Audit of the detector dog program, 2017

Internal Audit Report

November 3, 2017

Acronyms & Abbreviations

CCRA:
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
CCRR:
Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations
CBSA:
Canada Border Services Agency
CSC:
Correctional Service Canada
The Program:
Detector Dog Program
The Guidelines:
Detector Dog Program Guidelines
MOU:
Memorandum of Understanding
NHQ:
National Headquarters
RHQ:
Regional Headquarters
TRA:
Threat Risk Assessment

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Audit of the Detector Dog Program was conducted as part of Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) Internal Audit Sector’s 2016-2019 Risk-Based Audit Plan. This audit links to CSC’s corporate priority of "safety and security of the public, victims, staff and offenders in institutions and the community" and the corporate risk that "CSC will not be able to maintain required levels of operational safety and security in institutions and in the community".

The Detector Dog Program (the Program) is one tool available to assist with the detection of contraband and should be a key component of CSC’s overall plan to reduce the amount of contraband within its institutions. Commissioner’s Directive 585 - National Drug Strategy, indicates that a "safe drug-free institutional environment is a fundamental condition for the success of the reintegration of inmates into society as law-abiding citizens".

In 2000, CSC began exploring new drug interdiction strategies which resulted in a pilot project that brought detector dog teams into CSC’s institutions. A Detector Dog Team consists of a Correctional Officer (identified as the Dog Handler) and a specially trained dog. At that time, the Program consisted of 12 detector dog teams and increased to 88 as of December 2016. CSC detector dogs are trained to identify and indicate the presence of an odour associated with specific illegal drugs, firearms and ammunitions. When a detector dog detects those specific odours it will exhibit a behavioural change and, when possible, also indicate the location of the source of the odour.

Currently, all CSC institutions, except for Grierson Institution, CSC Healing Lodges and Community Correctional Centres have been allocated detector dog resources; however, due to vacancies and handlers waiting to be assigned a new dog, not all institutions currently have active detector dog teams in place. Detector dog teams regularly search both inmates and their visitors and perform regular searches for illicit substances in cells, yards, common areas, workshops and other areas of high risk throughout the institution.

Since 2001, CSC and the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) have had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in place which has allowed CSC to utilize the trainers and facilities at the CBSA’s training facility to train CSC’s handlers and detector dogs. The CBSA is responsible for providing CSC’s dog handlers with their initial training and certification and for conducting a yearly evaluation of CSC’s detector dog teams to ensure they continue to meet the established criteria to maintain their detector dog team status.

For the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the Program recorded expenditures of just over ten million dollars for salary, staff training, employee travel, detector dog supplies, and veterinary costs. However, not all expenditures associated with the Program are included in that amount, as they are captured under a separate budget. Some of those expenditures include the purchase of the Handler’s vehicle, ongoing vehicle maintenance and the Handler’s fuel costs.

The chart and diagram below provide a breakdown of the overall cost of the Program, as well as a breakdown of the non-salary related operating costs incurred by CSC. Figure 1 illustrates the amount spent at NHQ as well as in the regions to run the Program. The total expenses include salaries, benefits, and overtime associated with the Program as well as the operating expenses. Operating expenses presented in Figure 1 include training, travel, dog food, boarding, etc.

At a national level, operating costs include the initial as well as any refresher training dog handler’s receive as well as the costs associated with the annual re-certification training. At the regional level, the costs include dog food, veterinary care and other associated costs which are further identified within Figure 2.

Figure 1 - Detector Dog Program Costs per Region
Region Detector Dog Program Total Expenses 2015-2016Footnote 3 Unaudited Average Number of Active Handlers 2015-2016
NHQ $994,875 -
Atlantic $1,153,060 11
Quebec $2,356,466 22
Ontario $2,784,615 26
Prairies $1,712,706 20
Pacific $1,158,139 11
Total $10,159,861 90
Figure 2 - Regional Breakdown of Program Operating Expenses
Operating Expense Category Operating Expenses 2015-2016 Unaudited Percent of Program’s Total Operating Expenses
Veterinary services/Medication $88,522 22%
Food and other related expenses $84,459 21%
Dog supplies $71,680 18%
Boarding $53,373 13%
Other operating expenses $36,608 9%
Clothing/Handler supplies $27,499 7%
Kennel and associated expenses $20,257 5%
Vehicle $17,140 4%
Total Operating Expenses $399,538

The costs above represent the regional operating costs of the Program excluding salaries and NHQ associated expenses.

