Evaluation Report: Institutional Security

Evaluation Report

File #394-2-95

Evaluation Report: Institutional Security

Evaluation Division
Policy Sector
February 2015

Signatures

Evaluation of CSC’s Institutional Security

________________________________
Don Head
Commissioner

_______________________________
Date

_______________________________
Mark Nafekh
Executive Director, Evaluation Division

_____________________________
Date

Contributions

Authors:

Kelly E. Morton Bourgon

Bertha May

Lysiane Paquin-Marseille

Elizabeth Loree

With contributions from:

Bernard Marquis

Irene Roberts

David Hubka

Joel Ndayubaha

Adam Crawford

Sean Horne

Brittany MacDonald

Colleen MacDonald

Terri-Lynne Scott

Acknowledgments

The evaluation team would like to express its appreciation to the many people who contributed to this evaluation and provided valuable information on institutional security.

First, we would like to thank the many institutional managers, staff members, and offenders who took the time to participate in the interviews held at various institutions. We would also like to thank the institutional management and staff members who participated in a number of questionnaires. In addition, we want to thank the staff at National Headquarters and Regional Headquarters, as well as people from a number of Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) partner organizations who participated in interviews.

The team greatly appreciates the assistance and input provided by CSC’s Security Branch, including the Preventive Security and Intelligence Division, the Departmental Security Division, as well as the Security Operations Division.

We would also like to thank the many branches and sectors of CSC who helped provide data for this evaluation, including the staff in Financial Management Services in the Comptroller’s Branch who provided financial data, the staff in Performance Management who provided assistance with incident data from Performance Direct, staff from Strategies, Planning, Measurement and Reporting who provided human resource data, and the Labour Relations Branch for internal CSC data. Additionally, we would like to thank Employment and Social Development Canada for providing data on complaints and work refusals under the Canada Labour Code.

The team would also like to thank the Internal Audit Sector and the Research Branch, who provided us with additional information from their audits and research reports.

Other groups within CSC who provided valuable information and advice include the Human Resources Planning, Reporting and Systems Directorate, the Learning and Development Branch, in particular staff in the Implementation of National Learning Programs, Partnership and Infrastructure Division, the Facilities Branch, and the Schedules and SDS Division.

The team would also like to express our thanks to the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers.

We would also like to extend our thanks to all those in the Evaluation Division who contributed to this evaluation, by conducting interviews, coding data or reviewing drafts of the report.

Finally, the evaluation team would like to thank everyone else who contributed to this evaluation, whose names do not appear here.

Executive Summary

Institutional security is relevant and responsive to the daily operations of correctional institutions and to the safety and security of all Canadians. Institutional security activities, as legislated by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992), align with the federal government’s new legislations such as the Safe Streets and Communities Act (2012). Institutional security activities also support the federal government and Correctional Service Canada’s strategic priorities.

The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board’s Policy on Evaluation (TBS, 2009) and the Evaluation Division’s Five-Year Plan. The scope of the evaluation was determined through a number of activities aimed at identifying evaluation priorities. As such, the evaluation focused on three key components: 1) Human Resource Management and Staff Safety; 2) Preventive Security and Intelligence; and 3) Institutional Security Operations. The evaluation incorporated both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods.

Component 1 - Human Resource Management and Staff Safety

Human resource management and staff safety is essential to operating a safe and secure correctional institution. The evaluation examined issues identified by institutional staff as they perform their security related duties. The topics that emerged from the analyses included: recruiting appropriate candidates; staff experience and development; staffing and deployment levels; and staff safety concerns. Recommendations focussed on tracking and monitoring new recruits; on-the-job coaching for new Correctional Officers (CO) and Primary Workers (PW); and enhancing communication and information sharing as part of the Employee Protection Protocol (EPP). Management Action Plans (MAP) addressing the issues were presented and approved. The MAPs will ensure tracking and monitoring of new recruits; the development of a standardized framework for on-the-job coaching for new COs and PWs; and the appropriate and timely provision of information and services throughout the EPP process to persons threatened.

Component 2 - Preventive Security and Intelligence

Intelligence information contributes to institutional safety and security by preventing security incidents, eliminating illegal activities and supporting the offender case management process. The evidence centered on the gathering, development and communication of intelligence information. It was recommended that tools be provided to Security Intelligence Officers to engage and debrief staff, and that there be monitoring and reporting on the production and sharing of intelligence. A MAP addressing the issues was presented and approved. The MAP focused on streamlining and restructuring the Intelligence Program.

Component 3 - Institutional Security Operations

The evaluation investigated daily operational security activities and how they contribute to a safe and secure institutional environment. The finding developed from the examination of evidence was that dynamic security is apparent and it is making a contribution to the safety and security of the institutions.

Financial data were examined along with incident, staff and offender data. The rate of institutional security-related spending remained relatively stable from 2008/2009 to 2013/2014 despite an increase in the number of CX staffFootnote 1 and offenders in CSC institutions. The analyses also showed a decrease in serious security incidents and escapes, an increase in drug-related seizures and an increase in negative urinalysis results.

List of Key Findings

Finding 1: Relevance

CSC’s institutional security activities continue to be relevant. Specifically, these activities align with the federal government roles and responsibilities, support the priorities of the federal government and CSC, and are responsive to the needs of Canadians.

Finding 2: Recruitment

Issues were reported with the CX recruitment processes which were most commonly associated with the selection and identification of CX candidates with appropriate experience and personal suitability. The implications of these issues were noted as barriers to effective institutional security. However, the recent implementation of an enhanced CX recruitment process has demonstrated positive results with regards to addressing the identified gaps.

Finding 3: Experience

Lack of experience among CX staff members was found to be associated with higher levels of security incidents and security related offender grievances. Although recent strategies may help mitigate the associated security risks, research shows that mentoring and coaching initiatives may also help increase knowledge and skills attained through experience.

Finding 4: Staffing and Deployment

Many evaluation respondents reported issues with insufficient staffing and deployment levels. Nevertheless, an examination of staff complaints and refusals to work revealed that one tenth were related to deployment issues, and one percent resulted in a ruling supporting the presence of risks to staff safety.

Finding 5: Employee Protection Protocol

There is a reported need for the Employee Protection Protocol (EPP) to address institutional staff members’ safety concerns and issues impacting security operations. However, issues related to communication and inadequate security measures were reported by EPP client questionnaire respondents.

Finding 6: Preventive Security and Intelligence

Intelligence is important to maintaining the safety and security of institutions; however, various challenges were reported in the areas of gathering and developing intelligence and communicating intelligence information.

Finding 7: Dynamic Security

Dynamic security is being conducted and contributes to the safety and security of correctional institutions.

Finding 8: Financial Impact

While spending on Institutional Security remained relatively stable, rates of escapes and serious security incidents have decreased, suggesting a cost-efficiency for CSC. In addition, several areas of opportunity were identified to further enhance the cost-efficiency of CSC’s institutional security activities, as well as the overall safety and security of staff and offenders in CSC’s institutions.

List of Key Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Recruitment

CSC should track and monitor the performance of new CXs through the recruitment, training and probation phases to ensure the appropriate candidates are hired and retained, and that the process is improving the organization’s ability to successfully meet safety and security requirements. Monitoring should be done on outcomes such as: success during training and while on probation, disciplinary actions, terminations, promotion, retention, and ability of the process to meet required capacity.

Recommendation 2: Experience

CSC should enhance the transition of new Correctional Officers by strengthening the links between new recruits and the sites which they are assigned to. This should be facilitated through the development, implementation and monitoring of a standardized approach for on-the-job coaching for new CXs and ensure there is a sound institutional capacity to deliver these initiatives.

Recommendation 3: Employee Protection Protocol

The Employee Protection Protocol (EPP) should be supported and improved through tools and processes which enhance communication and the sharing of information. Processes and tools should ensure staff members receive appropriate and timely communication of information and services, and there is appropriate monitoring and follow up regarding the employee’s safety.

Recommendation 4: Preventive Security and Intelligence

The Preventive Security and Intelligence Division should ensure the tools provided to SIOs are used to engage and debrief staff and management, and improve the gathering, development and communication of intelligence. This should be achieved through consistent, timely, and standardized monitoring and reporting of the production and sharing of intelligence.

Management Action Plan Overview

Management Action Plan 1: Recruitment

The Management Action Plan (MAP) will ensure that recruits are tracked and monitored for 12 months. There will also be a review and update national selection criteria and tools used to promote CXs to the CM level. Additionally, national standards and guidelines for the recruitment, training and performance management of Correctional Officers (COs) and Primary Workers (PWs) will implemented, monitored and adjusted, as required.

Management Action Plan 2: Experience

The MAP will include the development of a standardized framework for on-the-job coaching for new COs and PWs. Additionally, a Middle Manager Mentoring Program (MMMP) will be implemented and the Management Development Portal will be launched.

Management Action Plan 3: Employee Protection Protocol (EPP)

The MAP contains an action that will ensure the appropriate and timely provision of information and services to persons threatened. Staff safety will also be monitored and followed-up on by supporting and improving the EPP through new tools and processes.

Management Action Plan 4: Preventive Security and Intelligence

The Intelligence Program will be streamlined and restructured. The Intelligence Program will be supported and improved through the use of intelligence systems, tools and assets. Communication and intelligence information sharing with key CSC clients, stakeholders and operational and senior managers will be increased. Additionally, communication will be enhanced to create collaboration and liaison with external partners and stakeholders by re-establishing local, regional and national intelligence committees.

List of Acronyms

CC
Cost Centre
CCRA
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
CD
Commissioner’s Directive
CISM
Critical Incident Stress Management
CLC
Canada Labour Code
CM
Correctional Manager
CO
Correctional Officer
COMO
Cost of Maintaining an Offender
CSC
Correctional Service Canada
CTP
Correctional Training Program
CX
Correctional Services Occupational Group
DSD
Departmental Security Division
EAP
Employee Assistance Program
EPP
Employee Protection Protocol
ESS
Enhanced Suitability Screening
ESDC
Employment and Social Development Canada
HRMS
Human Resource Management System
IFMMS
Integrated Financial and Material Management System
KLC
Key Leadership Competencies
L&D
Learning and Development
MAP
Management Action Plan
NHQ
National Headquarters
NTS
National Training Standards
OJT
On-the-Job Training
OMS
Offender Management System
OPI
Office of Primary Interest
PAA
Program Alignment Architecture
PO
Parole Officer
PW
Primary Worker
RHQ
Regional Headquarters
SDS
Scheduling and Deployment System
SIA
Security Intelligence Analyst
SIAM
Strategic Intelligence Analysis and Monitoring Division
SIO
Security Intelligence Officer
SITREP
Situation Reports
SOR
Statement Observation Reports
SSP
Standardized Selection Process
STG
Security Threat Groups
TBS
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
TRA
Threat and Risk Assessment
UCCO
Union of Canadian Correctional Officers

1.0 Introduction

In accordance with the Five-Year Evaluation Plan, the Correctional Service Canada (CSC)Footnote 2 conducted an evaluation of institutional security. The evaluation process followed the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s (TBS) Policy on Evaluation (2009), by examining the continued relevance of the institutional security activities and their alignment with CSC and federal government priorities, roles and responsibilities, as well as CSC’s performance in delivering institutional security activities, including effectiveness, efficiency and economy. Effective institutional security allows CSC to mitigate potential risks, such as the Corporate Risk that "CSC will not be able to maintain required levels of operational safety and security" (CSC, 2013b, p. 11), and strengthens CSC’s ability to handle challenges related to this risk. As such, this evaluation identifies what challenges exist, and provides recommendations on how CSC can continue to meet its priority of the "safety and security of staff and offenders in our institutions and in the community" (CSC, 2013b, p. 7). Additionally, the evaluation results and recommendations contained in this report will assist CSC’s senior management with strategic policy and investment decision-making regarding institutional security.

1.0 Program Profile

1.1 Background

In 2001, the CSC Task Force on Security developed a Security Framework to optimize staff and offender interactions and promote safe reintegration. The framework contained four components: safety, respect, leadership and learning, as well as 80 recommendations that aimed to advance CSC as a "professional, humane and restorative correctional system" (CSC, 2001, p. 1). For example, recommendation #19 advised "that CSC develop a framework and standards for the gathering and analysis of security information" (CSC, 2001, p. 96), and recommendation #33 advised "that CSC standardize and fully communicate the implementation of approved security technologies" (p. 97). Many of the recommendations from the Report of the Task Force on Security have been implemented.

In 2007, a CSC Review Panel produced A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety which outlined 109 recommendations, mostly in the area of institutional security. Some of these recommendations were addressed through changes following the Safe Streets and Communities Act (2012; e.g. The Roadmap recommended the inclusion of an "offender accountabilities" section in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act [CCRA, 1992] which was completed with the amendment of CCRA section 4(h), a principle guiding offender behaviour). In addition, five key recommendations from the Panel have been outlined in the Transformation Agenda Report on Safety and Security Initiatives (CSC, 2010b, p. 4):

  • More stringent control of entry to institutions, including perimeter controls, searching and offenders visits;
  • Expansion of detector dog teams;
  • Stronger security intelligence capacity and capability;
  • Improved correctional officer training; and
  • Better equipment, electronics and associated measures to support safety and security initiatives.

1.2 Policy and Legislation

The CCRA (1992) provides CSC with the legislative mandate to contribute to public safety by administering court imposed sentences through safe custody and supervision of offenders. Institutional security activities are an essential aspect of how CSC provides a safe and secure working and living environment in correctional facilities across Canada for staff members, offenders, and the broader Canadian public. Specifically, these activities contribute to the safety of correctional institutions by supporting the prevention of security incidents. This is accomplished through the management of offender populations, the continuous surveillance and monitoring of institutional environments, and the on-going assessment of threats and risks informed by the collection and analysis of intelligence information. Institutional security activities thereby promote a positive institutional environment which supports offender reintegration.

Recently, sections 3.1 and 4Footnote 3 of the CCRA were updated as per section 54 of the Safe Streets and Communities Act (2012). In addition to the CCRA, CSC’s institutional security is affected by various other federal legislations, such as the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code – as well as by internal CSC directives and policies, such as the Commissioner’s Directive (CD) 560 – Dynamic Security and Supervision. CSC operations, including institutional security activities, are also impacted by such legislation as the Truth in Sentencing Act, and Abolition of Early Parole Act, as well as by recent deficit reduction activities.

Institutional security activities are a sub-activity of CSC's Custody Program, as defined by the Departmental Program Alignment Architecture (PAA; see Appendix AFootnote 4). These activities, along with correctional interventions, community supervision, and internal services, allow CSC to contribute to the public safety of all Canadians.

1.3 Program Description

For the purposes of this evaluation, institutional security was separated into three key components: 1) Human Resource Management and Staff Safety; 2) Preventive Security and Intelligence; and 3) Institutional Security Operations. Together, these three components encompass a wide array of activities that pertain to the successful implementation of policies and procedures designed to:

  • Ensure the safe and secure supervision and management of offenders in the institutions; and
  • Promote the safety and security of staff members as well as the Canadian public.

1.4 Logic Model

A logic model is a schematic representation of the essential components of a program (Posavac & Carey, 1992). It connects the program activities to outputs and outcomes. Specific activities and sub-activities within the logic model were reorganized and integrated to better fit the scope of the evaluation. For further details, see Appendix B and Appendix C for the Institutional Security Logic Model.

1.5 Governance Structure

CSC’s Commissioner has the ultimate responsibility for institutional security. However, daily security operations within CSC institutions are the responsibility of the Security Branch. The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs reports to the Commissioner, and is responsible for the Security Branch.

2.0 Evaluation Method

2.1 Scope of the Evaluation

The scope of the evaluation was determined through a number of activities aimed at identifying evaluation priorities, including:

  • Pre-evaluation consultations with approximately 80 CSC key informants from National Headquarters (NHQ), Regional Headquarters (RHQ) and the institutions (front-line staff and management were interviewed at: Westmorland Institution, Regional Mental Health Centre, Special Handling Unit, Regional Reception Centre, Kingston Penitentiary, Edmonton Institution for Women, Pacific Institution, and Kwikwexwelhp Healing Lodge);
  • Review of documentation including relevant departmental priorities and risks, research, audit and evaluation reports; and
  • Institutional and operational documents.

The scope of the evaluation was further refined through consultation with the Offices of Primary Interest (OPI) and key stakeholders which assisted in identifying the evaluation priorities within the three components.Footnote 5 A description of each component as well as associated expected results is provided below.

2.1.1 Component 1: Human Resource Management and Staff Safety

The evaluation questions related to human resource management and staff safety touched upon the various challenges that may exist when managing and conducting institutional security activities. Specifically, the questions focussed on how the following themes are related to staff safety and security: staffing activities; training and knowledge dissemination; conflict resolution mechanisms; and the Employee Protection Protocol (EPP). These themes contribute to the safety and security of staff, offenders, and the institutions through the hiring of the right people, ensuring that staff develop essential experience, that posts are adequately filled, and protocols are implemented that deal with threats against employees.

Human resource management and staff safety is conducted by staff and management at the following branches:

  • Recruitment and National Initiatives, using the new enhanced process, handles applications for CXFootnote 6 positions nationally.
  • Learning & Development Branch is responsible for mandatory and optional training programs for all CSC staff and management.
  • Schedules and Scheduling and Deployment System Division (SDS) is responsible for the application of deployment standards at all CSC institutions as well as operations and maintenance of the SDS system.
  • Security Branch representatives assess threats to staff and management at CSC institutions and assist with an appropriate response to the situation.

2.1.2 Component 2: Preventive Security and Intelligence

The evaluation questions related to preventive security and intelligence centred around how intelligence activities are meeting their planned results by examining how information sharing contributes to the identification of security issues. Intelligence contributes to a safe and secure environment for staff members and offenders in CSC institutions and the community, although in this evaluation the focus is solely on the security within the institutions. Specifically, intelligence information, gathered through investigations, staff observations and reporting, information from outside sources (e.g. police) and also through interactions with offenders, is used in the prevention of security incidents, eradication of illegal activities, and supports the case management process.

