FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14

6 downloads 18489 Views 2MB Size Report
Using Big Data Skills for ... Corporate Reporting System (CRS) – Offender data ... Used for ad-hoc reporting; data extraction for research and analysis. • Tools:.
Using Big Data Skills for evidence-informed decision-making in corrections EUROPRIS Workshop Oslo, Norway - November 14, 2012 Larry Motiuk, PhD A/Assistant Commissioner, Policy Correctional Service Canada

Outline

Part 1 - An Overview Part 2 - Data Warehouse Services (DWS) Part 3 – Performance Measurement and Management Reporting (PMMR) Part 4 – Integrated Strategic Business Planning (ISBP)

2

Correctional Service Canada Coast to Coast to Coast

PACIFIC REGION

8

14

QUEBEC REGION

PRAIRIE REGION

1 12

20

10

2

17

ATLANTIC REGION

6

5 ONTARIO REGION

8

22

19

4

RHQ - Moncton

3

RHQ - Abbotsford RHQ - Laval

RHQ - Saskatoon RHQ - Kingston

NHQ - OTTAWA

“Changing Lives, Protecting Canadians”

3

Correctional Service Canada MISSION The Correctional Service of Canada, as part of the criminal justice system and respecting the rule of law, contributes to public safety by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control.

VA L U E S Respect

Fairness

Accountability

Inclusiveness Professionalism

4

Correctional Service Canada

5

Correctional Service Canada

SENTENCE LENGTH

6

Correctional Service Canada

DIVERSITY

7

Correctional Service Canada

CUSTODY LEVEL

8

Correctional Service Canada

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

9

Delivering on Our Mandate

10

CSC / PBC Data Warehouse •

The Data Warehouse is a central data repository for the entire Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and Parole Board of Canada (PBC) organizations. The purpose is to have an unique data source for reporting.

• Enable both organisations to consolidate data from several sources



Services provided by Data Warehouse Services are: • Data warehousing • Business intelligence reporting

CSC / PBC Data Warehouse (continued)

• Helps in maintaining historical records and analyzing the data to gain a better understanding of the business and to improve the business • The data in the Data warehouse is denormalized to facilitate and improve the extraction performance. • Data is loaded at regular intervals from operational databases • The Data Warehouse is a set of databases designed for query analysis and reporting rather than for transaction processing

Users • CSC/PBC staff and managers provided with appropriate tools for direct access to Data bases for research, analysis and reporting • CSC/PBC staff and managers accessing reporting systems developed, maintained and supported by DWS. Systems such as • Resource Management Tool (RMT) – for finance • Conditional Release Information Management System (CRIMS) – for Parole Board of Canada (PBC). • CSC and Public Safety Human Resource Reporting System • Corporate Reporting System (CRS) – Offender data

• The data warehouse is a major source of data for PMMR systems such as PRIME, RADAR, Performance Direct.

Some Definitions • Extract, Transform and Load (ETL) : Describe a process flow of data. Extraction of data from a source, transformation of data (ex. Recoding, reformatting, denormalization) internally in a staging area and Load of data to a target destination in their final format.

• Staging Area : Physical working space where the data transformation occurred.

• Denormalization :is the process of attempting to optimize the read performance of a database by adding redundant data or by grouping data

• Data Integration : Consist to create links between data of different sources ( ex. Operation (OMS) and Finance (Budget))

• Datamart : Is a subset of specific data of the Data warehouse providing a specific view to a client.

Other Definitions • Cube : Multi-dimensional database allowing data display manipulation • Operational Data Store (ODS) : Use as a staging area to collect and gather all operational data. • Business Intelligence (BI) : A broad category of applications & technologies for gathering, providing access to, and analyzing data for the purpose of helping enterprise users make effective and good quality business decisions. It is imperative that you have a comprehensive & depth knowledge of all of the factors that affect your business.

