Performance Assurance

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Community Staff Safety Audit

Internal Audit Branch
378-1-225
Approved by the Audit Committee
May 31, 2007

PDF

Table of Contents 

 

Executive Summary

CSC oversees the operation of 71 parole offices and 16 Community Correctional Centres (CCC's). Over one thousand staff are employed in the community and they interact regularly with approximately 7,000 offenders under some form of conditional release. The purpose of conditional release supervision is to assist offenders who are in the community by providing support when required and, at the same time, exercising some control over the offenders' activities.

Supervising offenders in the community is a very challenging job. To exercise their duties, parole officers meet at regularly prescribed intervals with offenders in the office, in the community and in the offender's home to ensure they are adhering to the conditions prescribed by National Parole Board for their release, such as abstaining from drugs and alcohol and not associating with criminals. They also assist offenders in finding and maintaining employment and ensure they are attending CSC programs to maintain gains they have made in their reintegration while incarcerated. Further, they also keep offender files on the Offender Management System (OMS) current.

Following a tragic incident in 2004 involving the murder of a parole officer from the Yellowknife parole office, by an offender under community supervision, a Board of Investigation (BOI) was convened to investigate the incident and it made 71 recommendations intended to reduce the risk to community staff. In the aftermath, CSC implemented a series of measures to increase the level of safety and to raise the level of awareness about staff safety issues related to community supervision practices.

One of CSC's priorities from their 2006-07 Report on Plans and Priorities1 is the "Safe transition of offenders into the community" with a supporting strategy to "Enhance supervision and monitoring tools for higher-risk offenders in the community." This audit was conducted in 2006/07 to support this priority and to provide CSC senior management with assurance that the 29 recommendations specific to community operations of the BOI are being addressed.

More specifically, the audit objectives were:

  • To assess the progress made by CSC specific to community operations in addressing the Board of Investigation's recommendations;
  • To assess progress made by operational sites to implement measures to strengthen staff safety in the community; and
  • To determine if the assessment of staff safety is considered while managing the offender's risk in accordance with the community supervision policy requirements.

Conclusions

Overall the audit found that CSC has made significant progress in addressing the recommendations issued by the Board of Investigation. Some of the recommendations have already been fully addressed, and for others the planned actions are progressing. Some of the original target dates established by CSC have not been met but, for the most part, initiatives to respond to the recommendations continue to be implemented. In some cases, NHQ has responded to the recommendations, but compliance issues have been identified at the site level.

To facilitate the presentation of the specific results of the audit, the recommendations of the BOI specific to CSC community operations and the findings have been grouped into six key areas, namely: Policies and Procedures; Case Management and Availability of Offender Information; Physical Security; Training; Resourcing; and Monitoring.

The findings related to these six areas are as follows:

Policies and Procedures - CSC quickly took action following the incident and issued a series of policy directions aimed at improving community staff safety. Other findings in this area included:

  • Direction was issued by NHQ to have contingency plans in parole offices to cover situations where the parole officer fails to return on time. However, they are still not available in many offices;
  • Other policy directions have also been issued by CSC to respond to concerns raised by the BOI including sign out/in procedures for parole officers when they are out of the office and requirements for tandem visits to offender residences. However, they were issued in a variety of formats, sometimes revising earlier direction provided and this has caused some confusion in the field. To remedy this, revised Commissioner's Directives are expected to be issued by December 2007 by NHQ;
  • Further, some critical staff safety procedures have not been implemented as intended including the sign out/in procedures and tandem home visits.

Case Management and Availability of Offender Information - In the area of case management, CSC has made improvements, including:

  • As requested by the BOI, the requirement for more than 50% of parole officer contacts with offenders to be in the community was removed in August, 2005;
  • In our audit, no evidence was found that offenders' cases are being transferred when an offender is in an unstable situation and parole officers are managing offenders in the community with increased risk using appropriate methods;
  • Parole officers and their supervisors are including, for the most part, staff safety as part of their regular case conferences, although this is not always documented;
  • The Community Reintegration Division will address unique issues related to lifers and long-term offenders and develop a strategy for supervision and responses to breaches during its policy review process.

CSC has also made changes to improve the availability of offender information, but the initiatives have not yet all been implemented:

  • Indicators for staff safety concerns and tandem visit requirements have been added to the Offender Management System (OMS), but, for the majority of files reviewed, these indicators are not being entered into OMS as required;
  • Progress is being made on streamlining offender files, which will enhance the availability of offender information to parole officers, but there have been delays;
  • The capability to exchange information with local police services is critical to ensure parole officers have up to date offender information at their disposal. Relations with local police services are generally good and CSC signed a national MOU with the RCMP in March 2006. Discussions on an MOU with the OPP are ongoing. The program to bring police officers into community offices as liaison officers is progressing with 9 of 17 in place, but the program is behind schedule;
  • Funding has not been identified and position descriptions have not been developed for adding Security Intelligence Officers to the community offices to enhance their intelligence capacity.

Physical Security - The current situation related to safety related equipment provided to community staff and the facilities in which the offices are located was found to be fairly positive and continuing to improve. Initiatives in this area include:

  • At the sites we visited, cell phones have been issued to all parole officers and all offices that requested them have access to satellite phones and parole officers are generally satisfied with the other safety equipment provided to them;
  • CSC has developed comprehensive facility safety standards for parole offices and work is underway to resolve any identified deficiencies. Similar standards for CCC's are being completed;
  • Government motor vehicles are generally in good condition and well equipped but availability in some locations is a challenge. Parole officers use their own vehicles at least occasionally and this raises some safety concerns, because there are no CSC safety standards for private vehicles. It is expected that this should be resolved in the near future by the addition of vehicles to the parole office fleet later this year.

Training - Development of the required training courses is proceeding on schedule. Delivery of several courses has been delayed due to CSC's temporary expenditure reduction measures (effective from November 2006 to March 2007). However, we noted that contract staff are not receiving CSC training. Regional Professional or Clinical committees, designed to allow for regular exchange of ideas and experiences, have not been formed to date in all regions.

Resourcing - In the area of resourcing, the following conclusions were made:

  • Sites visited reported they have adequate funding to do the urinalysis testing used for detecting substance abuse in the community;
  • The revised Workload Formula was implemented in 2006-07 with more time allotted for initial file review and tandem visits, but the operational impact of the changes is not yet known. Parole officers we interviewed indicated they feel they do not have sufficient time to review offenders' files or to do the tandem visits that are required;
  • The management of small community offices remains a challenge and its future is linked to the implementation of the new district infrastructure.

Monitoring - A national advisory committee to address staff safety concerns, was established very soon after the incident (November 2004) and it has since been given permanent status. Reporting of progress against BOI recommendations to EXCOM has been ongoing since that time and although there was a brief interruption for the last 7 months, it resumed again in March 2007.

Recommendations have been made in order for CSC to:

  • Continue to enhance its policies and procedures and their implementation;
  • Reinforce the need to ensure that information entered into OMS is timely and complete;
  • Review the use of private vehicles by parole officers and address and related safety concerns;
  • Continue to provide the necessary training related to staff safety;
  • Address the issues related to temporary vacancies in parole offices.

Senior management has reviewed, and agrees with, the findings contained in the report. The Management Action Plan which addresses the recommendations is included in Appendix D.

1.0 Introduction

Supervising offenders in the community is a difficult job. Most offenders will eventually be released back into society where they are supervised by professional staff; community parole officers of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). The purpose of conditional release supervision is to assist offenders who are in the community by providing support when required and, at the same time, exercising some control over the offenders' activities. The two aspects of this dual role for parole officers can at times be in conflict. Making the trade-off effectively between these two functions helps to minimize risks to the safety of a number of important stakeholders; the general public, victims of crime, CSC staff, offenders and their families.

Further complicating the task of managing offenders is the multitude of serious behavioural and personality problems they often exhibit. More than half of the offenders are illiterate. Many have psychiatric or drug problems and even more have alcohol problems.

With the provision of statutory release with residency, the profile of offenders in the community has changed to include many offenders released directly from maximum security institutions, many with mental health problems. Most of the higher risk / higher need offenders will return to the community with a residency requirement in one of CSC's Community Correctional Centres, ( federally operated community-based residential facilities that provide a structured living environment with twenty four hour supervision, programs, and interventions for the purpose of safely reintegrating the offender into the community) .

CSC oversees the operation of 71 parole offices as well as 16 Community Correctional Centres . In all, over one thousand staff are employed in the community. This includes parole officers as well as administrative staff, supervisors of parole officers, program officers and psychologists who interact regularly with approximately 7,000 offenders under some form of conditional release. 

The management structure in the community is currently changing. In three of the five regions, the number of Districts is being reduced and in all Districts, the infrastructure reorganized. Position descriptions remain under development for most of the positions. Below is the basic management structure as approved by EXCOM for the community.

Basic management structure as approved by EXCOM for the community

Community Management Structure

Parole officers in CSC are a dedicated group of professionals who maintain contact with offenders and contribute to their wellbeing and reintegration success. The interaction between offenders and CSC staff occurs at parole offices, at the offender's place of employment, their residence, the collateral contact's place of residence or in group settings such as program centres. They continuously collect relevant information to minimize risk to the public and to CSC staff. (See Exhibit 1 - A week in the life of a parole officer).

Exhibit 1 - A Week In the Life of a Parole Officer

In a regular work week, a parole officer has to make difficult trade-offs between competing priorities and will handle a variety of duties including:

  • Interviewing newly sentenced offenders prior to their transfer to federal penitentiary;
  • Completing an in-depth review of offenders' files prior to their release to the community;
  • Participating in case conferences with their supervisor to discuss appropriate risk management methods;
  • Meeting with the offender in the parole office and in the community, in compliance with the policy defined frequency of contact requirements;
  • Working with other professionals as sources of collateral information to better understand the offender's behaviour and the attendant risk level;
  • Interviewing community contacts to obtain corroborating information about an offender;
  • Overseeing the daily activities of offenders living in community-based residential facilities;
  • Accompanying offenders on various visits and appointments in the community;
  • Providing assistance to offenders or their families in completing daily tasks;
  • Preparing reports for the NPB to address such matters as the breach of a special condition;
  • Recommending or issuing warrants for the apprehension of offenders for violation of their release conditions or as a result of other factors indicating increased risk to community safety;
  • Delivering offender reintegration programs, and monitoring and reporting on offenders' participation;
  • Inputting information related to the offender's progress into OMS or hard-copy file.

 

In the fall of 2004, a parole officer from the Yellowknife parole office was found murdered in the home of an offender while conducting a home visit. It is the only incident of this kind in CSC's history of supervising offenders in the community. A joint National Parole Board / CSC Board of Investigation (BOI) was convened and made a total of 71 recommendations. In the aftermath, CSC implemented a series of measures to increase the level of safety and to raise the level of awareness about staff safety issues related to community supervision practices.

1 Report on Plans and Priorities 2006-07, Correctional Service Canada, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/0607/csc-scc/csc-scc_e.asp

 

2.0 Audit Objectives and Scope

2.1 Audit Objectives

The objectives of the audit were:

  • To assess the progress made by CSC specific to community operations in addressing the Board of Investigation's recommendations;
  • To assess progress made by operational sites to implement measures to strengthen staff safety in the community; and
  • To determine if the assessment of staff safety is considered while managing the offender's risk in accordance with the community supervision policy requirements.

The specific criteria used for the audit can be found in Appendix A.

2.2 Audit Scope

The audit was national in scope, and included visits to 20 parole offices and five Community Correctional Centres/Correctional Residential Facilities in the five regions and eight districts. The focus of the audit was on the implementation of 29 of the 71 recommendations made by the Board of Investigation (BOI) which directly relate to community operations. The audit did not include BOI recommendations which focused on: institutional practices; correctional programs; were the National Parole Board's responsibility; or involved intergovernmental/ interagency issues. Section 4.0 of the report provides additional details on the BOI recommendations included in this audit.

The audit covered progress which has been made in implementing policy direction issued since October 2004.

3.0 Approach and Methodology

Audit work included a review of the policy framework relating to staff safety in the community issued since October 2004. At each site visited we reviewed procedural documents, training records, contingency plans, and contracts. We also conducted a visual tour of the facility and interviewed a variety of staff, including parole officers, administrative personnel, program officers, psychologists and supervisors of parole officers. We also interviewed the eight District Directors as well as staff at RHQ and NHQ.

