer is called to enter a call for dispatch: (1) a Canada-wide warrant has been issued for the offender; (2) a confirmed address or location of the offender is available; and (3) the offender has a record for violence.

Direction concerning Parolees

  • It is the member’s responsibility to notify CSC twenty-four hours a day at the time of contact or arrest of the parolee to ensure the appropriate steps may be taken to suspend the subject, to return a parolee to custody and to limit the risk to the public.

Edmonton

Police Parole Intelligence Partnership (PPIP)

  • Collaboration between the Edmonton Police Service and CSC to collect and integrate intelligence to increase awareness about parole, federally sentenced offenders and their activities in Edmonton to encourage ownership and cooperation with the goal of increasing the accountability of offenders and enhancing the safety of the community.
  • Functions:
    1. assess all parolees being released to the Edmonton area;
    2. identify those offenders of concern to the public and of interest to EPS;
    3. compile current information from both agencies and analyze the current level of risk;
    4. disseminate information to the appropriate officers and units within the EPS and CSC, and to external stakeholders;
    5. actively monitor intelligence information through EPS and CSC data systems and provide updated analysis; and
    6. act as a service provider to tactical and analytical intelligence to and between individuals and units within EPS and CSC.

Vernon

Liaison with CSC

  • Vernon/North Okanagan Detachment will liaise with CSC through the Vernon Parole Office on an ongoing basis to maintain and acceptable level of awareness on matter of mutual interest.
  • Vernon/North Okanagan Detachment Crime Analyst is responsible for maintaining the liaison with CSC and will report to the NCO i/c GIS on its status and on any issues of concern.
  • NCO i/c GIS will ensure that all parolees who are newly arrived to the Vernon/North Okanagan Detachment area are interviewed by an RCMP member as soon as possible after their arrival, and thereafter as deemed necessary. The member conducting the interview will use the locally-approved ‘Parolee Interview’ form.

Newfoundland

Searches By Police Dogs

  • To allow police to conduct routine searches using police Dog Services Unit at the CCC

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Community offender population data for 2007/2008 were not available at the time of reporting.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Formerly called the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (PSEP)

Return to first footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Source: IPPI Program Documentation, as provided by Community Reintegration Operations Division

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

Source: Community Reintegration Operations Division

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

Source: Interchange Canada http://www.psagency-agencefp.gc.ca/prg/iec-eng.asp and Community Reintegration Operations Division http://infonet/opr/community/cclo_e.shtml.

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

The reason funds for the CMHI were released later then originally anticipated was because this was a new Initiative and the funds were to be released through Supplementary Estimates A, which were planned to be tabled to Parliament in September-October 2005. However, the Government was defeated in late 2005 and a general election was called for January 2006. Thus, departments had to manage the risks associated with any spending that occurred in advance of Parliamentary approval.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

Note that some modifications were made to the original logic model submitted to Treasury Board in the context of the Evaluation Strategy that was developed.

Return to 7 referrer

Footnote 8

Only four CCLOs responded to this survey; as such, this survey is hereafter referred to as the general CSC staff survey.

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

A preliminary questionnaire item acted as a screening question to determine respondents’ familiarity with the IPPI.  Those respondents who indicated they were ‘Moderately’, ‘Considerably’, or ‘Completely’ familiar with the initiative (N = 147) were asked to proceed with the remaining survey questions regarding the implementation, success, and best practices of the IPPI .Given that a degree of familiarity with the initiative was necessary to respond to the survey questions, those who were unfamiliar with the initiative were not asked to continue with the survey.

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

For example, if the time period being considered was January 1st, 2007 to January 1st, 2008 the database consisted of all offenders who were being supervised as of January 1st, 2007 and all offenders who were released within the time period. Next, among all the offenders described, the number of offenders who went UAL during the time period was used to calculate the percentage of offenders who went UAL.

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

For example, if the time period being considered was January 1st, 2007 to January 1st, 2008 the database consisted of all offenders who were UAL as of January 1st, 2007 and all offenders who went UAL within the time period. Next, among all the offenders described, the number of offenders who were apprehended during the time period was used to calculate the percentage of offenders who were apprehended.

