Integrated Police and Parole Initiative

The Evaluation team would like to thank all of the CSC staff, CCLOs, and police services personnel who took time to share their thoughts on the IPPI by completing a survey or participating in an interview.

We would like to thank staff who provided information and documentation utilized in this evaluation. In particular, we would like to express our appreciation to the Evaluation consultative group members, Angela Knoll (Community Reintegration Operations), Christine Laflamme and Nathalie Bigras (Performance Measurement), Kim Gillespie (Hamilton CCC), Wayne Michaluk (Regina Area Parole), Clare MacAuley (St. John’s Parole), and Ben Rosentreter (CCLO). Angela Knoll, Bev Arsenault, and Stefanie Darlow were extremely helpful in providing access to IPPI information and personnel, and Larry Motiuk provided valuable comments on early drafts of the report.

We are also grateful for the assistance provided by David Murphy, who conducted a peer review of the evaluation report and instruments. Personnel from correctional departments in various countries were also very accommodating in providing useful information regarding global correctional-police partnerships.

We would also like to thank Vanessa Anastasopoulos for her assistance with conducting interviews, Kelly Taylor for providing methodological advice and peer review assistance, Cara Scarfone for editorial assistance, and Giacomo Prinzo and Jean-François Durocher for their administrative assistance. We would also like to thank Pierre Desjardin for his contracting expertise, and Ian Broom for recommending the Government Operations Centre for assistance with geospatial analysis. The evaluation team also appreciates the expertise and assistance provided by Cameron Bouchard (Public Safety Geomatics Division).

For sharing their financial expertise and gathering relevant financial data, the evaluation team would also like to thank Jean-Pierre Rivard, Helene Meloche, and Robert Riel.

Kendra Delveaux
Angela Fabisiak
Tamara Jensen
Dennis Batten
Amanda Nolan
Christopher Rastin
Elizabeth Loree
Michael Henighan

Evaluation Report:
Integrated Police and Parole Initiative

Lynn Garrow
Associate Assistant Commissioner
Policy and Research

Date

Pamela M. Yates
Director General
Evaluation Branch

Date

Over the last two years, there have been increases of 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the federal offender population under active supervision in the community. In 2006-07, there were 6,332 men and 450 women on active community supervision (Public Safety Canada, 2007). Increasing challenges related to the changing Correctional Service Canada offender profile highlight the need to be innovative and creative in addressing these challenges. One such approach has been to strengthen the link between criminal justice organizations by partnering correctional organizations with police services, and moving beyond strictly enforcement relationships to include the provision of services to offenders in the community.

Enhancement of partnerships between corrections, police, community organizations and stakeholders can be a means of providing strengthened community supervision in an attempt to ultimately reduce offenders’ involvement in criminal activity in the community. Such partnerships may allow for more enhanced monitoring of offenders in the community, and improved communication and information sharing among police, Parole Officers, and the community. The ultimate goal is to enhance public safety while contributing to the safe reintegration of offenders into the community.

Program Profile and Community Correctional Liaison Officer Position Description

The Strengthening Community Safety Initiative included a number of projects, one of which was the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI), also commonly referred to as the Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) Initiative. The objective of the initiative was to enhance information sharing between criminal justice partners, allowing for more effective follow-up and supervision of higher risk offenders and earlier apprehension of offenders who were unlawfully at large (UAL).

CCLO positions are occupied by police officers from Canadian police agencies who have a minimum of 5 years experience in active policing duties and a minimum of two years of experience in criminal investigations. CCLOs are assigned to Community Correctional Centres (CCCs) and/or parole offices, and retain their authority under provincial legislation (e.g., various Police Acts), their peace officer authority under the Criminal Code of Canada and their common law police authority.

According to the CCLO job description, CCLOs are expected to work with Parole Officers in the management of higher risk offenders in the community. As an integral part of the CSC case management team, CCLOs are required to participate in pre-release planning and decision-making via the development of supervision strategies to ensure specific follow-up with higher risk offenders. CCLOs are also expected to track and gather information on unlawfully at large (UAL) offenders and liaise with law enforcement agencies to assist in their apprehension. As part of their liaison role with police services, CCLOs are required to develop protocols to enhance the information sharing capacity between CSC and police services.