The sites we visited covered all districts and had a mix of urban and rural/remote as well as parole offices that are large (over 10 parole officers), medium (between 6 and 10 parole officers) and small (five and fewer parole officers). We also visited one Community Correctional Centre/Correctional Residential Facility in each region. The specific sites visited are listed in Appendix B.

We conducted an OMS file review of a sample of offenders with a history of violence involving death or sexual assault, who had been released between April, 2006 and October, 2006. We used this initial selection criterion for our sample because this is the criterion used by CSC to identify which offenders require two parole officers to conduct home visits for at least the first 90 days after release. Out of this total population of 531 offenders released in this time frame, a random sample of 116 offenders was selected for detailed examination, to determine if:

  • The staff safety alerts and tandem supervision flags were entered into OMS as required;
  • Case conferences were held with supervisors for incoming offenders;
  • Appropriate actions were being taken to address elevated levels of risk;
  • Tandem visits were being done and who was accompanying the parole officer.

The audit team debriefed the District Directors and the Regional Deputy Commissioners on relevant findings. In addition, a debriefing was held at NHQ with the Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs. The audit team consisted of members of the Internal Audit Branch augmented by representatives from each region with significant knowledge and experience with community corrections.

4.0 Findings and Recommendations

In this section of the report, discussion of the audit findings is organized under the following six themes to facilitate presentation of CSC response to the BOI recommendations:

  • Policies and Procedures
  • Case Management and Availability of Offender Information
  • Physical Security
  • Training
  • Resourcing
  • Monitoring

Appendix C contains a summary of the BOI's recommendations included in this audit as well as CSC's initial response and Action Plan and a brief summary of the audit findings for each area and the report section in which the area is discussed.

4.1 Policy and Procedures

4.1.1 Background

In the areas that we have identified as being primarily related to policies and procedures, the Board of Investigation (BOI) recommended that CSC should:

  • Develop a comprehensive Community Safety Policy; (BOI #4)
  • Implement a system to track the whereabouts of parole officers during field visits; (BOI Rec. # 5)
  • Establish new provisions for parole officer accompaniment during home visits; and (BOI Rec. #6)
  • Develop procedures for managing incidents in the community which involve the safety of a parole officer or others. (BOI Rec. #3)

 

4.1.2 Findings

Some CSC responses to BOI recommendations have been implemented, but policy direction on staff safety has been issued in an inconsistent manner.

In order that it would be implemented consistently and effectively across the country, we expected that policy direction from NHQ would be clear, well organized and easily accessible.

Since October 2004, staff have been notified of staff safety policy changes through a series of eight Case Management Bulletins and four memos issued by various senior managers. The inconsistent manner in which this was handled has caused a degree of confusion among community parole officers trying to understand operational requirements. For example, NHQ issued four separate directions (each time revising or clarifying the direction) related to the critical area of tandem supervision visits, i.e. where a second staff member is to accompany a parole officer when visiting the home of offenders with a criminal history involving death or sexual assault. Each new Case Management Bulletin contained direction on staff safety covering a number of different issues, with some parts being updated and others not. The ambiguity of this direction elevates the risk that in some situations, parole officers will use inappropriate methods.

A series of revised Commissioner's Directives, (the official policy instrument for CSC), consolidating the numerous directions issued through interim avenues is currently under development. The target date for completing the Commissioner's Directives is December 2007, three years after the incident that gave rise to the BOI recommendations.

Some staff safety policies have not been implemented as intended.

As noted previously, in response to these BOI recommendations, CSC has issued directions on a number of different areas of staff safety in the community. In some cases, such as including staff safety as a regular part of case conferences, sites have implemented, to a large degree, the policy. The focus of this section however is on those areas where concerns were noted. The issues discussed below relate to:

  1. Sign out/in procedures
  2. Tandem visits to offender residences
  3. Contingency Plans - Parole officer fail to return checklists
  4. Meeting offenders when alone in the parole office
  5. Notification to police of visit to a remote area

i. Sign Out/In Procedures All community offices are required by policy to have reliable sign out/in systems to verify the location and safety of community staff whenever they are out of the office before, during or after normal office hours. Some parole officers meet with offenders in the evening, or even on the weekend, to accommodate offender schedules for work, programs, etc. If a system is properly implemented, the parole office will know about any problem shortly after it occurs and will know where the parole officer was last located and who they are seeing.

We found that all sites visited have instituted some kind of procedure to track parole officers' location while they are out meeting with offenders and when they are due back. However, in most sites, the procedures were ineffective. For example:

  • There was inconsistent reporting after normal office hours. Some parole officers' supervisors have agreed to voluntarily receive after-hours call-ins, while not others so that late arrivals would not be noticed until the following day. In Quebec region and part of the Pacific region, parole officers can report through the CCC's;
  • Staff initially resisted signing out and in because they felt management was tracking their whereabouts or they did not agree that it would make them safer;
  • Many parole officers are only indicating a return time at the end of the day, rather than after each supervision visit;
  • A wide variety of personnel, busy with other duties, are responsible for monitoring parole officers' whereabouts;
  • Some offices also use a "Status Board" located in a prominent place in addition to the log sheet, but there is not always a designated person to oversee its use;
  • Management personnel at some sites feel that the sign out/in procedures are overkill, so they do not enforce their use.

We also found a variety of reporting out/in procedures for remote offices. Some offices require parole officers to fax or text message their daily schedule to the main office. In other locations, the remote office does not notify anyone, other than perhaps a partner at home.

Exhibit 2
Parole Officer Monitoring

One such private personnel monitoring service is the Loneworker Protection System which is being piloted in Alberta. This privately operated system allows staff to leave a message detailing their location, a number at which they can be reached and the time at which they will next report in. If they do not report back in on time, the automated system proceeds with escalating phases of response to locate the officer and notify the authorities of their absence. Some privacy issues still need to be resolved.

Staff we consulted generally felt that having an outside, automated service to do the monitoring would be better than having CSC staff do it. The system would also make after-hours reporting easier. If desired, flexibility could be built in by allowing discretion on the part of parole officers, in consultation with their supervisors and based on risk, to decide how often they would have to report to the system (see Exhibit 2).

ii. Tandem Home Visits The Board of Investigation recommended that parole officers be accompanied by a second person for all home visits, no matter what the offender's offence. The need to use tandem visits for all home visits is not feasible given the resources it would require to implement. Therefore, the initial direction given by CSC management was that the parole officer should normally be accompanied only when conducting home visits to offenders who have a criminal history involving death or sexual assault, for at least the first three months of supervision. This direction was later revised so that all such home visits must be tandem for at least the first three months of supervision.

To determine whether tandem visits are carried out as per the policy, we reviewed a sample of 116 OMS files of offenders meeting criteria for the tandem visits. Of this sample, seventy-nine offenders were living in a Community Correctional Centre or a Community Residential Centre. As such, they did not require parole officer accompaniment at the centre, as other staff were always present. We noted that, for the remaining thirty-seven cases, the visits were conducted without accompaniment in half of these cases, contrary to policy requirements.

Parole officers identified lack of resources (i.e. finding a second person to accompany them) and scheduling difficulties as the main barriers to conducting tandem home visits. They do not see the need to use the resources required for tandem visits for offenders considered by them to be lower risk to staff safety such as pedophiles or elderly offenders, but they do want to use them on high-risk types not covered by the current policy, such as gang members, bikers or offenders tied to organized crime. Rural and remote sites are affected to an even greater extent, because each home visit takes more time and there are fewer staff available to accompany them on a tandem visit. Almost all parole officers consulted, expressed a strong desire to have more discretion in deciding who should have a tandem visit, so that for example gang or drug related offenders would use accompaniment rather than pedophiles.

Parole officers also indicated a lack of clarity concerning the role of the accompanying person and who specifically is allowed or not allowed to serve as a tandem. A wide variety of personnel is currently being used as tandems including parole officers, police officers, supervisors, and urinalysis collectors. We even noted instances where the spouse or family members of the offender were used to meet the tandem requirement. Given that the policy has been in place for more than two years, it would be appropriate to review whether or not the criteria for tandem supervision should be revised.

iii. Site Contingency Plans On August 30, 2005, direction was sent to the regions that all community offices must have an up-to date Contingency Plan, including a checklist to deal with the situation where a staff member cannot be located or does not return on time from a job-related duty. This is a key document to ensure staff safety and it should set out clear procedures, including details such as when to start trying to locate the missing staff and when to contact the police and family members. Without it, in the event of an emergency situation, valuable time could be lost trying to determine what steps to take.

A template for the checklist was forwarded to the sites in November 2005. The template was issued in a very general format so that each site could customize the checklist to meet its local needs. Only half of the sites visited had the template included as one section of their Contingency Plan. Many of those, however, did not include the timeframes for action or specific positions and numbers to call in the event of an emergency. Some of the checklists contained instructions to begin the procedures within 20 minutes of a parole officer's scheduled return time; others had instructions to start the process only if the parole officer had not returned by the end of day.

iv. Alone in a Parole Office with an Offender The same direction prohibited staff from interviewing offenders when alone in the parole office. This has not always been implemented in small offices where there is no choice but to meet offenders alone when administrative staff are not in the office. In large offices this is less likely to be a problem, as colleagues will usually agree to remain in the office if an offender is coming in after hours, but it can occur inadvertently at times.

v. Notification to Police CSC directed staff to notify police when making home visits in remote areas. Of the parole officers interviewed whose work involves visits to remote areas, about half indicated that they contact the police prior to a home visit in a remote area.

Many parole officers were unclear about what qualifies as "remote" and whether it should only apply to high-risk offenders. In the parole officers' opinion they need more discretion to decide when they should advise police. In some cases, where a detachment covers a large geographic area and has few police officers to service it, some parole officers noted that the police were not receptive to being notified as they lacked resources to assist if needed. A parole officer visiting a high-risk offender was more likely to advise the police.

4.1.3 Conclusions

CSC has been working at providing staff with policies/procedures to improve staff safety, but this has not been as coordinated or as effective as we would have expected. As a result, staff have become confused trying to remain current on directions that have been issued and frequently revised through a series of memos and Case Management Bulletins.

Further, some critical staff safety procedures have not been implemented as intended. Sign out/in procedures for parole officers when they are out of the office are ineffective and inconsistent. Current requirements for tandem visits to offender residences are not being followed all the time. Following the incident in 2004, CSC management issued a prescriptive policy delineating when parole officers must be accompanied on offender home visits. It was a reasonable starting point. However, more than two years later, parole officers feel that much has been learned that should be used to modify the policy. They feel that they, in consultation with their supervisors, should be allowed more professional discretion to determine how to handle tandem supervision and police notification in order to reduce risk. Contingency plans related to situations where the parole officer fails to return on time are not available in many offices. In some instances, parole officers are still meeting offenders when alone in the parole office.

Recommendation #1

The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs should consolidate the community safety policies to ensure clarity of understanding and consistency of application.

Recommendation #2

The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, in collaboration with the Assistant Commissioner Corporate Services and the Regional Deputy Commissioners, should develop and implement a means to facilitate parole officers signing out of and back into the parole office.

Recommendation #3

The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs should review the policy on tandem supervision to determine whether parole officers and their supervisors should be given more discretion to determine, based on risk, which offenders require tandem supervision for home or any other visits, and to clarify who the accompanying person should be and their role.

Recommendation #4

The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, in conjunction with the Regional Deputy Commissioners, should examine policies related to the following and take the necessary action to ensure effective compliance with:

  • Appropriate failure to return procedures included in the Contingency Plans;
  • Meeting offenders while alone in the parole office;
  • Notifying police when visiting offenders in remote areas.

 

4.2 Availability/Sharing of Offender Information and Case Management

4.2.1 Background

The Board of Investigation made a number of recommendations which would make critical information in offenders' files more readily available to parole officers and would assist in the sharing of offender information with police forces and others:

  • Consolidating and reorganizing files for long-term offenders to make critical information easier to locate; (BOI Rec. #25)
  • Creating a flag on OMS to identify offenders who have exhibited assaultive or threatening behaviour towards staff; (BOI Rec. #14)
  • Enhancing CSC intelligence capacity to identify and analyze patterns of potential violent sexual behaviour patterns both in the institution and community; (BOI Rec. #30) and,
  • Establishing and maintaining a close working relationship with local police forces. (BOI Rec. #9)

The Board of Investigation also made other recommendations to improve case management including:

  • Refining existing direction for management of increased risk in the community related to violation of conditions, especially for sex offenders; (BOI Rec. #32)
  • Issuing a caution against transferring a case from one parole officer to another when the offender is in a crisis situation; (BOI Rec. #20)
  • Eliminating the requirement that more than 50% of contacts with the offender take place in the community; (BOI Rec. #7)
  • Revising the content requirements for Assessments for Decision; (BOI Rec. #28)
  • Developing supervision strategies for lifers and long-term offenders; (BOI Rec. #33) and,
  • Revising the contract for psychologists treating sex offenders to ensure they address the specific motivation for the index offence. (BOI Rec. #39)

 

4.2.2 Findings
4.2.2.1 Availability / Sharing of Offender Information

Progress is being made on streamlining offender files, but there have been delays.