Overview of the DWS Platform

Overview of the DWS Platform(continued) • Data is refreshed on a daily, weekly and monthly basis

• To ease reporting activities and improve performance, data is denormalized in the reporting databases. • Reporting databases are organized in: • Current year • Mid year snapshot • Multi year snapshot (up to five years)

DWS technology • The entire DWS platform is based on Oracle Technology • Running from the following environments : • Tru64 (Unix) for offender based data. Work for migration from the obsolete Tru64 to the new HP/Linux is in progress. Targeting Spring 2015. • and HP/UX for Finance and HR data

• Using SQL, PL/SQL and Unix Shell Scripts

DWS Reporting Applications In house developed and maintained applications • Corporate Reporting System (CRS) • Based on Oracle Express technology • Using Olap concept (CUBE) • Oracle 10g Database

• Resource Management Tool (RMT) and Conditional Release Information Management System (CRIMS) CSC and Public Safety HR reporting systems • Based on Oracle Discoverer Plus technology • Using Olap concept (CUBE) • Oracle 10g (RMT, CRIMS) / Oracle 11g (HR reporting)

• ETLs based on SQL and PL/SQL feeding PMMR reporting systems

Other Reporting Tools

Other Reporting Tools • Direct Access to DWS databases is granted based on ‘need to Know’ • Used for ad-hoc reporting; data extraction for research and analysis • Tools: • Oracle Discoverer Web: • Widely used by the CSC community (users such as International Transfer; PSS, ITIMS and others

• Other tools: Excel, SAS, SQL, PL/SQL • (users such as Research CORCAN, Program Integration, Grievance, Victims, Performance Measurement/Assurance, OMS Specialist…)

Program Alignment Architecture: Organizing the work

22

Reporting on our Job

23

Correctional Continuum: Milestone Activities for Parole Officers

START OF SENTENCE PROVINCIAL REMAND

PLACEMENT INSTITUTION

OFFENDER INTAKE ASSESSMENT

DAY PAROLE UNSUPERVISED TEMPORARY ABSENCE WORK RELEASE

STATUTORY RELEASE WARRANT EXPIRY DATE FULL PAROLE

Long Term Supervision Order

24

Correctional Continuum: Milestone Activities for Parole Officers (cont’d)

START OF SENTENCE PROVINCIAL REMAND

PLACEMENT INSTITUTION

OFFENDER INTAKE ASSESSMENT

DAY PAROLE UNSUPERVISED TEMPORARY ABSENCE WORK RELEASE

STATUTORY RELEASE WARRANT EXPIRY DATE FULL PAROLE

Long Term Supervision Order

COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 Preliminary Assessment  PSCA (Post Sentence Community Assessment)  CRS (Custody Rating Scale)

25

Correctional Continuum: Milestone Activities for Parole Officers (cont’d)

START OF SENTENCE PROVINCIAL REMAND

PLACEMENT INSTITUTION

OFFENDER INTAKE ASSESSMENT

COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 Community Strategy requests / CAT (if applicable)  Community Assessments

DAY PAROLE UNSUPERVISED TEMPORARY ABSENCE WORK RELEASE

STATUTORY RELEASE WARRANT EXPIRY DATE FULL PAROLE

Long Term Supervision Order

INSTITUTION REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 Immediate Needs Assessment (Security, Health)  Static Factors Assessment (Criminal History Record- Youth & Adult, Offence Severity Record)  SIR (Statistical Information on Recidivism scale)  Dynamic Factors and Identification Analysis (7 need domains)  Supplementary Assessments (Literacy, Vocational, Psychological, etc)  Engagement (Accountability & Motivation)  CRS (Custody Rating Scale) / Penitentiary Placement  Reintegration Potential (CRS + SIR + DFIA)  Correctional Plan / Criminal Profile

26

Correctional Continuum: Milestone Activities for Parole Officers (cont’d)

START OF SENTENCE PROVINCIAL REMAND

PLACEMENT INSTITUTION

OFFENDER INTAKE ASSESSMENT

DAY PAROLE UNSUPERVISED TEMPORARY ABSENCE WORK RELEASE

COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 Community Strategy requests / CAT (if applicable)  Community Assessments

STATUTORY RELEASE WARRANT EXPIRY DATE FULL PAROLE

Long Term Supervision Order

INSTITUTION REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 Admission casework record  Program referrals  Enrollment in education, employment, reintegration programs  Correctional Plan update  Security Reclassification  ETA Assessment for Decision (if applicable)  Information Sharing  Parole Hearing (if applicable)