Integrated Police and Parole Initiative Budget

In May 2005, $7 million in funding was provided for the IPPI, over a five year period commencing in fiscal year 2005-06. The majority of the funds were designated for salary to hire the 17 CCLOs. Funds were also allocated for operating, common services, employee benefits plan, and accommodation. As a result of implementation delays, there have been several instances of financial re-profiling.

The goal of the evaluation was to provide information required to make investment decisions related to the IPPI prior to the expiration of funding at the end of March 2010. An evaluation strategy was developed by the Evaluation Branch (CSC-NHQ) in discussion with a consultative group, comprised of representatives from the Community Reintegration Operations Division, the Performance Management Branch, CSC staff working in the community, and a CCLO. The objectives were to assess the continued relevance, success, cost-effectiveness, design and implementation issues, and any unintended effects associated with the initiative. Given delays in staffing the CCLO positions, the evaluation was focused on the implementation of the IPPI. Where possible, the successes of the initiative related to the achievement of immediate and intermediate outcomes were assessed, given the state of implementation and the availability of reliable data.

Methods, Procedures, and Analysis

A multi-method approach incorporating qualitative and quantitative methodology was utilized to address the evaluation objectives. Information was collected through interviews with key stakeholders, automated data sources (CSC’s Offender Management System [OMS]), administrative file and data reviews, analysis of financial data and a review of other initiative-specific documents. With the assistance of Public Safety Geomatics Division, maps were created to provide a visual representation of the locations of CCLOs and the percentages of higher risk offenders supervised at each Parole Office and CCLO in each region.

An online survey regarding the relevance, implementation, success, and unintended effects of the IPPI evaluation was completed by 147 CSC staff and CCLOs through a link received via e-mail. Interviews were also conducted with 31 CSC IPPI management staff and 12 CCLOs in order to obtain more in-depth information regarding the implementation and success of the IPPI. Lastly, interviews were conducted with 11 senior police personnel who were familiar with the IPPI to gain a police perspective on the relevance, implementation and success of the initiative.

FINDING 1: The IPPI remains consistent with CSC, police service, and government-wide priorities and objectives.

FINDING 2: The design of the IPPI, as an enhanced supervision partnership, including objectives of information sharing and UAL apprehension, is consistent with practices in other jurisdictions.

FINDING 3: The changing offender profile and the number of UAL offenders under CSC jurisdiction demonstrates a need for initiatives that address objectives such as increased monitoring and supervision of higher risk groups.

FINDING 4: Staffing challenges, related primarily to the contract negotiation process, police personnel shortages, and lack of interest and awareness of the CCLO position, resulted in significant delays in the implementation of the IPPI.

FINDING 5: The majority of stakeholders agreed that the organizational structure and reporting relationships for the IPPI were designed in a way that supported the continued activities of the initiative. However, regional variations in reporting relationships existed, and some stakeholders reported a lack of clarity in reporting relationships and a need for greater communication between NHQ and the regions.

FINDING 6: The majority of stakeholders agreed that the roles and responsibilities of IPPI stakeholders were well-defined and appropriate. Some suggested that greater communication regarding roles and responsibilities was required, and that CCLOs’ roles should be expanded in some areas (e.g., structured intervention strategies, community outreach, gathering/sharing information with CSC) and diminished in others (e.g., UALs). Variability existed in the priority given to various aspects of the CCLO roles and responsibilities in each of the CCLO locations.

FINDING 7: Some stakeholders suggested that the most appropriate police officers for CCLO positions may be those who have attained more advanced ranks in the police service.

FINDING 8: A significant proportion of CCLOs have not completed IPPI training, and stakeholders viewed some training to be less relevant to CCLOs than others.

FINDING 9: IPPI data regarding CCLO contacts have not been entered into CSC databases according to guidelines, although there appear to be improvements in data recording practices since April 2008.

