ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Contenu archivé

L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.

Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

I*1 National Parole Board

Commission natiorrale des libérations conditionnelles

1 1

1

1

1 1 1 1

1

1

1

- EVALUATION OF THE DECISION POLICIES - PHASE I

National Parole Board

Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles 1

.p3 C6 1992

ICanaclU

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD

'ÉVALUATION OF THE DECISION POLICIES - PHASE I

FINAL REPORT

CoPleCe

euerdeiveeeoeCAe.

?0,agauecemebeceice‘e'ç\ ee

es dee

oseezeeeva\e'çoe

vas

àe.leeu*see cdceu Pése■

eeneeee eeçoee'02,\eee-eezuelt

ee■dedee.

January 31, 1992

/ 03 P3

/

LIBRARY SOLMOR te:EFIAL CANADA

i-JAN fe',95, ption-iteuz

eolJentiri el..re..f.et CANADA orrAwA pgrAg*)

IZIA

The Cpo pers &Lybrand Consulting Group Management Consultants

5

5

7

20

26

29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

Development and Implementation of the Policies 1 Purpose of Phase I of the Evaluation 3 Reminder to the Reader 3 Acknowledgements 4

•2. SCOPE AND NATURE OF THIS STUDY

Approach and Methodology

3. SUM:MARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary Findings 7 Recommendations 9

4. EVALUATION ISSUES, RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DETAILED FINDINGS

Evaluation Issues, Research Questions 11

General Themes - Emerging Issues 12

Issue 1: Clarity of the Nature and Purpose of the Decision Policies 13

Issue 2: Consistency of the Decision Policies with the NPB Mission Statement and the Parole Act 19

Issue 3: Do the Decision Policies meet the requirements of NPB Members and other participants in the Decision process?

Issue 4: Do the Decisions Policies respect and support the achievement of NPB objectives related to cultural diversity and ethnicity and the special needs of females and aboriginal peoples?

Issue 5: Are the requirements set out in the Pre-release Decision Policies being met? What has been the impact of the Pre-release Decision Policies?

11 •

C&L

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Issue 6: What data are required to support future evaluations and policy analyses? What mechanisms should be implemented to address and forecast unmet information needs? Could planned and existing studies by NPB, CSC or the Ministry Secretariat provide information useful for future analysis of the NPB Decision Policies or other policies related to the Conditional Release Program?

5. CONCLUSION 34

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I - Detailed Methodology

APPENDIX II - Interview Guides

APPENDIX III - Focus Group Agendas

30

C&L

1. INTRODUCTION

Development and Implementation of the Policies

The National Parole Board (NPB or "the Board") exercises statutory or regulatory powers to grant and to control the conditional release of persons undergoing sentences of imprisonment. In addition to exercising authority over conditional release for federal inmates, NPB exercises equivalent jurisdiction in respect of inmates in provincial and territorial institutions in provinces and territories without their own parole boards.

Under Section 13 of the Parole Act, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction and absolute discretion to grant or refuse to grant parole or a temporary absence without escort, and to terminate or revoke parole or to revoke release subject to mandatory supervision. Under the Parole Act, as amended by Parliament on July 25, 1986; the Parole Board has jurisdiction to detain an offender, to release an offender on mandatory supervision subject to a residency condition, or to release an offender on one chance mandatory supervision, from the presumptive release date until the warrant expiry date of the sentence.

The criteria which Board Members must take into consideration when making conditional release decisions are found in Section 10(1) of the Parole Act which states that:

"The Board may ... grant parole to an inmate, subject to the terms or conditions it considers reasonable, if the Board considers that:

i) in the case of a grant of parole other than day parole, the inmate has derived the maximum benefit from imprisonment;

ii) the reform and rehabilitation of the inmate will be aided by the grant of parole; and

iii) the release of the inmate on parole would not constitute an undue risk to society."

C&L

Prior to 1987, Board members were guided primarily by these criteria in reaching decisions. In addition, Board Members used "decision factor sheets" which pinpointed factors for consideration in making decisions. These factors, developed in 1985, fell under two general categories:

• Nature and Extent of Criminal Involvement: which addresses the gravity of the present offence; the pattern of criminal behaviour; and possible contributing factors (e.g. age, substance abuse etc.); and

• Performance Since Admission to Institution: including the offender's understanding of his criminal behaviour; the value of program participation; the inmate's behaviour; the community assessment; performance on previous conditional releases; and the views of professionals.

Under Section 13 of the Parole Act, the Board has absolute discretion and exclusive jurisdiction to render decisions related to conditional release. Critics of the decision prdcess argued, however, that the factors and criteria allowed a wide latitude for interpretation. As described in the Evaluation Framework (1991), prepared by the Evaluation, Audit and Statistics Branch, concerns centred around the following:

• "the extent to which decisions taken adhered to consistent principles;

• 'whether the criteria restricted the Board or provided assistance in making decisions;

• whether parole selection should be based on more clearly and specifically artic'ulated criteria; and

• whether clearer decision-making criteria would allow authorities to assess the extent to which parole is meeting the objectives set for it."

Within this context, the NPB pursued the development of decision-making criteria. In October, 1986 A Framework for NPB Decision-Making set out a preliminary model for decision-making. Just over one year later, a Task Force was mandated to propose decision policies. As a result, the Pre-release Decision Policies were implemented in March, 1988; the Post-release Decision Policies were approved in June, 1988; and, following Bill C-67, the Detention Policies were released in November, 1990.

2

C&L

1

3

Purpose of Phase I of the Evaluation

When the Policies were under development, the Solicitor General and Chairman of the Board agreed that the NPB should undertake an evaluation of the Policies within a specified timeframe. The need for evaluation of the policies was reinforced by the results of two independent analyses conducted in 1989-90 which pointed to uncertainty related to, and inconsistencies in, the application of the Policies. /

In response, the Board developed plans for a multi-phased evaluation approach. This report presents the results of Phase I of a three phase evaluation of the Decision Policies. As listed in the Terms of Reference, Phase I was intended to address the following:

• "the consistency of the Policies with the Mission and Parole Act;

• the purpose and, principles for decision policies;

• the usefulness of decision policies and the extent to which they are used; and

• the decision policies and issues of cultural diversity and ethnicity including whether or not the policies respect the special needs of females and aboriginal peoples".

Data collection for Phase I involved primarily qualitative data which was used to address the main areas described above. In particular, the first phase: collected preliminary data for the research questions described below; identified new issues that emerged which will be significant for the next two phases of the evaluation; and examined some of the data collection strategies for Phases II and III. Based on these findings, recommendations were formulated to guide Phases II and III.

Reminder to the Reader

It is important for the reader to keep in mind that this document presents a summary of qualitative findings which represent the opinions of individuals involved with the criminal justice system. This report is intended to provide a first assessment of the evaluation issues, present preliminary findings and make recommendations regarding data collection for Phases II and III.

/ Evaluation Framework (1991)

The ability to generalize from these findings is limited and readers are cautioned against doing so. With the exception of Board Members, respondents were not randomly selected. Rather, individuals were selected for their experience with, and knowledge of, conditional release. In order to maximize the information available to assess key issues and make recommendations concerning the gathering and analysis of information in the future. We are confident that these findings are useful, particularly when examined for themes or patterns that can be further explored in the subsequent phases of the evaluation. The usefulness of this report rests in its refinement of existing issues, its identification of significant emerging issues, and its identification of the types of data that will be useful to collect for future evaluation and policy planning efforts.

Acknowledgements

The CLCG project team would like to extend its sincere' appreciation to the study participants for the level of cooperation and frankness we experienced.

&L

111111 Mt MI MI 111111 Mat lib ULM 11•11 Ili 1111/1/1 1111111

Exhibit 1 — Evaluation of the Decision Policies - Phase I — Number of Interviews and Questionnaires Completed

Stakeholder Group Number of Completed Interviews / Questionnaire

Key Officials 6 interviews

NPB Board Members 14 questionnaires 1 focus group (10 participants)

NPB Staff 4 questionnaires 5 interviews

1 focus group (5 participants)

Ministry Secretariat 2 interviews

CSC Staff 15 interviews

National Voluntary 3 interviews Organizations

Victims' Groups 2 interviews

Criminal Justice 5 interviews Experts/Practitioners

Total' 56 respondents

r 91 \ tp a ou quo

'Excludes focus group participants who answered questionnaires.

2. SCOPE AND NATURE OF THIS STUDY

Approach and Methodology

The approach to this assignment was collaborative. At each phase of the assignment (e.g. development of interview guides), the Project Authority was asked to review deliverables and the instruments were finalized based on this feedback. The Project Authority was also present as an observer at the two focus groups. The following section briefly outlines the methods used to gather information during Phase I. A more detailed description of the methodology can be found in Appendix I. Data sources can be found in Exhibit 1, on the opposite page.

As stated previously, the methodology employed in Phase I of the evaluation was qualitative in nature. The specific methods employed were as follows:

Document Review. A review of relevant documents was undertaken to develop an understanding of the three decision policies as well as the NPB Mission Statement and the Parole Act.

Key interviews. Interviews were conducted with six individuals representing NPB senior management during implementation of the policies and at the present time. The purpose of these interviews was to: obtain an overview of the background to policy development as well as the decision-making process; determine the key issues; and obtain names of potential interviewees.

Semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of 50 respondents, 56 including the key interviews. Exhibit 1, on the opposite page lists the number of interviews completed for each stakeholder group. The responses to interviews were tabulated where possible. The findings helped shape the focus group guides. A copy of the guides is included in Appendix II.

5

C&L

Survey. A mail survey was sent to 25 NPB Members, 5 Regional Directors and the 5 managers of the Conditional Release Program. The questions included in this survey were congruent with those used in the interviews. Eighteen of the 35 questionnaires were received. The survey was the guide used for interviews. The results were used to assist in development of the focus group guides.

Focus Groups. Two focus groups were held, one with the five Regional Directors and the other with 10 Board Members. The purpose of the focus groups was to obtain feedback on the findings to date, as well as to expand on some of the issues raised. The agendas for the two groups differed significantly and were based on what each group had to offer the study. A copy of these agendas is included in Appendix III.

C&L

Exhibit 2 — Evaluation of the Decision Policies - Phase I — Summary of Conclusions by Issue

Issue Conclusion

1. Clarity of the Nature and Purpose of the The Policies are useful as a guide. They Decision Policies , are viewed as both policy, and procedure.

Have clarified terms and objectives - could be clearer.

2. Consistency of Decision Policies with the The Policies are consistent with one NBB Mission Statement and Parole Act. another, the Act and the Mission.

3. Do the Decision Policies meet the Policies clarify information expectations for requirements of NPB Members and other CSC. Could be more accessible to victims participants in the decision processes? and offenders, useful on whole to Board

Members with exception of decision sheets.