The NHQ Institutional Reintegration Division is working on a complex series of initiatives grouped under the title "Restructuring of the Case Management File". Work included under this initiative directly responds to, and goes beyond, the recommendations of the Board of Investigation which called for the consolidation/reorganization of case management files specifically for long term offenders. The goals of the project include: maximizing the time parole officers can interact with offenders; improving availability of critical, up-to-date information for decision makers while minimizing the risk of overlooking important facts; and improving the analytical component of case management reports. Even though parole officers already perform this type of evaluation when they review the file of any new offender coming onto their case load, such a consolidation would facilitate the evaluation.

EXCOM approved the conceptual model for the Restructuring of the Case Management File in April 2006. The original timeline set for implementation of changing the file structure, included recommendations to EXCOM by June 2006 and implementation by September 2006. The initiative has experienced delays but was presented to the Commissioner's Management Team in April 2007 for approval of the project plan. The next phase involves changes in OMS. Target date for implementation will be dependent on the completion of the OMS work

None of the staff interviewed at the parole offices were aware of this initiative. However, they believed that while it would be beneficial, they would not have time to complete the task of restructuring current case management files without additional resources.

For the majority of files reviewed, alerts / flags for high-risk offenders were not added to OMS as required.

Parole offices were notified of a new "Staff Safety Considerations" alert on OMS, through a Case Management Bulletin in August 2005. The alert is used to identify offenders who have displayed inappropriate or potentially dangerous behaviour toward staff or others such as volunteers or visitors. It is meant as an additional information tool for the use of community parole officers and their supervisors when planning appropriate supervision practices. Of the 116 OMS files reviewed, we identified 9 cases where staff safety concerns were noted in the file. Of these, five had the required alert entered on their file and 4 did not.

An OMS flag identifying cases requiring tandem supervision became available on OMS in May of 2006. Although information related to offender risk is contained in their files, use of these alerts/flags helps to ensure these critical elements are not overlooked. Most parole officers interviewed were aware of the flag. Our review, however, of a sample of cases involving offenders meeting the tandem offence requirements (i.e. a criminal history involving death or sexual assault), indicated that the flag had been entered in OMS for only 23% of the 99 cases meeting the criteria.

CSC has taken steps to enhance its security capacity in its community offices.

As one means of enhancing its intelligence capacity to identify and analyze patterns of potential violent sexual behaviour patterns in community, CSC would like to establish community Security Intelligence Officer positions similar to those in the institution. Their role in the community would be to assist in reporting community incidents and to assess and analyze preventive security information, deal with gang-related issues, provide information to the parole officers and liaise with police agencies.

However, this has not yet been implemented as funding is not available. This issue is part of the ongoing discussions on revisions to the District Infrastructure. In the future, as a way of ensuring that preventive security information is reaching the community parole officers, access to the Security Intelligence Network (SINet), will be available to a variety of existing personnel including supervisors of parole officers and area directors.

Relations with local police services are generally positive.

Sharing critical offender information between CSC personnel in a parole office and local police services is a key element to enhancing parole officer and public safety. For example, police can quickly provide background information on offenders and their collateral contacts, as well as safety concerns for addresses being visited by parole officers. This can affect how parole officers approach a visit or even if they move it to another, more public location. In addition, ensuring that police understand the parole officers' role in supervising/controlling offenders is an essential element of a strong relationship. Finally, open lines of communication can help ensure police pick up offenders being returned to incarceration or unlawfully at large, more quickly and with minimum risk.

Most parole offices visited felt they had good relations with the local police services. Many also reported that in previous years, annual meetings used to take place between local police offices and the parole offices to provide a forum for them to share information on their respective roles and to get to know one another on a professional and personal level. All staff agreed this was an important event in terms of building good working relationships with the police. However, this practice has been discontinued due to budgetary restrictions in the majority of jurisdictions.

CSC has been involved in several initiatives to increase cooperation between parole offices and police.

Exchanging critical current information with local police forces related to various activities such as gangs or drug activity can assist with the assessment of risk and the subsequent supervision strategy. A number of initiatives to improve relations and communications with police forces have been initiated by both CSC and by some police services, including:

  1. Creation of Community Correctional Liaison Officers (CCLO's);
  2. Revisiting Memoranda of Understanding (MOU's) with local and national police services;
  3. Repeat Offender Parole Enforcement (ROPE) squads (see Exhibit 3).

i. Community Correctional Liaison Officers CSC has created a new position in the community parole office organization, the Community Correctional Liaison Officer (CCLO), with additional funding approved by Treasury Board for five years to cover the salaries of 17 police officers who will be occupying these positions. In the Report on Plans and Priorities for 2006-07, CSC identified as one of the strategies to support the priority of "safe transition of offenders into the community" was to enhance supervision and monitoring tools for higher-risk offenders in the community. A milestone to measure performance to "fully deploy CCLO's by October 2006" was identified. As of the end of January 2007, nine of the 17 funded CCLO's were in place. Implementation of this program is well under way and is showing positive results.

ii. MOU's with local and national police services A written protocol was one of the steps the BOI recommended to enhance the relationship between parole offices and local police forces in order to ensure a steady two-way flow of offender-related information between the parties. A draft MOU (Sharing of Information and Monitoring of Offenders) was prepared by CSC's Legal Services to serve as a template. Forty-six of the 71 offices have signed MOU's in place.

Depending on local municipal and provincial boundaries, many parole offices deal with local independent police services as well as RCMP detachments and/or provincial police services. A national MOU with the RCMP was signed in March 2006. Discussions on an MOU with the Ontario Provincial Police are ongoing. Many of the personnel interviewed felt that having a signed MOU is not critical to good relations with police services.

Exhibit 3 - Repeat Offender Parole Enforcement (ROPE) squads

These units have been established in Ontario with members from local police services and the OPP and similarly, the High Risk Offender Enforcement Apprehension Team (HEAT) was established in Edmonton. Their duties include picking up offenders who have been suspended, locating and arresting UAL's and facilitating two-way information exchange between CSC and police services at all levels. According to personnel we interviewed, they have been invaluable in enhancing relations between CSC employees and police forces.

4.2.2.2 Case Management Improvements

In all cases reviewed, parole officers took appropriate action to manage offenders with elevated levels of risk, in compliance with the direction.

CSC issued a Case Management Bulletin in March 2005 outlining factors to be considered by parole officers when offenders have violated a condition of release or have increased their level of risk. The factors discussed included:

  • Review of critical risk factors for re-offending;
  • Circumstances of the violation and related increase in risk;
  • Progress made under supervision; and,
  • Alternative strategies to manage risk.

Of the 116 OMS files reviewed, 43 cases identified offenders whose level of risk was deemed to require immediate intervention by their parole officer. To manage these offenders safely while reducing their risk, a variety of strategies were noted, including: disciplinary interviews, change in urinalysis testing requirements, increase in contacts, and referrals for counseling or programming. As a last resort, suspension warrants were issued. In all cases, the review indicated appropriate action had been taken to minimize the risk to both public and staff.

In all cases reviewed, offenders' cases were not transferred when they were in a crisis situation.

There are a number of factors that contribute to an offender being transferred between parole officers. Generally, parole officers we interviewed told us that they do not transfer offenders to another colleague even if they were involved in sending the offender back to incarceration. When a parole officer does transfer an offender, they ensure the receiving parole officer is aware of any increase in the offender's risk level whether it is related to staff safety or risk to the public or to the offender. Offender location may change for positive reasons that reduce risk, such as to attend training or programs or to be closer to family or support groups.

In response to a Board of Investigation recommendation, direction was given to the regions in August 2005 that when an offender is in an unstable situation, the offender shall not be transferred to another parole officer. We reviewed offender files and interviewed community staff to determine whether or not cases are being transferred when the offender is in a crisis situation. Of the 116 files reviewed, 43 cases identified offenders whose level of risk had increased and none of these cases were transferred to another parole officer.

In accordance with the BOI recommendations, the requirement to have more than 50% of offender contacts in the community has been removed and changes to the Assessment for Decision have been made.

As per the BOI recommendation, the policy requirement that the majority of offender contacts occur in the community was removed in August, 2005. Although parole officers are generally appreciative of the removal of the prescriptive nature of the policy, many stated that their supervision practices have not changed significantly since the revision. This is especially true in rural and remote areas where the majority of meetings are outside the office by necessity. The parole officers interviewed reported their use of collaterals to increase the information available was generally high anyway, so it has not necessarily increased to compensate for more in-office meetings.

The BOI recommended that the Assessments for Decision include:

  • Information regarding the index offence and background of the offender;
  • Judges comments;
  • A summary of the psychological and psychiatric information in the file;
  • The offenders' specific treatment gains rather than program participation while in the institution and community ;
  • An analysis of any high-risk behaviours or patterns observed during his sentence including any previous failures on release.

Revisions to the Commissioner's Directive (CD) containing the changes as recommended by the BOI, were promulgated in April 2006.

Development of a unique strategy for supervision of lifers and long-term offenders remains outstanding.

NHQ Community Reintegration reports that the development of supervision strategies for lifers and long-term offenders will be addressed during its policy review process. This will include the conversion of all community-related Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) into CD's. Completion of the conversion is expected by October 2007.

The national model for the psychologists' contracts is under development and two of five regions have included appropriate wording in their contracts.

NHQ Health Services Branch has indicated that work is underway on the development of national guidelines for the "Statement of Work" for contractors providing psychological services so that it specifically indicates that they are responsible at all times to ensure counseling provided to sex offenders addresses the specific motivation for the index offence. The initial due date was March 2006. It is now expected to be complete by fall 2007. In the meantime, two of the five regions currently have already included the relevant wording in their contracts for psychologists.

Staff safety issues are generally being considered in case conferences for incoming offenders, but not always documented.

As part of "Safe Community Supervision Practices", direction was issued in August 2005 that staff safety issues must be addressed in the initial case review between parole officers and their supervisors. No home visits are to be conducted until this assessment is made.

Exhibit 4 - Standardized Staff Safety Evaluation Form

In some parole offices we visited, they were using a standardized checklist of factors to consider when reviewing an incoming offender's file to ensure that the various aspects of the file related to staff safety were being considered. While not all parole officers may need such a tool, some found it useful to help them be more certain that they had not overlooked any pertinent information.

The parole officers interviewed stated that as part of the initial case review for incoming offenders, staff safety was usually being discussed. In some regions a checklist of all indicators related to staff safety is used to guide this case conference, to ensure nothing is missed (see Exhibit 4). However, the discussion of staff safety issues is not always documented in the casework record. We reviewed 116 OMS files and found that in 26% of the cases, parole officers had not indicated in the Casework Record that staff safety discussions were part of the case conference.

4.2.3 Conclusions

In order to improve the availability / sharing of offender information for parole officers, progress is being made on streamlining offender files, but there have been delays. For the majority of files reviewed, alerts / flags for offenders who have displayed inappropriate or potentially dangerous behaviour toward staff and those meeting the tandem offender visit requirements are not being added to OMS as required.

CSC is considering adding Security Intelligence officers to its community offices to enhance their intelligence capacity, but they have not yet identified funding and position descriptions have not been developed. This is tied to the ongoing discussions of implementing the revised District infrastructure.

CSC is making progress in improving the working relationship between police forces and parole offices. Deployment of CCLO's is behind schedule and MOU's are not yet in place in all jurisdictions. However, positive initiatives such as provincial ROPE squads are being implemented and relations are generally good.

In the areas related to improving case management, parole officers are compliant with the direction on managing increased risk of offenders in the community and no evidence was found where offenders in crisis situation were transferred to another parole officer. Requirement to have more than 50% of offender contacts in the community has been removed and changes to the Assessment for Decision have been made.

Development of a unique strategy for supervision of lifers and long-term offenders will be addressed as part of the revision process of community-related SOPs into Commissioner's Directives and a template for the psychologists' contracts is under development with a due date of the end of March, 2007. Staff safety issues are being considered in case conferences for incoming offenders but it is not always documented on OMS.