FINDING 10: Criteria for defining higher risk offenders for inclusion in the IPPI were not clearly defined or communicated. Offenders commonly involved in CCLO contacts through the IPPI included UAL offenders and those with histories of violence or previous criminal activity. Less than half of the offenders involved in CCLO contacts for enhanced monitoring/supervision were identified as high risk as determined by CSC risk instruments.

FINDING 11: Current CCLOs are situated in appropriate locations, although some of the geographic areas served by CCLOs are large. Several geographic areas with relatively high proportions of higher risk offenders were identified that do not currently have CCLO positions.

FINDING 12: Implementation delays have led to various instances of re-profiling, internal re-allocations, and lapses of IPPI funding. Financial data for the IPPI have not always been recorded consistently utilizing the appropriate project codes in IMRS.

FINDING 13: Communication and partnerships between CSC, police services, and community stakeholders – including access to information and the timeliness of access to information – have improved since the implementation of the IPPI. However, there is still some lack of clarity with respect to the type of information that can be shared.

FINDING 14: Respondents suggested that stakeholder perceptions of CSC’s mandate and strategies regarding the safe and successful reintegration of offenders into the community have improved since implementation of the IPPI, particularly among stakeholder groups including police personnel, CSC personnel, and community partners, but less so among the media and the general public.

FINDING 15: Results using available data revealed little impact of the IPPI on recidivism rates and percentages of new UAL cases pre- and post-IPPI implementation. The ability to detect impacts of the IPPI may have been limited due to short follow-up periods, data quality issues, and/or implementation issues related to the identification of appropriate offenders for inclusion in the initiative.

FINDING 16: A review of UAL data revealed a slight increase in the percentage of UAL apprehensions relative to the total number of UAL cases nationally (from 91% to 94%), and moderate reductions in time to UAL apprehensions in two regions (approximately 5 days), following implementation of the IPPI.

FINDING 17: Although the IPPI demonstrated some positive short-term outcomes, limitations related to the short implementation period, inconsistencies in financial coding, and issues related to the tracking of offender inclusion in the IPPI, precluded the ability to conduct a reliable cost-effectiveness analysis at this stage of the IPPI. Some evidence for the cost-effectiveness of police-corrections partnerships has been observed in other jurisdictions.

FINDING 18: Re-analysis of the impact of a reported IPPI pilot program, utilizing more rigorous methodology, showed little impact on the number of days that offenders were UAL, despite previously reported positive impacts of this pilot program.

RECOMMENDATION 1: The current and projected offender population profiles should be reviewed regularly to verify that the IPPI remains relevant through the identification of any priority groups, trends, or changes in the offender profile that may require adjustments to the design and/or objectives of the IPPI.

RECOMMENDATION 2: CSC should review IPPI staffing methods and processes, with the goal of streamlining the staffing process, and increasing knowledge about the objectives of the IPPI and the role of CCLOs among police personnel.

RECOMMENDATION 3: The IPPI reporting structure should be clearly defined, formalized, and communicated to ensure clarity and consistency.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Roles and responsibilities should be reviewed to ensure their applicability and should be clearly communicated to all IPPI stakeholders. Any significant changes to roles and responsibilities would necessitate a review of the overall objectives and indicators of success for the IPPI.

RECOMMENDATION 5: CSC should review the police officer rank and/or experience level requirements to ensure the best fit with the responsibilities of the CCLO position and the objectives of the IPPI.

RECOMMENDATION 6: CSC should review the CCLO training package to ensure relevancy of CCLO training.

RECOMMENDATION 7: CSC should develop procedures to ensure compliance with CCLO training requirements.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Reliable data sources need to be implemented and used consistently. Procedures should be developed for regular data collection, monitoring and review to ensure reliability and validity of IPPI data.

RECOMMENDATION 9: CSC should ensure adherence to existing IPPI objectives, by clearly defining and communicating referral criteria and definitions of higher risk offenders to all IPPI stakeholders. Regional or district variations in these criteria (based on regional offender profiles) should be clearly defined, communicated locally and nationally, and adhered to.

RECOMMENDATION 10: CSC should review CCLO locations and service areas to ensure that locations with high proportions of higher risk offenders are considered for inclusion in the IPPI, and that the geographic areas covered by CCLOs are manageable within the context of their overall roles and responsibilities.