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

The majority of total survey respondents (N = 307) were community Parole Officers (25%), Correctional Officers / Primary Workers (14%), Parole Officer Supervisors (10%), Institutional Parole Officers (7%), and Security Intelligence Officers (7%). Survey respondents were most often from the Prairies (32%) or Pacific Regions (27%).

Return to 12 referrer

Footnote 13

Respondents who indicated they were “Moderately Familiar”, “Considerably Familiar”, or “Completely Familiar” with the IPPI.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

The remaining seven respondents indicated they were a Parole Officer, Manager Community Operations, Aboriginal Community Liaison Officer, Program Manager or Community Mental Health Nurse.

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

One police staff respondent did not provide his current rank to the interviewer.

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

Three police officer interviewees did not report their frequency of their contact with the CCLO in their area.

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

Information reported in this section is drawn primarily from the following four articles: (1) Anonymous, 1999; (2) Parent & Snyder,1999; (3) International Association of Chiefs of Police & Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2005; and (4) Le Vigne, Solomon, Beckman & Dedel,2006.

Return to17 referrer

Footnote 18

2004 Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem Oriented policing. Boston Re-entry Initiative, Boston, Massachusetts

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

Community offender population data for 2007/2008 were not available at the time of reporting.

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

Total number of new releases include releases on day parole, full parole and statutory release.

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

An additional CCLO location was established in the Durham Region in Toronto. Due to the fact that this position was not staffed until October, 2008, after the evaluation had begun, this location was not included in the current evaluation.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

Personal Communication, IPPI Program Management Staff, November, 2008.

Return to first footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

Source: Annual and Quarterly Reports as provided by Community Reintegration

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

Source: Review of Annual Reports, Provided by Community Reintegration

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

A repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant main effect of respondent, F(6, 408) = 9.14, p < .001, and post hoc paired t-tests showed significant differences in the directions mentioned.

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

Note that ratings of priorities given to CCLO responsibilities were provided by CCLO supervisors in each of the CCLO locations.

Return to first footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27

The remaining 10% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed.

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28

Several methods of capturing this data were pilot tested during the 2006-07 fiscal year, and the most effective/efficient method of capturing CCLO contacts was determined to be CCLO and parole officer data entry in OMS (casework records).

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29

Note that parole officers are required to complete casework records for various reasons, including conducting collateral contacts regarding offenders, according to CSC policy (Commissioner’s Directives 700 and 715). The contact of a CCLO by a parole officer to discuss an offender’s case was considered to be a collateral contact, and therefore parole officers were required to record these contacts. In order to facilitate the collection of this information, a new category of collateral contacts was established in OMS specifically to capture parole officer CCLO contacts.

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30

Although there are technically 17 CCLO positions, several had not been filled at the time of the evaluation data extraction. Also several of the CCLOs had left their positions over the course of the initiative and been replaced over time, resulting in a total of 18 CCLO incumbents at the time of the evaluation.

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31

Note that although most CCLOs did not begin to enter data until May 2007 (when the case management bulletin was issued, one of the CCLOs began entering data in casework records prior to this date (September 2006 – which was the earliest CCLO casework entry date).

Return to 31 referrer

Footnote 32

Three of the CCLOs completed less than 8 casework records, and one CCLO recorded only 1 entry. Data for these analyses include only casework records entered to August 31, 2008.

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33

Data for these analyses are reflective of casework entries up to August 31, 2008, and are based on a total of 1822 casework record entries.

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34

Of all statutory release cases, 23% had a residency requirement, and 77% did not.

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Footnote 35

The remaining offenders identified include repeat offenders, offender with a low reintegration potential, and a variety of unique offender types.

Return to footnote 35 referrer

Footnote 36

Sources: MOU Department of Corrections New Zealand and New Zealand Police, High Risk High Profile Forum, Correspondence with NZ Corrections

Return to 36 referrer

Footnote 37

High profile as defined by NZ Corrections: “Any prisoners who are likely to attract media attention or arouse a public reaction beyond that which might be reasonably expected”.

