Performance Assurance

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Audit of Offender Intake Assessment

Internal Audit
378-1-247

PDF

April 29, 2009

Table of Contents

Annexs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) mandate is to provide correctional interventions that allow offenders to learn behaviours and skills that will facilitate their safe return to Canadian communities as law-abiding citizens. Upon admission to the federal correctional system, all offenders undergo an intake assessment which is designed to assess their risk and needs. During 2007-08, there were over 5000 new admissions to federal custody. The cost of the Offender Intake Assessment process reached approximately 17 million dollars.

CSC policy indicates that the goal of the Offender Intake Assessment process is to place offenders to the most appropriate institution and to contribute to their timely preparation for safe reintegration while protecting society. The establishment and effective operation of the Offender Intake Assessment process is a key component of CSC’s plans to respond to two of its corporate priorities; the safe transition of eligible offenders into the community and, the enhanced capacities to provide effective interventions for First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders.1

In 2007, an independent panel was appointed to review the operations of CSC. In its Report of the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel: A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety, the Review Panel identified major areas to be strengthened, supplemented by several recommendations, two of which directly impact the Offender Intake Assessment process. One refers to the shortening of the intake assessment period and the second recommends incorporating comprehensive mental health assessments into the intake assessment process.

Reflecting the importance of the intake assessment process as the foundation of the case management process and in response to the Review Panel, CSC launched its Transformation Agenda and formed a working group to review the mechanisms in place that would enable the implementation of a revised intake assessment process. In January 2009, CSC introduced the Compressed Offender Intake Assessment (COIA) which consists of the first step in a number of changes to the case management process that are expected in the coming months. It is expected that the results of this audit will further assist CSC management in its efforts to improve the intake assessment process.

The objectives of the Audit of Offender Intake Assessment were:

  • To assess the adequacy of the management framework as it relates to the Offender Intake Assessment process; and
  • To determine the extent to which CSC’s sites are complying with relevant Offender Intake Assessment legislation and policy directives.

In order to conclude on these objectives, the audit team reviewed a sample of offender files contained in the Offender Management System, performed interviews with CSC management and staff involved in the Offender Intake Assessment process and performed a review of performance information and other relevant documentation.

Overall Conclusion

The results of this audit indicate that key elements of a management framework are in place and that legislative requirements are being met in the majority of cases. We found a high level of support and awareness of the policies relevant to the Offender Intake Assessment process.  While there is room for improvement in some areas, policies exist, roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood, resources are in place at the local, regional and national levels and, some monitoring and reporting activities are in place.

Highlights of opportunities for improvement include:

  • Policies and Programs: While policies were generally clear and understood, some elements require clarification.
  • Resource Allocation: The use of the current workload formula for determining resource levels does not reflect the importance of some variables which have an impact on workload.
  • Training: There is no mandatory or specific training for Intake Parole Officers or Managers Assessment and Intervention working within the Intake Assessment Unit.
  • Quality Control: While Managers Assessment and Intervention are expected to perform a quality assurance function, there is no guidance or standardized process on how to do so.
  • Compliance with Legislation and Policy: In all cases reviewed, legal requirements related to the preparation of a correctional plan and to the assignment of a security classification were met. However, in some cases, there was no documented evidence that some factors listed under the regulations for the security classification were considered. The offender file review performed by the auditors also identified some concerns with compliance in certain policy areas:
    • Compliance with content guidelines for offender files;
    • Compliance for Aboriginal specific policy requirements; and
    • Supplementary assessments were generally not performed on a timely basis.

Recommendations have been made in this report to address these areas for improvement. Management has reviewed and agrees with the findings contained in this report and a Management Action Plan has been developed to address the recommendations (see Annex D).

In addition to the transformation initiative currently being implemented, action on the results of this audit should also contribute to meeting CSC’s objective of delivering a more effective intake assessment process; the foundation for all subsequent case management processes throughout the offender’s sentence.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Internal Audit Branch conducted a Preliminary Survey of Institutional Case Management in accordance with CSC’s 2007-08 Internal Audit Plan. As part of the survey, the team developed high level process maps of the three major components within institutional case management: Intake Assessment, Institutional Supervision Framework and the Case Preparation and Release Planning Framework. By mapping the identified risks, which were primarily drawn from the interviews and document review, to the relevant components the following three audits were identified:

  • Primary and supplementary assessments within the intake assessment process;
  • Monitoring and assessment within the institutional supervision framework; and
  • Pre-release decision making within the case preparation and release planning framework.

On discussing the proposed audits with the Correctional Operations and Programs Sector, and considering forthcoming changes in the realm of case management, it was determined that the audits would be performed in the order in which the processes occur. Therefore, this Audit of Intake Assessment was identified as being the first of the three approved case management audits which will take place in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.

Background on the Offender Intake Assessment Process

CSC policy indicates that the goal of the Offender Intake Assessment process is to place offenders to the most appropriate institution and to contribute to their timely preparation for safe reintegration while protecting society. The intake assessment process is conducted for all offenders sentenced to two years or more in federal institutions. The establishment and effective operation of the Offender Intake Assessment process is a key component of CSC’s plans to respond to two of its corporate priorities; the safe transition of eligible offenders into the community and, the enhanced capacities to provide effective interventions for First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders.2 The Offender Intake Assessment process requires the completion of comprehensive and accurate assessments of offenders needs in order to ensure that they are oriented to the appropriate programs and interventions. In addition, CSC is required by policy to advise Aboriginal offenders at intake of their option to follow a healing path, and if they so choose, this must be reflected in a Continuum of Care.3

As part of the government's commitment to protecting Canadian families and communities, an independent panel was appointed in 2007 to review CSC’s operations. The Review Panel produced a comprehensive report including a series of recommendations, charting a roadmap for a proposed transformation of the way in which CSC does business.

Two of these recommendations are directly related to this Audit of Intake Assessment as they suggest modifications to the Offender Intake Assessment process. As such, the Review Panel recommended that "CSC shorten the period of intake assessment and considers opportunities to start correctional programming (behavioural and motivation-focused) during intake assessment, particularly for offenders with short sentences of four years or less". In addition, the Panel recommended that "A comprehensive and recognized mental health assessment system be incorporated into the intake assessment process, so that a treatment strategy that is fully integrated with programming can be developed".

As part of its overall transformation initiative to respond to these items, CSC formed a working group as part of the Transformation Agenda, in order to review the mechanisms in place to implement a revised Offender Intake Assessment process, specifically targeting recidivists and lower risk/lower needs offenders. In January 2009, CSC introduced the Compressed Offender Intake Assessment (COIA) which consists of the first step in a number of changes to the case management process that are expected in the coming months.

In its 2007-08 Corporate Risk Profile, CSC recognized that additional measures should be taken to ensure that it closes the gap between Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal offenders and that CSC should sustain the current results with regard to violent re-offending. Some of these measures include increasing cultural competency in case management through Aboriginal perceptions training of parole officers, the assignment of Aboriginal offenders to their caseloads and, the expansion of violence prevention and substance abuse programming and maintenance capacity. As will be discussed further in this report, the audit has reviewed CSC’s compliance with the completion of the Social History, Elder Assessments and Healing Plans as it relates to the Offender Intake Assessment.4

Another important key initiative currently underway is the development of an integrated education program and employment model as part of the correctional planning process. As will be presented in section 4.2 Summary of File Review of this report, this Audit of Intake Assessment has reviewed CSC’s compliance with the completion of educational assessments5, as part of the Offender Intake Assessment process.

The Offender Intake Assessment process has previously been audited by the Office of the Auditor General as part of their 2003 Status Report on the Reintegration of Male Offenders and by CSC in 2001, through the Offender Intake Assessment Audit. Through analysis of these reports we have observed that CSC has made progress against some recommendations; however, there is still room for improvement in other areas. Where applicable, we have made reference to these findings in this report.

Business Process of the Offender Intake Assessment

As the first stage of the dynamic case management process, the Offender Intake Assessment is in place to provide a smooth and effective introduction of offenders to the federal correctional system. Its main objective is to place offenders in the most appropriate institution and to contribute to their timely preparation for a safe reintegration while protecting society.

The reports produced to support this process include the Preliminary Assessment, the Post Sentence Community Assessment, the Criminal Profile, the Correctional Plan, the Security Classification and the Penitentiary Placement. In order to produce these reports, the case management team uses various tools such as the Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale and the Custody Rating Scale.6

During the fiscal year 2007-08, there were 13,550 federally sentenced offenders housed within CSC’s 58 federal penitentiaries. CSC also contends with a considerable flow through of offenders. Last year a total of 8,715 offenders were admitted to CSC and 8,483 were released from federal custody. In total 20,021 offenders served at least one day in a federal institution, which includes 5,007 new admissions on Warrant of Committal.7

During the Offender Intake Assessment, the Case Management Team ensures that all the relevant and accurate information about the offender and the offence is gathered, and that appropriate interviews and assessments are conducted in order to contribute to the accurate completion of a number of documents such as the Correctional Plan, the Criminal Profile, the Security Classification and the Penitentiary Placement.8

The current policy requires that the Offender Intake Assessment process be completed within 70 days of admission for offenders serving four years or less and 90 days for offenders serving sentences of longer then four years. With the recent implementation of the Compressed Offender Intake Assessment in January 2009, it is anticipated that the use of this revised process will result in an earlier penitentiary placement decision, possibly within 55 days of admission for targeted offenders serving four years or less for non-violent crimes with limited or no criminal history, who do not require a psychological assessment or a detention referral and, who do not have a Long Term Supervision Order. This timeframe will be closely monitored and reviewed as necessary and in conjunction with further revisions to the Offender Intake Assessment process.

