Audit of detention review process, 2013

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE AND CONFORMANCE
• 1.0 INTRODUCTION
  • 1.1 Background
  • 1.2 Audit of Detention Review Process as Part of the Case Management Cycle
• 2.0 AUDIT OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
  • 2.1 Audit Objectives
  • 2.2 Audit Scope
• 3.0 AUDIT APPROCH AND METHODOLOGY
• 4.0 AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • 4.1 Adequacy and Reasonableness of the Management Framework for Detention Review
  • 4.2 Adequacy of the Procedures in Place
  • 4.3 Compliance with Relevant Legislation and Policy Directives
• 5.0 OVERALL CONCLUSION
• Annex A
• Annex B
• Annex C
• Annex D
• Annex E
• Annex F
• Glossary
• Management Action Plan

In accordance with Correctional Service Canada's (CSC) 2007-2008 Internal Audit Plan, the Internal Audit Sector conducted a Preliminary Survey of Institutional Case Management and produced a report in April 2008. Following this survey, a series of audits were conducted that covered the whole case management cycle. The audits were:

• Offender Intake Assessment, completed in April 2009;
• Institution Supervision Framework, completed in September 2010;
• Pre-release Decision Making within the Case Preparation and Release Framework, completed in December 2010; and
• Release Process, completed in September 2012.

The Audit of Detention Review Process was conducted as part of CSC's Internal Audit Sector 2012-2015 Risk-Based Audit Plan. This audit links to the CSC corporate priority "Safety and security of staff and offenders in our institutions and in the community," since the purpose of the detention provisions is to protect the public.

The audit is material because protecting our communities by detaining individuals who are not yet ready to be released into the community is paramount to CSC. The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canadians are safe in their communities. As part of its contribution to public safety, CSC provides offenders with the resources and opportunities they need to become productive and law-abiding citizens. This is done while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control in the institutions, as well as effective supervision of offenders under conditional release in the community. The detention review process encompasses daily activities completed within CSC's institutions in order to prepare the cases for presentation to the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) and to implement properly the decisions taken.

The objectives of this audit were to:

• provide reasonable assurance that the management framework in place supports the detention review process;
• provide reasonable assurance that procedures are in place and support the detention review process; and
• provide reasonable assurance that CSC is in compliance with relevant legislation and policy directives related to the detention review process.

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

The audit comprised a review of various processes, including the identification and referral of PBC cases, the implementation of PBC decisions, and file documentation and detention report timeliness.

The audit assessed compliance with legislation and CSC policies. It was national in scope and covered medium and/or maximum security institutions in all five regions. A sample of statutory release and detention files from fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2011-12 were tested.

Overall, the audit found that a framework was in place to support the management of the detention review process.

With regards to the first audit objective, processes were in place to ensure adequate and effective detention of offenders and CSC staff was generally aware of the processes.

In relation to the second audit objective, procedures were in place to ensure that offenders who met the criteria for detention review were identified, had their cases referred for presentation to PBC and decisions made by PBC were properly implemented at the institution.

Finally, the third audit objective found that key documents pertaining to the detention review process were on file and these documents were generally prepared in compliance with policy. There is still room for improvement in areas such delays in receiving psychological assessments and detention referral report completion within timelines.

CSC policy, including CD 712-2, was updated on June 13, 2012. In the new version, roles and responsibilities were clarified and Detention Pre-Screening requirements were modified. This should help in ensuring that report timelines are met in a more consistent manner.

This engagement was conducted at a high level of assurance. ⁱ

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.

_ Date:
Sylvie Soucy, CIA
Chief Audit Executive

Canada's criminal justice system is designed to ensure public safety by protecting society from those who violate the law. It does this by stating the types of behaviours that are unacceptable and defining the nature and severity of the punishment for a given offence. Punishment may include a fine; restitution to the victim; probation; community service; or imprisonment.¹ CSC is the federal government agency responsible for administering imprisonment sentences of a term of two years or more, as imposed by the courts.² Federally sentenced offenders serve the final third of their sentence in the community, under supervision and under conditions of release similar to those imposed on offenders released on full parole under the legal requirement of statutory release.³ However, an offender can be detained past his or her statutory release date (SRD) if the PBC feels the offender is likely to commit, prior to her/his Warrant Expiry Date (WED), an offence as listed in CCRA section 129 (2) The process of reviewing an offender's file to assess whether or not he/she should remain incarcerated to serve all or part of her/his final third of their sentence is called the detention review process.

