Reports and Publications

Access to the Decision Registry - Review of Regional Practices - April 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• BACKGROUND
• OBJECTIVES
• METHOD
• RESULTS
• FINDINGS
• RECOMMENDATIONS

BACKGROUND:

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) states that the National Parole Board (NPB) shall maintain a registry of the decisions it renders. The Act also stipulates that a person who demonstrates an interest in a case may, on written application to the Board, have access to the contents of the registry relating to that case, excluding information which would jeopardize the safety of a person, reveal the source of information obtained in confidence, or adversely influence the reintegration of the offender. People may also apply to the Board for access to the contents of the registry, for research purposes, and receive information after the decisions have been vetted to remove all personal identifiers.

While the NPB has been providing services to individuals who request access to the registry of decisions, since the implementation of the CCRA in 1992, it has never undertaken a review of its regional practices with regard to this service. Therefore, in 2005/06, the NPB decided, as part of its multi-year evaluation and internal audit plan, to review its regional practices to ensure that it was responding in a consistent manner to those who request access to the registry of decisions.

OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of this review were to:

1. Determine whether there is national consistency in the NPB's practices with respect to the treatment of requests for access to the registry of decisions;
2. Determine whether there is national consistency in the collection and reporting of statistical information;
3. Identify indicators that could be used to ensure an accurate assessment of regional and national workloads; and
4. Identify best practices.

Based on the findings of this review, recommendations are being made with a view to promoting national consistency in the services the NPB provides in relation to requests for access to the registry of decisions.

METHOD:

Review of the relevant documentation:

• Section 144 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act;
• Section 167 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations;
• NPB statistics on the decision registry (2000-2005);
• NPB policy on the registry of decisions;
• NPB Fact sheet on the registry of decisions; and
• Request form to access the registry of decisions

Development of a questionnaire used during the interviews of NPB regional staff members responsible for the processing of requests to access the registry of decisions. The questions touched on:

• The procedures followed from receipt of the request for access the decision registry to the release of decisions to the requestor;
• The training provided to the Regional Communication Officers (RCO) and the Communication Assistants/Clerks (CA) to assist them in their tasks;
• The collection, compilation and reporting of statistical data submitted on a monthly basis to the Performance Measurement Division at the National Office; and,
• The workload generated by requests to access the decision registry and the allocation of resources to handle the workload.

Staff members were also invited to provide their comments or observations on any improvements that could be brought to the access to the decision registry process.

Interviews were conducted during the months of November and December 2005, with Regional Managers, Community Relations and Training (RMCRT), Regional Communications Officers and Communication Assistants/Clerks) from all regional offices of the Board.

RESULTS:

1. Procedures for processing requests to access the decision registry:

Requests for Research Purposes:

The NPB Policy, Planning and Operations at the National Office (NO), which is responsible for processing requests for research purposes, advises that very few requests are received annually, perhaps one request per year. For these requests, all personal identifiers and locators must be removed from the decision sheet.

The Regions indicated that, when they receive requests for research purposes, they forward them to NO, for processing. The Ontario region, however, indicated that it will process requests for research purposes that involve up to five case files, otherwise, the requests are sent to NO for processing.

Regional Staff responsibilities:

In all regional offices, the duties related to the processing of requests to access the registry of decisions are shared between the Regional Communication Officers (RCO) and the Communication Assistants (Pacific, Prairies and Ontario regions) or the Communication Clerks (Quebec and Atlantic regions). However, the way in which the various responsibilities have been distributed is quite different from one region to another. For instance, in three regions, the RCOs handle all phone calls and write special letters, whereas, the CAs are responsible for the preparation of generic letters. In another region, the CAs handle all phone calls and write special letters, except those coming from victims, which are passed on to the RCOs. In cases where a request is more complex, the RCOs will also provide guidance to the CAs. In another region, the RCOs accomplish most of the tasks attached to requests to access the decision registry as the Communication Clerk also acts as Administrative Assistant to the Regional Manager, Conditional Release Program.