For the fiscal year 2007-2008, 3,712 offenders were admitted with a sentence of less than four years and the remaining 1,295 were admitted with a sentence of four years or more.

The chart below describes all the elements of the Offender Intake Assessment process leading to the placement of the offender and the development of the Correctional Plan.

Offender Intake Assessment Process

The chart below describes all the elements of the Offender Intake Assessment process leading to the placement of the offender and the development of the Correctional Plan.

Roles and Responsibilities

At the national level the Assistant Commissioner Correctional Operations and Programs has the direct responsibility for the integrity of institutional operations across CSC and for improving the delivery of safe corrections. The Director General Offender Programs and Reintegration along with the Director Institutional Reintegration Operations support the Assistant Commissioner in his role.

In the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and Pacific regions, there is a designated reception institution that is responsible for the Offender Intake Assessment for all male offenders.

Table 1

 REGION  RECEPTION INSTITUTION
Atlantic Regional Reception Centre at Springhill Institution
Quebec Regional Reception Centre
Ontario Millhaven Assessment Unit
Pacific Regional Reception & Assessment Center

In the Prairie region, the Offender Intake Assessment process is decentralized. The Custody Rating Scale is completed at the remand centre in order to identify the offender’s security level. The receiving institution (Edmonton Institution, Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Stony Mountain Institution, Bowden Institution, Drumheller Institution and Grande Cache Institution) is then responsible for completing the rest of the Offender Intake Assessment.

2.0 AUDIT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

2.1 Audit Objectives

The objectives of the Audit of Intake Assessment were:

  • To assess the adequacy of the management framework as it relates to the Offender Intake Assessment process; and
  • To determine the extent to which CSC’s sites are complying with relevant Offender Intake Assessment legislation and policy directives.

Specific criteria related to each of the objectives are included in Annex A.

2.2 Audit Scope

The audit was national in scope and included site visits to National Headquarters, Regional Headquarters, institutions in which the Offender Intake Assessment process takes place, as well as selected parole offices that are responsible for completing the Preliminary Assessments and the Post Sentence Community Assessments. The intake assessment process was assessed in all five regions and included Aboriginal offenders. In addition, the audit included offenders that received a sentence prior to January 1 1994, whose conditional release was revoked and required a full intake assessment and a new Correctional Plan. It also included offenders, who were readmitted with one or more new offences, or following an escape, as their Criminal Profile needed to be updated and their Correctional Plan reviewed.

The following CSC Commissioner’s Directives (CD), hereinafter referred to as policies, were included in the scope of this audit:

  • CD 705: Intake Assessment Process
  • CD 705-1: Preliminary Assessments and Post-Sentence Community Assessments
  • CD 705-5: Supplementary Assessments
  • CD 705-6: Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile
  • CD 705-7: Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement
  • CD 705-8: Assessing Serious Harm

This audit excluded the Immediate Needs and Admission Interview and the Orientation Process, as these processes were identified by the Preliminary Survey as being more operational in nature and providing primarily information and guidance to offenders about the correctional system. The Offender Intake Assessment process for women offenders was excluded from the scope of this audit as the survey indicated it would be most efficiently conducted as a stand alone audit. The audit also excluded provincial offenders transferred to federal custody under Exchange of Service Agreements and, readmitted offenders who did not require a complete Offender Intake Assessment. Finally, the audit excluded offenders that were admitted through International Transfers as well as those who had participated in the Offender Intake Assessment Pilot Project, as these cases were not deemed typical of the Offender Intake Assessment process.

3.0 AUDIT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

In order to obtain sufficient and appropriate audit assurance, the following methodology was employed by the audit team:

  • The audit criteria9 identified during the planning phase of the audit were classified into three categories based upon the most efficient approach to gather audit evidence:
    • Review of offender files contained in the Offender Management System;
    • Interviews with CSC management and staff involved in the Offender Intake Assessment process; and,
    • Review of performance information and other documentation.
  • Based upon the above analysis, interview guides and file review checklists were developed;
  • A statistically random sample of offender files was selected;
  • Interviews, file reviews, site visits and data analysis were performed; and
  • Results were analyzed and reported.

In total 100 offender files were reviewed for completeness; 51 non-aboriginals and 49 Aboriginal. Although Aboriginal offenders represent a smaller proportion of the offender population, similar sample sizes were selected to provide sufficient audit evidence to support findings and conclusion. In addition to the requirements of non-Aboriginal offenders, Aboriginal offenders are subject to specific requirements such as being advised of Sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act during the intake process, having a Social History completed and, meeting with an Elder or Aboriginal Liaison Officer during the Admission Interview or during the intake process. In addition, when an Aboriginal offender is interested in pursuing the Aboriginal path, a Healing Plan should be incorporated in his Correctional Plan.

The file review did not assess the quality of the assessments in the file, but focused on whether the information it contained met the minimum standards specified in the CD.  The audit did include a review of CSC’s quality control activities on these assessments. In addition, a total of 43 interviews were conducted with National Headquarters and Regional Headquarters management, as well as Assistant Wardens Intervention, Managers Assessment and Intervention, Parole Officer Supervisors and, Intake and Community Parole Officers.

The file review checklist had approximately 450 verification items, with varying levels of applicability depending on the specific circumstances of the offender. In performing the verification task the auditors reviewed the offender file and made a qualitative assessment as to whether the item in the checklist appeared in the file. Based on the established policy guidelines assigned to each report, the auditors verified compliance for the relevant assessment (e.g. Correctional Plan, Preliminary Assessment, etc.)  Due to the high number of compliance items in each report, the auditors randomly selected ten components per report for testing. The files of offenders initially admitted prior to 2005 were subject to a limited review, as the Offender Intake Assessment process as well as the applicable policies, have changed significantly since their assessments were performed. The results of this analysis are provided in Section 4.2 Compliance with Legislation and Policy Directives of this report.

4.0 AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

4.1 MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

4.1.1 Policies and Programs

We expected to find that policies are risk based, accessible, clear and understood by those who need to apply them.

While policies are risk based, further work is currently being done in this area.

The concept of risk is inherent in the very nature of the work undertaken within the Offender Intake Assessment process. The preliminary and supplementary assessments do quantify risk to ensure that appropriate placement and program decisions are made. These assessments support the subsequent activities of the case management process such as programming, assessment, monitoring and planning, all within the institutional supervision framework and pre-release decision making processes.

As part of CSC’s transformation initiative, changes to the intake assessment process are currently underway. As mentioned previously, a team is currently reviewing the Offender Intake Assessment process and as of January 2009, CSC has implemented the Compressed Offender Intake Assessment process for lower risk/ lower need offenders. The key goals for this initiative include: leveraging intake resources to assess shorter-sentenced offenders; improving correctional plan engagement (offender accountability, motivation, responsiveness); and, providing work, education and correctional program opportunities earlier in the sentence.

While policies are generally clear and understood some elements require clarification.

We found that the policies are readily available and that every staff member interviewed was familiar on how to locate them. The majority of interviewees advised us that they regularly refer to the Infonet10 to access policies and some have created their own hard copy binder to facilitate the process.

During our examination we found areas where policies require clarification. In Section 4.2 Summary of File Review of this report, examples have been identified as they relate to specific areas found to be in lower compliance with policy. As well, the following contradictions in policy were noted:

  • CD 705-6 Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile vs. CD 720 Education of Offenders

CD 705-6 paragraph 35 states that "when the offender’s achievement grade level is below grade ten or the equivalent, or when upgrading is required for participation in correctional or vocational programs, or CORCAN, participation in Adult Basic Education must be included in the offender’s Correctional Plan".

CD 720 paragraph 17 indicates that "when an offender’s grade level is below grade 12 or its equivalent, education will be a program requirement of his or her Correctional Plan. Offenders will be actively encouraged to participate in institutional or community education programs which meet their identified needs".

  • CD 705-1 Preliminary Assessments and Post-Sentence Community Assessment vs. CD 712-1 Pre-Release Decision Making

CD 705-1, paragraph 28, states that "for APR [Accelerated Parole Review] cases where the offender is serving four years or less and for all other cases serving three years or less, where the Assessment for Decision is completed by the Intake Assessment Unit, the PSCA [Post Sentence Community Assessment] will include a Community Strategy that will be valid for six months".

CD 712-1, paragraph 82 indicates that the Assessment for Decision for Accelerated Parole Review cases where the offender is serving four years or less will be completed by the Community Parole Officer. As well, paragraph 90 indicates that for cases serving 3 years or less who have applied for day parole or are eligible for full parole during the intake process, the Assessment for Decision will also be completed by the Community Parole Officer. This is also reflected in Annex A - Timeframes.

According to CD 712-1, the only situation where an Assessment for Decision may be completed by an Institutional Parole Officer is for cases serving 3 years or less who have not applied for day parole and did not have a full parole review during the intake process (paragraph 95). Therefore, it is unclear as to whether an Intake Parole Officer (or the Intake Assessment Unit as referred to in policy) would be implicated in this process at all. In Annex A, in the "A4D completed and sent to NPB" column, the Intake Parole Officer is not identified as being responsible for the completion of any Assessment for Decision related to any form of release.