The Audit of Detention Review Process was conducted as part of Correctional Service Canada's (CSC) Internal Audit Sector 2012-2015 Risk-Based Audit Plan. This audit links to the CSC corporate priority "Safety and security of staff and offenders in our institutions and in the community," since the purpose of the detention provisions is to protect the public.

The audit is material because protecting our communities by detaining individuals who are not yet ready to be released into the community is paramount to CSC. The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canadians are safe in their communities. As part of its contribution to public safety, CSC provides offenders with the resources and opportunities they need to become productive and law-abiding citizens. This is done while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control in the institutions, as well as effective supervision of offenders under conditional release in the community.⁴ The detention review process encompasses daily activities completed within our institutions in order to prepare the cases for presentation to the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) and to implement properly the decisions taken.

In accordance with CSC's 2007-2008 Internal Audit Plan, the Internal Audit Sector conducted a Preliminary Survey of Institutional Case Management in April 2008.

The scope of the preliminary survey was guided by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR) and relevant Commissioner's Directives (CD). Its focus was on documenting the key processes that support effective case management, and to document and assess the risk to which CSC is exposed for each of the key elements. The identification of key controls expected to be in place to manage these risks was also an important element of the survey.

Based on the survey, several audits took place to cover all aspects of the case management process. The first audit covered Offender Intake Assessment (April 2009), followed by the Audit of Institutional Supervision Framework (September 2010). Pre-release Decision Making within the Case Preparation and Release Framework was completed in December 2010 and the Audit of the Release Process was completed in September 2012. The last component of the case management process to be audited, Detention Review Process is covered by this report.

For the completed audits, the common objectives were to assess the adequacy of the management framework and to determine the extent to which CSC's sites were complying with relevant legislation and policy directives.

Offender Intake Assessment

This audit found that key elements of a management framework were in place and that legislative requirements were being met in most cases. Policies existed, roles and responsibilities were clearly defined and understood, resources were in place at the local, regional and national levels and, some monitoring and reporting activities were in place. In terms of compliance, the audit found that legal requirements related to the preparation of a correctional plan and to the assignment of a security classification were met. However, in some cases, there was no documented evidence that some factors listed under the regulations for the security classification were considered. The offender file review performed by the auditors also identified some concerns with compliance in certain policy areas.

Institution Supervision Framework

This audit indicated that key elements of a management framework were in place and that legislative requirements were being met. There was a high level of support and awareness of the policies relevant to the institutional supervision framework, and guidelines were in place, which assisted case management staff in preparing reports. Opportunities for improvement were identified by the audit in areas like compliance with legislation and policies.

Pre-release Decision Making within the Case Preparation and Release Framework

This audit found that policies were consistent with legislation, roles and responsibilities were clearly understood, with the noted exception of the Aboriginal Liaison Officers; there was no national monitoring system in place; proper monitoring was not being done, and documentation was completed in most cases, although key documents were sometimes not completed.

Release Process

Overall, this audit found that processes were in place to ensure adequate and effective release of offenders and that CSC was complying with its policy requirements when managing offenders' releases. The audit also found that WED packages for offenders who may pose a threat to the community when released were all prepared, certificates of release explaining the conditions under which the offender was released were always prepared and most were shared with the police. Outstanding warrants of arrest were always verified prior to release. Some areas for improvements related to file documentation and timeliness of the process were identified.

For all audits outlined above, Management Action Plans were prepared to address identified weaknesses.

CCRA Sections 129 to 132 provide the authority for cases to be referred to the PBC for detention. This legislation specifies that the Commissioner of CSC must refer certain cases to the PBC. The CCRA permits the PBC to detain an offender past his or her SRD. This decision can be made if the Board is satisfied that an offender is likely to commit, prior to her/his Warrant Expiry Date, an offence causing the death of, or serious harm to, another person, a serious drug offence, or a sexual offence involving a child. Institutional parole officers (IPO) are responsible for completing the relevant reports associated to this process, including the Detention Pre-Screening report and the Assessment for Decision (A4D).