Treatment of initial requests:

The processing of requests for access to the decision registry seems to vary from region to region. For instance, not all regions send out a covering letter with an application form to a requestor and not all regions acknowledge receipt of an application form. All regions agree, however, that the application form itself is not mandatory and that any written request is accepted, as long as it provides a complete address, the applicant's signature and proper identification of the offender. One region indicated that applicants must state their interest in the case, and that, if this detail is missing, the application is returned or a call is made to the applicant to obtain this information. On this issue, other regions said they did not pay much attention to the reasons provided as they are often very vague and rarely have any impact on the acceptance of the request. Not all RCOs were clear on whether or not applicants are required to provide a reason or an interest in order to obtain access to the decision registry, and the regional staff expressed the need for national direction on this matter.

One point on which all regions are in agreement is that the signature of the requestor is most important and, as such, requests submitted through e-mail are not accepted. One region, however, indicated that, in some exceptional cases, it accepts requests made through e-mail.

The RCOs throughout the regions indicated that, if they are suspicious about the identity or the interest of a particular applicant about a case, they contact the requestor to obtain more information.

Many RCOs mentioned that the application form should be improved. For instance, they feel that the printing is too small and that the information requested is not clear, which causes some applicants to be confused about the details they are required to provide.

Processing requests for access to “all decisions”:

All regions indicated that, in most instances, people request access to all the decisions rendered in a particular case. In such situations, the regions provide the requestor with all past, current and future decisions, but some regions make exceptions. In one region, for instance, “all decisions” is interpreted by some as meaning all past up to the current decision and future decisions are not to be provided. Other staff members in that same region interpret this as meaning all decisions including future ones. Now that the application form has been amended to indicate “all future decisions”, the RCOs hope that this will resolve their difference of interpretation. They expressed concerns, however, that this situation may persist since requestors do not have to use the application form to make a request and they may still use the term “all decisions”.

The RCOs from the Ontario region indicated that, although they provide applicants with all past, present and future decisions when requested, they make an exception with regard to requests from the media. This region provides media with all decisions, up to the most recent ones. It has chosen this approach as the regional staff feel that media may not be interested in the case in the future as the offender may no longer be of news interest. Therefore, the Ontario region has adopted the practice that requests from media are only valid for one year. After a year, the RCOs will send a new application to the media and inform them that, without the new form, NPB will not activate their request. The Ontario region pointed out that no other region has adopted this practice.

The Regional staff members across the country were also asked how they ensure that future decisions are sent out to those who requested them. All regions indicated that the file is flagged, however, in view of the fact that the various regions use different indicators, it causes problems when a file is transferred from one region to another.

Archived files:

The regions' practices also appeared to be different when dealing with requests which involve archived files. For instance, two regions stated that if an offender's file has been archived and that this person is no longer in the public eye, the request is denied. Three regions stated that they only provide decisions that are available on the current sentence; they do not include archived decisions, unless the requestor specifically asks for them. The RCOs in one region added that in cases where there are no decisions on the current file, they then release the decisions available on the last archived file.

All regions insisted that they require national direction with respect to archived files as each region deals with this issue differently. Some regions also expressed concerns about the fact that they may be, unknowingly, releasing decisions in cases where a pardon has been granted.

Requests denied:

When asked under what circumstances a request would be denied, the regional responses varied. One region indicated that, if a request is made by an offender, it is automatically denied. Another region said it denies requests made by offenders who are still under sentence. Another one answered that it denies requests made by a co-accused. In two other regions, if the requestor is an offender, the request is assessed on a case by case basis. As an example, these two regions mentioned that if the requestor, who is an offender, is also the victim, the decisions are released to that individual.

Delays in processing requests:

The RCOs questioned why one of the elements that they are required to provide on the statistical form for the National Office, refers to timeframes as this element is not addressed in the Act or through NPB policy. All regions stated, however, that most requests are dealt with expeditiously, especially those submitted by victims and media. The RCOs from all regions also added that when delays occur, it is usually because the documents requested have been archived or because the case file has to be sent back to the Board Members for changes to the decision document.

In one region, the RCOs stressed that the case files often have to be sent back to staff or to the Board members because the decision sheet lacks certain information, i.e. special conditions that have not been addressed. In some instances, when this occurs, it may take up to one month before the RCOs get the amended decision sheet back. In another region, however, the RCOs mentioned that they do not return decisions to the Board members for modification as they feel it would be inappropriate to have two different documents in circulation, given that the offender has already been provided with the decision sheet.