Recommendation #5

The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs in collaboration with the Regional Deputy Commissioners should:

  • reinforce the need to enter flags/alerts for high-risk offenders in OMS as per the policy requirement; and
  • ensure staff safety discussions take place as part of the initial case review and are being recorded in the casework record.

 

4.3 Physical Security

4.3.1 Background

The BOI made the following recommendations related to physical security in parole offices:

  • Facility Safety Standards for community parole offices should be updated with input by the Joint Advisory Committee on Community Staff Safety and external experts; (BOI Rec. #11)
  • Following the updating of the Facility Safety Standards, a comprehensive security review be conducted of every parole office to assess its compliance with those standards; (BOI Rec. #12) and,
  • All community parole offices identified as not complying with the standards be renovated without delay. (BOI Rec. #13)

The BOI also recommended that adequate communications technology be provided to all parole officers to be able to reach their office and police emergency services from any location where they may be during the course of their work. (BOI Rec. #8)

In addition to following up on the BOI's recommendation, we undertook a more comprehensive examination of safety equipment provided to parole officers. We examined all types of safety equipment available to the parole officers, as well as the related budgets and processes to request such equipment. We also checked the safety of vehicles used for supervision visits and noted any staff concerns in this area.

4.3.2 Findings

Facility Safety Standards have been developed and promulgated and facilities are being upgraded to meet these standards.

Proper facility design and layout are key elements in making working conditions safe for all employees including parole officers, supervisors, admin staff and offenders. It allows for safe entry and exit and establishing controlled zones for interviewing offenders, storing secure information, delivering programming and even apprehending offenders who are being returned to incarceration.

NHQ Facilities Branch completed the Facility Guidelines for Parole Offices in May 2006, in conjunction with the Community Reintegration Division and Departmental Security. These were then converted into a comprehensive "Assessment Checklist of Existing Parole Offices" which was sent to the regions in July of 2006 with a due date of September 2006.

This checklist was designed to:

  1. Identify deficiencies in each facility against the facility guidelines;
  2. Determine whether a project is required to remedy the deficiency;
  3. Prioritize the projects as being - mandatory, important or desirable;
  4. Provide a costing estimate of the required renovations and upgrades.

All Regional Facilities Branches, in conjunction with Regional Community Reintegration and Regional Departmental Security, were instructed to complete the checklist against the standards for each parole office in their region.

Completion of this evaluation has been time consuming as it requires regional staff to visit each parole office in the region. All five regions have now completed the evaluation and the checklists have been forwarded to Facilities Branch in NHQ. A review of the checklists will be conducted in conjunction with the Community reintegration Division, Departmental Security and IT Security. The Facilities Branch anticipates that the national plan for remedial work will be completed by June 2007. Once the complexities of the deficiencies are assessed and prioritized the majority of the work is scheduled to be completed by the end of the 2007-08 fiscal year. Some of the deficiencies such as windows in program room doors and adding panic buttons for the support staff have already been addressed.

The most significant safety gap identified by the audit team in their tours of the facilities was that xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx. In all cases, we were informed that remedial work is planned to correct these concerns.

CCC Facility Safety Standards are being completed.

CCC's are federally operated community-based residential facilities that provide a structured living environment with twenty four hour supervision, programs, and interventions for the purpose of safely reintegrating the offender into the community. Parole officers have offices in CCC's to supervise the offenders who live in these facilities. CCC's were not covered by the above noted CSC Facility Guidelines. A separate draft version of Facility Guidelines for CCC's has just been completed by Facilities Branch in NHQ and will be promulgated in the near future.

Two of the five CCC/CRF's visited in our audit had substantial facility safety concerns. Resolving these concerns is complicated by the fact that PWGSC does not own many of the buildings in which the CCC's are located and finding an acceptable location for new facilities of this type in any city is challenging. Replacement projects are included in the Long-term Capital Plan. One new facility - Oskana CCC in Regina, has received positive comments from staff working there (see Exhibit 5).

Exhibit 5 - Oskana Community Correctional Centre

According to discussion with the staff working at the recently opened Oskana Community Correctional Centre in Regina, it is proving to be a very functional design in terms of enhancing staff safety. The open central area, with the commissionaire's desk in the middle, allows staff to monitor the activity of offenders in the CCC and also when they enter and leave the facility. The administrative area is separate from the offender living areas and interview rooms, which provides increased safety for support staff. Having small living units for the offenders provides them with the opportunity to have some privacy and remove themselves from negative interaction with other offenders, when desired. Staff feel that it should be used as a model for future facilities of this kind.

Communication equipment provided to community staff meets their needs.

All parole officers agree that proper communications equipment is a key element in reducing the risk to community parole officers. The target date for communications equipment distribution, summer 2006, was met by CSC. All parole officers interviewed had their own cell phones and coverage was generally acceptable in and around urban areas.

Outside these areas, however, coverage deteriorates and satellite phones are required to ensure parole officers can remain in contact with their office at all times, as per the BOI recommendation. After an evaluation of the satellite phone services available, NHQ Technical Services purchased and issued the satellite phones, based on the quantities specified by the regional headquarters.

When staff want safety equipment they request it through their supervisors or area managers, or they take the request to their JOSH Committee or their union representative. None of the managers interviewed at the parole offices we visited have a separate budget designated for safety equipment, but purchasing the equipment from the operating budget has not been a problem.

Government Motor Vehicles (GMV's) are generally in good condition and properly equipped but use of personal vehicles for supervision visits introduces a potential safety concern.

Parole officers frequently drive great distances in remote areas in all types of weather to meet with offenders being supervised and personal risk can be elevated if the vehicles that transport them are not in proper running order or properly equipped.

All of the rural parole offices visited have an all-wheel-drive vehicle assigned to them. Some of the urban offices (such as Edmonton) do not have such a vehicle but would like one, given the road conditions they encounter when going outside the city. In another office, the staff were told to rent vehicles when an all-wheel-drive vehicle was required due to weather conditions. All of the government vehicles have safety kits of some kind, though the content is not standardized and most of the vehicles have snow tires. Some parole offices have set up a checklist for safety and security items required in the vehicles and some of these kits are very extensive, in case the parole officer is stranded overnight in extreme conditions.

However, the majority of parole officers use their own vehicles at least occasionally for their supervision visits for reasons of convenience and availability, particularly in larger offices where there are relatively few government vehicles. Since there is a limited number of government vehicles and they are not to be taken to parole officers' homes overnight, the parole officers find it easier to use their own cars for supervision visits which are conducted either on their way to work or on the way home at the end of the day.

Use of personal vehicles for supervision may also be tied to whether or not CSC pays for staff parking at the parole office and reimburses staff for mileage driven in private vehicles used on CSC business. There appears to be a difference in the interpretation of these policies between offices. The concern raised by this practice is that there are no safety standards applied to personal vehicles.

The Manager, Fleet Services at NHQ is currently implementing a plan to substantially increase the fleet of vehicles available for use at all CSC parole offices. The intent of this is to provide parole officers with improved access to GMV's to be able to more easily complete their offender supervision duties. According to the Manager this should end the use of personal vehicles and eliminate the need for CSC to pay for parking and mileage claims for personal vehicles used for offender supervision visits.

Parole officers are generally satisfied with the safety equipment available to them.

During our audit, staff were asked if there was any other equipment they needed to feel safer. A number of staff members did indicate a desire to have additional equipment. This included but was not limited to firearms, tazers, pepper spray, protective vests, personal portable alarms (PPA's), fixed point alarms installed in offices or metal detectors at the entrance (CCC's).

PPA's are available for the use of program officers in some, but not all, offices and for some parole officers as well. Some sites have panic buttons for the use of staff. Desire for other equipment by the personnel surveyed really came down to personal preference, with no evident trends identified. Parole officers generally do not want more invasive equipment such as weapons or tazers, stating these would change their relationship with the offenders and could be used against them by an offender.

4.3.3 Conclusions

CSC has developed comprehensive facility safety standards for parole offices and work is well underway to resolve any identified deficiencies in the national survey completed by regional personnel but they are behind schedule. An outstanding facility issue is to implement similar standards for CCC's and to identify funding to remedy identified deficiencies.

Communication equipment provided to community staff meets their needs. All parole officers have their own cell phones and almost all have access to a satellite phone, where needed. Parole officers are generally satisfied with the safety equipment provided to them and they have avenues available to them to request additional equipment as needed.

GMV's are generally in good condition and are well equipped but availability in some locations is more of a challenge to parole officers who want to use them for offender supervision visits. Parole officers use their own vehicles at least occasionally and this raises some safety concerns, because there are no safety standards for private vehicles. Planned increases in the national fleet should resolve this issue in the near future.

Recommendation # 6

The Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services in collaboration with the Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, should review the use of parole officers' private vehicles on offender supervision visits and provide additional guidance to staff as needed.

 

4.4 Training

4.4.1 Background

The Board of Investigation recommended the development of a number of different training courses related to staff safety, including:

  • A mandatory three-day course personal safety course for all community staff; (BOI Rec. #15)
  • Separation in the initial training package between institutional and community parole officers in recognition of their different duties; (BOI Rec. #16)
  • The provision of specialized training to identify indicators relating to potential violent sex offenders; (BOI Rec. #21)
  • Training for supervisors of community parole officers to develop the ability to synthesize and analyze complex information; (BOI Rec. # 26) and,
  • Establishing regional Professional or Clinical Committees for community staff. (BOI Rec. #17)

 

4.4.2 Findings

Required courses for community staff training are being developed on schedule but there have been delays in delivery.

A new five-day course on staff safety has been developed. Part I, "Awareness and Personal Safety" (a three-day course) was made a national training standard and was delivered as required to parole officers, program officers and psychologists. Concern was raised, however, that in many instances support staff have been excluded from the group who received this training. In discussions with NHQ staff it was learned that this training was offered as a one time initiative and there are no plans to offer it again.

Part II of the above course, "Disengagement" is a two-day course which has been developed, pilot tested and evaluated. Although it was originally expected that the course would be delivered in late 2006/07 or early 2007/08, there has been a delay due to CSC's temporary expenditure reduction measures (effective from November 2006 to March 2007). It is now expected that delivery will be completed by September 2007.

A revised course entitled "Supervising Community Professionals" has been developed with the Correctional Management Learning Centre and was piloted in March 2006. The three-day course is designed for area directors, supervisors of parole officers, and directors of Community Correctional Centres and covers among other topics, managing parole officer safety. Three sessions were held but an additional three sessions were delayed due to the temporary expenditure reduction measures.

NHQ Learning and Development Branch made modifications (still to be approved) to the Initial Parole Officer Training program so that there is a division, for part of the course, between institutional and community parole officers. This allows a focus on the specific requirements of their work that differ between the community and institutions. The course development is progressing on schedule and it is anticipated that the new program will be implemented in 2007-08.

A new four-day course has been developed for psychologists who do the specialized risk assessments for sex offenders, including violent sex offenders. Such training should enable psychologists to gain an understanding of the very specific nature of violent sexual offenders. Course material was prepared and a "train the trainers" session was conducted in October 2006. This session prepared one psychologist in each region, who specializes in working with sex offenders to train the remainder of the staff who do these risk assessments. This training is planned for 2007-08.

Some parole officers and contract staff have not received the specialized training related to working with offenders in the community.

The Board of Investigation recommended that all CSC staff who have a responsibility for assessment, release recommendations and supervision, receive specific specialized training to identify indicators related to potential violent sexual behaviour. This would include parole officers as well as psychologists. As reported above, the course for psychologists is ready for delivery. This is not the case for parole officers. In its initial response to the BOI recommendation, CSC reported that all parole officers received a three-day training session on sex offenders in 2004-05 and on violent offenders in 2003-04. However, these were one-time sessions and have not been available for parole officers who have started with CSC since then. Based on a sample from one region, we estimate that approximately 16% of current parole officers have not received the training.

In addition, while the course is mandatory for all staff psychologists, it is not available to psychologists under contract to CSC despite the fact that many provide the same services to sex offenders.

A common safety concern expressed by parole officers was the lack of formal CSC training for other personnel under contract who are providing services such as preparing Community Assessments or supervising offenders particularly in remote areas.

In February 2006, the Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services advised the Assistant Regional Deputy Commissioners that it would be acceptable to provide training for contractors in areas such as security measures as those are unique to the Service and do not directly relate to the contractor's expertise.

Regional Professional or Clinical Committees have not been established in all regions.