Each Region had a process in place for clarifying the policies; however it was not consistent from Region to Region.

Interviews indicated that policies are detailed and that the content guidelines for the completion of reports such as the Correctional Plan and the Criminal Profile are useful. The Offender Intake Assessment is a very specific process that encompasses the completion of various assessments and as it will be discussed further in this report, one case might require addressing as many as 450 items. As indicated in the above paragraphs, staff members felt comfortable applying the policies; however, they still require from time to time, clarification on policy requirements.  

We noted that the process in place for clarifying issues with policy requirements was not standardized across the Regions. Furthermore, we learned through interviews that some sites handle this process locally and contact Regional Headquarters in order to obtain clarifications when needed. Some regions had a centralized process that included the assignment of one employee at Regional Headquarters dedicated specifically to coordinating clarifications for certain areas of policy.

The lack of a national standardized process increases the risk that the clarifications provided could vary from Region to Region. As mentioned above, the Offender Intake Assessment process includes the production of various assessments which cover a high number of items. As each case is different, policies may require some interpretation. These interpretations may lead to subjectivity, increasing the risk of inconsistencies in the field application of policy requirements. This will become even more important with the realization of the Compressed Offender Intake Assessment, put in place in January 2009. In fact, the Institutional Reintegration Operations division is pursuing revisions to CD 705-6 Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile to incorporate this process and to other CDs as well to ensure consistency. An added benefit of a standardized process is that it allows for the collection and tracking of "Frequently Asked Questions" which in turn provides valuable input for future training of staff and future amendments/clarifications to policies.

Supplementary guidance on national correctional programs is out of date.

While we found that polices were up-to-date, when considering the various CDs directly related to the Offender Intake Assessment, an important piece of supplementary guidance for employees involved in the development and/or management of the Correctional Plan, is the documentation on national correctional programs.

As required by CD 705-6 Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile, parole officers make program referrals based on an assessment of the offender’s needsandthe Correctional Planning Board (formerly called the Program Board) or its equivalent, reviews the program recommendations to determine the suitability of the recommended programs. CSC has developed tools such as the National Correctional Program Guidelines to assist those involved in this process.  However, these guidelines which provide a description of the various programs offered to offenders were last updated in 2004 and, changes have occurred in the interim.  In addition, through our examination process we have noted that additional documentation such as CD 726 Correctional Programs, the Program Description Table and the Detailed Programs Description were not up-to-date. We were informed by the Correctional Operations and Programs Sector that the National Correctional Program Guidelines is currently being reviewed and updated.

An understanding of the various programs offered is imperative to making effective program referrals. As indicated in our interviews, not having access to up-to-date material could create confusion within staff and, increases the risk around the accuracy/appropriateness of program referrals.

4.1.2 Roles and Responsibilities of CSC Personnel

We expected to find that authorities, roles and responsibilities for institutional case management activities had been defined, understood and are being communicated at National Headquarters, Regional Headquarters and at the institutions.

Roles and responsibilities are defined and are understood.

It is important to note that to better support the organization’s results and efficiencies, CSC has implemented a new institutional organizational structure as of September 2007. During the course of our interviews, we found that staff members involved in the Offender Intake Assessment process felt their roles and responsibilities have been defined, explained, are clear and understood in all material respects and are being communicated at National Headquarters, Regional Headquarters and at the institutions. Interviewees noted that the case management policies relating to Offender Intake Assessment are very detailed and include information on roles and responsibilities.

4.1.3 Open and Effective Channels for Internal Feedback

We expected to find that feedback mechanisms for improvements to the Offender Intake Assessment process exist across different levels of seniority and input is captured and communicated to the appropriate parties, as well as addressed in a timely fashion.

Management and employees’ feedback is solicited and considered.

During the course of our interviews we found that both management and employees felt that there exist open and effective channels of communication for internal feedback. Most staff members interviewed advised that when provided, their feedback was considered when possible. In cases where their feedback was not considered, interviewees felt that they were informed of the reasons why on a timely basis.

We learned that the process is mostly informal as most staff advised that their feedback is provided either during staff meetings or upon direct contact with their immediate supervisor.

This culture of open communication helps ensure that potential best practices are communicated up to the appropriate levels for assessment and dissemination, and also fosters a culture of continuous improvement among staff. In addition, as part of the Transformation Agenda, a working group was formed and the Offender Intake Assessment was revised. As part of this process, consultations with staff members at various levels were held and employees’ feedback was solicited and considered in preparation for the newly implemented Compressed Offender Intake Assessment (Case Management Bulletin 2009.01.29: Interim Direction for the Compressed Offender Intake Assessment (COIA)).

4.1.4 Training for CSC Personnel

We expected to find that training needs are identified and training is provided and taken as required by Institutional Parole Officers and Managers Assessment and Intervention working in the Intake Assessment Units, ensuring that they are aware of their responsibilities and possess the skills to perform them.

There is no training specific to the Offender Intake Assessment for Intake Parole Officers or Managers Assessment and Intervention.

The roles of the Parole Officer and Manager Assessment and Intervention working within the Intake Assessment Unit are unique within the case management process. As discussed in greater detail in section 4.1.5 Staffing Levels and Resource Allocations of this report, Intake Parole Officers are expected to complete 48 cases per year which translates to approximately one case every four days.  This workload dictates that Intake Parole Officers require a strong ability to gather and analyze all the relevant information related to a case effectively and rapidly and, must possess the skills needed to transfer risk assessments into concrete intervention strategies.

According to the National Training Standards, Intake Parole Officers must attend the 13 days Parole Officer Orientation Training that also targets both Institutional Parole Officers and Community Parole Officers. We have learned through interviews, that parole officers feel this training only provides an overview of the Offender Intake Assessment process. Many staff members advised that training specifically developed for parole officers working within the intake units would be beneficial. Following consultation with the Human Resources Management Sector, we were advised that a review of the Parole Officer Orientation Training is currently underway and that a detailed and comprehensive learning needs analysis is part of this process.

While mentoring and on-the-job training for Intake Parole Officers have been used to compensate, this represents additional workload for other parole officers and relies on having experienced or seasoned parole officers working at the institution. The lack of Offender Intake Assessment specific training increases the risk that primary and supplementary assessments will not meet policy requirements. Some sites have developed a local intake training package/session to address this issue.

The role of the Manager Assessment and Intervention, expected to supervise parole officers and perform a quality control function, is relatively new. However, according to the National Training Standards there is no Offender Intake Assessment specific or mandatory training for Managers Assessment and Intervention working within an intake unit. The Managers Assessment and Intervention interviewed, informed us they would benefit from specific training on management skills, budgeting and staffing. The results of our file review, presented in Section 4.2 Summary of File Review of this report, indicated that training on the quality control function would also be beneficial.

CSC along with the Office of the Auditor General have recommended in their previous audits, completed respectively in 2001 and 2003, that CSC should ensure that parole officers working at different points in the reintegration process, including the Offender Intake Assessment, receive the training they need to perform their specific duties.

Considering that our audit also identified training as an area for improvement, it demonstrates that the mechanisms put in place so far to address these recommendations have not been fully effective.

Although no reporting on training completion specifically for Intake Parole Officers was available, an analysis of all Institutional Parole Officers at institutions which perform intake indicated opportunities for improvement in training completion.

According to the 2007-08 National Training Standards, Institutional Parole Officers are required to attend the following training:

  • New Employee Orientation Program;
  • Parole Officer Orientation;
  • Anti-Harassment Training-Joint Learning Program;
  • Suicide Prevention; and
  • Parole Officer Continuous Development.

Although separate tracking for Intake Parole Officers was not available, we were able to obtain training completion data for all Institutional Parole Officers working at intake assessment sites across the country. Nothing came to our attention that indicated these results would be substantially different than specific training data for Intake Parole Officers working at those sites.

Although we were unable to ascertain the number of parole officers that should have completed all required training because of grandfathering (i.e. the training was introduced after they became parole officers) and those on extended leave period, when analyzing the results, we found that the Parole Officer Continuous Development training had the highest level of completion rate with 91%, followed by the Parole Officer Orientation training with 78%. The New Employee Orientation Program had the lowest level of completion, with 12%.

Mandatory Training for Parole Officers
Training Description Completed11
New Employee Orientation Program 12%
Parole Officer Orientation 78%
Anti-Harassment Training-Joint Learning Program 47%
Suicide Prevention 73%
Parole Officer Continuous Development 91%

While a lack of participation in mandatory training does not directly address the quality issues we noted in Section 4.2 Summary of File Review, as this training does not provide specific guidance on the completion of the intake primary and supplementary assessments, it does increase the risk of a lack of compliance with policies in other areas.

However, as noted above, the Learning and Development Branch as part of the Human Resources Management Sector, is in the process of developing and revising the Parole Officer Orientation Training so that it addresses the training needs of parole officers working in institutions, the community and at intake assessment units, with national implementation expected in the winter of 2010.

Training on completion of Aboriginal assessments would also be beneficial.

