Reports and Publications

Observers at Hearings - 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 permit individuals, who apply in writing, to attend as observers at NPB hearings subject to certain conditions.

While the NPB has been providing services to observers, since the implementation of the CCRA in 1992, it has never undertaken a review of its regional practices with regards 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 to attend NPB hearings as observers.

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 to observe hearings;
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 the view to promote national consistency in the services the NPB provides in relation to observers.

METHOD:

Review of the relevant documentation:

• Subsection 140 (4)-(6) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act;
• NPB statistics on observers (2000-2005);
• NPB policy on observers at hearings;
• NPB Fact sheet on observers;
• Request form to observe a hearing; and
• Documents related to the processing observers' requests, used by the NPB regional offices.

Development of a questionnaire to be used during the interviews of the NPB regional staff members responsible for the processing of observers' requests. The questions touched on:

• The procedures followed from receipt of the request to observe a hearing to the actual attendance of the observer at the hearing;
• The training provided to the RCOs and the CAs 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 observer requests 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 current observer process.

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:

1. Procedures for processing requests to observe hearings:

Staff responsibilities:

The information obtained during this review indicates that, although all regions have Communication Assistants (Pacific, Prairies and Ontario regions) or Communication Clerks (Québec and Atlantic regions) and Regional Communication Officers, there are variations between the regions in the way that the various responsibilities have been distributed in the handling of requests to observe hearings.

Application form:

There also appear to be differences throughout the regions in the treatment of requests to observe hearings. For instance, three of the regions send a covering letter and the fact sheet on the observer process to individuals who request an application form. The two other regions indicated that they do not systematically send a covering letter. Sometimes, they just enclose the fact sheet.

Upon receipt of an application form, all regions ensure that all the information that is required of the applicant has been provided. If information is missing, the RCOs will either call the applicant or send a letter (depending on the situation) to obtain the missing details. All regions agreed that the applicant's signature is essential and, all but one region mentioned that they will not accept requests through e-mail as they need the signature. The one region that accepts requests submitted through e-mail said that it only did so for people who already had been exempted from CSC's security check.

Security clearance:

With respect to the security clearance that must be completed by CSC prior to observers attending a hearing, all NPB regional offices appear to have a similar process. NPB staff sends a letter to the offender, through the case management coordinator, advising that observers will be attending the hearing. At the same time, the CSC's Case Management Coordinator is asked to proceed with the security check and obtain the warden's approval of the entry of the observers at the institution. In all regions, the security check is requested once the hearing has been scheduled to take place. It should be noted that CSC's security check is only valid for the institution where the hearing is scheduled to take place. If an observer wishes to attend a hearing in a different institution, another security check must be completed by the appropriate authority of that institution. NPB staff members across the country have reported that, the period for which a security clearance is valid may vary between six months to a year depending on the institution or the type of requestor. For instance, in one region, the security clearance, for an observer who is a supporter of the offender, is good for one year, whereas the security clearance for a victim is only valid for six months. NPB staff feels that six months is too short a time period and requires more work on their part.

Another CSC practice that appears to be inconsistent is that in the Pacific and the Atlantic regions, Members of Parliament are required to submit to a security check whereas in the other regions they are not.

Most regions said that CSC's security clearance process was completed on time and that generally, they obtain good cooperation from CSC. In the Pacific region, however, most of the time CSC omits to advise NPB of the results of the security checks and the RCOs must chase after CSC to be informed of the outcome. In the Ontario region, the RCOs said that although they send the request to CSC as soon as the hearing appearance order is out (usually 21 days prior to hearing), NPB gets confirmation only one week prior to the hearing. This makes it difficult for observers who must make their travel arrangements at the last minute.

Acceptance/Refusal of observers:

All the regions indicated that very few requests to observe hearings are refused. For the Pacific region, a lack of space was the most common reason for refusal as their hearing rooms are small. The Pacific region staff members further indicated that even if the hearing room was larger, they would not allow more than eight observers per hearing. They commented that they would not allow 30 or 40 observers to attend a hearing nor would they accept to hold a hearing in a gymnasium, as is done in other regions, as they feel it is unfair to the offender. The four other regions stated that most of their refusals were based on reasons of security, i.e. observer has an outstanding charge, or a criminal record or is a co-offender. All regions provide the applicant with the reasons for refusal, mostly through a telephone call. The Ontario region also sends a follow up letter.