Upon admission, all new or recommitted offenders will be reviewed to determine whether they are serving a sentence for an offence set out in Schedule I or Schedule II of the CCRA. For the purpose of detention, the relevant offences and criteria for review are as follows:

• the commission of the offence caused the death of or serious harm to another person (Schedule I) and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender is likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person before the expiration of the offender's sentence;⁵
• the offence was a sexual offence involving a child (Schedule I) and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender is likely to commit a sexual offence involving a child or an offence causing death or serious harm to another person before the expiration of the offender's sentence according to law;⁶ or
• in the case of an offender who is serving a sentence for an offence set out in Schedule II (drug offences), there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender is likely to commit a serious drug offence before the expiration of the offender's sentence according to law.⁷

It is CSC's responsibility to identify the offenders who meet the criteria for detention review and refer the cases for presentation to the Parole Board of Canada with a recommendation to detain. Irrespective of whether the offence is set out in Schedule I or Schedule II of the CCRA, all offenders are subject to an ongoing review to determine whether there are factors that would justify a referral to PBC based on reasonable grounds to believe the offender is likely to recommit one of the above offences, before the expiration of the sentence.

The CCRA provides the authority under which the PBC, following a referral by CSC, can detain in custody until the end of the sentence, any offender who meets the detention criteria. Should CSC fail to identify offenders who meet the detention criteria, public safety could be jeopardized.

No later than 11 months prior to an offender's Statutory Release (SR) (or as soon as practicable), the institutional parole officer must complete a succinct review of the case against referral criteria and the factors identified respectively in subsection 129(2) and section 132 of the CCRA. Please refer to Annex E for a listing of the relevant factors for detention reviews. The purpose of this preliminary review is to determine whether the offender is likely to commit, prior to her/his WED, an offence causing the death of, or serious harm to, another person, a serious drug offence, or a sexual offence involving a child.

If the offender is not being referred, a rationale for why the offender does not meet the detention criteria will be provided.⁸ The manager, assessment and interventions (MAI) will review the Detention Pre-Screening report and document the results.⁹ Note that case preparation for SR cases was audited as part of Pre-release Decision Making and was not considered as part of the current audit.

The institutional parole officer must ensure that the case is referred directly to the PBC, normally nine months and no later than six months prior to the offender's SRD, if one or more criteria identified in subsection 129(2) of the CCRA are met.¹⁰ In the case of an offender previously not considered under the Detention Pre-Screening report for referral, if new information is received justifying a referral, the case must be reassessed by the institutional parole officer.¹¹ These types of referrals would be made at the site level (institutional head) to the PBC.

The Commissioner of Correctional Service Canada will, under certain circumstances, refer cases directly to the Chairperson of the PBC. Such referrals will be made under the circumstances set out below.

• Not all the CCRA criteria identified are met, but there are reasonable grounds to believe the offender is likely, before the expiration of the current sentence, to commit a scheduled offence. The case will be prepared by the institutional parole officer and submitted through the Institutional Head or District Director to the Regional Deputy Commissioner (and/or their delegate), and then submitted to the Commissioner¹² [CCRA s. 129(3)].
• When a period of fewer than six months remains until the offender's SRD, and the Commissioner concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender is likely to commit, before sentence expiry, one of the three offences mentioned previously, irrespective of whether the offence was set out in Schedule I or Schedule II, these referrals would be made on the basis of:
  1. the Commissioner formed that belief on the basis of the offender's behaviour or information obtained during those six months; or [CCRA par. 129(3)(a)];
  2. as a result of a change in the statutory release date due to a recalculation, the statutory release date has passed or the offender is entitled to be released on statutory release during those six months. [CCRA par. 129(3)(b)];

Decisions to refer the cases to the PBC are reviewed by National Headquarters. Currently, the Institutional Reintegration Operations Division, under the Correctional Operations and Programs Sector, analyze Commissioner's referrals to determine if they meet the criteria and to ensure that all feasible supervision alternatives were otherwise investigated. Liaison with regional representatives is maintained throughout. In addition, consultations with legal services take place.

A detained offender has the right to an annual review of the detention order. The behaviour and adjustment of those offenders is closely monitored and their involvement in programming is facilitated and encouraged. The Assessment for Decision, completed by the parole officer, following the annual review contains an assessment of the factors that contributed to the most recent decision and to which extent these factors have been addressed since that time. The Assessment for Decision must be completed two months prior to the review time, recommending: a) to maintain the order; b) to substitute a release with residency condition; or c) to order the statutory release of the offender without a residency requirement. The latter two decisions are, by operation of law, considered one-chance statutory release¹³ (i.e., if the release is revoked for any reason, the offender will automatically be subjected to a detention order and serve the rest of the sentence in detention).

An offender who has been referred for a detention review cannot be released on SR until a decision by the PBC is rendered.