NHQ Community Reintegration reports that Regional Professional or Clinical Committees, designed to allow for regular exchange of ideas and experiences, are not in place yet in all regions, due to budgetary limitations. At this time only one region has reported that Clinical Committees are operating, sharing best practices and resources. However another region has approved the implementation of such a committee and the remaining regions report some activities designed to allow for the regular exchange of information among parole officers. Implementation of Clinical Committees in all regions is to be reviewed during the 2007/08 fiscal year.

4.4.3 Conclusions

Part I of the staff safety training for CSC personnel has been developed and delivered as scheduled. There are no plans to offer this course on a continuous basis. Part II of the course has been developed and pilot tested. Delivery was delayed by CSC's temporary expenditure reduction measures (effective from November 2006 to March 2007).

Some CSC and contract staff have not received required training. A new course has been developed for psychologists who do the specialized risk assessments for sex offenders, including violent sex offenders. Course material has been prepared and a training session was conducted in October 2006. The course is mandatory for all staff psychologists. It is not available to psychologists under contract to CSC despite the fact that many provide the same services to sex offenders. Delivery of the course was also delayed due to the temporary national expenditure reduction measures. Training for parole officers in this area was offered only once, therefore parole officers hired in the last three years have not had the benefit of this specialized training.

There is no formal training for contractors who are providing services such as preparing Community Assessments or supervising offenders in remote areas. Regional Professional or Clinical Committees have not been formed yet in all regions to date due to budgetary limitations. Implementation of the Committees is to be reviewed during the 2007/08 fiscal year.

Recommendation # 7

The Assistant Commissioner, Human Resource Management in collaboration with the Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs should take the necessary steps to provide community staff safety training on a continuing basis.

Recommendation # 8

The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs in collaboration with the Assistant Commissioner, Human Resource Management should take the necessary steps to provide CSC training to contractors who deliver case management and psychological services to offenders in the community.

Recommendation # 9

The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs should explore ways to facilitate the regular exchange of ideas among community staff that will satisfy the intent of the BOI recommendation for CSC to establish Regional "Professional" or "Clinical" Committees.

 

4. 5 Resourcing

4.5.1 Background

Four of the Board of Investigation recommendations relate directly or indirectly to resourcing:

  • Adequate funding must be available to ensure substance abuse detection procedures including urinalysis are available; (BOI Rec.#10)
  • Adequate time be given to community parole officers to review the offender's file prior to his/her release; (BOI Rec. #18)
  • The workload formula be reviewed and changes made to reflect the identified realities; (BOI Rec. #19) and,
  • CSC should develop a management model for small community offices. (BOI Rec. #31)

 

4.5.2 Findings

Parole offices reported having sufficient funding to complete required urinalysis testing.

Urinalysis is used for the detection of substance abuse and is therefore a key element in managing risk of offenders in the community. Managers at the parole offices we visited stated they had sufficient resources available to complete the required urinalysis testing.

The NHQ Security Division is leading a project to nationally standardize the use of private contractors for collecting urine samples, the frequency of tests and use of the results as one tool for decision making. The offices using private contractors found it worked well and they also used these contractors to help in meeting tandem visit requirements. A meeting with NHQ and regional representatives is scheduled to take place in the spring to seek a consensus on these issues.

The operational impact of a revised workload formula implemented in 2006-07 is not yet known.

The Workload Formula was originally developed in 1998 to standardize workloads for parole officers in the community and to identify the number of parole officers required in each office. The formula is based on the number of minutes required to complete all the tasks carried out by a parole officer. However, the formula does not take into account long-term leave. In 2005, a National Working Group, with representatives from NHQ and all regions, was established to review the Formula and complete the following tasks:

  • Reassess the time allocated for each activity;
  • Review the established hours available for work;
  • Identify changes required; and
  • Make any required recommendations.

Time allotments for a number of activities were revised. In particular, the time available for parole officers to complete the initial file review of an offender coming to a parole office was increased from 75 to 160 minutes per week for each parole officer, and 45 minutes per week were added for tandem visit requirements.

Changes to the approved workload indicators resulted in adding the equivalent of 32 FTEs (26 parole officers and 6 supervisors), an increase of approximately 5% for 2006-07 across all five regions. The increased resources were distributed by NHQ Finance to regional headquarters March 31, 2006, but the allocation of these funds is not centrally monitored beyond the regional level. Most of the community staff we interviewed were unaware of additional resources for the 2006-07 fiscal year as a result of the workload formula revisions and still feel they don't have sufficient time for the initial review of offenders' files. In their opinion adequate time to review offender files this is one of the most critical factors affecting their safety. With the combination of the temporary 2006-07 CSC-wide expenditure reduction, the current restructuring of the District infrastructure, as well as other issues such as the funding of small parole offices, we were unable to assess the extent to which the resources from the workload formula were distributed down to the local level and to assess its operational impact.

An annual review of the Workload Formula by the NHQ Community Reintegration Division will be conducted to ensure that any changes to policy and procedures that may affect the workload are incorporated, beginning in summer of 2007.

The management of small community offices remains a challenge.

Exhibit 6 - Shared Responsibility

Because of the vast territory to be covered, the Parole Office in Yellowknife and the one in Iqualuit use Exchange of Service Agreements with the territorial probation/ social service systems, to provide parole services in the small remote communities where CSC does not have a presence.

The management of small community offices is a complex issue and its future is tied to the implementation of the new district infrastructure. A small office has recently been defined as one with three parole officers or less. The number of administrative personnel or the number of supervisory staff to be shared between offices is generally a function of how many parole officers there are. This formula does not always work when the number of parole officers is small. Aside from the safety issues, resourcing of small offices poses a number of problems which were acknowledged by the National Workload Formula Working Group. In some areas, responsibilities are shared with provincial authorities (see Exhibit 6).

The Working Group agreed that there is a need to establish a minimum fixed cost for these offices. However, senior management must first determine the direction it wants to take with small offices and determine how they will be funded.

In the meantime, while waiting for national direction, some regions have been closing small offices as their leases expire. In Ontario, for example, six small offices have been closed recently. There are currently about 20 small offices remaining across Canada. A presentation is expected to be made to EXCOM in the spring of 2007 for discussion on small office management as part of the District Infrastructure implementation. The original target date for completion was September 2006.

Staff leave/absences present a serious challenge to offender supervision.

Every organization has to deal with temporary vacancies and absenteeism and its impact on operations. Staff vacancies in community parole offices occur for a variety of reasons:

  • annual leave;
  • long-term sick leave;
  • parole officers acting as supervisors (usually for four month intervals);
  • participation on a special assignment;
  • slow staffing actions.

During these periods, the case load of the person unavailable for offender supervision must be redistributed to the remaining parole officers. In smaller offices, the impact is even more severe. For example, a single vacancy in an office with five parole officers means a 25% increase in work for the remaining four parole officers during that period. Long-term sick leave is not included in the calculations for the Workload Formula so extra resources are not provided to cover for them.

Implementation of tandem supervision is particularly difficult during these periods of reduced personnel because it is more difficult for parole officers to find a partner to accompany them on home visits. When a parole officer is acting as a supervisor, it causes at least some of their offenders to be supervised by another parole officer and it disrupts the continuity of supervision. There is often insufficient time to become familiar with the file of offenders being temporarily supervised. This has implications for both staff and public safety.

Information provided by NHQ indicates that, 49 parole officers are acting in positions other than their own and 32 parole officers are on some type of leave of absence (based on information from NHQ for October 2006 and April 2007). These two groups combined represent 17% of a total of 476 community parole officers nationally. The impact can be even more severe if the short term rotational assignments are continued over a long period of time.

One solution suggested was the creation of a pool of qualified replacement staff (such as retired parole officers) who could be shared among several parole offices, so-called "floater" parole officers. The audit team was advised by a number of personnel that this could help to ease the burden placed on parole officers who must cover off for absent colleagues and could also assist with tandem visits, especially in smaller offices.

4.5.3 Conclusions

Parole offices have sufficient funding to do required urinalysis testing for monitoring substance abuse by offenders. A project is under way to nationally standardize the use of private contractors for collecting urine samples, the frequency of tests and the use of the results.

In 2005 the Workload Formula was reviewed to reassess the time allocated for each activity, review the established hours available for work and identify changes required. The revised workload formula was implemented in 2006-07 with more time allotted for initial file review and tandem visits, but the operational impact of the changes is not known.

The impact of increased funding of community operations is currently being made difficult to track by national expenditure reduction measures, restructuring of the District organizations, funding issues for small offices and long term sick leave. Resulting staff shortages make the implementation of any new requirements such as tandem parole officer visits for offender home supervision visits difficult.

The management of small community offices remains a challenge and its future is tied to the implementation of the new district infrastructure. Senior management has to determine how small offices will be managed and how they will be funded and discussions are expected shortly on this issue.

Staff vacancies occur for a variety of reasons including annual leave, long-term sick leave or parole officers acting in positions other than their own. During these periods, case load are redistributed to the remaining parole officers and risks to CSC staff and offenders can be increased, especially at smaller offices. Currently about 17% of all community parole officers are acting in positions other than their own or on some type of leave of absence.

Recommendation # 10

The Regional Deputy Commissioners, in collaboration with the Assistant Commissioner, Human Resource Management, should develop a human resource strategy to:

  • reduce continuing acting appointments on a rotational basis; and
  • provide a "pool" of replacement parole officers to replace staff on temporary leave.

 

4.6 Monitoring

4.6.1 Background

The BOI recommended that the joint CSC-USGE Advisory Committee, which includes union and management representatives, and is designed to identify staff safety needs and make recommendations to senior management at NHQ, be given permanent status. (BOI Rec. #1 and 2)

4.6.2 Findings

An Advisory Committee was established shortly after the incident and continues to meet regularly.

The first meeting of the Joint CSC-USGE Advisory Committee took place in November 2004, only one month after the murder. It serves as one means for CSC NHQ to monitor progress being made against BOI recommendations, on a national scale. As of January 2007, six meetings have been held, with USGE and management membership from all regions. The committee continues to work on a wide range of issues with the Director of Community Reintegration. In order to keep staff apprised of its progress, minutes are available on CSC's Infonet. The majority of community staff interviewed were aware of the committee and its mandate.

Monitoring at the national level is being resumed.

Exhibit 7 - Local Monitoring of Staff Safety Initiatives

Ontario has recently developed a tool, Staff Safety Review, which requires individual sites to verify whether or not all the new requirements from the staff safety policy and procedures are in place.

The Correctional Operations and Programs Sector was assigned responsibility for tracking departmental performance against each BOI recommendation. The progress was being reported to EXCOM on a regular basis. However, there was an interruption in monitoring and a status report had not been presented at EXCOM since June 2006. Reporting on progress resumed in March 2007 when a presentation on the progress of all BOI recommendations was made to EXCOM. Two regions are monitoring the community specific BOI recommendations by site (see Exhibit 7).

4.6.3 Conclusions

A national advisory committee to address staff safety concerns, was established very soon after the murder of the parole officer and it has since been given permanent status. Although reporting of progress against BOI recommendations to EXCOM was interrupted, it has resumed.

 

5.0 General Conclusions

Progress has been made against most Board of Investigation recommendations but more remains to be done.

Significant progress is being made by CSC against the recommendations issued by the Board of Investigation. Some of the recommendations have already been fully addressed, and for others the planned actions are progressing. Some of the original target dates established by CSC have not been met but, for the most part, initiatives to respond to the recommendations continue to be implemented.

For the following initiatives, the BOI recommendation has been fully addressed and implemented effectively:

  1. The national committee for staff safety was established in November 2004 and was granted permanent status by the Commissioner in September 2005.
  2. The requirement for more than 50% of offender contacts to be in the community was removed in August, 2005 .
  3. At the sites we visited, cell phones have been issued to all parole officers and all offices that requested them have access to satellite phones in accordance with the target date of the summer of 2006;
  4. No evidence was found that offenders' cases are being transferred when an offender is in an unstable situation.
  5. Sites visited reported they have adequate funding to do the urinalysis testing used for detecting substance abuse as a tool to manage risk in the community;

For the following initiatives, good progress has been made however some delays have been experienced in implementation:

  1. Facility safety standards have been established for parole offices in May, 2006 (close to the original schedule). These were then converted into an assessment checklist which was sent to the regions in July of 2006. The threat risk assessments against these standards are still being completed. A national plan to address identified deficiencies will follow and some deficiencies have already been addressed. The regional facility review was due in September of 2006. As of April 2007, all five regions have completed the checklists.
  2. The Staff Safety training package was developed and the first part was delivered in 2006-07 as per the target. Part II of the course has been developed, pilot tested and evaluated but delivery has been delayed due to CSC's temporary expenditure reduction measures (effective from November 2006 to March 2007). Other training has been developed and was similarly delayed. Training in one area recommended by the BOI for certain staff is currently not available although it had been offered previously;
  3. Direction was issued on August 30, 2005 to have up-to-date contingency plans including a specific checklist to deal with situations where a staff member cannot be located or does not return from a job-related duty. All District Directors indicated these would be in place by February 2006 but during the site surveys at the end of 2006, they were not yet all in place;
  4. A national MOU with the RCMP was signed in March 2006 and discussions on an MOU with the OPP are ongoing. Many of the local police forces have also signed MOU's with CSC tied primarily to the exchange of information. The program to bring police officers into community offices as liaison officers is progressing with 9 of 17 in place. The original target date was to have CCLO's in place by June 1st, 2006. The new target date is summer 2007.
  5. NHQ, Health Services Branch has indicated that work is underway on the development of a national template for statements of work for contractors providing psychological services. The original due date was March 2006, the current due date for this is fall 2007.