Information deficiencies in terms of policy and sentencing reports, and victim impact statements. Clearer analysis of risk in psychiatric/psychology reports and of benefits in program reports and Progress Summary Reports. SIR scale not viewed as useful.

Training in generic skills and "on-the-job training" viewed as a need.

4. Do the Decision Policies respect and Not inherently biased, but based on support achievement of NPB objectives assumption of equal access to information, related to cultural diversity and ethnicity, services and support for all offenders. and the special needs of females and Reflect one value system that may not be aboriginal peoples? relevant to all offenders. Disagreement

over need for explicit statements in the Policies.

Training in ethnocentric thinking awareness . and specific areas viewed as a need.

5. Are the requirements set out in the Pre- Requires more data to assess if release Decision Policies being met? requirements met. Policies have formalized What has been the impact of the Pre- process and standardized record of release Decision Policies? decisions.

6. What data are required to support future • Data to determine if Policies meet evaluations and policy analyses? What requirements of CSC, community mechanisms should be implemented to groups, victims and offenders. address forecast, unmet needs?

. • Data related to quality of information. • Data related to training. • Data to examine differences in

compliance with Pre-Release Policies. • Data to examine application of the

Policies.

c91 \nparolesum-conc iss

3. SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This section presents a summary of the general findings and conclusions of the study and provides recommendations to address key issues and concerns. This summary is presented in tabular form in Exhibit 2, on the opposite page. Section 4 of the report provides detailed information on the findings of the study by specific issue and related research questions as outlined in the evaluation framework.

Summary Findings

Overall, the Policies are viewed as a useful guide to decision-making. They have had an impact by providing a more consistent approach and process for decision-making and for documenting decisions. Informal practices are, however, still followed and there are circumstances (e.g. types of cases) when it is difficult to apply the Policies. The Policies have generally met their objectives although they could be clearer in outlining these objectives and in defining terms used within them. As they stand now, the Policies comprise more of a procedural manual and a policy and conceptual framework for decision-making. The current format for decision sheets are viewed by some as problematic in documenting decisions under current legislation and potentially more problematic under the legislative proposals contained in Bill C-36.

The Policies are viewed as being consistent with each other, the Act and the Mission. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that policy revisions required to respond to proposed legislative change maintain and enhance this consistency. The apparent need to clarify definitions for key terms such as risk, seriousness, and quality decisions must also be addressed in the context of ensuring consistency, particularly with the Mission of the Board.

Awareness of the Policies outside of CSC and NPB varies, but could be improved. In particular, the Policies are not viewed as being accessible to offenders and victims.

The information currently provided to Board Members for decision-making is useful in render'ing decisions. However, the volume of information and the lack of analytic/qualitative information is viewed as problematic. A number of sources of information are not consistently available to Board Members including police and

C&L

sentencing reports as well as victim impact statements. Furthermore, certain sources of information could be improved to facilitate assessment of risk and benefit of programs and incarceration for the offender. This includes psychiatric and psychological reports, program participation results and, in some cases, Progress Summary Reports.

Effective application of the Policies is inherently linked to the background, experience, skills and knowledge of Board Members. While the quality of training provided is not perceived as deficient, a number of areas are viewed as requiring attention. Of greatest perceived importance is the provision of basic information on factors influencing criminal behaviour. Furthermore, training in generic skills including writing of reasons, interviewing, analysis and understanding criminal behaviour is essential. To provide support to newly appointed Members, regionally delivered orientation and training based on national materials and standards as well as "on-the-job" training and supervision is viewed as a preferred method.

With respect to the diversity issue, the Policies are not viewed as biased in and of themselves. Rather, they are seen as reflecting systemic bias because they rest on the assumption of equality in access to information, services and support for all offender groups. The Policies are also reflective of a specific value system that may, or may not, coincide with that of other groups. There is disagreement on whether the Policies should explicitly point to consideration of specific factors for different groups or regions. The majority of respondents felt, however, that this should not be the case. Nonetheless, there is a perceived need for sensitivity training given the value-laden content of decision-making, as well as group-specific awareness training.

Finally, there is a need to undertake additional data collection efforts either independently or in conjunction with other stakeholders. Data collection efforts should address: victim and offender needs; the quality of information provided for decision-making; training needs; issues of compliance with the policies; and application of the policies. A collaborative effort with CSC (and others) is viewed as most beneficial in resolving issues related to the quality of information.

8

C&L

Recommendations

The findings of this study point to a number of recommendations which are outlined in detail below.

It is recommended that, consistent with its Mission and the proposed legislative change, the Board:

Revise the Policies to reflect a policy in the strictest sense of its meaning (i.e. a conceptual framework for decision-making). The Policies could be more effective if there was a clearer separation of policy from process. As such, we recommend:

. Restructuring the documents with policy clearly outlined, followed by an outline of the process involved.

• Stating explicitly the objectives of the policies in the Preamble.

. Defining clearly the terms "risk", "seriousness", and "quality decision" to ensure a uniform understanding of their meaning.

. Providing guidance in the Policies for cases viewed as exceptions, if required, and based on the results of the file review.

Related recommendations include the following:

The Board undertake a review of the existing training for Board members, including delivery approaches. Specifically, the question of the adequacy of the resources allocated to this function should be reviewed as soon as practical. Training in generic skills (i.e. writing of reasons, interviewing, criminology and analysis) and sensitivity training be pursued. It is also recommended that provision of more extensive "on-the-job" training for newly appointed Board Members be pursued.

The Board undertake to examine the information gaps currently faced by Board Members and seek a cooperative means of meeting these needs in conjunction with CSC, program managers, criminal justice practitioners and other stakeholders.

In conjunction with the file review results, the content and format of the decision sheets be reviewed and revised to increase their effectiveness.

9

C&L

• The Board examine the policies in the context of cultural diversity and the information needs of Board members for making decisions related to diverse offender groups.

• The Policies and decision-making process be made more accessible to offenders, victims and other interested parties by simplifying the written and oral language surrounding the process.

• The data collection needs outlined in the report be considered and that a plan be implemented to initiate collection of the requisite information.

. Plans for Phases II and III be reviewed based on the results of Phase I and that appropriate adjustments be made in light of the above recommendations.

The timing of the revisions of the Policies are complicated by the introduction of the new legislation. This also provides a unique opportunity to address the issues and concerns associated with the Policies as they now exist. We recommend that the revisions that can be undertaken be implemented as soon as possible, with future revisions resulting from the results of ongoing and future studies.

10

C&L

OBI MI MN UM OM 1111111 alai IMOill UM MIR um am all lilt

Exhibit 3 — Evaluation of the Decision Policies - Phase I — Evaluation Issues, Research Questions and Data Sources

Evaluation Issue Research Question Data Source -

1. Clarity of the Nature and Purpose of the R1. How are the Decision Policies used by, • Interviews Decision Policies and useful to, NPB Members to make • Questionnaires

decisions that are consistent with the • Focus Groups Parole Act, the NPB Mission, and values? How do they assist Members in addressing important factors?

2. Consistency of Decision Policies with the R2. Are the three Decision Policies • Interviews NPB Mission Statement and the Parole consistent with one another with respect • Questionnaires -

Act - , to the Act, the Mission and NPB policies?

3. Do the Decision Policies meet the R3. Do Decision Policies meet the needs of • Interviews` requirements of NPB Members and other other groups interested in the • Questionnaires` participants in the decision processes? Conditional Release program including

victims and offenders? How are the • Decision Policies used by them?

R4. To what extent should the Decision • Interviews Policies be supplemented by other tools • Questionnaires or training for Board Members? Would • Focus Groups additional or different tools, information or training be useful to Board Members?

4. Do the Decision Policies respect and R5. Do the Decision Policies reflect biases • Interviews` support achievement of NPB objectives related to gender, culture, and other • Questionnaires` related to cultural diversity and ethnicity, "diversity" elements, and do they take • Focus Groups` and the special needs of females and into account their real or potential • Secretary of State Joint Study aboriginal peoples? impact on the diverse communities

served by the Board?

R6. Are there differences in compliance with • Secretary of State Joint Study the Pre-release Decision Policies by • NPB File Review gender for different ethnocultural groups, or associated with other parameters such as location of category of offence?

[ untied Coverage r- 921,1par ululdocoelon pul

11111 UM MI MN Mt 1111 III MI 11111 IBM 1111 11111 MI MI III

Exhibit 3 — Evaluation of the Decision Policies - Phase I — Evaluation Issues, Research Questions and Data Sources

Evaluation Issue Research Question Data Source

5. Are they requirements set out in the Pre- R7. Are the requirements set out in the Pre- • NPB File Review release Decision Policies being met? release Decision Policies being" met? If What has been the impact of the Pre- not, why not? release Decision Policies?

R8. Is the information entered on Pre-release • Interviews" decision documents relevant and • Questionnaires`

• . complete, and does it support the • Focus Groups` decision reached? • NPB File Review

R9. Have the process and documentation • Interviews practices changed since the • Questionnaires development of Pre-release Decision • Focus Groups Policies, and to what extent can the • NPB File Review changes be attributable to the Policies?

6. What data are required to support future R10. What data elements are necessary to • Focus Groups` evaluations and policy analyses? What support analyses related to the above- • NPB - Evaluation, Audit and mechanisms should be implemented to mentioned policy issues? Which of Statistics Division address forecast unmet information these data elements could be collected • Secretary of State Joint Study needs? Could planned and existing by CSC, the Ministry Secretariat, or studies by NPB, CSP or the Ministry others? What mechanisms must be Secretariat provide information useful for implemented to meet the needs of future future analysis of the NPB Decision program evaluation and policy Policies or other policies related to the development? Conditional Release Program?

I Ifi IUtI j Cover cige

4. EVALUATION ISSUES, RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DETAILED FINDINGS

Evaluation Issues and Research Questions

The evaluation issues for Phase I, and their associated research questions and data sources are listed in Exhibit 3, on the opposite pages. It is important to note at the outset that this study was carried out as one of a number of initiatives. In addition, the Evaluation, Audit and Statistics Division is currently conducting a comprehensive file review. Furthermore, as part of a joint study with the Secretary of State, which addresses the Multiculturalism Act, the issues of cultural diversity and ethnicity are being examined in relation to the Policies.

As a result, this study did not address all the evaluation issues to the same extent. This report provides in-depth coverage for issues 1 to 3. Research question 6, under issue 4, is discussed in relation to the findings and, where appropriate, the report draws upon some of the results documented in the joint NPB-Secretary of State study. With respect to issue 5, research question 7 was beyond the scope of this assignment, and will be addressed by the file review conducted by NPB. However, research questions 8 and 9 were examined. Recommendations responding to Issue 6 are offered.