Return to footnote 37 referrer

Footnote 38

In general, respondents from the Pacific Region rated their agreement significantly higher than those from the Prairies regarding improvement of CSC and police relationships (mean difference = .58, p < .05), CSC and community partner relationships (mean difference = .82, p < .01), and community partner and police relationships (mean difference = .69, p < .05). Respondents from the Pacific Region also rated their agreement significantly higher than those from the Quebec Region with respect to improved relationships between CSC and community partners (mean difference = 1.17, p<.05) and community partners and police (mean difference = 1.19, p<.01). Lastly, Pacific Region respondents rated their agreement higher than those from the Atlantic Region regarding improved relationships between community partners and police (mean difference = .78, p<.01).

Return to footnote 38 referrer

Footnote 39

The average level of agreement among general CSC staff respondents from the Pacific Region was significantly higher than that of respondents from the Quebec Region regarding whether the IPPI has resulted in increased meetings between organizations. Regarding whether the IPPI has led to increased cooperation between CSC and police, increased understanding of other organizations’ mission and/or goals, increased understanding of other organizations’ operations, and increased trust between CSC and police, the average level of agreement among respondents from the Pacific Region was significantly higher than that of respondents from the Prairie Region.

Return to footnote 39 referrer

Footnote 40

Refer to the Appendix E for a detailed summary of the protocols developed.

Return to footnote 40 referrer

Footnote 41

This information was primarily drawn from the following quarterly reports (Oct-Dec 2007, Jan-Mar 2008, Apr-Jun 2008) due to a lack of sufficient organized information found in previous reports.  It should also be noted that not all quarterly reports from all districts were completed and thus they were not all available for review.

Return to41 referrer

Footnote 42

Responses were provided by only 55% (6 of 11) police respondents, and should be interpreted with caution.

Return to footnote 42 referrer

Footnote 43

Risk was measured using the OIA static risk factor.

Return to footnote 43 referrer

Footnote 44

Survival analysis is a statistical technique that estimates the time taken to reach some event and the rate of occurrence of that event.

Return to footnote 44 referrer

Footnote 45

Given that results reported earlier indicated that offenders involved in CCLO contacts were not always higher risk, additional analyses were conducted to include offenders with any risk level (including all those with high, medium, and low risk). Similar results were obtained in that recidivism rates did not differ between the pre-implementation and post-implementation groups within the areas targeted by the IPPI initiative. In order to determine whether there might be differences between pre- and post- recidivism rates for higher risk offenders in other areas of the country, additional analyses were conducted for all other locations nationally that were not targeted by the IPPI. Among all other locations, there was no significant change in recidivism rates (at the 0.05 significance level) for equivalent time periods pre- and post-IPPI. Finally, a comparison of the areas targeted by the IPPI initiative with moderately populated cities that did not have a CCLO on staff, either due to cancelled implementation (i.e., Kingston), or due to the fact that they were moderately populated cities with moderate levels of higher risk offenders (London, Saskatoon, Prince George, Peterborough, Prince Albert) was conducted. Results revealed that these non-CCLO areas had slightly lower recidivism rates overall than the targeted areas. However, these non-CCLO areas showed no significant change in recidivism rates (at the 0.05 significance level) during equivalent pre- and post-time periods.

Return to footnote 45 referrer

Footnote 46

For example, if the time period being considered was January 1st, 2007 to January 1st, 2008 the database consisted of all offenders who were being supervised as of January 1st, 2007 and all offenders who were released within the time period. Next, among all the offenders described, the number of offenders who went UAL during the time period was used to calculate the percentage of offenders who went UAL. Note that these included any UAL warrants issued in which the offenders’ location was unknown for at least one day.