For the following initiatives, some progress has been made, however there have been significant delays or the intended results have not yet been fully achieved.

  1. The workload formula for 2006/07 has been revised to allow more time for initial file review and tandem home visits, but the effect has not yet been felt in the field. The impact may have been masked by other factors such as the 2006-07 CSC-wide temporary expenditure reduction measures or other longstanding resourcing issues. Parole officers still feel they do not have sufficient time to review offenders' files or to do tandem visits that are required.
  2. In order to satisfy the BOI recommendation for CSC to develop a comprehensive Community Safety Policy, CSC issued a series of eight Case Management Bulletins and four memos in a somewhat confusing array of directions. Revised Commissioner's Directives, which will consolidate the various provisions issued through these bulletins and memos, are expected to be issued by NHQ by December 2007, three years after the incident;
  3. A staff safety alert (August 2005) and a tandem flag have been added to OMS but they are not always entered as required;
  4. Although direction was issued to implement sign out/in procedures for parole officers when they are out of the office, the implementation has been ineffective and inconsistent;
  5. Work continues on the Streamlining of Case Management files, with implementation of the project to be completed more than two years after the original target date of September, 2006.
  6. Not all Regional Professional or Clinical committees, designed to allow for regular exchange of ideas and experiences, have been formed to date due to budgetary limitations.
  7. Community Reintegration Operation Division will address unique issues related to lifers and long-term offenders and develop a strategy for supervision and responses to breaches during its policy review process.
  8. Funding is not available to add Security Intelligence Officers to the community offices to enhance their intelligence capacity.
  9. The current small community office structure makes it difficult for parole officers at some offices to meet current policy/procedure requirements and deliver the required services. Its future is tied to the implementation of the new district infrastructure and a presentation will be made to EXCOM in spring 2007.

The following initiatives are critical to staff safety and require immediate management attention to be addressed effectively.

  1. A policy on tandem home visits was issued in August 2005 and revised in February 2006 but in half of the cases we examined, the offender visits were conducted without the required accompaniment, contrary to current policy requirements.

 

Appendix A

Objectives and Criteria

Objective 1:

Assess the progress made by CSC specific to community operations in addressing the Board of Investigation's recommendations

 

 

Criteria:

  • 1.1 CSC has developed the required actions that address the specific recommendations made by the Board of Investigation.
  • 1.2 Actions are being implemented as per timeframes established in the action plans.
  • 1.3 Monitoring processes are in place to ensure that action has been implemented.

Objective 2:

Assess progress made by operational sites to implement measures to strengthen staff safety in the community.

 

Criteria:

  • 2.1 Community Parole Offices have developed procedures for managing emergency situations and these are included in their Business Continuity Plans.
  • 2.2 Facility Safety Issues have been identified and addressed.
  • 2.3 Equipment is available to meet the safety needs of community staff.
  • 2.4 Resourcing issues have been identified and measures taken to implement new or revised policies and procedures.
  • 2.5 Mandatory Training on Safety and Personal Awareness has been provided to staff.
  • 2.6 Community staff safety issues are discussed and documented as a standing item during local OHS meetings.

 

Objective 3:

Determine if the assessment of staff safety is considered while managing offender's risk in accordance with the community supervision policy requirements.

 

Criteria:

  • 3.1 Assessments of staff safety issues have been discussed/recorded as part of the initial case review.
  • 3.2 Assessments of staff safety are being conducted whenever the case has seen an increase in the level of risk/violation of conditions or when factors have arisen that may have an impact on the PO's safety.

 

Appendix B - Sites Visited

Atlantic Region:

St John's Parole Office
Kentville Parole Office
Moncton Parole Office
Carleton Centre Annex Community Correctional Centre

Quebec Region:

Laval Parole Office
Ville-Marie Parole Office
Rimouski Parole Office
Estrie Parole Office
Laferrière Community Correctional Centre

Ontario Region:

Toronto East Parole Office
Peterborough Parole Office
London Parole Office
Sault St. Marie/Sudbury Parole Office
Hamilton Community Correctional Centre

Prairies Region:

Winnipeg Parole Office
Prince Albert Parole Office
Yellowknife Parole Office
Edmonton Parole Office
Lethbridge Parole Office
Oskana Community Correctional Centre

Pacific Region:

Prince George Parole Office
Vancouver Parole Office
Abbotsford Parole Office
Belkin Community Residential Centre

 

Appendix C

Audit Findings by BOI Recommendation
1. The BOI considers that the Joint CSC-USGE Advisory Committee on Community Safety, established following the murder of LOUISE PARGETER, is an excellent vehicle for identifying the safety needs of staff. It is essential that this committee be permitted to finish its work and that the recommendations flowing from it be seriously considered for implementation by CSC. The committee should be given permanent status and, following the completion of its current work, it should meet no less than once a year to identify any new issues and to monitor the implementation of its recommendations. The BOI considers it important that all of the committee's recommendations be brought directly to the attention of the Commissioner and the Executive Committee Members. CSC Response Completed.

ACOCSS granted permanent status by the Commissioner in September 2005.
Advisory Committee has been given permanent status. The Committee meets regularly.
Section 4.6
CSC Action Plan
N/A
 
     
2. The BOI recommends that the Advisory Committee adopt a broad approach on issues of community safety. In order to be fully informed about existing high quality safety practices generally, the committee should consult, on relevant issues, with external safety experts, including those from industry. CSC Response

External experts to be invited to attend ACOCSS meetings.
The Advisory Committee has become involved in a very wide range of topics including: Issues currently under discussion include:
  • Small Office Operating Structure;
  • Workload Formula;
  • Community Security Intelligence Officers;
  • Contract staff taking CSC training;
  • Psychological reporting requirements for certain offenders;
  • The urinalysis study and;
  • Provision of offender files prior to release
    Section 4.6
CSC Action Plan

Arrange for presentations by industry experts at ACOCSS meetings and debrief ACOCSS on external consultation and information gathered by NHQ staff. Next meeting of Advisory Committee in April 2006. Consultation has been completed with police, provinces and other jurisdictions.
Ongoing.
     
3. CSC should develop and provide to all community offices procedures for managing incidents in the community which involve the safety of a parole officer or others, which would address:
  • An emergency response plan including contact with police;
  • Accountability of local and district/regional managers;
  • Timely notification to the employee's family of the situation;
  • Critical incident debriefing.
CSC Response - Completed. The NHQ Director of Community Reintegration sent out a memo (Nov 15/05) directing all community offices to have up-to-date contingency plans including a specific plan to deal with situations where a staff member cannot be located or does not return from a job-related duty. A template for Staff Fail to Return procedures was attached to the memo. Some parole offices did not have this template in their Contingency Plans. Others had the basic template but no information specific to its office or specific that calls should be started within a certain amount of time after staff failing to return.
Section 4.1
CSC Action Plan

All District Directors have indicated that they will have completed all actions required in the A/Commissioner's memo (05.08.30) by end of February 2006. The template for emergency response has been shared with the District Directors.
     
4. The BOI agrees with the current CSC plan to develop a comprehensive Community Safety Policy . The BOI recommends that the issues addressed in this policy include the following:
  • Safety considerations when transferring an offender's case from one parole officer to another;
  • Factors to be taken into account when deciding whether a parole officer who was instrumental in a revocation should continue supervising an offender after he returns to the community;
  • Whether home visits should always be pre-arranged;
  • The use of  technology relating to personal safety such as distress alarms;
  • Parole officer accompaniment during home visits (see Rec. 6).
CSC Response Completed.

Community staff safety guidelines and policies on home visits and community contacts were revised via the A/Commissioner's memorandum and Case Management Bulletin of 05-08-30 and clarified on 06-02-24.
Since October 2004, staff have been notified of staff safety policy changes through a series of eight Case Management Bulletins and four memos issued by a variety of positions. This has caused some confusion among field staff regarding what is required in day to day operations. Revised Commissioner's Directives, the official policy instrument in CSC, which will consolidate the various provisions issued through these bulletins and memos, are expected to be issued by NHQ later in fiscal year 07/08, almost 3 years after the incident.
Section 4.1
CSC Action Plan
N/A  
     
5. The BOI recommends that every parole office have regular local Safety Committee meetings and develop a Safety Plan for the office. The BOI believes that a mandatory feature of every office plan should be a system whereby parole officers are required to sign out when they leave for meetings during the day and indicate where they are going and a time when they expect to be back. It should also include a plan of action for dealing with emergency situations. Specifically, it should address the following:
  • The actions to be taken when a parole officer does not return to the office when expected;
  • Communications with the family members of the staff person involved.
CSC Response Completed.

See memorandum from A/Commissioner and template. All contingency plans have been updated.
All offices visited had either an Occupational Safety and Health Committee or a Safety Rep depending on the size of the office. There was a variety of levels of involvement at various offices in the OHS committee, with some officers more likely to consult with their supervisors or their union representatives for safety related issues. All offices have some sort of means of knowing which offenders the parole officer is visiting and expected time back, but most systems are not effective.
Section 4.1
CSC Action Plan
N/A. Also covered in response to #3.
     
6. The BOI recommends that the following policy be adopted by CSC regarding parole officer accompaniment during home visits: The general rule, or presumption, shall be that all home visits by a parole officer (or meetings with an offender in an isolated area) must be accompanied, regardless of the nature of the index offence. Exceptions may be made to this general rule only where the parole officer and his/her supervisor have reviewed the unique risks inherent in a home visit and are both satisfied that there is no concern about the parole officer's safety. It may be helpful for the CSC to formulate guidelines about the type of situations where it would be appropriate that an exception to the general rule be considered. For example, this could include visits with offenders who have no history of violence in their background. The accompaniment may be by another parole officer, a police officer, a security guard, a CRC or CCC staff member, community worker, a trained volunteer, etc.  All parole offices must be adequately staffed in order that this policy may be fully implemented, and no exception should be made to the general rule regarding accompaniment based on the lack of staffing. CSC Response Completed.

Refer to memorandum and Bulletin from 05-08-30 from A/Commissioner and clarification dated 06-02-24.
CSC issued a policy requiring Tandem Visits, (that is two staff to attend when conducting home supervision visits) for the first 90 days of supervision cases for all offenders with offences related to death and sex offences. The original direction to the field specified there should normally be Tandem Visits for these categories of offenders. As of March 2006, there are no exceptions allowed to this policy. Consideration for staffing for tandem visits was incorporated in the Workload formula for 2006/07 The audit found that in our sample cases that required tandem visits, they were conducted without accompaniment in only half of the cases, contrary to policy requirements.
Section 4.1
CSC Action Plan
N/A
     
7. The BOI recommends that section 57 of the Standard Operating Practice 700-06 on Community Supervision be amended. It provides that "The majority (more than 50%) of contacts with the offender are to take place in the community (the offender's home or place of work). Any exceptions to this standard must be approved, based on case factors, in advance by the parole officer's supervisor."  This section has been subject to different interpretations in the regions. However, the BOI's concern is that, as a result of this section, parole officers may feel compelled to do home visits in all cases. "Community contacts" should, therefore, be given a broader definition and not restricted to the offender's home or place of work. Furthermore, while the BOI fully agrees with the encouragement of community and collateral contacts, it believes that rigid adherence to a "more than 50% rule" detracts from focusing on the quality of supervision. Good quality supervision should focus on assessing the offender's home life, employment situation, use of leisure time, etc through a variety of collateral contacts.     CSC Response Completed.