27

Correctional Continuum: Milestone Activities for Parole Officers (cont’d)

START OF SENTENCE PROVINCIAL REMAND

PLACEMENT INSTITUTION

OFFENDER INTAKE ASSESSMENT

DAY PAROLE UNSUPERVISED TEMPORARY ABSENCE WORK RELEASE

COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 Initial interview and CWR (checklist)  Staff safety assessment (tandem)  Supervision (Frequency of contact) /collateral contacts  Case conferences  Casework Records  Urinalysis 90 days (possible)  A4D/Community Strategy parole eligibility  Information sharing  Boards and Hearings  Community Assessments

STATUTORY RELEASE WARRANT EXPIRY DATE FULL PAROLE

Long Term Supervision Order

INSTITUTION REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 Security Level review / transfer (possible)  Enrollment in programs, education and employment  Correctional Plan Update / Community Strategy  Assessment for Decision (Day Parole if applicable)  Information Sharing  Parole Hearing (if applicable)  Pre release Casework Record

28

Correctional Continuum: Milestone Activities for Parole Officers (cont’d)

START OF SENTENCE PROVINCIAL REMAND

PLACEMENT INSTITUTION

OFFENDER INTAKE ASSESSMENT

DAY PAROLE UNSUPERVISED TEMPORARY ABSENCE WORK RELEASE

COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 Initial interview and CWR (checklist)  Staff safety assessment (tandem)  Urinalysis 90 days (possible)  Supervision (Frequency of contact) /  collateral contacts  Casework Records  Case conferences  Correctional Plan update  Information sharing  CAT/Community Strategy

 Enrollment in programs/referral to Community  Employment Coordinator, CPO, Community Volunteers  Day Parole Continued A4D and sharing of info  Recommendations FP A4D  Recommendations for special conditions on SR (possible)  If breach – A4D post-suspension or release maintained CPU  Community Assessments

STATUTORY RELEASE WARRANT EXPIRY DATE FULL PAROLE

Long Term Supervision Order

INSTITUTION REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 Offender Security Level review / transfer (possible)  Enrollment in reintegration programs, education and employment  Correctional Plan Update / Community Strategy  Assessment for Decision (Full Parole if applicable)  Information Sharing  Parole Hearing  Pre release casework

29

Correctional Continuum: Milestone Activities for Parole Officers (cont’d) )

START OF SENTENCE PROVINCIAL REMAND

PLACEMENT INSTITUTION

OFFENDER INTAKE ASSESSMENT

DAY PAROLE UNSUPERVISED TEMPORARY ABSENCE WORK RELEASE

COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

            

Initial interview and CWR (checklist) Staff safety assessment (tandem) Urinalysis 90 days (possible) Supervision (Frequency of contact) /collateral contacts Casework Records Case conferences Correctional Plan update Information sharing Possible hearing Enrollment in programs/referral to Community Employment Coordinator, CPO, Community Volunteers If breach – A4D post-suspension or release maintained CP Community Assessments

STATUTORY RELEASE WARRANT EXPIRY DATE FULL PAROLE

Long Term Supervision Order

INSTITUTION REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 Security Level review / transfer (possible)  Enrollment in reintegration programs, education and employment  Correctional Plan Update / Community Strategy  Assessment for Decision (Day Parole if applicable)  Information Sharing  Parole Hearing (if applicable)  Pre release Casework Record

30

Correctional Continuum: Milestone Activities for Parole Officers (cont’d) )

*IF SUSPENDED Post suspension interview and A4D; Information Sharing; Paper decision 1. Revoked: prior to new SR date a Community Strategy, A4D and Information Sharing are completed. Upon release, an initial interview and staff safety assessment is done and supervision begins; 2. Cancellation: return to community; 3. Release Maintained: Correctional Plan Update indicating alternatives to suspension and risk management strategies.