Deadlines:

The NPB regional offices have set different deadlines for accepting a request to observe hearings. In the Pacific region, a two-week notice is required in most cases. The Prairie regional staff members maintain that they are fairly flexible. For instance, the deadline for the media is five days prior to the hearing date. The Ontario region usually requires a 15-day notice from media but in an urgent situation, it will accept a request made five days prior to the hearing or even two days as long as the requestor has been pre-approved by CSC (security clearance). The Québec region also has a fifteen-day deadline as CSC needs one week to complete the security check. In urgent situations, CSC requires at least three days to complete the security check. The Atlantic region is quite flexible and will accept requests one day in advance of the hearing, as long as CSC authorizes access and the offender is advised and does not object to the presence of the observer. In all regions, however, every effort is made to accommodate victims, as long as CSC can complete the security check and the offender can be informed in time.

Supporters of the offender:

One area where there appears to be important inconsistencies between the regional practices, is in its dealings with individuals who are supporters of the offender and wish to attend his hearing.

In the Québec and Ontario regions, individuals who are supporters of the offender must submit a request to observe a hearing if they wish to attend the hearing. According to the staff members interviewed, this was requested by the Board Members as CSC was bringing just about anyone to the hearings without the Board's prior knowledge. For the Board Members, this was a security issue. In the Ontario Region, the offender is allowed three people plus an assistant. In the Québec region, however, up to five or six family members are allowed to attend the hearing. In that region, when there is only one supporter, CSC will do the security screening but does not submit an observer request to NPB or, if the offender supporters have already received security clearance by CSC as visitors, they are invited by CSC staff members to attend the hearing, without NPB having been informed of the presence of these additional observers. It can become a security issue if a victim is also attending the hearing.

The Pacific, Prairies and Atlantic regions, however, do not process any offender supporters as observers. The Pacific region requests that CSC inform NPB of the presence of an offender's supporters at least two weeks in advance. However, this is not always done and it causes problems when space is limited. Often, extra supporters show up unannounced and are refused if no room is available.

In the Prairie region, CSC will clear three to four individuals and one is designated as a spokesperson. The offender will usually provide the name of his assistant on the NPB Procedural Safeguard Declaration. For the other supporters, NPB does not usually know in advance. If the victim is to attend the hearing, NPB staff contact CSC to ensure the safe management of both groups and that the victim does not come into contact with the offender's supporters.

In the Atlantic region, up to six offender supporters are accepted. CSC informs NPB in advance as to how many people will be attending the hearing. The RCO will discuss this with the Board members and call CSC if they anticipate any problem.

Types of observers:

The regional staff members were also asked which types of observers, i.e. victim, students, media, request to attend hearings the most often. For three of the regions, namely Pacific, Ontario and Prairies, their most frequent clients are victims. For the Québec and Atlantic regions, it is students. In the Atlantic region, for unknown reasons, very few victims ask to attend hearings. However, all regions agreed that victims require the most involvement on the part of the RCOs.

Suggestions from staff:

The regional staff members interviewed also made various comments or suggestions, which they felt could improve the process or procedures in dealing with the initial application forms, such as,

• A blanket authorisation to attend hearings for certain frequent users, such as media, MPs, CAC, would be useful and time-saving;
• A fixed period of security clearance validity by CSC; a period of 2 years was suggested;
• Access to a Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) terminal by NPB. This would allow NPB to complete a criminal record check on potential observers, and;
• The need for a national procedures manual, which would ensure regional and national consistency.

2. Procedures when accompanying observers at hearings:

Types of observers accompanied

At the outset, it should be mentioned that not all observers are accompanied at hearings by NPB regional staff members. It appears that the regions have established different practices as to who they do or do not accompany.