RECOMMENDATION 11: CSC should ensure accurate, standardized coding of IPPI expenditures in financial databases to ensure that expenditures are adequately recorded and monitored.

RECOMMENDATION 12: CSC should develop and communicate comprehensive, standardized information sharing protocols to identify the information needs of IPPI stakeholders and determine the type of information that may be shared.

RECOMMENDATION 13: CSC should consider the development of a standardized communication package that could be utilized as part of CCLO outreach to reach a broader spectrum of the community.

RECOMMENDATION 14: CSC should conduct a more extensive review of police-corrections partnerships in other jurisdictions, and actively engage with these jurisdictions, to determine any best-practices or lessons learned that might be applicable to the IPPI.

Correctional Service Canada (CSC) is an agency within the Public Safety Portfolio. The portfolio brings together key federal agencies dedicated to public safety, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the National Parole Board (NPB), the Canada Border Services Agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and three review bodies, including the Office of the Correctional Investigator.

CSC contributes to public safety through the custody and reintegration of eligible offenders. More specifically, CSC is responsible for administering court-imposed sentences of offenders sentenced to two years or more. This includes both the custodial and community supervision components of an offender's sentence. CSC also administers post-sentence supervision of offenders with Long Term Supervision Orders (LTSOs) for periods of up to ten years. At the end of the 2006-07 fiscal year, CSC was responsible for approximately 13,200 federally incarcerated offenders and 8,000 offenders in the community (Correctional Service Canada [CSC], 2007).

The increasing and changing offender population has created challenges for CSC in implementing its mandate to safely and securely reintegrate offenders into the community. The overall offender population has increased, with greater proportions of offenders receiving maximum security designations and serving shorter sentences. Gang-affiliated offenders are more prevalent, and offenders are more frequently identified as having serious mental health needs (CSC, 2008).

The population of men and women federal offenders increased from 2004‑05 to 2007‑08 (7% and 36%, respectively), and despite a slight decrease in the number of Aboriginal male offenders in custody during 2007‑08, there was an overall increase of 23% over the past ten years. In 2007‑08, an increasing proportion of offenders were admitted with shorter sentences (i.e., less than three years).

Although there was a slight decrease over the past two years, more than one out of ten of new men offender admissions during 2007‑08 were initially rated as requiring maximum-security (11%), reflecting an 83% increase in maximum security designations since 1996-97. There was a significant decrease in women initially rated as maximum security over the past two years (from 11% in 2006-07 to 6% in 2007-08 ).

While the proportion of new male offender admissions with existing gang affiliations has remained steady over the past three years, the proportion increased from 11% in 1996-97 to 14% in 2007-08 . Among male offenders in custody, gang affiliation increased from 12% in 1996-97 to 16% in 2007-08 . One-tenth of new women offender admissions during 2007-08 had gang affiliations and this has been steadily increasing since 1996-97 (5% to 13%, or 160%).

In 2007-08 , more than one-out-of-ten male offenders in federal custody were identified at admission as having mental health problems and this proportion has risen by 67% since 1996-97 (6% to 10%). In 2007-08 , one out of four women offenders in federal custody were identified at admission as presenting mental health problems, and this proportion has risen by 69% since 1996-97.

As the vast majority of incarcerated offenders are eventually released to the community, the criminal and demographic profiles of offenders in federal institutions have implications for the types of interventions required to increase offenders’ likelihood of successful reintegration.

After decreases in the federal offender population in the community under active supervision from 1999-2000 to 2004-05, there were increases of 1.2% and 1.9% in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. In 2006-07, there were 6,332 men and 450 women on active community supervision (Public Safety Canada, 2007).^{Footnote 1}

In 1995, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) was amended to provide the NPB with the ability to impose a residency condition on Statutory Release for offenders who were considered likely to commit a Schedule I (violent) offence prior to the expiration of their sentence. When the amendment came into effect in January 1996, CSC observed a decrease in the number of detention referrals and a very significant increase in the number of residency conditions imposed at statutory release (Grant, Johnson & Muirhead, 2000).