START OF SENTENCE PROVINCIAL REMAND

PLACEMENT INSTITUTION

OFFENDER INTAKE ASSESSMENT

DAY PAROLE UNSUPERVISED TEMPORARY ABSENCE WORK RELEASE

COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

           

Correctional Plan Update Initial interview and CWR (checklist) Staff safety assessment (tandem) Urinalysis 90 days (possible) Supervision (Frequency of contact) /collateral contacts Casework Records Information sharing If breach – A4D post-suspension or release maintained CP Enrollment in programs/referral to Community Employment Coordinator, CPO, Community Volunteers Preparation WED package for some (possible) Community Assessments

STATUTORY RELEASE WARRANT EXPIRY DATE FULL PAROLE

Long Term Supervision Order

INSTITUTION REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

 OSL review / Transfer (possible)  Enrollment in reintegration programs, education and employment  Annual detention review  Information sharing  Parole Hearing  Warrant Expiry package  Information Sharing

31

Correctional Continuum: Milestone Activities for Parole Officers (cont’d)

START OF SENTENCE PROVINCIAL REMAND

PLACEMENT INSTITUTION

OFFENDER INTAKE ASSESSMENT

DAY PAROLE UNSUPERVISED TEMPORARY ABSENCE WORK RELEASE

STATUTORY RELEASE

FULL PAROLE

WARRANT EXPIRY DATE Long Term Supervision Order

COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION OPERATIONS

          

Staff safety assessment Urinalysis 90 days (possible) Supervision (Frequency of contact) /collateral contacts Casework Records Case conferences If residency case – every 180 days review of case – A4D to PBC, information sharing. If breach of conditions – laying of information, post suspension interview, A4D, sharing of information Correctional Plan Update Community Assessments

32

Performance Direct

33

Performance Direct - Modules

34

Performance Direct - Modules

35

Performance Direct - Modules

36

Performance Management Framework 13-14 Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Rate of non-natural offender deaths in custody

0 - 0.122

0.130

0.147

0.127

0.174

0.123

Rate of serious security incidents in federal institutions

0 - 0.80

0.81

0.81

0.76

0.82

0.61

Rate of minor/ moderate security incidents in federal institutions

0 - 13.8

17.9

16.9

16.9

17.8

17.7

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Rate of serious safety incidents in federal institutions

0 - 0.40

0.57

0.81

0.81

1.21

1.10

Rate of minor/ moderate safety incidents in federal institutions

0 – 8.3

15.4

19.7

22.1

21.7

20.0

3.88% - 4.39%

4.39%

3.94%

3.88%

2.70%

2.59%

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Rate of security-related deaths (murder, use of force, other, unknown causes, awaiting coroner’s report)

0 – 0.024

0.038

0.103

0.056

0.070

0.055

Rate of escapes from federal custody

0 – 0.188

0.237

0.125

0.113

0.167

0.089

Percentage of undesirable urinalysis results

15.1% (MARKER)

16.0%

15.6%

13.7%

13.1%

13.1%

1.0 CUSTODY

1.1 INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

Percentage of upheld inmate grievances

1.2 INSTITUTIONAL SECURITY

37

Performance Management Framework 13-14

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Rate of involuntary transfers

11.1 – 11.5

11.5

11.1

12.4

12.0

13.4

Rate of serious security charges

57.2 – 61.3

61.8

60.9

54.0

54.3

56.4

4.82% – 5.16%

5.12%

4.94%

5.02%

5.02%

4.48%

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Rate of critical drug-related incidents in federal institutions (overdose deaths)

0 – 0.010

0.008

0.015

0.007

0.014

0.007

Rate of serious drug-related incidents in federal institutions

0 – 0.32

0.37

0.37

0.41

0.27

0.28

Rate of minor/ moderate drug-related incidents in federal institutions

0 – 21.4

20.6

22.5

22.8

21.3

18.6

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of upheld inmate grievances related to food services

5.30% - 7.25%

6.10%

5.03%

6.35%

3.15%

2.89%

Percentage of upheld inmate grievances related to accommodation services

1.71% - 4.63%

6.50%

1.41%

1.50%

3.12%

4.85%

1.2.1 INTELLIGENCE AND SUPERVISION

Involuntary segregation Offender Person Years as a percentage of total institutional Offender Person Years

1.2.2 DRUG INTERDICTION

1.4 INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES

38

Performance Management Framework 13-14

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of sentence served prior to first release (median)

56.4% – 60.8%

60.6%

60.9%

64.4%

64.6%

65.5%

Percentage of offenders with an identified need who complete a nationally recognized correctional program prior to full parole eligibility date