The Intelligence Program is conducted primarily through Security Intelligence Officers (SIO) and Security Intelligence Analysts (SIA):

  • Security Intelligence Officers are primarily located in the institutions. SIOs are responsible for providing assessments of threat and risk to institutions and individuals by: collecting and disseminating intelligence information, collecting Statement Observation Reports (SOR) and Situation Reports (SITREP), having contact with offenders, and reviewing grievances, individual observations of events, and video feeds.
  • Security Intelligence Analysts are located in regional and national offices and focus on operational site issues. Within NHQ, SIAs report directly to the Deputy Director of the Strategic Intelligence Analysis and Monitoring Division (SIAM) and focus on strategic national intelligence collected from the regions. Furthermore, their roles are to provide decision makers with accurate and timely intelligence information and fulfill the function of strategic intelligence, analysis and assessment.

2.1.3 Component 3: Institutional Security Operations

The evaluation questions focussing on institutional security operations examined how daily operational security activities contributed to a safe and secure environment. Daily operational security activities included: control of contraband and unauthorized items within institutions; population management; surveillance activities; dynamic security; infrastructure; and equipment.

Institutional Security Operations are primarily conducted by correctional officers and managers:

  • Correctional Officers (CO): COs work with offenders on a continuous basis in institutions and are the primary contact for offenders. They are classified at the CX-01 or CX-02 level.
  • Primary Workers (PW): PWs are COs who have been chosen and trained to work in Women’s Institutions. They are classified at the CX-02 level.Footnote 7
  • Correctional Managers (CM): CMs supervise the CX-01 and CX-02 ranks and report directly to the Assistant Warden Operations. They are classified at the CX-04 level.

2.2 Approach

The evaluation of CSC’s Institutional Security used a mixed method research design, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The following lines of evidence were used to address the evaluation questions.

Qualitative Data

Literature and documentation review

A review of publications in the area of institutional security was conducted, including:

  • Documents from professional publication databases (e.g. Sociological Abstracts, PsychInfo, Criminological Abstracts);
  • CSC and other governmental documents and reports (e.g. legislation, policies, reports on plans and priorities, evaluations, research reports, audits and other operational documents); and
  • An environmental scan of institutional security in correctional systems in other jurisdictions.
Semi-structured Interviews

Interviews were conducted in-person and by telephone with various respondent groups. The evaluation team developed six complementary interview guides specific to each respondent group. The guides included both open and closed-ended questions. Data from the interview guides were analyzed using various software programs (i.e. SNAP Survey, SPSS, Excel or Word), depending on the interview question and respondent group. Qualitative data obtained through open-ended questions were analyzed using the iterative and inductiveFootnote 8 process by members of the evaluation team to identify relevant themes. The final list of themes was constructed by consensus among team members. Qualitative data obtained through closed-ended questions were analyzed using descriptive analysis techniques. Frequencies and percentages were calculated based on the number of valid responses to the questions.

Respondent Groups

Correctional managers: In-person interviews were conducted during the months of February and March 2013 with 95 CMs at 18 institutions (see Appendix D) across all five regions and all security levels.

Institutional staff and management members (excluding correctional managers): In-person interviews were conducted during the months of February and March 2013 with 74 wardens, assistant wardens, and COs at the seven case study sites (see Appendix D).Footnote 9

Security Intelligence Officers: Telephone interviews were conducted with 48 SIOs in April and May 2013. The sample was selected through stratified randomization accounting for all five regions.

NHQ Key Informants: In-person interviews were conducted with 41 key informants within CSC in August and September 2012. Respondents were selected based on their position, duties, and level to target more senior employees directly involved in institutional security activities.

CSC Partners: Telephone interviews were conducted in October and November 2012 with 35 representatives from various external partner organizations. Partner organizations were identified by the Citizen Engagement Directorate, and included those from intelligence and policing fields, volunteers, community groups, and visitors.

Offenders: In-person interviews were conducted by institutional parole officers (PO) with 286 offenders in August and September 2012. The sample was selected from the Offender Management System (OMS) through stratified random sampling across all five regions and security levels while overweighting for women’s institutions and Healing Lodges. As travel for the evaluation team was not possible at the time, the PO for each offender was contacted and asked to administer the interview to each of their offender clients in the sample, and then electronically submit the interview to the evaluation team. The POs who participated were given a set of standardized instructions to support the consistency of the administration of the interviews. The reasons for non-response were recorded by POs as a way to check for selection bias.

Electronic questionnaires

Staff and Management: Invitations to participate in the electronic questionnaire were sent to an initial sample of 1,394 randomly selected institutional staff and management members. A total of 254 employees responded to the questionnaire in November and December 2013 (response rate = 18%). A profile of respondents is provided in Appendix E. The questionnaire was developed using automated software (i.e. SNAP Survey), and was administered through CSC’s Intranet site (InfoNet). The questionnaire solicited respondents’ experiences with overall institutional security activities and included both open and closed-ended questions. Data were analyzed using the same process and procedures as for the interviews.

Questionnaires

Employee Protection Protocol (EPP): A questionnaire was sent by the Departmental Security Division (DSD) in February 2014 to 178 institutional employees who had accessed the services offered by the EPP. Respondents were asked to send completed questionnaires back to the DSD to maintain employee privacy. A total of 20 questionnaires were faxed back to the DSD, which represents an 11% response rate. Data were analysed using the same process and procedures as was used for the interviews.

Formal/informal security training: A brief questionnaire was sent to the wardens and directors of all CSC institutions regarding coaching and mentoring programs at their locations, including on-the-job training, in January 2014.Footnote 10

Case studies

The evaluation team visited seven study sites as part of the case study for the institutional security evaluation. The main objective of the case studies was to seek responses to the evaluation question, "To what extent are dynamic and static security integrated in institutional surveillance activities?". Case studies were conducted at seven sites which included three groupsFootnote 11 of "sister institutions"Footnote 12 selected based on their similar infrastructural design. Case study data included semi-structured interviews with institutional staff and management as describe above as well as naturalistic observations of front-line operations. Observations were conducted using a structured observation template to support interview data. The site visits occurred in February and March 2013.

The evaluation team members did not participate in the event or activity being observed. The observers documented the flow of the activity in the Institutional Security Case Study Observation Guide, which included information such as the area observed, the activities observed, and the people present. The notes from the Observation Guide were rolled up into an Observation Summary which linked the observations to the evaluation indicators and allowed observers to quantify activities observed. Based on the summary, the observers completed the Observation Checklist, where a scale was used to assess the indicators observed. Finally, the observers at each case study site combined their observations into the Summary of Findings, which presented key findings from each institution. Data from the Summary of Findings were collected and analyzed. The analyzed data was then used to provide support for the evaluation’s findings and recommendations.

Quantitative Data

Analyses of automated data

Various sources of automated data were used in the evaluation. They are listed below.

Offender data: Data pertaining to institutional incidents, seizures, urinalysis and offender grievances were extracted from OMS and from Performance Direct and then analysed in SAS and Excel.

Human resource data: Data extracted from the Human Resource Management System (HRMS) database were provided by CSC’s Human Resources Management Section. Data on CX hires, exits, disciplinary action, level of experience as well as data specific to the recruiting process were retrieved as of December 2014 and analysed in SAS and Excel.

Financial data: Financial data for Institutional Security expenditures retrieved from the Integrated Financial and Material Management System (IFMMS) for 2008/2009 to 2013/2014 were analyzed by the evaluation team using Excel.

Data on Complaints and Work Refusals: Data on complaints and work refusals under the Canada Labour Code (CLC) was provided by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC; March 19, 2013). Internal CSC data on complaints and work refusals was provided by CSC’s Labour Relations Branch on July 4, 2014 for the period of January 1, 2012 to July 3, 2014. Data were analysed using Excel.

2.3 Limitations

The institutional security evaluation presented a number of limitations. During the time of the evaluation, CSC contributed to Canada’s Economic Action Plan through a series of measures aimed at reducing financial expenditures. These changes may have impacted the way institutional security activities were perceived and thus may have impacted on the results of this evaluation.

The evaluation relied in part on the perspectives and reports of individuals internal and external to CSC. As with any interview or survey data collection method, there is an inherent risk for potential selection and response bias. This is especially true in the case of questionnaires that were conducted with offenders where the methodology required parole officers to administer the questionnaire which may have introduced bias, given the position of authority held by parole officers.

Given the number of institutional security activities that impact security outcomes, in some instances it was not possible to statistically assess the connection between the activities and the outcomes in the logic model because there were variables unaccounted for. However, the evaluation team identified and noted the strongest trends using the combined quantitative and qualitative data available.

3.0 Key Findings

The analysis of the data identified areas to be examined within each of the three components:

  • Component 1: Human Resource Management and Staff Safety
    • Recruitment activities (e.g. recruitment standards, security screening procedures);
    • CX Experience and Retention (e.g. formal and informal security training, the level of experience of CX staff members);
    • Staffing and Deployment (e.g. staffing and deployment levels); and
    • Employee Protection Protocol.
  • Component 2: Preventive Security and Intelligence
    • Gathering and developing intelligence; and
    • Communicating intelligence information.
  • Component 3: Institutional Security Operations
    • Dynamic security.

The Relevance discussion has been included at the beginning of the key findings section in accordance with the TBS list of core issues. As well, the Financial Impact discussion has been included as the final finding of this report.

3.1 Relevance

Finding 1: Relevance

CSC’s institutional security activities continue to be relevant. Specifically, these activities align with the federal government roles and responsibilities, support the priorities of the federal government and CSC, and are responsive to the needs of Canadians.

3.1.1 Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

The protection of Canadians, including CSC employees and offenders, through institutional security activities, is a legislative responsibility of the federal government of Canada. In accordance with the CCRA (1992) and related regulations (Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, 1992), CSC has a direct legislative mandate to administer court-imposed sentences for offenders sentenced to a term of two or more years. Specifically, Section 3(a) of the CCRA states that CSC contributes "to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by (a) carrying out sentences [...] through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders" (1992). Consequently, institutional security activities support CSC’s mission, in that:

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), as part of the criminal justice system and respecting the rule of law, contributes to public safety by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control. (CSC, 2012c)

In addition, institutional security activities are aligned with new legislation recently introduced in Canada such as the Truth in Sentencing Act (2009) which anticipated an increase in the number of offenders in the federal correctional system requiring CSC to expand institutions in order to manage the population growth.Footnote 13 Another legislation affecting CSC is the Safe Streets and Communities Act (2012). This legislation impacts CSC by "enhancing information sharing with victims; increasing offender responsibility and accountability; strengthening the management of offenders and their reintegration; and modernizing disciplinary actions".Footnote 14

The Canada Labour Code (CLC; 1985) also provides CSC with a legislative requirement to ensure a safe and secure working environment for its staff members. Correctional facilities are a federally regulated sector under the legislative domain of the CLC. Part II, Section 124 of the CLC states that "every employer shall ensure that the health and safety at work of every person employed by the employer is protected" (CLC, 1985).

3.1.2 Support the Priorities of the Federal Government and CSC

Alignment with Federal Government Priorities

CSC’s institutional security activities (e.g. enhancing staff, offender and public safety and security by preventing or promptly responding to security incidents) are aligned with federal government priorities concerning a safe and secure Canada. The federal government "believes that the justice system exists to protect law-abiding citizens and our communities" (Government of Canada [GoC], 2013, p. 12). Additionally, with respect to violent offenders, the Government of Canada "will re-introduce legislation to ensure that public safety comes first" (GoC, 2013, p. 13). The Government will also stop the "automatic early release for serious repeat offenders" (GoC, 2013, p. 13). Indeed, institutional security activities such as intelligence and supervision; surveillance; and population management provide a means for the federal government to achieve these priorities by ensuring safe and secure correctional institutions.

Alignment with CSC’s Strategic Outcome

Institutional security activities are closely aligned with CSC’s strategic outcome, as well as with departmental priorities.

CSC’s strategic outcome regarding overall public safety states that "the custody, correctional interventions, and supervision of offenders, in communities and institutions contribute to public safety" (CSC, 2013b, p. 4). This outcome is reinforced in CSC’s 2013-14 Departmental Performance Report which states that the Custody program "ensures that offenders are provided with reasonable, safe, secure and humane custody while serving their sentence" (CSC, 2014b, p. 19). Additionally, two of CSC’s six departmental priorities are related to the safety and security objectives of institutional security activities (CSC, 2014b):

  • "Safety and security of staff and offenders in our institutions and in the community" (p. 7), which aims to prevent violent and assaultive behaviour through activities related to the supervision and management of offenders, as well as practices that are supportive of staff members; and
  • "Productive relationship with increasing diverse partners, stakeholders, and others involved in public safety" (p. 11) which is achieved through collaboration and sharing of security and intelligence information within CSC, and between CSC and all enforcement and intelligence agencies.

3.1.3 Responsive to the Needs of Canadians

The safety and security of CSC’s institutions are essential for the rehabilitation of offenders which thereby contributes to their safe return to Canadian communities. In the Report of the Task Force on Security (CSC, 2001),Footnote 15 it was stated that if CSC was to be successful in changing and controlling offender behaviour "it should be through the re-establishment of meaningful social and moral norms. This can only happen in an environment that is safe to live in, safe to work in and is well ordered" (CSC, 2001, p. 16). This vision was reinforced in the 2008-09 Annual Report from the Correctional Investigator which supported the contribution of dynamic security, an essential component of institutional security activities, in the rehabilitation of offenders. The report also stated that "a living environment that is unsafe for offenders is a working environment that is unsafe for staff" (Office of the Correctional Investigator, 2009, p. 35) and thus unsafe for the broader Canadian community.

Furthermore, the objectives of specific institutional security activities, such as intelligence, support law enforcement agencies outside of corrections through improved sharing of information and intelligence across institutions, agencies and jurisdictions (e.g. Godwin, 1999; Barrows and Huff, 2009; see also US Department of Justice, 2004 for discussion of how other agencies rely on the US Bureau of Prisons Sacramento Intelligence Unit to investigate threats to public safety).

Demonstrable need

The incarcerated offender population presents a number of profile characteristics that justify the need for CSC institutional security activities to ensure the protection of staff members, offenders as well as the Canadian public. On a typical day in 2012/2013, CSC was responsible for the operations of 56 institutionsFootnote 16 which incarcerated 15,056 offenders (CSC, 2013a). As of April 14, 2013, most (77%) of the incarcerated offenders were classified as medium or maximum security risk (Public Safety Canada, 2013) and over two-thirds (71%) of these offenders were serving a sentence for a violent offence.Footnote 17

Moreover, the documented rise in the complexity of the offender population profile supports the need for institutional security activities to mitigate potential risks and ensure the maintenance of required levels of operational safety and security (CSC, 2013a; CSC 2013b). In recent years, federally sentenced offenders in CSC institutions have been found to present higher proportions of violent criminal histories, including increasing issues with security threat group (STG) affiliations, substance abuse, as well as serious mental health needs (CSC, 2012a; CSC, 2013).

The increase in activities of gangs and other STGs inside institutions and in the community has generated the need for enhanced levels of institutional security activities, such as intelligence, both nationally and internationally (e.g. see Ruddel et al, 2006; Jordan 2009; Fleischer and Decker, 2010; Pyrooz et al 2011). The proportion of CSC offenders reported to have existing STG affiliations at admission has increased over the last decade for both men (11% to 15%) and women offenders (5% to 12%; CSC, 2009a). Accordingly, the proportion of institutional incidents across all regions involving one or more STG members has also increased over the years from 16% in 2007/2008 to 21% in 2011/2012 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Proportion of Security-Related Institutional IncidentsFootnote 18 Involving One or More STG Member, 2007/2008 to 2011/2012

Proportion of Security-Related Institutional Incidents Involving One or More STG Member, 2007/2008 to 2011/2012

Figure 1: Proportion of Security-Related Institutional Incidents Involving One or More STG Member, 2007/2008 to 2011/2012

This vertical bar chart demonstrates the percentage of security-related institutional incidents which involved one or more Security Threat Group (STG) member from 2007/2008 to 2011/2012.

The X axis lists, from left to right, the following years:

  • 2007/2008
  • 2008/2009
  • 2009/2010
  • 2010/2011
  • 2011/2012

The Y axis, from bottom to top, is measured in percentages, and increases in increments of 5, from 0 to 25.

The percentage of security-related institutional incidents involving one or more STG member in 2007/2008 was 16%.

The percentage of security-related institutional incidents involving one or more STG member in 2008/2009 was 18%.

The percentage of security-related institutional incidents involving one or more STG member in 2009/2010 was 20%.

The percentage of security-related institutional incidents involving one or more STG member in 2010/2011 was 21%.

The percentage of security-related institutional incidents involving one or more STG member in 2011/2012 was 21%.

In addition, the need for institutional security activities is supported by growing security concerns related to the increasing number of offenders with mental health needs. The presence of mental health issues among offenders has been found to be associated with higher involvement in institutional incidents leading to charges as well as lower rates of successful returns to the community (Stewart, Wilton & Cousineau, 2012). The concern stems from the fact that the proportion of offenders presenting mental health needs doubled from 1996/1997 to 2008/2009, with over 13% of men and 29% of women being identified as having mental health problems upon admission (CSC, 2009a). Furthermore, compared with the general population, there is an over-representation of offenders with mental health disorders such as psychosis, depression, anxiety, and substance-related disorders within Canada’s correctional facilities (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2008).

Component 1: Human Resource Management & Staff Safety

The evaluation questions focusing on human resource management and staff safety touched upon the various challenges that may exist when managing and conducting institutional security activities. Overall, four main themes were identified: 1) recruitment; 2) experience; 3) staffing and deployment; and 4) the Employee Protection Protocol.

CSC strives to maintain a qualified workforce able to conduct effective institutional security tasks. This objective is achieved through a number of activities which are examined under Component 1, including: the recruitment of appropriate candidates; staff experience and development; maintenance of required staffing and deployment levels; and the identification and resolution of staff safety concerns. While every institutional staff member plays a vital role in ensuring the security and safety of institutions, this component focuses mainly on CXFootnote 19 staff members, as their primary functions relates to institutional security.

3.2 Recruitment

Finding 2: Recruitment

Issues were reported with the CX recruitment processes which were most commonly associated with the selection and identification of CX candidates with appropriate experience and personal suitability. The implications of these issues were noted as barriers to effective institutional security. However, the recent implementation of an enhanced CX recruitment process has demonstrated positive results with regards to addressing the identified gaps.