As indicated in the recent Audit of Management of Section 81 Agreements completed in October 2008,most Parole Officers and Managers Assessment and Intervention have received some form of Aboriginal sensitivity or awareness training. However, there are specific requirements which must be completed for Aboriginal offenders during the Offender Intake Assessment, including informing them of their rights under Sections 81 and 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (Healing Lodges, transfer of supervision, Aboriginal assisted parole hearings, etc.), informing them about the Pathways program and completing their Social History and Healing Plan.12 We have learned through our interviews that most staff felt it would be beneficial to obtain specific training with respect to producing an offender Continuum of Care based on the various pieces of information available, like the Elder Assessment.

We noted that there is currently no specific training available to assist the Intake Parole Officers in these areas, which increases the risk of Aboriginal offenders not receiving the information required and that their case files do not include information necessary to their programming and supervision in accordance with the Gladue principles.13 This is supported by the results of our file review in Section 4.2 Summary of File Review, which demonstrated a lower level of compliance related to Aboriginal assessment elements than for non-Aboriginal assessment elements.

The Audit of Management of Section 81 Agreements also recommended the need to provide more training for CSC personnel involved with offenders being transferred under Section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (Healing Lodges).

4.1.5 Staffing Levels and Resource Allocations

We expected to find that plans identifying current and future human resource needs related to the Offender Intake Assessment process are documented and communicated and that at the national and regional level, there are indicators which drive financial resource requirements, and resources are received accordingly.

Issues were identified with the current workload formula, as it is a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

The audit team found that the level of human resources for intake assessment units is determined using a workload formula and that the workload is managed by the Assistant Warden Intervention and Manager Assessment and Intervention within these resource allocations. This management process varied by institution and provided the Manager Assessment and Intervention flexibility in the workload assignment approach. We have been advised that this formula allocates, on a yearly basis, one parole officer per 48 cases.

While a workload formula presents many advantages from a planning and resource allocation perspective, staff interviewed indicated that it does not recognize the importance of some variables that have a direct impact on their workload. For example, there can be significant differences in the amount of work required between one case and the next, such as the additional requirements involved in the completion of the Offender Intake Assessment for Aboriginal offenders. Moreover, some cases may have an extensive amount of documentation to review prior to completing the Offender Intake Assessment when the offender has been in and out of the federal system for many years. These variables are not considered in the workload formula, and parole officers are required to complete 48 cases per year, regardless.

This lack of flexibility can have an impact on the quality and timeliness of the primary and supplementary assessments, as seen in Section 4.2 Summary of File Review of this report, where compliance rates and timeliness of these assessments hover around 80%. We were informed by the Correctional Operations and Programs Sector that these formulas are currently under review as part of the Transformation Agenda and as part of the intake assessment review in order to provide more flexibility within the Offender Intake Assessment process.

Indicators which drive financial resource requirements exist and resources are received accordingly.

We found that financial resources are allocated based upon staffing indicators, one Intake Parole Officer for 48 inmates, and resources are received accordingly. Using a set ratio provides the advantage of transparency and simplicity for budget purposes; however, as noted above it does not reflect the differences in workload from one case to another.

4.1.6 Monitoring and Measurement of Results and Performance

We expected to find that performance metrics exist, are monitored and issues resolved on a timely basis at the national, regional and local levels.

Some performance metrics exist and are monitored at the local, regional and national levels.

We found that performance metrics exist and are tracked using a variety of corporate reporting tools (RADAR, Corporate Monitoring Tools and the Corporate Reporting System, Offender Management System, etc). At the national level, these tools allow CSC to monitor timelines of several assessments related to the Offender Intake Assessment process such as the Post Sentence Community Assessment, the Preliminary Assessment and the Correctional Plan. There are other assessments related to the Offender Intake Assessment process that require timeframes; however, they are not being tracked by the Corporate Monitoring Tools. As reflected in Section 4.2 Summary of File Review of this report, there is also no monitoring on the quality of the reports through the Corporate Monitoring Tools.

At the regional level, the process was similar and the corporate reporting tools were used in order to manage their activities.

At the local level we interviewed staff members that were involved in the monitoring of performance measures related to the Offender Intake Assessment process and overall they felt their responsibilities were clear and well communicated. Most interviewees advised that monitoring of policy requirements such as the completion of the Correctional Plan and Criminal Profile is being done on a frequent basis.  

The following analysis demonstrates that the highest compliance is found for assessments where performance is tracked. For the timeliness of Correctional Plans, Preliminary Assessments and Post Sentence Community Assessments our findings show a significant improvement from those of the Offender Intake Assessment Audit performed by the CSC’s Performance Assurance Sector in 2001. As well, the findings from our audit are generally consistent with those reported by the corporate tracking systems.

The following chart presents a comparison of the rate of compliance with meeting timeframes for assessments which are tracked against those which are not.

Assessments Monitored on a corporate basis Not Monitored on a corporate basis National Reported Timeframe Compliance Rate14 Audit Results of Timeframe Compliance (see
Section 4.2)
2006-07 2007-08
Criminal Profile X   75% 75% 81%
Correctional Plan X   88% 89% 81%
Preliminary Assessment X   80% 79% 80%
Post Sentence Community Assessment X   92% 88% 95%
Psychological Intake Assessment   X     8%
Specialized Sex Offender   X     0%
Substance Abuse Assessment   X     52%
Educational Assessment   X     52%
Family Violence Risk Assessment   X     2%
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment   X     0%
Elder Assessment   X     0%

During the course of our review we noted a general lack of standardization in the completion of assessments, which poses a limitation to the effectiveness of performance reporting. Performance reporting tools require a consistent approach across offender files and due to the issues noted in the area of training and quality assurance, this is not always the case. The implementation of the recommendations contained in this report is also expected to have a positive impact on performance monitoring.

The Quality Assurance process requires improvement.

As mentioned in Section 4.1.1 Policies and Programs of this report, the Offender Intake Assessment is a very specific process that encompasses the completion of various assessments. CSC has developed specific policies along with detailed guidelines and, quality assurance is a crucial part of the Offender Intake Assessment process and an important piece in mitigating the risk of non-compliance.

At the local level, we have interviewed staff members involved in the quality assurance process related to the Offender Intake Assessment. As per the Guidelines 005-1 Institutional Management Structure: Roles and Responsibilities, Managers Assessment and Intervention are responsible for conducting the quality control in the institution, of documents completed and submitted for decision to senior management or the National Parole Board. In the community, parole officer supervisors have that responsibility.

Interviews and policy reviews indicated that there is no standardized approach to performing quality assurance of case management files. The majority of Managers Assessment and Intervention and parole officer supervisors interviewed advised us that the process was informal and involved reading each report entirely, without necessarily focusing on areas of greater importance or risks of non-compliance. If non-compliance is found, the specific parole officer is advised directly and changes are made to the report. Given that this process was not documented, we were unable to find evidence of these quality assurance file reviews.

With over 450 potential factors to be considered in an intake file and a limited amount of time in which to perform the quality control of reports, an effective quality assurance process should focus on the areas which pose the highest risk. The current ad hoc process does not lend itself to an effective oversight required to ensure the quality of decisions. The need for an enhanced quality assurance process is also demonstrated in the results of the file review presented in Section 4.2 Summary of File Review of this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP) should:

  • Clarify policies where needed;
  • Strengthen processes to notify staff of relevant policy updates;
  • Implement a consistent approach to responding to policy clarification requests; and
  • Update the "National Correctional Program Guidelines".

Recommendation 2: The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP) in collaboration with the Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services(ACCS), should complete its evaluation of the current workload formula in order to determine a more effective approach to allocating parole officer resources to Offender Intake Assessment.

Recommendation 3: The Assistant Commissioner, Human Resources Management Sector (ACHRMS), in collaboration with the Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP), should develop and implement additional training for Intake Parole Officers and Managers Assessment and Intervention, including training on completing the assessments required for Aboriginal offenders.

Recommendation 4: Regional Deputy Commissioners should ensure that parole officers meet the requirements of the National Training Standards related to their duties.

Recommendation 5: The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP) should enhance performance tracking measures to include the timeliness of supplementary assessments.

Recommendation 6: The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP) should develop and implement a formal, risk based, quality control process for intake assessments. Results of the quality control process should also be included in performance monitoring and reporting activities.

4.2 COMPLIANCE WITH RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICY DIRECTIVES

4.2.1 Summary of File Review

Legislative requirements were met for the majority of cases. In all cases reviewed, legal requirements related to the preparation of a correctional plan and to the assignment of a security classification were met. However, in some cases, there was no documented evidence that some factors listed under the regulations for the security classification were considered.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations prescribe the way in which CSC manages the detention of offenders. Within the relevant areas of legislation, this Audit of Intake Assessment identified three sections of law that were subject to our audit procedure:

  • Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, Section 102.(1) - The institutional head shall ensure that a Correctional Plan is developed as soon as practicable after the reception of the inmate in the penitentiary (…).
  • Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Section 30(1) - The Service shall assign a security classification of maximum, medium or minimum to each inmate (…).
  • Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, Section 17 - The Service shall take the following factors into consideration in determining the security classification to be assigned to an inmate pursuant to Section 30 of the Act:
    1. the seriousness of the offence committed by the inmate;
    2. any outstanding charges against the inmate;
    3. the inmate’s performance and behaviour while under sentence;
    4. the inmate’s social, criminal and, if available, young-offender and any dangerous offender designation under the Criminal Code;
    5. any physical or mental illness or disorder suffered by the inmate;
    6. the inmate’s potential for violent behaviour; and
    7. the inmate’s continued involvement in criminal activities.