The regions further mentioned that workload issues or decisions that require translationsare other examples of situations that cause occasional delays in the processing of requests.

Access to decisions rendered in the presence of observers:

All regions indicated that, even if observers are present at a hearing, the decision always needs to be reviewed prior to being released, as some of the information that appears on the decision sheet may divulge a lot more than what was discussed during the hearing.

Exemptions:

All regions stressed the necessity for more direction as well as guidelines from the National Office with respect to exemptions. The RCOs feel that much is left to their own interpretation of section 144 (2) of the CCRA. They expressed concerns over the fact that leaving the interpretation of the legal criteria to the good judgement of individual RCOs, leads to inconsistencies in the application of exemptions throughout the regions and even within the region.

Another area of concern for the RCOs related to exemptions that have already been applied to past decisions. The RCOs raised the fact that, in some cases, while they may not agree with past exemptions made by another RCO or in another region, they must go along with those exemptions and apply them to the new decisions to ensure consistency in the documents released. For instance, some RCOs will exclude graphic descriptions of a violent crime committed against a victim, whereas other RCOs will not exclude such information.

In the Pacific, Prairies, Québec and Atlantic regions, exemptions are applied as if the document was being released to the public. If the requestor is a victim, then the RCOs add a covering letter providing additional information. The Ontario region, however, applies different exemptions to the same document depending on the types of requestor. For instance, if the media, a victim or an observer request the decision, the RCOs may issue three different versions of the document.

The regions also have different practices in the way they identify the exemptions that have been made on a document. For instance, some regions only mark the first page of the document with a stamp “Exemption made under subsection 144 (2) of the CCRA”, even if exemptions have been made on more than one page. Other regions stamp every area where an exemption has been made, and some regions only stamp the bottom of each page where exemptions have been made. Also, some regions identify the exact section or subsection of the Act under which the exemption is made and other regions do not.

Suggestions from staff:

• That national guidelines be established on how to deal with media who request future decisions, as the case may no longer be of interest to them when the offender is no longer considered to be newsworthy.
• That more national direction and guidelines be provided on how to apply exemptions in order to eliminate regional and national inconsistencies.
• That a letter of explanation accompany the decision document being sent out to ensure that the requestor has a better understanding of the decision rendered.
• That national guidelines be provided on how to handle requests in cases where the Court has ordered a publication ban or when a case is in the midst of a trial.
• That CSC and NPB have the same file retention period.
• That Board members be trained on how to write decisions while keeping in mind that the decision can be accessed.
• That there be more national coherence on how documents are placed and identified (flagged) on file.
• That organizational deadlines be set on the treatment of requests for access to the decision registry.
• That the NPB website be improved and more user-friendly as well as linked to regional sites.

2. Training issues:

All RCOs and CAs indicated that they had received on-the-job training only. For the most part, this training was provided by experienced RCOs. All regions expressed the need for more focussed training. They also reiterated the need for national guidelines and direction, especially with respect to the application of section 144 (2) of the Act. They stressed that, currently, the RCOs have different views on certain issues, and that the training being provided may be inconsistent even within the same region.

The regional staff interviewed also expressed the need for a national meeting between all RCOs to discuss practices and issues. This would help promote better coherence in the way they perform the duties related to this program. The RCOs also felt that regular follow-up training and the opportunity to hold workshops should be considered.

The RMCRT, RCOs and CA in the Atlantic region mentioned that they hold weekly meetings where they discuss the more challenging cases or other related issues that come up. They find that this helps them maintain a better measure of consistency in the way they accomplish the tasks related to the treatment of requests for access to the decision registry.

3. Statistics:

When asked whether they felt that the statistical data, which are being collected for the National Office, accurately reflected their workload, all RCOs responded that it definitely did not. The regional staff members stressed the fact that these statistics are only capturing some of the many activities that they conduct. For instance, activities such as, providing information over the telephone , writing special letters, preparing and making presentations on the decision registry and providing training, are not reflected in the statistical reports submitted to National Office.

With respect to the statistical data that is being reported to the National Office, it also became evident, when going through the various elements listed on the statistical form, that there was great disparity and some confusion in the way the regions are interpreting these elements and thus, collecting and reporting the data to the National Office. All regions stressed that the collection of data is a time consuming exercise for them and they expressed concerns that the data is not being provided accurately and consistently throughout the regions.