Throughout the conduct of this as. signment, it was apparent that there are key issues which have emerged, and continue to emerge, subsequent to the formulation of the evaluation framework. Several of these issues, those of central concern to the major stakeholders, are discussed in Section 3.

The findings of this assignment are described below. The chapter begins with a brief description of themes or patterns that underscored the responses to the interviews, questionnaires and the discussions at the focus groups. These themes appeared to present either new issues or variations on existing issues. The order of presentation of emerging issues reflects their perceived importance on the part of study respondents.

11

C&L

Following this section is a more detailed review of each of the evaluation issues outlined in the evaluation framework. For each issue we have described the scope and nature of the questions. Findings for the research questions associated with each evaluation issue are presented and discussed, followed by a conclusion for each issue. The total possible number of respondents was 50, since the key interviews were not structured and their comments fed into the development of the guide. Where appropriate, comments from key interviews are included. Not all respondents were able to answer all the questions and, in some cases, only CSC and NPB respondents felt they were knowledgeable enough to respond. Therefore, summaries of key findings are provided in table format - with the total number of respondents for the question indicated to provide the reader with a reference point.

General Themes - Emerging Issues

The following is intended to underscore what were viewed as important issues that merit the consideration of the Board. As mentioned, these points were viewed as significant by the respondents.

• The most common theme of the interviews, questionnaires and focus groups was the perceived need for the provision of generic skills training for Board Members. Although this issue is discussed below, it is significant in that it was the primary concern of most participants. Respondents stressed that the Policies were only as good as the individual applying them. They emphasized that, without equipping Board Members with certain skills from the outset, there were no guarantees that the Policies would be effectively applied. Training in terms of writing decisions and the rationale for these decisions, interviewing to allow for effective use of the hearing process in eliciting additional information and imparting decisions, and analysis to allow for a skilful review of voluminous files in terms of salient factors were all cited as essential. Not to be overlooked, was the focus group discussion that centred on the merits of "on-the-job" training. This is discussed in more detail under Issue 3.

• In addition, there was a perceived need to improve the clarity of the Policies. As they stand now, the Policies represent more of a procedural manual than a policy guide. Clear statements about purpose, objectives, definition of important terms, and clear enunCiation of principles as well as policy (vs. process) were perceived to increase the effectiveness of the Policies.

• There was a lack of awareness of the Policies and the decision-making process outside the immediate criminal justice system. There appears to be a need to

12

C&L

educate other stakeholders about the nature of the Policies, their intent and the process followed in reaching decisions.

• - The Policies, as well as the resulting decision-making process, are not seen as being accessible to either offenders or victims. Most often, the use of jargon and lack of understanding of the process are cited as reasons for a perceived lack of openness despite the information that is formally available to these two groups.

• The decision sheets are seen by some as imposing an artificiality to the process of making a decision. Concern centred around the fact that they may not always ensure consideration of salient factors and that often the decision does not follow from these sheets (with the section on significant factors completed before the hearing and the remainder completed subsequent to the hearing).

Issue 1: Clarity of the Nature and Purpose of the Decision Policies

ISSUE FOCUS

The Decision Policies specify the process to be followed and the documentation required for the various types of decisions related to pre- and post-release, as well as detention. This issue, however, implicitly addresses the usefulness of the Policies to Board Members in the formulation and rendering of decisions. The fundamental question is whether or not the policies function as a guide to decision-making or whether they are more of a procedural manual or checklist for Board Members to follow. While neither format is inherently flawed, the nature of the policies is under examination and the question is whether they are useful in meeting their intende- d objectives and ultimately result in quality decisions.

Research Question 1: How are the decision policies used by, and useful to, NPB Members to make decisions that are consistent with the Parole Act, the NPB Mission, and values? How do they assist Members in addressing important factors?

In order to address this issue, we asked a series of questions intended to examine:

• the usefulness of the Policies to Board Members in decision-making;

• how Board Members use the Policies in formulating decisions;

• the clarity of the terms used in the Policies, and their intended objectives; and

• the impact of the Policies on process and decision-making;

13

C&L

1111111 IOU NI SIM UM we an IN 1111111 111111 OM MI SI UM

Exhibit 4 — Evaluation of the Decision Policies - Phase I — Use of Decision Policies

Question Responses

Do the Polices provide a useful framework to aid decision- Yes 43 making?

No 0

Don't Know _a Total (Respondents) 46

Do Board Members follow Policies or make decisions and then Yes (follow) 21 determine how the decision "fits" the Policies?

No (fit) 5

Varies 9

Don't Know _a Total (Respondents) 44

c9 1 per °Jolt!. pol,3

Use of the Policies:

As listed in Exhibit 4, interviewees overwhelmingly (43 of 46) felt that the Policies provided a useful framework to aid decision-making. Reasons given for this finding include the fact that the Policies provide for more structured and formalized decision-making. For example, one respondent commented that the Policies: " provide a framework ... they identify specific areas to look at ... they assist them (Board Members) to understand how to consolidate information and focus on the risk of reoffending".

When asked if decisions are made following the Policies, or if decisions are made and then "fit" into the Policies, half of the respondents (21 of 44) stated that the Policies were guiding decision-making. However, another 14 stated that both practices were followed (9) or that decisions were made to "fit" (5) the Policies retroactive to the decision having been formulated (See Exhibit 4). Respondents differed in their opinions as to whether or not this latter practice was sound. While some interviewees stated that decisions were made on "gut" feelings as opposed to following the steps for analysis outlined in the Policies, others indicated that this type of decision-making was the result of years of experience and an intuitive sense for the appropriate decision. However, beyond the question of value judgements with respect to which practice is preferable, two of the questions raised which may warrant consideration in the ensuing evaluation are: whether this practice points to a weakness in the policies as a guide to decision-making; and whether this practice has any impact on the achievement of the objectives of the policies. Key interviewees suggested that the policies acted to formalized the process previously followed by the Board - but there is no objective information available to address this question.

When asked to characterize the type of framework the Policies provide, respondents were divided into approximately three groups. One group viewed the Policies as a guideline for decision-making, the second felt that they were more of a procedural manual - providing a checklist to follow, and a third group felt that the Policies were a mixture of both. Exhibit 5 lists these findings.

Indeed, one of the comments we repeatedly heard was that the Policy documents do represent a mix of the two, but do not adequately embody policy. In the opinion of the respondents, the Policies are more concerned with process than establishment of principles and policy. • One focus group participant characterized the Policies as caught up in process". Some participants suggested that two separate documents were required to ensure a clear separation of these two distinct requirements. In fact, a focus group participant commented that since policy is a public document, a

14

C&L

111•1 11111 11111 11111 MI NM UM MI OR 1M1 MI 1113

Exhibit 5 — Evaluation of the Decision Policies - Phase I — Policies as a Guideline or Procedural Manual

Question Responses

Do the Polices provide a guideline for how to make decision, or Guideline 12 do they provide a procedural manual for the steps to be followed? Procedural Manual 14

Both 14

Don't Know 4

Other J.

Total (Respondents) 45

Which do you think is the preferred model? Guideline 14

Procedural Manual 7

Both 4

Don't Know 3

Other _2

Total (Respondents) 31

c911npefolelproce men

procedural manual should be kept separate in order to ensure that it is an internal document "instead of being lumped together".

Approximately half of those who responded to the question indicated that the preferred model was a guideline (14 of 31) and 7 (of 31) stated their preference for a procedural manual. This question was difficult for a number of respondents, and many did not state their preferences.

An interesting finding is that respondents were evenly divided on whether there were circumstances under which the Policies were not, or could not be, applied. Of 46 respondents, 15 indicated that there were circumstances where the Policies were difficult to apply. Specifically, these circumstances generally involved cases where respondents felt there was a risk to society, but the Policies did not necessarily lead to this conclusion based on analysis of the factors emphasized in the Policy. They also cited particular circumstances under which it was difficult to apply the policies. One respondent felt that the policies "forced" certain decisions that were not in the best interest of protection of the public and stated that the intent of the Policies "was to leave room for discretion but I have the sense that I am prevented from doing so". Types of cases identified as problematic for application of the policies included:

• offenders involved with drug-related offenses; • sex offenders; • mental health cases; • deportation cases; and • cases involving lieutenant governor warrants.

In most cases where these circumstances were cited it was reported that Board Members typically chose to treat the case as an exception under the Policies. The new legislation will address some of these circumstances (e.g. drug-related offenses) and the Policies will require revision to reflect these changes. Currently, these circumstances bear more in-depth study to ensure that Board Members are rendering decisions in a relatively uniform manner to ensure equity.

It is important to note that the majority of respondents who were able to comment on decision-making before, and after, implementation of the Policies reported that Board Members had changed the way in which they make decisions (17 of 25). These differences were more likely to occur in the way cases were approached and decisions documented, than in the actual decision-making process itself. One respondent stated that Board Members were more "cognizant of all the factors and decisions were necessarily based on more information". Respondents noted, once again, that the Policies simply formalized the manner in which Board Members made decisions prior to their implementation. It should be noted that the current Board is

15

&L

1111111 MI Ili 11011 MI MI UM 111111 MN MI NM MI II RIM Inn UM

Exhibit 6 — Evaluation of the Decision Policies - Phase I — Definition of Key Terms

Term Definitions Number

- Risk a) The likelihood that the individual vvill re- 27 offend.

b) The likelihood that the individual will commit a serious offense. 11

Other _fi

.. Total (Respondents) 44

Seriousness Relates to: 11

a) The type of offense.

b) The physical and psychological harm caused. 0 22

Other

Total (Respondents) 39

Quality a) Consideration of all information in an Decision objective and equitable manner. 20

. b) Conforming with Policies and does not 8 result in new offense.

Other

Total 34

L91111parOltetkoy Io.,

viewed as significantly less experienced than was the smaller Board that existed before the policies were enacted and, therefore, would require more direction.

Clarity of the Policies:

In order to ensure consistent application of the Policies, it is important that Board Members, Correctional Service Canada, offenders, victims and other stakeholder groups have a relatively uniform understanding of the terms used in the Policies. Respondents were asked to define the terms "risk", "seriousness" and "quality decisions". Exhibit 6 summarizes the responses to this question.

The term "risk" was generally defined as either:

• the likelihood that the individual will reoffend (27 of 44); or • the likelihood that the individual will commit a serious offence (11 of 44).

These results are interesting in that about two thirds of the respondents have interpreted "risk" in much the same way that the general public would - in terms of the likelihood for re-offence. This interpretation has obvious implications for release rates, since the high rate of recidivism is well-documented. When risk is defined strictly in terms of reoffending, a high proportion of offenders are seen as posing a risk. This could result in more denials for conditional release and has, therefore, implications for the principle of choosing the "least restrictive option". Such a definition, while contributing to the protection of society, also has implications for the "timely reintegration" of the offender.