• Media: All regions accompany members of the media except the Québec region whose position is to not accompany journalists.
• Students: All regions accompany students, except the Prairie region. The RMCRT of this region feels that it is more important to concentrate their efforts on message carriers, such as crown counsels etc. According to the RMCRT, the best approach is to offer to students that NPB give a class presentation at their school at a later date.
• Community (Citizen) Advisory Committees (CAC): All regions accompany them except the Prairie region. This region feels that the members of CAC are well aware of the process and do not need to be accompanied by NPB staff members.
• Police and other members of the Criminal Justice System: Pacific, Ontario, Québec and Atlantic regions accompany them. In the Prairie region, it is done on a case by case situation. For instance, NPB staff from that region would not accompany someone who is cognizant of the NPB process and is an experienced observer.

The only types of observers for which all five regions have a similar practice, are with regard to Members of Parliament and other VIPs as well as victims. All regions indicated that victims, particularly, were a priority and that the RCOs made every effort to accompany them to hearings. Members of Parliament and other VIPs are usually accompanied by the Regional Manager.

When observers cannot be accompanied at the hearing, the regions have different practices in the way they prepare these people for the hearing process.

For instance, in the Ontario region, when no one can accompany the observers, the Hearing Officer will be asked to cover for the RCO and answer the observers' questions. In all other regions, the Hearing Officers are not asked to fill in for the RCOs.

The Prairie region indicated that because of the long distances and the travel costs involved, they cannot accompany all observers. However, the RCOs stressed that they make sure to brief all observers through a telephone call prior to the hearing. The RCOs also encourage these observers to call the NPB office after having attended the hearing, if they feel they need more information. The Prairie region indicated, however, that most people do not call back after the hearing.

In the Quebec region, the RCOs mentioned that, in a case where they would not be able to accompany a victim, they would ask CSC's Victim Liaison Coordinator to provide assistance to the victim who will attend the hearing. The Atlantic region indicated that they accompany all observers except those from Newfoundland and Labrador, in which case they rely on a CSC senior parole officer from Newfoundland to accompany these observers. The Pacific, Prairie and Ontario regions, on the other hand, stressed that, in such situations, they would not ask CSC personnel to accomplish this task.

Multiple observers attending hearing:

Another question raised was how many staff members accompany a large number of observers or when different types of observers are attending one particular hearing. Again here, the regional practices varied across the Board.

In the Pacific region, if different types of observers are to attend one particular hearing, one RCO is assigned to each type. For instance, if there are three types of observers, i.e. victim, MP and CAC, they send three RCOs.

In the Prairie, Ontario and Québec regions, although they do not assign one RCO per type of observers, a second RCO will assist, if deemed necessary.

In the Atlantic region, if a large group or various types of observers are attending a hearing, or if three or more victims are present, a second staff member, in most cases, the communication clerk, will assist the RCO.

RCOs from different regions indicated that they would like a limit set on the number of observers assigned per RCO. RCOs from one region mentioned that having to deal with many students, for example, is difficult and a large group cannot be handled effectively by one person. An RCO from another region recalled having had to deal with ten observers and found it to be excessive. Some RCOs suggested that four or five observers per RCO would be a manageable number.

Preparation required for hearing:

The RCOs also provided further details on how they prepare themselves when they must accompany observers at hearings. The RCOs of the Pacific region, mentioned that, sometimes, the day prior to the hearing, they go to the institutions that are close by to ensure that the hearing rooms are set up properly. For the institutions that are not in the vicinity of the office, the RCOs contact CSC personnel by telephone and ask them to make sure the hearing room is ready. In that region, the RCOs also indicated that they read the Assessment for Decision the night before the hearing to acquaint themselves with the case in order to be better prepared to answer victims' questions. For instance, they provide the victims with CSC's recommendation. The RCOs feel that this allows them to anticipate and better control the victims' reactions. In the Pacific region, prior to the hearing, the offender is also instructed by NPB staff not to look at the observers, especially when they are victims.