The recruitment of COs and PWs within CSC is done through external competitive processes, with over 95% of new CXs coming from outside the organization in 2012/2013. Among the recruits that were hired from within CSC, most were from the CR group (37.5%), the GS group (25%), the AS group (12.5%), the WP group (12.5%), and other groups (e.g. FI group and PS group, 12.5%) (CSC, 2013j).Footnote 20

Following the 2010 Review of the CX Recruitment Process, CSC developed an enhanced CX recruitment process with more consistent and rigorous screenings and assessments. This enhanced process was piloted in 2011 (i.e. the Skye process) and has now been fully implemented for all future CX recruitment processes. The first candidates assessed through this new recruitment process have been hired since May 2013. The enhanced CX recruitment process included a number of measures to ensure a more consistent and rigorous recruitment and assessment model, including: standardization of assessment tools, development and implementation of a pre-employment disclosure process, enhanced suitability screening and assessment, and psychological testing. The benchmarks for psychological test scores are comparable to those used in law enforcement agencies (CSC, 2013l).

The new and more rigorous enhanced process demonstrated enhanced efficiencies and potential effectiveness (CSC, 2013l), for example:

  • The duration of the first enhanced assessment process was 12 months from the time a competition was posted to the time a job offer was made, and was reduced to approximately seven months for subsequent enhanced processes;
  • As evidence of more stringent assessment criteria, the new enhanced process had a recruiting ratio of one successful candidate for every 12 applicants, compared to a ratio of one successful candidate for every three applicants for the prior process.

All appointments to CX positions within CSC are based on the demonstration of established qualifications as defined in the statement of merit criteria, in accordance with CD 285 - CSC Standardized Selection Process (CSC, 2003). As such, CSC adheres to a standardized selection process (SSP) for the recruitment and selection of employees. SSP "is a systematic approach of determining departmental qualification standards for identified positions and measuring the competency level of employees against these standards" (CSC, 2003, s.4). The requirements for recruits for the CX entry level positions (CX-01, unless PW recruits, in which case CX-02), as detailed in the Statement of Merit Criteria (CSC, 2011d), entails that candidates have completed a minimum education level of a secondary school diploma or the equivalent, have work experience that includes direct interaction with individuals in an education, work, and/or volunteer environment, as well as demonstrate specific personal suitability factors that are in line with working in a correctional environment, such as respect, initiative, integrity, judgement, results-oriented, teamwork and sensitivity to diversity.

Upon application, the present enhanced recruitment process encompasses a number of assessments, including (CSC, 2013k):

  • An Enhanced Suitability Screening (ESS) (i.e. open source background check);
  • Three written examinations that test for 1) the ability to use reasoning to assess problems and determine solutions; 2) the ability to communicate effectively in writing; and 3) the ability to summarize information accurately;
  • An interview and reference check; and
  • A psychological assessment to assess the personality characteristics of candidates.

Once candidates have successfully passed the pre-assessment criteria, they become eligible to complete the Correctional Training Program (CTP) which is the current training that is offered to all "individuals who successfully complete the recruitment process to become correctional officers. CTP is designed to provide the trainees with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to carry out their job as correctional officers" (CSC, 2008a, p.5). Successful CTP recruits are then placed on an eligibility list for future hiring.

Evidence:

The recently implemented enhanced recruitment process was linked to fewer disciplinary actions in CX-01 first year of employment

Over the five-year period from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013, CSC hired 2,269 new COs at the CX-01 levelFootnote 21 from external competitive processes (using both the previous and new enhanced recruitment processes).Footnote 22 Out of these new hires a total of 120 received at least one disciplinary action for reasons of, for example, excessive use of force, use of intoxicants, smuggling, breach of security and misconduct. Among these 120 CX-01 staff members, 13% (n = 16) received multiple disciplinary actions (ranging from 2 to 4)Footnote 23 and 21% (n = 25) of them received the disciplinary action within their first year of employment. Additionally, three recruits were rejected during the one-year probationary period. It is important to note that disciplinary actions can be erased from the employee’s record if the employee remains incident free for 2 years, therefore the number of disciplinary actions may have been higher than what was available in the data.

Due to the recency of the new enhanced process, statistical comparisons cannot be performed at this time. However, an examination of HRMS data found that none of the CX‑01s hired through the new recruitment process from May 2013 to January 2014 (N = 50) received disciplinary actions nor were rejected during the probationary period as of May 2014.Footnote 24 As a comparison, over the last two years, among new CX-01s recruited through the previous process (N = 445), 2% (n = 11) received disciplinary actions within one year of employment and 1% (n = 4) were rejected during the probationary period.Footnote 25

Issues were reported in the recruitment process with the selection and identification of CX candidates with appropriate experience and personal suitability

The CX recruitment standards and processes were reported to present challenges with respect to identifying candidates that possess the necessary experience and personal suitability. Interviews and surveys were conducted prior to the hiring of CXs recruited through the new enhanced CX recruitment process. Hires under the prior process, however, are still employed with CSC, so the issues identified by institutional staff and management remain relevant. When asked whether they agreed that CX recruitment standards are adequate in identifying and selecting appropriate candidates to perform security related duties, 64% (n = 73) of institutional management questionnaire respondents and 71% (n = 26) of CX questionnaire respondents either ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’. Among reasons mentioned, issues mostly pertained to the mental and physical health screening processes and the security and suitability screening processes. A fifth (20%; n = 19) of CMs interviewed identified issues with respect to a lack of abilities among new CXs to conduct various institutional security activities: 15% identified issues with inexperience (n = 14), and 11% noted personal suitability issues (n = 10). Similarly, the 2014 Public Service Employee Survey (TBS, 2015) found that 32% of a total of 2,849 CX respondents agreed with the following statement: "In my work unit, I believe that we hire people who can do the job".Footnote 26

A review of the CX recruitment process conducted in 2010 (CSC, 2010a), prior to the enactment of the enhanced process, found that there was a lack of precision in screening candidates for mental and physical health requirements, and that assessment processes presented a limited ability to identify predictors of desired character and behaviour (e.g. reliability, values and ethics, and judgement). The review also identified issues pertaining to the assessment of new employees during the probation period (i.e. inconsistent assessment and feedback processes), thus limiting the possibility of rejecting unqualified recruits during the probation period.

Implications:

As recognized by CSC in the Report of the Task Force on Security: "Dynamic securityFootnote 27 plays an essential role in the management of correctional institutions [...] no other factor plays such a significant role in providing a safe and secure environment in our institutions" (2001, p. 1). A lack of personal suitability among CXs was reported to result in a reduced ability to conduct institutional security activities, thus leading to potential security incidents. About half (48%; n = 196) of institutional staff and management questionnaire and interview respondents noted that a lack of personal suitability prevented staff from conducting dynamic security within the institution, and 17% (n = 15) of institutional staff and management questionnaire respondents recommended that the CX recruitment standards focus more on abilities related to dynamic security.

Next Steps:

It is important to recruit and hire the most appropriate candidates for CX positions at CSC. While the current evaluation found that there were issues with CSC’s recruitment process, it also found that the enhanced process is using more stringent criteria for selecting candidates from the applicants. This improved process is linked to lower rates of disciplinary actions and rejection of new recruits during the probationary year.

Recommendation 1: Recruitment

CSC should track and monitor the performance of new CXs through the recruitment, training and probation phases to ensure the appropriate candidates are hired and retained, and that the process is improving the organization’s ability to successfully meet safety and security requirements. Monitoring should be done on outcomes such as: success during training and while on probation, disciplinary actions, terminations, promotion, retention, and ability of the process to meet required capacity.

3.3 Experience

Finding 3: Experience

Lack of experience among CX staff members was found to be associated with higher levels of security incidentsFootnote 28 and security related offender grievances.Footnote 29 Although recent strategies may help mitigate the associated security risks, research shows that mentoring and coaching initiatives may also help increase knowledge and skills attained through experience.

Evidence:

CSC employed 7,722 indeterminate staff members from the CX group in 2012/2013. The overall average years of serviceFootnote 30 among the CX group within CSC has remained consistent over the last decade, averaging 10 years (CSC, 2013j).

Experience in corrections and institutional security, for many CSC staff, starts during the initial training provided by the Service. CSC is committed to providing comprehensive security-related training to all employees working within institutions to enhance their awareness and knowledge of institutional security policies and procedures and ensure staff and offender safety. Mandatory security-related training within CSC was developed and delivered in accordance with the National Training Standards (NTS) to ensure that all employees possess the minimum level of training or basic level of competence in order to perform required duties or roles of their position. Mandatory training for CSC employees is mandated by the CCRA, the Criminal Code of Canada, other legislations, and various CDs. In addition, learning and development within CSC is guided by the following TBS policies:

  • The Directive on the Administration of Required Training (TBS, 2008a), which details the coordination, monitoring and reporting of required training; and
  • The Policy on Learning, Training, and Development (TBS, 2011), which outlines responsibilities for employee professional development, leadership development, and required training for employees.

Lower levels of experience among CX staff members are associated to higher rates of security incidents and offender grievances in the institutions.

Analyses were conducted in order to determine whether there was any relationship between the years of experience held by CXs and institutional issues such as security incidents or offender grievances.Footnote 31 Results revealed that the average level of CX staff experience in the institutions was statistically associated with the rate of security incidents and offender grievances in the institutions. Specifically, as the average level of experience among CXs within an institution decreased, the rate of security incidents and offender grievances related to security increased.Footnote 32 This held true while controlling for institutional level offender characteristics such as average institutional adjustment and security risk ratingsFootnote 33 as well as risk, need, motivation and reintegration levelsFootnote 34 (see Appendix G for statistical results).

Lack of experience and knowledge was identified by a number of interviewees and questionnaire respondents as a factor preventing staff members from conducting institutional security activities, such as dynamic security (37%; n = 146 of institutional staff and management questionnaire and interview respondentsFootnote 35) and static securityFootnote 36 (38%; n = 93 of institutional staff and management questionnaire respondents). Lack of experience and knowledge was also noted as one of the top three staff safety concerns by over 29% (n = 74) of staff and management questionnaire respondents.

The average years of staff experience varied considerably between institutional security levels. In 2012/2013, the average level of CX staff experience was lower in maximum security level institutions (9.70 years, SD = 1.89) and progressively increased in multi-level (9.92 years, SD = 2.93), medium (10.17 years, SD = 2.21), and minimum (18.21 years, SD = 2.99) security level institutions.Footnote 37 In that same fiscal year, the proportion of CXsFootnote 38 with less than 1 year of experience within CSC was greater at maximum (6%; n = 100) and multi-level security institutions (7%; n = 110) than in medium (3%; n = 109) and minimum (0%; n = 0) security level institutions. This issue was reflected in the Change in Command Audit, Kent Institution Pacific Region conducted in 2012 which found that CXs at the institution had short service experience and recommended that a strategy be developed to retain/increase levels of experience among CXs (CSC, 2012d).

To further illustrate this finding, a case study comparing two medium level security institutions, Drummond Institution and Grande Cache Institution, was conducted. The comparison confirmed that the institution with the highest average level of experience among its correctional officer staff members (Drummond) presented a lower rate of security incidents and security related grievances despite housing an offender population with a higher risk profile. It should be noted, however, that other factors that were not considered in this analysis could be contributing to the differences in the number of security incidents and security related grievances.

At the end of 2012/2013, the yearly average rates of security incidents and security related offender grievances were higher at Grande Cache Institution compared to Drummond Institution (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Comparison of the Rates of Security Incidents and Security Related Grievances (2012/2013)

Comparison of the Rates of Security Incidents and Security Related Grievances (2012/2013)

Figure 2: Comparison of the Rates of Security Incidents and Security Related Grievances (2012/2013)

This clustered vertical bar chart demonstrates the rate of security incidents and security-related grievances in 2012/2013 at Drummond Institution and Grande Cache Institution.

The X axis lists, from left to right, the following groups:

  • Security Incidents
  • Offender Grievances

The Y axis, from bottom to top, is numbered, in increments of 2, starting at 0 and ending at 20.
The rate of security incidents at Drummond Institution was 9.
The rate of security incidents at Grande Cache Institution was 18.

The rate of security-related offender grievances at Drummond Institution was 7.
The rate of security-related offender grievances at Grande Cache Institution was 11.

Interestingly, the proportion of high-risk offenders was lower at Grande Cache Institution than at Drummond Institution, despite the fact that Grande Cache Institution presents higher incident and grievance rates (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Comparison of the Proportion of High Risk Offenders (2012/2013)

Comparison of the Proportion of High Risk Offenders (2012/2013)

Figure 3: Comparison of the Proportion of High Risk Offenders (2012/2013)

This clustered vertical bar chart demonstrates the proportion of high risk offenders in 2012/2013 at Drummond Institution and Grande Cache Institution.

The X axis lists, from left to right, the following groups:

  • Security Incidents
  • Offender Grievances

The Y axis, from bottom to top, is in increments of 10, starting at 0 and ending at 90.
The proportion of security incidents at Drummond Institution was 67.
The proportion of security incidents at Grande Cache Institution was 55.

The proportion of offender grievances at Drummond Institution was 80.
The proportion of offender grievances at Grande Cache Institution was 60.

Furthermore, Drummond Institution, which presented the lowest rates of security incidents and offender grievances, also maintained a higher average level of CX experience than Grande Cache (11.12 vs. 5.08 years for 2012/2013, see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Comparison of the Average Level of Experience Among Correctional Officers (2008/2009 to 2012/2013)

Comparison of the Average Level of Experience Among Correctional Officers (2008/2009 to 2012/2013)

Figure 4: Comparison of the Average Level of Experience Among Correctional Officers (2008/2009 to 2012/2013)

This clustered vertical bar chart demonstrates the average level of experience, in years, among Correctional Officers at Drummond Institution and Grande Cache Institution from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013.

The X axis lists, from left to right, the following years:

  • 2008/2009
  • 2009/2010
  • 2010/2011
  • 2011/2012
  • 2012/2013

The Y axis, from bottom to top, is in increments of 2, starting at 0 and ending at 14.

The average level of experience among Correctional Officers at Drummond Institution in 2008/2009 was 11.51 years.

The average level of experience among Correctional Officers at Grande Cache Institution in 2008/2009 was 4.77 years.

The average level of experience among Correctional Officers at Drummond Institution in 2009/2010 was 11.00 years.

The average level of experience among Correctional Officers at Grande Cache Institution in 2009/2010 was 3.83 years.

The average level of experience among Correctional Officers at Drummond Institution in 2010/2011 was 11.37 years.

The average level of experience among Correctional Officers at Grande Cache Institution in 2010/2011 was 4.59 years.

The average level of experience among Correctional Officers at Drummond Institution in 2011/2012 was 11.32 years.

The average level of experience among Correctional Officers at Grande Cache Institution in 2011/2012 was 4.48 years.

The average level of experience among Correctional Officers at Drummond Institution in 2012/2013 was 11.12 years.

The average level of experience among Correctional Officers at Grande Cache Institution in 2012/2013 was 5.08 years.

Risk mitigating strategies exist or are currently being implemented.

A potential risk mitigating strategy was identified to address the lower levels of experience among CX staff members. Specifically, a more structured approach to assessing new CXs during the probation period may also facilitate the identification of learning opportunities resulting from the lack of experience among new CXs. These learning opportunities may lend themselves to being addressed through various means (i.e. training, mentoring, coaching).

Mentoring and coaching were identified as effective strategies to mitigate experience challenges; however, limitations exist with current initiatives.

Although experience is acquired through time, research suggests that appropriate mentoring and coachingFootnote 39 may facilitate the timely acquisition of knowledge and experience required within specific professional settings. Specifically, mentoring and coaching were found to be associated with the acquisition of skills and higher performance within professional contexts (Bowles et al., 2007; Davis & Higdon, 2008; Ostroff, 1992). This benefit was also reported in correctional research where interviews with CXs highlighted the importance of formal training in the development of dynamic security practices. Specifically, 62% of interviewees found on-the-job experience to be highly important and 42% emphasized the value of mentorship for developing dynamic security skills (Doherty & White, 2013). In addition, the importance of new CXs being exposed to appropriate role models during their first months on-the-job was further highlighted in an evaluation of CTP (CSC, 2008a) which found that new CXs showed significantly less positive attitudes towards correctional work approximately six months after having started the job when compared to attitudes portrayed prior to and immediately after training.Footnote 40

A need for additional mentoring and coaching opportunitiesFootnote 41 was identified by a significant proportion of institutional questionnaire and interview respondents. Some staff and management questionnaire respondents (42%; n = 100, including 57%; n = 21 of CX questionnaire respondents) ‘strongly disagreed’ or ‘disagreed’ that they are provided with sufficient mentoring opportunities to increase their knowledge and skills relating to institutional security. Nearly half (46%; n = 22Footnote 42) of institutional staff and management questionnaire respondents noted the lack of availability of these formal or informal training methods. Over a third of institutional staff and management interview respondents (35%; n = 56Footnote 43) reported that enhanced training, mentoring and coaching opportunities would contribute to further developing dynamic security abilities. The use of mentoring and/or coaching, training for new staff, and increasing staff experience at different security levels were reported by nearly a third (29%; n = 103Footnote 44) of institutional staff and management interview and questionnaire respondents as ways to improve dynamic security conducted by institutional security staff.

Although various mentoring and coaching initiatives for COs, PWs and CMs were identified within institutions, gaps were reported with respect to consistency and availability of these initiatives. Mentoring and coaching initiatives were reported to be available at the majority of institutions for COs, PWs (87%; n = 45) and for CMs (73%; n = 38) according to the results of a questionnaire sent to institution wardens or directors. However, only seven institutions had an implemented formal mentoring program for CMs, while other initiatives remained at the informal level. The types of programs and initiatives ranged, with institutions reporting orientation programs, on-the-job training (OJT; including post-specific training), mentoring, and being trained by their peers. Additional training included acting opportunities for CX-02s who want to become CX-04s and development programs for CMs who have been identified as potentially able to progress upward. The formal and informal initiatives varied in their length, from a few days to a few weeks. Institutions with no mentoring or coaching initiatives for CXs were mostly minimum security institutions, Healing Lodges, or regional treatment centres. As such, most maximum or medium security level institutions provided some form of mentoring or coaching to new recruits.Footnote 45

An inconsistent delivery of the available mentoring and coaching initiatives was reported by institutional wardens and directors to be due to a limited availability of interested and qualified mentors. Issues regarding a lack of availability and monitoring of mentoring and coaching initiatives were also identified in the CX Recruitment Process Review (CSC, 2010a), through consultations with the working group (e.g. a lack of standard procedures or assessment tools for OJT leading to varying processes across the country and difficulties implementing effective and formal mentorship).