The second interpretation of this term (i.e. likelihood of a serious offense) implies that there must be an assessment of whether or not the level of risk posed by an individual can be managed in the community; that is, it involves an examination of whether or not the individual poses an "undue risk" to society. This interpretation is more consistent with the intent of the Policies and the mission of the Board, but it is less likely to be the definition individuals are using.

The definition of "risk" which an individual Board Member uses in reaching decisions has implications for the actual decision. There must, therefore, be a common understanding of the term before the Board can achieve any uniformity in the process and principles for decision-making by Board Members. At present, the conflict is that risk is defined by some in terms of reoffending and by others in terms of the seriousness of harm that will occur as a result of an offence. Since assessment of risk drives decision-making, the Policies should be revisited to ensure that they provide a clear meaning of "risk".

16

C&L

C&L

"Seriousness" was more consistently described as the extent of physical and psychological harm caused to the victim (22 of 39). Some respondents included the harm caused to society by drug-related crimes in this definition. Fewer respondents (11 of 40) defined this term in relation to the type or category of offense committed rather than the impact on the victim. This difference in interpretation may have implications for the consideration of cases where offenders have committed property versus personal crimes.

"Quality decisions" was generally defined in one of tvvo ways. The most consistent interpretation was that quality occurred when the consideration of all information in an objective and equitable manner resulted in a logically defensible decision (20 of 34). In a second definition, decisions that conformed with the Policies and resulted in protection of the public were considered to be of high quality (8 of 34). That is, those decisions to release that were not followed by the parolee reoffending were considered to be quality decisions. This interpretation raises the thorny issue of when NPB responsibility ends which has important implications for the Board. Some respondents, however, felt that the term was too vague and jargon-laden and did not have any meaning.

Clearly, understanding or use of these three terms varies by individual. Whether or not these differences translate into differences in decision-making practices is impossible to determine within the scope of this study. However, it is likely that differences in the interpretation of what is meant by quality are significant enough that a decision would vary based on the definition held by a Member.

Respondents were also asked whether or not the Policies provide definitions for the terms discussed above. Although 22 (of 47) respondents indicated that the Policies clarified the meaning of these terms for them, 17 stated they did not and 4 indicated they were not sure. When asked why not, respondents pointed out that specific definitions of these terms are absent from the Policies. One interviewee emphasized that "The Policies need to provide more clarification as to what they mean". Respondents felt that the Policies could be more precise by offering definitions for each term. Although this may pose some difficulties, it would make the Policies more effective in ensuring a consistent understanding of the terms. •

Another aspect of the clarity of the Policies is the presence or absence of the objectives underlying the three Policies. In order to fully understand the objectives of the Policies, it was necessary to review other documents. Prior to implementation of the Policies, a model for decision-making was proposed in a 1986 report referred to earlier, often called the "Vantour report" after its author. This report laid out the rationale for development of the Policies and specifically outlined 9 reasons for the development of more specific policies. These reasons can be seen as the first draft of

17

Exhibit 7 — Evaluation of the Decision Policies - Phase I — Objectives of the Policies

Reasons Listed in Vantaur Report Perceived Objectives and Number of Responses'

1. Decision - Making Consistency 1. Protection of the Public 14

2. Assessing Effectiveness 2. Transparency/Visibility 14

3. Accountability and Visibility 3. Quality Decision Guidelines 1 2

4. Better Case Preparation 4. Consistency/Uniformity 3

5. Clearer Expectations for Inmates 5. Opportunity to Offender for • Reintegration/Timely Release 6

6. Greater Accountability for Prison Officials 6. Direct Assessment of Risk 5

7. Strengthen the NPB Appeal Committee 7. Accountability 4

8. Benefit from "New Knowledge"

9. Focus Board Thinking

c911 ■ Iperoiolobtect.po

'Multiple Responses Possible

a set of objectives for the policies and they are listed in Exhibit 7, on the opposite page.

In comparison, respondents were asked to state what they perceived to be the objectives of the Policies and their responses are included on the opposite page. Multiple responses were possible and, therefore, the total exceeds the number of respondents to this question. There are differences and similarities between the two lists. Protection of the public (14), transparency/visibility (14) and quality decision guidelines (i.e. objective consideration of all information) (12) were the three most frequently cited objectives of the Policies. In fact, "protection of the public" and "opportunity for reintegration of the offender" are key aspects of the Board's Mission Statement which is included at the beginning of the Policy documents.

More than half the respondents (30 of 53) felt that the objectives of the Policies were being met. However, one of the concerns of respondents was that the Policies have not necessarily clarified expectations, or the process, for offenders. While the process may be more transparent or open, it was felt that the written and oral language used by the Board did not make decision-making more accessible to inmates. One focus group respondent stressed that offenders have a: "fundamental right to respond, but they can't if they don't understand the process". This is noted, since it was one of the original reasons for implementation of the Policies. As one Board Member commented "If you're explaining it at the hearing it is too late - you lose them".

The majority of respondents (30 of 48) did feel that the objectives were clearly stated in the Preamble to the Decision Policies. Although they are interwoven throughout the text, a review of the documentation indicates that these objectives could be more clearly labelled, despite the impressions of respondents. NPB Members, CSC staff and NPB staff could discuss the objectives of the Policies more easily than other stakeholder groups who do not work with the Policies on a routine basis.

In terms of workload, there was general agreement among those who could comment on the situation that the Policies did result in an increase in the regional worldoad of Board Members (23 of 37) and staff (25 of 38). The workload was associated with the additional paperwork that was required. Respondents indicated that the requirements of the Policies also resulted in fewer cases being heard in a day. Nonetheless, 23 (of 37) of respondents felt that this increase in workload contributed to meeting the objectives. One respondent noted that the Policies resulted in "better documentation, procedural safeguards". During the focus group with Board Members, however, it was clear that they did not feel that the paper work was maximally effective. Indeed, they felt that in its present form, the decision sheets could be a liability if a decision was contested. This last point is discussed in more detail under Issue 3.

18

C&L

CONCLUSION

The Policies are seen as a useful guide to decision-making and have resulted in a more uniform process and standardized documentation of decisions. There was a perception by some respondents that informal decision-making practices were still being followed. It is not clear, however, what impact this has had on the quality of decision-making. More objective information on this issue is required. While the Policies are seen as meeting their intended objectives, there is room for further clarification of the objectives and definitions used by Board Members, particularly in the case of the terms "risk" and "quality decisions".

The Policies are seen as both a guideline and procedural manual. Some responses noted, that for certain types of cases, Board Members had difficulties applying the Policies. These types of cases require further consideration.

Issue 2: Consistency of the Decision Policies with the NPB Mission Statement and the Parole Act

ISSUE FOCUS

The primary concern with respect to this issue is with the consistent application of the principles of fairness and protection of the public. All three Policies were developed at different times and the question is whether this resulted in inconsistencies of the Policies- with one another, the Mission and the Parole Act.

Research Question 2: Are the three Decision Policies consistent with one another with respect to the Act, the Mission and NPB Policies?

This issue was relatively straightforward to address and requires little discussion because few respondents felt the Policies were inconsistent. Twenty-five (of 47) respondents reported that the Policies were consistent with one another, 21 (of 48) stated they were consistent with the Act, and 26 (of 44) noted the Policies were consistent with the Mission statement. Only a few respondents felt that there was some inconsistency, however these individuals were not specific about the areas of inconsistency. The remaining individuals did not feel they could respond to this question. The outstanding concern for the Board is the revision of the Policies to ensure that they remain consistent with the new legislation. Additional revisions to

19

C&L

the Policies should allay concerns about the fact that they are viewed by some respondents as being vague.

CONCLUSION

The Policies are perceived as being consistent with one another, the Act and the Mission. Revisions will be required to ensure consistency with the new legislation.

Issue 3: Do the Decision Policies meet the requirements of NPB Members and other participants in the decision process?

ISSUE FOCUS

Issue 3 addresses two fundamental questions. The first is whether the Policies reflect the decision-making needs of Board Members. One concern is that, if the policies do not meet Board Members' requirements, then they may continue to rely on informal practices for decision-making which could have implications for the effectiveness of decision-making. An associated issue is whether the tools Board Members currently use are adequate for their decision-making needs, and whether additional tools and training are required. The second question under consideration is whether the needs of other stakeholder groups (i.e., CSC, offenders, community groups and victims) are being addressed by the Policies.

Research Question 3: Do the Decision Policies meet the needs of other groups interested in the Conditional Release Program, including victims and offenders? How are the Decision Policies used by them?

Among the stakeholders interviewed, it was found that knowledge of the Policies was likely to be limited to an awareness that the Policies exist. The one exception were the Coordinators, Case Management, who responded as representatives of CSC, and were more knowledgeable concerning the Policies. Although the Policies are seen as being a useful guide to decision-makers, they are not viewed as responsive to the needs of victims or offenders.

In particular, it is felt that victims are not a part of the decision-making process, nor are they considered as part of the process. One victim's rights advocate felt that the Policies must also "embody an appropriate consideration of the victim.., the interests of the victim, including issues like informing them about how the process works, providing decisions and reasons for decisions, and keeping them reasonably informed".

20

C&L

The new legislation, Bill C-36, is viewed as addressing some viétims' concerns but it is seen as not having gone far enough. Indeed, a common theme of Board Member responses was that they would like to have more access to information from the victim to include as part of their analysis. Above and beyond logistical considerations related to obtaining this information, respondents noted that revisions to the Policies are required to address this concern.

With respect to offenders, there were concerns about accessibility of the decision-making process for this group as described above. While the Policies lay out requirements for the sharing of information, some representatives of National Voluntary Organizations, CSC, NPB Members and staff did express concern that offenders did not understand the process or the expectations of the Board. In fact, focus group discussion suggested that offenders do not understand the process when they arrive at the hearing. Although offenders are perceived as knowing the "hoops to jump through" before the hearing, Board members participating in the focus group were concerned about the amount of time used during a hearing to explain the hearing process to offenders who clearly do not understand the hearing process. It was suggested that the main reason for this lack of understanding was that the language used by CSC and the Board is not understandable to offenders - a large proportion of whom are functionally illiterate, or whose maternal language is neither French nor English. Therefore, although information may be provided to inmates, the manner in which it is delivered appears to be ineffective. This issue warrants further consideration to allow for the formulation of useful recommendations. There are related considerations associated with diversity questions, but these are addressed under Issue 4.