However, the offender remains eligible for day parole, full parole, work release and temporary absences until the decision is rendered.¹⁴ Once detention is ordered by the PBC, the offender becomes ineligible for unescorted temporary absences, day parole or full parole. An escorted temporary absence for medical purposes and an early discretionary release are the only forms of release for which a detained offender is eligible.¹⁵

The detention order will remain in force until the end of the sentence, unless PBC is satisfied that the offender no longer poses a risk to commit the type of offences mentioned above before the end of the sentence.

1.2.3 CD 712-2 Detention Update

CD 712-2 Detention was promulgated in June 2012. Although all previously mentioned requirements remain the same, the following changes were made to the CD and were applicable to this audit.

• The Detention Pre-Screening report has been modified to reflect the need for the parole officer to conduct a succinct review of the detention criteria to determine if the offender meets the criteria for detention.
• The CD addresses the process of notification when there is a loss of jurisdiction for a detention referral¹⁶, which CD 712-2 defines as the inability to refer an inmate for detention.¹⁷

The audit objectives were to:

• provide reasonable assurance that the management framework in place supports the detention review process;
• provide reasonable assurance that procedures are in place and support the detention review process; and
• provide reasonable assurance that CSC is in compliance with relevant legislation and policy directives related to the detention review process.

The audit criteria in this engagement, which assisted us in meeting the audit objectives, originated from the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations (COSO) for the first objective and from CD 712-2 Detention for the second objective. Specific criteria related to each of the objectives are included in Annex A.

The Audit of Detention Review Process assessed compliance with legislation and Commissioner's Directive (CD) 712-2). Specifically, the audit reviewed the following areas/reports:

• the full case assessment against the referral criteria as per the content guidelines; and
• the Assessments for Decision recommending or not recommending detention, including those for detained offenders who have received additional sentences, Commissioner's Referrals, Direct Referrals and annual reviews of detained offenders.

The audit also reviewed the management framework and processes in place supporting the detention review process.

Several areas were deemed outside the scope of this audit. They are listed under Annex D with the rationale as to why they were not considered to be part of this audit.

The audit team reviewed policies, procedures and legislation in place related to the detention review process; the roles and responsibilities of staff in the institutions related to the detention review process; and the monitoring and reporting occurring at these sites.

The audit team also assessed compliance with key legislation, policies and guidelines related to the detention review process. Key documents reviewed included Commissioner's Directive 712-2 Detention, the CCRA, and CCRR. Compliance was tested through file reviews (304 files) and interviews with staff at the institutions.

Annex B lists and describes the techniques used to gather evidence to complete this audit and details the profile of the sample of files reviewed.

We assessed the adequacy and reasonableness of the management framework in place to support the detention review process. This included a review of legislation, policies and directives, and interviews.

We expected to find that policies and procedures were clear, consistent and communicated to those involved in the detention review process.

The Commissioner's Directive relating to detention was in line with both the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations.

We compared the relevant sections of the CCRA and the CCRR to the applicable Commissioner's Directive, CD 712-2, relating to the detention review process. No discrepancies or contradictions were noted in our analysis.

Commissioner's Directive 712-2 Detention, promulgated in June 2012, establishes procedures for the assessment of offenders against the criteria for detention and submission of cases to the PBC within prescribed timeframes.¹⁸ All members of the case management team were informed of the changes to CD 712-2 through various tools including department-wide communiqué and Sentence Management Bulletins.¹⁹

The majority of staff interviewed (16/18) felt that CD 712-2 was clear and consistent. Furthermore, many interviewees felt that the updated CD added value and streamlined the detention review process.

Based on our analysis of CD 712-2 and through interviews with staff familiar with the process, we determined that the CD related to the detention review process was clear.

We expected to find that roles and responsibilities related to the detention review process were clearly defined and consistent with the requirements of CD 712-2.

Guidelines (GL) 005-1 Institutional Management Structures: Roles and Responsibilities contain information about the roles and responsibilities for the manager, assessment and interventions. Roles for institutional parole officers are discussed in numerous CDs. Responsibilities for both positions are documented in various sources including, the national generic job descriptions and the various generic post orders.

All staff interviewed indicated that their roles and responsibilities as they pertain to the detention review process are clearly defined.

After reviewing documentation related to the detention review process, combined with discussions with staff, the audit team judged that the roles and responsibilities related to the detention review process are clearly defined.

We expected to find that mechanisms were in place to monitor and report on performance in achieving policy objectives and corrective action was taken when a need was identified.

Each institutional parole officer interviewed was using either a formal personal BF system; formal BF system set within OMS/RADAR or was relying on a combination of both. There is no monitoring of BFs at NHQ due to the volume involved.