While site specific mentoring and coaching initiatives were reported locally, no nationally or regionally monitored initiative exists, which was confirmed through consultation with the Learning and Development (L&D) Branch. In addition, there are no national or regional monitoring mechanisms to track the initiatives taking place within institutions. Furthermore, OJT, a former component of mandatory training for new CXs (CSC, 2008c), which contained elements of mentoring and coaching, has since been removed from the NTS (CSC, 2014e). The OJT implementation and monitoring remains at the discretion of the institutions.

Implications:

A high proportion of staff with lower levels of experience at the same site combined with little opportunity for on-the-job training, coaching and mentoring, may impact the level of security related incidents and offender grievances and thus negatively impact the safety and security of staff and offenders in CSC institutions.

Next Steps:

Since the commencement of this evaluation process, CSC has addressed, or begun to address, many of the issues identified in this evaluation. The L&D Branch is currently developing a National Mentoring Program for Middle Managers that will be coordinated nationally and administered regionally. The initiative is schedule to roll out in April 2015. The program will provide an opportunity for various middle managers across the country to be paired with selected mentors to enhance Key Leadership Competencies (KLC); increase middle managers’ and supervisors’ engagement with senior management; preserve corporate memory while better preparing future leaders; and enhance individual and organisational performance. The program will include formal evaluation and reporting mechanisms.

In response to the Correctional Investigators Report on the Kent Institution Investigation, a mandatory Mentoring/Coaching Program for new COs deployed to Kent Institution has been implemented where recruits are offered three week induction training. This program involves, among other components: 1) the development of a schedule of experienced mentors; 2) the tracking of OJT results for each recruit in the Performance Agreement Process; and 3) the obligation to release recruits that are not meeting training objectives.

In an effort to ensure greater initial site training and reduce the number of redeployments among new CXs, CSC has recently included a provision within the 2010-2014 Global Agreement between CSC and the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO) which states that newly appointed CXs are required to remain at their initial assigned institution for at least 24 months prior to being eligible for a deployment to another institution. Considering the ongoing challenges faced by certain institutions (e.g. maximum level security institutions, geographically isolated institutions, etc.) with respect to retaining newly appointed CXs, this provision may help these sites increase the average number of years of experience among their CX group members. Over the next few years, CSC will be able to assess the impact of this provision on the average level of CX experience at specific institutions.

The restructured approached to assessing new CXs during the probation periodFootnote 46 will allow better identification of learning opportunities necessary to enhance the skill level of institutional staff. These learning opportunities can then be addressed through appropriate means (e.g. training, mentoring, coaching).

Recommendation 2: Experience

CSC should enhance the transition of new Correctional Officers by strengthening the links between new recruits and the sites which they are assigned to. This should be facilitated through the development, implementation and monitoring of a standardized approach for on-the-job coaching for new CXs and ensure there is a sound institutional capacity to deliver these initiatives.

3.4 Staffing and Deployment

Finding 4: Staffing And Deployment

Many evaluation respondents reported issues with insufficient staffing and deployment levels. Nevertheless, an examination of staff complaints and refusals to work revealed that one tenth were related to deployment issues, and one percent resulted in a ruling supporting the presence of risks to staff safety.

Staffing levels for correctional officers are determined by deployment standards and are based on a number of considerations, including number of security activities within specific types and levels of institution (i.e. maximum, medium, minimum, multi-level). As outlined in CD 004 - National Standards for Deployment of Correctional Officers, the objective of standardized deployment is to "enhance the security of the public, staff and inmates by implementing national standards for the efficient deployment of correctional officers [...] to achieve consistent levels of safety and security while ensuring effective dynamic interactions and interventions with inmates" (CSC, 2009b, s.1).

Although required deployment levels are outlined in CSC policy,Footnote 47 the Guidelines 004-1, Operational Adjustments (CSC, 2009c) allow for adjustments of these levels based on operational needs. Upon approval, many posts may be modified to allow flexibility to redeploy scheduled CXs to address or reinforce other identified priority security activities, while ensuring secure institutional staffing levels are maintained.

Evidence:

Many evaluation respondents reported issues with insufficient staffing and deployment levels.

Many institutional staff and management questionnaire and interview respondents identified issues with staffing and deployment (e.g. insufficient staffing and deployment levels and heavy workloads). These issues were believed to present a challenge when conducting the following institutional security activities:

  • Dynamic security (55%; n = 225 of institutional staff and management questionnaire and interview respondentsFootnote 48);
  • Surveillance activities during offender movement (40%; n = 161 of institutional staff and management questionnaire and interview respondentsFootnote 49);
  • Overall monitoring activities (36%; n = 113 of institutional staff and management questionnaire and interview respondentsFootnote 50); and
  • Static security (18%; n = 30 of institutional staff and management interview respondentsFootnote 51).

Less than one percent of complaints and refusals to work examined resulted in a ruling of ‘danger’ that was associated to deployment issues.

CSC employees who believe there is likely to be an accident or injury arising out of, linked with, or occurring in the course of employment may make a complaint to their supervisor under section 127.1 of Part II of the CLC. An employee, or group of employees, may also file a complaint under section 128 of the CLC and refuse to work on the grounds that there is reasonable cause to believe that their health and/or safety, or that of another employee is in jeopardy (CLC, 1985). When an employee makes a refusal to work complaint an internal process is launched to resolve the issue and return the employee to work. If no resolution is made through this process and the employee continues to refuse to work then the complaint is referred to ESDC to be investigated and a ruling of danger/no danger is made.

An examination of 639 complaints and refusals to work by CSC employees over a two and a half year time period, between January 1, 2012 and July 3, 2014,Footnote 52 revealed that 10% (n = 67) were associated with deployment issues. Of the 67 complaints and refusals to work related to deployment, the primary issue was insufficient staff (64%; n = 43), which included:

  • Lack of staff for specific posts or tasks (60%; n = 26);
  • Need for staff on the morning shift (also called night shift, midnight shift, or before 0700hr) (21%; n = 9);
  • Insufficient staff-inmate ratio (19%; n = 8); and
  • Shortages or reduction in staff because of operational adjustment, or changes to staffing numbers (15%;Footnote 53 n = 10).

During this two and a half year time period, of all complaints and refusals to work 6% (n = 39Footnote 54) were related to deployment issues and were resolved internally. Of all complaints and refusals to work, 2% (n = 12) were related to deployment issues and received a ruling of ‘no danger’ by ESDCFootnote 55 and less than 1% (n = 5) resulted in a ruling of ‘danger’ that was associated with deployment issues (see Figure 5). Another 2% (n = 11) of all complaints and refusals to work were listed as ongoing.Footnote 56

Figure 5: Complaints and Refusals to Work (January 1, 2012 – July 3, 2014)

Complaints and Refusals to Work (January 1, 2012 – July 3, 2014)

Figure 5: Complaints and Refusals to Work (January 1, 2012 – July 3, 2014)

This graph presents the breakdown of the complaints and refusals to work at CSC institutions from January 1, 2012 to July 3, 2014.

The breakdown of complaints and refusals to work is represented by an inverted triangle broken into 4 sections.

The top section is the largest, and inside is the text:

  • Non-deployment Related Complaints and Refusals to Work 90%; N = 572.

Inside the second section is the text:

  • Resolved Internally 6%; N = 39.

Inside the third section is the text:

  • No Danger Ruling 2%; N = 12.

Inside the last, and smallest, section is the text:

  • Danger Ruling <1%; N = 5.

To the far left of the triangle is a bracket of the same height of the entire triangle, and to the left of that is the text:

  • Total Complaints and Refusals to Work 100%; N = 639.

To the left of the triangle is a bracket encompassing the bottom three sections of the triangle, and to the left of the bracket is the text:

  • Deployment-related Complaints and Refusals to Work 10%; n = 67.

Note: 11 (2%) of complaints were listed as on-going.

A previous audit found that, in general, practices aligned with deployment standards.

A previous CSC audit found that, in general, practices aligned with deployment standards. The Audit of the Implementation of the Deployment Standards (2011b) found that funding, scheduling and staffing levels at institutions generally covered all security posts and were aligned with the deployment standards. However, issues were noted with respect to contingency where the current resource allocation formula did not cover long-term sick leave or accommodation for non-security duty assignments. In such cases, customization of the deployment standards had occurred where some scheduled positions were purposely left unmannedFootnote 57 to compensate for the contingency costs (e.g. correctional officers not performing security duties). In addition, the audit found that the operational adjustment threat risk assessment tool was not being regularly completed. "If institutions are not adequately completing this tool, as required, they may be unaware of the potential risks that exist when that officer is removed and the post is operationally adjusted" (CSC, 2011b, p. 12).

Next Steps:

Findings from the 2011 Audit of the Implementation of the Deployment Standards led to a recommendation to address staffing and deployment issues. Specifically, the recommendation was to implement a process to monitor how institutions were applying the deployment standards. A Management Action Plan (MAP) was developed which included a management review process to monitor the compliant application of deployment standards for each site. This recommendation was considered complete as of 2012. Outcomes of the MAP action taken to address these limitations may be assessed once sufficient time has elapsed following implementation.

3.5 Employee Protection Protocol

Finding 5: Employee Protection Protocol

There is a reported need for the Employee Protection Protocol (EPP) to address institutional staff members’ safety concerns and issues impacting security operations. However, issues related to communication and inadequate security measures were reported by EPP client questionnaire respondents.

CSC institutional staff members faced with safety issues may access the EPP. The EPP was developed and implemented to meet CSC’s legal responsibility to employee safety under Part II of the CLC as well as the TBS’s Policy on Government Security (TBS, 2012). It was designed "to address incidents where an employee and/or their family may be at greater risk than the normal conditions of work" (CSC, 2007b, p. 3). It is the responsibility of the employee’s manager to ensure that the EPP process is followed (CSC, 2007b).

When a threat is reported, a manager assesses the situation using EPP tools and guidelines to determine the likelihood of the threat being carried out.Footnote 58 The Threat and Risk Assessment (TRA),Footnote 59 once completed, helps determine an appropriate response to the threat, and what protective measures may be needed to assist the employee (and his/her family). In addition to the EPP, programs such as the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and the Critical Incident Stress Management program (CISM) are made available to staff members who have been the target of a threat (CSC, 2008b; 2013h), and are usually offered to employees accessing the EPP (CSC, 2007b).Footnote 60

There is a reported link between stress on the job and the employee’s perception of dangerousness. A number of research articles noted a positive relationship between correctional officers’ perception of dangerousness on the job and job stress (i.e. when officers reported believing their job was dangerous, they also reported more job stress; Castle, 2008; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Lambert & Hogan, 2009). A negative relationship between the perception of danger and job satisfaction was also noted (i.e. when officers reported believing their job was dangerous, they also reported less job satisfaction; Lamber & Paoline, 2008). The perception of danger included the feeling that the job is dangerous, that there was a risk of assault from inmates, and having to resist bribes (Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Lambert & Paoline, 2008). Job stress experienced by correctional officers was found to lead to employee burnout (Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Power & Usher, 2014), which could have a number of negative impacts for the organization, such as: a decrease in work performance, increased absenteeism, and employee turnover (Garland et al, 2014; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Power & Usher, 2014). However, support from supervisors and instrumental communication were noted as ways that help reduce the stress correctional officers experienced in their job (Lambert & Hogan, 2009; Lambert & Paoline, 2008).

Evidence:

There is a need for the Employee Protection Protocol.

Threats to personal safety resulting from potential incidents with offenders and contraband were identified as a top safety concern by many institutional staff and management interview and questionnaire respondents (69%; n = 283Footnote 61). Another safety concern noted by institutional staff and management interview respondents were challenges with high risk or difficult to manage offender populations (17%; n = 26Footnote 62). Staff safety issues were identified as a significant personal concern by most institutional CX staff interview respondents (78%; n = 39Footnote 63) and deemed to have a "moderate" to "significant" impact on security operations by most institutional CM interview respondents (77%; n = 72Footnote 64).

There were 198 cases referred to EPP over a six-year period (see Table 1). The majority (89.9%; n = 178) of those cases were closedFootnote 65 as of December 2013. The number of EPP cases increased 310% across the six-year timeframe, from 19 cases in 2007/2008 to 78 cases in 2012/2013. One possible reason for the increase is that training on various departmental security topics, including a specific EPP working group session, was conducted in June 2012. The EPP session was meant to raise awareness of the protocol. It should also be noted that new temporary positions of Regional Departmental Security Officer (RDSO’s) were created in 2012/2013.

Table 1: EPP Cases by Region

Pacific Prairies Ontario Quebec Atlantic Total
# % # % # % # % # %
2007/2008 6 32 6 32 1 5 4 21 2 11 19
2008/2009 5 22 2 9 1 4 12 52 3 13 23
2009/2010 6 25 3 13 1 4 8 3 6 25 24
2010/2011 8 36 6 27 0 -- 2 9 6 27 22
2011/2012 2 6 4 13 3 9 12 38 11 34 32
2012/2013 3 4 30 39 2 3 37 47 6 8 78
Total 30 15 51 26 8 4 75 38 34 17 198

Source: Employee Protection Protocol. Correctional Service Canada, as of December 2013.

Information sharing/communication was the main challenge experienced by institutional staff accessing the EPP.

A questionnaire was conducted with a sample of 20Footnote 66 institutional employees that accessed the services offered by the EPP.Footnote 67 The difficulties reported by most respondents (85%; n = 17) were related to a lack of communication or information sharing throughout the EPP process. Respondents noted problems accessing their case details or information, cases being closed without notifying the employee and one employee indicated they were not informed they were being assisted by the EPP. Seventy percent (n = 14) of respondents reported that they were not well informed or updated on the developments of their case. Additionally, many respondents reported not being well informed about the EPP guidelines and processes (65%; n = 13). The TRA results were not provided in relation to their case, according to 35% (n = 7) of questionnaire respondents. Furthermore, less than half of the respondents indicated they were reminded about the CISM at some point throughout their case (45%; n = 9), although 60% (n = 12) indicated they were informed of the EAP.

Although there is no documented evidence that persons threatened have been physically harmed while receiving services under the EPP, questionnaire respondents reported that the protective measures put in place were inadequate or absent.

According to 70% (n = 14)Footnote 68 of surveyed respondents protective measures were put in place through the EPP. However, in four cases the employee reported they weren’t provided with any security/protective measures. The reported protective measures implemented included:Footnote 69

  • The offender was transferred to another institution or relocated within the institution (n = 6);
  • The employee was reassigned to a different post in the institution or reassigned/relocated to a different workplace (n = 6);
  • The employee was provided with community assistance (e.g. police surveillance, private security) (n = 4); and
  • The employee was provided with surveillance tools (e.g. security system, surveillance camera) (n = 2).

Of those who received protective measures through the EPP, 64% (n = 9) reported that they were ‘inadequate’ or ‘very inadequate’ in meeting their security or safety needs and requirements. Less than half of the respondents (40%; n = 8) indicated that they received assistance from their supervisors or managers throughout their case. Respondents noted they received assistance from colleagues (55%; n = 11); police (40%; n = 8); local security (35%; n = 7); the union (20%; n = 4) and legal representatives (20%; n = 4).

Operational impacts were also reported by 25% (n = 5) of EPP questionnaire respondents. For example one respondent noted that they were moved within institutions and another employee took stress leave.

Other challenges faced throughout the EPP process according to questionnaire respondents included a lack of compassionate or professional behaviour on the part of staff and management administrating the EPP (35%; n = 6) and issues with the length and implementation of EPP procedures and protocols (24%; n = 4). Lastly, over half of surveyed institutional staff indicated they were dissatisfied with CSC’s EPP, reiterating information sharing and communication, inadequate protective or safety measures and poor or unprofessional treatment as their main issues.

EPP clients provided various recommendations, including enhancing communication and protective measures.

While no respondents recommended new or different protective security measures that could be put in place to improve the EPP process, respondents noted ways to address the difficulties they experienced, including:

  • Enhancing communication and information sharing during the EPP process and ensuring that better follow-up is completed after the process (75%; n = 15 each);
  • Enhancing the protective measures put in place to address the risk (70%; n = 14);
  • Reducing delays in processing various requests (55%; n = 11);Footnote 70 and
  • Other relevant but less prominent recommendations such as: providing the necessary training for staff administrating the EPP (e.g. emotional impacts); involving the employee’s family in the EPP process (where appropriate); and demonstrating a more professional, supportive and proactive attitude towards victims.

Implications:

The EPP is necessary for meeting the security needs of CSC employees. However, services which are perceived to be inadequate by staff members could result in decreased employee productivity, absenteeism, or turnover (Garland et al, 2014; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Power & Usher, 2014).

Next Steps:

CSC staff members who register as victims may receive victim services through CSC’s National Victim Services Program. This program is designed to improve services and enhance relationships with victims. CSC employees who are registered victims may receive information about the offender,Footnote 71 such as parole hearings, transfers from one institution to another, programs the offender is taking, serious disciplinary offences committed, and any form of release.Footnote 72 In certain serious circumstances, such as an escape, the registered victim is to be notified as soon as possible. In addition, there is internal on-line training for employees which focuses on communicating and interacting with victims,Footnote 73 as well as how and when to disclose information about the offender to the victim. This training may be appropriate for those administering the EPP.

Recommendation 3: Employee Protection Protocol

The Employee Protection Protocol should be supported and improved through tools and processes which enhance communication and the sharing of information. Processes and tools should ensure staff members receive appropriate and timely communication of information and services, and there is appropriate monitoring and follow up regarding the employee’s safety.

Component 2: Preventive Security and Intelligence

Intelligence contributes to a safe and secure environment for staff members and offenders in CSC institutions and the community. Specifically, intelligence information, which is gathered through investigations, staff observations and reporting, as well as information from outside sources (e.g. police) and also through interactions with offenders, is used in the prevention of security incidents, eradication of illegal activities, and supports the case management process. About half of the case study interview respondents indicated that the collection and use of intelligence information is key to connecting the dots to better understand or know the institution (47%; n = 33).

SIOs perform the intelligence function in CSC institutions. They manage human sourcesFootnote 74 and contribute to the management of incompatible offenders. They also handle STGs and affiliated offenders. SIOs create intelligence by collecting, evaluating, collating, analyzing and disseminating security information from specific events, situations, or sources. At the regional level, SIAs review intelligence reporting and gather information from other internal databases, external partners and agencies and open sources.Footnote 75 The SIAs also assist operational sites (institutional and community SIOs) with investigations and queries through trend, network and information analysis.