Another concern raised with respect to offenders was that, while the Policies are intended to lay out expectations for institutional and community programming, they do not achieve this objective as effectively as they could. As was evidenced in the focus group discussion, Board Members are, for the most part, unfamiliar with programming available to offenders. Furthermore, Board Members are not clear on their role vis-a-vis community programming. A criminal justice expert commented that the Policies should be more specific in encouraging Members to understand what resources are available to offenders, and to encourage them to mobilize their influence to lobby for additional community resources. While this is beyond the scope of this study per se, a number of respondents commented that the Policies were lacking in such explicit statements of the role of the Board in influencing factors such as programming and victim input that are essential elements in the decision-making process.

CSC representatives indicated that the Policies were useful in terms of clearly specifying the information the Board required to formulate a decision. In this respect the Policies meet the needs of CSC. However, there were specific concerns related to

21

C&L

IMIIIMMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMM•11111111111•1•11111111311111111•111•11MIIMMIll

Exhibit 8 — Evaluation of the Decision Policies - Phase I — Tools for Decision-Making

Question Responses

Are you satisfied with the quantity and quality of information Yes 20 provided to Members to help them reach a decision?

• No 15

Don't know

Total (Respondents) 40

Is there a need for additional tools to aid decision-making? Yes 15

No 17

Don't know J.

Total (Respondents) 33

c911npartabo% toolakdoc mek

&L

the amount of information provided to the Board and the analysis of this information, which is discussed below.

This question requires additional coverage in the ensuing phases of the evaluation. In particular, offenders were not included for interviews as part of this Phase and future efforts should involve some form of consultation with this group. The preceding discussion reflects concerns raised by the remaining stakeholder groups and, therefore, is not definitive.

Research Question 4: To what extent should the Decisions Policies be supplemented by other tools or training for Board Members? Would additional or different tools, information or training be useful to Board Members?

Information:

This research question proved to be one of the primary concerns of most respondents. Although the Policies are viewed as helpful, most respondents commented that the essential ingredients for quality decision-making are the background, experience, skills and knowledge of Board Members. Respondents were evenly divided on the question of whether they were satisfied with the quantity and quality of information provided to help Board Members reach a decision. Twenty (of 40) respondents indicated they were, and 15 (of 40) indicated that they were not (See Exhibit 8). Concern centred around the quality of the information received and/or the extent to which information is missing. This is not a general criticism of the information provided by CSC. Rather, a common comment was that all sources of information varied in their quality - which appeared to be dependent on the author and not the organization.

CSC concerns revolved around the question of whether or not the volume of information was appropriate. Interviewees felt that particular factors were salient with respect to certain types of offenses or categories of offenders and questioned whethe r . these factors could be gleaned from the volume of information given to Board Members. As one interviewee commented: "We give too much - the Policies force us to consider all factors - some factors are not important in certain cases - we should identify important factors for the Board". Furthermore, there was concern on the part of CSC respondents concerning the format in which information is presented to NPB. For example, one respondent felt that the attention to detail required by NPB's information 'needs did not leave room to provide important analytic, qualitative and "intuitive" information to Board members. In stark contrast, was a point raised by Board Members that information concerning program participation was generally limited "to the facts" and did not provide an analysis of how, or if, the offender benefitted. A similar comment was made about Progress Summary Reports, which in some cases were not viewed as providing analysis.

22

One suggestion which follows from these concerns, is that CSC might provide assistance by pinpointing the relevant factors and providing information related to them, rather than a great deal of information about all the factors to be considered. The difficulty associated with this suggestion is that the practice would not ensure uniformity of the information provided. This question merits further attention - there is an opportunity for CSC and the Board to find a mechanism to meet information requirements that is more acceptable to both parties.

Related to the concerns mentioned above, Board Members frequently mentioned having difficulty interpreting psychiatric and psychological reports. Interviewees commented that it was very difficult to find the "bottom line" in these reports, and the reports were often mired in professional jargon that confused the issue for lay people. A Board Member commented that "a major problem are the psychological or psychiatric reports - just make them easier to understand ... afraid to ignore anything in case it is important". It was suggested that there should be some way to improve these reports to ensure that they clearly communicated important information about offender progress and risk to the community in a concise and precise manner.

A number of information deficiencies were also listed - most relating to sources of information that were viewed as useful but generally not available or accessible to Board Members. For example, police reports, sentencing report and victim impact statements were all listed as important pieces of information that would be useful to ensure a complete analysis of the information. Too often these reports were unavailable to Board Members.

When asked if the tools (e.g., SIR Scale, decision sheets) provided to Board Members were useful in helping them arrive at decisions, respondents were evenly divided. Seventeen (of 44) respondents stated they were satisfied with the tools they used. However, 16 respondents did not feel that the tools were useful. The most frequently mentioned deficiency centred around the SIR Scale. In general, this tool was commonly cited as not being perceived as useful. As one respondent stated, "The SIR scale is not helpful in most cases...it is a good idea gone bad and a tremendous waste of funds that could be used in treatment". A few respondents felt that the tool was not understood in terms of how it could be used as part of the decision-making process. It was clear, however, that most respondents did not feel that this tool was used as part of the process. Given the concerns surrounding this tool, additional efforts should be made to better integrate the SIR scale in the decision-making process and educate stakeholders in its use and applicability. The ensuing Phases of the evaluation should provide additional data on this issue.

23

C&L

"alb MI Ian UM Inn lilt 111111 II» fill MIN 111111 OM> Me INN RIO MI

Exhibit 9 — Evaluation of the Decision Policies - Phase I — Board Member Training

Question Responses

Does Board Member training address the requirements of the .

Decision Policies in terms of:

i) Making Decisions .... . Yes 18 No 15 . Don't know _1

Total (Respondents) 34

ii) Asses'sing Risk .... Yes 11 No 17 Don't know A

Total (Respondents) 32

- iii) Documenting Decisions .... Yes 18

No 14 Don't know A

Total (Respondents) 36

iv) Offender Behaviour/Diversity/Generic Skills .... Yes 3 No 27 Don't know A

Total (Respondents) 34

c91ltIperole1bomd

Respondents were also asked if there was a need for additional tools to aid decision making, and 17 (of 33) indicated that there was not. As one respondent commented " Please do not come up with new forms!". Of the 15 (of 33) respondents who did feel that additional tools were necessary, most cited that the "missing" pieces of information cited above should be addressed rather than developing new instruments.

Training:

Respondents were asked whether Board Member training addressed the requirements of the Decision Policies in terms of: making decisions; assessing risk; documenting decisions; and understanding offender behaviour and the diversity of offenders. Not surprisingly, a number of respondents (particularly stakeholder groups such as criminal justice experts, victims' groups and some CSC representatives) did not feel they could answer part, or all, of this question. The information presented here is based on responses from NPB staff in the regions as well as National Headquarters, NPB Members as well as some CSC representatives.

The findings highlight the need to examine the current level and types of training presently provided to Board Members, and the mechanism for its delivery. While respondents did not comment on the quality of the training currently received, many noted that the small amount of resources allocated for Board Member training, particularly when compared to other similar tribunals, is a problem and questioned whether this reflected a lack of commitment to training. One Member commented: "How can you get quality decisions of you don't develop Board Members - the assumption is that there is training on-the-job" ..."not sure there is commitment within the Board". Another commented on the importance of commitment: "It is unfair to appoint someone without training them .... the commitment to training rings hollow".

The primary area pinpointed for additional training was the understanding of offender behaviour and the variety of types of offenders. Exhibit 9 summarizes these results. In fact 27 (of 34) respondents pointed to this as an area requiring attention. They argued that the manner of selecting and appointing Board Members underscored the need for this type of training to ensure Members were equipped to analyze cases and pinpoint relevant factors. In fact, it was suggested that some sort of "Introduction to Criminology" be offered to all new Board Members and that refresher courses be used to supplement this training.

A second area of conCern relates to training for the assessment of risk. While 11 respondents felt this was adequate, 17 did not. This training is inherently linked to the training discussed above, since Board Members must understand the basic factors which are salient when rendering a decision. For example, the younger the offender the more likely he is to reoffend. However the general public, and some Board

24

C&L

Members might be inclined to regard youth as a consideration for release without this knowledge. Comments included: "Do they understand case specific factors and the difference between positive and negative factors?" and comments regarding the difficulties created when placing people from all walks of life, and varying backgrounds, into a situation where critical decisions must be made.

In terms of making decisions and documenting decisions, a number of respondents pointed to the need for more training. In particular, while 18 respondents felt training related to making decisions was adequate, 15 felt more training was required. With respect to documenting decisions, 18 respondents felt training met the requirements while 14 did not.

A fundamental issue is that the Board is comprised of citizens who come from all walks of life. Their background and experience may not have equipped them equally for their responsibility on the Board. It is essential, therefore, that they be given support through ongoing training. One of the problems cited with the training process was the manner in which Board Members are appointed - making it difficult to deliver training since Board Members tend to appointed one at a time and there is no one point in time when all new Board Members begin their responsibilities.

The focus group discussion was particulary useful in pinpointing the types of training Board Members themselves would like to receive, and the manner in which they feel this should be delivered. A consistent request, in addition to understanding factors related to criminal behaviour was training in the generic skills required by Members, including: writing; analysis (i.e,. thorough review of files); and interviewing. While sensitivity training for diversity issues was raised, the development of generic skills was seen to be of greatest importance. It was perceived that having good generic skills and an understanding of factors related to criminal behaviour were more immediate training needs than were specific skills related to issues such as diversity and family violence. Perhaps specific offender groups and victims issues could be introduced as themes in generic skills training.

Participants felt that new Board Members should also be provided "on-the-job" training in the field with an experienced Board Member, and that ongoing supervision be provided to allow for support. In some regions, this type of training is taken very seriously, whereas in other regions senior Board Members feel that they are not adequately resourced to make this a priority.

While there was a clear understanding for the need for training delivered at the national level, it was felt that additional efforts could be made to use limited resources in the regions - or explore creative methods of delivering training. An example was the use of videos to deliver training which is currently being introduced

25

C&L

(this has been piloted successfully in the Quebec region). There was Board Member support for national training delivered at the regional level. This would help to both maximize consistent decision-making across the country as well as leave room for discussion of region-specific factors. Additionally, it is likely that the costs of conducting national training at the regional level would be lower than sending all Board Members to a central location for training. Finally, there was a perceived need for ongoing training for all Board Members.

CONCLUSION

The importance of training cannot be overlooked as the key to ensuring that policies are effectively applied. Respondents clearly identified areas for skills training and underscored the need for more interactive types of training to facilitate learning how to make decisions. The resources allocated to this function are viewed as inadequate.

Issue 4: Do the Decisions Policies respect and support the achievement of NPB objectives related to cultural diversity and ethnicity and the special needs of females and aboriginal peoples?