The four other regions do not send an RCO to the institution to ensure the hearing room is set up properly. They may telephone the institution if they anticipate any problem in this respect. The RCOs from these four regions said that they do not provide victims with CSC's recommendation on the conditional release of the offender. With respect to giving instructions to the offender, prior to the hearing, not to stare at the observers, the RCOs of these regions feel that it is up to the Board members to intervene in such situations. The RCOs, however, felt that it might be a good idea to establish a protocol for the offenders on how they should behave during a hearing.

Briefing of observers:

The RCOs and CA were asked whether they brief observers on the hearing process prior to the hearing. All regions indicated that they do. Briefings done while at the institution, however, differ from one region to the other. The Pacific, Prairie, Quebec and Atlantic regions, always provide a briefing on site to the observers they accompany. The Ontario region only briefs victims and media people. Some regions mentioned that, if times permits, Board members will also spend a few minutes with observers to answer some of their questions.

The RCOs mentioned that the questions asked by the observers centre on how the process works, the forms of release the Board members will consider and the possible outcomes of the hearing. When the observer is a victim, the NPB staff members will show them the hearing room prior to the start of the hearing, where they can sit, how to enter and how to exit the room, etc. In some situations, the RCOs may warn the victim that some details of the crime may be discussed during the hearing.

The RCOs felt that briefings should be provided to all observers who wish to be briefed, as it ensures that the process is well understood and that the right message is passed along by these people. The RCOs recognized, however, that due to limited resources, they cannot accompany and brief all observers.

Debriefing of observers:

The RCOs were also asked whether they debrief the observers, on site, after the hearing. The responses received varied. The Pacific and Ontario regional staff both indicated that they always debrief victims and the media, however, the Pacific regional staff members added that they do not debrief students. The RCOs from the Prairie and Atlantic regions, on their part, said they debrief all those they accompany. The Québec RCOs indicated that they always debrief victims and often times, other types of observers.

The information that the observers seek following a hearing relates to explanations or clarification on what has happened during the proceedings, i.e. the jargon used, definitions of the various programs that are mentioned, etc. In cases where a release is granted, the observers ask questions about how the offender will be supervised. If, on the other hand, the offender remains incarcerated, the observers want to know what will be the next course of action in his case. When the observers are victims, often, all they want to do is express their feelings about what they have just observed.

Impact of observers' presence on hearing process:

When questioned as to whether the presence of observers has any impact on the hearing process, the staff interviewed indicated that they do not feel it has any influence on the outcome of the hearing but that the process takes longer. Board members usually go more into detail and put more emphasis on the risk factors. They tend to be more careful about providing specifics of the case, which makes for a longer process. The Board members try to avoid the use of acronyms and it is more awkward for Board members to go into detailed description of the crime when victims are present. All regions indicated that except for rare exceptions, observers have not caused any disruptions to the hearing process.

Suggestions from staff:

The RMCRT and RCOs also provided observations or comments, which they felt could improve this part of the process.

• It would be a good idea to have a protocol for the offender and his supporters on how to comport themselves during a hearing.
• The need for larger hearing rooms. The RCOs in the Pacific region indicated that observers have had to be refused because the room was too small. They stressed the fact that a lot of work has gone into preparing these observers for the hearing, which is all in vain as the person cannot attend the hearing.
• A regional staff member commented that it is important that victims be accompanied at hearings by an NPB staff member. This service must be maintained and should be supported by an NPB policy. This person expressed that if this commitment is not supported by policy, we cannot ensure that CSC will participate as they have other priorities. He reminded that all first contacts from victims are referred to NPB.
• All regions wish for hearing rooms with better acoustics as it is often a challenge for observers to be able to hear the interventions of all the participants.
• In some regions, the RCOs are of the opinion that CSC's Victim Liaison Coordinator should attend all hearings/briefings where victims are present to answer the questions that fall under CSC's responsibilities.
• One region indicated that its Board members needed more training on how to deal with victims observing hearings.
• Some regions indicated that the CSC security guards, who attend the hearings when victims are present, should be briefed on what is expected of them. Often the guards are not clear on their role at the hearing or on what they should watch for, especially when both the victims and the offender's supporters are present. The Pacific region further added that, although there is a regional agreement with CSC that a security guard must be present when a victim attends a hearing, these officers are often not available and the hearing must be delayed until security is provided.
• There is a need for appropriate waiting rooms for observers at the institutions.

