Evaluation of Offender Case Management: Offender Intake Assessment and Institutional Supervision

Introduction

About the Evaluation

Offender Case Management

The offender case management process begins at an offender’s sentencing, and continues throughout their time spent in an institution and the community. The process involves the Parole Officer and other members of the Case Management Team. It includes ongoing assessments of risk and need, orientation and referral to specialized services, targeted interventions, and completion of Assessments for Decision (A4Ds).

Evaluation scope

The Evaluation Division of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) completed an evaluation of offender case management as part of the requirements of its five-year Departmental Evaluation Plan and in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results.

The evaluation examined the offender intake assessment and the institutional supervision framework, focusing on the period from April 2016 to March 2020.

Pre-release and community supervision will be assessed in a second Offender Case Management Evaluation.

Evaluation questions

Relevance

• Do the objectives of offender case management align with federal legislation?
• Do the objectives of case management align with CSC priorities, roles, and responsibilities?
• Is there a continued need for offender case management within federal corrections?

Performance

• To what extent does the intake assessment process achieve its expected outcomes?
• To what extent does institutional supervision achieve its expected outcomes?

About the Program

The components of offender case management include:

Sentence Management

Establishes the framework for the management of court ordered sentences and long term supervision orders for offenders.

Offender Intake Assessment^{Footnote 1}

Assesses offenders’ level of risk and need. Involves the development of an initial Correctional Plan that outlines the level of intervention required to address offender’s needs, interventions to manage risk, and court-order obligations.

Institutional Supervision^{Footnote 2}

Outlines the institutional case management process for the whole incarceration period. Includes monitoring the offender’s progress towards meeting the objectives of their Correctional Plan.

Case Preparation and Pre-Release

Involves pre-release decision-making, including submitting and presenting cases to the Parole Board of Canada and undertaking the pre-release process to prepare for the offender’s release.

Community Supervision

Supervises offenders in the community and provides structure and services related to parole, statutory release, and long-term supervision orders to support the offender’s safe and successful reintegration.

Methodology

Methodology

This evaluation was based on a mixed-method research design that incorporated both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

Data were collected using a variety of approaches including:

• Literature and document review, including peer-reviewed literature and governmental documents and reports.
• Offender Management System (OMS) data, examined indicators using an admission cohort of 17,232 sentences. Offenders admitted between April 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were eligible for inclusion. A cut-off of December 31, 2019, was used to ensure that the offenders had undergone their intake assessment by March 31, 2020, the end of the evaluation period.
• Case file reviews, examined core case management documents of 165 offenders. Offenders admitted between April 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were eligible for inclusion in the cohort.
• Case management interviews with 13 management-level individuals involved in case management.
• Staff online surveys completed by front-line staff (e.g., Parole Officer, Correctional Officer II; n=860), managers (n=200), Elders and Indigenous Liaison Officers (ILOs; n=29).

Sample

Figure. Ethnicity of offenders in admission cohort (OMS Data)

Figure. Ethnicity of offenders in case file review

Note: These ethnic groups were selected as they are the most common within CSC. Fewer Black women were included to limit oversampling from this group as they are a small proportion of the women offender population.

Relevance of Offender Case Management

Offender case management is consistent with federal legislation and departmental roles, responsibilities, and priorities

• Offender case management activities and objectives are designed to facilitate offenders’ successful reintegration and protect the public, in alignment with federal legislation and departmental roles, responsibilities, and priorities.
• Case management activities are part of CSC’s mandate to develop and manage intervention strategies that facilitate reintegration and rehabilitation.
  • They are required by legislative framework, such as the Correctional and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) and the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulation.
  • The CCRA requires CSC to consider systemic and background factors relevant to Indigenous offenders and provide programs to meet their needs. In addition, policies, programs and practices are to respect differences, such as gender and ethnicity, and be responsive to the needs of different groups, such as women, visible minorities, and persons requiring mental health care.
  • They are consistent with Government of Canada priorities, as seen in the mandate letter to the Minister of Public Safety.
  • They are aligned with CSC legal responsibilities, policies, guidelines, and corporate priorities.