1.2 Legislative and Policy Framework

Legislation

Detector dog searches are considered to be a non-intrusive search tool. Such tools are identified through various sections of the Correctional and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) and the Correctional and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR).

Section 46 of the CCRA defines a non-intrusive search as:

  1. a search of a non-intrusive nature of the clothed body by technical means, in the prescribed manner, and;
  2. a search of
    1. personal possessions, including clothing, that the person may be carrying, and
    2. any coat or jacket that the person has been requested to remove, in accordance with any applicable regulations made under paragraph 96(l).

Section 47 of the CCRA discusses the use of non-intrusive searches of inmates and Sections 58-61 address cell searches, visitors and vehicles. Finally Section 66 of the CCRA addresses the non-intrusive searches of staff members.

CSC Directives, Strategies and Guidelines

Various commissioner’s directives and guidelines contain requirements and processes applicable to the Program, some of which include:

Commissioner’s Directive 566-13 - Detector Dog Program

The purpose of this Commissioner’s Directive is to: establish procedures for the operation and monitoring of the Program within institutions and when assisting partner agencies, as well as prevent the introduction, possession and exchange of contraband into CSC facilities with the assistance of a certified Detector Dog Team.

National Headquarters (NHQ) is to establish standards for the operational aspects of the Program. Dog handlers are not to be deployed at alternative posts, except in emergency situations and detector dogs are to be available for all inmate events pre-designated by the Institutional Head. Any inmate who causes pain to the dog or interferes with the duties of the dog can be charged with disciplinary offences under section 40(r) of the CCRA.Footnote 4 As well, training aids, such as the controlled substances used by the dog handlers to reinforce the detector dogs scent profile, are to be approved and supplied by Health Canada.

Commissioner’s Directive 585 - National Drug Strategy

The Strategy explains that CSC, in achieving its mission, will not tolerate drug or alcohol use or trafficking in federal institutions. A safe, drug-free institutional environment is a fundamental condition for the success of the reintegration of inmates into society as law-abiding citizens.

Detector dogs can be used to assist staff in identifying the possible presence of drugs on inmates, staff and visitors.

Detector Dog Program Guidelines (the Guidelines)

The Guidelines explain the requirements pertaining to the detector dog team’s training and certification, the management of the detector dogs, including their care and maintenance, kennels and vehicles, as well as requirements concerning training aid kit storage, handling and usage. The Guidelines also provide a high-level overview of how the detector dogs function.

Other applicable commissioner’s directives and associated guidelines include:

1.3 CSC Organization

National Headquarters (NHQ)

NHQ is responsible for the overall management of the Program, including establishing operating standards and ensuring that procedures are in place to measure interdiction activities. The Program resides under the Preventive Security and Intelligence Division of the Correctional Operations and Programs Sector. Additional responsibilities for NHQ include: ensuring conformity among the regional security intelligence units, providing support to the regions in the area of security intelligence and allocating intelligence resources.

Regional Headquarters (RHQ)

Within each region, a Regional Project Officer has been assigned to the detector dog portfolio. This position acts as the Program liaison between NHQ and their region’s institutions.

Institutions

The Institutional Head is to ensure that all staff using non-intrusive search tools are trained and certified as required. As well, they are to ensure that storage facilities for training aid kits meet all security requirements as identified within the Guidelines and that the use of detector dog teams is incorporated into the Institution’s Search Plan.