SIOs reported receiving information from various sources in order to develop intelligence such as COs, CMs, parole officers, deputy wardens, other SIOs, external partners (i.e. law enforcement), inmates, visitors and other members of the general public. Most SIOs reported receiving information from POs (77%; n = 37) and COs (83%; n = 40). Interestingly, the evaluation analysis found that most offenders reported having positive relationships with these two groups (77%; n = 201 and 74%; n = 184 respectively).Footnote 76

3.6 Preventive Security and Intelligence

Finding 6: Preventive Security And Intelligence

Intelligence is important to maintaining the safety and security of institutions however various challenges were reported in the areas of gathering and developing intelligence and communicating intelligence information.

Evidence:

Intelligence information is considered important as it contributes to institutional safety and security.

The intelligence function, including both the function to enhance institutional security, as well as to contribute to public safety outside of institutions, remains a top priority for CSC. As per the 2012-13 Report on Plans and Priorities, CSC "remains committed to enhancing its security intelligence framework in collaboration with partners" and has "recently begun an evaluation of Institutional Security to assess the performance of security practices and to support policy and program improvement in this area." (CSC, 2012b, p. 12)

To ascertain the importance of the intelligence function at CSC, the evaluation team questioned various groups regarding the intelligence function in their institutions. Almost all SIO and key informant interviewees (SIOs 96%; n = 46; key informants 90%; n = 36) reported that security information and/or intelligence makes a significant contribution to institutional security. According to correctional manager and case study respondents (46%; n = 161Footnote 77), security information is important (99%; n = 168Footnote 78) and the intelligence function helps ensure the safety of staff, offenders and the community. SIOs specifically noted that intelligence contributes to the following activities:

  • Managing STGs (56%; n = 27);
  • Preventing harm to offenders (56%; n = 27);
  • Investigations internalFootnote 79 (52%; n = 25) and externalFootnote 80 (25%; n = 12) to the institution;
  • Seizing electronics (21%; n = 10); and
  • Preventing damage to CSC property (19%; n = 9).

Additionally, intelligence was also identified as an important component in the identification of potential threats and risks to institutional security, according to most respondents from the staff and management questionnaire (85%; n = 132).

Staff reported challenges with gathering information and developing intelligence.

The Intelligence Process

The goal of intelligence is to "provide a proactive response to incident problems and either actual or perceived institutional/community safety issues." (CSC, 2011c, p. 37) Specifically, intelligence "is a planned product intended to provide significant direction to corrections decision-makers about incidents, security threats and illicit inmates/offender activities" (CSC, 2011c, p. 37). Intelligence has two purposes in corrections: incident reduction and/or prevention and planning and resource allocation.Footnote 81 The CSC intelligence process consists of five steps: planning and direction, collection, processing, analysis and production, and dissemination (CSC, 2011c). Figure 6 shows how each step is linked together to complete the intelligence cycle.

Figure 6: Intelligence Cycle and the Role of the SIO

Intelligence Cycle and the Role of the SIO

Figure duplicated from CSC (2011c).

Figure 6: Intelligence Cycle and the Role of the SIO

This figure represents CSC's intelligence process.
The Intelligence cycle is composed of five steps:

  • Planning and direction,
  • Collection,
  • Processing,
  • Analysis and production, and,
  • Dissemination.

These five steps are arranged in a circle, and are separated by arrows pointing in a clockwise direction.

The PSI Operational Intelligence Manual describes each step:

  1. 1) Collection: The collection plan details the information needed and provides both the SIO and the SIA with the parameters for their collection efforts. It addresses the issues of what has to be collected and why. It allows for better use of resources and confidence of senior managers.
  2. 2) Evaluation: The information must be accurate, have integrity, be complete and be up-to-date to maintain a standard of information quality. The information undergoes evaluation for source reliability and information validity prior to filing.
  3. 3) Collation: The information is not only filed but is indexed, cross referenced, stored and is easily retrievable. Collating information can confirm or dispel an issue, identify patterns and trends as well as identify information gaps requiring further investigation.
  4. 4) Analysis: Basic information is converted into intelligence. The conversation includes the integration, evaluation and analysis of all available information and the preparation of a variety of intelligence products which may be presented as briefings, reports or assessments.
  5. 5) Dissemination: To have value, intelligence must be disseminated immediately to those with a need to know and who can put it to use. The methods chosen to disseminate the intelligence vary, however, the primary document used within CSC is normally the Security Intelligence Report.

Although intelligence was reported to make a significant and important contribution to the safety and security of staff, offenders and the institution, there were challenges identified in the intelligence process/cycle. These issues were found in: gathering information (collecting), developing intelligence (analysis and production) and communicating information (dissemination). The terms gathering, developing and sharing were used in the interviews and on the questionnaires and therefore are the terms used in the evidence.

About half of the questionnaire and interview respondents reported a general lack of knowledge, experience and understanding of information and intelligence sharing procedures among staff (47%; n = 215Footnote 82) although the policiesFootnote 83 and toolsFootnote 84 are in place to support the gathering of information and development of intelligence. Specifically, interviewed SIOs indicated that the challenges with gathering security information for intelligence purposes included:

  • Communicating with offenders (69%; n = 33), due to offenders being reluctant to speak with the SIOs (38%; n = 18) and a lack of physical space where SIOs and offenders can communicate in private (38%; n = 18);
  • Insufficient staffing levels and workload issues (58%; n = 28), including too much paperwork and/or reports to complete (46%; n = 22); and
  • Receiving reports that were inadequate and had not been completed in a timely fashion (27%; n = 13).

Developing intelligence also presented challenges according to most key informantsFootnote 85 (89%; n = 23). Specifically, key informants reported that there was a lack of information sharing (57%; n = 13), training and/or education regarding intelligence (35%; n = 8), and technology and integrated computer systems (29%; n = 6). Additional challenges included an inability to access OMS, files not being in electronic format, and an inability to share between differing computer systems as reported by some key informants (45%; n = 10) and correctional managers (29%; n = 27).

Without [security intelligence] we’ve got nothing. It goes hand in hand with static security and dynamic security. It keeps staff safe, inmates safe. Everything contributes to [security intelligence].

Interviewee, 2013

Communicating information between staff, at all levels, was identified as a challenge in the intelligence process.

The sharing of intelligence with internal and external partners is a key activity within CSC’s intelligence function. Evaluation respondents indicated there were gaps in communicating intelligence information amongst institutional staff. Specifically, respondents noted a lack of communication between staff and management and SIOs (45%; n = 185Footnote 86) and among staff themselvesFootnote 87 (40%; n = 161Footnote 88).

As well, SIOs reported that dealing with sensitive or protected information was a challenge to communicating security information or intelligence (67%; n = 32). Staff and management respondents (41%; n = 101) also found this to be a challenge. Sensitive or protected information needs to be handled appropriately and according to policy. Intelligence information can only be shared on a need-to-know basis. The respondents noted that there are limitations on whom sensitive or protected information can be shared with and there were concerns with inmates overhearing conversations.

SIOs reported that their various computer systems, databases, shared drives and SINetFootnote 89 posed a challenge when communicating security information and/or intelligence. They noted that the systems were slow, cumbersome, unreliable, not secure and not user-friendly (25%; n = 12). Many SIOs stated that the current systems were insufficient and out of date (60%; n = 15).

Some staff and management questionnaire respondents (24%; n = 59) reported that there were insufficient and inadequate communication tools available to share information. They also identified issues with staffing and workload (40%; n = 182Footnote 90) as barriers to the collection and sharing of security information and intelligence. Staffing and workload issues included heavy workload and scheduling problems (28%; n = 127Footnote 91) as well as insufficient staff and/or high turnover (10%; n = 41Footnote 92).

Implications:

Measuring security and prevention is very challenging. In 2005, however, the Center for Homeland Security in the United States (Woodbury, 2005) published a paper outlining how preventative security could be measured. The research suggested that it is possible to measure the components and sub-components (i.e. outcomes) used in the prevention process. If all, or most, of the components are found to be effective, then the whole (i.e. Intelligence Program) may be effective. However, the gaps in the process of gathering, developing and communicating intelligence information make it difficult to assess its impact on institutional security. Therefore, it is not currently possible to determine the number of security incidents that were prevented as a result of intelligence. Nor is it possible to associate the impact that intelligence information has on the number of seizures of contraband and unauthorized items. As such, optimizing the intelligence function through the identification of strengths and areas for improvement is also a challenge but can be accomplished through improvements to the intelligence reporting structure.

Without a strong intelligence process it is possible that emerging trends in a region or across the country will not be identified and shared amongst the sites, thus putting the safety and security of CSC staff, offenders and institutions at risk. Indeed, outside of policy compliance and expected procedures, the evaluation found a lack of measures in place to ensure intelligence information is communicated, therefore, it is difficult to determine if the right people are receiving the information they require at the time they require it.

Next Steps:

Gathering and developing intelligence.

To counter challenges related to gathering and developing intelligence, the Preventive Security Division has developed a National Intelligence Assessment Framework to gather intelligence from the operational level and ensure the information is communicated to Regional and National Headquarters in a timely fashion. They have implemented the Operational Intelligence Report Framework and the templates are now being used to "provide Security Intelligence Officers, Wardens, District Directors and Community/Area Managers with a quarterly reporting vehicle that supports the Intelligence Assessment Framework" (CSC, 2014e, p. 1). All institutions and districts will now complete the Operational Intelligence Report each quarter and the intelligence will then be rolled up at the Regional level into the Quarterly Intelligence Report Collection Plan Template (CSC, 2014e).

Respondents suggested best practices to improve gathering and developing intelligence such as improving documentation and centralization of information (27%; n = 87Footnote 93) and increasing interactions with offenders (16%; n = 52Footnote 94).

Communicating intelligence information.

The next steps for communicating intelligence information include using the Intelligence Observation ReportFootnote 95 which will enhance the recording, usage and communication of lower level intelligence information. This form is intended for the SIO, who then processes, completes and files the information accordingly. This could include any information gathered from staff, offenders or the public, as well as information identifying associates, incompatibles and contacts, or communications concerning offenders and their activities.

Moreover, the suite of intelligence reports, implemented since 2011, will serve as vehicles for communicating intelligence amongst all staff in order to assist management in making informed decisions. Additionally, the Intelligence Assessment Framework will provide a summary of intelligence related trends and information across a time period to help communicate security intelligence issues in institutions and community districts to management at the Regional and National levels.

Staff and management interview and questionnaire respondents suggested a couple of best practices that can be used to improve communication. The suggestions were to increase communication with front line staff (75%; n = 245Footnote 96) and increase communication with management (14%; n = 46Footnote 97).

Additionally, the CSC Audit of the Management of Security Incidents found that not all staff involved in a security incident submitted SORs as per policy. It was noted that supervisors were not complying with policy requirements by reviewing submitted SORs. Tools for communicating offender behavioural and security concerns (logbooks, SORs) were not always used and information was not always being shared as needed. The audit recommended that "The Assistant Commissioner Correctional Operations and Programs should clearly define what security-related information needs to be communicated and to whom and mechanisms should be developed to ensure that all information relevant to security is shared with all necessary stakeholders."Footnote 98 As part of the audit’s MAP, a policy bulletin will be developed requiring SORs be signed by the CM on duty to ensure the SORs are available to staff as soon as possible. The bulletin will also reinforce the expectation for the consistent use of logbooks.

Recommendation 4: Preventive Security and Intelligence

The Preventive Security and Intelligence Division should ensure the tools provided to SIOs are used to engage and debrief staff and management, and improve the gathering, development and communication of intelligence. This should be achieved through consistent, timely, and standardized monitoring and reporting of the production and sharing of intelligence.

Component 3: Institutional Security Operations

The institutional security operations evaluation questions examined how daily operational security activities contributed to a safe and secure environment. Daily operational security activities include: control of contraband and unauthorized items within institutions; population management; surveillance activities; dynamic security; infrastructure; and equipment. The main finding was identified in the area of dynamic security.

3.7 Dynamic Security

Finding 7: Dynamic Security

Dynamic security is being conducted and contributes to the safety and security of correctional institutions.

Evidence:

Dynamic security is defined as increasing staff awareness of activities or behaviours that may indicate potential problems or incidents through observation and constructive interaction between staff and offenders (CSC 2007a; 2011a; 2013d). As outlined in CD 560 – Dynamic Security and Supervision (CSC, 2013d), the dynamic security policy applies to all CSC staff working with offenders, whether in the community or in institutions.

Dynamic security is evident in the institutional environment.

It was evident that dynamic security was being practiced in the institutional environment, as reported by institutional staff and management interview and questionnaire respondents (78%; n = 325), and as observed by evaluation team members during site visits. Several dynamic security activities were identified by institutional staff, management and SIOs as being used most often including: staff sharing observations and analysis with other staff (76%; n = 282Footnote 99); developing professional relationships with offenders (76%; n = 278Footnote 100); staff visibility and interaction with offenders (74%; n = 276Footnote 101); and staff identifying warning signals (73%; n = 270Footnote 102) (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Frequency of staff conducting dynamic security activities

Frequency of staff conducting dynamic security activities

Figure 7: Frequency of staff conducting dynamic security activities

This stacked horizontal bar chart demonstrates the breakdown of responses (including institutional staff, management, and SIO respondents) regarding how often they participate in specific dynamic security activities.

The Y axis lists, from top to bottom, the following dynamic security activities:

  • Sharing observations and analysis
  • Professional relationship with offenders
  • Staff visibility/interaction with offenders
  • Identifying warning signals
  • Active intervention
  • Observation and analysis of behaviours
  • Regular interaction
  • Working in partnership.

The X axis, from left to right, is measured in percentage, and increases at an increment of 20%, going from 0 to 100.

76% of respondents said they participate in Sharing observations and analysis Always and Often.
17% of respondents said they participate in Sharing observations and analysis Sometimes.
7% of respondents said they participate in Sharing observations and analysis Rarely and Never.

76% of respondents said they participate in Professional relationship with offenders Always and Often.
18% of respondents said they participate in Professional relationship with offenders Sometimes.
7% of respondents said they participate in Professional relationship with offenders Rarely and Never.

74% of respondents said they participate in Staff visibility/interaction with offenders Always and Often.
19% of respondents said they participate in Staff visibility/interaction with offenders Sometimes.
6% of respondents said they participate in Staff visibility/interaction with offenders Rarely and Never.

73% of respondents said they participate in Identifying warning signals Always and Often.
16% of respondents said they participate in Identifying warning signals Sometimes.
10% of respondents said they participate in Identifying warning signals Rarely and Never.

67% of respondents said they participate in Active intervention Always and Often.
21% of respondents said they participate in Active intervention Sometimes.
12% of respondents said they participate in Active intervention Rarely and Never.

62% of respondents said they participate in Observation and analysis of behaviours Always and Often.
24% of respondents said they participate in Observation and analysis of behaviours Sometimes.
14% of respondents said they participate in Observation and analysis of behaviours Rarely and Never.

57% of respondents said they participate in Regular interaction Always and Often.
22% of respondents said they participate in Regular interaction Sometimes.
21% of respondents said they participate in Regular interaction Rarely and Never.

33% of respondents said they participate in Working in partnership Always and Often.
28% of respondents said they participate in Working in partnership Sometimes.
39% of respondents said they participate in Working in partnership Rarely and Never.

Note that totals include data from staff management questionnaires, SIO and other correctional staff interviews.

Naturalistic observations of front-line operations were conducted by evaluation staff using a structured observation template. These observations of operations occurred within seven correctional institutions (see Appendix D). Dynamic security was observed during these site visits. The most frequently noted behaviour was positive interactions between offenders and staff (e.g. COs, nurses, program staff, etc). Additionally, the COs often knew the offenders’ names, behaviour, schedules, and routines.

The current level of dynamic security was sufficient for the needs of their institutions according to many of the institutional staff and management respondents (64%; n = 264Footnote 103). Case study respondents also noted key reasons for engaging in dynamic security, which included:

  • Enhancing communication and rapport between staff and offenders (51%; n = 37);
  • Contributing to an effectively run, safe and secure institution (44%; n = 32); and
  • Information gathering and gauging the mood of the institution (41%; n = 30).

Regular and frequent interactions with offenders are key components of dynamic security which help develop positive relationships between staff and offenders. Interviewed offenders reported having positive interactions in institutions most frequently with: work supervisors (89%; n = 197); teachers (88%; n = 168); volunteers (87%; n = 172); program staff (86%; n = 193); parole officers (77%; n = 201); and correctional officers (74%; n = 184).

Dynamic security gives insight into what’s going on in populations and helps develop preventative strategies against incidents.

Interviewee 2013

Dynamic security contributes to safety and security in correctional institutions.

According to the 2001 CSC Report of the Taskforce on Security: "Dynamic security plays an essential role in the management of correctional institutions and parole offices...no other factor plays such a significant role in providing a safe and secure environment in our institutions" (p. 18). CSC’s research project entitled "The process of dynamic security and its role in drug interdiction and safety institutional environment: An exploratory study" examined the role dynamic security plays in institutional safety, as well as how dynamic security may be impacted by a variety of factors, such as gender. Semi-structured interviews with 34 correctional officers were conducted in two medium security institutions in the Ontario region. According to approximately 60% of interviewed correctional officers, dynamic security relies on the correctional officer’s ability to develop rapport with offenders (Addictions Research Centre, n.d.). This rapport was used to maintain institutional stability and prevent volatile situations from escalating.

Dynamic security makes a significant contribution to security within institutions according to many evaluation respondents (72%; n = 121Footnote 104). Specifically, CMs reported that dynamic security contributes to: a safe and secure environment by reporting issues and preventing incidents (59%; n = 55); increases rapport, interactions and communication between staff and the inmates (54%; n = 58); and information and intelligence gathering through active monitoringFootnote 105 (35%; n = 38).

Furthermore, interviewed offenders reported that their sense of safety and security was bolstered by the relationships they had with the following groups: parole officers (70%; n = 187); correctional officers (67%; n = 166); work supervisors (63%; n = 165); program staff (61%; n = 161); and religious leaders (57%; n = 151).