There is a continued need to provide offender case management activities

• Case management guides the rehabilitation and reintegration of all offenders. Through assessment and identification of risks and needs and referral to appropriate interventions and services, case management is intended to support the rehabilitation of offenders.
• Case management activities are also designed to help maintain the safety of the institution as well as public safety upon release of the offender.
• The diverse offender populations (e.g., Indigenous, members of visible minority groups, women and gender diverse offenders, those with mental health needs, and those with correctional program needs) require offender case management activities to meet their needs.

Effectiveness of the Offender Intake Process

Information Collection and Sharing

Information is collected at intake in some respects, but challenges were observed

• Overall, some types of information are received from outside organizations in a timely manner (i.e., provincial and territorial organizations).
  • 97% of cases received at least one of the required documents for the official version of the offence (i.e., police report [89% on time], judge’s comments [86% on time], or Crown Attorney’s comments [20% on time]) by the end of the intake period.
• However, there were issues with obtaining certain required documents, such as, the Finger Print Section (less than 1% on time) and pre-sentence report (31%).
• Delays in receiving information from sources outside of CSC (e.g., police reports and judge’s comments) can negatively impact the intake assessment process.

There are gaps in Casework Records of immediate needs identification and admission interviews

• There are challenges with the completeness of documentation for the immediate needs identification and admission interviews.
  • Of the Admission Interview Casework Records reviewed, 48% had all the necessary components.
  • More women were missing Casework Records for the immediate needs identification interview (women: 69%, men: 27%) and admission interview (women: 18%, men: 6%).

Figure. Percentage of files from the file review that included a Casework Record for… (N=164-165)

Note: Included Casework Records in OMS with the relevant interaction type or relevant content.

• Issues with accurate labelling of the Casework Records in OMS were flagged.
  • It is unclear whether documents were missing due to record keeping issues, such as having the incorrect type of interaction.
• There were challenges with the timeliness of admission interview (67% were completed within five days of admission, as required by Commissioner’s Directive (CD) 705-3). Fewer women had their admission interview within five days (women: 39%, men: 70%).

Development of Correctional Plan

Correctional Plans were timely, but there were challenges with supplementary assessments

• Correctional Plans were completed on time for 95% of cases.
  • Some supplementary assessments are typically done in a timely manner while others are not (see graphs).
  • Only 21% of the initial Elder Reviews for Indigenous offenders were on time (within 50 days of admission).^{Footnote 4} 

Figure. Percentage of supplementary assessments completed on time, late or not recorded

Figure. Percentage of Computerized Mental Health Intake Screening System (CoMHISS) assessments on time, late, refused or not completed

Note: CoMHISS data provided by Health Services sector. Included admissions from April 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. As of April 1, 2018, CoMHISS was no longer required for offenders who had already been referred to mental health services prior to being offered CoMHISS.^{Footnote 3}

• For some interviewees, timelines are insufficient to complete intake for offenders with complex needs, and for ethnocultural or Indigenous offenders.

Content guidelines offer useful guidance, but Correctional Plans could be streamlined

• Content guidelines offer useful guidance for the development of Correctional Plans. But redundancy of content and length were noted as areas for improvement by interviewees working in men’s and women’s institutions.
• The file review found that several sections of the Correctional Plan are completed comprehensively (e.g., dynamic factors, inclusion of Adult Basic Education, and mental health information), whereas others are not.
  • Areas that were more often incomplete were the objectives and significant events required to support the offender in achieving a reduced security classification, temporary absences, work release, or conditional release, particularly for women.
• Only 41% of staff agreed that changes in requirements for completing case management documents were communicated clearly.

Correctional Plans and the Needs of Diverse Offenders

Correctional Plans and responsivity factors

• 20% of Correctional Plans in the file review identified responsivity factors, characteristics that affect an offender’s ability to benefit from interventions. (Other responsivity factors may be identified at a later time.)
  • 6 in 10 Correctional Plans that reported responsivity factors described the impact on programming or recommended interventions.
  • The most common responsivity factors identified in the file review were concentration problems, potential learning disabilities, and problematic basic literacy skills.