With respect to Section 102 (1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations we found that a Correctional Plan was completed for all cases reviewed. With respect to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (S. 30(1)), we found that a security classification was assigned to all cases reviewed. As indicated in Section 4.2.1.1.of this report, within the Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement report, we found that specific content guidelines were not always followed. As such, for some cases, there was no documented evidence that all the requirements of Section 17 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations were met.

Overall rate of compliance for all policy requirement items examined in the file review is approximately 80%.

In reviewing the offender files selected as part of the audit, we expected to find that:

  • At intake, offenders are referred to and receive the appropriate supplementary assessments as required by policies;
  • The content of the primary and supplementary assessments completed during the Offender Intake Assessment is in accordance with policies and legislations; and,
  • The primary and supplementary assessments produced during the Offender Intake Assessment are completed on time as indicated in policies and legislation.

We found that the overall rate of compliance for all items required by CSC policy is approximately 80%. This figure is consistent between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offender files when excluding the unique assessments completed for Aboriginals. This finding indicates that while the majority of items are completed in a manner consistent with policy requirements, there is room for improvement. The 80% compliance rate represents all assessment items and has been further broken down into assessments applicable to all offenders and, supplementary assessments. In performing the file review we looked to see that the content guidelines were either followed or identified as not applicable. If an item was not applicable, but not addressed as such (i.e. left blank), our review may have identified this as non-compliance if the lack of applicability was not evident from other material in the file. We are aware that the approach of identifying items as not applicable is not universally followed in the preparation of offender files and for this reason, our results are conservative.

Low compliance rates for Aboriginal specific policy requirements.

Compliance rates for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal offenders were consistent when Aboriginal specific policy requirements were removed from the analysis. This indicates that the level of care and oversight is similar between the two groups. However, the compliance of Aboriginal specific policy requirements was low at 39%. This is consistent with the results of interviews as noted in Section 4.1.4 Training for CSC Personnel of this report,which indicated that parole officers would benefit from additional training on completing Aboriginal assessments. These findings are also consistent with those of the recent Audit of Management of Section 81 Agreements completed by CSC’s Internal Audit Branch in 2008.

4.2.1.1 Assessments Applicable to all Offenders
Assessments Applicable to all Offenders
Description and Completion Target Content of Assessment in Accordance with Policy Assessment Performed within Time Guidelines
Criminal Profile (70 or 90 days) 82% 83%
Correctional Plan  (70 or 90 days) 83% 83%
Preliminary Assessment (5 days) 77% 79%
Post Sentence Community Assessment (40 days) 54% 94%
Security Classification and Pen Placement 75% n/a15

The above noted assessments provide the foundation of CSC’s knowledge of the offender. Not meeting content or timing guidelines increases the risk that there will be a negative impact in other parts of the case management framework, such as programming, supervision or release. The results of our audit as it relates to each type of assessment will be discussed in more detail below. For each assessment, an overall compliance rate is presented for each report along with the context and an analysis of the root cause, if applicable.

Criminal Profile, 82% compliance with policy

The objectives of the Criminal Profile report are to provide a profile of current and previous offences, identify high risk situations that can lead to re-offence, ensure that risk is taken into account in decision making and serve as the mechanism for ensuring that official information is shared with the offender.

The Criminal Profile is made up of various sections designed to provide an introduction to the case. It populates the offender’s version of events from the Preliminary Assessment and includes the official version, identifies if there are outstanding charges and, also provides an analysis of criminal behaviour, family violence, institutional and community supervision, escape history, detention criteria, offence cycle and level of risk. Since the Criminal Profile provides a synthesis of all information gathered from the police, the courts, Crown Attorney, victims and other sources, it is clear that non-compliance in some areas could have a significant impact on many aspects of case management (i.e. not fully understanding the crime(s), the causes of criminal behaviour, the offender’s offence cycle and risk and so forth). As a result, emphasis should be placed on ensuring that all areas of the Criminal Profile report are completed in compliance with policy.

Although our review showed that all cases had a Criminal Profile report on file, some areas of non-compliance contributing to the compliance rate of 82% were: 

  • Official version;
  • Offender’s version;
  • Analysis of criminal behaviour; and
  • Offence cycle.

These areas are critical in that they examine the criminal and social history of the offender, they provide the official version of the offence(s) and provide a description of the offender’s offence cycle based on overall pattern of criminal behaviour, including internal and external factors.  Information contained in both the official and offender’s version of events and the analysis of criminal behaviour may also be found in other assessments, such as the post sentence community assessment and the pen placement/security classification. While this provides potential mitigation of the lack of compliance found in these areas within the criminal profile, this may be limited as the compliance rates found in those reports were lower than that of the Criminal Profile itself.

With respect to the Official Version area, an assessment was completed for all cases reviewed; however, information which was not always captured included: factors leading up to the decision to commit, why the offence was perpetrated, information pertaining to accomplices, the level of cooperation with authorities following arrest, information regarding performance while on bail and information concerning existing prohibition and protection orders.

With respect to the Offender’s Version, an assessment was completed for all cases reviewed; however, file reviews revealed compliance issues pertaining to names, roles and status of accomplices as well as victim related information.

With respect to the analysis of Criminal Behaviour, an assessment was completed for all cases reviewed; however, some information pertaining to family violence and escape/attempted escape history was missing. It should be noted that the analysis of this area also includes the Aboriginal Social History, which had a compliance rate of 35%, thereby negatively impacting the overall compliance rate of this section.  

With respect to the Offence Cycle area, an assessment was completed for all cases reviewed; however, compliance issues were noted pertaining to both internal and external factors.

Correctional Plan, 83% compliance with policy

The Correctional Plan identifies goals for change, determines required key interventions (programs, activities) and indicates the location of such interventions (institution or the community) taking into consideration various eligibility dates during the sentence (transfers, release). It is comprised of a static factor assessment, dynamic factor identification and analysis, motivation level, reintegration potential, Aboriginal Healing Plan, sentence planning and determination of contribution factors and required interventions.

Although our review showed that all cases had a Correctional Plan report on file, some areas of non-compliance contributing to the compliance rate of 83% were: 

  • Motivation level; and
  • Aboriginal Healing Plan.

The level of motivation is determined after having gathered and analyzed information collected during intake and by reviewing various criteria such as recognition that a problem exists with lifestyle, level of comfort with problem, level of feeling of personal responsibility for the problem, willingness to change, etc. Although a motivation level was assigned for all cases reviewed, there were cases where specific content guidelines were not followed, hence the low compliance rate. As a contributing factor we noted that the motivation field in the Intake Assessment report is limited in the number of characters that can be entered, possibly making it difficult to enter all required information. These findings are consistent with those from the Offender Intake Assessment Audit performed by CSC’s Performance Assurance Sector in 2001.

We also identified a lack of clarity in the Correctional Plan content guidelines (CD 705-6, Annex B), which may have impacted the compliance level of the motivation section, and the overall compliance level of the Correctional Plan. For example, the content guidelines state that both motivation level and reintegration potential are automatically entered or calculated from the Offender Management System. However, it is not clear where in the Offender Management System the information is entered in order for it to be populated into the Correctional Plan. As well, guidance is unclear on whether some content areas should be contained in the Intake Assessment report or in the actual body of the Correctional Plan report itself, and whether the two reports should be considered as one when assessing the Correctional Plan’s compliance with policy.

The Aboriginal Healing Plan compliance results were low as it was also indicated in the report of our Audit of Management of Section 81 Agreements.  The policy does indicate that the Healing Plan is completed if an Elder Assessment is available and if the offender is prepared to following a healing path. It is not evident from the file review whether the Aboriginal Healing Plans were not completed because of a lack of available Elders, lack of interest on the part of the offender or other issues.

Components of Motivation and the Aboriginal Healing Plan are also found in the Security Classification and Pen Placement reports; however, compliance rates for those assessments are lower than that of the Correctional Plan. Non-compliance in some areas of the Correctional Plan could have an impact on appropriate referrals being made, as well as the adequacy of the interventions and monitoring techniques required to address areas associated with the risk to re-offend.

Preliminary Assessment, 77% compliance with policy

The Preliminary Assessment is used to collect basic data, assess needs, initiate the collection of critical documents and orient the offender to CSC.

Although our review showed that all cases had a Preliminary Assessment report on file, some areas of non-compliance contributing to the compliance rate of 77% were: 

  • General content; and
  • Content specific to imminent release cases (accelerated parole reviews serving 4 years or less and other cases serving less than 3 years).

The guidelines for the completion of the Preliminary Assessment include an interview checklist. This created challenges when performing the file review, as information may be included in the body of the assessment, or in the checklist, and the approach was not consistent across files. For audit purposes we only assessed the information contained in the body of the Preliminary Assessment report.

In the general content of the report, the areas with the lowest compliance level were electoral information, other languages, place of birth and police force information, and it is unclear if the expectation is that all variables are to be contained within the body of the report. Regarding content specific to assessments of release potential for those serving short sentences, compliance issues were noted in plans for transfer or release under Section 81 or 84 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, residential potential and accommodation. As per the checklist, basic information about potential release plans should be included in this assessment and then explored in further detail in subsequent reports such as the Correctional Plan Progress Report or the Community Strategy for release purposes.