56.6% – 61.9%

55.4%

58.9%

66.1%

69.5%

70.8%

Percentage of offenders with an identified need who complete a nationally recognized correctional program prior to WED

90.1% – 90.6%

89.7%

89.8%

92.0%

93.9%

94.8%

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of initial penitentiary placements uninterrupted

94.7% – 95.1%

95.3%

94.9%

93.6%

95.6%

95.0%

Percentage of successful transfers to lower security

95.5% – 96.3%

94.8%

96.2%

96.1%

96.1%

96.2%

Percentage of discretionary releases

44.4% – 47.5%

44.3%

44.4%

38.3%

38.2%

39.3%

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Median time to first enrolment in a nationally recognized institutional correctional program

160 - 187

196.5

157.0

147.0

140.0

146.0

Median time to first enrolment in a nationally recognized communitybased correctional program

42 - 43

49.0

41.0

39.0

33.0

28.0

80.2% – 83.5%

80.3%

83.1%

83.9%

84.5%

83.5%

2.0 CORRECTIONAL INTERVENTIONS

2.1 OFFENDER CASE MANAGEMENT

2.4 CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS

Nationally recognized correctional program completions

39

Performance Management Framework 13-14 Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of offenders with a need for institutional Violence Prevention Programming who complete prior to full parole eligibility date

32.6% – 47.8%

32.2%

38.7%

48.7%

57.8%

56.0%

Percentage of offenders with any identified need for Violence Prevention Programming who complete prior to WED

75.9% – 80.5%

76.1%

76.5%

81.0%

83.6%

86.5%

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of offenders with a need for institutional Substance Abuse Programming who complete prior to full parole eligibility date

47.8% – 52.2%

53.1%

54.0%

57.7%

61.7%

61.6%

Percentage of offenders with any identified need for Substance Abuse Programming who complete prior to WED

74.1% – 79.2%

79.5%

80.9%

82.3%

85.6%

88.3%

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of offenders with a need for institutional Family Violence Programming who complete prior to full parole eligibility date

23.5% – 42.7%

22.2%

26.6%

43.1%

54.2%

47.9%

Percentage of offenders with any identified need for Family Violence Programming who complete prior to WED

58.9% – 66.5%

59.6%

60.0%

67.4%

80.4%

87.5%

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of offenders with a need for institutional Sex Offender Programming who complete prior to full parole eligibility date

27.3% – 34.1%

21.0%

21.8%

45.9%

55.5%

56.8%

Percentage of offenders with any identified need for Sex Offender Programming who complete prior to WED

82.9% – 83.7%

83.9%

85.6%

83.1%

90.1%

90.8%

2.4.1 VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM

2.4.2 SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROGRAM

2.4.3 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM

2.4.4 SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM

40

Performance Management Framework 13-14

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

55.0% – 65.6%

65.3%

67.8%

68.2%

66.8%

70.0%

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

35 (MARKER)

37

28

39

62

64

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of offenders with an identified education need who upgrade their education prior to full parole eligibility date

30.5% – 36.4%

37.6%

40.6%

41.1%

46.7%

52.9%

Percentage of offenders with an identified education need who upgrade their education prior to WED

41.3% – 49.4%

42.3%

45.7%

49.4%

52.2%

57.5%

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of offenders with an identified employment need who complete vocational training prior to full parole eligibility date

36.5% – 40.7%

42.1%

41.4%

41.6%

43.8%

44.7%

Percentage of offenders with an identified employment need who secure employment in the community prior to WED

59.6% – 62.8%

71.4%

71.0%

72.9%

73.1%

71.0%

2.4.5 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Community Maintenance Program completions

2.4.6 SOCIAL PROGRAM Number of Community Integration Programs delivered

2.5 OFFENDER EDUCATION

2.6 CORCAN

41

Performance Management Framework 13-14

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of offenders on conditional release successfully reaching warrant 47.75% – 53.60% expiry date without re-offending (no revocation, charge or conviction)

47.46%

51.87%

54.27%

53.47%

53.79%

0 – 3.0

3.0

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

58.9% – 61.2%

59.4%

61.2%

62.0%

62.0%

62.3%

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

13.8 – 16.4

15.8

14.4

13.2

13.2

13.6

11.3% (MARKER)