Return to footnote 46 referrer

Footnote 47

There were 15 CCLO areas included in this analysis (i.e., all areas with the exception of Durham Region which had not been staffed at the time of this evaluation). These 15 CCLO areas actually covered a total of 54 Parole Offices and Community Correctional Centres (CCC). For example, the CCLO in the St. John’s area was responsible for one Parole Office and one CCC. All of these parole offices and CCCs for which the CCLOs were responsible were included in the respective regional analyses.

Return to footnote 47 referrer

Footnote 48

For example, if the CCLO start date for the Ottawa area was April 1st, 2007 and the end study date  was Aug 31, 2008 (data extraction date), there was a total of 525 days available post-implementation. To obtain an equivalent pre-placement time period of 525 days, the start date for this period was set to the date 525 days prior to the CCLO placement date.

Return to footnote 48 referrer

Footnote 49

A within-subjects ANOVA and post-hoc paired comparisons revealed that general CSC staff survey respondents’ average level of agreement was significantly higher regarding whether the IPPI has improved the capacity for reintegration for non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal offenders in comparison to women offenders (F(1.45, 138.42) = 13.22, p < .001; mean differences = .23 and .16, respectively, p<.01). Police interviewees were not asked whether the IPPI has increased the capacity to monitor and supervise higher risk offenders in specific subpopulations

Return to footnote 49 referrer

Footnote 50

Police interviewees were not asked whether the IPPI has reduced the likelihood of offenders going UAL.  A paired t-test that revealed that general CSC staff survey respondents’ average level of agreement was significantly higher regarding whether the IPPI has improved the capacity to locate and apprehend UAL offenders, relative to whether the IPPI has helped to prevent offenders from going UAL (t(121) = 9.71, p<.001; mean difference = .98).

Return to footnote 50 referrer

Footnote 51

There were 15 CCLO areas included in this analysis (i.e., all areas with the exception of Durham Region which had not been staffed at the time of this evaluation). These 15 CCLO areas actually covered a total of 54 Parole offices and Community Correctional Centres (CCC). For example, the CCLO in the St. John’s area is responsible for one Parole Office and one CCC. All of these parole offices and CCCs for which the CCLOs were responsible were included in the respective regional analyses.

Return to footnote 51 referrer

Footnote 52

For example, if the CCLO start date for the Ottawa area was April 1st, 2007 and the end study date  was Aug 31, 2008 (data extraction date), there was a total of 525 days available post-implementation. To obtain an equivalent pre-placement time period of 525 days, the start date for this period was set to the date 525 days prior to the CCLO placement date.

Return to footnote 52 referrer

Footnote 53

The database of UAL offenders consisted of all offenders who were UAL as of the start date of the time period (e.g., January 1st, 2007), and all offenders who went UAL within the time period (e.g., January 1st, 2007 to January 1st, 2008). Next, among all the offenders described, the number of offenders who were apprehended during the time period was used to calculate the percentage of offenders who were apprehended. Note that these include any UAL warrants issued in which the offenders’ location was unknown for at least one day.

Return to footnote 53 referrer

Footnote 54

The length of time an offender was UAL was calculated from the date an offender went UAL until the date that the offender was apprehended. An offender had to be UAL for at least one day to be considered UAL for the analysis.

Return to footnote 54 referrer

Footnote 55

It should be noted that (based on data for all UAL apprehensions, in CCLO and non-CCLO areas, between January 2000 and August 31, 2005), the average length of time an offender went UAL was 44 days. Given this average time to apprehension, the method utilized for this analysis (i.e., including only those offenders apprehended within pre- or post-implementation time periods) would be expected to capture the majority of UAL apprehensions.

Return to footnote 55 referrer

Footnote 56

2003 Herman Goldstein Award Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Savannah Impact Program, Savannah, Georgia.

Return to footnote 56 referrer

Footnote 57

Ibid.

Return to footnote 57 referrer

Footnote 58

RMAF, Strengthening Community Safety Initiative Treasury Board Submission, 2008

Return to footnote 58 referrer

Footnote 59

On average, UAL offenders in Canada are apprehended within 40 to 50 days; therefore a follow-up period of one year was chosen.

Return to footnote 59 referrer