These findings are consistent with those from the Offender Intake Assessment Audit performed by CSC’s Performance Assurance Sector in 2001.

Post Sentence Community Assessment, 54% compliance with policy

The Post Sentence Community Assessment is an essential document in the Intake Assessment and the Correctional Planning processes and it serves as a preliminary information gathering tool where information provided by the offender may be enhanced and corroborated via other sources (personal or official).

Some areas of non-compliance contributing to the compliance rate of 54%:

  • Community strategies;
  • Victim impact;
  • Criminal history;
  • Contributing factors;
  • Temporary absences/private family visits; and
  • Police/other information.

Although our review showed that all cases had a Post Sentence Community Assessment report on file, the content guidelines were not always followed. For example, if an offender did not wish to provide a contact person or if the contact person was unreachable, the general practice was for the Community Parole Officer to close off the report by indicating the reasons why the report was not being completed. In some instances, the Community Parole Officer did make a comment that a new Post Sentence Community Assessment should be generated at a later date if a new contact person or a new contact number for the unreachable individual was provided. However, as per CD 705-1 Preliminary Assessment and Post-Sentence Community Assessments, "if no personal contacts are identified by the offender, the Community Parole Officer will collect information from official sources". Therefore, should there have been no contact available or if the contact person was unreachable, it was expected that at minimum, the Post Sentence Community Assessment report would have at least contained police information, assessment of impact on victims and, any other information received from official sources. These findings are consistent with those from the Offender Intake Assessment Audit performed by CSC’s Performance Assurance Sector in 2001.

Although there are areas within the Post Sentence Community Assessment which are also contained in other assessments and may be captured there, for the most part within the Post Sentence Community Assessment the information received is based on the input of contacts who have been interviewed for the assessment, while in the other assessments it is based upon other sources of information.

As previously noted in Section 4.1.1 Policies and Programs of this report, it was noted that the Community Strategy area (CD 705-1, Annex B) suggests that the Intake Assessment Unit could be responsible for the completion of an Assessment for Decision for  Accelerated Parole Review cases serving four years or less and all other cases serving three years or less. When reviewing CD 712-1 Pre-Release Decision Making, Annex A it is unclear when the Intake Assessment Unit would actually be responsible for completing such an Assessment as the responsibility appears to lie with either the Community Parole Officer, the Institutional Parole Officer or Primary Worker. There is no indication that the responsibility would lie with the Intake Parole Officer.Due to this contradiction in policy, this area was not included in our review.

The Post Sentence Community Assessment content guidelines call for an assessment of the impact on victims, unless other regional practices to gather victim impact statements are used. If other practices exist, the content guidelines indicate that the assessment of impact on victims is not to be completed. Compliance rates were low in this area which may have been due to the presence of other regional practices; however, it is not clear from the file review or documented in the Offender Management System if other regional practices had been used. There are areas within the Post Sentence Community Assessment which are also contained in other assessments, however for the most part within the Post Sentence Community Assessment they are based on the input of contacts who have been interviewed for the assessment, while in the other assessments it is based upon other sources. This is consistent with the findings from the Offender Intake Assessment Audit performed by the Performance Assurance Sector in 2001.

With respect to the Criminal History area, although an assessment was completed for the majority of cases where a full Post Sentence Community Assessment was prepared, there was insufficient information pertaining to the contact’s comments on the offender’s performance on bail and original charges versus final outcome. In addition,  the fairness of the sentence, the Parole Officer’s assessment of the contact’s attitude towards the offender’s criminal behaviour and his/her ability to successfully reintegrate where frequently incomplete.  

The assessment of Contributing Factors also impacted on the overall compliance rating. As per policy, parole officers are to assess several factors based on information provided to them by the contact(s). Although an assessment was completed for the majority of cases where a full Post Sentence Community Assessment was prepared, the following factors were not sufficiently addressed:  the offender’s strengths likely to contribute to reintegration, leisure activities and awareness or use of social or community services by the offender and the contact(s), the offender’s ability to set goals, recognize and solve problems, communication skills (verbal and written), the relevance of release plans and suggestions for additions or alternatives to the plans; the contact’s opinion on the offender’s ability to handle finances; and the availability of programs and resources that are accessible in the community.

Regarding Temporary Absences and Private Family Visits, the majority of cases included a comment regarding the family eligibility and interest in participating in private family visits, as well as the contact’s interest in receiving the offender on unescorted temporary absences and the ability and willingness to provide suitable accommodation. However, information pertaining to concerns with respect to family violence, the offender’s past and present marital status, and parenting responsibilities were lacking. The Parole Officer’s assessment of family dynamic, the value the contact places on family and the value the offender places on family, and the relevance of unescorted temporary absences/ private family visiting program, including reporting and supervision requirements, type and frequency of contacts, were also of low compliance.

As per policy, specific information received from police (including reaction to the proposed release plan(s) and the reporting requirements established for the offender and pertaining to family violence and the existence of any restraining orders) as well as other relevant information from other criminal justice sources and official community organizations is to be included within the report and this information, based on reviewed Post Sentence Community Assessments, was also found to be lacking.

The above findings were consistent with those from the Offender Intake Assessment Audit performed by CSC’s Performance Assurance Sector in 2001.

As the focus of the Post Sentence Community Assessment interview is to obtain information that will assist in the overall assessment of the offender and in the identification of issues/concerns that may impact on the offender’s reintegration potential, it is critical that all pertinent information be gathered and all areas be thoroughly assessed. Non-compliance could have an effect on the accuracy of subsequent assessments.

Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement, 75% compliance with policy

The objectives of the Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement are to place offenders to the most appropriate institution and to contribute to their timely preparation for safe reintegration. In addition to this, it ensures public safety as well as respecting offenders’ rights while meeting their individual security requirements and program needs.

The Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement report includes the completion of the Custody Rating Scale in order to generate a security classification level (minimum, medium or maximum) and the assessment of three main areas: institutional adjustment, escape risk and public safety concerns. Within these separate sections, various criteria must be reviewed to then attribute an overall rating of the area (low, medium, high). Other areas to be addressed in this report include UTA Authority, Overall Assessment and Recommended Penitentiary Placement.

A security classification level (minimum, medium or maximum) and penitentiary placement was assigned for all cases reviewed by the auditors. Although the three main areas of institutional adjustment, escape risk and public safety concerns were assessed for all cases, there were cases where specific content guidelines were not followed.

Some areas of non-compliance contributing to the compliance rate of 75%:

  • Institutional adjustment (sentence length and impact on adjustment, pay/motivation level, mental health issues);
  • Escape risk (bail, outstanding charges/appeals, indicators of escape potential)
  • Public Safety Concerns;
  • Overall assessment (summary of elements (including psychological), case conference).

With respect to Institutional Adjustment, an assessment was completed for all cases reviewed; however, we identified three main factors that contributed to the low compliance rate in this area: comments on the length of the offender’s sentence and its impact on the offender’s institutional adjustment, comments on offender’s pay level and their level of motivation to participate in employment and correctional programs and, identification of whether the offender has a history of mental health issues, suicidal ideas and whether this will impact on the offender’s institutional adjustment.

With respect to Escape Risk, an assessment was completed for all cases reviewed; however, we identified three main factors that contributed to the low compliance rate in this area: comments on whether there was a period of bail and whether the conditions of the bail were respected, identification of any outstanding charges or appeals that may impact the offender’s risk of escape and, whether there are any indicators of escape potential.

With respect to Public Safety Concerns, an assessment was completed for all cases reviewed; however, the lack of clarity as to whether each item needs to be specifically addressed regardless of its applicability may have had a large impact on compliance due to the over 30 items which must be considered in this area. This area was also impacted by a low compliance rate of 36% in the Aboriginal Social History. Areas which may or may not have been applicable, but were frequently not addressed in the files included: level of dynamic factors, successful escorted/unescorted absences/work releases, age at review, detention referral, substance abuse rating, stability prior to current incarceration, previous release periods, accelerated parole eligibility, likelihood to commit a serious offence if released prior to Warrant Expiry and whether the detention criteria is met.

For the Overall Assessment section of the report we found an assessment was completed for all cases reviewed; however, we identified two main factors that contributed to the low compliance rate in this area when commenting on the factors used to determine the offender’s security classification: inclusion of a short summary of the elements, including the psychological risk assessment if applicable and, documentation of when the case conference occurred and who was present.

The areas of Escape Risk and Institutional Adjustment are also addressed in the Criminal Profile, which provides some mitigation of the lower compliance in the Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement report.

Combined with the results of the Custody Rating Scale, the security level is based on an assessment of the offender’s institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to public safety. Without an assessment of all relevant criteria within the three main areas, there is potential for offenders to be placed at institutions that do not reflect appropriate control, supervision, programs and services.

4.2.1.2 Supplementary Assessments

While offenders were generally referred for supplementary assessments and received these assessments according to policy, the compliance with timeliness is low.

Supplementary assessments are designed to address specific problem areas and are intended to provide information on the nature and seriousness of dynamic factors contributing to behaviour. Policy indicates that these assessments will normally be conducted within the first 30 days.

