Reports and Publications

Contacts with Victims - Review of Regional Practices - April 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

BACKGROUND:

With the implementation of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), in November 1992, victims became entitled to obtain certain information about offenders who harmed them, to attend hearings as observers as well as to access the National Parole Board's (NPB) decisions through its decision registry. Since 2001, victims can also present a written statement at parole hearings either in person or by way of audio or videotape. In addition, as part of new program measures, introduced in April 2005, victims can obtain financial travel assistance to attend parole hearings. This new funding, which was put into place in November 2005, is expected to impact on the NPB's activities as the number of victims who attend hearings will likely increase. The NPB's requirement to respond to the various entitlements of victims under the CCRA, coupled with the Board's sustained commitment to provide a good quality service, generate a considerable workload for its staff members across the country.

In the recent years, projects have been undertaken by the NPB to determine the quality of the services that it provides to victims. For instance, in 2003, the NPB conducted a survey of victims to find out if, in their perception, the Board was providing them with information in an effective and timely manner, as well as whether the services NPB provided were effective or in need of improvement. The results of the survey were analysed and presented to the Executive Committee in December 2003. The victims' issues and/or concerns, that could be addressed, were identified and an action plan was presented to the Executive Committee in December 2004.

During 2005, a pilot project was also undertaken by the NPB's Quebec region in an attempt to identify why only a very low percentage of victims were availing themselves of their rights under the CCRA, as well as to find ways of reaching more victims, while keeping with the spirit of the Act. The ensuing findings were outlined in a report which also suggested measures that would make victims more aware of the services offered by NPB.

A number of issues pertaining to the way in which the Board provides services to victims have already been addressed in response to the findings of the above-mentioned projects. Consequently, this review focused mainly on workload issues and the collection of statistical data pertaining to the NPB's regional contacts with victims.

The National Office (NO) of the NPB has been collecting statistical data for quite some time on the various services it provides to victims, such as, observing hearings, accessing the decision registry and making presentations at hearings. Statistical data is also being collected by the National Office on the number of contacts that each region has with victims, their families or their representatives. This type of data can be useful in determining the workload that these contacts generate for the Board, and the resources that are required to respond to victims' entitlements under the CCRA. However, in order to utilize this statistical information adequately, the data must be compiled accurately and consistently throughout the regions.

OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of this review were to:

1. Determine whether there is national consistency in the NPB's practices with respect to contacts with victims;
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 made with a view to promoting national consistency in the manner in which the NPB handles and records its contacts with victims.

METHOD:

Review of the relevant documentation:

• Subsections 142(1-5) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act;
• Memorandum of January 24, 2006 from S. Guay, on the definition of the term “victim”;
• NPB policy on Disclosure to victims;
• NPB statistical reports on victim contacts;
• NPB Fact sheets related to services available to victims; and
• Request forms related to services available to victims.

Development of a questionnaire used during the interviews of the NPB regional staff members who deal with victims' contacts. The questions touched on:

• The workload generated by contacts from victims;
• The manner in which they collect, compile and report statistical data on victim contacts on a monthly basis to the Performance Measurement Division at the National Office; and
• The training provided to RCOs and CAs to assist them in their dealings with victims.

The regional staff members were also invited to provide their comments or observations on any improvements that could be brought to their current practices.

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

RESULTS:

Regional Staff responsibilities:

At the outset, regions were asked who performs the various responsibilities related to victim contacts and how these tasks are distributed amongst the staff members.

In the Pacific, Prairie and Atlantic regions, the RCOs said that they are responsible for handling all contacts with victims, whether in person, by telephone or by letter, except generic letters which are prepared by the CAs but signed by the RCOs.

In the Ontario region, the RCOs handle the more detailed telephone calls and letters, while the CAs respond to simple requests made by telephone or letter.

In the Québec region, the RCOs indicated that they handle the great majority of the activities related to victim contacts as the Communication Clerk is assigned to other duties, such as handling observers' application forms and acknowledgements, distributing faxes and preparing information packages for victims. In this region, the Communication Clerk also acts as Administrative Assistant to the Regional Manager, Conditional Release Program.

Workload issues:

All regions advised that enquiries from victims cover a large range of subjects related to their entitlements under the CCRA, such as, obtaining information about the offender's case, registering as a victim, attending a hearing, making a presentation at a hearing, obtaining access to the decision registry, etc.

The RCOs across the country stressed that the first contacts they have with victims are the most time-consuming. The amount of time that the RCOs said they spend providing information during these first contacts is as follows: the Pacific, Ontario and Atlantic regions indicated that, on average, a first contact lasts between 30 to 40 minutes. The Prairie region mentioned that a first contact from a victim may require as much as a couple of hours from an RCO. In the Québec region, the RCOs said that such contacts may require between 15 minutes to an hour of their time.