Refer to Memorandum and Case Management Bulletin of 05-08-30 from A/Commissioner.
The policy requirement that the majority of offender contacts occur in the community was removed through a Case Management Bulletin issued in August 2005.
Section 4.2
CSC Action Plan
N/A  
     
8. The BOI considers it essential that all parole officers be provided with adequate communications technology to be able to reach their office and police emergency services from any location where they may be during the course of their work. CSC Response Completed.

All Parole Officers now have access to cellular phones. Satellite phones will be available for use in areas where cellular signals are not available.
NHQ purchased and issued the satellite phones, based on numbers supplied by the regional headquarters. All parole officers have cell phones and the offices have satellite phones, wherever a need had been identified.
Section 4.3
CSC Action Plan Completed.

Satellite phones with GPS Technology under assessment and will be piloted by Technical Services. Expected to be in place by the summer 2006.
06-07-31
     
9. The BOI recommends that close liaison be established and maintained between parole offices and local police forces. Written protocols setting out the terms of cooperation between the agencies should be developed locally and communicated to all police and parole officers in that jurisdiction. The police should be regularly encouraged to share any appropriate information they may have about individual offenders that is relevant to assessment of their risk. CSC Response

Each community site will have a written protocol regarding sharing of information and operational cooperation. Community Corrections Liaison Officers will be in place.
A national MOU with the RCMP was signed in March 2006. Discussions on an MOU with the OPP are ongoing. Many of the local police forces have also signed MOU's with CSC tied primarily to the exchange of information.
Section 4.2
As of the beginning of January 2007, 9 of the 17 CCLOs are in place.  
CSC Action Plan

All relevant police forces have been contacted with the majority of MOUs received by Legal Services. 45 MOUs have been signed. CCLOs are in place in Regina, Hamilton and Halifax. The remaining 14 positions will be in place by June 1st, 2006.
06-06-01
     
10. The BOI recommends that adequate funding be provided in order to ensure that modern substance detection procedures including urinalysis are readily available for use by parole officers and CRC staff in the community. The BOI recommends that CSC community parole officers be instructed to use substance detection procedures provided to them, as a risk management and assessment tool and consistent with the provisions of the CCRA. Adequate funding must be ensured by each level of the organization.   CSC Response

Better use of existing community urinalysis program
All sites reported they had adequate funding for urinalysis.
Section 4.5
CSC Action Plan

1. Information received from regions and ready for analysis of results. Requirement for more statistics from PA and ARC. This is a joint review with security.
06-10-31
     
11. During its visit to the Yellowknife Parole Office in November 2004, the BOI noted the absence of virtually any basic security features. The BOI recommends that all community parole offices be designed and equipped in accordance with modern and appropriate Facility Safety Standards that are consistent with the special duties performed by the staff in those offices. Parole offices that currently do not comply with such standards must be renovated without delay. CSC Response

Correction of basic deficiencies emanating from Threat Risk Assessment which were: 1. Controlled waiting area 2. Intrusion Detection Systems 3. Parking Lot/Other Exterior Lighting 4. Lighting at Entrances/Egresses 5. Emergency Doors Hardware and Lighting 6. Signage. Work to be completed by April 1, 2006.
Completed.

Yellowknife Parole Office has relocated, as of September 2005.
In May of 2006, the CSC Facility Guidelines for Parole Offices were approved.
Section 4.3
CSC Action Plan

On track for remedial work in parole offices. Parole Office Facility Standards are completed in draft and consultation has occurred. Currently in the final stages before approval.
06-04-30
     
12. The BOI noted that the Facility Safety Standards for community parole offices that were developed in 1982 have not been implemented in some offices. These standards should be re-examined and updated with input by the Joint CSC-USGE Advisory Committee on Community Safety and in consultation with external experts. CSC Response

Updated draft facility standards developed and approved.
In May of 2006, the CSC Facility Guidelines for Parole Offices were approved by the NHQ Facilities Branch.
Section 4.3
CSC Action Plan

Parole Office Facility Standards are in the final stage.
06-04-30
     
13. The BOI recommends that following the updating of the Facility Safety Standards, a comprehensive security review be conducted of every parole office to assess its compliance with those standards. This review should involve input from the local staff. Any identified non-compliance with the standards must be corrected without undue delay. CSC Response

Review all facilities against new standards Remedial work completed.
All Regional Facilities Branches, in conjunction with Regional Community Reintegration and Regional Departmental Security, were instructed to complete the above noted checklist against the standards in the approved Facility Guidelines for each facility in their region. As of April 2007, all five regions have completed the work and have had forwarded the results to NHQ Facilities Branch.A national plan for remedial work will be completed by June and the majority of the remedial work is expected to be complete by end of 2007-08 fiscal year.
Section 4.3
CSC Action Plan

Conduct review.
06-09-30

Remedial work to be assessed, planned and carried out.
Based on the result of the review.
     
14. The BOI recommends that a "flag" be entered on the Offender Management System to identify offenders who have exhibited assaultive, threatening or other potentially dangerous behaviour towards staff or others such as visitors or volunteers, in the institutions, or towards others in similar roles in the community. CSC Response Completed.

Case Management Bulletin New Alert in OMS- Staff Safety Considerations issued on 05-08-11.
Notification of the new OMS Alert was forwarded to the sites by way of a Case Management Bulletin in August of 2005. An OMS flag identifying cases requiring tandem supervision became available on OMS in May of 2006. Our review, of a sample of cases involving offenders meeting the tandem offence requirements or cases where staff safety concerns were noted, indicated that the flag had not been entered in OMS for a large number of cases meeting the criteria.
Section 4.2
CSC Action Plan
N/A
     
15. The BOI agrees with the current CSC plan to provide a mandatory three-day course to community staff on Safety and Personal Awareness. The BOI recommends that the content of this course be reviewed with police officials and other external safety experts in order to ensure that it reflects best practices. The course should be made available to all community staff including parole officers, managers, administrative staff, CRC staff and volunteers. A refresher course should be provided at regular intervals. New staff should be required to take this course before they start meeting alone with offenders. CSC Response

The Community Personal Safety Training is mandatory for community POs, senior POs, Program Delivery Officers and psychologists employed by CSC. The course was designed by consulting the Metro Toronto police training program.
The 3 day course has been implemented. It is now a training standard and is being taken by parole officers, and staff program officers and psychologists. It has been learned that the course will not be offered on a continuous basis. Part II of the course has been developed, pilot tested and evaluated but delivery ahs been delayed due to CSC's temporary expenditure reduction measures (effective from November 2006 to March 2007).
Section 4.4
CSC Action Plan

On target for the annual refresher training component which is under the responsibility of Learning and Development. New program to be implemented in 2006-07. In the meantime, the Safety Training remains available for new staff.
Implementation during 2006/07
Revision of the New employee Orientation Program to include personal safety as a topic for all CSC non-CX employees.
2007-2008

Issue of training contractual employees and volunteers is being explored with Legal Services to avoid the employer-employee relationship when delivering training to non-CSC staff.

06-03-31
     
16. The BOI recommends that the current Initial Parole Officer Training Program be reviewed and reorganized. Currently, institutional and community parole officers are given the same generic program despite the significant differences in their responsibilities. The BOI recommends that consideration be given to conducting the program in two parts. The first part would be for all parole officers while the second part would separately deal with each group of parole officers and address the special responsibilities of their positions. CSC Response

Revised skills based Parole Officer Orientation Program developed and implemented
Modifications to the initial training program are progressing on schedule, they will be reviewed by the Community Reintegration Division and it is anticipated that the new program will be implemented in 2007-08.

Section 4.4
CSC Action Plan

CSC is revising the PO Orientation Training Program requiring significant changes to the current program. Proposed Parole Officer Orientation Training Program is to be skills based Following completion of the core skills, separate specific modules will be developed that will focus on the unique aspects of the POs job, for the following areas: Intake assessment, institutional supervision, risk assessment and case preparation, community supervision.

Implementation in 2007/08
     
17. The BOI recognizes that the development of high quality clinical skills in parole supervision and risk assessment must be an on-going process that does not end with the completion of formal training. The BOI believes that parole officers can benefit substantially from the regular exchange of ideas and experiences from others in the field. To promote such on-going learning process, the BOI recommends the establishment of Regional "Professional" or "Clinical" Committees for CSC community staff. The BOI notes that parole officers in the Province of Quebec find such committees helpful and that they were recommended in the Wozniak Report. CSC Response

Clinical supervision model is implemented across CSC in community and institutions
A comprehensive strategy for clinical supervision in the community is under development. The clinical supervision course has been revised, delivery was delayed due to the temporary expenditure measures (effective from November 2006 to March 2007). Regional Professional or Clinical Committees for community staff are not functioning in all regions
Section 4.4
CSC Action Plan

A comprehensive strategy on Clinical Supervision is under development for presentation to EXCOM.
TBD
     
18. The Correctional Service of Canada should ensure that, prior to the release of an offender to the community, the parole officer who will be responsible for the supervision be given adequate time to thoroughly review and familiarize himself/herself with the offender's files, paying particular attention to any safety concerns related to supervision in the community.   In some cases, notably Life sentences or long sentences, this will require significantly more time. CSC Response   The time allocated in the Workload Indicators for initial case review was increased from 75 to160 minutes but the effect of this increase has not yet been felt in the field operations.
Section 4.5
CSC Action Plan

Addressed in response to #19
     
19. The BOI recommends that the parole officer Workload Formula be reviewed by the CSC and changes made to reflect a number of realities including the following:
  1. The special needs of small offices that can be seriously impacted by events such as staff leaves.
  2. The need for additional time for intensive supervision of some offenders.
  3. The need to take into account the reality that different parts of the country have different offender profiles. For example, the BOI was told that a disproportionably high number of the offenders in the Northwest Territories have been convicted of sex offences and offences involving serious violence. Such offenders require more intensive and time consuming supervision.
CSC Response

Revised Workload Formula.
Revisions were made to the Workload Indicators in January 2006 but the effect of this increase has not yet been felt in the field operations. Annual reviews will be undertaken beginning in summer 2007.
Section 4.5
CSC Action Plan

Revised workload formula reviewed and approved. Funding for 2006-07 will be based on the revised model. Indicators involve significant increase of allotted time for file review
     
20. The BOI recommends that whenever possible Correctional Service of Canada community supervisors do not transfer an offender's case from one officer to another when the offender is in a crisis situation, except when the transfer will contribute to a reduction to the level of risk to the community and/or the supervising parole officer. CSC Response Completed.

Case Management Bulletin from A/Commissioner on 05-08-30
In a memo to the Regional Deputy Commissioners in August 2005, direction was given that when an offender is in an unstable situation, supervision shall not be transferred to another parole officer. No evidence was found that offenders' cases are being transferred when an offender is in an unstable situation.
Section 4.2
CSC Action Plan

N/A
     
21. All Correctional Service staff, who have responsibility for assessment, release recommendations, and supervision in the community should receive specialized training to identify indicators related to potential violent sexual behaviours. This includes managers who co-sign reports in the institution and the community. CSC Response

All Parole Officers received three day training on sex offenders in 2004-05 and on violent offenders in 2003-04.
A curriculum has been developed, course material prepared and a "train the trainers" session was conducted in October 2006 specifically aimed at this subject area. Delivery of the course was delayed due to the temporary national expenditure reduction measures (effective from November 2006 to March 2007). This course is designed for psychologists. Similar courses for parole officers had been offered previously, but are not currently available for them.
Section 4.4
CSC Action Plan

All Supervisors and psychologists to participate in sex offender training module from Parole Officers Continuing Development training.

2006/2007
     
25. CSC's case management files for long-term offenders (in this case 17 volumes) should be consolidated or reorganized to eliminate lengthy repetitive reports and administrative documents, to reduce the volume of information and allow the parole officer and decision-makers to complete an efficient and focused file review . The BOI recommends that the reorganization of the files include the following:
  • The CSC should develop a chronology document particularly in the case of offenders serving long sentences. The document would highlight the major events and decision points in the offender's file and would resemble a BOI chronology report. A similar recommendation has been made for the NPB.