There are a number of additional positions at each institution who have responsibilities associated with the Program. In addition to being the handler for the detector dog, the Detector Dog Handler is to ensure that training aids are controlled and that they are in compliance with all training requirements. Furthermore, dog handlers are to provide complete care, maintenance and motivation of the detector dog, in addition to providing care and maintenance of the equipment provided to the Detector Dog Team.

At most sites, the Correctional Managers, Operations/Coordinator Correctional Operations (referred to as a Correctional Manager, Operations for the remainder of this report), are the Dog Handler’s direct supervisors. They are responsible for conducting inventory verifications of the items in the Dog Handler’s training kits and for ensuring a Post Order identifies the appropriate procedures related to this non-intrusive search tool.

In addition to the dog handlers’ manager, there are additional correctional managers who are involved with the Program. During inmate visits, if the detector dog indicates that there is an illicit substance present that they have been trained to detect, a Correctional Manager, who is often the Duty Correctional Manager, will complete a Threat Risk Assessment (TRA). The Manager responsible varies from shift to shift as the role of the Duty Correctional Manager is filled by different managers throughout the day. The TRA will be used to determine whether the person trying to enter the institution poses a risk to the security of the institution.

1.4 Risk Assessment

The Audit of the Detector Dog Program was identified as a high audit priority and an area of risk to CSC in the 2016-2019 Risk-Based Audit Plan. A preliminary risk assessment was completed by the audit team using the results of interviews and knowledge previously obtained through other audits related to the subject of detector dogs. Policy documents, audits completed by other jurisdictions and other available information related to detector dogs were also considered.

Overall, the assessment identified that the main risks to CSC relate to: the Organization not being able to determine whether the Program was meeting its intended objectives; training aids not being stored and handled properly; a lack of analysis being done with the available information to measure the results of the Program; CSC property and assets being used inappropriately; and CSC not obtaining the best value for the resources allocated to the Program. Within each of these main risks, additional risks were identified and included: a disconnect between Management and the Detector Dog Team regarding the capabilities and expectations of the detector dogs; and detector dogs not being utilized in the areas of highest risk.

These risks were considered in developing the audit objectives and criteria.

2.0 Objectives and Scope

2.1 Audit Objectives

The objectives of this audit were to provide assurance that:

Specific criteria are included in Annex A.

2.2 Audit Scope

The Audit of the Detector Dog Program was national in scope and included visits to all five regions where interviews, observations and compliance testing were undertaken. In addition, interviews were held with staff at Regional Headquarters (RHQ), NHQ and CBSA staff at Rigaud. Fulfillment of the MOU between CSC and the CBSA was examined in terms of the annual re-certification process as well as the training provided by the CBSA. The financial component of the MOU was not examined as part of this audit as it was in the process of being reviewed.

The audit excluded the process that takes place following a positive indication by the detector dog, as this was audited as part of the Audit of Contraband Control.

4.0 Conclusion

With respect to the first objective on the effectiveness of the management framework in relation to the Detector Dog Program, we found that the framework requires additional improvements to ensure the effectiveness of the Program. The audit noted a number of areas that require further consideration by management to ensure that the Program functions as it was originally intended and achieves the desired results.

The second objective of this audit focused on CSC’s compliance with legislation and policy, and noted a number of areas were in compliance. However, there are a few areas where improvements can be made.

Recommendations have been issued in the report based on areas where improvements are required.

6.0 About the Audit

6.1 Approach and Methodology

Audit evidence was gathered through a number of methods such as: the review of documentation; detailed testing, and interviews with staff at NHQ and in the regions.

Interviews: Over 130 interviews were conducted during the planning and examination phases of this audit, both in person and via teleconference. Those interviewed at the institutions included: institutional heads, assistant wardens operations, correctional managers, security intelligence officers, and detector dog handlers. Regional staff interviewed included regional project officers and regional administrator security. Additionally, interviews were conducted with a number of staff at NHQ who were involved in the Program.

Review of Documentation: Relevant documentation, such as legislation, commissioner’s directives, guidelines, and financial data, as well as various handlers’ logs, training records, reports and search plans were reviewed.