Implications:

Safe working and living environments of staff members and offenders are impacted positively through dynamic security activities, such as regular engagement with offenders and information gathering. As well, dynamic security activities enhance the ability of institutional staff members to motivate inmates to become more pro-social and undertake more responsible behaviour. Institutional staff and management interview and questionnaire respondents also made a number of suggestions regarding how to improve dynamic security, including: promoting and reinforcing positive attitudes towards dynamic security (28%; n = 99Footnote 106); increasing and improving communication between different levels of staff and with offenders (28%; n = 101Footnote 107); and improving policies and procedures such as those related to the routines and movement of offenders (i.e. more patrols, more rounds) to create more opportunities for dynamic security activities (19%; n = 67Footnote 108). Overall, dynamic security activities throughout CSC institutions increase the safety and security of staff and offenders thereby contributing to overall public safety.

3.8 Financial Impact

Finding 8: Financial Impact

While spending on Institutional Security remained relatively stable, rates of escapes and serious security incidents have decreased, suggesting a cost-efficiency for CSC. In addition, several areas of opportunity were identified to further enhance the cost-efficiency of CSC’s institutional security activities, as well as the overall safety and security of staff and offenders in CSC’s institutions.

Evidence:

The current evaluation examined rates of spending on institutional security operations as well as rates of serious security incidents and escapes in order to make judgements about the cost-efficiency of CSC’s institutional security activities. The evaluation found that from 2008/2009 to 2013/2014, spending on institutional security activities remained relatively stable while the rates of escapes and serious security incidents decreased, suggesting an overall cost-efficiency. The evaluation identified a number of areas where additional cost-efficiencies could be gained through recent changes that have taken place, or are underway, to maintain and improve the safety and security of staff and offenders in CSC’s institutions.

Spending on institutional security activities remained relatively stable between 2008/2009 and 2013/2014. Although an increase (8%) was noted over the six-year period, the vast majority of this increase was attributed to changes to employee salaries and benefits following the ratification of collective agreements.

The total institutional security expenditures examined in 2013/2014 was $692,470,489,Footnote 109 which accounted for 29% of total CSC direct program spending.Footnote 110 As seen in Figure 8, the rate of spending for institutional security related expenditures increased by 8% in the six-year period, from $42.0 million per 1,000 offenders in 2008/2009 to $45.4 million per 1,000 offenders in 2013/2014.Footnote 111

Salaries accounted for the vast majority of all institutional security expenditures over the same six year period while operating costs accounted for 5% or less. Specifically, salaries accounted for 95% of all institutional security expenditures examined in 2008/2009, and for 97% of expenditures in 2013/2014 (see Figure 8). Operating costs accounted for 5% of expenditures in 2008/2009, and 3% in 2013/2014.Footnote 112 While the rate of institutional security-related salary costs (not including retroactive pay) increased in the six-year period,Footnote 113 the increase was largely attributed to changes to employee salaries and benefits following the ratification of collective agreements (CSC, 2014b).

Figure 8: Breakdown of Institutional Security spending by year, Salary vs Operating costs – rate per 1,000 offenders, 2008/2009 – 2013/2014

Breakdown of Institutional Security spending by year, Salary vs Operating costs –  rate per 1,000 offenders, 2008/2009 – 2013/2014

Source: IFMMS, extracted February 27 & 28, 2014 and February 12, 16 & 17, 2015.

Note: Totals do not include retroactive pay.

Figure 8: Breakdown of Institutional Security spending by year, Salary vs Operating costs – rate per 1,000 offenders, 2008/2009 – 2013/2014

This stacked vertical bar chart demonstrates the breakdown of Institutional Security spending (Operating and Salary only) by year from 2008/2009 to 2013/2014, using a rate per 1,000 offenders.

The X axis lists, from left to right, the following years:

  • 2008/2009
  • 2009/2010
  • 2010/2011
  • 2011/2012
  • 2012/2013
  • 2013/2014

The Y axis, from bottom to top, is measured in dollars and increases at an increment of $5,000,000, going from $0 to $50,000,000.

In 2008/2009 the rate of spending on Salary was $39,884,179 per 1,000 offenders
In 2008/2009 the rate of spending on Operating Costs was $2,111,364 per 1,000 offenders.

In 2009/2010 the rate of spending on Salary was $41,899,293 per 1,000 offenders
In 2009/2010 the rate of spending on Operating Costs was $1,544,144 per 1,000 offenders.

In 2010/2011 the rate of spending on Salary was $41,677,939 per 1,000 offenders
In 2010/2011 the rate of spending on Operating Costs was $1,571,224 per 1,000 offenders.

In 2011/2012 the rate of spending on Salary was $42,403,978 per 1,000 offenders
In 2011/2012 the rate of spending on Operating Costs was $1,693,017 per 1,000 offenders.

In 2012/2013 the rate of spending on Salary was $42,390,855 per 1,000 offenders
In 2012/2013 the rate of spending on Operating Costs was $1,450,981 per 1,000 offenders.

In 2013/2014 the rate of spending on Salary was $43,847,349 per 1,000 offenders
In 2013/2014 the rate of spending on Operating Costs was $1,571,284 per 1,000 offenders.

Serious security incidents and escapes in the six-year period decreased.

The number of federal offenders in custody increased by 10% over the six-year period, from 13,888 in 2008/2009 to 15,245 in 2013/2014. In this six-year period, the rate of serious security incidentsFootnote 114 and escapes decreased (see Figure 9). The number of serious security incidents decreased by 17%, from 103 in 2008/2009 to 86 in 2013/2014, while the rate decreased by 24% (7.4 per 1,000 offenders in 2008/2009 to 5.6 per 1,000 offenders in 2013/2014). The decrease in serious security incidents may be attributed to the fact that CSC enhanced its policies on security patrols and inmate counts in institutions,Footnote 115 and advanced implementation of the national population management approach to optimize offender placement and to address the risks and needs of offendersFootnote 116 (CSC, 2014b, p. 21).

The number and rate of escapes fluctuated over the six-year period. Overall there was a 42% decrease in escapes, from 19 in 2008/2009 to 11 in 2013/2014 (the rate of escapes decreased by 50%, from 1.4 per 1,000 offenders in 2008/2009 to 0.7 in 2013/2014). The highest number of escapes in this period was 24 in 2009/2010 (rate of 1.7 per 1,000 offenders).

Figure 9: Serious Security Incidents and Escapes, 2008/2009 – 2013/2014

Serious Security Incidents and Escapes, 2008/2009  – 2013/2014

Source: Performance Direct, extracted Oct 12, 2014, February 6, 2015

Note: Escapes includes only ESCAPES – ACTUAL as reported in Performance Direct.

Figure 9: Serious Security Incidents and Escapes, 2008/2009 – 2013/2014

This line graph demonstrates the changes in the rate of serious security incidents per 1,000 offenders and the rate of escapes per 1,000 offenders from 2008/2009 to 2013/2014.

The X axis, from left to right, lists the following years:

  • 2008/2009
  • 2009/2010
  • 2010/2011
  • 2011/2012
  • 2012/2013
  • 2013/2014

The Y axis, from bottom to top, is in increments of 1, from 0 to 9.

The graph shows two series, seen as two separate horizontal lines, which represent:

  • The rate of serious security incidents
  • The rate of escapes

In 2008/2009 there was a rate of 7.42 serious security incidents per 1,000 offenders.
In 2008/2009 there was a rate of 1.37 escapes per 1,000 offenders.

In 2009/2010 there was a rate of 6.94 serious security incidents per 1,000 offenders.
In 2009/2010 there was a rate of 1.70 escapes per 1,000 offenders.

In 2010/2011 there was a rate of 7.05 serious security incidents per 1,000 offenders.
In 2010/2011 there was a rate of 0.75 escapes per 1,000 offenders.

In 2011/2012 there was a rate of 7.11 serious security incidents per 1,000 offenders.
In 2011/2012 there was a rate of 1.00 escapes per 1,000 offenders.

In 2012/2013 there was a rate of 7.68 serious security incidents per 1,000 offenders.
In 2012/2013 there was a rate of 1.51 escapes per 1,000 offenders.

In 2013/2014 there was a rate of 5.64 serious security incidents per 1,000 offenders.
In 2013/2014 there was a rate of 0.72 escapes per 1,000 offenders.

Serious Security Incidents includes ESCAPES – ACTUAL

There was an increase in the rate of drug-related seizures.

In 2007, the CSC Review Panel identified eliminating drugs from prison as one of the five key areas that needed strengthening. The Review Panel made a number of recommendations for CSC’s drug interdiction policies and procedures, including increasing the number of drug dogs and enhancing the policies and procedures related to urinalysis testing (CSC Review Panel, 2007). The following year "funding was allotted to implement a more rigorous approach to the elimination of illicit drugs from institutions" (CSC, 2014b, p. 21).

There was a positive relationship between the increase in rate of spending on the Drug Dog Program and the increase in the rate of drug-related seizuresFootnote 117 from 2008/2009 to 2013/2014. The largest increase in the rate of spending, and the largest increase in the rate of seizures, was from 2008/2009 to 2009/2010. The increase in the rates of spending and drug-related seizures continued after 2009/2010, although it slowed over the years. From 2009/2010 to 2013/2014, there was a 30% increase in the rate of drug-related seizures, and a 77% increase in the rate of spending on the Drug Dog Program. The large increase in the rate of spending on the Drug Dog Program can be attributed largely to the significant increase in the number of detector dog teams: in 2008/2009 there were 58 detector dog teams, by 2012/2013 there were 101 teams.Footnote 118

The rate of drug-related incidents remained relatively stable from 2008/2009 to 2011/2012, after which time there was a 17% decrease in incidents from 219 in 2011/2012 to 183 in 2013/2014, indicating that efforts to eliminate drugs from institutions may be helping to reduce incidents and keeping institutions safe and secure.

The proportion of undesirable urinalysis results decreased.

The rate of urinalysis requests remained relatively stable from 2008/2009 to 2011/2012, after which there was a 42% increase in the rate of requests from 2011/2012 to 2012/2013 (from 510 requests per 1,000 offenders in 2011/2012 to 725 requests per 1,000 offenders in 2012/2013). A 49% increase in the rate of urinalysis requests was found from 2012/2013 to 2013/2014 (1,081 requests per 1,000 offenders in 2013/2014).

Over the six-year period of 2008/2009 to 2013/2014, a decrease in undesirable results (refusals and positive urinalysis results) were noted.Footnote 119 This may suggest that the efforts to eliminate drugs from institutions, including the use of detector dog teams, have been working. The proportion of refusals decreased from 10% of all urinalysis requests in 2008/2009 to 7% in 2013/2014. In the same six-year period, the proportion of negative urinalysis results increased from 82% of all requests in 2008/2009 to 87% in 2013/2014.

Next Steps:

Several areas of improvement have been identified to further enhance the cost-efficiency of CSC’s institutional security activities, as well as the overall safety and security of staff and offenders in CSC’s institutions.

This evaluation identified a number of changes that have taken place, or are underway, to maintain and improve the security of institutions, staff and offenders. Specifically, changes related to the recruitment process for CX applicants will ensure that the most suitable candidates are hired and retained (see Finding 2). A restructured approach to assessing CXs throughout their probationary period will allow for learning opportunities which should enhance CX skills. Additionally, the Middle Managers Mentoring Program will serve to enhance individual and organizational performance (see Finding 3). Enhancements made to the EPP will not only improve communication with those threatened but also ensure that resources are being allocated optimally to those in need of protective measures (see Finding 5). Finally, new intelligence reports, the use of the Intelligence Observation Report and the National Intelligence Assessment Framework should help to ensure that information is communicated to those who require it in a timely and efficient fashion (see Finding 6). These changes should have an impact on the cost effectiveness and efficiencies of institutional security activities.

In future evaluations of institutional security and programs within the institutional security PAA, it will be important to examine whether the trends in institutional incidents continue, and if they can be linked to any increase or decrease in related expenditures.

4.0 Conclusion

In conclusion, institutional security is essential to ensuring the safety and security of CSC’s institutions. The evaluation found that improvements could be made in areas such as correctional officer recruitment, the EPP, as well as monitoring, reporting and sharing of intelligence information. A positive impact was found regarding dynamic security where activities are contributing to the safety and security of correctional institutions. Currently, CSC staff and management are working together to make inroads into closing gaps identified by the evaluation.

References

Addictions Research Centre. The process of dynamic security and its role in drug interdiction and safer institutional environments: An exploratory study, unpublished, n.d.

Barrows, Julie and C. Ronald Huff (2009). Gangs and Public Policy: Constructing and Deconstructing Gang Databases. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, 4, pp. 675-703.

Bowles, S., Cunningham, C.J.L, De La Rosa, G.M. & Picano, J. (2007). Coaching leaders in middle and executive management: goals, performance, buy-in. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(5), 388-408.

Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c.L-2.

Canadian Institute for Health Information (2008). Improving the Health of Canadians: Mental Health, Delinquency and Criminal Activity. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Castle, T.L. (2008). Satisfied in the jail?: Exploring the predictors of job satisfaction among jail officers. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 48-63.

The Correctional Investigator Canada (2009). Annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2008-2009. Ottawa, ON: Author

Correctional Service Canada. (2001). Report of the Task Force on Security. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/security/toc-eng.shtml.

Correctional Service Canada (2003). Commissioner’s Directive 285 – CSC standardized selection process. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2007a). Correctional Training Program: Pre-session material for Session 03 (Static and Dynamic Security). Internal document.

Correctional Service Canada (2007b). Employee Protection Program: Guidelines. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada. (2008a). An Evaluation of the Correctional Training Program (CTP 2008). Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2008b). Guidelines 253-2 - Critical Incident Stress Management. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca.

Correctional Service Canada. (2008c). National Training Standards. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2009a). The Changing Federal Offender Population. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/sr-2009-eng.shtml.

Correctional Service Canada (2009b). Commissioner’s Directive 004 – National Standards for the Deployment of Correctional Officers. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2009c). Guidelines 004-1 – Operational Adjustments. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2010a) CX Recruitment Process and CTP Review Renewal Options and Roadmap: Presentation to NHRMC, March 3, 2010. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2010b). Transformation Agenda Report on Safety and Security Initiatives. Internal document.

Correctional Service Canada (2011a). Applied Dynamic Security. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada. (2011b). Audit of the Implementation of the Deployment Standards. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2011c). PSI Operational Intelligence Manual. Internal document.

Correctional Service Canada (2011d). Statement of Merit Criteria & Conditions of Employment: Correctional Officer. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2012a). 2011-12 Departmental Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2012b). 2012-13 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2012c). About us. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/about-us/index-eng.shtml/.

Correctional Service Canada. (2012d). Change in Command Audit, Kent Institution Pacific Region. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2012e). Commissioner’s Directive 566-6 – Security Escorts. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2012f). Commissioner’s Directive 566-10 – Urinalysis Testing. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2012g). Performance measurement framework. Internal document.

Correctional Service Canada (2013a). 2012-13 Departmental Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2013b). 2013-14 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2013c). Chart of Accounts: Financial Coding Manual. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2013d). Commissioner’s Directive 560: Dynamic Security and Supervision. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada (2013e). Commissioner’s Directive 568: Management of Security Information and Intelligence. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2013f) Commissioner’s Directive 568-1 - Recording and Reporting of Security Incidences. Ottawa, ON: Author

Correctional Service Canada. (2013g). Commissioner’s Directive 568-2 Recording and sharing of security information and intelligence. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2013h). Commissioner’s Directive 568-3 – Identification and Management of Security Threat Groups. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2013i). Commissioner’s Directive 568-9 – Management of human sources. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2013j). Correctional Service Canada’s Workforce Statistical Profile and Analysis: Correctional Services (CX) Occupational Group: March 31, 2013. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2013k). Recruitment Process. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/careers/003001-3000-eng.shtml.

Correctional Service Canada (2013l). Review of CX Enhanced External Recruitment Pilot "SKYE": CMT – August 16, 2013. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2014a). Briefing note to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: Cost of Maintaining an Offender (COMO) – 27-03-2014. Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2014b). Correctional Service of Canada 2013-14 Departmental Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2014c). Correctional Service Canada’s workforce statistical profile and analysis: Correctional Services (CX) occupational group. March 31st, 2014. Internal document.

Correctional Service Canada. (2014d). National Training Standards. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada (2014e). Operational Intelligence Report Collection Plan Template. Internal report retrieved from CSC’s Security Branch in February 2014.

Correctional Service of Canada (2015). National Population Management. Internal Document.

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

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c.20.

Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620, (1992).

Davis, B. & Higdon, K. (2008). The Effects of Mentoring/Induction Support on Beginning Teachers’ Practices in Early Elementary Classrooms (K-3). Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(3), 261-274.

Doherty, S., & White, M. (2013). Dynamic security practice among correctional officers: Acquiring the skills (Research Snippet). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Fleisher, M.S. & Decker, S.H. (2001). An Overview of the challenges of prison gangs. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 1-9.

Garland B., Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Kim, B., Kelley, T. (2014). The Relationship of affective and continuance organizational commitment with correctional staff occupational burnout: A partial replication and expansion study. Criminal Justice Behavior, 41, 1161-1177.

Godwin, C. A. (1999). Applying correctional intelligence to law enforcement investigations. Corrections Today, 61 (5), 94-100.

Government of Canada. (2013). Seizing Canada’s moment: Prosperity and opportunity in an uncertain world. Speech from the Throne, October 16, 2013. Retrieved from http://speech.gc.ca/.

Jordan, M. (2009). Florida STG intelligence unit aims to keep communities safe. Corrections Today, 71 (1), 28-31.

Keinan, G. & Malach-Pines, A. (2007). Stress and burnout among prison personnel: Sources, outcomes, and intervention strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 380-398.

Lambert, E.G. & Paoline, E.A. (2008). The Influence of individual, job, and organizational characteristics on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 541-564.

Lambert, E.G & Hogan, N.L. (2009). Wanting change: The Relationship of perceptions of organizational innovation with correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 160-184.

Maslach, C. & Goldberg, J. (1998). Prevention of burnout: New perspectives. Applied and Preventative Psychology, 7(1), 63-74.

Ostroff C. (1992) The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 77, pp. 963-974.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Posavac, E. & Carey, R. (1992). Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies. University of Michigan, Prentice Hall.

Power, J. & Usher, A. (2014). Working with offenders who self-injure: Fostering staff resilience in high stress situations. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Public Safety Canada (2013). Correctional and Conditional Release Statistical Overview 2013. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Publiservice (2011). The Fundamentals of mentoring. Internal document.

Pyrooz, David C., Scott H. Decker, and Mark S. Fleisher (2011). From the street to the prison, From the prison to the street: Understanding and responding to prison gangs. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 3:12-24

Ruddell, Rick, Scott H. Decker and Arlen Egley, Jr (2006). Gang Interventions in Jails: A National Analysis. Criminal Justice Review, pp. 31: 33.