Correctional Plans are less likely to meet the needs of diverse offenders

• Parole Officers are to tailor the Correctional Plan to offenders’ needs.
• Some offenders’ needs are reportedly not met as well as others in Correctional Plans (e.g., aging, LGBTQ2+). For example, 34% of staff survey respondents agreed that the Correctional Plan accounted for aging and 30% for LGBTQ2+ considerations. Interviewees also commented on the limited focus on the needs of LGBTQ2+ offenders in the Correctional Plan.
• There has been increased attention to the needs of diverse offenders, but there is not always policy guidance, most commonly for LGBTQ2+ offenders, nor interventions or resources to address the needs, according to interviewees.

Indigenous Social History is considered only in some sections of the Correctional Plan

• In the Correctional Plans of Indigenous offenders, there should be an explanation of how Indigenous Social History (ISH) impacted dynamic factors that are rated as contributing (CD 705-6 – Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile).
  • It was often mentioned for some dynamic factors (substance abuse [94%] and personal/emotional [84%]), and less so for others (attitudes [52%], employment and education [25%]).
• In the Correctional Plan, the offence cycle of Indigenous offenders must be explained in the context of their ISH (CD 705-6). 36% excluded any mention of ISH.
• Healing Plans included Elder-supported goals (77% of Healing Plans) and aspects of traditional healing (82% for mental healing, 88% for others). None had the required timeframes (CD 705-6).

Use of Assessment Tool Results in Case Management Decisions

Results of assessment tools are included in case management decisions

• File reviews found that A4Ds included the results of actuarial tools and key ratings to determine initial security classifications. These include the Custody Rating Scale (CRS) and key ratings of institutional adjustment, escape risk, and public safety risk.

Figure. Level of use of tools for security classifications (N = 118)

Note: Rationale = tool’s result was linked to recommended OSL and relevancy of the result was described. Reference = tool’s result was linked to the recommended OSL, but no rationale on the relevancy of the result. Mention = tool’s result identified, but no link made to the recommended OSL. No mention = no mention of tool’s result.

• Many A4Ds reported links between key ratings’ results and the proposed Offender Security Level (OSL). However, they rarely had rationales of how the CRS score and key ratings were relevant to the recommended security level.
• Four out of five A4Ds for the initial OSL did not contain a plan to manage the offender at the proposed security level in the Overall Assessment section.

The CRS and initial security classification decisions

• The OSL recommendation is to be based on numerous factors, in particular the CRS and an assessment of the offender’s institutional adjustment, escape risk, and public safety risk (CD 705-7 – Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement). In 26% of A4Ds, the recommended OSL was discordant with the CRS score.
  • The primary reason appears to be that key ratings were prioritized (i.e., institutional adjustment, escape risk, and public safety risk).
  • When the CRS rating differed from the final decision, the evaluation team did not examine if the OSL was higher or lower than the CRS rating.
• White men had more concordance between the security levels recommended by the CRS and the recommended OSL decision. There may be less concordance for Indigenous men due to consideration of ISH.

Effectiveness of Institutional Supervision Framework

Managing Offenders According to Risks and Needs

Security reclassification decisions include the required assessment tool results, but their relevance is not always explained

• Most A4Ds included the Security Reclassification Scale (SRS)/Security Reclassification Scale for Women (SRSW) score and key ratings. Links between the results and OSL were often discussed but without justification of the relevance of the results to the proposed OSL.
  • More of the A4Ds of men than women included references to the recommended security level.
  • Only 24% of A4Ds included a plan for managing the offender at the proposed security level.
  • In 28% of cases the recommended OSL was discordant with the results of SRS/SRSW. The OSL recommendation is based on numerous factors.

Almost all reclassifications to lower security levels are successful

• 95% of reclassifications were successful, as offenders were not placed back in a higher security classification within 120 days of the decision.
  • Only 20% of offenders initially classified as medium or maximum OSL had at least one reclassification that resulted in a reduction in their security level prior to March 1, 2020 (women: 37%, men: 19%). 

Indigenous offenders have access to Indigenous Intervention Centres

• Indigenous Intervention Centres are intended to offer an integrated approach to address the needs of Indigenous offenders.