ISSUE FOCUS:

The basic issue is whether or not the Decisions Policies allow for sensitivity to, and understanding of, diversity and ethnicity issues in terms of decision-making. This issue was addressed to some extent by this study, but a more in-depth examination was carried out under the auspices of the joint NPB-Secretary of State study. As a result, coverage is limited to the perceptions of respondents and, where appropriate, findings from the joint study report are incorporated. The file review being conducted by the NPB is another potential source of information for this issue.

Research Question 5: Do the Decision Policies reflect biases related to gender, culture, and other "diversity" elements, and do they take into account their real or potential impact on the diverse conununities served by the Board?

Research Question 6: Are there differences in compliance with the Pre-release Decision Policies by gender for different ethnocultural groups, or associated with other parameters such as location or category of offence?

Before discussing the findings under this issue, it is important to note that the term diversity was viewed by many respondents as extending beyond the common interpretation of "ethnicity". Groups of offenders discussed in this section include

26

&L

native and Asian offenders, as well as female and disabled offenders. Some respondents also suggested that offenders with AIDS fall under this heading.

There are tvvo important points that must be made with respect to this issue. The first is that a common theme to the comments was that, while the Policies in themselves are "generic" and do not reflect any overt biases, they are biased in that they are based on the assumption that all offenders have equal access to information, services and support. This, however, is not the case. As one interviewee aptly stated "Identical treatment of unequal people perpetuates inequality". For example, native offenders who wish to be released to rural or northern communities do not always have access to services required for support that are available in urban centres. Furthermore, what is considered community support for an aboriginal person (i.e. the support of elders) may not be recognized as such by the Board Member. In terms of female offenders, they may not have the support in the community required to maintain their family structure when incarcerated, and therefore, are at a disadvantage when released.

The second point, raised by the joint study report as well as the comments of respondents to this study, was that the Policies reflect an ethnocentric bias in that they are based on a traditional middle-class, North American, Anglo-Saxon value system. As such, their language and the concepts they embody (i.e., remorse, punishment, even treatment) do not necessarily reflect the value systems of other groups. As a result, they may not allow for consideration of salient diversity factors. For example, in certain cultures the concepts of "punishment" and "remorse" are alien and, therefore, the entire criminal justice system appears alien as well. One Member stated that " .... the Decision Policies don't address aboriginal offenders in the way they should - they are very white, middle-class - but don't link enough awareness - (they) make decisions on another value system".

Not to be overlooked, are the obstacles to collecting all relevant information. For example, unless case management staff are able to communicate to family, friends and employers in the releasing community, the community assessment is unlikely to be effective in providing Board Members with information they require. Additionally, if differences in demeanour and behaviour are not understood (i.e. interpreting monosyllabic answers and avoidance of eye contact as arrogance when they really reflect a cultural norm for respect of authority) gross errors in judgement may be made.

This is a complex issue that cannot be easily resolved. Nonetheless, respondents did note that additional training would be useful to assist them. This type of training could be specific in terms of education regarding resources and alternatives to traditional treatment and support, an understanding of disabilities or even AIDS.

27

C&L

28

However, more fundamental is training in the awareness that everyone comes to the decision-making process with a set of values that affect interpretation of information. A recognition and sensitivity to diversity in general was perceived to by Board Members to be more useful than focused training on specific differences (which often vary by region). Training in this type of awareness that may be useful ‘vhile the larger issue is being examined.

Respondents were asked whether they felt Board Members applied the Policies in the same fashion to all offenders, or whether they considered "similar factors differently" for different groups. This was seen as a difficult question to answer. Those who did respond were divided between those who felt similar factors were considered differently (20 of 40) and those who did not (11 of 40). When asked if the Policies should include provisions for factors associated with different groups, 23 (of 45) respondents felt they should not and (13 of 45) felt they should. The rationale for not including diversity and regional specific guidelines was that it would be very difficult to achieve this effectively, and that the Policies would require constant revisions to do so. For those respondents who felt it was important to make such provisions there was' no agreement on how this should be done, other than specifying that the Policies should explicitly state that diversity factors should be considered in rendering decisions.

In the focus group discussions with Regional Directors and Board Members, participants were concerned that putting diversity concerns directly into the Policies would render the Policies unwieldy. Rather, it appeared that the preference was to discuss diversity issues in the preamble to the Policy and only make brief mention of diversity in the Policies themselves.

CONCLUSION

The Policies are not overtly biased, however they do reflect a systemic bias in that they rest on the assumption that all offenders have equal access to information, services and support. They are based on a set of values that is not commonly held by all offenders. While respondents" were divided on whether the policies should specifically address the issue of diversity, training in terms of understanding ethnocentricity and how it affects decision-making, sensitivity to diversity, as well as more specific training were viewed as part of the solution.

&L

Issue 5: Are the requirements set out in the Pre-release Decision Policies being met? What has been the impact of the Pre-release Decision Policies?

ISSUE FOCUS:

This issue is straightforward and examines whether requirements are being met for the Pre-release Decision Policies. This question was addressed to the extent possible. Future phases of the evaluation and the file review will furnish more concrete data with which to examine this issue and research question 7. Both research question 8 and 9 are addressed concurrently below.

Research Question 8: Is the information entered on Pre-release decision documents relevant and complete, and does it support the decision reached?

Research Question 9: Have the process and documentation practices changed since the development of the Pre-release Decision Policies, and to what extent can the changes be attributed to the Policies?

Respondents were asked if the Policies have had any impact on the process Members follow in reaching a decision. The majority of respondents felt that the Policies had an impact. The main difference cited, as noted earlier, was that the Policies ensured consideration of all factors and resulted in a more uniform and consistent process for decision-making and for documenting reasons for decisions. Respondents noted that Members have changed the way they document decisions and that this is now standardized. The question of whether these differences can be attributed to the Policies is more difficult to answer. While some changes in documentation can be attributed to the Policies, it is important to remember that when the Policies were implemented a number of sensational cases, of individuals committing homicide while on parole, received widespread public attention. These incidents, subsequent inquests and community reaction were all likely to have had an impact on the decisions made by Board Members. Therefore, the attribution of change to any one of these factors is extremely difficult if not impossible.

Finally, considerable concern was raised about the utility of the decision sheets. While they ensure consideration of particular factors, respondents commented that it was not always clear that the decision followed from the first two pages of the decision sheets. Indeed, in some regions the first two pages, which outline the decision factors, are completed by clerical staff rather than Board Members and are

29

C&L

completed prior to the hearing. During the focus group, Members voiced a concern that the last two pages (which describe the decision following the hearing process) often do not follow logically from the first two. They felt that because decisions were in the public domain, these inconsistencies would leave them and their decisions vulnerable to attack. At present, this study provides little concrete data to examine this concern, however the future evaluation should address this question.

CONCLUSION

The Policies did have àn impact on the process followed for decision making and have standardized the documentation of decisions. More data is required, however, to determine whether the information is relevant and complete and supports the decisions made. Additional information is also required to determine the exact nature of changes in process and to evaluate the effectiveness of those changes. Documentation needs to be reexamined to determine its utility.

Issue 6: What data are required to support future evaluations and policy analyses? What mechanisms should be implemented to address and forecast unmet information needs? Could planned and existing studies by NPB, CSC or the Ministry Secretariat provide information useful for future analysis of the NPB Decision Policies or other policies related to the Conditional Release Program?

ISSUE FOCUS:

Phase I of the evaluation is part of a planning exercise for the ensuing Phases of the evaluation. Particular issues have been adequately covered and do not require further study (Issue 2). Ongoing studies may furnish additional information to address Issues 3, 4 and 5 in more depth. Our role is to pinpoint certain data that may prove useful for Phases II and III. As agreed with the Project Authority, the purpose of the report is to highlight areas for consideration - not to develop them. In addition, it is beyond the scope of this study to comment on how other initiatives may contribute to the Board's efforts, • other than to recommend that the Evaluation, Audit and Statistics Branch consult with each group before undertaking resource-intensive efforts when alternative sources of information may exist, or when opportunities exist for joint efforts. The file review undertaken by the Branch is a potentially rich source of information for this and subsequent phases of the evaluation.

30

C&L

Research Question 10: 'VVhat data elements are necessary to support analysis of the above-mentioned issues? VVhich of these data elements could be collected by CSC, the Ministry Secretariat, or others? What mechanisms must be implemented to meet the needs of future program evaluation and policy development?

111 At present, an important issue facing the Board is that the Policies will require revisions in order to reflect the new legislation. The Board, therefore, must address the issue of how evaluation efforts should be managed to ensure availability of information necessary to support the revision process. Careful consideration should be given to the timing of these revisions in conjunction with evaluation studies. The need to revise Policy in light of legislative change provides a unique opportunity to incorporate findings and suggestions outlined in this report.

After a review of the findings described in previous sectiàns, a number of data elements that are necessary to support evaluation and policy efforts have become apparent. They fall under the following five headings:

Data to examine whether the Policies meet the Requirements of CSC, conununity groups, victims and offenders

One the objectives of the Policies is to make the process more open and to clarify expectations for CSC, offenders, and victims. As such it would be useful to collect information from:

• Offenders - The mechanism for doing so is not clear. A survey of parolees is an obvious route to follow since it allows for representative sample sizes and can be very cost-efficient. An alternative might be to conduct a series of interviews or focus groups with inmates. This would allow for exploration of various issues in more depth and avoid the problem of low response rates and the complications associated with low literacy rates that affect the conduct of a survey. In any event, this group must be consulted in the next phases.

• Correctional Service Canada - The Policies have clarified information requirements for CSC. The fundamental question is how the Board and CSC can work together to improve the existing application of the Policies. Further consultation is necessary - perhaps in the form of a survey supplemented with focus groups or interviews. Future evaluations must exercise effective consultation and coordination to address shared issues and concerns.

31

&L

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

• Victims and Community Groups - In this case, a national survey would be useful. One of the difficulties would be accessing a range of community victims groups. However, it is vital to consult these groups.

Data related to the quality of information available

The current file review, and the results of the review of the Ontario and Prairies regions carried on for the Program Improvement Initiative, may provide valuable information with respect to this question. There are a number of points to be addressed. A file review, and review of the "packages" NPB staff prepare for Members would be the most useful approach. Questions to be answered include:

• Is file information complete and relevant in terms of the Policies? What data is available, does it provide the Board Member with sufficient detail? What information is missing? What impact does this have? Are there means to address these deficiencies?

• What type of information is prepared for Board Members? Is information missing? Do Board Members initiate corrective action in these cases?

• Do the decision sheets support the decisions reached? Why or why not?

In addition, the convening of expert panels might be a useful means to find a way to address information gaps and deficiencies.