In light of the increasing challenges, such as the changing offender profile faced by CSC, there is a need to be innovative and creative in addressing these challenges. One such approach has been to strengthen the link between criminal justice organizations by partnering corrections with police services, and moving beyond strictly enforcement relationships to include the provision of services to offenders in the community.

Enhancement of partnerships between corrections, the police, community organizations and stakeholders can be a means of providing strengthened community supervision in an attempt to ultimately reduce offenders’ involvement in criminal activity in the community. Such partnerships may allow for enhanced monitoring of offenders in the community, and improved communication and information sharing among police, parole officers, and the community.

Police-corrections partnerships have earned widespread support because of the potential for such programs to contribute to public safety (Murphy & Worrall, 2007). There are several additional noteworthy benefits of police-corrections partnerships, including using the skills of staff in complementary ways, improving relationships between correctional and police organizations, achieving common goals through collaboration and information sharing, extending partnerships to include other community organizations, and generating support for collaborative efforts from policy makers and the public (Parent & Snyder, 1999). The ultimate goal is to enhance public safety while contributing to the safe reintegration of eligible offenders into the community. In fact, there has been some research suggesting that partnerships between police officers and corrections can aid in reducing rates of crime (Corbett, Fitzgerald & Jordan, 1998).

One of the main benefits of police-corrections partnerships is the opportunity for new and enhanced roles in the community. Whereas substantial attention has been given to the potential benefits of such partnerships, little attention has been dedicated to the potential for these partnerships to produce unintended consequences. Many police departments and corrections agencies do not have pre-existing operational guidelines to aid officers in navigating through the changes brought by these partnerships (Murphy & Worrall, 2007). This has the potential to leave officers in a position of having to establish post hoc what they can and should do as active partnership participants. Consequently, police and corrections partnerships often emerge in a context in which few organizational measures have been taken to ensure the success of the partnership (Murphy & Worrall, 2007).

Expanded roles for police and parole staff can also lead to problems among the partnering agencies, including mission creep, mission distortion and organizational lag (Corbett, 1998; Worrall & Gaines, 2006). Mission creep refers to the occurrence of an increase in demands on staff time and agency resources as roles and duties expand. In sites where partnerships are flourishing, participating corrections and police officers are engaged in a number of new collateral activities under the guise of community building that can take the officer well beyond the scope of his or her duties. Acting as a conduit for social services, attending community functions and responding to complaints unrelated to community supervision are a few examples. For police officers who are relieved of other responsibilities or who otherwise would be on patrol, the changes instigated by the partnership may not create as many challenges. For correctional officers still carrying their traditional caseloads, time constraints are evident and could easily compromise effectiveness. With the right organization and structural changes, these issues can be addressed; however, the need for such changes is often overlooked (Corbett, 1998).

Mission distortion refers to the blurring or confusion of the distinct roles of police and parole/probation officers. More specifically, it has been defined as

(Murphy & Worrall, 2007, p. 133). There are profound differences between the procedural guidelines that are followed by police officers and those followed by corrections agencies. Traditionally, the mission of police services is typified by enforcement – namely to restore and maintain order, enforce laws and investigate crimes – whereas traditionally, the mission of corrections agencies is focused on the rehabilitation and case management function with elements of law enforcement. Mission distortion has the potential to detract from the intended objectives of police-corrections partnerships, due to role confusion among police and parole personnel.

Organizational lag may occur when police-corrections partnerships are simply grafted onto existing organizational arrangements, and patterns of work assignment are not reconsidered. Patterns in work assignments, standards for information sharing and other bureaucratic/ administrative requirements need to be re-developed and replaced by broader and more flexible standards of practice in order to support the initiative (Corbett, 1998).

Despite the potential complications that may arise from police-corrections partnerships, these agreements can provide a practical and valuable means for the two agencies to work together to effectively pursue their goals. Such partnerships offer the potential to improve public safety by contributing to the ability of police and parole officers to effectively monitor offenders in the community through information sharing and other joint efforts. However, in order for partnerships to be successful in their goals, it is important that policymakers define what the particular partnership should look like, the goals it should seek to reach, how it ought to operate, and how policymakers believe it should affect both the community it serves and the criminal justice system (Parent & Snyder, 1999).