Figure. Percentage of eligible Indigenous offenders who participated in an Intervention Centre for a minimum of 120 days^{Footnote 5} 

Staff suggested additional supports or resources to better meet offenders’ needs

• Interviewees described challenges and provided suggestions on how to better meet offenders’ needs and risks, including more:
  • access to programing or interventions that meet offenders’ needs
  • training on the needs of specific populations
  • staffing (e.g., ILO or Elder positions)
  • resources to support transition to the community (e.g., housing, processes for obtaining identification)

Using Correctional Plans to Monitor Offender Behaviour

Case conferencing is perceived as an effective tool, but fewer than half occurred on time

• Staff survey respondents viewed case conferencing as an effective way to monitor the behaviour, risks, and needs of offenders.
  • Commonly discussed topics included changes in behaviour, program participation, and institutional adjustment.
• Offenders are to have an initial interview case conference within 10 working days after arrival at an institution, a change in security level in a clustered institution, or a case reassignment (CD 710-1 – Progress Against the Correctional Plan). Only 45% of case conferences after transfers to a new institution or new unit in a clustered site occurred within 10 days.
  • Record keeping issues might have contributed to this finding (i.e., using the interaction types of ‘initial interview institution’ and ‘admission interview’ interchangeably).
  • A greater proportion of men had their case conference on time.

Figure. Percentage of initial interview case conferences conducted on time (within 10 working days following transfer)

There are issues with the completion of Structured Casework Records and Correctional Plan Updates

• Only 32% of offenders had the expected number of Structured Casework Records. For women, that proportion was larger.
  • Many of the required components of Structured Casework Records were not consistently completed.
• Some aspects of Correctional Plan Updates (CPUs) were often completed as expected (i.e., contributing dynamic factors, accountability and motivation ratings, updated understanding of the offence cycle, and summaries of overall progress).
  • Items less frequently included in CPUs were reintegration potential (69%), engagement (70%), responsivity (48%), offender progress in obtaining identification (55%), and updated goals and objectives (45%).
  • For Indigenous offenders, CPUs often did not include discussion of ISH in relation to contributing dynamic factors (e.g., associates was the dynamic factor that most commonly discussed ISH [44% of CPUs]).
• 38% of CPUs were done within 30 days for Indigenous offenders after successful completion of a correctional program. Although required for all security levels, an electronic reminder is only generated for medium or maximum OSLs.

Elder and ILOs were included in consultation, with limitations

• Elders and ILOs were consulted when the offender was interested in working with an Elder, but there was less consultation about Pathways, Elder Review, and Structured Casework Record.

Other Aspects of Institutional Supervision Framework

Offenders are almost always involved in case management

• Offender participation was documented in 97% of CPUs.

Information sharing practices about offenders’ progress were mostly viewed as effective

• Staff survey respondents perceived case conferencing with offenders as an effective way to discuss required interventions and release plans.
  • Most respondents reported having meetings with offenders at least once a month.
  • Only half agreed that updates on case conferences were properly documented (52%) and that there was sufficient communication among the Case Management Team on offender progress beyond case conferences (47%).
• Staff use a variety of information sources to monitor offender progress against the Correctional Plan (i.e., meetings with offenders, Casework Records).
• Interviewees brought forward challenges with writing and reviewing case management documents, such as limited training, time constraints, and repetitive documents.
• Interviewees agreed that the communication within the institution is often sufficient, despite some challenges (i.e., communication between functional groups within institutions).

Staff reported on how they use their time and what human resources challenges they face

• Staff survey respondents shared which activities occupy most of their time:
  At intake:
  • assessing and analyzing information
  • report writing
  • collecting information
  In supervision:
  • meeting with offenders
  • report writing
  • completing A4Ds
• Interviewees identified challenges related to human resources, including:
  • understaffing of positions
  • heavy Parole Officer caseloads
  • limited CX-II involvement in case management
  • perceived obligation for Parole Officers to undertake duties outside of their responsibilities

Conclusions

Information collection

• There were issues related to the receipt of external documents during the intake period.