Safe Streets and Communities Act, S.C. 2012, c.1.

Srivastava, P., & Hopwood, N. (2009). A Practical Iterative Framework for Qualitative Data Analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 76 – 84.

Stewart, L., Wilton, G., & Cousineau, C. (2012) Federally Sentenced Offenders with Mental Disorders: Correctional Outcomes and Correctional Response. Research Report R-268. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2008a). Directive on the Administration of Required Training. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2008b). How do I advance my career? Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/quest/car-eng.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2009). Policy on Evaluation. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=15024&section=text.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2011) Policy on Learning, Training, and Development. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2012). Policy on Government Security. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2015). 2014 Public Service Employee Survey. Retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pses-saff/2014/results-resultats/bd-pm/04/dem221-eng.aspx

Truth in Sentencing Act, S.C. 2009, c.29.

US Department of Justice. (2004). Review of the United States Marshals Service Judicial Security Process. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/usms.htm.

Woodbury, Glen. (2005). Measuring Prevention. Homeland Security Affairs. 1(1).

Appendices

Appendix A: CSC Program Alignment Architecture

CSC's Program Alignment Architecture

Source: CSC, 2013a

Appendix A: CSC Program Alignment Architecture

This figure represents the strategic outcome, programs, sub-programs, and sub-sub-programs of CSC's Program Alignment Architecture (PAA).

The single box at the top is the Strategic Outcome which reads: The custody, correctional interventions, and supervision of offenders in communities and in institutions, contribute to public safety.

Beneath the Strategic Outcome are three columns of boxes, each headed by the Program name, with sub-programs and sub-sub-programs.

The column on the left is program 1.0 Custody. Under this program are the following sub- and sub-sub-programs:

  • 1.1 Institutional Management and Support
  • 1.2 Institutional Security
    • 1.2.1 Intelligence and Supervision
    • 1.2.2. Drug Interdiction
  • 1.3 Institutional Health Services
    • 1.3.1 Public Health Services
    • 1.3.2 Clinical Health Services
    • 1.3.3 Mental Health Services
  • 1.4 Institutional Services
    • 1.4.1 Food Services
    • 1.4.2 Accommodation Services

The column in the middle is program 2.0 Correctional Interventions. Under this program are the following sub- and sub-sub-programs:

  • 2.1 Offender Case Management
  • 2.2 Community Engagement
  • 2.3 Spiritual Services
  • 2.4 Correctional Reintegration Program
    • 2.4.1 Violence Prevention Program
    • 2.4.2 Substance Abuse Program
    • 2.4.3 Family Violence Prevention Program
    • 2.4.4 Sex Offender Program
    • 2.4.5 Maintenance Program
    • 2.4.6 Social Program
  • 2.5 Offender Education
  • 2.6 CORCAN Employment and Employability

The column on the right is program 3.0 Community Supervision. Under this program are the follow sub- and sub-sub-programs:

  • 3.1 Community Management and Security
  • 3.2 Community-Based Residential Facilities
    • 3.2.1 Community Residential Facilities
    • 3.2.2 Community Correctional Centres
  • 3.3 Community Health Services

Beneath the three columns are three more columns, all under the same program heading of 4.0 Internal Services. The column on the left has the following sub- and sub-sub-programs:

  • 4.1 Governance and Management Support
    • 4.1.1 Management and Oversight Services
    • 4.1.2 Communications
    • 4.1.3 Legal

The column in the middle has the following sub- and sub-sub-programs;

  • 4.2 Resource Management Services
    • 4.2.1 Human Resource Management
    • 4.2.2 Financial Management
    • 4.2.3 Information Management
    • 4.2.4 Information Technology
    • 4.2.5 Travel and Other Administrative Services

The column on the right has the following sub- and sub-programs:

  • 4.3 Asset Management Services
    • 4.3.1 Real Property
    • 4.3.2 Materiel
    • 4.3.3 Acquisitions

At the bottom left of the figure is the PAA Legend, which is colour-coded to match the Strategic Outcome, Programs, Sub-Programs, and Sub-Sub-Programs.

Appendix B: Logic Model: Prevention and Security Operations

Appendix B: Logic Model: Prevention and Security Operations

This logic model outlines the Prevention and Security Operations. Going from top to bottom, the model explains the initiative's process by describing its components which are:

  • Inputs
  • Key Activities
  • Sub Activities
  • Outputs
  • Immediate Outcomes
  • Intermediate Outcomes
  • Final Outcome

The inputs are: Legislation, financial resources, human resources, policies and protocols.

The key activities are in two boxes: Prevention, and Security Operations. There is an arrow between the two boxes, which points to each box.

On the left are the key activities within Prevention which are:

  • Control of Contraband and Unauthorized Items
  • Intelligence and Supervision
  • Emergency Preparedness

The sub activities for the key activities of Control and Contraband and Unauthorized Items and Intelligence and Supervision are:

  • Detecting and searching for contraband and unauthorized items
  • Monitoring of changes in institutional environment
  • Assessing threats and risks
  • Sharing security information with internal/external partners

The sub activity for the key activity of Emergency Preparedness is:

  • Planning for emergencies and crises.

The outputs for the key activities of Control and Contraband and Unauthorized Items and Intelligence and Supervision are:

  • Urinalysis reports, seizures of contraband and unauthorized items
  • Observation reports, SITREP, registered human sources, offender grievance reports
  • Security documents (e.g. TRAs), meetings
  • Intelligence information documents, communication (e.g. meetings, records, committees)

The output for the key activity of Emergency Preparedness is

  • Contingency plans, exercises (e.g. fire drill), lists (e.g. call lists), strategies and protocols.

The Immediate Outcome for the output of Urinalysis reports, seizures of contraband and unauthorized items is

  • Reduced contraband and unauthorized items.

The Immediate Outcome for the outputs of Observation reports, SITREP, registered human sources, offender grievance reports and Security documents (e.g. TRAs), meetings is

  • Staff have access to and use security information

The Immediate Outcome for the output of Intelligence information documents, communication (e.g. meetings, records, committees) is

  • Enhanced capacity for information sharing

The Immediate Outcome for the key activity of Emergency Preparedness is

  • Institutions are prepared to continue delivering essential services during emergency and crisis situations.

The Intermediate Outcome for the Immediate Outcome of Reduced contraband and unauthorized items is

  • Reduced threat to institutional stability.

The Intermediate Outcome for the Immediate Outcomes of Staff have access to and use security information and Enhanced capacity for information sharing is

  • Enhanced ability to respond to and prevent security incidents

The Intermediate Outcome for the Immediate Outcome of Institutions are prepared to continue delivering essential services during emergency and crisis situations is

  • Enhanced capacity to maintain a safe and security environment.

The Final Outcome is

  • The safety and security of staff and offenders contribute to overall public safety.

The Key Activities within Security Operations are:

  • Surveillance
  • Deployment
  • Population Management
  • Emergency Response
  • Crisis Management

The Sub Activities for Security Operations are:

  • Monitoring movements and activities
  • Implementing deployment standards
  • Responding to security needs through management of offender transfers, movement and accommodation
  • Following contingency plans to diffuse emergencies
  • Using diverse methods to resolve crisis situations

The Outputs for Security Operations are:

  • Monitored videos & cameras, rounds & counts, patrols, entry & exit logs, static posts
  • Schedules and post standards, reports (SDS)
  • Placement reports, offender placements, transfers and passes (e.g. ETAs)
  • Reports and updated plans, emergency roles assigned
  • Reports and updated plans, debriefings, use of force reports, negotiation reports, ERTs

The Immediate Outcomes for the Key activities of Surveillance, Deployment, and Population Management are:

  • Institutions are appropriately monitored
  • Staff are deployed based on operational requirements
  • Offender placements and movements are based on security requirements

The Immediate Outcomes for the Key activities of Emergency Response and Crisis Management is:

  • Situation is contained and addressed

The Intermediate Outcomes for the Key activities of Surveillance, Deployment, and Population Management is:

  • Maintained stability in institutions

The Intermediate Outcomes for the Key activities of Emergency Response and Crisis Management is:

  • Institutions return to normal operations

The Final Outcome is:

  • The safety and security of staff and offenders contribute to overall public safety

Appendix C: Logic Model - Resource Management

Appendix C: Logic Model – Resource Management

This logic model outlines the Resource Management. Going from top to bottom, the model explains the initiative's process by describing its components which are:

  • Inputs
  • Key Activities
  • Sub Activities
  • Outputs
  • Immediate Outcomes
  • Intermediate Outcomes
  • Final Outcome

The Inputs are: Legislation, financial resources, human resources, policies and protocols.

The Key Activities in the Resource Management box are:

  • Infrastructure Management
  • Learning and Development
  • Staffing and Human Resource Retention
  • Labour Relations

The Sub-Activities for the Activities of Infrastructure Management, Learning and Development and Staffing and Human Resource Retention are:

  • Maintenance of security infrastructure and equipment to meet operational needs
  • Development and dissemination of training programs (formal and informal)
  • Recruitment and retention of staff

The Sub-Activities for the Activity of Labour Relations are:

  • Identification, assessment and resolution of staff safety concerns
  • Reinforcement of strong values and ethics

The Outputs for the Activities of Infrastructure Management, Learning and Development and Staffing and Human Resource Retention are:

  • Accommodation plan, security equipment and tools, equipment tests
  • Training courses, mentoring and coaching initiatives, reports (HRMS)
  • Recruitment campaigns and initiatives, positions filled, security screening reports, retention initiatives, security investigations

The Outputs for the Activities of Infrastructure Management, Learning and Development and Staffing and Human Resource Retention are:

  • Collective agreements, work refusals, meetings with Unions, informal conflict management program, staff grievances
  • Disciplinary actions

The Immediate Outcomes for Resource Management are:

  • Accommodation meets operational requirements and standards, tools and equipment meet standards, are available, maintained and controlled
  • Staff receive mandatory training courses
  • Improved ability to retain qualified staff
  • Conflicts between staff, management and offenders are managed and resolved

The Intermediate Outcomes for the Activities of Infrastructure Management, Learning and Development and Staffing and Human Resource Retention is:

  • Enhanced capacity to maintain a safe environment

The Intermediate Outcomes for the Activity of Labour Relations is

  • Workforce returns to normal functioning

The Final Outcome is:

  • The safety and security of staff and offenders contribute to overall public safety

Appendix D: Case Study and Correctional Manager Interview Site Visits

Institution Security Level Travel Period
Case Study Interviews
Triangular Design Model
Atlantic Institution Maximum March 11 – March 15, 2013
Donnacona Institution Maximum March 19 – March 22, 2013
Courtyard Design Model
Edmonton Institution Maximum March 10 – March 16, 2013
Kent Institution Maximum February 24 – March 6, 2013
Structured Campus Model
Drumheller Institution Multi-Level March 25 – March 28, 2013
Springhill Institution Medium March 20 – March 28, 2013
Warkworth Institution Medium February 24 – February 28, 2013
Correctional Manager Interviews
Atlantic Region
Springhill Institution Medium March 20 – March 28, 2013
Nova Institution for Women Multi-Level March 20 – March 28, 2013
Atlantic Institution Maximum March 11 – March 15, 2013
Quebec Region
Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines Institution Minimum March 11 – March 15, 2013
Archambault Institution Medium March 11 – March 15, 2013
Regional Reception Centre Multi-Level March 11 – March 15, 2013
Donnacona Institution Maximum March 19 – March 22, 2013
Ontario Region
Warkworth Institution Medium February 24 – February 28, 2013
Bath Institution Medium March 3 – March 6, 2013
Millhaven Institution Maximum March 3 – March 6, 2013
Prairie Region
Edmonton Institution Maximum March 10 – March 16, 2013
Pê Sâkâstêw Healing Lodge Minimum March 10 – March 16, 2013
Stony Mountain Institution Medium March 25 – March 28, 2013
Rockwood Institution Minimum March 25 – March 28, 2013
Drumheller Institution Multi-Level March 25 – March 28, 2013
Pacific Region
Kent Institution Maximum February 24 – March 6, 2013
Mountain Institution Medium February 24 – March 6, 2013
Fraser Valley Institution for Women Multi-Level February 24 – March 6, 2013

Appendix E: Profile of Staff & Management Questionnaire Respondents

  All Respondents Management respondents CX respondents
n % n % n %
Regions 254 139 40
Atlantic 27 11% 11 8% 4 10%
Quebec 48 19% 28 20% 7 18%
Ontario 61 24% 37 27% 11 28%
Prairies 71 28% 38 27% 11 28%
Pacific 47 19% 25 18% 7 18%
Security Level 251 136 40
Maximum 37 15% 12 9% 11 28%
Medium 102 41% 59 43% 12 30%
Minimum 36 14% 20 15% 7 18%
Multi-level 76 30% 45 33% 10 25%

Appendix F: List of Sister Institutions and Design Model

Region Institution Sister Institution Design Model
ONT Joyceville Institution Joyceville, Leclerc Linear
QUE Leclerc Institution Joyceville, Leclerc Linear
PRA Edmonton Institution Edmonton, Kent Courtyard
PAC Kent Institution Edmonton, Kent Courtyard
PRA Drumheller Institution Cowansville, Drumheller, Springhill, Warkworth Structured Campus
QUE Cowansville Institution Cowansville, Drumheller, Springhill, Warkworth Structured Campus
ATL Springhill Institution Cowansville, Drumheller, Springhill, Warkworth Structured Campus
ONT Warkworth Institution Cowansville, Drumheller, Springhill, Warkworth Structured Campus
QUE Port Cartier Institution Atlantic, Donnacona, Port Cartier Triangular
ATL Atlantic Institution Atlantic, Donnacona, Port Cartier Triangular
QUE Donnacona Institution Atlantic, Donnacona, Port Cartier Triangular
ONT Millhaven Institution Archambault, Millhaven Radial
QUE Archambault Institution Archambault, Millhaven Radial

Appendix G: Results of Multiple Regression Analyses

Results of Multiple Regression Analysis - Experience and Security Incidents (log), 2008/2009 to 2012/2013
  Parameter Estimate Standard Error t-Value P value 95% Confidence Level
2008/2009 -0.04238 0.00887 -4.78 <.0001 -0.06018 -0.02458
2009/2010 -0.04594 0.00994 -4.62 <.0001 -0.06589 -0.02599
2010/2011 -0.05033 0.01019 -4.94 <.0001 -0.07078 -0.02988
2011/2012 -0.05417 0.01006 -5.38 <.0001 -0.07436 -0.03398
2012/2013 -0.05637 0.01208 -4.67 <.0001 -0.08061 -0.03213
Results of Multiple Regression Analysis - Experience and Security-related Offender Grievances (log), 2008/2009 to 2012/2013
  Parameter Estimate Standard Error t-Value P value 95% Confidence Level
2008/2009 -0.02814 0.00769 -3.66 0.0006 -0.04357 -0.01270
2009/2010 -0.03825 0.00658 -5.82 <.0001 -0.05146 -0.02504
2010/2011 -0.03033 0.00984 -3.08 0.0033 -0.05008 -0.01058
2011/2012 -0.04615 0.00778 -5.93 <.0001 -0.06176 -0.03055
2012/2013 -0.04901 0.00937 -5.23 <.0001 -0.06780 -0.03022

Footnotes

Footnote 1

Throughout the evaluation, the acronyms CX and CO will be used to refer to specific groupings of CSC correctional staff. CX refers to the classification group of correctional officers (CO; CX-01 and CX-02), primary workers (PW; CX-02) and correctional managers (CM; CX-04). Some aspects of the evaluation focus on specific groups of CX staff, in which case the appropriate acronyms will be used (i.e. CO, PW, CM).

Return to footnote 1

Footnote 2

CSC is the federal government agency responsible for administering sentences imposed by the courts that are two years or more. Sentence administration includes the management of correctional institutions of various security levels and the supervision of offenders under conditional release in the community. More information regarding CSC, including policy and legislation, can be found at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca.

Return to footnote 2

Footnote 3

Both sections are included under the Purpose and Principles section of the CCRA.

Return to footnote 3

Footnote 4

CSC’s Program Alignment Architecture (PAA) is an inventory of programs grouped by related sub-programs and linked to its strategic outcome: "The custody, correctional interventions, and supervision of offenders in institutions and in communities, contribute to public safety."

Return to footnote 4

Footnote 5

Although the scope of the evaluation includes only specific institutional security activities, the full spectrum of activities is detailed in the program Logic Model (see Appendix B and Appendix C)

Return to footnote 5

Footnote 6

Throughout the evaluation, the acronyms CX and CO will be used to refer to specific groupings of CSC correctional staff. CX refers to the classification group of correctional officers (CO; CX-01 and CX-02), primary workers (PW; CX-02) and correctional managers (CM; CX-04). Some aspects of the evaluation focus on specific groups of CX staff, in which case the appropriate acronyms will be used (i.e. CO, PW, CM).

Return to footnote 6

Footnote 7

Primary Workers in the Healing Lodge for women offenders are also known as Kimisinaw.

Return to footnote 7

Footnote 8

An iterative and inductive qualitative analysis process identifies emerging themes and meaning from data through a repetitive reflexive process. (see Srivastava & Hopwood, 2009 and Patton, 1980.)

Return to footnote 8

Footnote 9

Details about the case studies are found later in this section.

Return to footnote 9

Footnote 10

If the questionnaire was not returned within 4 weeks, evaluation team members called the warden’s office as a reminder. There was a 100% response rate.

Return to footnote 10

Footnote 11

The following institutions were visited based on their design model: Edmonton and Kent institutions are based on the Courtyard model; Drumheller, Springhill and Warkworth institutions are based on the Structured Campus model; and Atlantic and Donnacona are based on the Triangular design model.

Return to footnote 11

Footnote 12

"Sister institution" is a term that refers to institutions that were built with a similar infrastructural design model. Institutional design models refer primarily to the original style of offender accommodations, and the manner in which offenders circulate through the institution. Institutions can be of the same design model without being sister institutions. There are five types of design model: linear, courtyard, structured campus, triangular and radial. CSC currently has 13 sister institutions. A list and description of sister institutions is provided in Appendix F.

Return to footnote 12

Footnote 13

Commissioner’s Message dated February 26, 2010. Posted on InfoNet.

Return to footnote 13

Footnote 14

From Overview of Safe Streets and Communities Act, posted on InfoNet, May 2, 2012.