In May 2005, funding was approved for the Strengthening Community Safety Initiative, of which the IPPI was a part. Through the initiative, $52 million was allocated over a period of five years for a number of measures designed to strengthen community safety. The Strengthening Community Safety Initiative included three new programs or activities for CSC, including:

1. the subject of the current evaluation - the IPPI;
2. the Community Mental Health Initiative (designed provide a continuum of care to aid offenders with serious mental health disorders to reintegrate into the community); and
3. the provision of expanded information to victims (to be provided within existing CSC resources). The initiative also included funding for several activities in other departments, related primarily to the provision of additional services for victims and offenders with mental health needs.

Other departments that also received funding through the Initiative included: National Parole Board, Office of the Correctional Investigator, Department of Justice, and Department of Public Safety.^{Footnote 2}

Through the Strengthening Community Safety Initiative, the Integrated Police and Parole Initiative (IPPI) was allocated funding of $7 million over a five-year period commencing in 2005-06. The objective of the Initiative was to enhance information sharing between criminal justice partners, allowing for more effective follow-up and supervision of higher risk offenders and earlier apprehension of unlawfully at large (UAL) offenders.

A key component of the IPPI, also commonly referred to the Community Corrections Liaison Officer (CCLO) Initiative, was the development and staffing of CCLO positions. CCLOs are dedicated Police Officers temporarily assigned to CSC. Seventeen CCLO positions were designated for 16 locations across the country (two CCLOs were assigned to one location in Montréal). CCLOs were co-located with CSC community parole offices in areas that were geographically linked to Community Correctional Centres (CCLOs) and in larger urban centres that housed and supervised higher risk offenders. Locations were selected by the Community Reintegration Operations Division and the Strategic Policy Sector staff who prepared the Treasury Board submission. The selection of locations was based on the following elements:

• There should be a minimum of one CCLO per each of the eight (8) Community Corrections Districts;
• CCLOs should be situated in communities where CCLOs were located or where there was a concentration of higher risk offenders;
• the need to enhance CSC’s partnerships with national, provincial, and local police services; and
• consideration of the 2004 Crime Rates by Census Metropolitan Areas (Statistics Canada).

Through the IPPI, it was expected that enhanced partnerships with the police, community organizations and stakeholders would strengthen community supervision. Such partnerships would allow for enhanced monitoring of higher risk offenders and improved communication and information sharing among police, parole officers and the community.

Objectives of the IPPI were to:

• Improve partnerships with police forces through greater collaboration and communication among CSC, police and the community;
• Obtain and share information from/with these jurisdictions;
• Increase the monitoring capacity for higher risk offenders in the community;
• Increase the ability to apprehend UAL offenders (i.e., impact on the number of UAL offenders, number of days an offender is UAL, and offences committed by them); and
• Increase public confidence towards CSC’s community reintegration strategy.

Mechanisms were established to allow National Headquarters (NHQ) to provide oversight of the IPPI. Specifically, CCLOs provided activity reports on a quarterly basis and Districts provided an annual report to NHQ. CCLOs and staff members who worked with CCLOs with respect to some aspect of an offender’s case were required to record their contacts in OMS casework records. CCLOs were directed to input casework records for those contacts that do not involve a CSC staff member (e.g., UAL tracking), to ensure that duplication of records did not occur.

1.2.1 Community Correctional Liaison Officer Position Description^{Footnote 3}

CCLO positions are occupied by police officers from Canadian police agencies at either the municipal, provincial, or federal level who have a minimum of 5 years experience in active policing duties and a minimum of 2 years experience in criminal investigations. CCLOs assigned to CCLOs and/or parole offices retain their authority under provincial legislation (e.g., various Police Acts), their peace officer authority under the Criminal Code of Canada and their common law police authority. Although CCLOs remain police officers they do not wear police uniforms. They can carry their weapons, but are not able to exercise powers granted by the CCRA to CSC staff members (e.g., conducting searches). Any search of an offender or his/her room and its contents by a CCLO would have to be conducted under police authority (i.e., with a warrant, rather than under the provisions of the CCRA).