Communication of Changes in Policy and Procedures

• There were challenges with communication of changes regarding case management documents and policy and procedures.

Supplementary Assessments

• Some supplementary assessments were often completed on time, but not substance assessments and initial Elder Reviews.

Needs of Diverse Offender Populations

• The needs of some offender populations (e.g., aging and LGBTQ2+) offenders were identified by staff as insufficiently addressed in the Correctional Plan.

Documentation

• There were challenges with the accurate labelling and completeness of documentation for interviews during the intake period (i.e., immediate needs identification and admission interviews).
• Additionally, there were challenges with the timeliness or completeness of other documentation (e.g., Structured Casework Records; sections of the Correctional Plan, such as objectives and significant events, or ISH for some dynamic factors; CPUs for Indigenous offenders post-program).
• Most Correctional Plans were completed on time, as were 76% of the Criminal Profiles.
• Most A4Ds for initial security classification and for reclassification included the required actuarial results (CRS, or SRS/SRSW) and the key ratings of institutional adjustment, escape risk, and public safety risk. Only a few described how the results of the assessment tools were relevant to the recommended OSL. Approximately a quarter mentioned a plan for managing the offender at their security level.
• Elders and ILOs were often consulted when an offender was working with an Elder. There was less consultation regarding Pathways, Elder Reviews, and Structured Casework Records.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP), should examine the issues with documentation uncovered through the evaluation to ensure that the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) currently being negotiated with provincial and territorial partners on information collection address the challenges with the timely collection of each of these documents (e.g., Crown Attorney’s comments, victim impact statement, Finger Print Section sheet, pre-sentence report, psychiatric report, and psychological reports). Additionally, the MOUs should ensure that appropriate performance measures are captured to gather data regarding the timely collection of documents. The performance measurement data should be shared with MOU partners to monitor the timeliness of documentation collection.

Management Response/Position:

▣ Accepted      ▢ Accepted in Part     ▢ Rejected

Management Response:  ACCOP agrees with this recommendation. The finalization of MOUs is the primary responsibility of Intergovernmental Relations (IR) and negotiations have been underway with provincial and territorial partners. The Correctional Operations and Programs (COP) Sector will be collaborating with IR in order to hold discussions with the provinces and territories around the importance of timely collection of information for CSC and to understand the issues uncovered through the evaluation in order to determine resolution options as feasible. This will also include the feasibility of the development of performance measures that would enable monitoring of timeliness of document collection.

Of note, Commissioner Directive 705-2 - Information Collection has recently been amended and Guideline 705-2-1 - Information Collection Process has been developed.  In addition, a strategy has been implemented to ensure that cases are reviewed on a regular basis to confirm that there is no outstanding documents and that each offender case information is accurate and up to date with all relevant required information.

Recommendation 2: The ACCOP should identify a mechanism to ensure the accurate use of Casework Record labels (in particular the Admission Interview and the Initial Interview records). Additionally, there should be ongoing monitoring of the accuracy of the labeling, as well as the completeness of the Casework Records.

Management Response/Position:

▣ Accepted       ▢ Accepted in Part     ▢ Rejected

Management Response: ACCOP agrees with this recommendation, and will work with Information Management Services (IMS) in order to determine the best option to address the deficiencies identified by the evaluation with regards to the accuracy of the Casework Record labels used by staff, in particular the Admission Interview and the Initial Interview records. In the interim, a Case Management Bulletin will be issued to remind staff of the importance of documenting the admission interview or the initial interview in the appropriate Casework Record labels.

Recommendation 3: The ACCOP should ensure that the revisions of the report outlines for the Assessment for Decision and the Correctional Plan Update incorporate modifications to address where content was commonly identified as missing (i.e., Assessment for Decision: plan to manage the offender; Correctional Plan Update: discussion of Indigenous Social History for the contributing dynamic factors, responsivity factors, progress in obtaining identification, updated goals and objectives).