Correctional Intervention Boards (CIB) are multidisciplinary teams that approve interventions and contribute to recommendations or decisions for complex cases at the institutional level.²⁰ All institutions have a CIB, which meets to discuss detention cases, and more specifically, case details and timeframes. CIBs ensure that staff are up-to-date on their caseloads and that staff are able to obtain opinions from experienced staff on difficult referrals before the referral is provided to the warden for final decision.

Many interviewees felt the biggest risk to the detention review process is the loss of jurisdiction. A loss of jurisdiction will occur for a detention referral, resulting in an inability to refer an offender for detention, when:

• a referral is not submitted more than six months prior to the statutory release date unless it is a Commissioner's referral based on new information; or
• a Commissioner's referral is not submitted within two working days if, as a result of recalculation of sentence, the statutory release date has passed; or
• a referral to amend an existing detention order is not submitted when a sentence recalculation alters the warrant expiry date and the next statutory release date has passed or is within nine months; or
• following the revocation of an offender's release when the new statutory release date is imminent, a referral for detention is not submitted before the end of the statutory release date.²¹

We were told during interviews that loss of jurisdiction is rare due to a combination of the importance placed on the detention review process by institutional parole officers and managers, assessment and interventions and everyone understanding the possible risk to CSC and the public if someone was released by error.

Overall, the management framework in place supported the effective management of the detention review process.

The audit found that:

• the policies and guidelines were in place to support the detention review process and that these policies and guidelines were in line with applicable legislation;
• roles and responsibilities were clearly defined for the detention review process; and
• all interviewees had a mechanism in place for monitoring and reporting to ensure all required detention reports were completed within prescribed timeframes.

We assessed the adequacy of the procedures in place to support the detention review process. This included the examination of the identification and referral of cases and the implementation of detention decisions.

We expected to find that:

• procedures were in place to ensure that offenders who meet the criteria for detention were identified;
• procedures were in place to ensure that offenders deemed as meeting the detention criteria had their cases prepared for presentation to the PBC; and
• procedures were in place to ensure that decisions were properly implemented.

CD 712-2 Detention states that institutional parole officers will review the case of an offender against the detention criteria within the prescribed timeframes to determine if the offender meets any of the criteria.²²

All 304 offender files audited contained the necessary Assessment for Decision, Detention Pre-Screening, and/or Community Strategy. The information contained within these reports is used to recommend if the offender should be detained.

As previously written, all staff interviewed indicated that their roles and responsibilities as they pertain to the detention review process were clearly defined. As well, all sites had a CIB that met to discuss detention case details. This would ensure that all offenders meeting the detention criteria were identified.

CD 712-2 states that the institutional parole officer will complete the Detention Pre-Screening report within the prescribed timeframe. The institutional parole officer will discuss the referral with the manager, assessment and interventions, who will control the quality of the report. All institutions have a CIB, which is available to review borderline detention referral cases. In all cases, the warden will make the final decision on the referral before presentation to PBC.²³

All interviewees stated that in their opinion, the procedures are sufficient to refer offenders who meet the detention criteria. Institutional parole officers felt that having so many levels of review ensured that all offenders should be referred for detention were actually referred. The former CD 712-2 contained a requirement for a detention review board. The detention review board's role was to review cases for detention and provide recommendations regarding whether or not to refer for detention. The requirement for the detention review board was removed in the updated CD 712-2. However, the role of the detention review board is now split between the warden and CIB, with the warden having the final decision on all referrals.

When asked, 73% (11/15) of interviewees felt that procedures in place for detention review at their various institutions were sufficient to ensure that potential detention cases were referred as required. That said; some of the interviewees raised concerns. For example, offenders that returned from suspension could potentially create tight timeframes if the institutional parole officer were not on top of the case. However, at this point, such a concern is only speculation. CSC will have to allow the policy time to run its complete course and monitor how the policy changes materialize and impact future detention cases.

The warden makes the final decision on the referral before presentation to PBC.²⁴ The final decision whether to detain is the responsibility of the PBC who will provide its decision, in writing, to the institution. The Sentence Management Branch at the institution will immediately implement the detention order upon receipt of the PBC decision²⁵ and will notify all required parties.

All staff interviewed at each institution felt that the procedures in place for the implementation of detention decisions were sufficient. This was further supported by the audit team's file review of file documentation.

Overall, procedures were in place to ensure that offenders who met the criteria for detention review were identified. Procedures were in place to ensure that offenders deemed to have met the detention criteria had their cases referred for presentation to PBC. Finally, procedures were in place to ensure that the decisions made by PBC were properly implemented at the institution.