Return to footnote 14

Footnote 15

In 2001, CSC’s Task Force on Security developed a security framework to optimize staff and offender interactions while promoting safe reintegration. The framework was divided into four components: safety, respect, leadership and learning and contained eighty recommendations to further CSC’s growth as "a professional, humane and restorative correctional system" (CSC 2001, p. 1).

Return to footnote 15

Footnote 16

Kingston Penitentiary and Leclerc Institution were closed on September 30, 2013. They are included in this evaluation as they were open during the period of time examined. As of April 1, 2014, a number of institutions were clustered, where some institutions that were geographically close were merged to share the same site name and warden, although they would retain their security classification.

Return to footnote 16

Footnote 17

Source: CRS, Offender Profile Data Cube, retrieved on October 25, 2013. Violent offences include Murder I, Murder II and Schedule I offences.

Return to footnote 17

Footnote 18

Security incidents were defined in accordance with the definition provided in CSC’s Performance Direct tool and included, for example: disciplinary problems, disruptive behaviors, threats, possession of contraband damage to property, inmate fights, assaults on staff/offenders/visitors, hostage taking, homicides, murders (or attempted), escape (or attempted).

Return to footnote 18

Footnote 19

Other classification groups were examined where deemed relevant.

Return to footnote 19

Footnote 20

Occupational groups noted: CR – Clerical and Regulatory; GS – General Services; AS – Administrative Services; WP – Welfare Programmes; FI – Financial Management; PS – Psychology.

Return to footnote 20

Footnote 21

PWs were not examined because they go through separate competitive processes than CX-01s.

Return to footnote 21

Footnote 22

Data source: HRMS May 2014.

Return to footnote 22

Footnote 23

A total of 141 disciplinary actions were found in HRMS for CX-01 staff members having been hired over the last five years.

Return to footnote 23

Footnote 24

Note that follow up times recruits from the new process varied, ranging from 3 months to 10 months.

Return to footnote 24

Footnote 25

Source: HRMS, data retrieved May 2014

Return to footnote 25

Footnote 26

The exact number of respondents associated to this percentage was not available.

Return to footnote 26

Footnote 27

Dynamic security includes the activities performed by staff to increase their awareness of offender behaviour and activities that may indicate potential problems or incidents. A key component of dynamic security is the interaction between staff and offenders.

Return to footnote 27

Footnote 28

Security incidents were defined in accordance with the definition provided in CSC’s Performance Direct tool and included, for example: disciplinary problems, disruptive behaviors, threats, possession of contraband damage to property, inmate fights, assaults on staff/offenders/visitors, hostage taking, homicides, murders (or attempted), escape (or attempted).

Return to footnote 28

Footnote 29

Security related offender grievances included cases of, for example: discrimination, harassment by staff, placement and living conditions in segregation, use of force, searches.

Return to footnote 29

Footnote 30

Years of service includes all federal government service in any department or position.

Return to footnote 30

Footnote 31

Multiple regression analyses were performed using institutional averages of years of experience working for CSC and institutional OPY rates of security related incidents (log) and offender grievances (log). Analyses were performed on a yearly basis for a period of 5 years (i.e. yearly analyses were repeated for five years from 2008/2009 to 2012/2013).

Return to footnote 31

Footnote 32

The years of experience were calculated by subtracting the date of hire into CSC for each employee from the last day of the relevant fiscal year (March 31), and then average years of experience were calculated for members of the CX group. The decision was made to use the date of hire, rather than date of position, as the majority of new recruits to the CX group come from outside CSC (95%; n = 298 in 2012/2013; CSC, 2014c)

Return to footnote 32

Footnote 33

Institutional adjustment and security risk ratings are obtained through an actuarial tool, the Custody Rating Scale (CRS). These scores are an indication of the level of risk that an offender poses within the institution and to the community in the case of an escape.

Return to footnote 33

Footnote 34

Risk, need, motivation and reintegration potential are overall offender ratings assessed through a number of actuarial tools (i.e. the Custody Rating Scale; the Revised Statistical Information on Recidivism; the Static Factor Rating, the Dynamic Factor Identification and Analysis, Revised) along with professional judgement.

Return to footnote 34

Footnote 35

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: staff and management (SM) questionnaire (46%; n = 115); case study (CS) interviews (19%; n = 12); correctional manager (CM) interviews (24%; n = 21).

Return to footnote 35

Footnote 36

Static security consists primarily of physical equipment and infrastructure (e.g. fences, CCTV, x-ray machines), but also includes the procedures involved in ensuring the security of the institution, staff, and offenders (e.g. responding to alarms, staffing posts, inmate movement).

Return to footnote 36

Footnote 37

Source: HRMS, April 1st, 2013. Experience data was only available for indeterminate employees within the institutions. In 2012/2013, the institutional average of CX staff experience ranged from 5.07 to 23.06 years. The average years of CX staff experience for each institutional security level group was calculated by first determining the average years of CX staff experience for each institution. The institutional averages were then averaged by security level group. As such, these do not represent an average of individual experience but an average of institutional experience.

Return to footnote 37

Footnote 38

Data only includes indeterminate employees. Source: HRMS, April 1st, 2013.

Return to footnote 38

Footnote 39

Mentoring is a long term relationship that is built on trust and focuses on broad issues the mentee wishes to discuss (e.g. both personal and professional), and is defined as "a relationship between an experienced person (mentor) who shares his or her professional skills, knowledge and insights with another individual (mentee) willing and ready to learn, grow and develop skills and confidence in his or her professional development" (Publiservice, 2011). Coaching is a shorter term relationship that focuses on the transfer of professional skills from a more experienced individual (the coach). Coaching is described by the TBS as "a two-way conversation that helps overcome problems, generates creative ideas and solutions, develops knowledge or skills and improves performance" (TBS, 2008b).

Return to footnote 39

Footnote 40

Note this evaluation was based on CTP as it was delivered prior to being centralized in Regina.

Return to footnote 40

Footnote 41

While respondents spoke of coaching and mentoring interchangeably, the context within which views were expressed by interviewees was more consistent with the definition of coaching rather than mentoring.

Return to footnote 41

Footnote 42

Percentages were calculated based on the total number of respondents to each question, and not the total number of respondents to the questionnaire.

Return to footnote 42

Footnote 43

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: CS interviews (24%; n = 16); CM interviews (43%; n = 40).

Return to footnote 43

Footnote 44

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (25%; n = 47); CS interviews (24%; n = 16); CM interviews (43%; n = 40).

Return to footnote 44

Footnote 45

The majority of new CXs are now deployed to maximum or medium security level institutions for their first two years of employment.

Return to footnote 45

Footnote 46

Action implemented through a MAP from Recommendation 1 of this evaluation.

Return to footnote 46

Footnote 47

Annex D – Site Deployment Levels (in CSC, 2009)

Return to footnote 47

Footnote 48

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (68%; n = 171); CS interviews (24%; n = 16); CM interviews (41%; n = 38).

Return to footnote 48

Footnote 49

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (53%; n = 127); CS interviews (23%; n = 17); CM interviews (18%; n = 17).

Return to footnote 49

Footnote 50

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (43%; n = 69); CS interviews (26%; n = 23); CM interviews (31%; n = 21).

Return to footnote 50

Footnote 51

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: CS interviews (19%; n = 14); CM interviews (18%; n = 16).

Return to footnote 51

Footnote 52

Out of the 639, there were: 404 127.1s; 232 128s; 2 listed as 127.1 to 128; and 1 blank.

Return to footnote 52

Footnote 53

Out of the total n = 67 complaints or refusals to work related to deployment.

Return to footnote 53

Footnote 54

Out of the 39: 27 were 127.1s, 11 were 128s, and 1 was a 127.1 to 128.

Return to footnote 54

Footnote 55

When an employee makes a refusal to work complaint an internal process to resolve the issue and return the employee to work is launched. If no resolution is made through this process and the employee continues to refuse to work then the complaint is referred to ESDC to be investigated and a ruling of danger/no danger is made.

Return to footnote 55

Footnote 56

Of the 11 cases listed as ongoing, as of July 4, 2014, 2 were being investigated by ESDC.

Return to footnote 56

Footnote 57

The audit team were unable to confirm whether the unmanned positions were operationally adjustable positions or not.

Return to footnote 57

Footnote 58

The assessment focuses on four constants: intent, potential consequences, risk, and impact on the target.

Return to footnote 58

Footnote 59

Threat Risk Assessment: an evaluation of factors that could pose a danger to the management of an offender, the safety of others, or security of an operational unit in particular circumstances. (CSC, 2012e, Annex E)

Return to footnote 59

Footnote 60

Only the EAP was mentioned on the EPP TRA report instructions, but a new pre-assessment tool will specifically ask and document whether the EAP and CISM were offered. Source: email of September 30, 2014 from Denise Silva, Departmental Security Branch.

Return to footnote 60

Footnote 61

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (92%; n = 231); CS interviews (40%; n = 27); CM interviews (28%; n = 25)

Return to footnote 61

Footnote 62

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: CS interviews (13%; n = 9); CM interviews (19%; n = 17).

Return to footnote 62

Footnote 63

Case study interviews only.

Return to footnote 63

Footnote 64

Correctional manager interviews only.

Return to footnote 64

Footnote 65

A file is considered closed when corrective measures have been taken to mitigate the risks and a TRA update does not recommend any further reviews or when a TRA or TRA update indicates the threat is no longer present. A file may be reopened with new information that may warrant increased security measures.

Return to footnote 65

Footnote 66

The questionnaire was sent to 178 employees who had accessed the EPP. The response rate was 11%.

Return to footnote 66

Footnote 67

Among employees surveyed, all were personally involved in the event that lead to their EPP case and 35% (n = 7) of cases also involved the respondent’s family. Respondents were not asked the timeframe they accessed or made use of the EPP.

Return to footnote 67

Footnote 68

One respondent refused security measures, and one did not indicate what measures were put in place.

Return to footnote 68

Footnote 69

More than one measure may have been put in place for the respondent.

Return to footnote 69

Footnote 70

In the majority of cases, the EPP evaluation process started within a week (63%; n = 12), and in some cases it took more than a month (32%; n = 6). One of the nineteen respondents indicated that they were never notified that the process took place.

Return to footnote 70

Footnote 71

The onus is on the victim to register to receive information about the offender.

Return to footnote 71

Footnote 72

Releases include: temporary absences, work release, parole, and statutory release.

Return to footnote 72

Footnote 73

Some of the skills included in course section on communication skills are active listening, responsive listening, and breaking bad news over the telephone.

Return to footnote 73

Footnote 74

Human sources are defined as "any person who provides information to an agency and expects confidentiality. These persons are protected by informant privilege which is intended to protect their identity." (CSC, 2013i, Annex A.)

Return to footnote 74

Footnote 75

Open sources refer to publicly available information, such as newspapers, academic papers, and on the internet, including social media.

Return to footnote 75

Footnote 76

See Component #3: Institutional Security Operations – Dynamic Security.

Return to footnote 76

Footnote 77

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: CS interviews (49%; n = 34); CM interviews (44%; n = 40).

Return to footnote 77

Footnote 78

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: CS interviews (100%; n = 73); CM interviews (99%; n = 94).

Return to footnote 78

Footnote 79

Investigations related to incidents that occurred within the institution.

Return to footnote 79

Footnote 80

Investigations related to incidents that occurred in the community but involve offenders.

Return to footnote 80

Footnote 81

Resource allocation is also known as strategic intelligence.

Return to footnote 81

Footnote 82

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (47%; n = 115); CS interviews (48%; n = 33); CM interviews (48%; n = 44); SIO interviews (48%; n = 23).

Return to footnote 82

Footnote 83

As per CSC’s Commissioner’s Directive 568 - Management of Security Information and Intelligence, all staff are to immediately report any situation that could jeopardize the safety and security of an operational unit, individuals or the protection of society (CSC, 2013e).

Return to footnote 83

Footnote 84

A Statement/Observation Report (SOR) should be completed by all staff, volunteers and contractors to document incidents or behaviours that have been witnessed or observed where those incidents or behaviours are significant or out of the ordinary, considered to be potentially sensitive in nature, or identify offender associates, affiliates, incompatibles and contacts (CSC, 2013f; 2013g).

Return to footnote 84

Footnote 85

Key informants were NHQ staff members from the Security Branch and other relevant sectors (Legal Services, CORCAN, Aboriginal Initiatives, etc.)

Return to footnote 85

Footnote 86

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (51%; n = 126); CS interviews (45%; n = 31); CM interviews (30%; n = 28).

Return to footnote 86

Footnote 87

Communication between staff and managers was found to be "strained" at the institutional level according to the Change in Command Audit, Kent Institution Pacific Region. To address this, the audit recommended that "senior managers should establish effective strategies to improve communication throughout the institution at all levels." (CSC, 2012d)

Return to footnote 87

Footnote 88

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (61%; n = 150); CS interviews (6%; n = 4); CM interviews (8%; n = 7).

Return to footnote 88

Footnote 89

SINet is the Security Intelligence Network: a computer program that allows SIOs to enter, share and link related intelligence data.

Return to footnote 89

Footnote 90

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (53%; n = 130); CS interviews (12%; n = 8); CM interviews (14%; n = 13); SIO interviews (65%; n = 31).

Return to footnote 90

Footnote 91

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (39%; n = 97); CS interviews (4%; n = 3); CM interviews (3%; n = 3); SIO interviews (50%; n = 24).

Return to footnote 91

Footnote 92

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaires (16%; n = 39); CS interviews (1%; n = 1); CM interviews (1%; n = 1).

Return to footnote 92

Footnote 93

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (30%; n = 37); CS interviews (25%; n = 17); CM interviews (28%; n = 25); SIO interviews (17%; n = 8).

Return to footnote 93

Footnote 94

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (9%; n = 11); CS interviews (15%; n = 10); CM interviews (10%; n = 9); SIO interviews (46%; n = 22).

Return to footnote 94

Footnote 95

Correctional Services Canada Form 1445.

Return to footnote 95

Footnote 96

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (68%; n = 84); CS interviews (75%; n = 51); CM interviews (79%; n = 70); SIO interviews (83%; n = 40).

Return to footnote 96

Footnote 97

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (4%; n = 5); CS interviews (15%; n = 10); CM interviews (13%; n = 12); SIO interviews (40%; n = 19).

Return to footnote 97

Footnote 98

A. Martel (Personal communication) December 9, 2014.

Return to footnote 98

Footnote 99

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (69%; n = 174); CS interviews (85%; n = 63); SIO interviews (94%; n = 45).

Return to footnote 99

Footnote 100

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (78%; n = 193); CS interviews (68%; n = 50); SIO interviews (73%; n = 35).

Return to footnote 100

Footnote 101

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (74%; n = 185); CS interviews (74%; n = 54); SIO interviews (77%; n = 37).

Return to footnote 101

Footnote 102

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (68%; n = 169); CS interviews (79%; n = 58); SIO interviews (90%; n = 43).

Return to footnote 102

Footnote 103

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (57%; n = 140); CS interviews (71%; n = 52); CM interviews (76%; n = 72).

Return to footnote 103

Footnote 104

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: CS interviews (74%; n = 55); CM interviews (70%; n = 66).

Return to footnote 104

Footnote 105

Active monitoring refers to observing offender behaviours, monitoring the changes and keeping track of the fluctuations.

Return to footnote 105

Footnote 106

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (28%; n = 55); CS interviews (28%; n = 19); CM interviews (27%; n = 25).

Return to footnote 106

Footnote 107

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (28%; n = 54); CS interviews (31%; n = 21); CM interviews (28%; n = 26).

Return to footnote 107

Footnote 108

Totals composed of data from the following data collection tools: SM questionnaire (25%; n = 49); CS interviews (15%; n = 10); CM interviews (9%; n = 8).

Return to footnote 108

Footnote 109

The following sub-activities and sub-sub-activities were included in the analysis: 1.0 Custody, including 1.1 Institutional Management and Support and 1.2 Institutional Security (includes 1.2.1 Intelligence and Supervision and 1.2.2 Drug Interdiction); as well as, Cost Centre (CC) 280 (Electronic Engineering Policy & Services) and CC 283 (Electronic Systems Maintenance), both under sub-sub-program 1.4.2 Accommodation Services as they related to the maintenance of electronic systems in the institutions (e.g. security cameras, PIDS, radios). The total expenditures presented do not include retroactive pay. In addition, costs related to parole offices or community correctional centers were not included.

Return to footnote 109

Footnote 110

Source: IFMMS, extracted February 27 & 28, 2014 and February 12, 16 & 17, 2015.

Return to footnote 110

Footnote 111

According to the 2013-14 Departmental Performance Report, the increase in expenditures is largely as a result of the ratification of collective agreements (CSC, 2014b).

Return to footnote 111

Footnote 112

210-Salaries includes, but not limited to, items such as Salaries Indeterminate Employees, Severance Pay, Overtime, Premium Pay, Shift Premium, and Allowances – Employees.

240-Operating costs include, but are not limited to, items such as Other Operating Equipment and Supplies <$10,000, Employee clothing, and Telecommunications Services.

Return to footnote 112

Footnote 113

The rate of security related salary costs increased from $39.9 million per 1,000 offenders in 2008/2009 to $43.8 million per 1,000 offenders in 2013/2014.

Return to footnote 113

Footnote 114

Serious security incidents are defined by CSC’s Performance Direct as "any security-related incident that does not result in actual death but is of a serious nature", and includes, for example: assaults on staff/offenders/visitors, hostage takings, escapes (actual and attempted), and inmate fights.

Return to footnote 114

Footnote 115

In order to better identify and intervene with "offenders at risk for self-injury or suicide, CSC reinforced actions to prevent deaths in custody by stressing the importance of security patrols, including dynamic security practices" (CSC, 2014b, p. 23).

Return to footnote 115

Footnote 116

The National Population Management Approach integrates accommodation, resources and interventions to ensure offenders are appropriately placed within CSC’s institutions. (CSC, 2015)

Return to footnote 116

Footnote 117

Drug-related seizures, as reported by Performance Direct, include incidents where drugs or drug-related paraphernalia were seized.

Return to footnote 117

Footnote 118

Source: email 2014-09-23 from Debb Matthews, Senior Project Manager, Security Operations.

Return to footnote 118

Footnote 119

Negative test results are where the concentration of intoxicants in the urine sample are below the cut-off levels listed in Annex B and C of CD 566-10 (CSC, 2012f).

Return to footnote 119