3. Training Issues:

RCOs from all but one region felt that the training they had received did not meet their needs. The training that had been provided consisted mostly of on-the-job training. Usually, the RMCRT and the more experienced RCOs train the new staff members. Since they have had no formal training or guidelines on their various responsibilities, the RCOs indicated that some of their views differ from one RCO to another on certain issues and they are, therefore, passing on different information to the new staff members. This leads to more inconsistencies in the work they do, both regionally and nationally.

The RCOs from most regions across the country stressed the need for more training and the importance that it be made available to all of them. The areas where they feel they need training the most are:

• How to deal with traumatized individuals (victims). Would like to get training from people who are experts on victim issues;
• How to handle difficult cases, hostile people;
• How to handle media: The RCOs from one region mentioned that they must sometimes deal with these people, and they feel that they need appropriate training in this area; and
• How to deal with compassion fatigue. The RCOs indicated that, although they are not providing counselling to victims, they are frequently hearing about tragic events, and dealing with traumatized people is psychologically taxing. The RCOs find that interacting with victims is very difficult and exhausting. They added that this stressful part of their work is not recognized by management, and that not enough emphasis is placed on the emotional aspect of their work. They further stated that appropriate support is lacking in this area.

The RCOs from the Atlantic region felt that, for the most part, the training they had received met their needs. They indicated that most of them had been doing their job for many years while others had acquired experience and knowledge through their previous responsibilities as Hearing Officers prior to becoming RCOs. The RCOs and CA of this region also mentioned that they hold weekly meetings with their manager, at which time they discuss difficult cases and share best practices. The RCOs and CA found this practice to be very helpful to them both in terms of the support and guidance it provides to them.

4. Statistics:

One of the first questions asked in this area was whether the regions felt that the statistical data that is being collected for the National Office (NO) accurately reflected their workload. All answered that it definitely did not. All regions stressed that NO should definitely not rely on the current statistics to measure the RCOs workload as they do not accurately reflect the work they do. For instance, the statistics reported do not capture the time they spend doing briefings, travel time, the numerous e-mails and telephone calls related to observers' requests, the time to set up hearing rooms. In addition, there is also the issue of human error in providing the correct information. The statistics do not capture the large amount of work that has been done on the part of the RCOs in preparing observers for hearings which end up being postponed or adjourned. In addition, the statistics do not take into account their involvement in community activities, i.e. public speaking engagements, (preparation time and giving the presentation), nor their involvement in the training of new staff and Board members.

It also became very clear when interviewing the regional staff members that there was great disparity in the way they interpreted the statistical forms and reported the data to NO. The issues and problem areas that were raised in this matter touch on many aspects.

All the regions stressed that collecting data is time consuming for them, and they are not convinced of the pertinence or accuracy of the data reported. They expressed the need for close re-examination of the collection and reporting of this information.

5. Workload and resource allocation:

The regions were asked whether they felt they had adequate resources to respond in a timely manner to requests to observe hearings. The Prairie, Québec and Atlantic regions responded that they had the necessary resources, while the Pacific region felt it did not, in spite of the newly allocated staff. They said that the volume of requests required that they work overtime. The Ontario region said that the situation was a lot better now with the additional resources but that they could use an additional communication assistant.

When asked whether they had sufficient resources to be able to accompany observers at hearings, the Prairie, Quebec and Atlantic regions felt that they did with the new staff members. The Pacific region also felt that they did but pointed out that in some instances, they had to take work home to read the decision sheets to prepare for upcoming hearings. The Ontario region indicated that when possible, an RCO will accompany observers but also commented to the effect that if you have an organisation that provides a service, it should be the same throughout the country.