We assessed the adequacy of the processes related to detention review process to see if they were in compliance with relevant legislation and policy directives. This included the examination of file documentation and report timeliness.

We expected to find that key documents were prepared in compliance with relevant policies, including content guidelines.

CD 712-2 states that the institutional parole officer will complete the Detention Pre-Screening report and an Assessment for Decision for all offenders. An Assessment for Decision will be completed for the annual review of detained offenders, Commissioner Referrals and Direct Referrals, as warranted.²⁶

All 304 files reviewed contained the necessary Assessment for Decision, Detention Pre-Screening report, and/or Community Strategy. Furthermore, all interviewees stated that these key documents are being prepared as required by policy. This was to be expected since the reports are being quality controlled at multiple levels before presentation to PBC.

CD 712-2 states that if a referral to the PBC is warranted, the institutional parole officer will ensure that all required assessments; including psychological information; police comments and/or previous (CSC/PBC) decisions are completed and incorporated into the analysis of the Assessment for Decision.²⁷

The one assessment that was sometimes missing was the psychological assessment. Our file review determined that 92% (46/50) of files had a current psychological assessment available. However, it was noted that although psychological assessments were sometimes requested months prior to authoring the Assessment for Decision, these assessments had not been received by the time the Assessment for Decision was completed. Staff interviewed believed psychological assessments were often delayed due to limited psychological resources on-site.

We were told during interviews that if psychological or medical information was missing or late, the institutional parole officer may have a difficult time completing a full assessment of the case against the referral criteria in a timely manner. For these cases, interviewees stated that if they are referring for detention and the psychological information is late, they would typically write an Assessment for Decision when required by policy and write an addendum once the psychological assessment was available.

The former CD for Detention, dated September 2007, required that Detention Pre-Screening reports be completed on all offenders. When completing this report, the content guidelines listed in the accompanying annex what was to be considered in an Assessment for Decision to determine if the offender met the criteria for referral for detention.

All institutional parole officers interviewed stated that they follow the content guidelines listed in CD 712-2 and all institutional parole officers also stated that they include each criteria listed under the content guidelines when completing a report. It was noted that managers, assessment and interventions encourage their institutional parole officers to include all the bulletins listed under the content guidelines.

Our file review showed that 77% of files included each criteria listed under the content guidelines, as outlined in Section 129 of the CCRA. However, it is often difficult for the other 23% to tell if the institutional parole officer considered a criterion and did not write a statement or if the criterion was simply non-applicable or was overlooked. As stated in the Audit of Pre-release Decision Making within the Case Preparation and Release Framework, there is no mandatory requirement to document non-applicable areas²⁸ and the depth of guideline usage.

The newly promulgated CD 712-2 provides clarification by asking that institutional parole officers conduct a succinct review of the detention criteria listed in Annex B of the CD to determine if the offender meets any of the criteria. Interviewees felt that the updated CD helps streamline the detention review process; however, this statement was not verified because the CD change occurred during the audit.

We expected to find key documents were prepared in keeping with the timeframes identified in policy.

CD 712-2 states that all offenders will be reviewed, prior to statutory release, to determine whether they meet the detention criteria.²⁹ Within each type of referral, the CD specifies timelines for completion of the respective report. Annex F identifies the timeline requirements for each referral type under both the current and previous versions of CD 712-2.

All interviewees felt that timelines were typically attainable. Every interviewee maintained some sort of BF system to monitor timelines. That said our file review demonstrated that timelines were not always met. The file review showed that annual detention reviews were generally done on time, however, SR, Detention Pre-Screening, Commissioner's Referral and Direct Referrals were completed in a less timely manner.

Our file review for SR found that 62% (37/60) of cases reviewed were compliant as the report was completed 11 months in advance of the offender's SR date. However, in 17 of the "non-compliant" cases, the reports were completed within 10 months; missing the timeline by one month. If taking this into account, the compliance would improve to 90% (54/60).

Our file review for Detention Pre-Screening found that 60% (57/95) of the cases reviewed that were not direct referrals were compliant as the report was completed 11 months in advance of the offender's SR date. However, in 37 of the "non-compliant" cases, the reports were completed within 10 months, missing the timeline by one month. Factoring in these cases, the compliance rate increased to 99% (94/95).