Data to examine training and training needs

This issue should be addressed regardless of the timing of the future evaluation. A more in-depth review of the type of training currently delivered and the mechanism by which this is achieved should be undertaken. Essentially, this involves an evaluation of the training and development framework. Resource allocation is a fundamental part of this question. A useful counterpoint would be the examination of training resources and . delivery of training in similar appointed tribunals (such as Immigration). The NPB Program Improvement Initiative also examined the issue of training and the results of this study should be considered carefully in addressing future approaches for the provision of training.

32

&L

• Data to examine differences in compliance with the Pre-release Decision Policies

A file review would be useful to examine whether there are compliance differences in terms of gender, types of offenders or for ethnocultural groups. Another important issue is to examine the types of cases where Board Members have cited difficulties in applying the Policies.

• Data to examine application of the Policies

It is important for the three Policies to be studied independently. This should include a national study of a stratified random sample 'of different types of cases and could include file reviews, listening to hearing tapes and observation of panel deliberations (focus groups participants were open to allowing such observation). Inter-regional comparisons would prove useful to ensure the Policies are consistently applied. Where they are not, efforts should be undertaken to explain these differences.

We recognize that simile of the proposals for information collection identified in this report extend beyond original proposals identified in the evaluation framework. These proposals, if implemented, could, therefore, have an impact on the cost estimates for the evaluation.

33

C&L

5. CONCLUSION

The preceding report represents the contributions of a large number of individuals who provided us with their opinions on the issues under question. We trust that, in conjunction with other initiatives, this report will contribute to your efforts in terms of data collection and the subsequent phases of the evaluation.

THE COOPERS & LYBRAND CONSULTING GROUP

John Herzog, FCMC Partner

34

&L

Appendix I - Detailed Methodology

1

C&L

C&L

APPENDIX I

Methodology

KEY INTERVIEWS

Prior to development of the interview guide, a total of six interviews were conducted with senior NPB officials (and former NPB officials) to guide the efforts of the team. Interviewees represented senior management (including the Chairman); legal counsel; and the Appeals Division.

These interviews focused on the background to the development of the Decision Policies, their perceptions regarding key issues and concerns, as well as suggestions for individuals to be interviewed. The length of these interviews ranged from 1 to 2 hours.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERVIEW GUIDE

The interview guide was drafted following completion of the key interviews and an examination of the following documents:

• Framework for the Evaluation of the National Parole Board Decision Policies;

• Pre-release Decision Policies;

• Post-release Decision Policies;

• the Parole Act; and

• the Policy on Detention Provisions: Subsection 21.2(1) of the Parole Act.

1

After an internal review, the guide was submitted to the Project Authority and revised based on comments received. The guides were then translated.

The guide was semi-structured and was used for interviews with all stakeholder groups. The ability of each interviewee to answer the questions in the guide varied according to their background and experience with the Board, and the decision-making process. Therefore, the interviewers took the tact of first asking interviewees about their understanding of the Policies and then tailoring the interview to meet the interviewee's expressed level of knowledge. A copy of the guide directed at National Parole Board Members and the guide for Regional Directors is included in Appendix II. These guides provide a comprehensive list of the questions that were addressed to all interviewees.

INTERVIEWS

Interviews were conducted with individuals from each of the following stakeholder groups:

• National Parole Board staff;

• Ministry Secretariat staff;

• CSC staff;

• Representatives of National Voluntary Organizations;

• Representatives of Victims' Groups; and

• Criminal Justice Experts and Practitioners.

A total of 56 interviews/questionnaires were completed.

With the exception of the 5 Senior Board M.embers who participated, NPB Members were randomly selected from a complete list of all Members. Selection of the remaining interviewees was guided by the Project Authority in all cases with the exception of the criminal justice practitioners and experts. In this case, we relied on individuals who , were suggested by the Project Authority, focus group participants and interviewees. This group, which included law enforcement officials, academics and researchers, lawyers and judges, represented the lowest rate of completed interviews due to postponement or cancellations. Interviews were conducted in-person where possible, otherwise they were conducted by telephone. Respondent's were interviewed in the official language of their choice. Interviews ranged from approximately 30 minutes in length to over 2 hours 'depending on the respondent's level of knowledge.

C&L

1

QUESTIONNAIRES

The interview guide was sent to 25 National Parole Board Members, the 5 regional Directors and the 5 Managers of the Conditional Release program for completion. A total of 19 questionnaires were received.

Questionnaires were reviewed to assist in the identification of issues for discussion at the focus groups. The agendas for both focus groups are included in Appendix III.

FOCUS GROUPS

Two focus groups were held to discuss issues raised from review of the completed questionnaires. The first group was held on October 29, 1991 in Ganonoque with the 5 Regional Directors. The second group was conducted on November 6, 1991 in Ottawa with NPB Members, including XXX Senior Board Members.

The first focus group involved a discussion of issues raised by responses to the questionnaires and interviews. The main topics revolved around:

• Usefulness of the policies and their application by Board Members;

• Tools used by Board Members and the adequacy of information provided for decision-making;

• The role of analysis in quality decision-making;

• Issues of significance to be considered in the subsequent phases; and

• Potential data collection methods to be used in evaluating issues.

On the other hand, the focus group with National Parole Board Members was somewhat different in nature. Participants were asked to discuss:

• The clarity and role of the decision policies with suggestions for improvement;

• Decision-making including the adequacy of tools and information, the role of hearings, exceptional cases and diversity issues;

• The process by which Board Members learn how to apply the Policies and the contributions of experience, training, observation and supervision to this process;

• Training, both provided and required; and

LC&L,

• Key evaluation issues and sources of information.

ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS

Because of the large volume of qualitative data generated throughout the conduct of this study, it was necessary to find an efficient way in which to compile the data. Each interviewer compiled the responses to each question by stakeholder group, and these summaries were synthesized. Not all interviewees were knowledgeable enough to respond to some questions. Therefore, the number of total responses varies by question. Where particular groups had difficulties answering a set of questions, or specific questions posed difficulties to most respondents, this is noted in the text of the report.

In order to ensure confidentiality, we have reported the aggregate results only. The size of each stakeholder group was too small to report findings by group. Nevertheless, where there were clear differences of opinion, these differences are noted.

C&L

Appendix II - Interview Guides

C&L •

The ,

Coopers ,

&Lybrand .

Consulting Group

EVALUATION OF THE PRE-, POST-RELEASE AND DETENTION DECISION POLICIES

Questionnaire for National Parole Board Nlembers

As you know, National Parole Board is conducting an evaluation of its decision policies including Pre-release, Post-release, and Detention. The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the consistency, application and usefulness of these policies. The evaluation was designed in three phases, each of which builds on the findings of the previous phase(s). At present, the Board is conducting Phase One and has asked the Coopers & Lybrand Consulting Group to gather the information. Your participation is extremely important in order to ensure that subsequent phases of the evaluation target the appropriate issues and concerns.

Please read through the questionnaire before answering any of the questions. That way, •you will have an overview of the breadth of what we are asking you to consider. At the end, you may include any issues or concerns which were not addressed. If you require more space to record your .answers, please attach a separate sheet of paper. Your responses are completely confidential. As you can see, you name does not appear on the questionnaire. Furthermore, only one person will see the questionnaire you fill out. This individual will then enter the responses on a computer. All findings will be reported in aggregate form (for example, 20 % of respondents suggested improvements for the training of Members).

When you have completed this questionnaire, please send it to Coopers & Lybrand in the addressed, stamped envelope included in this package. We would appreciate receiving your responses by October 28, 1991. 'Thank you in advance for completing the questionnaire. We appreciate the time and effort required. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Tina Beranbaum or Ellen Corkery-Dooher at (613)237- 3702.

Si vous préférez répondre en français, veuillez appeller Ellen Corkery-Dooher au (613) 237-3702.

THE COOPERS AND LYBRAND CONSULTING GROUP

Tina Beranbaum Senior Consulting Associate

Questionnaire for National Parole Board Members

PART ONE

I i. Do the pre- and post-release, as well as detention, decision policies provide a useful framework to aid decision-making? Please specify in what ways they are useful or not (for example, in identifying and analyzing factors related to risk or reintegration;

111

the use of least restrictive alternatives or special conditions; balancing long-term and short-term protection; etc.)?

2. Do you tend to follow these decision policies when making a decision or do you - make a decision and then determine how the decision fits the policies? Please explain.

1

PART ONE (continued)

3a). Three important terms used in the decision policies are "risk", "seriousness", and "quality decisions". What is your definition for each of these terms?

3b). Have the decision policies clarified what these terms mean for you?

PART ONE (continued)

4a). In your opinion, do the decision policies provide a guideline for how to make a decision or do they provide a procedural manual for the steps to be followed?

4b). If so, in what ways? If not, why not?

4c). Which do you think is the preferred model?

5a). Have you come across circumstances where you did not, or could not, apply the decision policies?

5b) If so, why? Please give an example.

3

PART ONE (continued)

Please answer the following question only if you were a Board Member before 1986. If you were first appointed after that date, please proceed to PART TWO.

6a). You were appointed to the Board prior to the implementation of the decision policies and, therefore, are in a unique position to comment on changes that occurred as a result of that implementation. Have you changed the way you make decisions as a result of the policies?

6b). If so, in what ways? If not, why not?

PART TWO

la). What are the objectives of the pre- and post-release, as well as detention, decision policies?

lb). Are these objectives clearly stated in the decision policies?

4

PART TWO (continued)

lc). Are these objectives being met and how are they being met? If not, why not ?

2a). Has there been an increase in regional workload as a result of the decision policies? Please explain for:

i) Staff.

1

ii) Board Members.

2b). If yes, does this increase in worldoad contribute to meeting the objectives referred to- in question la?

2c). If yes, in what way? If no, why not?

PART TWO (continued)

3. In your experience, are the decision policies vague, contradictory, consistent, etc. with each of the following:

a) One another? Please explain.

b) The Act? Please explain.

c) The National Parole Board Mission? Please explain.

4. In your opinion, do the decision policies help or hinder the making of decisions? Please be specific in describing how.

6

PART TVVO (continued)

5a). Have the pre- and post-release, as well as detention, decision policies had any impact on the process you follow in reaching a decision?

5b). If yes, in what ways? If no, why?

Please answer the following question only if you were appointed to the Board before 1986. If you were first appointed to the Board after that date, please proceed to PART THREE.

6. Since you were appointed to the Board prior to the implementation of the decision policies, you are in a unique position to comment on changes that occurred as a result of that implementation. In your opinion, have you changed the way you document decisions as a result of the decision policies?

7

PART THREE

la). Are you satisfied with the quantity and quality of information provided to Members to help you reach a decision?

lb). If yes, which sources of information are particularly useful? If no, what deficiencies exist?

2a). Are the tools provided for Members (such as the SIR Scale, Decision Sheets, etc.) useful in helping you arrive at a decision?