4. Workload and resource allocation:

The regions were asked whether they felt they had adequate resources to respond in a timely manner to requests for access to the decision registry. The Prairie, Québec and Atlantic regions responded that they had the necessary resources, while the Pacific region felt that it did not, in spite of the newly allocated staff. The Ontario region said that the situation has improved considerably with the additional resources but that they could use an additional communication assistant.

FINDINGS:

National consistency in the NPB practices in the treatment of requests to access the registry of decisions:

• In the great majority of cases, request for access to the decision registry are treated in a timely manner by all regions, especially when dealing with requests from victims or the media. The NPB staff members make every effort to provide the information requested without any undue delay.
• On the basis of the information obtained through this review, it appears that there are considerable variations in the procedures and practices adopted by the regional offices in the treatment of requests, which ultimately leads to inconsistencies in the manner in which the service is provided to applicants across the country.
• The NPB policy and the section of the Act related to the access to the registry of decisions appear to be interpreted differently across the regions. For instance, the regions provided different answers when questioned about what constituted a demonstrated interest by an applicant; what kind of requests should be denied; how they deal with archived documents; how they handle requests from media; how they applied exemptions to the documents they were releasing, and how they deal with requests for all decisions, etc.
• The lack of appropriate national direction in the application of the criteria, under which exemptions can be made to a decision, appears to cause important inconsistencies in the type of information that is being extracted from decision documents. These inconsistencies were observed both within the regions as well as across the regions.
• The fact that regional offices have different practices in the way they file and identify (flagged) the documents related to requests for access to the decision registry, creates difficulties when case files are transferred from one region to another.
• In some regions, Board members are asked to bring modifications or corrections to a decision sheet, before it is released to a requestor. This practice raises concerns, especially when the required changes are significant, such as; having to address a special condition that was omitted at the time the decision was rendered.
• The RCOs and CAs across the regions outlined a number of areas where they feel they need more training or direction from National Office in order to be more effective in their work as well as to attain a better measure of consistency across the Board in the way the service related to this program is provided.
• The fact that there is no national procedures manual related to the treatment of requests for access to the decision registry leads to inconsistencies and variances in the manner in which the service is provided across the country.

National consistency in the collection and reporting of statistical information:

• The different ways in which the regions are interpreting, compiling and reporting the information requested is causing important inconsistencies and errors in the statistical data being provided to the National Office. Another factor which affects the accuracy of the statistical data is the fact that the information is not being recorded consistently. This task is done manually and human error also comes into play.
• The statistical data currently being collected does not accurately reflect the various responsibilities attached to the processing of requests for access to the decision registry. Consequently, these statistics cannot be used to assess regional workload and establish resource needs.
• Currently, NPB does not keep statistics on the number of requests that are submitted for research purposes.

Indicators that could be used to ensure an accurate assessment of regional and national workloads:

• Given the inconsistencies between regional practices and the need to clarify many issues, it is not possible, at this time, to propose indicators that could be used to ensure a proper assessment of regional and national workloads.

Best practices:

• The RCOs and CA of the Atlantic region hold weekly meetings with their Manager at which time they can discuss difficult cases and get appropriate direction and support as well as share best practices with their colleagues.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• In order to give better direction to the regions, and promote coherence in the service rendered to individuals who request access to the decision registry, it is recommended that:
  • The policy respecting access to the decision registry be revisited;
  • A national procedures manual be developed;
  • Communication between regions and NO be improved; and
  • An annual national meeting of all RMCRTs, RCOs and CAs be considered.
• Some of the variations in the processing of requests appear to be related to training issues. The need for more focussed training on a number of subjects was raised by the majority of staff members across the regions. Accordingly, it is recommended that appropriate training opportunities be provided to all staff members responsible for handling requests to access the decision registry in order to enable staff to perform their duties adequately and, as such, improve or maintain the quality of the service they are providing to their clients. It is also recommended that training continue to be offered to Board members on how to write decisions, keeping in mind that these documents can be accessed by the public.
• As a result of inconsistencies in the interpretation, collection and reporting of the data, it is recommended that these issues be clarified prior to developing indicators for regional and national workloads.