According to the CCLO job description, CCLOs are expected to work with parole officers in the management of higher risk offenders in the community. As an integral part of the CSC case management team, CCLOs are required to participate in pre-release planning and decision-making via the development of supervision strategies to ensure specific follow-up with higher risk offenders. CCLOs are also expected to track and gather information on UAL offenders and liaise with law enforcement agencies to assist in the apprehension of UAL cases. As part of their liaison role with police services, CCLOs are required to develop protocols to enhance the information sharing capacity between CSC and police services. Key CCLO activities (as per the job description) are described below.^Footnote4

Key Activities

• Participate in the release planning of higher-risk offenders;
• Assist in the development of structured supervision and intervention strategies in the community for higher-risk offenders and for offenders whose risk has been elevated;
• Review periodically the progress of higher risk offenders.
• Assist in the supervision and management of offenders subject to LTSOss;
• Gather, analyse and share information with police, CSC, government and other agencies;
• Work with parole officers and law enforcement agencies in the apprehension of offenders who are unlawfully at large;
• Perform police liaison activities;
• Perform community outreach, community liaison and community engagement activities;
• Participate as a member of the case management team;
• Provide input into matters relating to staff safety in the community; and,
• Provide practical information to police agencies concerning CSC’s policies and procedures regarding offenders under federal jurisdiction.

Responsibilities

• Responsible for use of computers and related software (Offender Management System [OMS], RADAR, InfoPol, etc.);
• Responsible for documenting key activities in the Offender Management System;
• Responsible for completing statistics related to key activities;
• Responsible for exchanging relevant information concerning liaison activities with the management team; and,
• Responsible for developing on-going working relations with outside agencies.

1.2.2 CCLOStaffing Process

CCLOs were temporarily assigned to CSC under the Interchange Canada Program, and therefore selection processes to staff these positions were not held within CSC. However, staffing regulations within some police agencies required selection processes to be held for the CCLO positions. In most cases, CCLO positions were posted within the police bureaucracy and interested candidates applied through their respective police service. In some instances, the candidate was chosen by senior police personnel. In terms of the interview process, CSC was invited to participate in some cases, and in others, the candidate was chosen for CSC after the police service completed the internal staffing process. In the context of the Interchange Canada Program, CSC is required to abide by the internal staffing regulations of these external organizations.

Interchange Canada Program^{Footnote 5}

The Interchange Canada Program promotes and facilitates the exchange of employees, through temporary assignments, between the federal Public Service and outside organizations both within Canada and internationally. It is a skills-exchange program with a developmental focus between the core public administration and other private, public and not for profit organizations. The Interchange Canada Program is the only legal vehicle by which exchanges can take place between the federal public service and outside organizations. During the assignment, employees work on-site with the host organization (i.e., CSC) but remain employees of the sponsoring organization (i.e., police agency). Regional Deputy Commissioners have the responsibility of signing the Interchange Canada agreements. Interchange assignments can be entered into for a period of up to three consecutive years. An extension of up to one additional year can be added to the assignment.

Funding of $7M was provided for the IPPI over a five year period commencing in fiscal year 2005-06. The majority of the money was designated for salary dollars to hire the 17 CCLO>s. Funds were also allocated for operating, common services, employee benefits plan, and accommodation. The details of original IPPI funding are depicted in Table 1.

Overall expenditures for the fiscal years 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08 are shown in Table 3 . Expenditures have increased from approximately $200,000 in 2005-06 to just under $1.4 million in total allocations in 2007-08 when most of the CCLO positions were staffed.

The goal of the evaluation was to provide information required to make investment decisions related to the IPPI prior to the expiration of funding at the end of fiscal year 2009-10. The Results-Based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) for the IPPI was used as the foundation for the evaluation. Based on this RMAF, an evaluation strategy was developed by the Evaluation Team (CSC-NHQ) in discussion with a consultative group, comprised of representatives from the Community Reintegration Operations Division, the Performance Measurement Division, CSC staff working in the community, and a CCLO. The objectives were to assess the continued relevance, success, cost-effectiveness, design and implementation issues, and any unintended effects associated with the initiative. Given delays in staffing the CCLO positions, the evaluation was focused on the implementation of the IPPI. Where possible, the success of the initiative related to the achievement of immediate and intermediate outcomes was assessed, given the state of implementation and the availability of reliable data.