Testing: File reviews were conducted on site to determine whether detector dog handlers were completing the required documentation, also that the information contained within the files was accurate and finally that the dog handlers were adhering to policies and guidelines. The documents that were reviewed included: Detector Dog Monthly Utilization Logs, Search Logs, Controlled Substance Verification Logs and Progressive Training Records.

Sampling Strategy: Samples were selected based on the amount of documents that would need to be reviewed to provide an overall conclusion on the area being audited. For audit tests that required date specific tests, a judgemental sample was selected.

Observations: Over 160 observations of detector dog searches were completed throughout the audit. These observations were performed to assess whether detector dog teams were used effectively, and whether the searches they conducted were in compliance with legislation, policies and guidelines. The audit team also observed detector dog vehicles, institutional kennels and training aid storage facilities while at the selected institutions to determine whether they met the requirements outlined in the Guidelines. Additionally, the audit team observed detector dog training. Lastly, visits took place at the homes of detector dog handlers to observe the kennels which have been constructed to house the detector dogs.

Site Selection: Site selection was based on a number of elements including: number of detector dog teams, number of detector dog seizures, the number of positive urinalysis tests, security classification, number of inmates and the number of previous site visits. Annex B provides details of the sites visited.

6.2 Past Audits Related to the Detector Dog Program

Past CSC internal audits and external assurance work were used to assist in scoping the audit work.

Xxxxx xx Xxxxxxx xx Xxxxx xxx Xxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxxxxx - Xxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, xxx Xxxxxx (xxxx):

Xxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxx, xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx xxx Xxx Xxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx xxx xx xxx xxx xxxxx xxx x xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxxxxxx, xxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxx.

Xxxxx xx Xxxxxxx xx Xxxxx xxx Xxxx xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx - Xxxxx x (xxxx):

Xxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxx xx xxx xxxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, xxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxx xx xxxx xx xxxxx. Xx xxxx, xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxx-xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx. Xx xxxxx xx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx’ xxxxxxxxx, xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx; xxxxxxx, xxx xx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx. Xxxxxxxxxxx, xx x xxxxx xxxx xxxxxx, xxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx, xxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xx xxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxxxx x xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxx xx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxx.

Xx xxxx xx xxxx xxxxx, x xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xx Xxxxxx. Xx xxxx xx xxx Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxx, xxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxx xxxx xxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx (xxx xxx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx), xxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxx xx xx-xx-xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx’x Xxxxxxxxxx. Xx xx Xxxxx x, xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx.

Xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx Xxxx xx xx xxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx’ xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xx-xxxxxxxx xx xxxx xx xxxx xxxxx.

Xxxxx xx Xxxxxxxxxx (xxxx):

Xxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx, xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx. Xxxxxxxxxxx, xxx xx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xx-xxxxxxxxxxxxx.

Evaluation Report on Institutional Security (2015):

The Evaluation found a positive relationship between the increase in spending on the Program and an increase in the number of seizures from 2008 to 2014 with the largest increase in seizures occurring from 2008/09 to 2009/10.

From 2009/10 to 2013/14 there was a 30% increase in the rate of drug seizures and a 77% increase in the rate of spending. The large increase in spending was associated with the increase in the number of detector dogs.

The Evaluation also found that the rate of drug-related incidents had decreased; indicating the efforts to eliminate drugs from institutions may be helping to reduce incidents and keeping institutions safe and secure. It also found that the rate of positive urinalysis results had decreased over a six-year period which may suggest that the efforts to eliminate drugs from institutions, including the use of detector dog teams, have been working.

6.3 Statement of Conformance

In my professional judgment as Chief Audit Executive, sufficient and appropriate audit procedures have been conducted and evidence gathered to support the accuracy of the opinion provided and contained in this report. The opinion is based on a comparison of the conditions, as they existed at the time, against pre-established audit criteria that were agreed on with management. The opinion is applicable only to the area examined.

The audit conforms to the Internal Auditing Standards for Government of Canada, as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program. The evidence gathered was sufficient to provide senior management with proof of the opinion derived from the internal audit.