Psychological Assessment Summary
  Referred to Assessment % of those Referred who Received Assessment16 Assessment Performed within Time Guidelines
Psychological Intake Assessments 40% 63% 14%
Specialized Sex Offender Assessments 10% 89% 0%

Policy indicates that Psychological Intake Assessments will be completed 50 calendar days after admission or 40 calendar days from referral and prior to completion of the initial security classification and penitentiary placement. Of the 100 cases selected, 13 were out of scope for this part of the audit procedure. Of the remaining 87 cases, 35 were referred for a Psychological Intake Assessment and 9 were referred for a Specialized Sex Offender Assessment (as indicated in the Criminal Profile).

According to interviews, there were issues with having the specialized resources, particularly psychologists, available to perform supplementary assessments. This assertion was supported by the results of file reviews, which indicated that not all cases which had been referred for a Psychological or Specialized Sex Offender Assessment received the required assessment and, less than 10% were completed within the established timeframes in both instances. This is particularly significant given the increasing number of offenders serving short sentences and those suffering from mental health issues. These offenders are in the system for a relatively short period of time and therefore delays in performing supplementary assessments can put pressure on the receiving institutions to complete them and, subsequently impact on the appropriateness of the offender’s initial penitentiary placement, rehabilitation and eventual release.

These findings are consistent with those from the Offender Intake Assessment Audit performed by the Performance Assurance Sector in 2001.

Mandatory Assessment Summary
  Required Assessment % of those who Required Assessment who Received Assessment Assessment Performed within Time Guidelines
Family Violence Risk Assessment 100% 97% 2%
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment 48% 100% 0%
Educational Assessments n/a17 n/a 69%

Policy dictates that Family Violence Risk Assessments (Phase I) will be conducted on all offenders. Consequently, if an offender meets at least one of the three screening criteria, the offender is deemed at risk for future family violence and further evaluation is required (Phase II). Phase II requires completion of the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment. Although the majority of these offenders received this assessment, not all cases did (3) and this could lead to potentially serious consequences if the risk of family violence is overlooked (private family visits, supporting the release of an abusive husband to the family home, etc.). There is noted improvement in this area from the findings of the Offender Intake Assessment Audit performed by CSC’s Performance Assurance Sector in 2001, where Spousal Abuse Risk Assessments were completed in 83% of cases that met one of the applicable criteria.

It should be noted that the Assessment of Risk for Family Violence - General, was not found in any of the Offender Intake Assessment reports reviewed in the Offender Management System by the auditors. CD 705-5 Supplementary Intake Assessments does not dictate if this assessment should be completed as part of another report such as the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment or Criminal Profile, etc., or if this should be a stand alone assessment; therefore, making it difficult to provide further analysis in this area.

As for Educational Assessments, policy states that offenders will be referred for educational testing unless there is official documentation of grade level attainment. Overall, file reviews revealed that Educational Assessments were completed, though not consistently across the country in terms of content. We noted that policy does not state where and how these assessments are to be recorded in the Offender Management System and there is no official guideline or template provided to complete these assessments; therefore, making it difficult to provide an overall compliance analysis due to the lack of standardization.

As previously identified in Section 4.1.1 Policies and Programs of this report, due to the contradiction in policy between CD 705-6 and CD 720 in regards to grade level (grade 10 vs. grade 12), no analysis was completed in regards to grade level attainment or for the inclusion of a referral to Adult Basic Education in the offender’s Correctional Plan. Generally, assessments were found in the Educational Assessment field under various subfields or as part of the Intake Assessment (Correctional Plan) under the Employment Domain Analysis. Clarification in policy is required to indicate where these assessments should be located and in what format they should be entered (guideline/template) as well as which grade level prompts a referral to Adult Basic Education.

Other Supplementary Assessment Summary
  Required Assessment % of those who Required Assessment who Received Assessment Assessment Performed within Time Guidelines
Elder Assessments (40 or 50 days) 22% 55% 0%
Substance Abuse n/a18 99% 52%

For Elder Assessments, policy dictates that these will be completed 50 calendar days after admission or 40 calendar days from referral and prior to the completion of the initial security classification and penitentiary placement. For the purpose of our audit, we are reporting on the 50 day timeframe as the content and the location of the referrals were unclear.

Elder Assessments set objectives for the offender and identify the offender’s risk within his/her cultural context for decision makers. Intake assessment policies do not clearly dictate which offenders will participate in an Elder Assessment or how referrals are to be processed. We did note that CD 702 Aboriginal Offenders does identify a process for Elder Reviews19, however it is unclear if an Elder Review is to be considered as an Elder Assessment.

Furthermore, there is an impact on the completion of assessments where Elders are not available. Therefore, it was difficult to adequately assess compliance for offenders who should have been referred to such assessments. Of the cases that expressed an interest in following a healing path (as indicated in the Correctional Plan or Memo-to-File) approximately half received the assessment and 0% received it within 50 days from admission. The inability to effectively track referrals prevented the auditors from reporting on anything further. Given that the Elder Assessment identifies the offender's risks, it could potentially impact on risk assessment, programming and release planning.

Policy states that offenders will participate in Substance Abuse Assessments as required. Although the policy does not allow us to assess whether the assessment is required, it was completed for 86 of the 87 offenders subject to this audit procedure.20 However, only 52% of these were completed within a 30-day timeframe. This is particularly significant given the large number of offenders suffering from substance abuse problems and the increasing number of offenders serving short sentences. If Substance Abuse Assessments are not completed in a timely fashion, this could result in an offender missing the opportunity to participate in a program at the most appropriate time. It could also be said that late assessments further impact on reintegration and reduction of risk (i.e. denial of parole due to non completion of a substance abuse program).

Although no recommendations have been made for this section, we expect that the recommendations made in Section 4.1 Management Framework, particularly related to policy clarifications, training, performance monitoring and quality assurance should assist CSC in achieving improved compliance in the Offender Intake Assessment process.

Annex A
Audit Objectives and Criteria

Objective Criteria
1. To assess the adequacy of the management framework as it relates to the Offender Intake Assessment process. 1.1 Policies are risk based, accessible, clear and understood by those who need to apply them.
1.2 Authorities, roles and responsibilities for institutional case management activities have been defined, understood and are being communicated at National Headquarters, Regional Headquarters and the institutions.
1.3 Management and employees’ feedback is solicited and considered.
1.4 Training needs are identified and training is provided and taken as required by Institutional Parole Officers and Managers Assessment and Intervention working in the intake units, ensuring that they are aware of their responsibilities and possess the skills to perform them.
1.5 Plans identifying current and future HR needs, related to the Offender Intake Assessment process, is documented and communicated.
1.6 At the national and regional level, are there indicators which drive financial resource requirements, and are resources received accordingly.
1.7 Performance metrics exist, are monitored and issues resolved on a timely basis at the national, regional and local levels.
2. To determine the extent to which CSC’s sites are complying with relevant Offender Intake Assessment legislation and policy directives. 2.1 At intake, offenders are referred to and receive the appropriate supplementary assessments as required by policies.
2.2 The content of the primary and supplementary assessments, completed during the Offender Intake Assessment, is in accordance with policies and legislation.
2.3 The primary and supplementary assessments produced during the Offender Intake Assessment are completed on time, as indicated in policies and legislation.

Annex B

Table 3
Location of Site Visits

Region Location
Atlantic
  • Regional Reception Centre - Springhill Institution
  • Moncton Parole Office
  • Regional Headquarters, Atlantic
Québec
  • Regional Reception Centre - Saint-Anne-des-Plaines Complex
  • Ville Marie Parole Office
  • Regional Headquarters, Québec
Ontario
  • Millhaven Assessment Unit - Millhaven Institution
  • Kingston Parole Office
  • Regional Headquarters, Ontario
Prairies
  • Stony Mountain Institution
  • Saskatchewan Penitentiary
  • Saskatoon Parole Office
  • Regional Headquarters, Prairies
Pacific
  • Regional Reception / Assessment Center (RRAC) - Pacific Institution
  • Abbotsford Parole Officer
  • Regional Headquarters, Pacific
Total 16 sites

Annex C

Definitions of Terms

Continuum of Care: Introduced in 2003, the Continuum of Care was developed in consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders working with CSC to develop new approaches to addressing Aboriginal offender needs. Integrating Aboriginal culture and spirituality within CSC operations, the Continuum of Care: starts at intake, to identify Aboriginal offenders and to encourage them to bridge the disconnect with their culture and communities; leads to paths of healing in institutions to better prepare Aboriginal offenders for transfer to lower security and for conditional release; engages Aboriginal communities to receive offenders back into their community and support their reintegration; and ends with establishment of community supports to sustain progress beyond the end of the sentence and prevent re-offending.

Correctional Plan: Based on a timely and systematic analysis of significant information it outlines a risk management strategy for each offender. It specifies those interventions and monitoring techniques required to address areas associated with the risk to re-offend.

Criminal Profile: It provides a synthesis of all information gathered from the police, the courts, Crown Attorney, victims, the offender and other sources to give the best possible understanding of the crime, the causes of criminal behaviour, the offender’s offence cycle and risk.

Custody Rating Scale: A research-based tool to assist the Parole Officer/Primary Worker to determine the most appropriate level of security for the initial penitentiary placement of the offender or any subsequent readmission. The scale is completed by assigning scores to a number of factors on two dimensions:  institutional adjustment and security risk.