The evaluation strategy was based on the activities, outputs and outcomes outlined in the IPPI logic model. The logic model is a graphical depiction of the key activities, outputs and outcomes related to the IPPI, and is presented in Appendix A.^{Footnote 7}

Six activities were identified as being essential to CSC’s IPPI:

1. Staffing;
2. Training;
3. Liaising and sharing of information activities with police and other relevant agencies;
4. Involvement in the management of Higher Risk Offenders;
5. Tracking of UAL offenders; and,
6. Liaising with community stakeholders

Direct outputs of these activities include:

1. Clear job descriptions established;
2. Standardized national training package for CCLOs;
3. Regular communication with police/other relevant agencies and communication processes developed;
4. Participation in the pre-release and post-release case management process;
5. Participation in gathering and sharing of information with police forces regarding UAL offenders; and,
6. Communication processes for information sharing with the public and proactive outreach plan.

The expected results of the activities carried out were grouped into immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes. The immediate outcomes were:

1. 17 CCLOs are hired;
2. Increased awareness of CCLO role and responsibilities;
3. Partnerships established with police forces;
4. Collaborative approach to enhance the monitoring of high risk cases;
5. Information shared between police and CSC/enhanced collaboration between police and CSC in the apprehension of UAL offenders; and
6. Increased positive/neutral media reports.

The intermediate outcomes were:

1. Increased quality and level of supervision and cooperation with police;
2. Enhanced communications network between CSC and police;
3. Improved risk management and supervision in the community;
4. Facilitation of the apprehension of UAL offenders; and,
5. Increased public awareness and understanding of corrections.

Ultimately, the expected long-term outcomes were:

1. Offenders safely and effectively accommodated and reintegrated into Canadian communities;
2. Enhanced public safety; and,
3. Increased public confidence towards CSC.

Anonymous (1999). Enhanced supervision programs: Police/probation/parole partnerships. Alternatives to Incarceration, 5, 14-18.

Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (2007). About us. Retrieved from http://www.cacp.ca/index/aboutus.

Corbett, R. P. (1998). Probation blue? The promise (and perils) of probation-police partnerships. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 31-39.

Corbett, R. P., Fitzgerald, B. L., & Jordan, J. (1998). Boston’s Operation Night Light: An emerging model for police-probation partnerships. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions (pp. 180-186). New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Worrall, J. L., & Gaines, L. K. (2006). The effect of police-probation partnerships on juvenile arrests. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 579-589

Correctional Service Canada (2007). 2006-2007 Departmental Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2008). The Changing Federal Offender Population: Highlights 2008. Ottawa, ON: Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada.

Correctional Service Canada (2009). 2008-2009 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada Review Panel (2007). Report of the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel: A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Grant, B. A., Johnson, S. L., & Muirhead, M. (2000). Use of residency condition with statutory release: A descriptive analysis. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

International Association of Chiefs of Police & Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance. (2005). Building an offender reentry program: A guide for law enforcement. Alexandria, VA: Author

Le Vigne, N. G., Solomon, A. L., Beckman, K. A., & Dedel, K. (2006). Prisoner re-entry and community policing: Strategies for enhancing public safety. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Murphy, D., & Worrall, J. L. (2007). The threat of mission distortion in police-probations partnerships. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 132-149.

Parent, D., & Snyder, B. (1999). Police-corrections partnerships. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Public Safety Canada. (2007). Corrections and conditional release statistical overview: Annual report 2007 (Cat. No. PS1-3/2007E). Ottawa, ON: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Roman, J., Brooks, L., Lagerson, E., Chalfin, A., & Terescschenko, B. (2007). Impact and cost-benefit analysis of the Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

Worrall, J. L., & Gaines, L. K. (2006). The effect of police-probation partnerships on juvenile arrests. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 579-589.