12.4%

11.2%

10.7%

10.0%

9.4%

3.2 COMMUNITY-BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES

Expected Results (Target)

FY09-10

FY10-11

FY11-12

FY12-13

FY13-14

Percentage of successful residency supervision periods (no revocations, incidents, charges or convictions) - CBRFs

41.71% – 46.03%

69.88%

71.84%

69.36%

70.63%

72.73%

28.1% (MARKER)

26.1%

26.2%

30.0%

30.5%

29.5%

3.0 COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

Rate of offenders under community supervision who incur new convictions for violent offences Community Employment EPYs

3.1 COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY Rate of offenders under community supervision who incur new convictions Percentage of positive urinalysis

Percentage of residency - CBRFs

42

Performance Metrics – Under Review

Performance Indicator

Median days to penitentiary placement

Percentage of Offender Security Level (OSL) reviews following NRCP completion

Rate of serious security charges

Rate of admissions to involuntary segregation

Rate of admissions to voluntary segregation

Type

Current Status of Indicator

PD

UNDER REVIEW: With the recent clustering of facilities, the number of blank pen-placement transfer warrants are expected to increase. Historically, approximately 10% of all penplacements do not have an associated transfer warrant (closer to 20% in the Prairie Region). Without a transfer warrant, there is no way to determine when or where an offender was penplaced. Discussions pending with OPI (COP).

PD

TO BE INACTIVATED: With the recent policy change on OSL reviews, YTD results have plummeted, rendering historical comparison invalid. OSL reviews also being recorded in a CWR in some regions thus compounding the issues surrounding validity of the data. OPI (COP) have decided to discontinue use of this indicator.

PD/PMF

UNDER REVIEW: YTD results significantly lower than expected. Preliminary findings suggest a data-entry lag in OMS is contributing to the diminished rate. Security Branch is currently conducting a review of the issue and is expected to report their findings shortly. ISBP has called for a new benchmark/target for this indicator, however this may not be necessary if the problem is deemed to be related to data entry.

PD/PMF

TO BE REMOVED FROM PMF: With the recent clustering of facilities, the rate of admissions to involuntary segregation has decreased significantly. This is due to the increase in offender counts (denominator) as a result of inclusion of MIN facilities to the clusters (previously excluded from the data). As such, current results are not comparable to previous fiscals. PMF benchmark/target also now invalid. Indicator will be retained in PD, with either a warning message about historical results or removal of data prior to FY14-15.

PD

STATUS QUO: With the recent clustering of facilities, the rate of admissions to voluntary segregation has decreased significantly. This is due to the increase in offender counts (denominator) as a result of inclusion of MIN facilities to the clusters (previously excluded from the data). As such, current results are not comparable to previous fiscals. Indicator 43 will be

Performance Metrics – Under Review

Percentage of upheld well-being inmate grievances

PMF

REDEVELOPMENT: OPI (IR) has requested a change to the subject areas included in this measure (prefer to include ALL grievance subjects). Change will require new PMF benchmark/target. Confirmation expected on 2014-09-11.

Percentage of upheld grievances related to living conditions

PMF

REDEVELOPMENT: OPI (IR) has requested a potential change to the subject areas included in this measure. Any change will require new PMF benchmark/target. Confirmation expected on 401409-11.

Percentage of upheld grievances related to food services

PMF

REDEVELOPMENT: OPI (IR) has requested a potential change to the subject areas included in this measure. Any change will require new PMF benchmark/target. Confirmation expected on 401409-11.

Percentage of upheld grievances related to accommodation services

PMF

REDEVELOPMENT: OPI (IR) has requested a potential change to the subject areas included in this measure. Any change will require new PMF benchmark/target. Confirmation expected on 401409-11.

PD/PMF

TO BE REMOVED FROM PMF: Significant drop in YTD results (percentage), possibly due to recent policy change on FOC, rendering historical comparison invalid. PMF marker for this indicator also invalid as a result. OPI (COP) have decided to discontinue use of this indicator, both in the PMF and in PD.