2b). If yes, which ones do you use and how do you use them? If not, why not?

8

PART THREE (continued)

3. Do you feel there is a need for additional tools to aid decision-making? If yes, what kinds of tools would you like to see?

4a). In your opinion, does Board Member training address the requirements of the decision policies in terms of:

i) Making decisions? Please explain.

ii) Assessing risk? Please explain.

iii) Documenting decisions? Please explain.

iv) Offender behaviour, diversity of offenders (i.e. natives, women, etc.)? Please explain.

9

PART THREE (continued)

4b) If yes, what types/areas of training did you find particularly useful?

4c) If no, what types/areas of training would you like to see provided?

PART FOUR

la). Do you find that you tend to consider different factors, or consider similar factors differently, for different groups (such as women, natives, types of offender, etc.)? Please specify.

lb). If yes, what impact do you feel this has on the decisions you make?

I()

PART FOUR (continued)

2. What should the decision policies provide to help you deal with the factors associated with the different groups referred to in question la?

3a). Each region is, in some way, unique. What are some of the unique factors associated with your region that are important to consider when making decisions?

3b). Do the policies help or hinder you in taking intô account any regional-specific factors (that are present in your region) when they make a decision?

11

COMMENTS

1. Do you have any issues or concerns which you feel were not addressed in this questionnaire? If so, please elaborate.

2. Do you have any suggestions for improvement to the policies that were not covered by this questionnaire? If so, please elaborate.

Thank you for your time and effort.

12

EVALUATION OF THE PRE-, POST-RELEASE AND DETENTION DECISION POLICIES

Questionnaire for National Parole Board Regional Directors

As you know, National Parole Board is conducting an evaluation of its decision policies including Pre-release, Post-release, and Detention. The purpose of this evaluation is to examine the consistency, application and usefulness of these policies. The evaluation was designed in three phases, each of which builds on the findings of the previous phase(s). At present, the Board is conducting Phase One and has asked the Coopers & Lybrand Consulting Group to gather the information. Your participation is extremely important in order to ensure that subsequent phases of the evaluation target the appropriate issues and concerns.

Please read through the questionnaire before answering any of the questions. That way, you will have an overview of the breadth of what we are asking you to consider. At the end, you may include any issues or concerns which were not addressed. If you require more space to record your answers, please attach a separate sheet of paper. Your responses are completely confidential. As you can see, you name does not appear on the questionnaire. Furthermore, only one person will see the questionnaire you fill out. This individual will then enter the responses on a computer. All findings will be reported in aggregate form (for example, 20 % of respondents suggested improvements for the training of Members).

When you have completed this questionnaire, please send it to Coopers & Lybrand in the addressed, stamped envelope included in this package. We would appreciate receiving your responses by October 21, 1991. Thank you in advance for completing the questionnaire. We appreciate the time and effort required. If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to contact Tina Beranbaum or Ellen Corkery-Dooher at (613)237- 3702.

Si vous préférez répondre en français, veuillez appeller Ellen Corkery-Dooher au (613) 237-3702.

THE COOPERS AND LYBRAND CONSULTING GROUP

Tina Beranbaum Senior Consulting Associate

Questionnaire for National Parole Board Regional Directors

PART ONE

Do the pre and post-release, as well as detention, decision policies provide a useful framework to aid decisiOn-making? Please specify in what ways they are useful or not (for example, in identifying and analyzing factors related to risk or reintegfation: the use of least restrictive alternatives or special conditions; balancing long-term and short-term protection; etc.)?

In your opinion, do Board Members follow these decision policies when making a decision or do they make a decision and then determine how the decision fits the policies? Please explain.

PART ONE (continued)

3a). Three important terms used in the decision policies are "risk", "seriousness". and "quality decisions". What is your definition for each of these terms ?

3b). Have the decision policies clarified what these terms mean for you?

3c). In your opinion, do Board Members have a clear understanding of what is meant by each of these terms'?

I

PART ONE (continued)

4a). In your opinion, do the decision policies provide a guideline for how to make a decision or do they provide a procedural manual for the steps to be followed?

4b). If so, in what ways? If not, why not?

4c). Which do you •think is the preferred model?

5a). Have you come across circumstances where Board Members did not, or could not, apply the decision policies?

5b) If so, why? Please give an .example.

3

PART ONE (continued)

Please answer the following question only if you were employed by National Parole Board before 1986. If you were first employed after that date, please proceed to PART TWO.

6a). You worked for the Board prior to the implementation of the decision policies and, therefore , are in a unique position to comment on changes that occurred as a result of that implementation. In your opinion, have Board Members chanized the way they make decisions as a result of the policies ?

6b). If so, in what ways ? If not , why not?

PART TWO

la). What are the objectives of the pre- and post-release. as well as detention. decision policies?

lb). Are these objectives clearly stated in the decision policies'?

PART TVVO (continued)

le). Are these objectives being met and how are they being met? If not , why not'?

2a). Has there been an increase in regional workload as a result of the decision policies'? Please explain for:

i) Staff.

ii) Board Members.

2b). If yes, does this increase in workload contribute to meeting the objectives referred to in question la?

. If yes, in what way? If no, why not ?

PART TWO (continued)

3. In your experience, are the decision policies vague, contradictory, consistent. etc. with each of the following:

a) One another ? Please explain.

b) The Act? Please explain.

c) The National Parole Board Mission? Please explain.

4. In your opinion, do the decision policies help or hinder the making of decisions ? Please be specific in describing how.

6

PART TWO (continued)

5a). Have the pre- and post-release, as well as detention, decision policies had any impact on the process Members follow in reaching a decision ?

5b). If yes, in what ways ? If no. why?

Please answer the following question only if you were employed by the Board before 1986. If you were first employed by the Board after that date. please proceed to PART THREE.

6. Since you were first employed by the Board prior to the implementation of the decision policies, you are in a unique position to comment on changes that occurred as a result of that implementation. In your opinion, have Members changed the way they document decisions as a result of the decision policies?

PART THREE

la). Are you satisfied with the quantity and quality of information provided to Members to help them reach a decision ?

lb). If yes, which sources of information are particularly useful? If no, what deficiencies exist'?

2a). Are the tools provided for Members (such as the SIR Scale, Decision Sheets, etc.) useful in helping them arrive at a decision'?

2b). If yes, which ones do they use and how do they use them? If not, whv not?

3. Do you feel there is a need for additional tools to aid decision-making? If yes, what kinds of tools would you like to see?

8

PART 3 (continued)

4a). In your opinion, does Board Member training address the requirements of the decision policies in terms of:

i) Making decisions? Please explain.

•

ii) Assessing risk? Please explain.

iii) Documenting decisions? Please explain.

iv) Offender behaviour, diversity of offenders (i.e. natives, women, etc.)? Please explain.

4b) If no, what types/areas of training would you like to see provided ?

9

1 .

PART FOUR

la). Do you find that Board Members tend to consider different factors, or consider similar factors differently, for different groups (such as women, natives, types of offender, etc.)? Please specify.

lb). If yes, what impact do you feel this has on the decisions they make?

What should the decision policies provide to help Members deal with the factors associated with the different groups referred to in question la?

3a). Each region is, in some way, unique. What are some of the unique factors associated with your region that are important to consider when making decisions'?

10

PART 4 (continued)

3b). Do the policies help or hinder Members in takin2 into account any regional-specific factors (that are present in your region) when they make a decision ?

COMMENTS

1. Do you have any issues or concerns which you feel were not addressed in this questionnaire? If so, please elaborate.

Do you have any suggestions for improvement to the policies that were not covered by this questionnaire? If so. please elaborate.

Thank you for your time and effort.

Appendix III - Focus Group Agendas

%IF

C&L

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD

Evaluation of Decision Policies

Agenda

• Introduction:

a) Background to Study b) Progress to Date

• Decision Policies: a) Procedures/Guidelines b) Clarification of Definitions, Objectives, etc. c) Impact d) Suggestions for Improvement

• Decision-Making: a) Key Criteria/Factors b) Tools and Information Available c) Exceptional Cases - d) Panel Hearing vs. Paper Review e) Diversity: Regional/Offenders

• Learning to Use the Policies:

a) Personal Experience and Background b) Training, Observation, Supervision

• Training: Provided and Required

• Key Evaluation Issues and Sources of Information

AGENDA

I • OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION APPROACH AND KEY FINDINGS TO DATE

1 • DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE

1 QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEW RESPONSES

• IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND METHODS

I • WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

111

1

EVALUATION APPROACH

PURPOSE: TO EVALUATE THE POL I CES AND THEIR IMPACT ON DECISION-MAKING

THREE PHASES

PHASE 1: ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND REFINEMENT OF METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY: QUESTIONNAIRES (NPB MEMBERS, NPB STAFF)

INTERVIEWS (NPB STAFF, CSC STAFF, VICTIMS' GROUP REPRESENTATIVES, NATIONAL VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS, CRIMINAL JUSTICE EXPERTS, MINISTRY SECRETARIAT STAFF)

ROUND TABLES (REGIONAL DIRECTORS AND NPB MEMBERS)

FOCUS ON THE POLICIES

CONVERGENCE:

• APPROPRIATE TO HAVE POLICIES

• VIEWED AS CONSISTENT

• PROVIDE A USEFUL FRAMEWORK TO AID DECISION-MAKING

IMPACT ON DECISION-MAKING IS DETERMINED BY THE SKILL, KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF BOARD MEMBER

• RESULTED IN CONSISTENT AND INCREASED DETAIL IN DECISION DOCUMENTATION

FOCUS ON THE POLICES

DIVERGENCE:

VIEWED AS GUIDELINE VS. PROCEDURAL MANUAL

PROVISION OF RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, DEFINITIONS,

DEGREE TO WHICH APPLY ACROSS ALL CASES

EXPLICIT CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL/DIVERSITY FACTORS VS. GENERIC/NEUTRAL POLICIES

ouAurt DECISIONS

DIVERGENCE:

PRESSURE TO PROTECT SOCIETY (poiitical) VS. PRESSURE TO RELEASE

LOGICALLY DEFENSIBLE VS. OUTCOME OF CASE

INFORMATION

CONVERGENCE:

• QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF INFORMATION VARIES

• ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION VARIES

. ABILITY TO USE INFORMATION VARIES

TRAINING

CONVERGENCE:

• NATURE OF APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS

• TRAINING REQUIRED IN GENERIC SKILLS ENHANCEMENT

WHERE DO WE GO NEXT?

3 KEY ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN EVALUATION

AVAILABLE INFORMATION SOURCES AND METHODS

RINTED IN U.S.A.

SOL.GEN CANADA LIBJB Lb

1 1111111 0000002682

DATE DUE

GAYLORD