The subsequent contacts that the RCOs maintain with victims may extent over a long period of time, depending on the length of the sentence of the offender. According to the RCOs, these contacts, although, in general, not as time-consuming as initial contacts, can also require considerable involvement on the part of the RCOs, depending on which issue the victims are enquiring about.

The RCOs also added that CSC does not handle any initial contacts from victims and refers all such contacts to the NPB. The NPB regional staff commented that CSC's lack of commitment to victim issues, results in a lot of additional work for the RCOs, who must explain to victims matters that fall under CSC's responsibilities.

Other activities related to victims that add to the RCOs' workload, are the numerous contacts they have with CSC's staff members, such as, the Victim Liaison Coordinators as well as with other partners within the criminal justice system and victim groups.

The regional staff also indicated that the 1-800-victim line is always very busy and that a lot of the incoming calls are not related to NPB issues. One region commented that only about 20% to 25% of the calls it receives on the 1-800 line are relevant to NPB matters.

The RCOs were asked how much of their time is spent on victim related activities. They replied that, approximately, 70% to 80% of their time is devoted to victims.

Resource Issues

The regions were also asked whether they felt they had the necessary resources to respond to victims' requests in a timely manner. The Prairie, Quebec and Atlantic regions said that they did, with the recently added resources. The Pacific region answered that they did not have enough resources, and the Ontario region mentioned that they may need an additional CA, in anticipation of the increase in the number of victim contacts due to the victim funding.

All but one region also indicated that they had the necessary resources to respond within the same time span to victims in either of the official languages. The Pacific region said that they had adequate resources for oral responses but that, if a written response was required, it may have to be delayed if translation was necessary.

Regional practices in handling contacts from victims

It was found that the regions have different practices in the way they deal with victims' requests. In some cases, the inconsistencies were even present within a same region. For instance, one element that was discussed pertained to victims requesting that a special condition of “No contact with the victim” be placed on the offender's conditional release. Four of the five regional offices indicated that as a course of action, they inform CSC and put a note on file alerting the Board members to the victim's request. The RCOs of the remaining region, however, said that, although they also inform CSC and ask that the matter be addressed in their report, the RCOs do not alert the Board members to the victim's request. They feel that this is CSC's responsibility but added, however, that CSC sometimes forgets to make any reference to this information in their report to the Board.

With respect to this same subject matter, some RCOs in one particular region indicated that they ask that victims put their requests for special conditions in writing. If the victim refuses, because of their fear of the offender's reaction, some RCOs will ask CSC to look into the matter. However, not all RCOs in that region are in favour of this approach as the offender must be informed, and the RCOs feel that this may be against the victim's wish. The RCOs stressed that they need direction in this area, especially when victims fear putting their request in writing. The RCOs expressed serious concerns over this issue and would like better direction from NO.

It also appears that not all regions require that victims submit written requests. The RCOs in one region felt strongly that a written request should always be submitted by the victims because, without this document, the staff find it difficult to take follow-up actions.

Training issues

All regions indicated that the training they had received was mainly on-the-job training and that the more experienced RCOs train the new staff members.

All RCOs mentioned that they need better direction with respect to the definition of the term “victim” as per Subsection 142 (3) of the CCRA, especially, as it applies to “expanded victim”. The regional staff members find that the lack of proper guidelines makes it difficult for them to apply the victim definition and provide proper explanations to victims. It also causes inconsistencies as the RCOs interpret it in different ways.

The regional staff felt that there was a need for follow-up training and monthly debriefing sessions with colleagues. One region mentioned that, when a new policy is put into place, implementation guidelines should be provided. It was felt that, currently, it is left to the Regional Managers to develop their own guidelines, which creates inconsistencies across the Board.

Several regions also said that they require more information on the new funding initiative for victims.

RCOs from all regions said that they would like to receive training on compassion fatigue. Because of the nature of their clientele, the RCOs said that they have to deal with their own psychological issues and, they stated that they are getting no assistance in respect to their own wellness. They feel they are not being provided with the skills to manage the stress associated to their responsibilities.

The RCOs also stressed that they would appreciate being provided with training on how to handle hostile people or victims with post-traumatic syndrome. Although they said they realize RCOs are not counsellors, they, nevertheless, have to deal with these people and are not sure how they should approach them.

All regional staff members interviewed, emphasized the need for an annual meeting of all RCOs across the Board. They feel that such a meeting would be of great benefit to them as well as to the organization. It would allow the RCOs to discuss problem areas as well as share best practices, which could help promote coherent practices across the country.