  • A comprehensive description of the offence and the offender's background should be set out upon admission to the institution . This document should be a stand alone document that can be referred to but not repeated in subsequent reports.
CSC Response
  1. change structure of file
    Files streamlined to eliminate administrative documents and unnecessary duplication of reports
  2. Chronologies
    Chronologies for long-term offenders and lifers available.
  3. Criminal Profile
    Enhancements made to CPPR content guidelines.
CSC Action Plan
  1. change structure of file
    1. Evaluation of files and proposals for streamlining reports is in process.
      06-06-30
    2. Proposed changes to be evaluated by Reintegration Divisions.
    3. The proposed changes to CSC reports will be shared with the NPB for consultation.
    4. Recommendations made to Executive Committee.
      06-06-30
    5. Policy changes to reflect EXCOM decision
    6. Implementation of Executive Committee decision.
      06-09-30
  2. Chronologies
    To be developed and proposed during the streamlining of case management files project coordinated by the IRO Division.
    06-06-30
  3. Criminal Profile
    The recommendation above describes the Criminal Profile Report and its current status as a stand alone document. To enhance the recommendation, amendments will be made to all content guidelines regarding reports prepared for release decisions to refer the reader to the Criminal Profile Report.
    Completed
NHQ is working on these initiatives as part of its Streamlining of Case Management project. The initiative was presented to the Commissioner's Management Team in April for approval for implementation.
Section 4.2
     
26. CSC should enhance the training, mentoring and clinical supervision of parole officers to develop the ability to synthesize and analyze complex information held on offenders serving long sentences. CSC Response

Implementation of clinical supervision in community and institutional settings. Clinical supervision training is currently provided to both community and institutional PO supervisors.
The course, "Supervision Community Professionals" has been developed and was piloted in March 2006. Several sessions were held but further sessions were delayed due to CSC's temporary expenditure reduction measures (effective from November 2006 to March 2007)

Section 4.4
CSC Action Plan

see recommendation 16 and 23 A revised community clinical supervision course, "Supervision Community Professionals" has been developed will be piloted in March 2006. This course includes a strong component of the clinical supervisor's role in risk assessment. The program will be delivered to community Section supervisors in 2006-2007.

2006/2007
CSC Action Plan
     
28. The content requirements for Assessments for Decision should be reviewed by CSC. The BOI recommends the Assessments for Decision include the following:
  1. Information regarding the index offence. (The Assessment for Decision should refer to the stand alone document setting out the offence and background of the offender.);
  2. Judges comments;
  3. A summary of the psychological and psychiatric information in the file and  an assessment indicating any divergent professional opinions and their rationale;
  4. The offenders' specific treatment gains rather than program participation while in the institution and community should be described. An analysis of any high risk behaviours or patterns observed during his sentence including any previous failures on release.
CSC Response Completed.

Policy changes made and promulgated.
Policy change made and promulgated April 10, 2006.
Section 4.2
CSC Action Plan  
     
30. CSC should enhance its intelligence capacity to identify and analyze patterns of potential violent sexual behaviour patterns both in the institution and community. The resulting information should be provided to parole officers with the responsibility for the case. CSC Response

CSC will increase its intelligence capacity through reviewing and adapting current initiatives within CSC and in other jurisdictions.
Work continues at NHQ on adding Security Intelligence Officers to the community offices. This issue is part of the ongoing, discussions on the District Infrastructure.

Section 4.2
CSC Action Plan

1. Evaluate the CSC-RCMP Behavioral Science Group Joint Initiative in Pacific Region for success in meeting goals and suitability for use nationally.
06-09-30

2. If judged feasible, introduce similar models in all regions
07-04-01
     
31. CSC should develop a management model for small community offices. Resourcing should allow for adequate expertise, supervision and support of parole officers related to risk management. It should also balance the manager's responsibility for administrative issues such as staff safety and training. CSC Response

Development of a small office management model.
NHQ continues to work on t It is expected to be presented to EXCOM in spring 2007. District Directors. Resolution is tied to the outcome of decisions on the new District Infrastructure. The issue of management presence in small offices cannot yet be determined until parts of the latter model are implemented (which is ongoing) as the staffing of different positions will impact on the identification of where a supervisory capacity or presence is required in different Regions. A presentation will be made to EXCOM in April 2007.
Section 4.5
CSC Action Plan

Additional funds available with the implementation of the District Infrastructure to address small office issues. To be reassessed in September 2006.
06-09-30
     
32. The CSC has issued a bulletin entitled Management of Violations of Conditions, Increased Risk in the Community 2005-03-01 regarding the assessment of risk in the community. The BOI recommends that this direction be further refined to direct staff that when evaluating high risk behaviours, particularly of sex offenders, ongoing behaviour patterns in the institution as well as on previous releases in the community should be considered. CSC Response

Case Management Bulletin on Management of Violations of Conditions/Increase in Risk with recommended addition has been incorporated into draft policy on Post-Release Decision Process as an Annex: Risk Assessment Framework.
The new CD to assess this issue is still in the Draft stage.
Section 4.2
CSC Action Plan

Policy to be promulgated
06-04-30
     
33. CSC should examine the unique issues related to Lifers and long-term offenders and develop a strategy for supervision and responses to breaches. CSC Response

The draft policy on Post-Release Decision Process as an Annex: Risk Assessment Framework requires a rigorous analysis in cases of breaches of conditions by offenders who have committed an offence (current or previous) causing death or serious harm (including sexual offences). Additional reinforcement of this policy will be included in the second phase of the Clinical Supervision course for front-line community supervisors.
This will be considered as part of the revisions to the community policies. Reintegration Branch will address these issues during its policy review process. Community related SOPs will be converted to CDs in 2007/08.
Section 4.2
CSC Action Plan

See response to 26 and 32.
     
39. CSC should review the responsibilities of  contractual psychologists (in the institution and in the community) to ensure that their contract specifically indicates that they are responsible at all times to ensure that the counseling provided to offenders (specifically sex offenders) addresses the specific motivation for the index offence as specified  in the CD 840 Psychological Service. CSC Response NHQ, Health Services Branch has indicated that work is underway on the development of national guidelines for statements of work for contractors providing psychological services. The BF date is fall 2007. Two regions have revised wording in the Statement of Work to reflect requirements.
Section 4.2
CSC Action Plan

Contract RFPs will be revised to include reference to giving appropriate consideration in treatment of sex offenders to targeting issues related to criminal behaviour, including the motivation for the index offence.
06-03-31  

 

Appendix D

Management Action Plan
Recommendation Action Summary OPI Planned Completion Date
1. The Assistant Commissioner correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP) should consolidate the community safety policies to ensure clarity of understanding and consistency of application. The four community supervision policies, currently in Standard Operating Practice (SOP) format are being converted to Commissioner's Directives (CDs). All Case Management Bulletins will be integrated into the new policies and any relevant staff safety policy direction identified in the audit will be included. Following national consultation, Executive Committee (EXCOM) review and sign-off, policies will be promulgated by August 2007. ACCOP /Office of the Primary Responsibility (OPR)/

Community Reintegration Operations (CRO)
August 2007
2. The AC COP , in collaboration with the Assistant Commissioner Corporate Services (AC CS) and the Regional Deputy Commissioners (RDCs), should develop and implement a means to facilitate parole officers signing out of and back into the parole office. In August 2005, a memo from A/Commissioner gave clear direction regarding the safety of Community Parole Officers. Specifically, the memo directed the RDCs to ensure that "All community offices must have a reliable sign in/out system that ensures the means to verify the location and safety of community staff". AC COP will issue a memo to RDCs reminding them of this direction and requesting their compliance and report to AC COP by June 22nd, 2007. ACCOP/ OPR/ CRO

ACCS

RDCs
Memo sent June 1st

Responses from RDCs required by June 22, 2007
3. The AC COP should review the policy on tandem supervision to determine whether parole officers and their supervisors should be given more discretion to determine, based on risk, which offenders require tandem supervision for home or any other visits, and to clarify who the accompanying person should be and their role. The national Advisory Committee on Community Staff Safety (ACOCSS) has been reviewing the current policy direction on Tandem Supervision since October 2006. Discussions continue with the ACOCSS and the District Directors. The policy direction will be included in the new CDs to be promulgated by August 2007.

In the interim, AC COP sent memo to RDCs June 1st, requiring their report by June 22nd, on their compliance with the tandem supervision policy.
ACCOP/ OPR/ CRO August 2007

Memo sent June 1st

Responses from RDCs required by June 22, 2007
4. The AC COP, in conjunction with the RDCs, should examine policies related to the following and take the necessary action to ensure effective compliance with:
  1. Appropriate failure to return procedures included in the Contingency Plans;
  2. Meeting offenders while alone in the parole office;
  3. Notifying police when visiting offenders in remote areas.
In August 2005, a memo from the A/Commissioner gave clear direction regarding the safety of Community Parole Officers. Specifically, the memo directed the RDCs to ensure that "All community offices must have up-to-date contingency plans that include a specific plan to deal with situations where a staff member cannot be located or does not return from a job-related duty".

AC COP will send a memo to RDCs reminding them of this direction and requesting a review of their contingency plans to ensure that it reflects the above direction; to ensure their compliance; and attest completion to the AC COP by September 2007.

In addition, the memo will remind RDCs of the direction provided that police should be notified prior to home visits to remote areas and that parole officers are not to meet offenders alone in the office. The elements from this recommendation will be reviewed as part of the community CDs initiative as noted under the response to Recommendation #1.
ACCOP

RDCs
For A, B and C

Memo sent June 1st

Responses from RDCs required by September 4th, 2007

Policy promulgated August 2007
5. The AC COP in collaboration with the RDCs should: ensure staff safety discussions take place as part of the initial case review and are being recorded in the casework record; and reinforce the need to enter flags/alerts for high-risk offenders in OMS as per the policy requirement. AC COP will forward memo to RDCs reminding of need to comply with policy direction re staff safety review and tandem supervision flag.

COP will ensure that policy is clear and Case Management Bulletins are incorporated into new CDs as discussed under the response to Recommendation #1.
ACCOP

RDCs
Memo sent June 1st

Responses from RDCs required by June 22, 2007

August 2007
6. The AC CS in collaboration with the AC COP should review the use of parole officers' private vehicles on offender supervision visits and provide additional guidance to staff as needed. Following a national review of parole office vehicles in 2006 by Manager Fleet Services, it was recommended that an increase of 65 fleet vehicles be made to parole offices nationally. This increase is to be implemented prior to the end of fiscal 2007/2008 and is on target. It is also supported by the District Directors. With the addition of these vehicles, the use of parole officers' private vehicles for offender supervision should cease. ACCS March 31, 2008
7. The Assistant Commissioner Human Resource Management (AC HRM) in collaboration with the AC COP should take the necessary steps to provide community staff safety training on a continuing basis. The 2007-08 National Training Standards include safety training for all community staff. The 3 day safety training, Part I, has been developed and delivered in 2005-06. The Disengagement training, Part II, is to be completed by September 30, 2007.

Community Staff Safety Training will be incorporated into the Parole Officer Orientation Training in the 2007-08 fiscal year to ensure that all new Parole Officers receive this training.
ACHRM

ACCOP
September 2007

March 31, 2008.
8. The AC COP in collaboration with the AC HRM should take the necessary steps to provide CSC training to contractors who deliver case management and psychological services to offenders in the community. CSC currently provides training to contractors when the training is job specific and it is not reasonable to expect that they could attain the same level of training from an outside source. Each case is examined on an individual basis prior to authorizing any training.

Learning and Development, in partnership with Corporate Services is developing training modules for contractors. Safety training for contractors will be included in these modules that are expected to be completed by March 2008.
ACHRM

ACCOP
March 31, 2008
9. The AC COP should explore ways to facilitate the regular exchange of ideas among community staff that will satisfy the intent of the BOI recommendation for CSC to establish Regional "Professional" or "Clinical" Committees. AC COP will explore the possibility of facilitating the exchange of ideas among community staff. Options to explore include: increased use of technology to facilitate Parole Officer communication by using video conferencing, Infonet Bulletin Boards for Parole Officers, Knowledge Management (national Parole Officer portal) to ensure national consistency of information and provide access for community Parole Officers in remote areas. Consultation will occur with District Directors and Union of Solicitor General Employees (USGE) in the Fall 2007. Recommendations from this consultation process will be presented to AC COP for discussion with RDCs by December 2007. ACCOP December 2007
10. The RDCs, in collaboration with the AC HRM, should develop a human resource strategy to:
  • reduce continuing acting appointments on a rotational basis; and
  • provide a "pool" of replacement parole officers to replace staff on temporary leave.
A National Bulletin on Acting Appointments was issued in April 2006 with the objective of ensuring the judicious use of acting appointments.

The issue of establishing qualified pools of Parole Officers to draw from is being discussed at the National Labour-Management Consultation Committee meetings. AC COP has discussed with RDCs to share that USGE supports the creation of qualified pool of term Parole Officers in each region to backfill long-term absences. RDCs to have pools in place by March 2008.
ACHRM/ RDC's RDCs to implement by March 2008