Commissioner's Referral reports were completed at least nine months (no later than six months) prior to the offender's SR date in 53% (8/15) of the cases. Of the seven cases that fell outside of the timeline, four were completed in advance of the nine month mark. This meant that institutional parole officers allotted themselves additional time to complete the report. Including these cases within timeframes would improve compliance to 75% (12/15).

Direct Referral file review found that 66% (23/35) of the cases completed were within the prescribed timelines (normally nine months but no later than six months). However, compliance would have increased to 94% (33/35) if we considered the Direct Referrals completed at the 10-month mark, one month in advance of the timeline.

Our file review determined that in 96% (53/55) of the cases, the annual detention review was conducted within one year after the initial detention order.

Based on our file review of OMS, we cannot state conclusively that CSC was referring cases to the PBC within five days of notification of the sentence recalculation for additional sentences. Without reviewing institutional parole officer emails or documentation verifying PBC receipt, we cannot state with assurance when the PBC was notified. There was no other documentation in the file to allow us to draw any conclusions.

The reasons identified during interviews as potential causes for reports not meeting timelines were delays in receiving psychological information, an increasing offender caseload and varying security dynamics. As discussed in the previous section, some institutional parole officers will wait until they receive the psychological information before completing their reports while others will write the report as required by policy and write an addendum once the psychological assessment was available.

As stated in the Audit of Pre-release Decision Making within the Case Preparation and Release Framework,³⁰ circumstances outside of institutional parole officers' control can sometimes thwart efforts to meet timelines (for example, a late Community Strategy can impact on timely Assessment for Decision completion). The audit also found that the high number of offenders on caseload (ratio) and the volume of work generated by caseloads coupled with the complexity of cases have a negative impact on the timely completion of reports. That said, the audit team is aware that these caseload ratios are currently under review.

When detention reviews are not completed in compliance within policy timelines, institutional parole officers run the risk of not having enough time to complete a full assessment of the case. Every step in the detention referral process is time-consuming and if the institutional parole officers do not allow themselves enough time to complete one part of the process, they run the risk of having less time available to complete other parts. For example, completing a Detention Pre-Screening report at the 10-month-two week mark means that the institutional parole officer has two fewer weeks to obtain the psychological assessment. The timelines listed in the CD exist to ensure institutional parole officers and managers, assessment and interventions have sufficient time to obtain, review and approve various documents.

Although timelines are firm and not meeting timelines goes against policy, missing timelines by a few weeks will not lead to a loss of jurisdiction. However, it will decrease the amount of time available to prepare a strong case for potential PBC presentation.

We found that overall CSC was complying with relevant legislation that exists surrounding the detention review process.

The audit found that:

• key documents were on file and that all interviewees felt that they prepared these documents as required by policy.

Although a number of areas audited have fully or partially met the expectations as laid out in the CD, we also found that:

• delays in receiving critical information could affect institutional parole officer report timeliness; and
• for certain types of detention referrals, timelines for report completion were not always in compliance with those prescribed in policy.

With regard to the first audit objective, processes were in place to ensure adequate and effective detention of offenders and CSC staff was generally aware of the processes.

In relation to the second audit objective, procedures were in place to ensure that offenders who met the criteria for detention review were identified, and had their cases referred for presentation to PBC; as well, decisions made by PBC were properly implemented at the institution.

Finally, the third audit objective found that key documents pertaining to the detention review process were on file and that staff felt that they prepared these documents in compliance with policy. There is still room for improvement in areas such as delays in receiving psychological assessments and detention referral report completion timelines.

CSC policy, including CD 712-2, was updated on June 13, 2012. In its new version, roles and responsibilities were clarified and Detention Pre-Screening requirements have been modified. This should assist in ensuring that report timelines are met in a more consistent manner.

The Audit of Detention Review Process was originally scheduled to be in two parts (to include the Release Process) over two years. Due to corporate priorities and other considerations of risks associated with this area, the conduct phase of the Audit of Detention Review Process was postponed in the spring of 2011. The audit was reinitiated in the spring of 2012.

The audit was national in scope and included interviews with institutional parole officers and managers, assessment and intervention, at maximum and medium security institutions within all five regions, and with staff at National Headquarters. A sample of detention files between January 2009 and May 2012 were tested. This sample included detention and statutory release offender files.

Audit evidence was gathered through a number of techniques as follows.

Interviews: Interviews were conducted with institutional parole officers, managers, assessment and interventions and National Headquarters staff.

Review of Documentation: Relevant documentation was reviewed, including offender files contained in the Offender Management System (OMS), Commissioner's Directives, Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Correctional and Conditional Release Regulations, process documentation, and procedures manuals.