Percentage of Day Parole cases reviewed by Parole Board of Canada

PD/PMF

PENDING REDEVELOPMENT: With the development of the new PBC/IDS system, the NPBINT table on the Data Warehouse DECISION_HEARING_SCHEDULE will NOT be converted, pending new logic to determine where the hearing actually took place. DWS has agreed to store a copy of the historical data in this table permanently, however the indicator will require code adjustments once the new logic and table is in place. This is expected to transpire over the next 6-12 months. Impacts unclear at this time, although will possibly require a new PMF marker.

Percentage of Full Parole cases reviewed by Parole Board of Canada

PD

Percentage of supervision intensity reduced

PENDING REDEVELOPMENT: With the development of the new PBC/IDS system, the NPBINT table on the Data Warehouse DECISION_HEARING_SCHEDULE will NOT be converted, pending new logic to determine where the hearing actually took place. DWS has agreed44 to store a copy of

Performance Metrics – Data Request

SECURITY INDICATORS Rate of Escapes The indicator represents the number of escapes from federal custody per 1,000 offenders in federal custody.

Escapes

FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 31 17 16 24 13

Federal offenders in custody

14,153

14,793

15,104

15,287

15,295

2.19

1.15

1.06

1.57

0.85

Rate per 1,000

45

Performance Metrics – Data Request Rate of serious security incidents The indicator represents the number of serious security incidents per 1,000 offenders in federal custody. A serious security incident is defined as any security-related incident that does not result in actual death but is of a serious nature.

Serious security incidents

FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 106 110 108 118 88

Federal offenders in custody

14,153

14,793

15,104

15,287

15,295

7.49

7.44

7.15

7.72

5.75

Rate per 1,000

46

Performance Metrics – Data Request Rate of Critical, Serious, and Minor/Moderate Incidents where staff were victims. These indicators include incidents where a staff member was categorized as a victim. The indicators represent the number of critical, serious and minor/moderate security incidents, respectively, per 1,000 offenders in federal custody.

FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 Critical security Incidents

0

0

0

0

0

Serious Security Incidents

1

2

4

5

2

330

322

353

372

370

Minor/moderate Security Incidents Federal offenders in custody

14,153

14,793

15,104

15,287

15,295

Rate Critical Security Incidents per 1,000

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rate Serious Security Incidents per 1,000

0.07

0.14

0.26

0.33

0.13

Rate Minor/moderate Security Incidents per 1,000

23.3

21.8

23.4

24.3

24.2 47

Performance Metrics – Data Request Rate of serious convictions on supervision The indicator represents the number of serious convictions committed by offenders during supervision per 1,000 offenders supervised in the community. Serious convictions on supervision include any offence listed on Schedule I of the Criminal Code of Canada Offence Schedule (serious or violent offences).

Serious convictions on supervision

FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 524 419 395 314 278

In community under CSC management 7,894

7,839

7,765

7,665

7,861

Rate per 1,000

53.45

50.87

40.97

35.36

66.38

48

Performance Metrics – Data Request

POST WARRANT EXPIRY OUTCOME INDICATOR Percentage of offenders re-admitted to federal custody within 5 years following WED The indicator represents the total number of offenders re-admitted to federal custody on a new sentence within 5 years following the warrant expiry date (WED) of the previous sentence per the total number of offenders who reached WED.

Offenders re-admitted to federal custody within 5 years following WED

FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 875 877 846 922 835

Offenders who reached WED

4,476

4,500

4,537

4,660

4,841

Percentage

19.5

19.5

18.6

19.8

17.2

49

Performance Reporting Articulating Accountabilities • Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) (organisational priorities, planning highlights and key risks) • Corporate Business Plan (CBP)

Monitoring Accountabilities • Mid-year Report

50

Performance Reporting Reporting Accountabilities • Year-end Report • Performance Measurement Framework (PMF) • Departmental Performance Report (DPR) (results on planning highlights) • Management Accountability Framework (MAF)

51

Planning, Reporting and Monitoring Tools

52

Conclusion Effective and efficient correctional service has always been about people, not just numbers. State-of-the-art assessment tools like • • • • •

prediction tables risk and needs assessment protocols intervention programs up-to-date procedures practice guidelines

are necessary.

However… Unless an organization’s people, at all levels, are committed to and supportive of new initiatives, organizations will be limited in their ability to move forward into the future.

53