Educational Assessment: Assesses an offender's functional grade or achievement level, including screening for potential learning disabilities and employment needs.

Elder Assessments: Sets objectives for the offender and identifies the offender’s risk within his cultural context for decision makers.

Edler Reviews: Provides the Elder’s perspective of the offender, based on his or her traditional knowledge and teachings. The Elder Review report, which is completed by the Elder or Aboriginal Liaison Officer (ALO) assisting the Elder, identifies where an offender is on his or her healing journey and can assist the Case Management Team members in completing their assessments on the offender. The Elder Review, focusing on the four aspects of self, is a holistic approach that serves as a baseline from which to measure progress. It would take place during each phase of the Continuum of Care in the institution (intake, assessment and intervention).

Gladue Principles: A Supreme Court decision rendered in April 1999 noted that paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code had not been applied in the manner in which it had originally been designed. Although the principles of denunciation, deterrence (specific and general) and rehabilitation are considered and applied to individual offenders’ sentences, there are other circumstances and mitigating factors that must be taken into account, especially when dealing with the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders. In response to this decision, CSC will ensure that Aboriginal circumstances (see "Aboriginal Social History") will be considered at all levels of decision making respecting Aboriginal offenders.

Healing Plans: Address the needs of Aboriginal offenders in relationship to their criminogenic history, correctional plan needs and safe reintegration into the community, while being sensitive to the diverse differences of Aboriginal people.

Pathways Program: Pathways unit is a living environment that addresses the cultural and spiritual needs of First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders.

Penitentiary Placement: This document provides the offender with the reasons for the proposed placement in writing two working days prior to the final decision and transfer to the assigned penitentiary.

Post Sentence Community Assessment: Completed following an interview with an offender’s contact. This report serves as a preliminary information gathering tool where information provided by the offender may be enhanced and corroborated. This interview, focus on obtaining information that will assist in the overall assessment of the offender.

Preliminary Assessment: The Preliminary Assessment is used to collect basic data on the offender, assess his or her immediate needs, initiate the collection of the critical documents and orient the offender to the CSC. The preliminary assessment is normally held while the offender is still in custody of provincial authorities and completed by a Community Parole Officer.

Security Classification: Established to place offenders to the most appropriate institution and to contribute to their timely preparation for safe reintegration. The Security Classification is based on the results of the Custody Rating Scale, clinical judgment of experienced and specialized staff and psychological assessments, where required.

Social History: Identifies and analyzes how some specific factors such as the level or lack of formal education, experience with poverty have impacted on the Aboriginal offender’s criminal behaviour.

Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale: The Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale is a statistically derived tool for predicting recidivism. The scale combines measures of demographic characteristics and criminal history in a scoring system that yields estimates of chances of recidivism for different groups of offenders.

Annex D

Audit of Offender Intake Assessment
Management Action Plan

Recommendation Action Summary OPI Planned Completion Date
Recommendation #1:
The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP) should:
     

a. Clarify policies where needed;

Action:
Institutional Reintegration Operations Division (IRO) will revise CD 705 - Intake Assessment Process, CD 705-1 - Preliminary Assessments and Post-Sentence Community Assessments,  CD 705-2 - Information Collection, CD 705-3 - Immediate Needs and Admission Interviews, CD 705-4 - Orientation, CD 705-5 - Supplementary Assessments, CD 705-6 - Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile, CD 705-7 - Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement, CD 705-8 - Assessing Serious Harm, CD 710 - Institutional Supervision Framework, CD 710-1 - Progress Against the Correctional Plan, CD 712 - Case Preparation and Release Framework, CD 712-1 - Pre-release Decision Making, and CD 712-4 - Release Process
OPI: COP
OSI: PR
Promulgation of revised Offender Intake Assessment (OIA-R) Process CDs (October 2009, dependent on OMS Release 1.05)

b. Strengthen processes to notify staff of relevant policy updates;

Action:
PR will revise current administrative processes for notification to staff of relevant policy updates and for responding consistently to policy clarification requests. Consistent with the recommendations of the Policy Task Force future Gen-Communication messages issued to communicate policy changes will include in the heading "Policy" in order to highlight the nature of the message. Consistent with the Policy Task Force, future communications will include a briefing deck to assist managers in explaining changes to staff.
OPI: PR
OSI: COP
Revised Gen-Com messages
(As required)

Briefing decks distributed
(As required)

c. Implement a consistent approach to responding to policy clarification requests; and

Action:
Future policy direction (e.g. CDs) will include contact information for those requiring further information.
OPI: PR
OSI: COP
Revised CD format will include contact information (as required)

d. Update the "National Correctional Program Guidelines"

Action:
Revision of "National Correctional Program Referral Guidelines" and CD 726 - Correctional Programs
OPI:  COP
OSI:  PR
Promulgation of CD 726 - Correctional Programs and distribution of related referral guidelines (June 2009)
Recommendation #2:
The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP) in collaboration with the Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services (ACCS), should complete its evaluation of the current workload formula in order to determine a more effective approach to allocating parole officer resources to Offender Intake Assessment.
Action:
IRO will develop an Institutional Resource Formula similar to the Community Resource Formula.

IRO, in collaboration with CS and HRM, will implement the use of the Institutional Resource Formula in the establishment of workload formulas for all sites including intake assessment units (centralized and decentralized).
OPI: COP
OSI: CS/HRM
National Working Group consultation (January 2009)

Development of the Institutional Resource Formula (TBD)

Consultation with Unions, RDC's, ADCIO (TBD)

Presentation to EXCOM (June 2010)

Implementation (April 2011)
Recommendation #3: 
The Assistant Commissioner, Human Resources Management Sector (ACHRMS), in collaboration with the Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP), should develop and implement additional training for Intake Parole Officers and Managers Assessment and Intervention, including training on completing the assessments required for Aboriginal offenders.
Action:
HRM will develop standardized OIA-R national training for Institutional Parole Officers and Managers Assessment and Intervention (MAI).

HRM will lead the completion of Parole Officer Induction Training (POIT), training for MAI's and Parole Officer Continuous Development (POCD) training.

IRO will conduct consultations with National Working Group on OIA-R

IRO will develop an OIA-R handbook

IRO will develop Aboriginal Healing Plan Training package
OPI: HRM
OSI: COP, AI
Handbook distributed to intake units (October 2009, dependent on OMS Release 1.05)

OIA-R Training and Aboriginal Healing Planning Completion Training (October 2009)
Recommendation #4: 
Regional Deputy Commissioners should ensure that parole officers meet the requirements of the National Training Standards related to their duties.
Action:
RDC will develop and implement an action plan to ensure all intake parole officers meet the requirements of NTS related to their duties.

Follow-up report to ACCOP.
OPI: RDC Memo from ACCOP to RDC's requesting action plans (June 2009)

Report on  commitments and follow-up to ACCOP (January 2010) 
Recommendation #5: 
The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP) should enhance performance tracking measures to include the timeliness of supplementary assessments.
Action:
Consultation with NHQ sectors (for example Aboriginal Initiatives, Health Services, Performance Assurance) regarding the development and implementation of performance metrics for timeliness of supplementary assessment such as employment, education, psychological, family violence, substance abuse, sex offender, etc.

Revision of CD 705-5 - Supplementary Assessments
OPI: COP
OSI:  AI, HS, PA
 Memos from ACCOP to Sector Heads requesting input for performance metrics for supplementary assessment (June 2009)

Promulgation of revised CD 705 - Supplementary Assessments (November 2009, dependent on OMS Release 1.05)
Recommendation #6: 
The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP) should develop and implement a formal, risk based, quality control process for intake assessments. Results of the quality control process should also be included in performance monitoring and reporting activities.
Action:
IRO will develop a quality control (timeliness and content) process for OIA-R.

IRO will develop a performance measurement index and indicators for OIA-R, including:  post-sentence community assessments, community strategy, immediate needs (security, suicide), security classification (placement), correctional plans, and program referrals.
OPI: COP
OSI: PA
Introduction of the quality control process (February 2009).

Production of first quarterly performance measurement report (February 2010)

1 CSC Report on Plans and Priorities: 2008-09

2 CSC Report on Plans and Priorities: 2008-09

3 See Annex C for definition of Continuum of Care.

4 See Annex C for definitions of Social History, Elder Assessment and Healing Plan.

5 See Annex C for definition of educational assessment.

6 A brief description of these tools and reports is provided in Annex C to this report.

7 CSC’s Corporate Reporting System

8 A brief description of these assessments is provided in Annex C to this report.

9 See Annex A for a complete list of audit criteria.

10 Internal information network.

11 Percentage of training completed at the time of our audit.

12 See Annex C for definitions of Pathways program, Social History and Healing Plan.

13 See Annex C for definition of Gladue principles.

14 These data were gathered through PRIME (Portal on Results, Information, Management and Evaluation) and OMS (Offender Management System).

15 CD does not specify timeframes.

16 Percentage of offenders that had received the assessment at the time of the audit.

17 As noted in the report, the policy is not clear on the grade level requirements, therefore making it difficult to determine the number of offenders who required the assessment.

18 Policy does not dictate the criteria for referral however of the 87 cases reviewed, 86 received the assessment.

19 See Annex C for definition of Elder Reviews.

20 Of the 100 files reviewed, 13 cases were out of scope for this part of the audit.