Statistics

When asked whether the statistical report that is submitted to the National Office on a monthly basis, accurately reflected their workload, all RCOs were adamant that it did not, and that this information should definitely not be used to establish resource needs. The regional staff enumerated a number of victim related activities that are not taken into account when they compile their report. For instance, the statistical report does not include the many contacts they have with CSC or other criminal justice partners about victims, etc. They also stressed that, in addition, the statistical report does not factor in the amount of time the RCOs spend providing information to victims or other stakeholders, preparing and providing information sessions on victim issues, nor does it include their involvement in the training sessions that are provided to new Board members and staff. A lot of work goes into preparation, travel time and presentation time and none of these activities are captured.

Another concern that was raised by the regions is that they are aware of the important differences between the regions in the way the requested statistical information is compiled. The regional staff members attribute these inconsistencies to the fact that they have different interpretations of the various elements that are covered on the statistical form. They also feel that important elements are missing on this form in order to provide an accurate picture of all pertinent factors.

Additional Victim issues raised by staff:

A concern that was raised by the RCOs is that, when determining whether a person can be registered as a victim, they have no way of verifying the veracity of the self-reported information.

One region raised the issue that victim videos are not being reviewed by the Board if the hearing does not take place and a paper review is done. However, if the victim's statement is written, it is brought to the attention of the voting Board members.

The RCOs also expressed that they find it very difficult to retrieve information from case files that are transferred from one region to another because the information is not recorded on file in the same manner; not all regions use the same colour coding, certain types of documents are not kept on the same side of the file, etc. This issue is of concern to the regions as they fear that this may lead to certain documents being overlooked.

Suggestions made by regional staff

• The Pacific region mentioned its use of the software program (Maximizer) to record all contacts with victims. The staff finds this system very efficient and suggested that it should be used nationally. Other regions, however, were not in favour of adopting this program as they find it causes duplication of work.
• A shared CSC/NPB tombstone information system for victim registration would be a lot more useful and efficient.
• The NPB website should be improved to be more user-friendly as well as linked to CSC's regional sites.
• All the regions suggested that a special application form be developed for victims, combining the various services offered by the Board, i.e. request to observe hearings, to access the decision registry, make presentations at hearings and victim registration. One region added that the application form could be improved further by adding the options of submitting a victim presentation by CD or DVD as well as indicating whether the recorded statement is to be presented at the beginning or at the end of the hearing.

FINDINGS:

National consistency in the NPB practices with respect to contacts with victims

One area that affects consistency in the treatment of requests from victims appears to be linked to the fact that regional staff members do not have a clear understanding of the definition of the term “victim” as defined in the Act. The regions feel that they need more direction and national guidelines with respect to the definition of the term “victim” Subsection 142 (3) of the CCRA”. It is noted, that since the interviews with regional staff were conducted, the NPB Policy, Planning and Operations Division forwarded a memorandum to all regional offices providing more guidance on this matter. At the time of the writing of this report, however, it was not known whether this course of action has resolved this issue.

The information obtained during this review also indicates that there are considerable inconsistencies in the regional practices related to the handling of victims' requests. In some instances, the inconsistencies were even present within a same region.

National consistency in the collection and reporting of statistical information

Numerous inconsistencies exist in the way the regional staff members interpret and, hence, record the data on the statistical form. This causes important variations and inaccuracies in the statistical reports that are provided to the National Office by the regions.

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

Considering the inconsistencies between the 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:

All regions provided suggestions as to how victim documentation should be placed on file to ensure that they are easily identifiable. Many of the suggestions were good practices, however, one model has yet to be adopted as a best practice and implemented across the country.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• In order to promote consistency in the service rendered to victims, it is recommended that:
  • National Office provide more guidance to the regions;
  • A national procedures manual be developed;
  • Communication between the regions and the NO be improved; and
  • An annual national meeting of all RMCRTs, RCOs and CA be considered.
• Some of the variations in the manner in which services are rendered to victims appear to be related, at least in part, to training issues. The majority of staff members across the regions expressed a need for more focussed training in this area. Accordingly, it is recommended that appropriate training opportunities be provided to all staff members who must provide services to victims in order to enable them 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 continued training related to victim issues be provided to Board members.
• One of the important concerns raised across the Board was the fact that the offender case files are not maintained in a consistent manner, which causes confusion when files are transferred from region to region. It is, therefore, recommended that measures be undertaken to develop national guidelines to ensure that file organization practices are consistent throughout the regions.
• Considering the implementation of OMS-M, it is recommended that the possibility of retrieving statistical information related to victims from OMS be assessed.
• As a result of inconsistencies in the interpretation, collection and reporting of the data, it is also recommended that these issues be clarified prior to developing indicators for regional and national workloads