6. General Comments from regional staff members:

• The RCOs said they realized that they have different ways of dealing with observers' requests and feel they lack proper guidelines on certain issues. For instance, although denial of observer requests is rare, the RCOs have not clear guidelines on the interpretation of the criteria and, therefore, their application of those criteria may differ.
• They deplore that there is no opportunity for all RCOs across the country to meet with each other. They feel that a national meeting of all RCOs would allow them to share best practices, discuss difficult situations and promote national consistency in the manner in which they treat observers' applications.
• RCOs feel that the NPB website should be improved. The regions stated that the photos of hearing rooms and institutions would be a good tool but it has not yet been completed.
• The Québec region commented that they did not have enough observers in their region and that more community presentations should be done to encourage the presence of various types of observers such as, members of the criminal justice system. Teachers should also be encouraged to accompany students. The RCOs from this region also felt that members of the media should be accompanied to ensure that they pass on the right message to the public.
• Some RCOs in the Ontario region were concerned about their safety when hearings take place in the office. They mentioned that their region is the only one allowing this practice.
• Some RCOs are of the opinion that video conferencing for victims who wish to attend a hearing would be much less intimidating for them.

FINDINGS:

National consistency in the NPB practices in the treatment of requests to observe hearings:

• Requests to observe hearings appear to be handled in a timely manner by all regions. Every effort is made to accommodate observers, especially victims, and to ensure that they can attend hearings even in cases where the request is submitted very shortly before the scheduled hearing.
• There appears to be some disparity in the way requests to observe hearings are processed both regionally and nationally. Although the requests are treated diligently, observers are not getting the same service depending on which region or even, in some cases, which staff member is handling the request.
• The security clearance process that must be completed by CSC, prior to observers entering an institution, seems to vary from region to region and even from institution to institution. Although, nationally, CSC's cooperation in completing the security checks in a timely manner was generally good, in one region, however, CSC regularly fails to advise NPB of the results of the security checks. This requires that NPB chase after CSC to obtain the results. Other issues raised regarding security checks pertain to the length of time for which CSC's authorizations are valid and the different regional practices with respect to who must submit to these security checks.
• With respect to how many observers are allowed to attend a particular hearing, the regions appear to have different views and practices. For instance, some regions will accept as many observers as the room can accommodate, whereas, one region mentioned that it would not exceed eight observers even if the room could accommodate more. The issue of whether a limit should be set on the number of observers needs to be discussed and clarified.
• There also exist different practices in the way the regions handle the presence of supporters of the offender who wish to attend a particular hearing. Two of our regional offices require that offenders' supporters submit an official observer's request, whereas the other regions do not. In the latter case, Board members, in some instances, are not aware of the possible attendance of additional people at the hearing, until the very last minute. Although the offenders' supporters have obtained CSC's security clearance, this only authorizes their presence in the institution. The authorisation, as to who may attend the hearing itself, should remain NPB's ultimate decision. Furthermore, as section 9.3 of NPB's policy manual stipulates, persons who wish to attend the hearing should make a request sufficiently far in advance to ensure that the Board can make an informed decision regarding authorization. In addition, last minute approval of certain observers could cause unforeseen problems such as, possible tensions between the victims and the offender's supporters. Furthermore, if the room cannot accommodate everyone, Board members and staff are left to determine at the last minute who will be allowed to attend and, in some cases, this could cause frictions and/or delays in the hearing process.
• The regional offices also apply different deadlines for the submission of requests to observe hearing. NPB's policy on this issue is not clear and only provides a deadline for requests submitted by the media.
• Another disparity between the various regions relates to the number of offenders' supporters that are permitted to attend a hearing. The numbers fluctuate between three to six people, excluding the assistant.
• Of all the different types of individuals who request to observe hearings, victims require the most involvement on the part of the RCOs. The Board has made a special commitment towards this group and the regional staff members make every effort to maintain a high level of quality in the service and support they provide to victims. One area, of the observer process where improvements could be made, is by developing a special observer application form for victims. This form would include the various services which the Board can provide to victims, i.e. victim registration, observer requests, access to the decision registry and presentations at hearings. It is felt that such an application form would eliminate duplication of information and render the process more user-friendly for victims.
• Regional practices regarding which types of observers are accompanied by staff members at hearings are not consistent. This results in a different service being provided to a particular type of observer depending on which region that person is dealing with. As an example, in all but one region, journalists are always accompanied at the hearings by a NPB staff member. That person is there to answer questions that the media may have on the NPB hearing or decision-making process to ensure that they have a proper understanding of the Board's role and responsibilities in the case and that accurate information may be passed on to the public.
• There are considerable regional differences in the practices regarding briefings that are provided prior to and after a hearing. Some regions will provide briefings to all observers they accompany whereas other regions will only provide briefings to certain types of observers.
• The regional offices also have different practices on how they provide assistance to observers they cannot accompany at hearings. For instance, one region will ask the Hearing Officer to assist and answer the observers' questions, whereas the other regions do not require this of their Hearing Officers. One region contacts all observers it cannot accompany, prior to the hearing, to brief them on the process whereas, in another region, it is a CSC Parole officer who accompanies the observer.
• The regional practices also differ with respect to the number of staff members that will accompany observers when there are different types, i.e. victims, students and an MP, or a large number of observers, i.e. many students attending one particular hearing. In one region, if there are three different types of observer, one RCO will be assigned per group. In three other regions, when there is more than one group of observers, a second RCO will assist and, in one region, the Communication Clerk will accompany and assist the RCO in this task.
• It appears that sometimes, there are too many persons for one RCO to assist in an effective manner. A limit of four or five observers per RCO was suggested as a manageable number.
• The fact that there is no national procedures manual related to the observers' process seems to lead to inconsistencies and variations in the manner in which requests are treated in the various regional offices.
• The RCOs and CAs across the regions outlined a number of areas where they feel they need more training or direction from National Office to be more effective in their work.
• The great majority of RCOs and CAs expressed that their frequent dealings with traumatized persons and listening to victims describing tragic events is psychologically taxing. They feel that interacting with victims can be both stressful and exhausting and that this does not appear to be recognized by management. They feel that not enough emphasis is placed on the emotional part of their work and that appropriate support is lacking in this area.