Management Response/Position:

▢ Accepted       ▣ Accepted in Part     ▢ Rejected

Management Response: ACCOP partially agrees with this recommendation. “Report Outlines” that are annexed in most Case Management CDs are intended to offer useful guidance to the Case Management Team in writing their reports. They are not provided for case management staff’s use as standardized templates. Each Assessment for Decision report and Correctional Plan/Update report is case specific and the Case Management Team takes into consideration the relevant content provided as useful guidance where it is specific to their cases. Case Management policies direct Parole Officers to consult with all members of the Case Management Team, including Elders for discussion of Indigenous Social History in the preparation of all case management reports, including the development of the Correctional Plan or progress update. With respect to progress in obtaining identification for offenders, in April 2019, several Commissioner’s Directives (705-6, 710-1, 712-1, 715-1 and 715-2) were amended to strengthen the responsibility of the Parole Officer with respect to assisting offenders with obtaining missing pieces of identification from the beginning of their sentence as well as at various points in time during their sentence (prior to release, upon release and post release).

Nonetheless, in order to ensure that all relevant information is included in the Assessment for Decision and the Correctional Plan Update, COP will issue a Case Management Bulletin to remind middle managers of the importance of case conference discussions and quality reviews as part of the case management process.

Recommendation 4: The Senior Deputy Commissioner (SDC) and the ACCOP should consider ways to facilitate the collection and communication of initial Elder Reviews for timely incorporation into the intake assessment process.

Management Response/Position:

▣ Accepted       ▢ Accepted in Part     ▢ Rejected

Management Response: We agree with this recommendation. It is essential that as an organization we create efficiencies related to the development and distribution of Elder Reviews within a timely fashion. This will ensure that cultural interventions outside of correctional programming are appropriately captured and discussed in relation to all decisions regarding Indigenous offenders through their correctional journey. As a result, a review of available and needed resources could be required.

Recommendation 5: The ACCOP should further investigate the challenges in meeting the 21-day timeline of completion of substance use assessment.

Management Response/Position:

▣ Accepted       ▢ Accepted in Part     ▢ Rejected

Management Response: ACCOP agrees with this recommendation and will share the results of the evaluation and work with the Regions to determine the challenges and develop action plans to address these challenges, as required.

Recommendation 6: The ACCOP should seek ways to ensure that correctional planning integrates different offender considerations (e.g., aging, ethnocultural, gender identify and expression, and sexual orientation) within the Correctional Plan. This could include ensuring that Parole Officers are aware of their responsibility to include relevant information around offender considerations and objectives responsive to the offender’s needs. Consider modifying IT support processes to take these into account.

Management Response/Position:

▣ Accepted       ▢ Accepted in Part     ▢ Rejected

Management Response: ACCOP agrees with this recommendation. Correctional Plans are developed and are maintained in consultation with offenders. The Parole Officer, in consultation with the offender and the Case Management Team completes the Correctional Plan taking into consideration the offender’s history and need and determine the key ratings including offender accountability, motivation, responsivity and engagement. Correctional Plans are unique to each offender and correctional planning integrates different offender considerations (e.g., aging, ethnocultural, gender identity and expression, social history and sexual orientation). The Case Management Team, in consultation with the offender will identify the objectives and significant events for the offender to gain support for reduced security classification, temporary absences, work releases and/or conditional release. Objectives and significant events must be individualized, structured and timeframed. A Parole Officer Continuous Development (POCD) Training Module was developed and is being delivered in FY 2022-2023 on Collaboration between Parole Officers and Correctional Program Officers in the management of offenders with specific needs. The intent of this training was to assist Case Management staff in enhancing interventions by identifying possible alternative strategies to address offender specific/responsivity needs in the correctional planning process. The training content includes the promotion of sharing of information, the importance of collaboration and the description of roles and responsibilities in the management of offenders with responsivity needs.

Recommendation 7: The Assistant Commissioner, Policy, should conduct research regarding how issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity and expression could be integrated into case management and correctional planning.

Management Response/Position:

▣ Accepted       ▢ Accepted in Part     ▢ Rejected

Management Response: We agree with this recommendation. By December 31, 2023, the Assistant Commissioner, Policy will ensure the completion of a review of the international research literature on the topic to provide information on how these issues are integrated into case management and correctional planning in other jurisdictions. This may assist in informing CSC regarding possible policy and practice options in this area.