Testing: Testing was conducted to determine if sufficient and corroborating evidence exists and supports the detention process.

A sample of 304 offender files was tested for compliance. This sample included detention and statutory release cases. The file review was conducted by selecting a stratified and representative sample of Commissioner Referrals, Direct Deferrals, Detention Pre-Screening, Annual Reviews and Sentence Amendments.

The file review, using FY 2009-2010 data was completed in the spring of 2011. To ensure that the results from this review remained relevant and consistent, additional files were completed using data from FY 2011-12. The sample size for the FY 2011-12 file review was judgmental and accounted for 20% of the FY 2009-2010 completed reviews.

Analytical Review: An analytical review of documentation, interview and testing results was conducted throughout the audit, in order to determine trends and compliance.

The period of coverage for this audit was fiscal years 2009-10 and 2011-12.

Case Management Team: The individuals involved in managing an offender's case, which, in the community, include at least a parole officer and the offender; in institutions, the correctional officer II/primary worker are added to the team.

Detention Order: The Parole Board of Canada (PBC) can order the detention of an offender if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender is likely to commit an offence involving death or serious physical or psychological harm, a sexual offence involving a child or a serious drug offence before the sentence ends. However, PBC may only review those cases that have been referred by CSC for a detention review.

Detention Pre-Screening Report: The parole officer will complete the Detention Pre-Screening for all offenders to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the offender is likely to commit before sentence expiration either (a) an offence causing death or serious harm to another person; (b) a sexual offence involving a child; or (c) a serious drug offence.³²

Full Parole: A form of conditional release that allows an offender to serve part of a prison sentence in the community. The offender is placed under supervision and is required to abide by conditions designed to reduce the risk of re-offending and to foster reintegration of the inmate into the community. Under full parole, the person does not have to return nightly to an institution, but must report regularly to a parole supervisor, and in certain cases, to the police.³³

Institutional Parole Officer (IPO): A parole officer who works in the institution.

Loss of Jurisdiction: The inability to refer an offender for detention requiring the offender, who otherwise would have been detained, to be released upon statutory release.

Manager, Assessment and Interventions (MAI): Supervises case management activities, conducts quality control of documents completed and submitted for decision, and provides supervision of parole officers in developing intervention strategies.

Offender Management System (OMS): A computerized case file management system that manages information on federal offenders throughout their sentence.

Statutory Release: A legislated release provided to an offender after serving two-thirds of a sentence (not applicable to offenders serving life sentences, indeterminate sentences or offenders subject to detention orders).

Warrant Expiry Date (WED): The date upon which a criminal sentence officially ends, as imposed by the courts at time of sentencing.

i Amendment made on June 10, 2013 to reflect proper assurance level.

1 Section 3 Federal Corrections and Criminal Justice System

2 Section 2 The Mandate, Mission and Priorities of the Correctional Service of Canada

3 Parole and Community Corrections

4 Correctional Service Canada – Reports on Plans and Priorities 2012-2013.

5 Schedule I par 129(2)(a)(i)

6 Schedule I par 129(2)(a)(ii)

7 Schedule II par 129(2)(b)

8 CD 712-2, Annex B

9 CD 712-2, paragraph 19

10 CD 712-2, paragraph 12

11 CD 712-2, paragraph 21

12 CD 712-2, paragraph 13

13 CD 712-2, paragraph 33

14 CD 712-2, paragraph 26

15 CD 712-2, paragraph 32(a)

16 Policy Bulletin 363 (2012-06-13)

17 CD 712-2, paragraph 49

18 CD 712-2, paragraph 1

19 Sentence Management Bulletins, June 6, 2012.

20 CD 705, Annex A

21 CD 712-2, paragraph 49

22 CD 712-2, paragraph 10, Annex B

23 CD 712-2, Annex C

24 CD 712-2, Annex C

25 CD 712-2, paragraph 48

26 CD 712-2, Annex C and paragraphs 22, 33

27 CD 712-2, paragraph 22

28 Audit of Pre-release Decision Making within the Case Preparation and Release Framework, Section 4.2.1 File Documentation, page 29.

29 CD 712-2, paragraph 11

30 Audit of Pre-release Decision Making within the Case Preparation and Release Framework, Section 4.2.2 Timeliness of Case Preparation, page 34.

31 Recommendation requires management's attention, oversight and monitoring.

32 CD712-2, Paragraph 15

33 Parole and Community Corrections

34 Recommendation requires management's attention, oversight and monitoring.