National consistency in the collection and reporting of statistical information:

• The statistical data, as they are currently being collected and reported by the regional offices, are inaccurate. This situation has been caused by a number of factors. For instance, there appears to be ambiguity in the definition and interpretation of the various elements that appear on the statistical form. This has resulted in important disparity in the way the various elements are understood, registered and, ultimately reported. Regional staff members also expressed their lack of understanding as to what these statistics were really trying to capture. Another factor that affects the accuracy of the information provided is 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 observers' requests. As a result, these statistics cannot be used to assess regional workload and establish resource needs.

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 where they can discuss difficult cases and get appropriate direction and support as well as share best practices with their colleagues. The RCOs and CA feel that these meetings are very useful and necessary.
• Requiring that offenders' supporters, who wish to attend the hearing, submit an official request to observe hearings, provides NPB with a better indication and control over who and how many people will be attending a hearing and, prevents some unexpected situations.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

• In order to give better direction to the regions, and promote coherence in the service provided to observers at hearings, it is recommended that:
  • The policy on observers be revisited;
  • A national procedures manual be developed;
  • Communications between regions and NO be improved; and
  • An annual national meeting of all RMCRTs, RCOs and CAs be considered.
• Various issues have been raised which pertain to the security clearances that must be completed before an observer can enter an institution and attend a hearing. Although these security clearance practices fall under CSC's responsibilities, they have workload implications for the NPB. As such, NPB should discuss this matter with its CSC counterparts in order to resolve these issues.
• Some variations in the service provided to observers appear to be related to training issues. The need for more focussed training on a number of subjects has been made abundantly clear by the great majority of staff members interviewed. It is therefore, recommended that appropriate training opportunities be provided to all staff members who are dealing with observers to ensure that they are equipped with the necessary tools that will enable them to perform their duties and maintain or improve on the quality of the service that is being provided.
• As a result of inconsistencies in the collection and reporting of the data, it is recommended that these issues be clarified prior to developing indicators for regional and national workloads.