Glossary

Duty Correctional Manager:
A Correctional Manager who is responsible for ensuring the overall security and safety of the institution, while also ensuring all posts within the institution are staffed by qualified officers.
Interest:
Interest shown by the dog is different from an indication. The ability to read the difference is the responsibility of the Handler. The Handler will become aware of the dog’s tendencies as they continue to work together. When conducting a search, the dog may show an interest in something but will not give a confirmation with the conditioned reflex. This can be a result of various circumstances; however, it is on the advice of the Handler that they or the examining officer conducts a cursory examination in the area of interest. The dog can make a general interest and be returned to focus on continuing the examination; however, at times, the interest shown should be investigated.
Indication:
An indication is when the dog reacts to the trained odour in the appropriately trained reflex. This may be as subtle as a head turn, increasing in nature to behavioural change, excitability, to a full and complete confirmation of passive pointing and sitting at the source. In certain situations, especially in high or well-concealed hides, only a trace odour may be detected and the dog may only show the Handler a behavioural change or head turn. The dog would then try to follow the odour to the source, but it may be impossible to locate the actual location. In these cases, the responsibility is with the Handler to systematically examine the area, understand the air currents, and be able to understand their dog.
Training Aid/Hide:
A training aid/hide is a legally possessed controlled substance or item that is hidden within an area in which training is taking place. The item/substance is used to train a detector dog in the scent profiles for which they have been certified on.
Training Kit:
A training kit is a supply of controlled substances approved and provided by Health Canada.

Annex A: Audit Criteria

The following table outlines the audit criteria developed to meet the stated audit objective and audit scope:

Objective Audit Criteria Met/
Met with Exceptions/
Partially Met/
Not Met
1. Provide assurance that a management framework is in place and supports the effective management of the Program. 1.1 - Policy Framework
CSC commissioner’s directives, guidelines and manuals are clear, effectively support the Program and comply with applicable legislation.
Partially Met
1.2 - Governance
CSC has defined and communicated strategic objectives, performance measures and has a support system in place for the Program.
Not Met
1.3 - Roles and Responsibilities
Roles and responsibilities are defined, documented, communicated and understood.
Partially Met
1.4 - Training
Training requirements have been identified, meet the needs of the Organization and training is taking place as required.
Partially Met
1.5 - Monitoring and Reporting
Monitoring and reporting processes related to the Program are in place and are being used to improve the Program.
Partially Met
1.6 - Utilization of Resources
Assets allocated to the Program are being monitored and utilized economically, efficiently and as intended.
Partially Met
2. Provide assurance that CSC is complying with relevant legislation and policies related to the Program. 2.1 - Kennels and Vehicles
Detector Dog Handler vehicles and kennels meet the needs of the Program and ensure the safety of the detector dog while complying with the requirements of the applicable policies.
Met
2.2 - Training Kits
Detector Dog Handlers’ Training Kits are being stored and maintained according to applicable policies.
Not Met
2.3 - Searches
2.3.1 The detector dog searches taking place are in compliance with applicable legislation and policies.
2.3.2 The areas where the detector dogs are to search are safe and allow the detector dog to complete its responsibilities.

Met

Met
2.4 - Documentation
Documentation related to the Program is being completed in a consistent and accurate manner to ensure the effective use of the detector dogs and strong controls over controlled substances are in place.
Partially Met

Annex B: Site Selection

Region Sites
Atlantic
  • Dorchester Penitentiary
  • Springhill Institution
Quebec
  • Archambault Institution
  • Drummond Institution
  • Detector Dog Handler Home Visits
Ontario
  • Collins Bay Institution
  • Millhaven Institution
  • Warkworth Institution
  • Detector Dog Handler Home Visits
Prairies
  • Bowden Institution
  • Edmonton Institution
  • Edmonton Institution for Women
Pacific
  • Matsqui Institution
  • Mission Institution
Rigaud
  • CBSA Training Facility

Xs appear where sensitive information has been removed in accordance with the Access to Information Act.

Page details

Date modified: