ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Contenu archivé

L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.

Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

I11II

I11II11II1III

JL103.P3N351986

National Parole Board

Organizatiortal Review

Final Report

November 7, 1986

Canad'a'

CoPYIP

not belong to the Cran.

er aulhorren MiStbe obtamed irom

?top

tne author for

any \Mende use

tes droits dauteur duprésent document n'appartiennent

,çe à État.Ioute utiktietiion

du contenu du présent

docurne,n1 dri■1 être approwee préataberient

par t'auteur.

e7Mationa1 Parole Board

Organizational Review

Final Report

UMAR'? SOLICiTC't UNERAL, CANADA

CT 1 1993 CT 1993

14:1A

•

KIA OP8

, 1986 November 7

95

97 136 154 155 160 160 160 163

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction

I Background of The Organizational Review

H Methodology of the Organizational Review

III The National Parole Board and its Work

2

5

13

Factor #1 Factor #2 Factor #3 Factor #4 Factor #5 Factor #6 Factor #7 Factor #8

- Conditions - Facts of the Case - Rules - Morality - Procedures - Options - Implications - Strategies

25 44 49 72 76 81 84 89

IV The National Parole Board as an Organizational Structure Options for Change

Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Question #5 Question #6 Question #7 Question #8

V Recommendations for Change 173

Appendix A

Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F

- Work Plan for the NPB Organizational Review

- Data Collection and Analysis document - Suggested Questions for the Interview - Communications Plan - Memo from the Chairman - Interview Schedule

Organizational Charts 1 to 39

November 7, 1986

I

III

I

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD

[DRGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

FINAL REPORT

The purpose of this Final Report is to present to the Chairman, National

Parole Board for his consideration, key findings, options and recommenda-

tions for change based on the examination of the organizational struc-

ture, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior

staff positions within the National Parole Board.

The format of this Report is as follows:

I - Background of Organizational Review

II - Methodology

III - The National Parole Board and its Work

IV - The National Parole Board as an Organizational

Structure - Options for Change

V - Recommendations for Change

I

- 2 -

Section I Background of the Organizational Review

In February 1986, the then Chairman of the National Parole Board (NPB),

with the support of the Vice-Chairman and the Executive Director, decided

to undertake a review of the organizational structure of the NPB with

particular emphasis on an examination of those senior staff positions

reportinq directly to the Executive Director. It was decided that

through an examination of the work processes derived from the roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions of these specified senior staff

positions that chanqes might be proposed which would address some of the

problems and issues identified in previous studies and reports conducted

under the aegis of the P!PB. At the time the decision was taken to

proceed with the Oraanizational Review, it was noted by the then

Chairman that the environment within which the NPB had manaqed its

affairs in the recent past was rapidly changing and that the Review could

provide an opportunity to assess and address the potential impact of key

environmental changes on the work and functions of Board members and

staff. Some of the anticipated chances included the imminent retirement

of the then Chairman and the appointment of a new Chairman, recommenda-

tions directed towards the NPB contained in the Program Review Report on

Justice (Neilsen Task Force), the increasing number of court challenges

to NPB decisions under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the

recent establishment of the NPB Appeal Division pilot project, proposed

amendments to the Parole Act which would add to the volume and complexity

IIIIIIIIII1IIIIII

- 3 -

of NPB decision-making processes, new central agency requirements for

decreased program expenditures and increased demands for agency accounta-

bility, effectiveness and efficiency.

It was becoming clear at that time that all the anticipated changes over

which the NPB had little control were negatively affectino Board members

and staff and as a result a sense of doom and gloom and uncertainty

pervaded the interna] environment of the NPB.

Following the decision to undertake the Organizational Review, Sheila

Murray, an officer in

Board Secretariat, was

was decided that the

the Temporary Assignment Pool (TAP) of the Treasury

seconded to the NPB to carry out the project. It

overall direction for the work to he undertaken

would be provided by the NPB Organizational Review Reference Croup,

composed of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Executive Director. The work

would be carried out over a seven (7) month period and would culminate in

a Final Draft Report to be presented to the Review Reference Group for

review, discussion and revision prior to beino distributed to Board

members and staff for review, discussion and revision. In its final

form approved by the Chairman, the Organizational Review Report would

thus reflect the prevailing concerns and general approbation of Board

members and staff vis à vis the options and recommendations contained

therein. The intent was to then formulate a time-framed plan of action

for implementation by the NPB of the preferred and approved options and

recommendations. A memo from the Chairman to all Board members and staff

.../4

- 4 -

outlinina the decisions taken on the final Report of the Orqanizational

Review was planned as the last step in the Review process prior to the

implementation of the action plan. During the Review process some

changes have occurred to lengthen the original time-frame and to expand

the data collection process. These changes will he described in more

detail in the methodology section of this Report.

.../5

III1IIIII11IIIIIII

- 5 -

I

I

III1IIIIIIIII

Section II Methodology of the Organizational Review

It was decided to divide the Review into eight (8) phases, each of which

would be time-framed and within which specific activities could be

identified and approved by the Review Reference Group prior to heina

actioned by the Review project leader. As a result, a Work Plan for the

Organizational Review, a Data Collection and Analysis document outlining

the nature of the data collection process including the positions and

persnns to be interviewed and the suogested questions for the Interview,

and a Communications Plan for the O.rqanizational Review, were formulated

and approved by the Review Reference Group by the end of March 1986.

(See Appendices A, B, C, D). On April 10, 1986, a memo from the then

Chairman, outlining the purpose and nature of the Organizational Review

was sent to all NPB responsihility centres for distribution to all Board

members and staff. (See Appendix E).

The eight phases of the Review were as follows:

Phase 1: Orientation of NPB members and staff to purpose and methodology

of Review.

Phase 2: Assessment of statutory, organizational and operational envi-

ronment within which NPB carries out its mandate.

Phase 3: Definition of functions performed within each organizational

unit of the National Parole Board.

- 6 -

Phase 4: Identification of variances between mandated functions and

actual work performed by each organizational unit of the

National Parole Board.

Phase 5: Definition of the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions

of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole

Board with particular reference to policy development and

implementation of a strategic, operational and administrative

nature.

Phase 6: Assessment of the functional relationships between and among

specified senior staff and relevant subordinate staff within

the existing structural and operational organization of the

National Parole Board.

Phase 7: Assessment of the structural and operational efficiency and

effectiveness of the National Parole Board as an organizational

entity with respect to its existing mandate.

Phase 8: Presentation of recommendations for change in the organiza-

tional structure, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions

of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole

Board.

The original focus of the first five (5) Phases of the Review was the

collection of data and information through informal conversations and

consultations and formal interviews with members of the Review Reference

group, selected staff at headquarters and in regional offices and with

selected officials in the Department of the Solicitor General and

.../7

- 7 -

IIIIIIIIIII

I

Correctional Services of Canada. (CSC). At the request of Board members

during the April 1986 General Board meeting, the then Chairman decided

that full-time Board members should be included in the Review interview

process because of the importance of the operational relationships

between Senior Board members and Reaional Directors and hetween all Board

members and staff to the examination of roles, responsibilities, duties

and functions of senior staff in regional offices and at headouarters.

At the outset of the Review process, the Review Workplan had included a

case-study focussed Workshop for selected Board memhers and senior staff

scheduled for mid-July durino the final stages of Phase 5. This case-

study approach was designed to focus on the analysis of the policy

development process in the NPB with respect to the role of Board members

and the role of staff and as a result clarify the work and roles of

specified senior staff in the policy development and implementation

processes of the NPB. With the inclusion of Board members as partici-

pants in the Review process, the case-study Workshop was deleted and

replaced by scheduled interviews with full-time Board members in regional

offices and in the Appeal Division at headquarters durine Phase 4 in the

month of June. It was felt that a comprehensive interview process which

included all full-time Board memhers and selected staff was preferable to

a relatively restricted case-study process given the importance of the

issues and concerns surroundinq the policy formulation and implementation

processes in the NPB. Once these interviews with Senior Board members

and regular full-time Board members had been concluded, a request was

made through a Senior Board member (SBM) to the Chairman that Temporary

I

- 8 -

Board members be included in the interview process. As a result, it was

decided by the Review Reference Group that telephone interviews should be

conducted by the Review project leader with two (2) Temporary Board

Members (TBM's) from each region during Phase 6 of the Review.

In addition to these interviews with Board members it was decided that

the attendance of the Review Project leader as an observer at NPB Panel

Hearings in penitentiary settings would contribute to her appreciation of

the volume and complexity of the work impacting the roles, responsibili-

ties, duties and furctions of Board memhers and thereby to a better

understanding of the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of NPB

staff inemhers whose work is directed towards the support of Board

decision-making processes. Throughout the Review, the Project leader

attended, as an observer, a variety of meetings, including meetings of

the NPB General Board, Senior Manaoement Committee, Senior Staff Manage-

ment Committee, Headquarters Directors, NPB-CSC Interlinkages Committee

and meetings of other NPB staff groups of a less formal nature. At the

request of the Chairman, the Project leader participated as a member of

the NPB Task Force on Mission and Guiding Principles in the meetings,

consultations and deliberations conducted by the Task Force over the June

to Octoher period.

Complementary to these interview and meeting processes were the processes

of collection, review, analysis and synthesis of data and information

contained in the form of statutes, regulations, policies, procedures,

I1IIIIII

IIIIIIIII1

- 9 -

directives, guidelines, studies, papers, reports, case files, organiza-

tion charts, job descriptions, job classifications, reporting relation-

ships, delegated authority, information and communications systems,

coordinating mechanisms, audit and evaluation processes, multi-year

operational plans, estimates, annual reports, pamphlets and guides.

Through conversations and informal consultations with Board members and

staff, sources for and contents of data and information pertinent to the

Review were identified, provided, clarified and verified. In addition a

review of literature pertinent to oroanizational design, behaviour and

change was undertaken by the Project leader.

As a result of the expanded interview schedule and the participation of

the Review project leader in the Task Force on Mission and Guiding

Principles, the time-frame of the Review was extended by five (5) weeks.

The date for presentation of the final Draft Report of the Organizational

Review to the Oroanizational Review Reference Croup is now October 31,

1986 rather than September 26, 1986.

Data and information pertinent to the examination of the NPB organiza-

tional structure, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of

specified senior staff positions have been collected, analysed and

synthesized through the following specific interview processes:

o Interviews with 58 executive, senior and junior staff members of the

NPB of which 30 were regional staff and 28 were HQ staff;

.../10

-1n -

o Interviews with 22 full-time Board members, including the former and

current Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Chairman of the Appeal Division and

all Senior Board Members; one regular full-time Board memher was

unavailable on short notice due to an emergency interim Hearing;

o Interviews by telephone with eight temporary Board members - two TBM's

were not available;

o Interviews with 12 executive and senior staff members within Solicitor

General's department and CSC; one person from the Secretariat was

unavailable; (See Appendix F- Interview Schedule).

Each person who was interviewed was sent, prior to the scheduled inter-

view, a copy of the Organizational Review Work Plan, of the Data

Collection and Analysis document and of Suggested Questions for the

Interview. Interview questions were customized to the particular indivi-

dual or grouping of individuals to be interviewed. As a result, inter-

view questions were designed for the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Executive

Director, Senior Board Members and full-time Board members, Temporary

Board members and officials in the Department of the Solicitor General

and Correctional Services of Canada. Letters of introduction and expla-

nation of the Organizational Review were sent by the Chairman and/or the

Executive Director to individuals and/or to NPB and other responsibility

centres external to the NPB prior to the establishment of interview

schedules and the actual interview conducted by the Review project

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

- 11 -

1

IIIIIIIII1III

leader. This protocol without doubt set the stage for the interviews and

enhanced the opportunities for meaningful discussions and data collec-

tion.

Throuqhout the Peview process, Board members and staff, without excep-

tion, were more than helpful and unusually frank and open in answering

the questions posed. Despite the prospect of yet another study impinging

on their busy work schedules, most individuals had taken time prior to

the interview to read the material and prepare answers to the ouestions.

In fact, interviews originally scheduled for ninety (90) minutes usually

exceeded that and stretched to two (2) hours. In most instances, discus-

sions with staff members could have consumed most of a working day, had

time allowed for such. Discussions with officials from the Department of

Solicitor General and CSC were marked by the openness and frankness of

the comments and most particularly by the good will exhibited towards and

concern for the speedy resolution of current issues and problems within

the NPB and between the NPB and their respective organizations.

As noted in the memo from the Chairman to all Board members and staff,

dated 21 July 1986, in which he outlined the progress of the Organiza-

tional Review, the data and information collected through interviews and

the review of documentation provides the basis upon which recommendations

for changes within the NPB will be proposed. The next section, Section

I

-12 -

III, of this Report - The National Parole Board and its Work - hopefully

will reflect the analysis and synthesis of these data and information

upon which Section IV - The National Parole Board as an Organizational

Structure, Options for Change, will be based.

.../13

I

IIIIIIIIIIIII

- 13 -

Section III - The National Parole Board and its Work

In reporting the key findings of the Organizational Review derived from

the analyses and synthesis of data and information collected, several

factors have been considered to be of critical importance to the descrip-

tion and subsequent understanding of the work processes undertaken by

Board members and staff. It is within the context of these key factors

that the findings are reported and recommendations made. These factors

are:

a) Environmental factors: those factors, internal and external to the

NPB, with impacts on regional and headquarters case-focussed and non-

case-focussed work, such as the various publics or populations which

are impacted by the work of the NPB and which can be identified as

clients, cooperators or collaborators, lobby or influence groups,

authorities, special interest groups, general public.

b) General or Corporate Management factors: those factors, internal and

external to the NPB, arising from statutory and requlatory authori-

ties, including decision-directives from Treasury Board Secretariat,

Office of the Comptroller General, Office of the Auditor-General,

Public Service Commission, NPB Mission, Guiding Principles, policies,

procedures, directives, routines and strategies which govern the

long-term planning, organizing, controllinq and evaluating functions

of Board members and staff within the NPB as a corporate entity.

I

- 14 -

c) Operational Management factors: those factors, internal and external

to the NPB, arising from statutory and regulatory authorities, includ-

ing court-based rulings directed towards Board decision-making

processes, NPB Mission, Guiding Principles, policies, procedures,

directives, strategies and routines which govern the day-to-day

planning, organizing, controlling and evaluating functions of Board

members and staff within the NPB, as an operational agency.

d) Resource Management factors: those factors, internal and external to

the NPR, arisino from statutory and regulatory authorities, including

the fiscal and accountability frameworks of the federal oovernment and

the general and specific policy decision-directives flowing from such,

NPB Mission, Guidino Principles, policies, procedures, directives,

strategies and routines which govern the day-to-day and lono term

planning, acquisition, organizing, allocatino, controlling and evalua-

ting of resources, with respect to individuals, information, technol-

ogy, equipment and dollars within the NPB.

e) Organizational Behaviour and Culture: those factors, internal and

external to the NPB, rooted in the history, institutional elements,

myths and symbols of the NPB as a unique agency within the Canadian

criminal justice system, and which impact on relationships between

Board members, between Board members and staff, between staff in

regions and staff in headquarters, between the NPB and other agencies

and departments in the federal, provincial and municipal spheres of

.../15

- 15 -

I

I

II

I

government and between the NPB and its various publics. It is

probable that the most critical factor to be considered vis à vis NPB

culture and ornanizational behaviour is the capacity and willingness

of individuals within the NPB to understand, cope with and adapt to

chanqe. For this reason, the rate of chanae proposed for implementa-

tion of any of the recommendations contained in this Report must be

examined with an eye to the impact on individuals and groups to whom

the change is directed.

f) Organizational Structures: those factors, internal and external to

the NPB, arising from statutory roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions of Board members and staff in general terms and with respect

to specific positions in the NPB organization. These factors include:

levels of authority within the organization; span of control of

managers, line and staff reporting relationships between positions;

contiquity of positions in the reporting structure; variances between

position descriptions, position classifications and actual roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions; variances between the require-

ments for timely, accurate and relevant data and information and the

realization of such; variances between the actual requirements for

resources with respect to person years, technology and dollars and the

current allocation of such pertinent to particular work processes in

the organization; distinctions between corporate and operational

roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of Board members and

staff; distinctions between fragmented work processes and holistic

- 16 -

work processes with respect to the value added by each position in the

organizational structure; distinctions between simple and differenti-

ated organizational structures with respect to the nature of the work

processes and the need for generalized and specialized functions. It

is within the context of the increasino volume and complexity of Board

decision-making processes and the impacts of such on the volume and

nature of staff case-focussed operational and corporate work, that the

key findings of the Oroanizational Review will be considered in this

section of the Report.

In an ideal world, the statutory requirements of the National Parole

Board could be given effect, in an operational sense, solely by Board

members acting individually and collectively. In the real world of the

NPB, however, the volume and complexity of the Board member's work,

derived from their statutory roles, responsibilities, duties and func-

tions under the Parole Act, is such that assistance by persons who are

not Board members is required. That is, assistance to and support of

Board members' work is provided by public servants appointed in accor-

dance with "machinery of government" statutes, such as the Public Service

Employment Act, and whose roles, responsibilities, duties and functions

are defined in broad terms under such statutes as the Financial

Administration Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act, Treasury

Board policies, directives and guidelines. Within this broad public

service or government statutory framework, the roles, responsibilities,

duties and functions of the public service staff of the NPB are defined

.../17

- 17 -

1

11

IIIII

through job descriptions within the qeneral context of day-to-day opera-

tional assistance to and direct support of the work of the Board members,

long term support of the NPB as a corporate entity, or agency, operating

within the criminal justice system and federal sphere of government. It

is clear that harmonization of the distinct statutory but linked day-to-

day roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of Board members and

staff is essential to a high level of achievement of the NPB statutory

mandate, mission, goals and objectives.

Clarity of statutory roles, responsihilities, duties and functions

reinforces the distinct nature of the work of Board members and staff.

One way to test the distinction between the roles and responsibilities of

Board and staff is to ask - To Whom? and Suhject to What statutory

authority? is each group accountahle. It is only through the statutory

authorities vested in the Chairman of the NPB, in his roles as Chairman

of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, that respective Board and staff

accountahilities are joined. Otherwise, and on a day-to-day basis, each

group is accountable to the Chairman for exercising its roles, responsi-

bilities, duties and functions in accordance with the requirements of the

respective statutory authorities. This is not to imply, however, that

Board members and staff insulate or isolate themselves from a common

understanding of their separate and distinct statutory obligations.

Quite the contrary situation should apply if the interdependent nature of

their work and unity of mission is to be characterized by excellence.

During this study, Board members and staff, on a selected basis, as

- 18 -

outlined in the Organizational Review Work Plan, have described and in so

doing, have, as individuals, clarified their roles, responsibilities,

duties and functions.

The clarity resulting from these individual discussions with Board

members and staff will undoubtedly become clouded in the attempt to

transform individual interpretations of their roles, responsibilities,

duties and functions into a collective description of such. With such a

disclaimer in mind, it nevertheless appears that there is a high dearee

of clarity and of understanding of the statutory roles, responsibilities,

duties and functions of Board members among Board members and senior

staff. To a lesser degree, there is clarity and understanding of the

statutory roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of NPB staff

among Board members, particularly, among Temporary Board members whose

exposure to NPB staff is limited by the itinerant nature of their work.

As well, to a lesser degree, there is a clarity of understanding of the

statutory, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of Board members

among junior level NPB staff, particularly at headquarters. Clarity of

the NPB corporate mission and values reinforces the commonality and unity

of purpose of the work of Board members and staff. Currently, under the

leadership of the Chairman of the NPB, all Board members and all staff

have been asked to participate in a process designed to formulate a

statement of NPB mission and values which will guide their work and that

I

IItIIII

AtIIII

II

-19 -

of the NPB as a corporate entity. Currently, the draft or working state-

ment of mission which is under discussion by all Board members and staff

is:

The National Parole Board, as part of the Criminal

Justice System contributes to the protection of society

hy making independent quality decision related to condi-

tional release and the reintegration of offenders.

As well, as a component of this strateoic planning process, Board members

and staff have completed a questionnaire designed to elicit individual

responses to draft statements of Principles or values which in final form

will guide their work in the future. Clarity in statutory roles, respon-

sibilities, duties and functions and clarity in mission and values should

strenothen each oroup's capacity to carry out its work and opportunities

for creativity and innovation in the ways in which Board members and

staff work together to achieve the NPB Mission.

Not only does the mission statement provide a specific commonality-of-

purpose link between Board and staff members, the mission also provides a

link between the NPB as a corporate entity and other agencies and depart-

ments within the criminal justice system. Once again, although the

statutory roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of the NPB are

quite distinct and separate from those of other agencies and departments,

clearly these organizational entities are linked by commonality of

.../20

- 20 -

general purpose, that is, the administration of justice in accordance

with the precepts of the rule of law and natural justice. As well, all

agencies and departments are linked operationally through "machinery of

government" policies, guidelines and directives on a day-to-day basis,

through the authority vested in Ministers and ultimately through the

authority of Parliament over each agency and department of government.

NPB staff, more so, than Board members, through exercising their corpo-

rate roles, responsibilities, duties and functions provide the day-to-day

operational links with "machinery of government" agencies such as the

Treasury Board Secretariat, the Office of the Controller General and the

Office of the Auditor General.

Implicit within the mission statement is the need to strike a balance

between the NPB organizational requirements for a sphere of independence

within which it can carry out its statutory mandate and achieve its

mission and the NPB organizational requirements for operational interde-

pendence with other aciencies and departments in order to obtain resources

and support for carrying out its mandate and mission at the hiqhest level

possible. More explicitly, there is a delicate balance between the

preservation of the NPB's independence in decision-making pertinent to

conditional release and the reintegration of offenders, that is, freedom

or insulation from day-to-day interference or political control over

Board member decision-makinq and the promotion of corporate NPB interde-

pendence and accountability in operational decision-making within the

qeneral governmental policy framework. This balance clearly varies from

IIIIIIIIII11IIIIIII

- 21 -

IIIIIIt1It1tII

issue to issue and shifts in accordance with the nature and impact of the

many environmental factors impinging on Board members and staff as they

carry out their work. At this point, it may further our understanding of

the organizational relationships between Board members and staff to

consider that the NPB as a corporate entity actually incorporates two

separate organizations, that of the Board and that of the staff. The NPF3

in its Board organization and functions resembles a political organiza-

tion and therefore tends to use political systems to function, i.e.

co-operation is contracted informally, periodically, if not freauently

and in non-routine ways. Accordinq to Joseph Bowers in his hook, The Two

Faces of Management (1983):

A political system is usually measured by tests of the

organization's process and the pattern of distribution of

benefits consequent upon its activity, accountability and

legitimacy.

It is his view that the "products" of political systems are usually law

and public policy. It is typical in a political manaqement system for

several individuals or coalitions to each control separate ingredients of

the administrative systems required for effective action. Consequently,

members are regularly in a position to bargain over goals and the distri-

bution of benefits to he qenerated by collective action. On the other

hand, the NPB in its staff organization and functions is essentially a

technocratic organization. In a technocratic organization, the systems

.../22

1

-22 -

function on the basis of formally contracted co-operation which is

intended to last a long time and which is exemplified by routines and

procedures. Again according to Bower:

It is the premise of routine cooperation that permits us

to build complex, differentiated organizations that can

undertake difficult tasks of development, production and

distribution.

A technocratic system is usually measured by tests of organizational

outcomes - efficiency and effectiveness. In Bower's view the leadership

of a technocratie management system has authority over the contract, the

inducements and the purposes of the organization, that is, control over

information, budget and personnel. As noted earlier, it is throuoh the

Chairman as Chief Executive Officer that the leadership of Poard and

staff organizations is joined.

It is evident that Board members in exercisino their statutory roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions seek the highest possible level of

what K.C. Davis calls "administrative discretionary justice."

Administrative discretionary justice is the resolution of

the legal, moral, factual and other practical issues

which arise in a situation where an official person

acting in a capacity, which is, in the final analysis,

.../23

- 23 -

I

1

ItIIIIII1

IItI

defined and limited by government legislation makes a

just decision which results in action or inaction which

affects other persons.

In this definition, the notion of a "just" decision is simply defined

according to those precepts that define the notion of natural justice.

In Davis' view, an official making an administrative decision in accor-

dance with his notions of discretionary justice would consider the

following types of factors: leoality, morality, facts of the case, just

procedures, possible decisions, the implications or effects of the

decisions and the strategies used to implement a decision. It is also

his view, that consideration of these objective types of factors is

instrumental to the preservation of the integrity of the subjective or

discretionary decision-makinq process.

Given that Board members consider a variety of objective factors in their

decision-makino pertinent to the conditional release and reintegration of

offenders, it may be useful to the determination and clarification of the

distinct but linked roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of

Board members and staff to describe in more detail, the types of factors

suggested by Davis and elaborated by Peters, Marshall and Shaw in their

paper - The Development and Trials of a Decision-Making Model - An

Evaluation, published in the Evaluation Review, February, 1986. Through

the description of these factors pertinent to administrative discretion-

ary decision-making, it becomes possible to examine the critical and

.../24

- 24 -

sometimes problematic nature of the functions which are and should be

carried out by NPB staff in their roles of assistance to and support of

the Board members prior to, during and after Board decision-making

processes.

This approach will consider the staff functions as components of the work

processes designed to identify, collect, analyse, synthesize and dissemi-

nate data and information pertinent to the Board member decision-making

processes related to conditional release and reintegration of offenders.

Crucial to the effectiveness and efficiency of these information-based

work processes are the ongoing harmonious relationships among Board

members, between Board members and staff and among staff. According to

Chester Barnard in his book, The Functions of the Executive, (1939):

Organizations come into being because individuals want to

do something that they cannot accomplish acting alone.

They agree to contribute effort cooperatively, discuss

their objectives and communicate about their work.

It is also his notion that in order to understand how to manage or

influence organizations, one needs to know why members cooperate, how

goals are chosen and what, where, why and how information is disseminated

and used. At this point, it therefore seems both timely and appropriate

to begin the examination of the nature of Board and staff functions

.../25

I

rA1IIIIIAI1IIIIII

- 25 -

within the framework of Board decision-makino processes and related staff

work. To do this, I propose use the factors in the decision-makino model

proposed by Peters, Marshall and Shaver.

Factor il - Conditions: those provisions or prerequisites that must be

satisfied prior to the commencement of the decision-making

process. The conditions do not in any way guide a decision

but instead determine when it is proper for an official to

wake a decision.

To a large extent these conditions are set out in the Parole Act, regula-

tions, NPB policies, procedures, directives, and NPB-CSC Administrative

Agreement. In general terms, through the current case management work

processes, staff review individual offender's case files in order to

verify the contents, attest to its completeness and in the absence of

such, collect missing data and information from various sources and

validate the "tombstone" data pertinent to the offender including his/her

parole eligibility date prior to Board member review and decision making

on such.

It is in the process of specifying and satisfying prior conditions that

one finds:

.../26

- 26 -

o that case management work processes and the critical functionsl

contained therein, are divided into pre and post board decision work

routines;

o that there is a "scientific management" or assembly-line approach to the

division and distribution of case-based work processes and critical

functions. This results in a piece-work approach such that each offender

file is worked on by several staff, each performinn several tasks and

routines comprising one or more of the critical functions;

o there appears to be overlapping, if not common data and information

requirements for several of the critical functions. This is not surpris-

ing due to the fact that an individual case file is the primary source of

these data and infornation.

It is also not surprising that Board members comment on the bureaucratic

way in which staff work is organized especially in light of the situation

whereby a Board member, seeking clarification of the data and information

a case file, has to consult several staff during the routing of the case

through the NPB office prior to and after Board decision making. One

Critical functions were first identified in the NPB Regional Workload Study

of 1985 and confirmed in the NPB Management Operational Review of 1986.

These 14 critical functions are the basis of the NPB communications study

currently underway.

.../27

I

11IIIrIIIA

ItItII

- 27 -

must question why the case management work processes are not organized on

a case load approach whereby a number of case files are assigned to

individual staff members, who each become responsible and accountable for

the identification, collection, analysis, synthesis and dissemination of

data and information pertinent to Board member decision-making proces-

ses. This approach would be more conoruent with the functional require-

ments of an information-based oroanization such as the NPB and would also

mean that a Board member could consult, as necessary, with the staff

member most knowledgeable about the contents of the case file throughout

the life of the case within the NPB. In the context of staff assistance

and support to Board members during the decision-making processes either

in the NPB office or at Panel Hearings, it is conceivable that the staff

member who has worked on the case file or several case files with the

same Panel Hearin° dates and locations, could attend the Panel Hearings

as the Hearing Clerk or Officer. Continuity and wholeness of work

processes would be more satisfying to staff and to Board members alike,

would create opportunities for strengthening of board/staff relationships

and overall would contribute to improved availability, and Quality of

information and data essential to Board decision-making processes. The

strong possibility exists that there will be less time devoted to track-

ina files within the NPB and more time devoted to work on the files,

i.e. more efficient and effective work processes.

.../2 8

- 28 -

Another condition to be satisfied is that of ensuring through scheduling

of Board member's workload, that the requisite number of Board members is

available at the required times and in the required locations to under-

take the decision-making processes.

The satisfaction of this condition also implies that each Board member

and staff member is fully conversant with: the statutory authorities,

policies, procedures, directives and provisions of the NPB-CSC

Administrative Agreement which govern Board memher roles, responsibili-

ties, duties and functions; the NPB Mission and Guiding Principles which

guide their work; the critical issues and environmental factors, emanat-

ing from within the NPB, from within the criminal justice system and from

within the larger governmental context, which will have an impact on

their work. To a lesser extent, each Board member should be conversant

with the statutory authorities, operational policies, procedures, direc-

tives and guidelines governing the work of staff. Each Board member

should also comprehend the raison d'être of the work of the staff and the

staff work processes undertaken to support and assist Board decision-

making. Staff must be fully conversant with the statutory authorities,

policies, procedures and directives which oovern their own roles, respon-

sihilities, duties and functions and to a lesser degree, conversant with

those governing Board members.

.../29

I11AIrIr

Ia1IIIIIII

- 29 -

II1

1IIIII1I1I1II

It is in this process of specifyinq and satisfying this condition that

one finds:

o that there is a lack of clarity and distinction between the roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions of Senior Board Members and

Regional Directors in NPR Regional Offices.

As noted earlier, the statutory authorities and accountabilities, organ-

izational systems and functions, outcomes or "products" and measures of

the work of each are distinct and different. The success of the SB,I's

and RD's work is interdependent, particularly, if one considers that the

client for both is the offender requesting conditional release and that

the organizational leader for both is the Chairman. Of all the stresses

and strains placed on the Board-Staff relationships during onooina day -

to-day operations in a Regional Office, the issue upon which most SBM and

RD relationships founder is that of resource management. This issue

becomes maqnified and more or less intolerable, depending upon the

overall Board-staff relationships, in situations where the allocation and

control of resources for Board decision-making processes negatively

impacts the scheduling of Board member's work, the composition of Board

member panels, travel and accommodation of Board members, orientation

training and ongoing professional development of Board members.

.../30

r

.../31

-30 -

Clearly, the SBM and each Board member, full-time, temporary or community

is accountable to the Chairman for ensuring that Board decision-making is

carried out in accordance with the statutory reouirements, NPB mission,

policies, procedures and directives. As well, the SBM is accountable for

ensuring that there is a requisite number of Board members, grouped and

prepared in accordance with the requirements of the particular decision-

making process, in the right place and at the right time. The process of

satisfying this condition is both time-consuming and complex due to a

large number of factors such as: the large volume and increasing

complexity of Board decision-making processes; the large number of loca-

tions for Panel Hearings; the wide geographic dispersal of these loca-

tions; the small number of full-time Board members relative to the number

of Temporary Board members; the itinerant nature of work assignments for

Temporary and Community Board Members; the short tenure for Temporary Bo-

ard Members; the differing levels of competence, confidence and prepared-

ness of Board members to undertake decision-making processes individually

and collectively. In terms of dealing with all these issues impacting on

this condition, it is clear that the SBM and the RD each have a key but

distinct role to play in satisfying this condition. Under the different

governing statutory authorities for an SBM and an RD, the SBM is not held

accountable for resource management whereas the PD is held accountable

for such under the Financial Administration Act. Similarly, the RD

cannot be held accountable for Board member decision-making whereas the

- 31 -

1

r

1tIIIAItI1

II

SBM is held accountable on an individual basis and in a corporate Board

sense to the Chairman for the decision-making processes in a particular

reqion.

The SBM, as the senior regional Board member with the most intimate know-

ledge of the Board decision-making processes and of the factors impinging

on Board members' work, should have the primary role and responsibilities

for the composition of Board member panels in order to enable Board

members to carry out their roles, responsibilities, duties and functions

with excellence. The RD, on the other hand, as the senior regional staff

member with the most intimate knowledge of the corporate and operational

factors impinging on staff and on NPB resource management, should have

the primary role and responsihilities for the planning, obtaining,

organizing, allocating, controllino and evaluatino, the use of regional

resources aiven the determination of Board member reauirements made by

the SBM.

These two distinct roles and responsibilities should not be exercised in

ways in which the SBM and RD work in isolation. If they do work this

way, then one can expect to find a lack of common understandinq and

agreement on the data and information required, the format of such, the

rationale for resources, and eventually a wide gap between resource

requirements and their allocation. Neither should the SBM and RD

exercise their roles and responsibilities in a hierarchical fashion. If

they do, then one can expect to find competition and eventually a power

...,/32

I

- 32 -

struggle for dominance in regional authority with all the attendant

fall-out in terms of staff and Board split into factions, diversion of

focus from mission to gamesmanship, squandering of time and poor quality

work. Rather the SBM and RD must work together as a leadership team in

the Regional offices each with egual status both in the Regional Offices

and within their respective Board and staff organizations. This team

leadership should be carried out with the common understanding that the

day-to-day work of the staff must be directly related to and in support

of the Board decision-making processes. It is essential that the SBM and

RD formally schedule and regularly meet, not just for resource discussion

purposes but also to deal with the multitude of issues of a specific

regional nature and also of a general corporate nature. This approach

will require that both the SBM and RD consider how they currently appor-

tion their time and to what issues and how they should reallocate their

time in light of this suggestion for e team-based Regional Leadership ap-

proach. Later in this report other functions requiring a team approach

to SBM-RD Regional Leadership will be suggested.

For example, this team approach will require than an SBM devote approxi-

mately 20% of his/her time to corporate Board business, such as General

Board, Executive Committee, Senior Management Committee meetings and

ongoing contact with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other regional Board

members. Of the remaining 80% of his/her time, the SBM should devote

approximately 10% to regional leadership responsibilities shared with the

RD. Approximately 10% of the SBM's time should be devoted to regional

.. ./33

- 33 -

Board member issues, i.e., Board member orientation training and profes-

sional development pertinent to Board decision-making processes, Board

member performance counselling and appraisal. The remaining 60° of the

SBN's time should be devoted to decision-making on cases. This approach

will require that the RD devote approximately 80% of his/her time to the

regional operational functions, such as case mananement, public informa-

tion and education, orientation training and professional development of

staff and Board members; administrative systems and services. Of this

80°,, approximately 10°I' of the RD's time should be devoted to regional

leaderhsip responsibilities shared with the RD. Approximately 10,%) of the

RD's time should he devoted to individual staff members issues. The

remaining 20,',q' of the RD's time should be devoted to corporate operational

management business, such as, Senior Management Committee, Management

Committee, NPB-CSC operational issues, contact with the Executive

Director, HQ Managers and other Regional Directors. Obviously, these

percentages are very tentative and approximate; however, the exercise of

allocation and management of time is often the key to improved effective-

ness and efficiency in its use. Given the existinq perceptions and

realities of the workload of both Board and staff members in Regional

Offices, time must he considered as a scarce and therefore costly

resource to be carefully conserved.

Other issues which cloud the clarity of the roles, responsibilities,

duties and functions of the SBM and RD include policy and procedure

development, ongoing evaluation of the outcomes of case management and

.../34

- 34 -

decision-making processes, training and professional development and

public information and education. All of these issues impinge on the

Board decision-making processes and staff work in support of such. For

this reason, these issues must he dealt with in order to satisfy the

conditions requisite to Board decision-making. Clearly, the multifaceted

nature of the issues points to their resolution at the regional level. by

the SBM and RD and at the corporate level by the Chairman in consultation

with the Executive Director.

It is during the day-to-day work of regional Board and staff members that

identification of policy and attendant procedural issues occurs.

Currently, there is limited attention and underdeveloped capacity in

regional offices to undertake strategic thinking on policy and procedural

issues. Rather, regional Board and staff seek interpretation of these

issues from HQ on a case-by-case basis. Frequently the questions asked

by regional Board and staff are in the form of What, Who, How, Where and

When, rather than Why, that is, more procedural than policy in nature.

As a result of these questions over time, the NPB has produced a rather

voluminous Policy and Procedures Manua]. which is viewed not only as

daunting by most users but also as essentially procedural in nature

rather than policy, and thus not reflective of the general stance of the

NPB on issues of importance to NPB work and to its corporate health and

welfare. To a large extent, the procedures guiding Board members and

staff in their work are mostly developed and in daily use; however the

policy stances are in the latency stage of development. It is probable

.../35

11III1rI

I1I1III

procedural

Management

- 35 -

that through the NPB Strategic Planning process this policy void will be

addressed; however, it is also timely and appropriate that reoional Board

and staff members begin to locus attention on the identification of

policy stances which would contribute to consistency and promotion of

excellence in their daily work.

the SBM and the RD that these

routines should be identified

It is through the regional leadership of

policy stances and attendant

and brouet to the Senior

Committee, the Executive Committee and the Management Committee. For

example, if through these committee appraisal processes, a proposed

policy is deemed to be needed across all regions, then the Chairman

would, through the Executive Director, assign the further development of

such to a team of Regional and HO staff whose work would be subject to

final draft approval hy the Chairman prior to presentation to the

Executive Committee for final discussion and final approval. The inter-

pretation of the new policy would then become the responsibility of the

SBM and the RD who in the final analysis are the persons who apply

policies and their attendant procedures in their daily work. On an

exceptional basis and for interpretations of a legislative and lecial

nature, the Regional Offices would seek advice on policy from the

Chairman's office. Policy by its nature is broad and thus subject to

variations in its application. Policy, as well, to be credible must be

reflective of and open to reaional interpretation in its application. It

is therefore important that NPB policies are formulated and defined in

such a way that there is a range of interpretation and application within

which, the SBM and RD can be held accountable. Consistency of interpre-

.../36

- 36 -

tation and application of policies on a regional basis ensures that local

differences in offender population and environment factors impinging on

Board and staff work are accounted for. The range of policy interpreta-

tion would be national in scope and the interpretation within that range

and application would be regional.

Cognizant of the fact that policy issues and their discussion have in the

past, bedevilled the relationships between the NPB as an aqency and the

Solicitor General's department, between Board members and staff, between

headquarters and regional offices, I will propose later in this paper,

perhaps naively, that there are several types of policy to be developed

by the NPB using essentially the same developmental model.

The NPB as an organization must have, as part of an ongoing regular

corporate cycle, the capacity to evaluate its work, that is, the work of

Board as an entity and the work of the staff as an entity. Through an

evaluation process, the questions of Who, What, Where, When, How and Why

must be addressed, not only to satisfy the corporate self-interest but

also to satisfy those external interests to whom the NPB is accountable

in the largest sense, i.e. the general public, Parliament, potential

parolees and those who have been paroled. In other words, in the event

that the NPB is called upon to justify the outcomes of its staff case

management work processes and Board decision-making processes, it must be

confident that it can answer the questions which will be asked. On the

other hand, the NPB may wish to make transparent, and available general

.../37

II11I1I1

II1'III11I

I

I

III11II1II1I1I

- 37 -

information reflective of these outcomes as part of an open and outreach-

ing NPB information program. A prerequisite to the conduct of any evalu -

ation process is the existence of objective standards or criteria against

which performance can be measured. Within the framework of evaluation

processes in general, one finds both audit and performance appraisal

processes. For the purposes of this report, it is essential to distin-

guish between the two processes: audit focuses on organizational work

processes; performance appraisal focuses on individuals working in a

specific position in the organization.

The evaluation process which would focus on staff case management work

processes and Board decision-making processes could be called the case

audit process. As stated earlier, the prerequisite to a case audit

process is the establishment of objective standards or criteria against

which these work processes can be measured. It appears that the case

management staff and Board members respectively, have the most intimate

knowledge of the work processes to be measured and therefore are the

persons who should and can most easily establish the standards or

criteria. In a corporate sense, it makes some sense to task the regional

case managers with the responsihility for the formulation of case manage-

ment standards or criteria or policies. In the same vein, it makes some

sense to task the Board members, full-time and temporary and community,

with the responsibility for the formulation of decision-making standards

or criteria or policies. It also seems reasonable to propose that the

Regional Director who is held accountable for the quality of case

.../38

-38 -

management outcomes and the Senior Board Member who is to a lesser degree

held accountable for the quality of Board decision-making processes

should comprise the Regional Case Audit team. To avoid conflict of

interest in auditing cases in which the SBM has voted, another Board

member could act for the SBM as necessary. A random selection of cases

would be the source for case audit purposes. The regional case audit

report containing audit results from the RD and SBM could be forwarded as

part of an annual NPB audit cycle to the Chairman and through him to the

Executive Director for review and action as appropriate. It may he

advisable to consider the establishment of a case audit committee

comprising regional and Appeal Board members and regional and HO staff

for the purposes of preparing a final audit report on cases prior to its

submission to the Chairman as part of the annual audit report of the

NPB. Once again, although the roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions of the RD and SBM are distinct they hecome linked through

corporate processes of benefit to each side of the organization.

The standards or criteria or policies governino both Board and staff

performance appraisals are well estahlished in the NPB. Performance

appraisal of staff is the responsibility of supervisory staff. Perfor-

mance appraisal of Board members is currently the responsibility of

Senior Board members in regional offices, the Chairman of the Appeal

Division and ultimately of the Chairman. It would seem that most Senior

Board Members regard appraisal of the performance of fellow Board members

as an onerous duty in light of the fact that they have no real

.../39

I

I

I

11tII1i1jII

- 39 -

hierarchical status or authority (in the technocratic organizational

sense) over their peers. In a perfect world with perfect people, peer

appraisal might work well. In the NPB it does not. A useful alternative

might he a self-appraisal process whereby each Board member assesses

his/her own performance against performance criteria or standards.

She/he then discusses the self-appraisal with the SBM who adds his/her

comments in an anecdotal format. The performance appraisal is then

forwarded to the Chairman for his review and sianature.

Of all the conditions to he satisfied prior to Board decision-making, one

of most crucial is the competence and preparedness of Board members to

undertake Roard decision-making processes. Obviously the appointment

process whereby the Governor-In-Council appoints individuals as members

of the NPB for a fixed term of office, is the only first step in ensuring

the competence of the Board; however, that process is beyond the scope

for comments of this report. Once Board members are appointed, the NPB

as an organization then assumes the responsibility for ensuring that

Board members are prepared for their work through orientation to the

corporate mandate under the Parole Act, to the corporate mission and to

their specific roles, responsibilities, duties and functions within the

NPB mandate, mission, policies, directive and procedures.

The corporate phase of this orientation of new Board members should take

place under the leadership of the Chairman with the assistance of NPB

training and development staff. The operational (regional) phase of this

.../40

I

- 40 -

orientation should take place under the leadership of the Senior Board

members with the assistance of the RD and NPB regional traininq and

development staff. The term "Operational" used in this sense refers to

the day-to-day work of Board members. As noted earlier in this report,

in order to promote informed and harmonious relationships in and between

the corporate and operational work of the NPB, Board members need to

comprehend the nature of the roles, responsibilities, duties and func-

tions of staff. This implies that during the corporate orientation phase

that the Executive Director, as Chief Operating Officer reporting to the

Chairman as Chief Executive Pfficer, has a key role to play as does the

Regional Director during the operational (regional) phase. The term

"Operational" used in this sense refers to the day-to-day work of staff

members. Full-time Board members clearly have an advantage over

Temporary and Community Board Members with respect to their ongoing

availability and thus exposure to training and development opportunities

and their ongoing and regular participation in Board decision-making

processes. However, TBM's and in a much more restricted sense, CBM's ,

have roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of equal importance

through peer accountabilities under the Parole Act. For this reason,

orientation training is crucial and possibly even more important to the

preparedness of TBM's and CBM's for undertaking Board decision-making

because the opportunities for ongoing training and development are so

limited for TBM's and almost negligible for CBM's. Once again at the

Regional Office level it appears that both the SBM and RD have distinct

but joined roles, responsibilities, duties and functions focussing on

II ,

III^rII11tI11I

1,

-41 -

ensuring the preparedness of Board members to engage in Board decision-

making processes. In an analagous fashion, staff members throughout the

NPB must be competent and prepared to undertake their work. Through the

NPB staff selection processes, competent staff should be appointed and

subsequently through the corporate and operational phases of orientation

training end ongoino training and development processes, staff should be

prepared to undertake their specific roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions. During interviews with Board and staff, the need for orienta-

tion and ongoing training and development was emphasized hy both groups.

It was also noted by staff that orientation training in a corporate sense

has been almost non-existent and training in an operational sense has

heen little better. Traditionally in the NPB like most other government

agencies, resources for training are less valued than resources for other

activities and thus more easily fall prey to resource reductions. If one

views training as an operational requisite to quality performance and

quality work outcomes, then training resources move from the expense to

the investment side of the corporate ledger. In an information-hased

organization which is labour rather than capital intensive, investment in

people through the ongoing provision of training and development opportu-

nities is more crucial to long-term productivity than investment in

capital equipment.

Of the many conditions to be satisfied prior to initiation of Board

decision-making processes, one of the most important is the presentation

by the NPB of its mandate and mission to the various "publics" to whom it

.../42

I- 42 -

is accountable. As well, the information conveyed to these "publics",

such as, the general public, offenders, Correctional Services of Canada,

the Solicitor General, other agencies and departments in the criminal

justice system, "machinery of government" agencies and Parliament - must

be in a form which makes transparent the ways and means by which the NPB

achieves its mandate and mission. This information, of both a formal and

informal nature, creates an image of the NPB and establishes performance

expectations for the NPB, in the minds of these publics. In both a

corporate and operational sense and formal and informal sense, all Board

members and all staff play roles key in the collection, analysis,

synthesis and dissemination of NPB information and in so doing, hear

responsibility, individually and collectively, for the public image of

the NPB. In terms of formal roles, responsibilities, duties and func-

tions, the Chairman, as Chief spokesperson for the NPB is assisted by

corporate communications staff at headquarters who develop and deliver

information pertinent to the mandate and mission of the NPB. In regional

offices, the Senior Board Member and Reqional Director share the roles,

responsihilities, duties and functions as regional spokespersons and are

assisted in this function by the regional correspondence and information

officer. Through the enunciation of an NPB Communications policy,

clarity in and links between the roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions of Board members and staff and HQ corporate communications

staff and regional information staff should he reinforced in order to

ensure that the information conveyed by all NPB spokespersons is

characterized by a high level of accuracy, consistency, legitimacy and

1IIt^I1

11I1Ir

1

.../43

-43-

1^III

1It1

tI

credibility. A high degree of concern about the less than ideal, if not,

negative, public image of the NPB was expressed by many Board members and

staff durinq interviews for this Review. Those individuals interviewed

in Correctional Services of Canada and the Department of the Solicitor

General have also expressed serious concerns about the neqative image of

the NPB and the need to take immediate action to improve it. Obviously,

the public image of the NPB and any other organization, is based on a

collection of individual perceptions derived from a variety of under-

standings of the mandate, mission and work of the organization. Board

members and staff of the NPB clearly should have the most intimate know-

ledge and best understanding of the mandate, mission and work of the NPB

and are then, by inference key actors or unofficial spokespersons in the

formal and informal dissemination of information pertinent to the NPB.

Therefore, it is essential that all Board members and all staff are well

informed about and committed to the mandate, mission, values and work of

the NPB if they are to convey enthusiasm and respect for their own work,

the work of their colleagues and that of the NPB as a corporate entity.

If- the opposite situation prevails, that is, uninformed and disgruntled

Board and staff members, then no amount of positive formal information

communicated about the mandate, mission and work of the NPB can overcome

the negative perception conveyed informally to the various publics by

Board members and staff. In other words, informed, committed and and

enthusiastic Board and staff members are key to the creation of a

positive internal image of the NPB and subsequently to the creation of a

positive external or public image of the NPB. No doubt there are

.../44

- 44 -

conditions, other than the ones discussed above, which must be satisfied

in order to ensure excellence in the work of Board members and staff;

however, enough has been said to convey the notions of the importance of

collaboration in work processes.

In summary, the conditions which have been presented for consideration

thus far are indicative of some of the issues of most concern expressed

by Board and staff members during interviews and discussions. Other

issues of concern will be presented under the remaining factors - e2

through #8.

Factor 12 - Facts of the Case: the circumstances, constraints, personal

information, and the likely consequences of particular deci-

sions, that when taken together describe a particular case.

Consideration of veracity of facts and the absence of infor-

mation falls within this component.

During the Board decision-making process, individual Board members

exercise their discretion and judgement in the process of determining,

selecting, sorting, prioritizing and weighing the objective facts of each

case as each Board member searches for a "just" decision pertinent to the

conditional release and reintegration of an individual offender. In

general terms, the facts of the case under Board member review are

contained in the offender's case file prepared by the CSC Case Management

staff in accordance with the standards and procedures specified in the

.../45

-45-

r11^1

tI

2

NPB-CSC Administrative Agreement. If the case file meets these standards

attested to by the NPB case manaqement staff in their review of the file,

then the conditions, prerequiste to the initiation of Board review and

decision-making processes have been satisfied. There is little evidence

that the NPB case management work processes add qualitative value to the

CSC- prepared file. In other words, there is little evidence that the NPB

case management staff carry out further analysis and synthesis of the

facts of the case within a well-defined NPB decision-making policy frame-

work and in so doing add qualitative value to the case file prior to

Board member review and decision-making. Without these well defined NP3

decision-making policies then it may not be possible for staff to carry

out specific NPB focussed analysis and synthesis of the facts of the case

without runninq the risk of further complicating the existing Board

decision-making processes. It is within the CSC incarceration-oriented2

policy framework that the facts of the case are determined, collected,

analysed, synthesized and presented by the CSC case management team. By

virtue of this framework, the perspective in which the facts of the case

are presented is more of a historic and incarceration-oriented nature

than a future and conditional release-oriented one. It is within the

recommendation to the NPB to grant or not grant a form of conditional

release that the CSC case management team provides the results of their

assessment of the future behaviour of the potential parolee based on

Incarceration-oriented is a term used by the author to include the CSC

program components of custody, care, control and correction.

.../46

I

-46 -

his/her past behaviour as an offender. In the absence of an NPB condi-

tional release-oriented policy framework for decision-making there is a

danger that the Board decision-making processes will be dominated and

constrained by the CSC policy framework, particularly during periods of

major policy change within CSC. This is not to suggest that a CSC policy

change will change the facts of the case but it can certainly impact the

perspective within which the facts are presented. The perspective within

which the facts of the case and the CSC recommendation are presented,

appears to be quite limited and thereby limiting to Board members in

their search for not only the "just" decision but also the "best" deci-

sion. In other words, the Board members, in considering the facts of the

case in terms of assessing and weighing the future risks to the potential

parolee and to society posed by continued incarceration or release under

specific conditions, may wish to explore a variety of options in order to

find the best match between the needs of the individual potential parolee

and services available and best suited to assist in his/her successful

reintegration into the community. Although the CSC case management team

has undoubtedly reviewed these options prior to making its recommenda-

tion, the Board members operating within a different perspective, i.e.

one of conditional release, express frustration in terms of limited

options for review. In the process of formulation of an NPB decision-

making policy framework some attention should be given to ensuring that

through these policies, Board members are provided a "wide-angled lens"

.../47

-47-

f1IrI1

I'ItII

I

1

or enlarged vision (within the statutory limits) for reviewing the facts

of the case in terms of the options available and pertinent to their

decision-making.

In the absence of a decision-makina policy framework and the lack of

clear evidence of further analysis and synthesis of the case file by NPB

case management staff, one must question the need for NPB case management

work processes which are essentially quantitative and corrective in

nature and useful in the event that a CSf:-prerared case file is lacking

in data and information or that the data and information provided is

incorrect. One must also question the rationale for the allocation of

NPB resources to verification of CSC-prepared files and by implication to

quality control over CSC case-preparation work processes when the NPB has

neither statutory, nor operational authority over CSC functions. If the

facts of the case are deemed to be incomplete or lacking in veracity then

it would seem that the NPB-CSC agreed upon case management standards have

not been complied with. Therefore the conditions requisite to the initi-

ation of Board decision-making processes have not been satisfied and the

Board must delay its decision-making until such times as the conditions

have been satisfied. By proceeding with its decision-making processes in

a situation when the facts of the case are less than satisfactory, the

Board members expose themselves to the risk of makinq less than high

quality decisions.

I

-48 -

Through the formulation of NPB decision-makino policies, the NPB would

have a specific conditional release-oriented policy framework within

which Board decision-making work and staff case-focussed work would be

carried out. Within this framework, the staff case management work

processes could then focus on adding qualitative value to the CSC

prepared case file. That is, the NPB case management would undertake (in

addition to existing functions) functions such as: determination of the

veracity and completeness of the facts; sorting and regrouping the facts

in accordance with the requirements of the policy framework and proce-

dures; analyzing the facts, options and recommendations within the condi-

tional release perspective of the policy framework; synthesizing or

summarizing the facts of the case; and formulating options for considera-

tion by the Board in its decision-makinq within the policy framework.

The staff work should focus on casting the CSC prepared case file into a

NPB perspective in strict accordance with the requirements of the NPB

decision-making policies and attendant procedures. Obviously the facts

of the case remain unaltered (except if incorrect) but the perspective or

framework for their interpretation and specific consideration by the

Board members would change, that is, the CSC incarceration-oriented

framework would be replaced by the NPB conditional release and reintegra-

tion of offenders oriented framework.

In the process of summarizing the facts of the case the most salient or

facts most critical to Board decision-making should be identified. With

respect to the requirements to share information of a salient nature with

.../49

1f1IrII^IIIIrt

I

- 49 -

offenders whose case is being reviewed, this NPB summary of critical

facts could provide the vehicle for the Board members to share informa-

tion with offenders. If this were to occur, then the CSC case management

team would assume full responsibility for sharing the summary of its case

preparation and recommendation with the offender prior to Board review of

the case. In other words, each organization, CSC and NPB, would assume

full responsibility for sharing with the offender the salient facts to be

considered during the NPB decision-making processes.

Factor #3 - Rules: the rules relevant to, or that "govern" a decision,

which may be found in a constitution, in legislaton, by laws,

accredited manuals, or informally drafted written rules,

decisions and precedents.

It is important to note that, as the authors of these factors have

indicated, "even when complete, formalized, carefully drafted rules are

available, they do not determine the decision outcome because discretion

still applies. Formal rules may, however, indicate that certain answers

are wrong. If the rules discreditinq a decision are found in law, the

answer is wrong in law. The determination of which rules, particularly,

precedents will he counted as relevant in a particular case may sometime

give rise to complex conceptual problems that may need to be interpreta-

ted in terms of organizational ethics, values or mission".

,.,/50

- 50 -

Clearly Board members and staff carry out their distinct but linked

roles, responsibilities, duties and functions within the confines of the

"rules". For the NPB, the "rules" are numerous and originate from

sources external and internal to the organization. For example, there

are "rules" emanating from the Canadian Constitution, more particularly,

the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; "rules" originating in

statutes, such as the Parole Act, the Criminal Code of Canada, Criminal

Records Act, Penitentiary Act, Prison and Reformatories Act, Immigration

Act, Narcotic Control Act, Food and f_`rua Act, Canadian Human Rights Act,

Privacy Act, Access to Information Act; "rules" originatina in "machinery

of government" statutes such as, Financial Administration Act, Public

Service Employment Act, Public Service Staff Relations Act, Auditor

General's Act; "rules" arising from these statutes, in the form of

regulations, policies, directives and guidelines; "rules" originating in

court decisions, rulings and precedents; "rules" formulated by the NPB

pertinent to NPB work processes in the form of policies, directives,

routines and practices.

In a hierarchical sense, by enshrining the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

in the Canadian Constitution, these "rules" originating in the Charter

take precedence over all other "rules", including court "rulings", and

thus reflect the ultimate value accorded to individual rights and

freedoms of all Canadians, including the rights and freedoms of offen-

ders. Implicit in the statement of these rights and freedoms in the

Constitution, is a guarantee of their protection under the rule of law.

I

1IIII

I11

-1

tI1I

I

- 51 -

As a consequence, all other "rules" governing the work processes of the

NPB must be interpreted and applied in a manner which ensures that the

outcomes of Board decision-making processes successfully and consistently

protect the rights and freedoms of individual offenders and in so doing

meet the tests of natural justice, procedural fairness and due process if

challenged by potential parolees through the NPB Appeal process and/or

the courts.

Despite the privative clause provisions of Section 23 of the Parole Act,

the Courts in general and the Federal Court in particular, has enter-

tained writs to appeal decisions of the Board under Sections 18 and 28 of

the Federal Court Act. In so doing, the Federal Court has reviewed Board

member decisions and decision-making processes using its powers of

judicial review to affirm or quash Board decisions following its determi-

nation of whether the Board acted within its statutory jurisdiction or

authority, acted fairly and in accordance with the principles of natural

justice. As a result of Federal Court rulings through judicial review

and rulings of other courts such as the Supreme Court of Canada, there is

a body of jurisprudence from which emanates revisions to existing "rules"

or new "rules" which in turn govern the decision-making processes of the

NPB. Since 1982, when the common law provisions, such as the duty to act

fairly, due process and the principles of natural justice were enshrined

in the Constitution through the provisions of the Charter of Rights and

.../52

- 52 -

Freedoms, a new body of jurisprudence has emerged as a result of appeals

under the Charter. For instance, Section 7 of the Charter entitled Legal

Rights states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of

the person and the right not to be deprived thereof

except in accordance with the principles of fundamental

justice.

In the accompanying description to this and subsequent sections contained

in A Guide for Canadians to The Charter of Riqhts and Freedoms, it is

noted that "the rights outlined in these sections spell out the basic

legal protection that will safeguard us in our dealings with the state

and its machinery of justice. They are designed to protect the indivi-

dual and to ensure simple fairness should he or she be subjected to legal

proceedings, particularly criminal cases". As a result, the Board must

ensure that the "rules", i.e. policies and procedures, governing its

decision-making processes and decisions comply with the principles

enunciated in the Charter and with the precedents established by the

courts and found in the body of jurisprudence.

In general terms, "rules" formulated by the NPB can be categorized as

those arising from "rules" pertinent to Board decision-making processes

and staff case-focussed work processes and those "rules" pertinent to NPB

corporate and operational management work processes. The NPB "rules"

.../53

IIIIItI1

IIaIII11I

II

I

IIIIIIIIIII1I

- 53 -

governing Board decision-making processes and case management processes

are enunciated in the two NPB accredited Policy and Procedures Manuals.

In an analogous fashion, the NPB "rules" governing corporate and opera-

tional management processes are enunciated in NPB personnel, administra-

tive and financial policies and procedures manuals. These latter NPB

manuals reflect the direct and specific adaptation by the NPB of Treasury

Board accredited manuals for personnel, administrative and financial

management. As an agency operating in the federal sphere of government,

the NPB has limited flexibility in the adaptation and application of the

standards or "rules" set out by "machinery of government" agencies in

accredited manuals; however, as an agency with unioue statutory responsi-

bilities in the federal sphere, the NPB has a nreat deal of flexibility

in the formulation of its case-focussed policies, directives, procedures

and practices. Historically, it has been in the area of case-focussed

formulation of policies or "rules" that the NPB has experienced difficul-

ties internally as an organization and externally as an agency within the

sphere of authority of the Solicitor General. For this reason, this

section of the Report will focus on the nature of the policy formulation

processes associated with Board decision-making and staff case-

management.

In the context of a determination-making or "deciding" agency, such as

the NPB, insulation from the political process of government which was

the raison d'être for its establishment as an arm's length agency, is

also a factor in the evolution of its policy formulation process. The

.../54

I

- 54 -

delicate balance between agency insulation from day-to-day political

control over decision-making processes and accountability within the

statutory and governmental policy framework varies amono administrative

"deciding" agencies and shifts in accordance with the nature and impact

of the many environmental factors impacting the statutory roles, respon-

sibilities, duties and functions of each agency. The status of adminis-

trative agencies in Canada, such as the NPB, as structural heretics,

means that it is neither clear nor settled how the political norms of

Parliamentary democracy and Ministerial Responsibility apply. The

resulting lack of clarity can lead to tension between the agency and the

department and Minister presumed to he responsihle for policy formula-

tion. It may be useful at this point to differentiate between two types

of policy, using definitions proposed by Amy Bartholomew in her paper

entitled, Accountability, Control and Independence: Balancing the

Requirements for Effective and Responsive Decision and Policy Making,

Correctional Law Project, Secretariat of the Solicitor General (1985).

Substantive policy ... refers to policy which is elabora-

ted in the application of an agency's mandate. Legisla-

tive, on the other hand, entails policy proposals

regarding legislative changes in the mandate ... general-

ly, substantive policy is a function of the agency,

while, generally, legislative policy is viewed as a

function of the department, sometimes in consultation

with the agency.

.../55

- 55 -

IIIIIIIEIII1II

A recent example of the NPB role in formulating policy proposals regard-

ing legislative changes is found in the work carried out by the Chairman

and Board members through the NPB Executive Committee and by staff

members working with staff of the Secretariat of the Solicitor General,

in the development and drafting of Bills C-67 and C-68, their presenta-

tion to the Solicitor General, and his proposals to Parliament. In other

words and simplistically, in terms of legislative changes to the Parole

Act, the role of the Chairman of the NPB is to propose and the role of

the Solicitor General and Parliament is to dispose.

The NPB, as a result of its day-to-day Board decision-making processes

and staff case management processes pertinent to conditional release and

reintegration of offenders, formulates substantive policy. Unlike other

"deciding" administrative aQencies, such as, Canadian Transport Commis-

sion, National Energy Board, Atomic Energy Board, Canadian Radio -

Television and Telecommunications Commission, the NPB undertakes

decision-making in accordance with the broad general criteria set out in

the Parole Act. This, then, is the primary function of the NPB and

formulation of substantive policy is a secondary function or a by-product

of the first function. In contrast, the aforementioned agencies have, as

their primary function, set out in their statutes, formulation of policy

and as a secondary function, decision-making within these policies. It

would seem from the recent experiences associated with amendments to the

Parole Act, that there is general acceptance within the federal sphere

and in particular by the Solicitor General as the Minister responsible,

.../56

I

- 56 -

of the NPB 's role in legislative policy formulation. It is less certain

based on past experience in the NPB, that there is general acceptance of

the NPB's role in substantive policy making, that is, formulation of

policies or "rules" within which Board members make decisions pertinent

to conditional release and reintegration of offenders. This uncertainty

spills over into the formulation of policies or "rules" governing staff

in their case management work processes. This is not to imply, that

there is uncertainty concerning the why or the need for the policies and

procedures contained in the NPB Policy and Procedures Manual hut rather

uncertainty in the context of what constitutes the parameters of NPB

substantive policy formulation and when, where, how and who should formu-

late this substantive policy.

It is my view that the role of the NPB in substantive policy matters

evolves and revolves around the interpretation of the substantive sec-

tions of the Parole Act and its regulations and arises from the day -to-

day Board decision-making processes and supportive staff case-management

processes. It is through this Board interpretation of the Parole Act and

Regulations as it applies to individual cases coming to Board members for

decision that the identification of the need for NPB policies and proce-

dures and subsequent development of such is given effect. It is also

within this interpretation of the NPB "rules" or policies that the Board

members exercise their individual discretion. That is, individual Board

members decide which "rules" or policies are applicable in each individi-

al case prior to making decisions on the case. Within Bartholomew's

.../57

II

I

IIIIIIIII

IIII

-57 -

definition of substantive policy, it would appear that the NPB should

formulate policy only to the extent that it is required to do so to

fulfill its primary function of decision-makino under the substantive

sections of the Parole Act and Regulations. As an example, the Parole

Act does not direct the Board to grant a specific form of conditional

release given a specific set of circumstances. Rather Section 10 (1)(a)

of the Parole Act directs the attention of Board members to consider

three (3) broadly-stated criteria in making their decisions on individual

cases. According to Bartholomew:

While some discretion is probably necessary with regard

to Parole (Board) decisions, it is submitted that the

existing enormous discretion of (the) Parole Board in

both granting and revoking matters constitutes a lack of

accountability.

She further suggests that the "lack of guidelines (for NPB decision-

making) translates into an enormous discretionary power and lack of

accountability". Bartholomew, in defining guidelines as substantive

policies or rules, suggests that a lack of guidelines creates a policy

vacuum which the NPB must fill through substantive policy formulation,

i.e. formulation of decision-making guidelines, rules or policies. As

suggested earlier in this report, there clearly is a need for NPB

decision-making policies not for the purpose of limiting Board member's

discretion but rather to protect their discretion. Within this unique

.../58

- 58 -

NPB policy or "rules" framework, Board members would consider the objec-

tive facts of each individual case, explore the options available and

exercise their best judgement in reaching a decision. An NPB decision-

making policy framework is a prerequisite to the development of an NPB

case management policy framework within which the current staff case

management work processes can be qualitatively enhanced.

The experience of some Board members in the recent past attests to the

fact that there is a fine line between the role of the rhairman and the

NPB in policy making arising from the substantive sections of the Parole

Act and the role of the Minister responsible for policy making arising

from the stance of the government-of-the-day on a wide variety of

issues. For example, Section 5.2 of the NPB Policy and Procedures Manual

states that "The policy of the Board is to use the power to discharge

parole restrictively". This statement raises the question of whether the

NPB is actually proposing a stance on how parole will be administered not

in the procedural sense of how, but rather in the broad government-of-

the-day political policy stance, without providing a rationale or answer-

ing why this stance is appropriate. One interpretation of this policy

would indicate that the intent of the policy statement is to convey the

notion that in situations in which the weighing of the facts of the case

results in equal weighing of a yes or no decision, then the Board member

will be guided by this policy to decide to not grant discharge from

parole to the individual on parole whose case is under review. In the

absence of an NPB decision-making policy framework within which policies

.../59

IIII1IIIIIIIItI

III

-59 -

are interpreted as interdependent and part of a whole set, then a single

policy such as the one discussed above will be interpreted from a

multiplicity of individual perspectives by Board members, NPB staff, CSC

staff, offenders and other persons and groups who have specific interests

to be satisfied. Consistency in policy interpretation not only rein-

forces the rationale for the policy but also for the discretion resulting

from the application of the policy. By providing a rationale for the

policy, and relating it directly to its decision-making processes, the

NPB brings the policy back into the substantive policy making sphere of

the NPD and out of the government stance or political policy making

sphere of the Minister responsible. As noted earlier, policy formulation

can be simplistically distinguished from procedure development by

assuming that policy addresses the question of What and Why and proce-

dures address the questions of What, Who, When, Where and How. In the

policy example just cited, the issue was not one of distinguishing

between policy and procedure hut rather one of distinguishing between

suhstantive and political or oovernment-of-the-day policy making, and

thereby useful in identifying the sphere of policy making authority for

the NPB.

It is a tribute to the historic and ongoing respect for and understanding

of the separate spheres of policy-makinq that there has been no attempt

by the Solicitor General nor by the departmental staff to influence or

interfere with individual Board member decision-making. That is, the

individual discretion of Board members in making decisions on individual

.../60

- 60 -

cases has been preserved and insulated from direct and indirect political

influence and control exercised through the imposition of governmental

policy stances on NPB decision-making processes. In situations in which

there have been problems associated with the outcomes of NPB decision-

making processes, then the problems were the subject of discussion

between the NPB Chairman and the Solicitor General after Board decisions

had been made and for the purpose of making changes in their respective

policy-making spheres, either to the legislative "rules" or substantive

"rules" governing future outcomes of Board decision-making processes. As

an example, the legislative "rules" change brought about by passage of

Bills C-67 and C-68 u nder the authority of the Solicitor General addres-

sed some of the problems experienced by Board members in their decision-

making processes in the past and will shape the outcomes of future Board

decision-making through the formulation and application of new substan-

tive NPB "rules" or policies and procedures.

Currently, the "rules" qoverning the decision-making processes of the

Appeal Division of the NPB are more of a procedural and practice nature

than of a policy due to the minimalist statements regarding the appellate

or Re-Examination of Board decisions function of the NPB in Section 22 of

the Regulations under the Parole Act. There is little disagreement among

Board members vis à vis the importance of an appellate function within

the NPB, that is, to ensure that the outcomes of Board decision-making

processes, i.e. the decisions and the processes themselves, comply with

NPB "rules" or policies and procedures and thereby ensure that the

IIIIII1IIIIIII

III

- 61 -

I

IIIIIIIIIIIII

offender or potential parolee has been treated fairly and in accordance

with the principles of fundamental justice. Although there appears to he

a general understanding and agreement with this appellate function, as

stated here, there is not, as yet, however a clearly enunciated statement

of purpose or mandate nor understanding nor agreement among Board members

vis à vis, the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of Appeal

Board members. There is as well little agreement among Regional Board

members with the notion of the Appeal Division havino the "riaht" to

substitute its own decision for the decision of the Pegional Board in the

first instance.

As noted earlier, Section 22 of the Regulations does not define the

purpose or mandate of the Appeal Division within the statutory framework

of the NPB. It may well be that the search for a purpose or mandate

should focus on the "rules" emanating from the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms and from the body of legal jurisprudence based on court

"rulings". Such a focus might yield a statement of purpose such as: The

mandate of the Appeal Division is to ensure that Board decision-making

processes and decisions comply with NPB policies and procedures, the

principles enunciated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with the

court rulings and precedents contained in the body of jurisprudence

applicable to the NPB. With such a purpose clearly stated as Board

policy or preferably as a provision within the Parole Act, then there is

a statutory reference point for the procedure-like conditions under which

an offender seeks relief from a board decision under Section 22 of the

.../62

I

- 62 -

Regulations. Over time, through the decisions of the Appeal Division on

appeals from Regional Board decisions, a body of precedents or NPB

jurisprudence could be developed which would be instrumental in ensuring

high quality in Board decisions and decision-making processes. Put

simply, the NPB through its appellate function would ensure that

offenders or potential parolees are treated in accordance with the

principles of fundamental justice as reflected in the policies and proce-

dures of the NPB and in a manner consistent and equitable with other

offenders in similar circumstances within the jurisdiction of the NPB. A

L'-product of this in-house body of jurisprudence would be to minimize

the need for offenders to appeal Reoional Board decisions over time. In

the instances in which a request for re-examination of Board decision

were made, the potential for further appeal to the Courts for relief from

the Board decision would be minimized. Although it is premature to

surmise from the recent court rulings that the Courts look favourably on

the existence of an appellate function within the NPB, it is probably

safe to suggest that the Courts would look even more favourably on the

Appeal Division if it had a clearly enunciated mandate and exercised

well-defined roles, responsibilities, duties and functions within the

overall mission of the NPB.

In the process of defining the purpose or mandate of the Appeal Division,

great care must be taken to link this purpose through the NPB mission

statement to the purpose and mandate of the Regional Divisions of the

Board, while at the same time clarifying the differences between their

.../63

II

IIIIIIIIIIII

- 63 -

mandates or purposes. It is crucial to ongoing positive organizational

relationships between Appeal Division Board members and Regional Board

members that their respective roles, responsibilities, duties and func-

tions are clarified and linked through the NPB statement of mission.

Currently, the Appeal Division conducts its decision-making processes and

makes decisions within the existing policy and procedures designed

primarily for first-instance Regional Board decision-making and not for

Re-Examination of Board decisions.

In the absence of a well-defined mandate, the development of an Appeal-

oriented policy framework within which the Appeal Board members review

cases and make their decisions, cannot be undertaken. In other words,

the NPB cannot promulgate its own "rules" or policies for Board

decision-making on appeals until it addresses the question - Why do we

need an Appeal Division? or What business are we in? In order to deal

with current requests from offenders for re-examination of Board deci-

sions, the Appeal Division has devised procedures appropriate to the

provisions in Section 22 of the Regulations. In so doing, the Appeal

Division has addressed the who, what, how, when and where questions. In

my view, at the moment, the Appeal Board members cannot propose an answer

to the Why question without running the risk of having their actions

construed as self-serving in the short term and risking problems of

credibility and legitimacy vis à vis the appellate function within the

Board in the long-term. This appears to be an opportune time for the NPB

.../64

I

-64 -

as corporate entity under the leadership of the Chairman to undertake the

task of clarifying and enunciating the mandate, roles, responsibilities,

duties and functions of the Appeal Division Board members and in so doing

clarify and establish the links and relationships between Appeal Division

and Regional Divisions of the Board. The processes of clarification of

NPB mission and organizational purpose and structure currently underway

presents an opportunity for action of compelling proportions.

Without Appeal Board decision-making policies there can be no development

of appropriate staff case management policies or standards against which

either Board members or staff can evaluate their work processes. To

date, the clearest enunciation of the perspective within which the

Appeal Board members carry out their review has been proffered by the

Chairperson of the Appeal Division. It is her view that the Regional

Board members in arriving at their decision on the individual case in the

first instance, review the facts of the case in terms of the offender's

past and future behaviour. During the Appeal Division review of the case

under appeal by an offender seeking relief from the Board decision in the

first instance, the Appeal Board members review the case in terms of

assessing the compliance of Regional Board decision-making processes and

decision with the "rules" or policies and procedures governing NPB

decision-making, including compliance with the principles of natural

justice, due process and the duty to act fairly. Simplistically, the

Board of the first instance reviews the offender and the Board of the

second instance reviews the decision and the decision-making process

.../65

- 65 -

which generated the decision on the case. This perspective is indicative

of the separate and distinct nature of the roles, responsibilities,

duties and functions of Appeal Board members and by implication of staff

members. It also demonstrates the need for a distinct appeal-oriented

decision-making policy framework within which Appeal Board and staff

members can carry out their respective work processes.

Currently, the Professional Standards Committee of the NPB is the vehicle

through which evaluation of the Board decision-making processes at the

Regional and Appeal Board levels is undertaken. In the absence of

decision-making policy frameworks and policies or standards against which

Regional and Appeal Roard decision-making processes and staff case

management processes can be evaluated, then there appears to he little

value in attemptinq to evaluate these work processes. Any attempt to

evaluate these work processes under these conditions will be fraught with

suspicion vis à vis the motives and focus of the evaluation and the

outcomes of the evaluation process will be tainted by perceived lack of

credibility and absence of legitimacy.

As proposed in the discussion under Factor ik1 - Conditions, a case audit

function carried out under the leadership of the SBM and RD would provide

ongoing opportunities for Regional Board members and staff to evaluate

their respective case-focussed work processes on a regular basis. In an

analogous fashion, in the Appeal Division, under the leadership of the

Chairperson of the Appeal Division and the staff Divisional Director, the

.../66

- 66 -

case-focussed work processes of Board and staff would he evaluated

through a regular and ongoing case audit function with the results

reported to the Chairman of the NPB as part of the annual NPB audit

cycle. The establishment of these case audit functions in the P,eaional

and Appeal Divisions of the NPB would replace some of the functions

currently undertaken by the Professional Standards Committee of the

Board. Those remainina functions which focus on the professional conduct

of individual Board members appear to be more appropriately aligned with

the Board member performance appraisal processes under the authority of

the Chairman.

The "rules" governing the Appeal Division Board members and staff case

management processes pertinent to making recommendations to the Solicitor

General and Governor-In-Council, respectively, on requests for relief

through the granting of pardons originate in the Criminal Records Act and

for the granting of clemency emanate from the Royal Prerogative of

Mercy. The NPB "rules" derived from the Criminal Records and the Royal

Prerogative of Mercy, are comprehensive and are of both a policy and of a

procedural nature, and are compiled in the "other" red Policy and Proce-

dures Manual. The work processes associated with requests for clemency

and pardons, carried out by staff during the preparation of the case,

focus on collecting, analysing and synthesizing the facts of the case

prior to its submission to the Appeal Board members for their recommenda-

tion to either the Solicitor General or the Governor-In-Council. To a

large degree, the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of Appeal

.../67

IIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIII

- 67 -

Board members pertinent to recommending relief to an individual from

continued incarceration throue clemency and relief from a criminal

record through a pardon, are not well known in the NPB and risk not being

recognized as being of equal importance to their other roles, responsi-

bilities, duties and functions under the Parole Act.

The same situation prevails for staff members whose work processes are c-

rucial to the clemency and pardons mandate of the NPB. Within the NPB as

an organizational entity, there is less focus on Board and staff work

processes governed by the "rules" originatina in the Criminal Records Act

and the Royal Prerogative of Mercy than those work processes aoverned by

the "rules" originating in the Parole Act. One must question whether

less focus on the clemency and pardons work processes is indicative of

less value accorded to these statutory responsibilities within the NPB or

whether less focus is indicative of less public interest and visibility

associated with carrying out the roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions of Board members and staff.

In any event, the Appeal Division Board members in order to carry out

their roles, responsibilities, duties and functions under the "rules"

originating in the Parole Act, the Criminal Records Act and the Royal

Prerogative of Mercy, clearly need to be assisted by staff case manage-

ment work processes pertinent to each statutory authority. To be more

specific, the Appeal Division, as one of six Divisions of the NPB and the

one division with unique statutory responsibilities should have a Board

.../68

- 68 -

and staff structure analagous in many respects to that of a Regional

Division of the NPB. This analogy extends to proposing that the staff

case management work processes pertinent to support of Board decision-

making on appeals, clemency and pardons requests should focus on adding

quality to each case through a holistic rather than piece-work approach

to the case file. In other words, each staff member should be assigned a

number of case files to which she/he adds quality through careful

analysis and synthesis of the facts of the case, resulting in a summary

and recommendations to the Board members for their consideration and

decision. In a later section of this Report, a more detailed proposal on

changes to the existing organizational structure of the Appeal Division

under a new name, that is, the Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division,

will be presented for consideration.

In order to withstand the scrutiny by all the publics with interests in

the outcomes and processes of Board decision-making vis à vis conditional

release, it is essential that the internal Board processes pertinent to

"rules" formulation and interpretation be clarified. The legitimacy and

credibility of the NPB is brought into question by repeated promises for

fast action followed by a rationale for not delivering on the promises.

This approach provides an open invitation for a take-over of the substan-

tive policy "rules" formulation function by persons or agencies who can

and will deliver on their promises.

.../69

II

II1IIIII

IIII1II

- 69 -

IIIIIIIIII

I

For this reason, it is imperative that the NPB policy formulation and

interpretation processes be and be seen to be ones characterized by

clarity, direction and quality of "products". As noted earlier, Board

members and staff in Regional Offices and Appeal, Clemency and Pardon

Division whose work is case-focussed are daily required to interpret and

apply existing "rules" found in NPB policies and procedures. As the

environment within which they work chanqes, Board and staff identify the

need for revisions and/or new "rules". This does not mean that the

"rules" should or do change constantly but rather that the scope for

their interpretation must be broad enough to allow for their application

in ways appropriate to reqional or Appeal Board conditions, that is,

conditions which impact the individual offender whose case is under

review. The scope for interpretation must, on the other hand, be narrow

enough to ensure that the interpretation and application of the "rules"

is construed to be fair, consistent and equitable with the treatment

accorded by the NPB to other offenders in similar circumstances. Should

it become apparent through the case audit process and through other

ongoing NPB monitoring processes carried out by Senior Board members and

Regional Directors, Chairman of Appeal I)ivision and Divisional Director,

Senior Management Committee, Executive Committee, Chairman's Office, that

difficulties exist with a "rule" or policy or procedure, then corrective

action should quickly be taken. There are many possibilities for action

depending obviously on the nature of the problem with the "rule". For

instance, the corrective action may require; an affirmation of the intent

and scope for interpretation of the existing policy; a redefinition of

...,/70

I

-70 -

the scope of the policy; a revision of the policy to reflect a new

intent; the deletion of a policy; the formulation of a new policy to meet

the requirements of a changed environment arising from a court ruling or

amended legislation or changed policy in CSC.

The choice and nature of the corrective action in turn should determine

who should be tasked with the action. In the recent past, the determina-

tion of who should be involved in the interpretation of NPB policies and

procedures has been frauoht with lack of clarity and lack of consisten-

cy. As a result, Board members and staff have sought interpretation of

policy from several sources - the Secretary of the Board, Legal Counsel,

Chairman, Vice-Cheirman, Board and staff in other Regions and policy

analysts at Headquarters. Despite the best intentions of everyone

involved in asking and giving advice, the process has been time-consuming

and inefficient and the outcomes have frequently been contradictory and

ineffective. To a large extent, the process of determining who the key

actors are and who should be tasked with the revision and/or formulation

of new policy has been characterized by a lack of clarity and consisten-

cy. Clearly, the ultimate statutory authority for policy formulation

rests with the Chairman and the Executive Committee of the NPB. It is

also evident that the Chairman and the Executive Committee need the

support of legal counsel and policy analysts to undertake the preparatory

work entailed in policy formulation and the procedures which flow from

such. Most policy formulation processes require data and information

derived from a variety of sources, such as statutes, jurisprudence,

.../71

- 71 -

IIIIIIItI1t1I

socio-economic indicators and statistics, policies emanatina from other

departments and agencies within the Criminal Justice System, other

agencies and departments in the federal, provincial and municipal spheres

of government, reports and studies from within government and academic

institutions and community-based voluntary or private organizations

providing services to offenders. This list does not imply a never-ending

lengthy examination and eventual dissertation based on months of work by

many policy formulators. The list is intended to convey the notion that

the policy formulation process within the NPB should involve Board and

staff working together as a team to identify the policy issue, determine

the action to be taken, take the action appropriate to the issue, approve

the outcome of the action and apply the outcome, be it a new policy or a

new interpretation of an existing policy. Clearly, staff are best

prepared to undertake the preparatory work involved in policy formula-

tion, that is, legal counsel, policy analysts at HQ and case management

staff in the regions and in the Appeal Division. Once the new policy has

been approved in final draft form by the Chairman it seems appropriate

that it then go to Senior Manaqement Committee in final draft form for

discussion prior to going to Executive Committee for final approval and

promulgation as an NPB policy to be included in the NPB accredited or

approved Policy Manual. Once approved, the policy becomes one of the

"rules" under which the NPB carries out its work, is available to all

interested publics and is interpreted, applied and governs Board

decision-making processes and decisions. It seems reasonable to suggest

that the final word on interpretation of existing Board policy rests with

.../72

I

- 72 -

the Chairman and/or his delegate in the sense of the person to whom he

delegates this function. In this way, one person in the NPB is respon-

sible for conveying the NPB corporate interpretation of the "rules" which

govern Board decision-making. These suggestions are not intended to

provide a panacea for policy formulation and interpretation in the NPB

but rather a tentative roadmap to a temporary utopia. Policy by its

nature is somewhat like the Cheshire Cat in that it comes into focus

momentarily and disappears just as one grasps it, only to leave a smile

or maybe a grimace behind.

Factor #4 - Morality: first, the moral principles held by the organiza-

tion or the decision maker are potentially relevant in any

application of administrative discretionary justice; and

second, the persons or parties affected, together with an

account of how they are affected by a potential decision are

subject to consideration by the decision maker.

Through the participation of Board members and staff in the development

of the statement of mission and Guiding ° rinciples, the corporate purpose

and values of the NPB as an organization are being enunciated and as a

result will be made transparent to the various publics served by the NPB.

It is through the application of these corporate values in day-to-day

work processes that Board members and staff give life to the corporate

mission, principles and standards of the NPB. It is also through the

.../73

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

-73 -

"living out" of these corporate values that individual Board members and

staff may find themselves in situations in which personal values do not

correspond with corporate values. Clearly, as a member of the NPB as a

corporate entity one is obligated to enunciate corporate values. Hope-

fully, there will be few situations in which one must make a choice

between personal and corporate values in carrying out one 's work within

the NPB. If such a situation occurs, then it will become crucial that

the organization converts the situation into an opportunity to clarify

corporate values and to assist the individual to reconcile personal

values with corporate values through a better understanding of each. The

enunciation of NPB Mission and Principles is not directed towards

uniformity of personal values and beliefs of Board members and staff but

rather towards conformity between public statements of NPB corporate

Mission and Principles and public actions of Board members and staff.

Without ascribing intent to the Chairman under whose leadership the

consultation of Board members and staff is being undertaken, it may be

useful to consider the expressed intent of a similar process being

undertaken by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPPC).

In the preamble to the Statement of Principles Regarding the Conduct of

Public Employees, IPAC notes:

We, the members of the Institute, intend that this

Statement of Principles enhance the performance of our

members by encouraging high standards of conduct among

them, whether they work in the federal, provincial or

.../74

- 74 -

local government sectors. We intend also that this

Statement inform the general public, politicians and the

rtner+s media of the principles and standards which should

guide official behaviour. We believe that high standards

of conduct among government officials are central to the

maintenance of public trust and confidence in govern-

ment. We helieve also that there is widespread agreement

In Canada's public administration community on certain

principles and standards of proper conduct. Neverthe-

less, we recognize that public employees experience

conflicts of values or of loyalties. In such cases, the

principles in this Statement provide valuable guidance.

We recognize further that on occasion difficult decisions

facing public employees can ultimately be resolved only

by resorting to individual conscience.

The principles expressed in this Statement are expressed

in terms of what should be done as opposed to what shall

or must be done. No mechanism is provided for their

enforcement.

In order to ensure that corporate values or principles transcend and

hopefully encompass the personal values of Board and staff, the NPB

should avoid creating organizational structures which provide opportuni-

ties for Board and staff members to conduct their deliberations in the

.../75

IIIII1IIIIIIIIIIII

-75 -

context of competing personal values rather than in the context of being

guided by corporate values. For example, committee structures or project

structures established by the NPB should have clearly defined mandates,

time frames and terms of reference designed to facilitate the work of

members within the context of the Mission and Guiding Principles. The

multi-vote decision-making processes of the Board clearly provide

barriers to personal values in decision-making and by inference favour

adherence to corporate values.

In general terms, the societal values embedded in the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, the Access

to Information Act, the Parole Act, the Criminal Records Act, the

Criminal Code and other statutes contribute and to some extent dominate

the corporate values of the NPB and in some instances also contribute to

conflict between these corporate values and the personal values held by

Board members and staff. In particular, the potential exists for a

conflict between personal values and those corporate values derived from

the Charter, in situations when an individual Board and/or staff member

perceives that the person or parties affected hy a Board decision will be

accorded "unfair" treatment. That is, the "effect" of the Board decision

will result in the offender or potential parolee being accorded

"unearned" rewards or treatment that is better than that available to

non-offenders or law abiding citizens. As noted earlier, it is in situa-

tions such as this where conflict between personal and corporate values

is highlighted, that time and effort should be spent in clarifying both

.../76

- 76 -

corporate and personal values by the individual(s) concerned. It may

well be, that discussion of these values will reveal little disagreement

about the efficacy of either set of values but rather reveals a problem

with existing social policy and an imbalance in the social justice

framework within which the NPB operates. The issue then becomes one

which should be referred to the Chairman for action and/or referral to

the elected officials whose role is to formulate social policy.

Factor #5 - Procedures: guidelines intended to preserve the integrity

of the discretionary decision-making process. A public

administrative decision-making system must make provisions

for conducting orderly investigations; it must have rules of

evidence that guarantee rational procedures. The rule of law

requires some form of due process, that is, a process

reasonably designed to consider the interests of persons

affected by the potential decision in ways compatible with

the rule of law. For example, such a process would be

independent and impartial, so that no person can judge in his

or her case and the process must be fair and open and not

prejudiced by pressure groups or public clamour. The proce-

dures, or the precepts of natural justice, are to ensure that

the procedures of public administrative decision-making

system are impartially and regularly maintained.

.../77

II1III1IiIIIIIIIiI1

- 77 -

Without question, the NPB procedures pertinent to Board decision-makinq

processes should have embedded in them and reflect in their application

the precepts of natural or fundamental justice and the doctrine of fair-

ness espoused in the Charter and by the courts. A document which

provides the key to ensuring that NPB procedures do in fact reflect these

precepts or principles is one prepared by the Legal Services Division of

the NPB, entitled, The Duty to Act F airly, Third Edition, September 1 986.

This excellent document, althounh used in Board member orientation

training, appears not to be widely circulated or known by staff members

and may not be readily available to some Temporary or Community Board

members. Suffice to say at this point, that this document should be a

handbook for Board and staff members whose work is case-focussed because

of the clear and comprehensive explanation of the sources and evolution

of the duty to act fairly and the many aspects of procedural fairness

offered by this document. For example, on page 1 of the document it is

noted that:

Procedural fairness is a fluid concept which may demand

different things in different contexts. It is often

difficult to determine with precision what is the amount

of fairness that a given situation requires: for

example, is the inmate entitled to an oral hearing or is

it sufficient that he be provided with the opportunity

to make representations in writing? H owever, it is

.../78

- 78 -

generally recognized that the importance of the proce-

dural safeguards in a certain set of circumstances

increases with the importance of the consequences that

decision will have on the individual it relates to.

Finally, it should be remembered that the courts are not

normally concerned with whether or not the decision made

by the State is good or bad unless it is clearly arbi-

trary. What they are concerned with is whether the

person affected by the decision was treated fairly in

the process of arriving at the decision.

As noted earlier in this Report, the "rules" governing Board decision-

making processes apply to the formulation of NPB policies and proce-

dures. A review of the NPB Policy and Procedures Manual governing Board

decision-making processes under the provisions of the Parole Act leads

one to conclude that the formulation of procedures pertinent to each of

the provisions is relatively complete, except for those emanating from

the new provisions under Bills C-67 and C-68. However, this Manual

appears to lack statements of policy pertinent to the provisions of the

Statute and from which the procedures should naturally flow. It is

urgent that this policy deficit, described in detail in earlier sections

of this Report, be remedied in such a way that the policy statements

provide the rationale for the procedures. That is, the policies should

make transparent the concern of the NPB for procedural fairness and

.../79

1

I

IItIIIIIIIIII

- 79 -

fundamental justice in its dealings with the person or parties affected

by Board decision-making processes and the decision. In contrast, the

NPB Policy and Procedures Manual governing Board decision-making proces-

ses under the Criminal Records Act and the Royal Prerogative of Mero/'

leadina to recommendations to the Solicitor General or the Governor-In-

Council on requests for relief through the granting of a Pardon or

Clemency, appears to be relatively complete in both a policy and proce-

dural sense. A review of this Manual leads one to comment not only on

its apparent completeness but also on the clarity of the policies and

attendant procedures and the guidance provided to Loard members and staff

by the examples and criteria associated with the statements of policy and

procedures. Apparently, the two Manuals were formulated within the same

time frame hut evolved quite differently with respect to format and use.

The latter manual is not widely circulated nor read by Board members and

staff whose work is not focussed on Clemency and Pardons cases. Prior to

any reformulation of the NPB Parole Policy ard Procedures Manual, it

would be important to consider adopting the format used in the other red

P & P Manual pertinent to Clemency and Pardons.

Once the decision-making policy frameworks pertinent to the provisions of

the Parole Act are formulated and the procedural safeguards emanating

from the Charter and the body of legal jurisprudence are completely in

place, then one should expect that the NPB decision-making systems can he

easily described and maintained and that the Board decisions would he

characterized by impartiality, fairness, appropriateness, timeliness and

...,/80

I

- 80 -

consistency, all characteristics of high quality. Obviously, there will

always be cases in which Board members using their best judgement make

decisions outside the NPB policy and procedural frameworks, that is, on

an exceptional basis. In such cases, clearly, there must be an emphasis

on procedural safeguards, the reference for which should continue to be

found in the Policy and Procedures Manual.

If and when an idyllic policy and procedures status is attained, it seems

reasonable to suggest that case-management staff working within the

well-defined policies and procedures could be delegated authority under

Section 16(1) of the Parole Act, to make some purely administrative

decisions of a non-release, non-revocation, non-detention nature. The

purpose of this delegation would be to relieve Board members of a small

part of the volume of their increasingly complex workload. Such purely

administrative decisions could be those pertinent to changes in the Terms

and Conditions of Parole proposed by CSC Parole Supervisory staff and

pertinent to an individual who has been nranted parole by the NPB and is

currently under CSC supervision. Although the discussion of NPB policies

and procedures has focussed on those leading to good decisions and

decision-making processes, it is important to remember that these "rules"

governing the work processes of Board and staff serve other purposes as

well. According to C.C. Edge, Chairman of the National Energy Board in

his paper entitled, Rules of Procedure:

.../81

- 81 -

IIIIII1

IIIIItII

Rules are important because they describe the methods of

organizing and conducting business, they define rights

and duties, they provide information which makes it

possible to participate in the process, they provide an

understanding of how decisions are made, they promote

orderliness and fair play, they act as a check on the

individuals involved in the process - including decision

nakers, and, generally, they assist an organization in

accomplishing the work for which it was designed. This

list of reasons for having rules is not new. It was

gleaned, in fact, from Robert's Rules of Order, which

underlines my point that rules have as much to do with

good business as law.

In conclusion, the "rules" in terms of policies and procedures selected

for application by Board and staff will vary from one case to another as

the circumstances demand; however, the duty to act fairly in their

application remains constant as should the adherence to the spirit of the

NPB Mission and Guidin3 Principles.

Factor #6 - Options : all of the alternative decision outcomes available.

It is in this component that the major conclusions are

reached.

.../82

I

- 82 -

As was noted on page 44 of this Report, in the discussion of Board and

staff case-focussed work processes, Board members have expressed frustra-

tion with the limited options presented to them in the CSC recommendation

in the case under review and above all, the limited time available within

which to explore these options with the offender and CSC staff during a

Panel Hearing for Parole. In order to fully exercise their unique statu-

tory roles, responsibilities, duties and functions, Board members should

have available to them at least ten days prior to the date of decision-

making, several options in which all the reasonable alternative decision

outcomes are outlined. These options prepared by NPB case management

staff should be based on the analysis and synthesis of the conditions and

facts of the case and formulated within the framework of NPB decision-

making policies and procedures, the body of NPB and legal jurisprudence

and practice, the Mission and Guiding Principles. Above all, the options

should reflect the NPB orientation towards release and reintegration of

offenders weighed against the risks associated with the release of the

individual offender reflected in the CSC recommendation. Consideration

has been given to the issue of replacing CSC-oriented values with NPB-

oriented values as a result of this approach to case management. Given

the unique statutory role of the NPB, it seems reasonable and desirable

that the values of the NPB as an organization should predominate in Board

decision-making and staff case management processes. If they do not, one

must question the need for a unique body such as the NPB, given the

contemporary notions of a flat sentencing approach to conditional

release. By having sufficient time to consider the objective facts of

.../83

II11IIII1I1 1

IIIIIIII

- 83 -

.../84

the case and the options flowing from such, Board members may discover

other options and in so doing fully exercise their creativity, judgement

and discretion. The time currently spent during Panel Hearings in

exploring in a somewhat random fashion possible outcomes of the single

CSC recommendation could become more focussed on presenting one or more

well developed preferred options and exploring the possible outcomes of

such decision alternatives with the potential parolee and CSC case super-

visory staff. At the very least, the options would have been well

researched by NPB case management staff prior to the Panel Hearing with

the result that Board members would begin the decision-makinq process on

a knowledgeable, confident and credible hasis. The quality, credibility

and legitimacy of the decision-making process in the eyes of the

offender, CSC staff and the various publics with interests in the out-

comes rests to a large extent on the quality, credibility and legitimacy

of the options considered. The quality of the outcomes or decisions

taken by the Board, can be enhanced by the level of preparedness of the

Board members to undertake their work and the level of preparedness of

staff to undertake their work in support of Board decision-making. As

was emphasized earlier in this Report under Factor #1 - Conditions which

must satisfied, orientation training and ongoing professional development

of Board members and staff is crucial to the attainment of a high level

of preparedness. In addition, Board members and staff need to create and

utilize opportunities to engage in discussions of substantial issues

pertinent to Parole, Clemency and Pardons, conditions related to release

of offenders and their reintegration as law abiding citizens. In order

- 84 -

to facilitate these discussions, the NPB as a corporate entity should

seek opportunities whereby Board members and staff can participate as NPB

representatives in committees or other fora within the criminal justice

system and in commun:hy'-based settings. Currently, there appears to be a

fairly urgent need to "green the desert" of personal and professional

development within the NPP. The "greening of this desert" can only

enhance the confidence, knowledge and skills of Board and staff and

thereby contrihute to their creativity, enthusiasm for and quality of

their work outcomes, that is, options and decisions pertinent to condi-

tional release and reintegration of offenders.

Factor #7 - Implications: those matters that may affect the implementa-

tion of the decision once it is made and which fall outside

the control of the decision makers once the decision is

made. The implications cannot, by definition, be completely

assessed before the decision is made. They may sometimes be

important in explaining what went wrong.

The implications of Board decisions on conditional release of offenders

and the risks associated with such weigh heavily not only on the Board

members making the actual decision on an individual offender but also on

staff whose work has focussed on case preparation prior to the decision

and on staff whose work is focussed on case supervision or monitoring the

supervision of the parolee after the decision to release has been made.

As an observer at several NPB Panel Hearings, I was struck by the

.../85

1IiII1II1ItrAII1IIi

- 85 -

tIt1IIfIII1II

overriding concern of Board members in trying to ensure that the implica-

tions of their decisions would be positive for both the potential parolee

and the community should a decision to release be made. This concern,

though to a lesser degree, was also evident in cases where the potential

parolee was denied a form of conditional release or had his parole

revoked. It appeared that this concern, in large part, was due to the

many unknowns associated with the decisions particularly in the determi-

nation of risk to society and to the offender, but also was due to the

lack of direct control and authority over the persons responsible for the

implementation of the decision. In other words, once the Board decides

to grant a form of conditional release to a potential parolee, then the

onus of responsibility for ensuring that the general or special terms and

conditions of the particular form of release falls outside the sphere of

control of the NPB and on the case supervisory staff of CSC.

Throughout the discussions and interviews with Board members and staff

leading to this Report, the issue of supervision of offenders on parole

by CSC staff or their surrogates evoked intense emotion, conveyed a sense

of nostalgia and loss and was depicted by many as a historic turning

point for the worse in the affairs of the NPB as a corporate entity. To

a large extent, the rationale underlying the amendments to the Parole Act

in 1974 which led to the separation of the then National Parole Service

from the NPB is not well known or understood. In light of the then-

current theories relevant to administrative tribunals such as the NPB,

the rationale for separation as a means of preserving the independent

.../86

11

-86 -

sphere of administrative decision-making and protecting the impartiality

of judgement of the decision-makers from the influence of day-to-day

operational issues, made sense and probably still does theoretically. In

terms of a cost/benefit analysis, the separation is costly in terms of

the concerns, time and effort spent by Board members and staff in ensur-

ing quality in case preparation and in case supervision by both the NPB

and CSC in the context of the NPB-CSC Administrative Agreement. The

benefits are less apparent in terms of the original rationale of preserv-

ing the integrity of the Board decision-making processes and decisions,

particularly in light of the growing dependence of the NPB on the

largesse of CSC for resources. Clearly, there are corporate benefits,

not only in terms of resources but also in terms of knowledge, expertise,

research and training to be derived from closer operational relationships

with CSC and other departments and agencies within the criminal justice

system and federal sphere of government. Within the current context of

ever increasing demands for accountability and fiscal constraint, the act

of balancing independence in decision-making and interdependence in

operational matters will undoubtedly become a high wire act if not a high

art form.

At this point, it may be worth noting that a sense of "hankering after"

the mythical good old days, that is, a coveting of the case supervision

function of the former Parole Service still exists in the NPB despite the

separation of the Service from the NPB in the mid-70's. The fact that

there is no provision for NPB supervision of parolees in the amended

.../87

- 87 -

IIIII1IIIItII1I

Parole Act, no mention of an NPB role in supervision in the NPB-CSC

Administrative Agreement nor reference to any NPB authority in the NPB

Policy and Procedures Manual does not dispel the dream. As an outsider

reading Section 105-5(2.2) of the NPB P & P Manual which states that,

"The Parole Service is responsible for providing supervision and for

assisting the individual in readjustino to life in the community", one is

struck by the continued official use of the term Parole Service several

years after it became known as the Correctional Service. It may become

necessary for the NPB to not only update this term but also to state

unequivocally that the NPB does not have a role nor responsibilities,

duties or functions pertinent to direct supervision of paroled

offenders. It may also be useful as a reminder that Section 4.1 of the

Penitentiary Act states that:

4.1 The portion of the staff of the National Parole

Board known as the National Parole Service shall be under

the control and management of the Commissioner who in

addition, to his duties under section 4, is responsible

for the preparation of cases of parole and the supervi-

sion of inmates to whom parole has been granted or who

have been released on mandatory supervision pursuant to

the Parole Act.

.../88

e

- 88 -

As noted earlier, the increasing volume, complexity, visibility, public

scrutiny and demands for accountability of Board decision-making proces-

ses and decisions places enormous time pressures and demands for exper-

tise on Board members. There is little time durina a Panel Hearing or

for that matter during office-based decision-making, for Board members to

consider a range of decision options each with a set of implications

arising from the specific terms and conditions of the particular form of

release granted. One way to relieve some of these pressures is to

enhance the nature and quality of staff support prior to, durina and

after Board decision-making. As proposed earlier and described in more

detail later in this Report, staff case-management work processes should

be changed and upgraded. Currently, the staff case-management work

processes focus on redressing deficits in the case files prepared by CSC

case preparation staff, on notifying the offender, CSC and other inter-

ested parties as to the decision of the Board on the case reviewed, on

completing and issuing release certificates and on monitoring the

progress of the parolee through review of CSC supervising reports. To

some extent, the organization and focus of the staff case management work

processes is modeled on and is reminiscent of the way in which the former

Parole Service organized its work. Without statutory authority for case

preparation or supervision of the paroled offender, it seems reasonable

to propose that these two terms are not useful in describing the work of

NPB case management staff particularly in view of the proposals for

formulating a new NPB decision-making policy framework and NPB case

management policy framework within which staff case-focussed work can be

.../89

- 89 -

I

IIt11IrI11I1II

qualitatively enhanced. Despite the lack of statutory authority for

direct supervision an implied responsibility and accountability for such

is found in Section 105-5(4.1) of the NPB P & P Manual.

4.1 The Board has the authority to set any special

conditions it deems desirable relating to supervision,

however, it is not the Board's intention to interfere

with the judgement of the Parole Service as to what

methods of supervision are used, but rather to ensure

that the authority it exercises in establishing the broad

guidelines for supervision is in appropriate balance with

the responsibility the Board must bear if failures in

supervisory actions or procedures lead to failures in the

parole process.

With this implied responsibility in mind, it will be important in the

formulation of the Board decision-making policy framework and the staff

case-management policy framework to clearly define their respective

roles, responsibilities, duties and functions with respect to the NPB

role in monitoring the progress of the parolee under the direct super-

vision of CSC staff and by inference monitor the implications of the

Board decision.

Factor #8 - Strategies: practical proposals developed to assist with the

successful implementation of the decision proposed.

.../90

I

- 90 -

Several factors militate against in-depth discussion and development by

Board members as a group, of strategies designed to assist with the

successful implementation of the Board's decision on the case of an

individual offender. Paramount among these factors is the requirement to

conduct these discussions on strategies in the presence of the potential

parolee during the time allotted to the Panel Hearing. Procedural fair-

ness requires that the potential parolee be given an opportunity to hear

(and understand) the facts of the case and still other associated factors

being considered by the Board in their deliberations leading to their

decision. Procedural fairness also requires that Poard members provide

the potential parolee with an opportunity to present his/her side of the

case. The length of time spent by Board members, CSC case management

staff and the potential parolee in exchanging, sharing and disclosing

information necessarily limits the time available for the exploration of

decision options, implications and strategies for successful reintegra-

tion of the offender in the community, if granted release. As noted

earlier in the Report, an enhanced role for NPB case management staff

would include the development of a variety of strategies for implementa-

tion pertinent to each of the decision options for consideration by the

Board, including strategies arising from the CSC recommendation. With

this information included in the NPB prepared case summary and with an

NPB Hearing Officer available to advise on technical matters arising from

the case file, then the time currently available for exploration of the

strategies pertinent to the Board decision may be adequate. It may also

mean that Board members cognizant of the technical matters pertinent to

1IrIIIIitIaIAII1111I

- 91 -

their decision, such as, the availability of community services and

treatment which are appropriate to the needs of the particular offender

under review, may have to spend less time during the Hearing on these

matters and thus have more time to devote to exploring with the offender

and thereby assuring themselves that the offender's plans for reintegra-

tion as a law-abiding citizen are realistic. For experienced Board

members and staff, appropriate strategies quickly become apparent because

of their knowledge of issues associated with local institutional and

community services and to a lesser extent their knowledge of broader

correctional law and parole issues which impact decision-making. Through

frequent contacts between full-time Board members, NPB staff, CSC staff

and other persons involved in the criminal justice system on a variety or

matters outside the NPB decision-making process, a band of trust, confi-

dence, credibility, legitimacy and knowledge is built up vis à vis the

work of the NPB. It is crucial that Temporary Board members be included

as much as possible during such discussions with CSC staff and with other

persons working in the CJS, given the increasing involvement of TBM's as

decision-makers and their equal status with full-time Board members under

the Parole Act. Clearly, current resource constraints place serious

limitations on the creation of opportunities for Board member contact

outside the decision-making process; however, it seems reasonable to

sugoest that the SBM and RD as the leadership team in a Regional Office

should devise strategies whereby full-time and temporary Board members

and staff can avail themselves of existing opportunities for meeting CSC

officials, judges, police, offenders, voluntary and private sector groups

.../92

- 92 -

involved in providing community services for offenders and/or with

interests specific to the work of the NPB. Through these contacts, Board

members and staff have the opportunity to convey the Mandate, Mission,

Guiding Principles, distinct but joint roles, responsibilities, duties

and functions of Board members and staff and in so doing, convey a corpo-

rate image of the NPB. They also have the opportunity to gather informa-

tion and data on a variety of parole-related issues and social justice

issues which can serve as a basis for identifying and thereby proposing

questions which could be researched and analysed by a team of NPB region-

al and headquarters staff either for policy formulation purposes or as a

basis for better informed decision-making or as a basis for strategic

planning of a corporate nature or for myriad other corporate purposes.

At this time, within the NPB, there is a developing capacity to identify,

collect, analyse, synthesize and disseminate data and information to

support Board decision-making and staff case-management processes. With

the development of a common data base, i.e. the Automated Offender

Management System (OMS), for use by NPB and CSC, in addition to the

existing capabilities of the NPB Automated Parole Information System

(APIS), the NPB should have increased capacity to identify, collect and

disseminate vital or "tombstone" data pertinent to each offender whose

case is under review by the Board. Clearly, it will not be possible or

even desirable to attempt to automate the judgemental aspects of Board

decision-making or staff case work requiring analysis and synthesis of

the facts contained in the case file. It also will not be possible to

.../93

IIIIIIIIIa1ItI1

II

- 93 -

process electronically much of the data and information pertinent to

issues of a policy, procedural, research and strategic nature arising

from Board and staff case-focussed work. It is and should continue to be

possible to electronically process much of the quantitative data perti-

nent to these issues during the data and information collection,

analysis, synthesis and dissemination phases of an issue-based project.

The credibility of a project will depend on the validity of the project

methodology, including the validity of the statistical methods used and

the veracity of the data, and on the perceived usefulness of the project

outcomes in terms of telling the organization what it is doing, how well

it is doing and what needs to be changed to improve performance. In this

respect, the NPB as an organization needs to realign its current statis-

tical functions in order to include those staff whose work focusses on

statistical analysis within the proposed staff project management teams

at headquarters. In this way, the capacity for statistical analysis will

become integral to the researching, in an institutional or corporate

sense, of any NPB approved issue of a pOlicy, procedure or strategic

nature. As discussed earlier in this Report, the identification, collec-

tion and preliminary analysis and synthesis of these issues should be

undertaken by Regional/Divisional Board and staff members and forwarded

to the Chairman who then decides whether more in-depth analysis and

synthesis of the issues should be undertaken. If the decision is posi-

tive then a project and project team is established to carry out the work

in terms of the short and/or long term strategic action plan of the NPB.

Currently, the strategic planning process within the NPB tends to focus

.../94

- 94 -

on corporate resource management. It would appear that the Chairman's

proposed Strategic Planning process which has as its first phase, the

enunciation of NPB Mission and Guiding Principles has the potential for

weaving together the strands of NPB case-focussed strategies and corpo-

rate management strategies and in so doing, create a tapestry illustra-

tive of the statutory and operational environment within which the NPB

carries out its Mission.

.../95

1IIIIII11

III1II1I1I

-95-

I Section IV - The National Parole Board as an Organizational Structure

Options for Change

IIIttI1IIIIIt

Consistent with the purpose of the Organizational Review the options and

recommendations for chanqe in this section of the Report will focus on

the specified senior staff positions, that is, those positions currently

reporting to the Executive Director. In addition and as a result of data

and information reported on as Key Findings in the previous section of

this Report, options and recommendations will be proposed for those posi-

tions reportinq to the Executive Director and to the specified senior

staff positions. Proposals for changes in current reporting relation-

ships implies chanqes in existing organizational structures. Despite the

constraints imposed by the purpose of the Organizational Review, strong

suggestions and indeed proposals for change have been made in the

previous section of this Report with respect to: day-to-day working

relationships and shared leadership roles between Senior Board memhers

and Regional Directors; operational and corporate roles, responsibili-

ties, duties and functions of Board members and staff; work processes of

Board members and staff; policy and procedure formulation, implementation

and interpretation; the need for a mandate of the Appeal Division; public

image, information and education, Board and staff orientation training

and professional development; evaluation processes including audit and

performance appraisal; information systems and services. During the

discussion of options and recommendations presented in this section, many

of these proposals for change will be reiterated but some may not. For

.../96

I

- 96 -

this reason, it is essential that the reader become conversant with all

sections of the Report in order to fully comprehend the proposals and

options for change recommended.

Key Options and Recommendations

In all organizations, the mix of personalities working within the

constraints of organizational structures requires that organizational

relationships, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions are

consciously attended to, renewed and readjusted in accordance with the

requirements of the work and of those undertaking the work. In the NPB,

the rapidly changing nature of the work environment and the evolutionary

nature of the statutory authorities governing the work itself has compli-

cated these ongoing renewal and readjustment processes and has placed in

question the efficacy of some of the organizational relationships in

regional and headquarter's settings. To attempt to depict existing

organizational relationships and to propose changes to these solely

through a graphic representation of such in organizational charts is a

risky business open to many interpretations. Clearly, the graphic

representation of organizational relationships must be supplemented by

individual position descriptions linked one to another and by a job

classification scheme in which there is contiguity of positions. In this

section of the Report, the options and recommendations for change, as

.../97

- 97 -

t

IItt1rIaI111I

depicted in organizational charts will be based on the proposals for

change in organizational relationships discussed in the previous section

of the Report.

Appended to the Work Plan for the Organizational Review is a series of

eight (8) questions to be addressed in the Organizational Review. (See

Appendix A). In the process of answering these questions, options and

recommendations pertinent to organizational relationships and structures

will he proposed.

Question #l: Should the Executive Director's span of direct control be

maintained, increased or reduced? If the latter, should

some responsibilities be allocated to another existing

position, or a new position?

The Executive Director, as Chief Operating Officer of the NPB reporting

to the Chairman, as Chief Executive Officer has corporate responsi-

bilities as a member of the executive staff of the organization. He also

has operational responsibilities focussing on the day-to-day management

of the work of NPB staff throughout the organization. If one assumes

that time is a scarce and therefore costly resource to be managed, then

the allocation of time to these distinct but linked responsibilities

becomes crucial not only to the well-being of the Executive Director but

also to the organization as a corporate entity. As a rule of thumb, 20%

of the Executive Director's time should be devoted to his corporate

.../98

r

- 98 -

roles, responsibilities, duties and functions and 80% of his time should

be devoted to his operational roles, responsibilities, duties and func-

tions. Within the time available to carry out his operational responsi-

bilities, the issue of span of control becomes crucial. For instance, if

the number of senior staff reporting to the Executive Director is such

that more than 80% of his time is devoted to operational responsibili-

ties, then obviously the time availahle to devote to corporate responsi-

bilities is reduced. Over time, such an imhalance jeopardizes the

effectiveness and efficiency with which both corporate and operational

responsibilities are carried out. Ultimately, the efficacy of the

organizational relationships with the Chairman and with the senior staff

are impaired.

In an information-based organization such as the NPB, the span of control

issue, though important as a classic workload indicator, should also he

viewed as an indicator of the sources and types of data and information

required by each position in the organization. In other words, the span

of control of the Executive Director's position should identify the key

positions reporting to the Executive Director, as chief operating

officer, through which data, information and analyses flow to enable him

to effectively and efficiently carry out his corporate and operational

roles, responsibilities, duties and functions. In turn, within the

context of his corporate responsibilities, the Executive Director selects

and reformulates those data, information and analyses appropriate to his

.../99

1rII1a

1,'II11^tI1Ia

-99 -

requirements and those of the Chairman and which enable each to effec-

tively and efficiently carry out his corporate roles, responsibilities,

duties and functions.

Historically and currently, the volume and complexity of the work carried

out by Board members and staff within the NPB is reflected in a highly

differentiated organizational structure. That is, the volume and tasks

associated with carrying out this work is divided and sub-divided among

individuals whose knowledoe, skills and expertise are and should he

matched to their roles, responsibilities, duties and functions identified

with individual position descriptions and position classifications. In

instances in which the volume is such that more than one individual is

required to carry out the same task, then the position description and

classification should be the same. Otherwise, the positions should be

differentiated or distinct from one another in accordance with the

different competencies (knowledge, skills and expertise) required to

carry out the tasks in an efficient and effective manner. In a simplis-

tic sense, one should be able to differentiate the work requirements

flowino from the Executive Director's position description into the

number and types of staff positions essential to assist him to effective-

ly and efficiently carry out his corporate and operational roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions. One should also be able to trace

the links between the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of

.../100

I- 100 -

each staff position back to those of the Executive Director and through

the Executive Director to the Chairman and the statutory authorities

governing the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of each.

In the same vein, one should be able to assess the value added by the

work flowing from the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of

each staff position within the organization. In an information-based

organization, the value added by each position can be assessed in terms

of the quantity and quality of the data and information collected,

analysed, synthesised and disseminated by the position. In other words,

one may question the value added to a document, be it a case file or an

annual report, by each position which handles it. One may question the

number of positions required to carry out the volume of work at each

level and also the number of levels of specialization required to produce

the final product in a form useful to the intended recipient, be it the

Executive Director or Board Memhers, or the Chairman. In using a value-

added approach to the assessment of organizational effectiveness and

efficiency, one must establish qualitative indicators in addition to the

usual quantitative indicators reflective of the volume of work carried

out within a specific time-frame by a specific number of individuals,

e.g. the number of keystrokes per minute per individual word processing

operator. Qualitative indicators should be reflective of the levels of

complexity and the appropriateness of the mix of general and specialized

knowledge, skills and expertise or competencies required to resolve a

specific problem, address an issue, answer a question, prepare a cabinet

1Ie

IIri1rI

II

I

-101 -

document or a MYOP or a case file pertinent to the requirements of Board

member decision-making. In a differentiated organization, the organiza-

tional relationships can either contribute to or diminish the overall

quality of the end products of the work of individuals or of groups and

in some instances can delay or prevent their production. For this

reason, qualitative indicators must also reflect the nature of the work

environment and organizational culture within which individuals work

separately and/or as a team to achieve specific organizational goals

consistent with the Mission and Guiding Principles.

With reference to the specific question under consideration, it appears

that the current span of control of the Executive Director is too great

in that he has only limited and fragmented time to focus on his overall

corporate responsibilities as Chief Operating Officer (C00) of the NPR

reporting to the Chairman as CEO. Paradoxically, the Executive Director

devotes more of his time to dealing with issues arising from the work of

headquarter's corporate management staff than to dealing with issues

arising from the work of regional operational management staff. On a

day-to-day operational basis, the Executive Director has most frequent

contact with the five (5) senior HQ managers and the least frequent

contact with the five (5) regional managers. Geographic proximity of the

former group and distance of the latter readily account for the frequency

of contact. Over time, such a wide disparity in frequency of contact

causes wide disparity in the interpretation, quality and quantity of

data, information and analyses flowing to and from the Executive Director

.../102

- 102 -

and both groups. The reality of most decentralized organizations, such

as the NPB, is that most regional managers become more self-reliant than

those working at the central office or head-quarters. This self-reliance

though ideal in terms of exercising delegated authority and operational

responsibility and placing limited demands on the Executive Director's

time is less than ideal with respect to exercising ongoing corporate

responsibilities.

On the other hand, HQ managers, at times, appears to he overly dependant

on the Executive Director for confirming their day-to-day operational

decisions. This upward delegation of authority contributes to the over-

load and fragmentation of the time and daily schedule of the Executive

Director. As is the case with regional managers, HQ managers must

distinguish between their corporate and operational roles, responsibili-

ties, duties and functions. The same rule of thumb should apply to all

senior managers, 20% of their time devoted to their corporate responsi-

bilities and 805r' of their time devoted to operational responsibilities.

In the case of HQ based managers their operational responsibilities focus

mainly on work of a corporate nature; however, each HQ manager has to

consider the nature and work of his responsibility centre within the

context of the whole organization or as part of the corporate entity of

the NPB. By confining the demands on the Executive Director's time to

those matters arising from insoluble operational problems and those

issues of a corporate nature, the HQ managers could contribute to the

freeing up of the Executive Director to devote more time to his corporate

1t^ArI11I1

I

I

.../103

- 103 -

1I

I

II1i1ttiIr1II

responsibilities. Self-reliant regional managers working within a frame-

work of well-defined operational policies, procedures and routines must

have well-defined operational roles, responsibilities, duties and func-

tions. If they are expected to provide data and information which is

timely, accurate, relevant and in a format useful to the Executive

Director for corporate purposes, regional managers must also have well-

defined corporate roles, responsibilities, duties and functions. Wide

variations in interpretation of corporate and operational policies,

procedures and routines in corporate and operational roles, responsibili-

ties, duties and functions will ultimately lead to wide variations in

interpretation of reoional data and information rendering it useless for

comparative purposes. These variations not only undermine the capacity

of the Executive Director to utilize operational data and information in

order to effectively and efficiently manage the key corporate aspects of

his work but ultimately undermines the credibility and authority of all

managers. At the present time, the capacity of regional managers to

comply with corporate demands and requests is diminishing due to the

increasing demands on their time made by the increasing volume and

complexity of Board decision-making processes. As a result, there is a

danger that the Executive Director could become distanced from the

case-focussed work and the data, information and analyses flowing more

such. In the worst scenario, the Executive Director would he out of

touch with the primary work of the NPB.

.../104

i

II

Ii

-104 -

The operational roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of HQ-hased

managers (with the exception of Clemency and Pardons) revolve around

planning, organizing, controlling and evaluating the work of staff

involved in corporate operations such as finance, pay and benefits,

accommodation, budget, travel and removal, personnel administration,

records management, staff relations, classification, job evaluation,

official languages, translation services, ATIP and Privacy, training,

corporate planning, policy formulation, research, statistics, evaluation

and audit, special projects and information systems and services. One of

the crucial operational responsibilities of regional and headquarters

managers is to maintain ongoing day-to-day operational relationships

between each other and between their respective staff. Much of the

operational work of HQ or corporate staff is dependant upon the receipt

of timely, accurate and relevant data, information and analyses arising

the operational work of regional or case-focussed staff. In addition,

data, information and analyses of a corporate nature arising from the

work of regional managers and work of HQ managers is collected, compiled

and formatted by HQ managers is carrying out their operational and

corporate responsibilities. Clearly, the operational and corporate

roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of regional and HQ managers

are distinct and complementary. In terms of organizational structures,

the functional units whose work is case-focussed and is directly

supportive of Board decision-making processes are decentralized into five

regional offices and one headquarters division. The non-case-focussed

functional units located at headquarters should have as their primary

.../105

- 105 -

I

1r1^li1ï1I

Ir

function the overall corporate support of the case-focussed units of the

organization. It is clearly more efficient and hopefully more effective

as well to centrally locate the overall corporate functions of the NPB in

Ottawa than to decentralize such to each reqional and divisional office.

Currently the eleven (11) positions reporting to the Executive Director

are:

Administrative Assistant

Five Regional Directors - Atlantic, Québec, Ontario

Prairies, Pacific

Director General, HQ Operations

Director, Finance and Administration

Secretary to the Board

Director, Personnel and Official Languages

Director, Corporate Planning and Management Practices

Of the three options proposed in the question, it is recommended that the

Executive Director's span of direct control be reduced from eleven (11)

to eight (8) positions reporting directly to him.

The proposed eight (8) positions reporting directly to the Executive

Director are:

.../106

I

-106 -

Administrative Assistant

Five Regional Directors - Atlantic, Québec, Ontario,

Prairies, Pacific

Divisional Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardon Division

Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services

Of these eight (8) positions, two (2) positions are new. These are the

positions: Divisional Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division

and Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services. Both

positions are located at Headquarters.

In response to the second part of Question #1 posed at the outset, three

options have been considered. The first option, that is, no change in

existing reportino relationships to the Executive Director, has been

argued against during the discussion of span of control issues resulting

in the above recommendation to reduce the span of control of the

Executive Director from eleven to eight positions. However, considera-

tion should be given to the realities of geographic proximity. The

potential for the Executive Director to meet on a one-to-one basis with

each Regional Director more frequently and more regularly is limited by

financial constraints; however, the potential for meeting with the

Divisional Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardon Division is only limited

by an agreed upon schedule for meetings and capacity to exercise dele-

gated operational authority. On the other hand, if HQ managers exercise

their deleoated operational authority more rigorously and limit their

.../107

- 107 -

111III1

1Ir1iI

demands on the Executive Director's time to scheduled meetings and

insoluble (at their level) operational problems then the Executive

Director, may have sufficient time to devote to both his corporate and

operational responsibilities even with ten (10) senior staff reporting to

him directly. (See Chart 2, Recommendation #1, Option #2).

The second option considered, that is, allocation of some responsibili-

ties from the Executive Director's position to another existing position,

was rejected for several reasons. One of the prime reasons for rejection

was that the framework in which changes in organizational structures have

been proposed is one in which there are case-focussed functional units

and non-case-focussed or corporate functional units, the latter providing

support to the former. In other words, the existing framework for

reporting relationships and within which existing roles, responsibili-

ties, duties and functions are currently carried out, has been changed.

As a consequence, if this proposal for chanae in the conceptual framework

for the organization is accepted, then the case-focussed orqanizational

units should have a direct reporting relationship with the Executive

Director. Given the recommendation for reduced span of control, the most

loqical existing position to which some responsibilities could he trans-

ferred is the position of Director General, HQ operations. The current

responsibilities associated with this position include case-focussed

responsibilities for Clemency and Pardons as well as other operational

responsibilities for APIS, Planning and Analysis, Statistics, ATIP and

.../108

I

- 108 -

Privacy and liaison with other agencies in the Solicitor General's

sphere. The proposed framework would require reallocation of these

operational responsibilities to other positions and the creation of a new

position to replace this position. The existing positions of Director,

HQ Programs, and EDP Systems Manager, reporting directly to this existing

position of Director General, HQ Operations are currently vacant. The

Director, Planning and Analysis reporting directly to the DG position is

currently on sick leave. As a result the DG has had to assume the opera-

tional responsibilities of these three positions. For these reasons, the

option of transferring some of the Executive Director's responsibilities

to the existing position of Director General, HQ Operations was

rejected. As well, the Regional Directors, without exception, expressed

great anxiety at the prospect of not reporting directly to the Chief

Operating Officer given their leadership roles in regional offices.

Assuming that the proposed conceptual framework is accepted, in which the

organizational structure for staff would include case-focussed functional

units and non-case-focussed or corporate functional units, the latter

providing support to the former, the third option considered, that is,

allocation of responsibilities to a new position, is the preferred

option. In this option, day-to-day operational management of the corpo-

rate systems and services of the NPB would be allocated to the new posi-

tion of Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services. The

existing position of Director General, HQ Operations would be eliminated

and replaced by the new position.

ItI

I1!Iti1

1tt1I

.../109

-109-

The new position, Director General, Corporate Management Systems and

Services, would be in the jargon of the trade, a corporate "roll-up"

position. In other words, through the four (4) senior staff positions

reporting to this position, (See Chart 3, Recommendations el, Option #3),

data, information and analyses flowing from the corporate work of case-

focussed and corporate HQ staff would be identified, collected, analysed,

synthesized and formatted under the overall direction of the Director

General prior to its dissemination to the Executive Director. In an

operational sense, the Director General would be responsible for the

overall direction with respect to planning, organizing, controlling and

evaluating the work of the four (4) senior staff positions reporting to

this position. These positions are:

Director, Human Resource Services

Director, Administrative and Financial Services

Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services

Director, Information Systems and Services

The focus of the position of Director General should be the coordination

of the ongoing development, maintenance and evaluation of management

systems and services through which data and information flow,pertinent to

the internal requirements of the NPB as a corporate entity and to the

external requirements placed on the NPB as an agency operating within the

federal sphere of government. As the complexity in the external environ-

ment increases, so must the functions within the internal organization in

.../110

- 110 -

order to buffer the rate and impact of the external changes on the

internal work processes. This is reflected in further differentiation of

the functions and in the increase in numbers of positions, specialization

of roles, responsibilities and duties, in requirements for environmental

scanning, collection, analysis, synthesis and dissemination of data and

information and a greater focus on coordination of the outcomes of work

processes throughout an organization. In the RPQ, this means that the

roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of the position of Director

General should be focussed yet broad enough to ensure that the require-

ments for corporate action on a wide variety of issues flowing from the

Chairman to the Executive Director to the Director General are met in an

effective and efficient manner. In other words, the quality, timeliness

and coordination of the outcomes of corporate work processes are primary

responsibilities of this position.

The four positions reporting to the Director General are responsible for

the provision of the operational systems and services pertinent to the

management of corporate requirements. If the requirements were less

complex, then the organizational differentiation into less than four

positions would be recommended.

For instance, consideration has been given to the combination of the

functions to the positions of Director, Human Resource Services and

Director, Administrative and Financial Services into the position of

Director, Resource Management Services. (See Chart 4, Recommendation #1,

1IIt1ri^^i

A'IItt1

r

r

11

I1I^1

I1I

Option A.) The organizational requirements for very different and

specialized knowledge, skills and expertise within each of these organi-

zational units militates against such a combination. If one further

considers that the NPB comprises two distinct organizations, that of

Board and staff, each of which is decentralized into multiple differenti-

ated organizational units, then the degree of specialization becomes more

apparent. The major advantage or benefit to be derived from the combina-

tion would be one of greater coordination. Given the focus on coordina-

tion in the Director General's position, then there is little benefit to

he derived from such a combination particularly when weighed against the

potential of losing the specialized knowledge associated with each

position.

With each of these two positions but most particularly with that of the

Director, Human Resource Services, there are and will continue to be

tasks of a confidential nature which will require that the Director have

direct access to the Executive Director and/or the Chairman on an as-

needed-basis. Since most of these confidential matters are of a personal

and security nature, the option of having the position of Director, Human

Resource Services report directly to the Executive Director has been

considered. (See Chart 5, Recommendation #1, Option #5). Should this

option become the preferred option for action, then the span of control

for the Executive Director would be increased from the recommended eight

(8) positions to nine (9). It would then be difficult to resist a

similar rationale for having the position of Director, Administrative and

-112 -

Financial Services report directly to the Executive Director. Should

this rationale prevail, then clearly there would be no need for the posi-

tion of Director General with a focus on coordination of the outcomes of

the corporate work of the remaining two positions of Director,

Development Corporate Systems and Services and Director, Information

Systems and Services. As a result, the recommendation for reducing the

Executive Director's span of control from the existing eleven (11)

positions to eight (8) would be nullified despite the earlier rationale

for it. In fact, the Executive Director's span of control would be

maintained at the existing level of eleven (11) positions (See Chart 2,

Recommendation #1, Option #2) but would differ in that two (2) of the

positions currently reporting to him, that is, the Director General, HQ

Operations and Secretary to the Board (See Chart 1, Recommendation #1,

Option #1) would be replaced by the two positions, Director, Appeal,

Clemency and Pardons and Director, Information Systems and Services.

Having considered the five options depicted in the Organizational Charts

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Option #3 is the preferred option (See Chart 3,

Recommendation #1, Option #3).

It is recommended that the eight (8) positions reporting directly to the

position of Executive Director be:

Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services

Regional Director, Atlantic Region

Regional Director, Québec Region

.../113

I - 113 -

Regional Director, Ontario Region

Regional Director, Prairies Region

Regional Director, Pacific Region

Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division

Administrative Assistant

II

ItII1I

r1iI

The position of Secretary to the Board would no longer report to the

Executive Director. The roles, responsibi].ities, duties and functions

associated with this position would be transferred to the Office of the

Chairman and re-allocated to a position(s) within the organizational

structure reporting to the Chairman.

It is recommended that the position of Director General, Corporate

Management Systems and Services be established and that the primary

responsibility for planning, orqanizing, coordinating, controlling and

evaluating of corporate systems and services be allocated to this

position.

It is recommended that the five (5) positions reporting directly to the

position of Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services

be:

Director, Fluman Resource Services

Director, Administrative and Financial Services

Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services

1

-114 -

Information

HO Programs

Director, Information Systems and Services

Secretary

As noted earlier, the existing position of Director General, HQ, Opera-

tions would be eliminated. The roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions associated with this position would be allocated to the new

position of Director,

Development Corporate

Systems and Services.

Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division, Director,

Systems and Services and Director,

The existing positions of Director,

and of Director, Planning and Analysis would be eliminated with the

roles, responsibilities, duties and functions allocated to the Director,

Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division, Chairman's Office and to the

Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services. The Access to

Information and Privacy unit would be transferred to the Office of the

Chairman.

Three options were considered with respect to the position of Director,

Human Resources Services. The first option, depicted in Chart 6, Recom-

mendation #1, Option #1, was merely to retitle the existing position, of

Director, Personnel and Official Languages and to retain the five (5)

existing positions reporting to the Director. These are:

Chief, Personnel, Official Languages, Audit and Policy

Chief, Staff Relations and Human Resources

Chief, Personnel Operations

.../115

IWIir^t^I1Ic^1

- 115 -

Co-ordinator, Official Languages

Secretary to the Director

During the period covered by this Review several changes have already

taken place in this functional unit: the current Director is in an

acting position seconded from his position as Director, HQ Operations;

the official Director, is on assignment seconded to the Director of

Communications; the position description and title of the Chief,

Personnel, Official Languages, Audit and Policy have been revised; the

position, Co-ordinator, Official Languages is being eliminated effective

March 31, 1987. In other words, the first option is of doubtful validity

for the present and for the future.

The second option considered, depicted in Chart 7, Recommendation #1,

Option #2, includes the retitling of the existing position of Director,

the retention of four (4) of the existing five (5) positions, the elimi-

nation of the position of Coordinator, Official Languages and the

addition of a professional development and training unit.

The five (5) positions reporting directly to the position of Director,

Human Resource Services would be:

Chief, Personnel, Official Languages, Audit and Policy

Chief, Staff Relations and Human Resources

Chief, Personnel Operations

I

- 116 -

Professional Development Training Unit

Secretary

One must question the use of the title of Chief, Personnel Official

Languages, Audit and Policy, given that there are no staff reporting to

this position. The functions flowing from the position are however, not

in question. The other two positions of Chief, Staff Relations and Human

Resources and Chief Personnel Operations appear to be essential to the

NPB Personnel functions and appear to he appropriately supported by

junior level staff. The lack of corporate attention to and need for

orientation training and professional development of Board members and

staff, normally a function of a Personnel unit, provides the rationale

for the transfer of the existing Professional Standards and Development

unit currently reporting to the Secretary of the Board, to a new report-

ing relationship to the Director, Human Resource Services Division. In

general terms, the primary functions associated with the Professional

Development Training Unit should include the coordination of the develop-

ment of an NPB policy on orientation training and development for Board

members and staff, using the policy development model suggested in

Section III of this Report; the coordination and development of training

and development approaches, program and materials appropriate to the

orientation, competency development and career mobility of Board members

and staff, using as a model, a team approach with regionally-based

professional development and public education officers proposed earlier

in this Report. It is essential that the Head of this Professional

I1I1iI^^tI11

I111I1I

-117 -

I

à

Development and Training Unit have a very good knowledge of the work

processes of Board members and staff throughout the NPB. It is also

essential that the functions of this position be closely aligned with the

existing human resources functions associated with the Chief, Staff

Relations and Human Resources in order to tie together human resources

planning and delivery of these resources through training and development

activities for Board members and staff. Should this option be the

accepted option, a review of the classifications of the positions report-

ing to the Director, Human Resource Services should he undertaken to

ensure that there is equity in classification between the positions

(excluding the position of Secretary) given the span of control of each

and the complexity of the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions

of each. It is not my intent, to discuss options or make recommendations

on positions flowing from these four (4) positions.

The third option considered, as depicted in Chart 8, Recommendation el,

Option #3, flows from the option depicted in Chart 5, Recommendation #1,

Option #5. The only difference between this third option and the second

option just discussed would be in the reporting relationship of the

Director, Human Resource Services. In this option, the Director, Human

Resource Services would report directly to the Executive Director. As

noted earlier, although it is essential that the Director, Human Resource

Services continue to have direct access to the Executive Director and/or

to the Chairman on confidential personnel matters, it is not essential

.../118

- 118 -

for the exercise of his other operational and corporate responsibilities

that he have direct access on a day-to-day basis. For this reason, this

option is not the preferred one.

The preferred option is Option #2 depicted in Chart 7.

It is recommended that the position of Director, Human Resources Services

report directly to the Director General, Corporate Management Systems and

Services and that the five (5) positions reporting to the Director, Human

Resource Services be:

Chief, Personnel, Official Languages, Audit and Policy

Chief, Staff Relations and Human Resources

Chief, Personnel Operations

Professional Development Unit

Secretary

Three options were considered with respect to the position of Director,

Administrative and Financial Services. The first option, depicted in

Chart 9, Recommendation #1, Option #1, was to retitle the existing

position, Director, Administration and Finance and to retain the three

(3) positions reporting to the Director. These are:

I

w

tII

1II

I

11

I

- 119 -

Chief, Financial Management

Chief, Administrative Services

Secretary

The major change in the responsibilities of these positions reporting to

the Director during the period of the Review has been the retirement of

the Security Officer and the subsequent assumption of these responsibili-

ties by the Director. An examination of the two positions of Chief,

indicates that there is a great imbalance in the responsibilities of the

two positions. The Chief, Financial Management has overall responsibili-

ty for five (5) staff whereas the Chief, Administrative Services has

overall responsibility for twenty-eight (28) staff with quite disparate

and specialized functions, i.e. accommodation, removal and transfer of

Board members and staff, records management, word processing, mail and

messenger services, materiel management, including acquisition, mainte-

nance and control of office furniture, EDP hardware and software. This

imbalance in allocation of functions is accompanied by differentiation of

work processes and tasks into several more organizational levels than is

desirable for the flow of timely, relevant and accurate data and informa-

tion between the most junior and most senior levels of the organization.

In other words, the capacity of the Chief, Administrative Services to

have regular contact with the most junior staff member in his organiza-

tion is limited by the number of staff and the ways in which they are

organized in working units. As noted earlier, it is not my intent to

make recommendations for organizational changes below the level of Chief

.../120

- 120 -

in any of the organizational units, however, in this instance, it is

evident that this imbalance between the two Chief positions should be

addressed. For this reason, Option #1 is not the preferred option.

The second option considered and depicted in Chart 10, Recommendation #1,

Option #2, focusses on the creation of a third position reporting to the

Director, Administrative and Financial Services. This new position would

be the Chief, Records Management Systems and Services. To this position

would report the existing records staff and mail and messenger staff who

currently report to the Chief, Administrative Services. This re-alloca-

tion of existing staff would address the existing imbalance in responsi-

bilities referred to earlier under the Chief, Administrative Services.

With due respect to the Report a couple of years ago, made by the

consultant from the Public Archives who recommended that there was no

need for a records management function separate from the Administrative

Services Unit, it is my view that the records functions in its current

configuration should report directly to the Director, Administrative and

Financial Services. Therefore, this second option is preferred to the

first option.

The third option considered, as depicted in Chart 11, Recommendation #1,

Option #3 is similar to Option #2 above. The major difference between

Option #2 and Option #3 i s that the new position of Chief, Corporate

Records, Systems and Services would not include the management of case

records pertinent to Appeal, Clemency and Pardons cases. These case

I

I1^1

tt1III1If

^

- 121 -

r

fI

I11t

I0

I

files and records would be managed by a sub-records office, similar to

those in the five (5) Regional Offices, responsible to the proposed

Manager Divisional Services reporting to the Director, Appeal, Clemency

and Pardons Division at headquarters (See Chart 34, Recommendation #2,

Option #3). This would mean that the proposed position of Chief, Corpo-

rate Records, Systems and Services would be responsible for the manage-

ment of all the corporate records and the systems and services pertinent

to these as well as for the overall coordination of the development,

maintenance, control and evaluation of the corporate systems and services

essential to the offender case files managed by regional and divisional

offices. A primary focus of this position would be the coordination of

the development and revision of a corporate policy on records management

pertinent to all NPB files, using as a model the team approach advocated

earlier for the corporate training and professional development policy.

That is, the development of a revised NPB corporate policy on records

management must involve the records managers throughout the NPB.

Subsequently, all records managers would carry out their operational and

corporate responsibilities within the framework of the corporate policy.

This third option is the preferred option not only because it addresses

the current imbalance in the span of control of the existing two posi-

tions of Chief, reporting to the Director but also because it would lik

together in one unit, the existing case submission control functions in

the existing Clemency and Pardons Division with the records management

functions pertinent to Appeal Division cases.

.../122

- 122 -

It is recommended that the position of Director, Administrative and

Financial Services report directly to the Director General, Corporate

Management Systems and Services and that the four (4) positions reporting

directly to the Director, Administrative and Financial Services be:

Chief, Financial Management Services

Chief, Corporate Records, Systems and Services

Chief, Administrative Services

Three options were considered with respect to the position of Director,

Development Corporate Systems and Services. The first option, depicted

in Chart 12, Recommendation # , Option #1, is to retitle the existing

position of Director, Corporate Planning and Management Practices and to

include the existing five (5) indeterminate positions currently reporting

to this position. These are:

Management Practices and Special Projects Officer

Planning and Systems Officer

Program Evaluation Officer

OCE Operator

Secretary

A sixth position (not depicted) currently reporting to this position is

that of a CAPP officer on assignment to the Director for a determinate

period. The position of Program Evaluation Officer has a corporate

.../123

- 123 -

1

I11I'IIIII1III

person year status at the moment and is in the process of being regular-

ized. The transfer of the position of the OCE Operator occurred during

the course of this Review and appears to be an anomaly in the

headquarter's organizational structure, given the pooling of word

processing services in the word processing unit reporting to the Chief,

Administrative Services.

The second option considered is depicted in Chart 13, Recommendation #1,

Option Yr'2. In this option, there would be two (2) new positions report-

ing to the Director, Development Corporate Systems and Systems and as a

result the new and additional responsibilities allocated to this position

would not only account for the new title but would account for changes in

the focus and responsibilities of the Director. The four (4) positions

reporting to the Director are:

Chief, Corporate Systems and Services Development

Chief, Policy, Procedures and Research Development

Secretary

OCE Operator

The positions currently reporting to the Director, as outlined in Option

#1, and the two statistical officer positions currently reporting to the

Director General, HQ Operations would report to the Chief, Corporate

.../124

I

- 12A-

Systems and Services Development. The staff currently reporting to the

Director, Planning and Analysis and the research and evaluation officer

currently reporting to the Director General, HQ Operations would report

to the Chief, Policy, Procedures and Services Development. The advan-

tages to this option would be: an increased capacity of the Director to

coordinate the development processes of corporate and operational work

pertinent to the formulation of NPB corporate and case-focussed policies

and procedures using the project management model proposed for policy

development in Section III of this Report; an increased capacity to

identify, collect, analyse, synthesize and disseminate the corporate NPB

data and information pertinent to the demands of the NPB as a corporate

entity in relation to the requirements of the "machinery of government"

agencies; and the development of corporate systems for planning, organiz-

ing, controlling and evaluating the corporate services essential to the

support of the case-focussed work of the organization. The major disad-

vantage of this option is the separation of staff into two distinct

units, one focussing on systems development, special projects, planning

and audit, evaluation and statistical analyses, and the other focussing

on policy development, research and analysis. Currently, despite organ-

izational boundaries and reporting relationships, projects are being

successfully undertaken under the leadership of staff in the Corporate

Planning unit, which involve regional staff and HQ based planning and

analysis staff. By assigning the statistical liaison and research and

evaluation positions to one or the other unit, these functions which are

essential to both units, have the potential of being caught up in

.../125

I'I1I1I1IIIII1

III

1

- 125 -

houndary conflicts much as they currently are. Given the number of

projects currently planned and/or underway and the proposals for more

contained in this and other reports, it seems appropriate that the

existing staff positions referred to in this option should be supported

through an organizational structure which spans current organizational

boundaries, reduces potential boundary conflicts and provides increased

opportunities for a multi-disciplinary staff focus on corporate issues

and problem resolution.

In the third option, depicted in Chart 14, Recommendation #1, Option #3,

consideration has been given to the development of project teams

reporting directly to the Director, Development Corporate Systems and

Services. In other words, the staff positions reportino to the two Chief

positions in the second option discussed above, would he grouped into

teams reporting directly to the Director.

In this option, each team would consist of staff positions classified at

roughly the same level, each with responsibilities of both a oeneric and

specialized nature, the focus of which is the analysis and synthesis of

data and information crucial to the corporate work of this unit. The

potential for individual management of projects flows from this capacity

to analyse, research and report on the data and information pertinent to

a variety of corporate issues. As a result, the opportunity would exist

for creating two or three or four teams of staff consisting of HQ

corporate and regional/divisional case-focussed Board and staff to

.../126

- 126 -

undertake special projects at any one time. At the same time, corporate

development staff should, would and could carry on with specific tasks as

they now do, flowing from their particular or specialized roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions. For instance, the corporate work

flowing from the NPB annual audit program and cycle would have to be

carried on as a specific responsibility of one of the corporate staff

positions within the corporate policy, systems and services framework;

however the data and information pertinent to the audit would be

collected, analysed, synthesized and communicated to the corporate audit

project manager through several responsibility centres as the result of

the work of many staff and Board members. The particular staff position

or project manager tasked with the corporate audit responsibilities could

also he tasked with other responsibilities flowing from membership in one

or more special project teams. The major advantage of this option would

be the increased capacity of the Director, Development Corporate Systems

and Services and by implication the corporate staff and the NPB as an

entity to plan, organize, control and evaluate the corporate projects

which are initiated at all levels of the organization and approved by the

Chairman in consultation with the Executive Director.

To a large extent, the focus of the Director's position in this option

would be the overall coordination of the work of self-directed

entrepreneurs on a day-to-day basis. Each of these staff positions would

become a project manager or team leader at one time or another and as

such should have direct access on that basis to the Director for the

.../127

IIIIIIIIII

IIII

I

I

- 127 -

period of the project. Each of these position descriptions should have a

statement of general roles, responsibilities, duties and functions appro-

priate to project management and team membership and also a statement

outlining specific and specialized roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions. One of the major disadvantages of this option is the uncer-

tainty derived from with the dynamic nature of project management for

staff who are used to having detailed position descriptions. The other

disadvantage is the perceived lack of upward nobility in the organization

by not having two Chief positions to aspire to. Experience as Project

Managers may psychically compensate for this lack of structural

opportunity but will not in a classification, pay and benefit sense.

The third option is clearly a more radical option than option two and for

this reason, serious consideration should be given to staging the organ-

izational changes proposed in both options. It may be preferable to

adopt Option #3 in the short term and followina an evaluation after the

first full year of operation, decide to retain this organizational struc-

ture or move towards a structure similar to that proposed in Option in.

It is recommended that the position of Director, Development Corporate

Systems and Services, report directly to the Director General, Corporate

Management Systems and Services and that the functions reporting directly

to the Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services be:

.../128

- 128 -

Management Practices and Special Projects

Planning and Systems Development

Program Evaluation and Audit

Policy Analysis

Statistical functions

Research functions

Secretarial functions

Two options were considered in the proposal for the new position,

Director, Information Systems and Services. The rationale for this new

position is derived from organizational theory, observation, interviews

with Board members and staff and NPB studies, reports and documents

pertinent to information systems and services. Contemporary organiza-

tional theory points to the increasing importance of information and

information systems technology as a strategic management tool not only to

reduce costs, but to add significant value to the output of an organiza-

tion's work processes. The requirements for accuracy, timeliness and

currency of information places a high value on the technology that can

efficiently and reliably process and store large quantities of raw data.

This technology includes the hardware and software required for proces-

sing raw data into a form usable by the persons for whom it is intended.

At this point, it may be useful to generally describe three categories of

information systems. These are:

.../129

IIII

IIIIIIIIIIIII

-129-

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

° Electronic Data Processing systems (E DP) - This is the larqest

category of computer-based information systems in use. Financial

Accounting, personnel and statistical transactions are carried out and

records maintained of such using the hardware and software appropriate

to these EDP systems. EDP is essentially a number-crunching system

which carries out repetitive mathematicaby'-based functions.

° Management Information Systems (MIS) - This use of computer-based

information systems is designed to aggregate or summarize data and

information and report it on a periodic basis in a format useful to

managers for purposes of comparing current performance against an

established hase for performance. For example, current budget

expenditure on a monthly base measured against the planned expenditure

level per month or person year usage to date compared to the plan for

person year usage. The MIS involves the aggregation of transaction

data collected through the EDP system but uses different software for

reporting purposes. There is no need to limit the scope of the MIS to

focus on internally generated data through the EDP system. In fact

the failure of most MIS is to limit the data to those internally

generated and thus miss the importance of externally derived and

environmentally significant data. EDP generated data tends to be

routine whereas MIS data needs to be random as well as routine and

periodic because managers need data on demand as well as on a

quarterly or more frequent basis. Attempts to build an MIS with EDP

.../130

I

-130 -

oriented specialists and with technology optimized for low-cost EDP

transactions usually fail to provide what is needed for ongoing

management control and future direction.

If one assumes that information and technology are as important as

capital and labour as components of productivity, then one can say

that MIS improves productivity by adding value to existing manual

management control systems, i.e., MIS improves effectiveness and EDP

improves productivity by displacing costs, i.e. EDP improves effici-

ency. In other words, a contemporary information-based organization

needs to have both EDP and MIS in order to improve efficiency and

effectiveness in its corporate and operational functions. A well

functioning MIS provides managers with data and information pertinent

to answering the question of - "How is my organization performing?"

° Decision Support Systems (DSS) - This use of computer-based informa-

tion systems is relatively new and as a result the software available

to support the concept is not readily available. The focus of DSS is

to provide information to assist managers in making specific manageri-

al decisions, primarily of a planning nature. The use of DSS allows a

manager to incorporate data from both internal and external sources in

order to develop choices, analyse competitive factors, assess proba-

bilities for success, examine the consequences of alternate scenarios

and finally make a decision based on such. DSS allows a manager to

.../131

- 131 -

II

IIIIIIIIIII

ask the question - "What if?" and to a large extent is very abstract

and must he closely tied to assumptions. If the assumptions are

incorrect, so will be the decisions.

All three categories of information systems, EDP, MIS, and DSS, require

different blends of technologies (hardware, software), expertise and

operational standards. The development, maintenance and use of informa-

tion systems require a cultural and attitudinal shift in the orientation

towards work processes by members of most organizations. In fact, most

organizations fail in their first attempts to develop and establish the

usefulness of information systems precisely because the senior management

of the organization does not spend time in orienting the whole organiza-

tion to the benefits and costs of information systems hut rather dele-

gates the responsibility for development to positions too far removed

from the executive decision-makinq processes and too far removed from the

lowest level of work processes. As a result, the expectations for

improved effectiveness and efficiency resulting from the establishment of

information systems, of both the executive level and most junior level

staff in most organizations are not realized. Consequently, both groups

maintain their usual modes of work processes and simultaneously try to

cope with the frustrations emanating from sporadic and misinterpreted

attempts to automate specific tasks. Unfortunately, the development of

EDP systems and APIS within the NPB is similar in most respects to the

picture painted above. The bright spots in the NPB, with respect to

information systems are those EDP systems through which financial and

.../132

I

- 132 -

personnel transactions are carried out, recorded and reported. The

statistical transactions through which data and information are processed

for corporate purposes, i.e., annual reports and studies is less well

developed. In this area, the problem appears to be both a lack of

context and direction within which statistical analyses are carried out

and a Jack of certainty as to the validity and veracity of the data

used. The context should be provided with the proposed close alignment

of the statistical analysis functions with other functions under the

Director, Corporate Development Systems and Services.

In the first option considered, depicted in Chart 15, Recommendation #1,

Option #1, the position of Director, Information Systems and Services

reporting directly to the Director General, Corporate Management Systems

and Services, would have two (2) positions reporting to the Director.

These are:

EDP Systems Officer

APIS, OMS, MIS, Liaison and Development Officer

The primary focus of the position of Director, Information Systems and

Services would be the coordination of the planning, organizing, control-

ling and evaluating of the ongoing development of existing EDP systems,

including APIS and those systems used by financial, personnel, communica-

tions and statistical services and the initiation and coordination of the

development of an MIS for use by all managers in the NPB in exercising

.../133

I

IIIIIIIIIIIII

- 133 -

their corporate roles, responsibilities, duties and functions. The

development of an MIS should be predicated on the need to collect and

process, for corporate decision-making purposes, data and information

derived internally from the outcomes of case-focussed work processes,

from non case-focussed or corporate work processes and from externally

derived sources pertinent to the management requirements for planning,

organizing, controlling and evaluating. Of the two positions reporting

to this position, that of the EDP Systems Officer, would focus on the

operation of the EDP systems and services, including the acquisition of

hardware and software pertinent to the ongoing support of existing infor-

mation systems such as APIS, financial, personnel and communications and

new systems such as R1IS and the Offender Management System (OMS) current-

ly under development by CSC and the NPB. The other position, APIS, OMS,

MIS, Liaison and Development Officer would focus on the liaison with CSC,

information systems and services technicians, regional and HQ managers

and external consultants, as necessary, to coordinate the ongoing and new

development of APIS, OMS and MIS.

The second option considered, depicted in Chart 16, Recommendation #1,

Option #2, is the establishment of the position of Information Systems

and Services Officer reporting directly to the Director General, Corpo-

rate Management Systems and Services. This option is obviously less

costly due to the fact that there are no positions reporting to it.

Given the importance of information to the NPB, the recent and current

problems associated with APIS, the need for an MIS, the joint development

.../134

I

- 134 -

of an O11S with CSC, this option has the major disadvantage of requiring a

superwoman or superman to undertake all these tasks. The major focus of

this position could only be to liaise and coordinate the ongoing develop-

ment of information systems and services undertaken by others probahl^^

external consultants or CSC staff.

The third option considered but not depicted, is to have the position of

Information Systems and Services Officer as described in Option #2 above,

report directly to the Executive Director. Current organizational theory

emphasizes the importance of having the Information Systems and Services

function report at a senior management or executive level in an organiza-

tion in order to ensure that the organizational attitudes towards the use

of information is modelled on those of senior management. Given the

recommendation for reduced span of control of the Executive Director,

this option is not the preferred one.

In choosing the preferred option, consideration should be given to

staging the introduction of this new position particularly in light of

the fiscal constraints facing the NPB. Clearly, the amount of time

currently spent by the Director General, HQ Operations and regional case

preparation managers on information system and services development,

trouble- shooting and liaison with CSC, points to the need for a full-time

position devoted to EDP systems operation and new and revised systems

development. Ideally, once the information systems and services are

developed, they could be transferred to the Director, Administrative and

.../135

I

IIII1IIIIII

IIIII

-135 -

Financial Services; however, this transfer should not be contemplated in

the foreseeable future, that is, during the next several years given the

information needs of the NPB.

Obviously, immediate action needs to be taken because of the current

problems of APIS and the demands being made on the NPB by the OMS

development by CSC. For this reason, it may be preferable to immediately

second a member of the senior staff or middle-management staff who has

demonstrated knowledge, skills and expertise in EDP systems and services,

APIS and other systems, as well as demonstrated knowledge of Board and

staff case-focussed work processes, into the position of Information

Systems and Services Officer as outlined in Option #2 above. The longer

range plan to be considered for implementation by fiscal year 1987-88

should be that outlined in Option #1 above, that is, the establishment e

the position of Director, Information Systems and Services. Should it be

possible to implement preferred Option #1 earlier than fiscal year

1987-88, then action should be taken immediately.

It is recommended that the position of Director, Information Systems and

Services reporting directly to the Director General, Corporate Management

Systems and Services, be established. The two (2) positions reporting to

this position are:

EDP Systems Officer

APIS, OMS, MIS, Liaison and Development Officer

.../136

- 136 -

The development of an NPB corporate policy for information systems and

services should be undertaken as quickly as possible regardless of the

option chosen. It is within the framework of this policy, that the EDP

and APIS users' committees should seek direction and make their recommen-

dations for hardware and software acquisition and revision of existing

systems and services.

The remaining positions reporting to the Executive Director, that is,

those of the Regional Director's and the Director, Appeal, Clemency and

Pardons will be discussed under Question #2.

Question #2: Should the Regional Executive Officer position be enhanced

with additional managerial or administrative responsibili-

ties?

During the course of this Review, the title of Regional Executive Officer

was changed to Regional Director (R D) which is the title used in this and

preceding sections of this Report. In presenting the arguments for

organizational change pertinent to this question, the author has consi-

dered that the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of each

Regional Director are essentially the same. Flowing from this set of

more or less standardized roles, responsibilities, duties and functions

of the RD is a common organizational structure supporting the more or

less standardized work processes of regional staff reporting to the RD in

each regional office.

.../137

II

II11II1

IIIIIIII

- 137-

Three options have been considered with respect to the positions report-

ing directly to the position of Regional Director in each regional office

and with respect to the new position of Director, Appeal, Clemency and

Pardons Division. The first option is that of no change in existing

positions currently reporting directly to the RD, as depicted in Charts

17, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Recommendation #2, Option el. The second and

third options considered and depicted in Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and

27, 28, 29, 30, 31, Recommendation #2, Option #2 and Option #3, respec-

tively, are reflective of changes proposed in positions reporting direct-

ly to the Regional Director. With respect to the three options proposed

for positions reporting directly to the new position of Director, Appeal,

Clemency and Pardons, all three options propose changes to the existing

organizational structure and are depicted in Charts 32, 33 and 34, Recom-

mendation #2, Options #1, #2 and #3.

As noted earlier in this Report, the proposal for establishment of an

Appeal, Clemency and Pardons staff unit to support the Board member

decision-making processes (includino the development of recommendations

on requests for clemency and pardons to the Solicitor General) of the

Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division of the Board, in a manner analogous

to those of regional staff units is the basis for the consideration of

these last three options under this question.

.../138

- 138 -

Currently, and as noted in Section III of this Report, the roles, respon-

sibilities, duties and functions of Regional Directors focus mainly on

the day-to-day operational tasks of planning, organizing, controlling and

evaluating the work of regional staff. Within these overall tasks, RD's

are responsible for managing the staff relationships with regional Board

members, relationships between regional NPB staff, between regional NPB

staff and regional CSC staff, between regional staff and HLl staff, and

between the Regional Director and the Senior Board member. In four of

five regions, there are three positions reporting to the Regional

Director (RD) - Regional Manager, Case Preparatim ; Regional Manager,

Case Supervision; and Regional Administrator. Of these three positions,

two - the Case Managers - focus on verifying the contents of the

offender's file prior to the Board members' review and decisions and on

ensuring that the Board members' decisions have been formulated in accor-

dance with Board policy and procedures prior to notification of CSC and

of the offender of the Board's decision. To a large extent and simplis-

tically, the case management function can be described as exercising

quality control over CSC case preparation prior to the Board's decision

and quality control over CSC supervision following a Board decision to

grant conditional release to an offender. One must question the alloca-

tion of NPB regional resources to these CSC quality control functions

particularly in the observed absence of significant value-added case

analysis performed by NPB case management staff. To a lesser extent the

case management staff exercise quality control over the Board decision-

making processes by ensuring compliance of the final formulation of Board

.../139

III

1

I1IIIIII

III

- 139 -

t

IIIIIIIII1III

decisions with NPB policies and procedures. It also appears that the

work of one case manager is well understood by the other and in fact the

total work is shared by the two case managers. There is one case load

managed by two people. The third position reporting to the RD is that of

the Regional Administrator (R A) whose functions focus on financial and

administrative services to the Board members and staff. As well, the RA

provides the main regional contact with HQ financial and administrative

services. The RA in all five regions is responsible for the records and

file management function. It is my view that the responsibilities of

this position can and should be increased in order to free up the RD to

place more emphasis on his overall corporate responsibilities. (See

Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, Recommendation #2, Options

#2 and #3 )

Within each regional office, there is a correspondence and information

officer whose functions include answering ministerial correspondence,

offenders' letters, letters and inquiries from the general public and

advising staff on Access to Information arrl Privacy issues. This posi-

tion reports to the Regional Manager, Case Supervision in four of five

regions. This officer is also tasked with public information and in some

offices with NPB public education duties. This position is the main

regional contact with HQ communications and media relations staff and

with HQ Clemency and Pardons staff. In light of the emphasis placed by

Board and staff on improving the image of the NPB, it seems advisable

that this position report to the RD who is responsible for issues

.../140

I

-140 -

management in each region. The secretarial and clerical support staff in

each regional office provide services to Board members and to staff. The

reporting relationships for these staff vary with each regional office.

In some regional offices, the secretaries to the Board members find

themselves caught in the eternal dilemma of "who do I really work for? -

report to?" especially when "things are going wrong". It seems reason-

able that secretarial and clerical support staff, including micom and OCE

operators be grouped as a functional unit in each regional office for

their own corporate sense of identity and to engender effective and

efficient use of their talents in accordance with changing demands in

each regional office. Analyzing case files, extracting the salient

information and transferring such to face sheets is not a secretarial or

clerical function. It is a case management function. The secretarial

and clerical support staff function would most logically (traditionally,

as well) report to the RA or the newly proposed position of Manager

Regional Services. (See Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,

Recommendation #2, Options #2 and #3)

In each regional office, the APIS co-ordinator function currently resides

with the Regional Manager Case Preparation whose interests and developing

expertise may well lie with APIS but whose current role, responsibili-

ties, duties and functions do not. Considering the amount of time

currently required by APIS problems, one must question how much of the

case manager's time is available for case preparation and/or the

overload situation created by the additional APIS responsibilities.

.../141

- 141 -

I

1II1IIIIIIIII

There is an evident and expressed need by the APIS Users Committee for a

discrete information systems and services function in each region. This

function would focus on APIS and EDP systems, technical troubleshooting

and services coordination within each regional office, with other

regional offices, with HQ Information Systems and Services and with CSC

regional information systems and services functions. This Information

Systems and Services position would most logically report to the RA or

the newly proposed position of Manager Regional Services. Should the

incumbent of the position of Manager Regional Services have the know-

ledge, skills and expertise appropriate to the position of Information

Systems and Services technician, then the need for the technician posi-

tion would be redundant. In other words the manager could assume the

function. (S ee Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, Recommen-

dation #2, Options #2 and #3.)

It appears that additional functions are necessary in the regional

offices given the nature of the work and increasing workload of the

regional Board members and the corporate demands of the NPB. As noted in

Section III of this Report, there is an undeveloped regional capacity to

identify and convert operational issues into policy and procedural issues

which can he examined in a corporate sense by the Executive Committee of

the Board and the Senior Management Committee, handed off as staff

projects for time-framed analysis, resolution and eventual (as appropri-

ate) implementation as Board policies and procedures. The case audit

function is not observable at the regional level and as a consequence

...,/142

I

- 142 -

the regional capacity to establish case management policies and standards

and evaluate performance against these is not present. The RD's capacity

to know how the regional organization is performing when the focus is on

case work is surely tied to a case-audit process. As noted earlier in

this Report, the regional offices lack a professional development and

training focus. For Board members and staff orientation training and

professional development is key to high level performance and morale.

Tied to this function is the public education function carried out by

Board and staff in most regional offices.

Regular Board members are for the most part Quite conversant with NPB

policies, procedures and case-file analysis, synthesis and parole

decision-making routines and only occasionally need staff advice on

such. Temporary Board members, due to the itinerant nature of their NPB

work, are less conversant with NPB policies, procedures and parole

decision-making routines and frequently need and seek staff advice on

such. Given the increasing volume and complexities associated with

Parole Panel hearings and increasing use of Temporary Board Members in

these hearings, the notion of having an NPB staff Hearing Officer in

attendance, has great validity. The functions included in this position

should include attendance at Parole Board Hearings for the purposes of:

electronic recording of the proceedings; advising Board members on NPB

policy and procedural issues as they arise durina the proceedings;

recording in draft form the salient points of the hearing discussion as a

basis for Board members' in-camera discussion of the issues and reasons

.../143

I

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

- 143 -

leading to the decisions on the case at hand; formulating a draft summary

of their reasons and decisions for Board members' final formulation and

approval of such; and routing of this final decision throuqh the notifi-

cation function of the case management section in the regional office.

Currently, the case management preparation function in an NPB regional

office verifies the content of each CSC prepared case file in accordance

with the standards set out in the NPB-CSC Administrative Agreement; how-

ever, as noted earlier in Section III of this Report, this function

undertakes little, if any, further NPB - focussed analysis or synthesis

of the case file prior to Board review and decision making. As noted

earlier, in most regional offices, it is the Board Secretaries who

undertake case file analysis and transferance of salient features of the

file to face sheets. This is a very risky business to have staff

unschooled in case analysis doinq such work crucial to Board members'

decisions. One must question the necessity of having a case management

function which adds only quantitative clerical value but little, if any,

qualitative case analysis value to the CSC prepared case file. However,

if there is recognized value in having an NPB developed risk assessment,

release and reintegration-oriented decision-making policy framework for

Board Member decision-making then there is definitely an important,

value-added and different role for the case management function.

Currently the case management function is fragmented according to a

"piece work" or assembly line approach to work on case files. This

approach historically evolved and was most appropriate to 19th century

.../144

I

- 144 -

factories producing textiles and motor-carriages. It is no longer appro-

priate for these businesses and certainly is inappropriate for

information-based decision-making activities. It would unquestionably be

more interesting and satisfying for staff and more effective and effici-

ent in terms of quality and quantity of information added and deleted

during case file analysis, if case management staff were grouped into

case management teams. Each team could be given responsibility for the

"work up" of a number of case files. This would mean that individual

case management staff would be accountable for a number of files from the

initial case analysis stage, through the Board review and decision making

stage to the notification of the offender stage. This would represent a

holistic rather than a "piece work" approach to case management and lodge

responsibility and accountability with individuals at lower levels in the

organization. Each case management team would include existing verifica-

tion and notification clerks under the supervision of a new position -

the Case Review Officer, who in turn would report to a Regional Case

Manager. This team approach would also address some of current problems

arising from no perceived "back-up" in reaional offices when a notifica-

tions or verifications clerk is on vacation or on sick leave. It appears

possible to have two or three case management teams in each region,

depending upon the total regional case load, using existina case manage-

ment staff. The possibility would exist of having a Case Review Officer,

or a case review clerk available on a scheduled basis to attend Panel

Hearings as the Hearing Officer. (See Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,

.../145

IIIIIIIIIII1t

IIII1

-145 -

29, 30, 31, Recommendation #2, Option #2 and #3) As well, Case Review

Officers or Case Review Clerks could assist Board members during

office-based "paper votes" as required.

It appears that the number of cases which a NPB regional office receives

from CSC on an annual basis is known historically and is relatively easy

to predict, the number of Board members available for case review and

decision making is relatively stable and the time frames and voting

procedures for dealing with each case are stipulated hy the NPB Act,

regulations, policy and procedures. The question that then arises is the

reason for the current variations between regional offices in the numbers

and levels of staff required for the case management function particular-

ly when the critical functions pertinent to case management have been

identified through the Regional Work Load Study, confirmed by the

Management Operational Review and aoreed to by the Regional Directors.

It would appear that the current case management process is not standard

across all regional offices. Regional variations in case-load can

account for small variations in numbers of staff by region but cannot

account for wide variations in numbers between regions with similar case

loads or for variations in levels of staff by region.

The case management function needs to be restructured in order to under-

take value added work processes involving analyses and synthesis of data

pertinent to the case file. Additional responsibilities such as identi-

fication of the need for formulation of new case-focussed policies and

.../146

- 146 -

procedures, regular auditing of case management work processes within a

case management policy framework and participation in corporate policy

development is indicative of the enhanced role and responsibilities of

regional case managers in all regions.

With reference to Question #2 posed at the outset, the Regional

Director's position in each regional office should be enhanced with

additional managerial or administrative responsibilities as outlined.

For this reason, the first option considered, that is, no change in the

existing organizational structure in each regional office is rejected.

In the second option considered and depicted in Charts 22, 23, 24, 25,

26, Recommendation #2, Option #2, the proposed six (6) positions report-

ing directly to the Regional Director are:

Regional Case Manager (two)

Correspondence and Information Officer

Professional Development and Public Education Officer

Manager Regional Services

Secretary

That is, a change from four (4) to six (6) positions reporting to the

Regional Director is proposed for all five regions. To each position of

Regional Case Manager would report a team of case review clerks composed

.../147

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII

II

-147 -

of existing verification and notification clerks. In each region, there

could be two teams of case review clerks each headed by a Case Review

Officer. As noted earlier, the number and size of the case review teams

is dependant upon the case load in each regional office. In both the

second and third options, the proposed case management work processes are

holistic in nature, that is, a change from the current assembly-line

approach in which several staff work on each case file to an approach in

which each case management team member is responsible for the

identification, collection, analysis, synthesis and dissemination of the

data and information in a case file prior to, during and after Board

decision-making. This value-added approach not only enhances the roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions of each case review team member

but also those of the Reoional Case Manager and the Regional Director.

In choosing the preferred option, consideration of the fiscal constraints

facing the NPB and the rate of change desirable in each regional office,

must be considered particularly in light of the current workload of Board

and staff members. Obviously, Option #3, which proposes one position of

Regional Case Manager to replace the existing two (2) positions of

Regional Manager, Case Preparation and Regional Manager, Case Supervision

is less costly in that a person year is saved; however, it may not be

less costly with respect to the need for stability in the organization

while new case management work processes are introduced. In other words,

Option #2 may be the preferred option for immediate change and Option #3

may be the preferred option for long term change beginning in fiscal year

.../148

- 148 -

1987-88. Clearly, the formulation of NPB corporate policies for case

management, communications and public information, orientation training,

professional development and public education, records management and

information systems and services, to name but a few, will take at least

two years to complete and action. Each of these policies will have a

direct impact on the work processes undertaken by the staff in and

reporting to the positions reporting to the Regional Director. Thus, the

initiation and implementation of structural change in each regional

office must be planned, organized, controlled and evaluated in tandem

with other changes proposed in this and other reports currently

underway. Option #2 is the preferred option for immediate implementation

and Option #3 is the preferred option for implementation in the longer

term, beginning in fiscal year 1 987-88.

It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions

of the position of Regional Director be upgraded as a result of the

increase in the number and nature of the positions reporting to the

Regional Director. The five (5) positions reporting to the Regional

Director are:

Regional Case Manager

Information and Correspondence Officer

Professional Development and Public Education Officer

Manager Regional Services

Secretary

.../149

IIIIIAI1IIItIII1II

- 149 -

I

I

IIIIIIIIIII

As noted in Section III of this Report, the shared leadership role of the

RD and the SBM will also enhance the roles, responsibilities, duties and

function of the RD.

The implementation of changes in the organizational structure and work

processes in each regional office will necessitate a review of the

classification of existing positions. These positions currently are

characterized by a lack of contiguity between positions within the same

reporting chain. As well, there are obvious variances between the

position description of verifications and notifications clerks,

secretaries to Board members and the actual work done by the incumbents

of these positions. Position descriptions, position classifications, a

ladder approach in reporting relationships and equity among positions

with similar responsibilities all should be addressed during the

implementation of organizational change.

Three options were considered with respect to the proposal for the

establishment of the new position of Director, Appeal, Clemency and

Pardons Division. Currently, the Case Analysis and Review unit located

at HQ, undertakes the collection, analysis and synthesis of the data and

information contained in a case file prior to its review by the Appeal

Division of the Board following a request by an offender for a re-

examination of a Regional Board decision on his/her case. As well, and

currently, the Clemency and Pardons unit of the NPB undertakes the inves-

tigation, collection, analysis and synthesis of the data and information

.../150

I

-150 -

pertinent to a request to the Appeal Board for clemency under the provi-

sions of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy and a pardon under the Criminal

Records Act. Each of these different units undertakes work of an

analytical nature - supportive of Board decision-making processes leading

to a decision on an offender or to a recommendation for clemency or

pardon to the Governor-in-Council. During the course of this Review,

these two staff units were aligned through a single reporting

relationship to the position of Chief, Clemency and Pardons reporting in

turn to the position of Director General, HQ Operations. As noted in

Section III of this Report, this alianment of staff functions whose work

processes are governed by the work processes of the Appeal Division Board

members appears to make sense. The proposal to change the name of the

Appeal Division of the Board to the Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division

of the Board would provide the public identification of the roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions of both Board members and staff

engaged in these specific activities.

The first option considered and depicted in Chart 32, Recommendation #2,

Option el is that of proposing the establishment of the new position of

Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division. This new position would

have three (3) existing positions reporting to it. They are:

Chief, Clemency and Pardons

Chief, Case Analysis and Review

Secretary

.../151

I

1IrI1IIIIIIIIII

- 151 -

Reporting directly to each of the Chief positions, would be the existing

staff positions as depicted in Chart 32. This new position of Director,

Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division would report directly to the

Executive Director and would have roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions analogous to those of Reqional Directors. The case-focussed

work processes of staff in these two units reporting to the Director

would also be analogous to those of regional case management staff but

would be carried out within the policy framework specific to Appeal,

Clemency and Pardons.

The second option considered and depicted in Chart 33, Recommendation #2,

Option #2 is an option modelled on an analogous option for the Regional

Offices (See Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). Given that the Appeal, Clemency

and Pardons Division is located at HQ and has direct access to the

services provided by the Communications Division reporting to the Chair-

man and to the Professional Development and training unit reporting, as

proposed earlier to the Director, Human Resource Services, then the argu-

ment for these two (2) discrete positions reporting to the Director,

Appeal, Clemency and Pardons is weakened. There is, however, a need to

focus the work processes of the staff reporting to the proposed position

of Case Manager Clemency and Pardons, on holistic work processes rather

than an assembly -line approach to case files. The Clemency and Pardons

staff are currently organized in teams, as is proposed for regional case

management staff; however, their case management approach has recently

changed from a case load and individual case file analysis and synthesis

.../152

I

- 152 -

approach to a piece-work approach. For the same reasons as advanced for

a holistic case management approach to case files in regional offices,

the staff work processes associated with review of Clemency and Pardons

files should be refocussed. In this option, the six (6) positions

reporting to the Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division are:

Case Manager, Clemency and Pardons

Correspondence and Information Officer

Manager Divisional Services

Professional Development and Public Education Officer

Case Manager Appeal

Secretary

The two Case Managers' positions are retitled existing positions, that

of, Chief, Clemency and Pardons and Chief, Case Analysis and Review. The

three new positions proposed in this option are the Correspondence and

Information Officer, Professional Development and Public Education

Officer and Manager, Divisional Services. Of these three positions, that

of Manager, Divisional Services is the one which is essential. In this

option, there is a proposal for a case records unit, as presented earlier

in this Section in the discussion of the changes in the positions report-

ing to the Director, Administrative and Financial Services. (See Chart

11, Recommendation #1, Option #3).

.../153

IIIIIrIIIII1IIIIIAI

-153 -

The third option considered and depicted in Chart 34, Recommendation #2,

Option #3, is a variation of Option #2 presented above. In this option

there would be four (4) positions reporting directly to the Director,

Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division. These positions are:

Case Manager, Clemency and Pardons

Manager, Divisional Services

Case Manager, Appeal

Secretary

This option is obviously less costly than the second option presented.

This option, as does Option #2 requires the refocussing of the existing

Clemency and Pardons work processes and a restructuring of the staff

teams into two teams rather than the existing three teams. The option of

having two or three teams reporting to the Case Manager, Clemency and

Pardons, is dependant upon the case load and the work processes. In this

option, as in Option #2 above, the establishment of the case records unit

is dependent upon the transfer of Appeal, Clemency and Pardons case files

and associated staff functions and positions from the HQ records units

currently reporting to the Chief, Administrative Services. In this

option, the case submission unit in Option #2 is merged with the case

records unit.

.../154

- 154 -

The preferred option is Option #3 as depicted in Chart 34, Recommendation

#2.

It is recommended that the position of Director, Appeal, Clemency and

Pardons Division be established and report directly to the Executive

Director. The four (4) positions reporting to the Director, Appeal,

Clemency and Pardons are:

Case Manager, Clemency and Pardons

Manager, Divisional Services

Case Manager, Appeal

Secretary

The implementation of the organizational changes proposed in this recom-

mendation should be accompanied by a review of position descriptions,

position classifications and reporting relationships particularly in the

Clemency and Pardons unit and the Records Unit or the proposed suh-

records office.

Question 0: Should the Regional Executive Director report to the

Director General?

The answer to this question has already been proposed in the arguments

made in response to Question #1. The answer is no.

.../155

IIII

t.1I

IAIIII

I

I

-155 -

fft is recommended that the Regional Directors report directly to the

Executive Director.

Question #4: Should a distinction be recognized between "macro" and

"micro" policy issues (depending ion the actual or poten-

tial level of impact) with responsibility for development

ssigned to the Director, Planning and Analysis and the

Secretary to the Board, respectively or to a new director-

ate that would report to the Executive Director or the

Chairman?

The recent history of policy formulation, interpretation and implementa-

tion within the NPB leads one to suggest that NPB policy processes are

frought with both fragmentation and lack of coordination. In a highly

decentralized and differentiated organization, such as the NPB,

fragmentation and specialization of functions must be countered with

strong and explicit coordination mechanisms if the organizational

mandate, mission, goals and objectives are to be achieved in an effective

and efficient manner. It became apparent through interviews with Board

and staff members that traditional coordination mechanisms, such as

weekly or even monthly staff meetings were not well developed nor

regularly used as a means of exchanging information or affirming organi-

zational direction or specific issues of importance. The geographic

separation of Board members and staff contributes greatly to the fragmen-

tation and provides a strong rationale for strong corporate coordination

.../156

- 156 -

mechanisms such as regular meetings of the General Board, Executive

Committee, Senior Management Committee, senior staff management committee

and so on. To an outside observer, one of the myths held about the NPB

is that there is a Board which meets regularly and in accordance with

traditional meeting rules and procedures which govern the way in which

the Board conducts its affairs as a corporate entity. Clearly, this is

not the reality of the NPB nor is it likely to be, given the current

fiscal constraints. Alternate ways then must be found to strengthen

existing mechanisms and to develop new coordination mechanisms appropri-

ate to a contemporary, information-based, decentralized organization.

Obviously regular Board and staff meetings in Regional and Divisional

offices and staff meetings at FIQ are key coordinating mechanisms as are

Board member meetings.

Another mechanism for coordination of work processes is that of having a

well defined mission, corporate values, and a corporate and operational

policy framework within which Board members and staff can exercise their

initiative, judgement and discretion in carrying out their work. This

approach implies ongoing efforts at coordination of work processes by

each individual in the organization and strong corporate leadership in

encouraging and rewarding such an approach. In the recent past, attempts

have been made to promote strict adherence to well-defined procedures as

a coordinating mechanism. In the absence of a mission and a well-defined

policy framework, this approach has a lot of merit; however, this proce-

.../157

rIIII11IIIIIIIIIiI

I

- 157 -

IIiII1IIIII.1III

dural approach has been less than successful probably due to the fact

that the vast majority of Board members and staff bring a relatively high

level of professional and/or technical expertise to bear on their work

and as a result tend to be problem solvers rather than procedure follow-

ers. Should the proposals presented throughout this Report, for the

development of policy frameworks as guides to work processes be accepted

then the policy formulation, interpretation and implementation processes

become crucial to coordination and congruence of work processes and

long-term corporate viability, legitimacy and credibility.

The proposal for these policy formulation, interpretation and implementa-

tion processes set out in Section III, pages 67 to 70, points to the need

for a coordinated, multidisciplinary, regional and HQ approach to policy

formulation, the need for a single corporate voice in the Chairman's

office in final policy interpretation and the need for policy implementa-

tion and policy identification at the level of operational work proces-

ses. The policy processes are circular, dynamic and require ongoinq

feedback to and from all operational units if they are to he useful,

credible and legitimate.

Given this proposal, it is very difficult to answer Question #4 because

the context in which the proposal has been made is so different from that

in which the question was posed. If one interprets "macro" policy as

policy statements which answer the "What" and "Why" and "micro" policy as

procedural statements that answer the "What", "Who", "When", "Where" and

.../158

-158 -

"How" of issues, then the answer to the first part of the question posed

is yes, there should be a distinction between policy and procedure.

Policy is the umbrella under which procedures are developed for the

purpose of implementing the policy. Policy and procedures go hand-in-

hand. Currently, there are well developed procedures for case-focussed

and non-cam-focussed work of an operational nature. As noted earlier in

this Report, despite all the discussion and conflict surrounding policy

issues in the NPB, there remains a serious policy vacuum particularly

with respect to corporate and case-focussed work processes.

As set out in the proposal for policy formulation the responsibility for

policy and procedure development rests with the Board and staff members

throughout the NPB under the overall direction of the Chairman. It is

the Chairman who decides whether there is a need for a new policy or

procedure following the initiation of a request or query from Board

members and/or staff. Should the need be established, then the Chairman,

through the Executive Director directs that a project team be established

under the direction and coordination of the Director, Development

Corporate Systems and Services. This team which is representative of

expertise throughout the NPB formulates the policy and/or procedure,

forwards such to the Chairman in final draft form for his approval. The

final draft policy then is examined by the Senior Management Committee

which in turn sends it to the Executive Committee for final approval and

promulgation. In its approved final form, the policy and/or procedure is

enshrined in the appropriate NPB manual for implementation by Board

.../159

1

I1I1IIIIfIII

- 159 -

members and staff. This model is such that the development of policy and

procedures is not lodged in only one organizational unit but rather is

lodged in the position descriptions of RD's, SBM' s, regional and divi-

sional case managers, HQ corporate managers, the Chairman, the Executive

Director, legal counsel, members of the Executive Committee and Senior

Management Committee. In other words, policy development, as proposed,

is a boundary spanning activity throughout the organization and becomes

everybody's business because policy becomes integral to one's work.

The answer to the last part of the question posed is no, the responsibil-

ity for policy development should not be assigned to the Director,

Planning and Analysis nor to the Secretary to the Board nor to a new

directorate that would report to the Executive Director or the Chairman.

As noted earlier in this section of the Report, the position of Director,

Planning and Analysis has been suhsumed into the organizational unit

reporting to the Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services.

The position of Secretary of the Board has been subsumed into the

Chairman's Office organization.

It is recommended that the proposal for policy development

in the NPB, outlined in Section III, pages 67 to 70, of

this Report be accepted.

.../160

-160 -

It is recommended that responsibility for policy

development be assigned to the Director, Development

Corporate Systems and Services.

Question 15: Should the Director, Planning and Analysis assume the

policy functions presently under the responsibility of the

Secretary of the Board?

Given the recommended proposal for policy functions in answer to

Question #4 above, this question becomes redundant.

Question 16: Should the Director, Planning and Analysis report directly

to the Executive Director?

As noted above in response to Question #5, this question is redundant

given the recommended proposal for policy functions.

Question #7: Should the present senior staff positions at Headquarters

be retained?

As recommended in response to Questions #1 and #4 above, the following

senior staff positions at Headquarters should be retained:

.../161

IIIIi1I

1IIIIIIiI

- 161 -

Director, Personnel and Official Languages

retitled as

Director, Human Resource Services

Director, Finance and Administration

reti tl ed as

Director, Administrative and Financial Services

The existing senior staff positions at Headquarters which are recommended

for elimination are:

Director General, !iQ Operations

Director, HQ Programs

Director, Planning and Analysis

Director, Corporate Planning and Management Practices

Secretary to the Board

The recommended new senior staff positions at Headquarters are:

Director General, Corporate Management Systems and

Services

Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services

Director, Information Systems and Services

Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division

.../162

I

- 162 -

The positions of Secretary of the Board and Director of Communications

were both included as senior staff positions at the time this question

was posed.

It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties

and functions of the existing position of Secretary to the

Board be transferred to the Office of the Chairman.

The rationale for this recommendation is simply that the focus of the

work of the Secretary of the Board and that of the staff reporting to

this position is on the da/*-to-day case and policy focussed business of

Board members rather than on the day-to-day business of staff. The

functional direction provided to this position has been through the

Vice-Chairman acting on hehalf of the Chairman even though the line

direction is officially provided by the Executive Director. This

recommendation is therefore intended to regularize the functional

direction through a line reporting relationship to the Chairman.

In early May, 1986, the position of the Director of Communications and

the staff reporting to this position was transferred to the Office of the

Chairman.

It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties

and functions of the existing position of Director of

Communications be retained in the Office of the Chairman.

.../163

IIIIi1If11AIIIIIrII

-163 -

Question #8: Should the present reporting relationships or structure be

revised in other ways?

With reference to the senior staff positions reporting to the Executive

Director which have been examined in this Report, there are no further

recommendations to be made, at this time, by this author. Having said

this and mindful of the mandate of this Review which confines the recom-

mendations for organizational change to those changes flowing from the

roles, responsibilities duties and functions of specified senior staff

positions, this author has acceded to the request of the Chairman to

propose changes to the existing organizational structure of the

Chairman's office.

rive (5) options for organizational change in the Chairman's office have

been considered and are depicted in Charts 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39. As

noted throughout this Report, the Chairman has a dual role, that of

Chairman of the Board and that of Chief Executive Officer of the NPB.

For this reason, each of the organizational charts referred to above,

depicts the duality of this role and the Board member and staff reporting

relationships to the position of Chairman. The position of Vice-Chairman

is depicted in each of the charts as a first level relationship reporting

directly to the Chairman.

.../164

- 164 -

This is intended to denote that the position of Vice-Chairman is such

that in the absence of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman assumes the roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions of the Chairman.

In Option #1, Recommendation #3, depicted in Chart 35, consideration has

been given to the retention of the existing organizational structure and

the positions and functions currently reporting directly to the

Chairman. Should the recommendations made earlier in this Report with

respect to the transfer of specific staff positions to the Chairman's

office be accepted, then this option is clearly not feasible.

Given the duality of the Chairman's role and the complexity of the

internal and external environment within which he carries out his work as

head of the organization, the existing organizational structure of and

functions within the Chairman's office are not sufficiently differenti-

ated to provide him with the level and type of data, information and

analyses essential and appropriate to his roles, responsibilities, duties

and functions. Clearly there is a need to further differentiate the

organization by establishing functions which focus on liaison and

boundary spanning, intelligence gathering and environmental scanning,

external shock reduction and internal stability induction. Through the

position of Executive Director, as Chief Operating Officer, the Chairman

has direct access to data, information and analyses flowing from the

ongoing corporate and operational work of staff throughout the NPB.

Through the position of Director, Communications, the Chairman has direct

.../165

II

I

1rIIIfI

IIIArI

-165 -

access to the media and to the communications network within the criminal

justice system. As needed, legal advice on a variety of issues is

provided by Senior Legal Counsel reporting directly to the Chairman,

however, the time available for this advice is limited as is the existing

framework within which legal counsel must work as staff seconded from the

Department of Justice. The existing sources for NPB casa -focussed policy

interpretation are the Secretary to the Board and legal counsel. The

former position currently reports to the Executive Director and the

latter positions are overloaded with other duties. The position of

Executive Assistant focusses on screening of incoming mail, reports,

studies, memoranda, documents, briefing of the Chairman, monitoring

correspondence and multitudinous other tasks on a daily basis. Functions

pertinent to ministerial, offender, general public, special interest

group correspondence are currently located in the unit reporting to the

Secretary to the Board as are the functions associated with scheduling,

organizing, recordino and reporting of meetings of the Board and other

Board/staff committees. This description is not intended to be

comprehensive but rather to emphasize the array of functions which flow

directly from the role of the Chairman. Despite the existence of all

these functions, the capacity for their coordination is limited by their

disparate reporting relationships. Clearly, this option is not the

preferred one.

.../166

- 166 -

The second option, depicted in Chart 36, Recommendation #3, Option #2,

attempts to redress the deficits of the existing organizational struc-

ture.

In this option, the new position of Executive Secretary reporting

directly to the Chairman, is established. The staff reporting to this

position include: Secretary, Administrative Assistant, Special Case

Inquiry Officer and Executive Correspondence Officer. Of these four (4)

positions reporting directly to the Executive Secretary, one position,

that of, Special Case Inquiry Officer is new. The other three (3) posi-

tions are transferred from the Secretary to the Board unit. The position

of Clerk reporting to the Special Case Inquiry Officer is new.

A third new position has been established in this option, that of,

Special Advisor reporting directly to the Chairman. With the addition of

this specialized position and that of the Executive Secretary and the

staff reporting to the latter position, the capacity within the

Chairman's Office to identify, collect, analyse and disseminate data and

information appropriate to the responsibilities of the Chairman is

enhanced.

In this option, there are four (4) positions reporting directly to the

existing position of Senior Legal Counsel. They are: Legal Counsel, two

Secretaries and the Access to Information and Privacy Officer. The

existing position of Chief, Access to Information and Privacy and the

.../167

tI11fIIIIII11

I

I

M

- 167 -

1

a

III

I11r11II

four (4) person unit reporting to this position has been transferred from

the existing structure reporting to the Director, HQ Programs. Both the

Commissioner of Access to Information and the Commissioner of Privacy

advocate that the Access to Information and the Privacy units in an

organization report as close as possible to the Deputy Head, in this

case, the Chairman of the NPB. As well, it is advisable that there be

ongoing and close liaison with the legal unit in the organization due to

the ongoing need for legal advice on many ATIP and Privacy issues. Each

of these reouirements is met in this option. As well, the Senior Legal

Counsel position would assume the responsibilities of Coordinator, Access

to Information and Privacy of the NPB, responsibilities formerly resident

in the position of Director, HQ Programs.

The span of control of the Chairman in this option is six (6) including

the position of Administrative Assistant whereas the span of control of

the Executive Secretary is four (4). It seems reasonable to suggest that

the establishment of the position of Executive Secretary should have as

one outcome the reduction of the Chairman's span of control.

The third option considered is depicted in Chart 37, Recommendation ik3,

Option #3. In this option which is a variation of Option #2, above, the

Chairman's span of control has been reduced by one position, that of,

the Director, Communications to five (5). In this option, the Communica-

tions unit has been divided into two units, each reporting directly to

the Executive Secretary. The two positions are, Manager, Public Informa-

.../168

I

- 168 -

tion Programs and Special Assistant, Media Relations and Public Affairs.

A new position, that of, Clerk reporting to the Special Assistant, Media

Relations and Public Affairs has been added. As well, the titles of the

existing positions have been changed to reflect recommended changes in

functions.

In an attempt to limit the Executive Secretary's span of control to five

(5) positions reportino directly to him, despite the addition of the two

Communications unit positions, the new position of Manager, Case Services

has been established in this option. To this position would report the

following four (4) positions: Executive Correspondence Officer, Special

Case Inquiry Officer and Access to Information and Privacy Officer.

These latter two positions with functions which are case-focussed are

located in the Chairman's Office due to the high profile nature of the

work flowing from the functions. Special or sensational incidents

involving an offender on parole immediately involve the Chairman with the

Commissioner of CSC and both with the media. Immediate follow up analy-

sis and evaluation of such cases is essential not only to the credibility

of the NPB decision-making processes and to CSC parole supervision

processes but also necessary as a learning/teaching experience for Board

members and staff. With respect to the transfer of the Access to

Information and Privacy unit from the Legal unit to the Secretariat, this

option provides an alternative reporting relationship for this unit. The

rationale for this reporting relationship is based on the notion that

most of the work carried out by the staff in the ATIP and Privacy unit is

.../169

- 169 -

I

III1IrItI1^I.1

case-focussed as would be the work within the Case Services unit. It

would still be possible to maintain close ties with the Legal unit. In

fact, the Senior Legal Counsel could still assume the responsibilities of

Coordinator, ATIP and Privacy. In this option, the need for the new

position of Clerk, reporting to the Special Case Inquiry Officer,

identified in Option #2, appears to be unnecessary given the two

secretarial positions in the Case Services unit. In this option, the

position of Executive Secretary is strengthened, the span of control of

the Chairman is reduced and the capacity of the Chairman's office to

carry out key functions which focus on liaison, intelligence gathering,

environmental scanning, and buffering of external shocks in order to

maintain internal stability within the NPB is further enhanced. In

addition, the coordination capacity of case related issues is linked and

strengthened. The major disadvantage of this option lies in the

separation of the existinq Communications unit into two (2) units thereby

weakening the coordination of the functions. The coordination of these

functions would become the responsibility of the Executive Secretary.

In the fourth option considered and depicted in Chart 38, Recommenda-

tion #3, Option #4, the Chairman's span of control remains at five (5)

and the Executive Secretary's span of control remains at five (5) as in

Option #3. In this option, the two (2) Communications units in Option #3

are merged into one new position, that of, the Director, Public Informa-

tion Programs and Media Relations reporting directly to the Executive

Secretary. This unit has six (6) positions instead of seven (7) as in

.../170

I

-170 -

Option #3. The change in title of the position of Public Affairs Officer

in Option #3 to the title of Media Relations Officer in this option

reflects the importance of a focus on the media relations function within

this unit. In this option, the position of Manager, Case Services,

depicted in Option #3 is eliminated. With the transfer of the Access to

Information and Privacy unit to the Legal unit for the reasons described

in Option #2, there appears to be a weakened rationale for the position

of Manager, Case Services or the position of Secretary to the Manager,

with only two other positions reporting directly to it and four positions

in total in the unit. There would, however, be the need for a new

position of Clerk reporting to the Special Case Inouiry Officer as

outlined in Option #2. The coordination of case-related functions would

become the responsibility of the Executive Secretary in this option.

However, the coordination of Communications functions would be

strengthened in this option through the position of Director.

The fifth option considered and depicted in Chart 39, Recommendation #3,

Option #5, is a variation on Options #2, #3 and #4. In this option, the

Chairman's span of control remains at five (5) and the Executive

Secretary's span of control is reduced to four (4). The four (4) posi-

tions reporting directly to the Executive Secretary are: Manager, Case

Services; Director, Public Information Programs and Media Relations;

Administrative Assistant and Secretary. The major advantage of this

option is that the Executive Secretary should have more time available to

devote to the key functions which focus on liaison and boundary scanning,

.../171

1

ItIII

IIyytI

- 171 -

intelligence gatherinq and environmental scanning, external shock reduc-

tion (or fire-fighting) and promotion of stability within the NPB - all

on behalf of the Chairman. These functions should be shared with the

Executive Director, Senior Legal Counsel and Special Advisor. Given the

well-defined roles, responsibilities, duties and functions and the

workload of the Executive Director and the workload of the Senior Legal

Counsel in this option, it is more likely that these functions will be

shared for the most part between the Special Advisor and the Executive

Secretary. The capacity for coordination resident in the two positions

of Manager, Case Services and Director, Public Information Programs and

Media Relations is a major factor in the increase in time availahle to

the Executive Secretary for these functions.

Of the five options considered, the preferred option is Option #5 as

depicted in Chart 39, Recommendation 43.

It is recommended that the positions reporting directly to

the Chairman be:

Special Advisor

Senior Legal Counsel

Executive Secretary

Executive Director

Administrative Assistant

.../172

I

- 172 -

It is recommended that the positions of Special Advisor

and Executive Secretary be established and report directly

to the Chairman.

It is recommended that the positions of Manager Case

Services and Director, Public Information Programs and

194{edia Relations reporting directly to the Executive

Secretary, be established.

A restatement of the recommendations contained in this Section of the

Report will be made in Section V - Recommendations for Change, which

follows.

.../173

I11iIItI

IIIrM11I

-.173 -

Section V - Recommendations for Change

One of the key premises of the Organizational Review has been that

organizational structure must conform to work processes. That is to say,

form follows function. Hence, the focus in Section III of this Report on

the work processes of Board members and staff. Through the examination

of the work processes of an organization, tasks can be defined and linked

together into functions which are the key building blocks in an organiza-

tion. The ways in which functions are defined, aligned and grouped

configure the organizational structure. As is the case with most complex

structural endeavours it is advisable to have a concept of the end

product, to seek information, advice and assistance from the most know-

ledgeable and reputable sources, to assess the site and prevailing condi-

tions, to estimate the costs, confirm the resource limitations and to

have a blueprint prior to embarking on the actual construction. The

blueprint, in the case of the NPB, is the product of the interaction

among many antagonistic and synergistic factors - statutory authorities,

mission, guiding principles, corporate and personal values, environmental

influences and corporate culture, management styles, resource demands and

constraints, corporate and personal goals, corporate and operational

policies, directives, procedures, preferences and practices.

To continue the metaphor, well conceived structures are designed to

facilitate the quality of life and work of the residents. So should

organizational structures support and facilitate the quality of the work

.../174

- 174 -

undertaken by members in carrying out their roles, responsibilities,

duties and functions. Over time all structures require renovation if the

structure is to survive the wear and tear wrought by different residents

and the quality of life of the current residents is to be preserved. In

the NPB, not only have the residents in the positions in the

organizational structure changed over time but so have the volume and

nature of their work and the environment within which they carry out

their work. For these reasons, in particular, "renovation" and

realignment of the organizational structure within the staff organization

of the NPB has been proposed through the recommendations made in Section

IV of this Report.

Structural realignment means change not only in reporting relationships

but also in personal relationships. Changes in ways in which work is

carried out is stressful in the short term even though the new approach

may be more effective, efficient and satisfying in the long term. Change

in both work processes and reporting relationships will not be easy for

anyone in the organization. What has been proposed in Sections III and

IV of this Report, if accepted in whole or part, will require on the part

of all Board members and staff an abundance of good will, humour and

patience, positive yet critical and creative thinking and judgement,

persistent yet flexible perspectives on long term organizational

development, commitment to the realization of the plans for change and to

the time frames established, compassion for and understanding of human

frailty and frustration in coping with change. The list is endless

.../175

tI1

AIrt

1It1II

I

- 175 -

Ii1I

II1 ,

IIrI

because change impacts each individual in a unique manner. For this

reason, changes in organizational structures, reporting relationships and

work processes will require strong leadership not only by the Chairman

but by all Board members and staff in the NPB.

With the publication of a report such as this espousing organizational

change, change immediately becomes the eighth deadly sin and its prophet

a pariah. With this imminent change in status in mind, the following

recommendations for organizational change in the National Parole Board

are proposed.

Recommendation #1 in response to Question R

1.0 It is recommended that the position of Executive Director, as Chief

Operating Officer of the National Parole Board be retained ►yith a

reduced span of control.

1.1 It is recommended that the eight ( 8) positions reporting directly

to the position of Executive Director be:

Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services

Regional Director, Atlantic Region

Regional Director, Québec Region

Regional Director, Ontario Region

Regional Director, Prairies Region

.../176

I

-176 -

Regional Director, Pacific Region

Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division

Administrative Assistant

(See Chart 3, Recommendation #1, Option #3)

1.2 It is recommended that the position of Director General, Corporate

Management Systems and Services be established and that the primary

responsibility for planning, organizing, coordinating, controlling

and evaluating of corporate systems and services be allocated to

this position.

1.3 It is recommended that the five (5) positions reporting directly to

the position of Director General, Corporate Management Systems and

Services be:

Director, Human Resource Services

Director, Administrative and Financial Services

Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services

Director, Information Systems and Services

Secretary

(See Chart 3, Recommendation 11, Option 13)

1.4 It is recommended that the position of Director, Human Resource

Services report directly to the Director General, Corporate

.../177

r

I

1II

f

IIIrIIII

- 177 -

Management Systems and Services and that the five (5) positions

reporting directly to the Director, Human Resource Services be:

Chief, Personnel, Official Languages, Audit and Policy

Chief, Staff Relations and Human Resources

Chief, Personnel Operations

Head, Professional Development Unit

Secretary

((See Chart 7, Recommendation #1, Option #2)

1.5 It is recommended that the position of Head, Professional

Development Unit reporting directly to the Director, Human Resource

Services be established.

1.6 It is recommended that the position of Director, Administrative and

Financial Services report directly to the Director General,

Corporate Management Systems and Services and that the four (4)

positions reporting directly to the Director, Administrative and

Financial Services be:

Chief, Financial Management Services

Chief, Corporate Records, Systems and Services

Chief, Administrative Services

((See Chart 11, Recommendation #1, Option #3)

.../178

1

-178 -

1.7 It is recommended that the position of Chief, Corporate Records

Systems and Services reporting directly to the Director

Administrative and Financial Services, be established.

1.8 It is recommended that the position of Director, Development

Corporate Systems and Services, reporting directly to the Director

General, Corporate Management Systems and Services be established

and that the functions reporting directly to the Director,

Development Corporate Systems and Services be:

Mènegement Practices and Special Projects

Planning and Systems Development

Program Evaluation and Audit

Policy Analysis

Statistical functions

Research functions

Secretarial functions

(See Chart 14, Recommendation 11, Option 13)

1.9 It is recommended that the position of Director, Information

Systems and Services reporting directly to the Director General,

Corporate Management Systems and Services be established. The two

(2) positions reporting directly to this position are:

.../179

- 179 -

EDP Systems Officer

APIS, OMS, MIS, Liaison and Development Officer

((See Chart 15, Recommendation #1, Option #1)

I

II

I11II1e

I

1.10 It is recommended that the position of APIS, OMS, MIS, Liaison and

Development Officer reporting directly to the Director, Information

Systems and Services be estahlished.

Recommendation #2 in response to Question #2

2.1 It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions of the position of Regional Director be upgraded as a

result of the recommended increase in the number and nature of the

positions reporting to the Regional Director. The recommended five

(5) positions reporting directly to the Regional Director are:

Regional Case Manager

Information and Correspondence Officer

Professional Development and Public Education Officer

Manager Regional Services

Secretary

((See Charts 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, Recommendation #2, Option #2)

.../180

t

- 180 -

2.2 It is recommended that the position of Professional Development and

Public Education Officer reporting directly to the Regional

Director, be established.

2.3 It is recommended that the position of Information Systems and

Services technician reporting directly to the Manager, Regional

Services be established.

2.4 It is recommended that the position of Director, Appeal, Clemency

nd Pardons Division be established and report directly to the

Executive Director. The recommended four (4) positions reporting

to the Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons are:

Case Manager, Clemency and Pardons

Manager, Divisional Services

Case Manager, Appeal

Secretary

((See Chart 34, Recommendation #2, Option #3)

2.5 It is recommended that the position of Manager, Divisional Services

reporting directly to the position of Director, Appeal, Clemency

and Pardons, be established.

IIIIIrI

II1tft11IrI

- 181 -

Recommendation 13 in response to Question #3

3.0 It is recommended that the Regional Director report directly to the

Executive Director.

Recommendation #4 in response to Question #4

4.1 It is recommended that the proposal for policy development in the

NPB, outlined in Section III, pages 67 to 70, of this Report be

accepted.

4.2 It is recommended that responsibility for policy development be

assigned to the Director, Development Corporate Systems and

Services.

There are no recommendations in response to Questions #5 and 16.

Recommendation 17 in response to Question 17

7.1 It is recommended that the following senior staff positions at

Headquarters he retained:

Director, Personnel and Official Languages retitled as

Director, Human Resource Services

.../182

- 182 -

Director, Finance and Administration retitled as

Director, Administrative and Financial Services

7.2 It is recommended that the following senior staff position at

Headquarters be eliminated:

Director General, Headquarters Operations

Director, Headquarters Programs

Director, Planning and Analysis

Director, Corporate Planning and Management Practices

Secretary to the Board

7.3 It is recommended that the following new senior staff positions at

Headquarters be established:

Director General, Corporate Management Systems and Services

Director, Development Corporate Systems and Services

Director, Information Systems and Services

Director, Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division

7.4 It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions of the existing position of Secretary to the Board be

transferred to the Office of Chairman.

.../183

tr1IIIIIIIIIt

I

-183 -

7.5 It is recommended that the roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions of the existing position of Director of Communications be

retained in the Office of the Chairman.

Recommendation 18 in response to Question 18

8.1 It is recommended that the positions reporting directly to the

Chairman be:

Special Advisor

Senior Legal Counsel

Executive Secretary

Executive Director

Administrative Assistant

8.2 It is recommended that the position of Special Advisor and

Executive Secretary be established and report directly to the

Chairman.

8.3 It is recommended that the positions of Manager, Case Services and

Director, Public Information Programs and Media Relations,

reporting directly to the Executive Secretary, be established.

.../184

- 184 -

Given the tightly knit "family" culture of the NPB, the large number of

staff with long term service with the NPB and/or with CSC or other

agencies in the criminal justice system, the long term commitment to

specific roles and positions within the NPB, consideration should given

to phasing in the implementation of these recommendations over a two year

time period.

Throughout this Report, many suggestions for change in work processes and

on other issues of a non-structural nature have been made. Of these key

proposals for change, the following are recommended.

9. It is recommended that the position descriptions of the Regional

Directors and the Senior Board Members be reviewed for the purpose

of clarifying their respective distinct roles, responsibilities,

duties and functions and identifying and incorporating into their

respective position descriptions those corporate and operational

functions which require shared leadership in the Regional Offices.

10. It is recommended that policy frameworks be established for Board

decision-making, staff case management, Board and staff case audit

processes, Board and staff orientation training and professional

development, public information and communications, public

education, information systems and services and records

management.

.../185

IIIII

III1

I

IItI

- 185 -

I

II1IIIttI

III

11. It is recommended that the NPB policy and procedures manual derived

from the Parole Act be revised to include references to the section

of the Parole Act or regulations or court ruling from which each

policy statement and attendant procedural routine is derived.

12. It is recommended that the NPB corporate and operational role,

responsibilities, duties and functions in supervision of paroled

offenders be clarified and stated as a policy.

13. It is recommended that the case management work processes of staff

he based on a holistic case work approach with the case load

allocated to case review teams reporting directly to case managers.

14. It is recommended that case review team members act as hearing

officers to assist Regional Board members at NPB Panel hearings.

15. It is recommended that consideration be given to the proposal that

senior staff in Regional Offices be delegated authority to make

administrative decisions of a non-release, non-revocation, non-

detention nature with respect to changes in the Terms and Condi-

tions of Parole proposed by CSC supervisory staff pertaining to an

offender who has been granted conditional release by the Board and

is currently under CSC supervision.

.../186

11

•

I

II

- 186 -

16. It is recommended that the mandate, roles, responsibilities, duties

and functions of Appeal Division Board members be clarified and

that the links between the roles, responsibilities, duties and

functions of Appeal Division and Regional Board members be estab-

lished.

17. It is recommended that the Appeal Division of the NPB be renamed

the Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division of the NPB.

18. It is recommended that a policy framework for Board decision-making

and recommending work and staff case management work be formulated

and be specific to the statutory requirements of the Appeal,

Clemency and Pardons Division of the NPB.

19. It is recommended that the position descriptions of the Chairperson

and Director of the Appeal, Clemency and Pardons Division be

reviewed for the purposes of clarifying their respective distinct

roles, responsibilities, duties and functions and identifying and

incorporating into their respective position descriptions, those

corporate and operational functions which require shared leader-

ship.

20. It is recommended that the emphasis be placed on providing oppor-

tunities for Board members and staff to learn about each other's

.../187

- 187 -

aaork and share ideas through orientation training and professional

development, regular meetings and project work internal and

external to the NPB.

I

1IIII111I

IIi

During this Review, other important issues were raised by Board members

and staff. Although these issues do not easily lend themselves to recom-

mendations, some of the issues most commonly raised are as follows:

o Board members need career planning and advice.

o Most Board members would like to work on an exchange basis in all

regional offices for short periods in order to gain an understand-

ing of regional differences and exchange ideas.

o Staff members are concerned about their position classifications

and lack of opportunities for career advancement in the NPB and

perceive that they cannot easily move into positions either within

the criminal justice system or within the federal public service.

o Temporary Board Members want to be included in the corporate as

well as operational life of the Board.

o Board members and staff want to have regular opportunities to meet

with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Executive Director.

o Board members and staff want to have regular opportunities to raise

and comment on important issues facing the NPB.

o Board members and staff are concerned with respect to the corporate

and operational changes occurring in CSC in light of maintaining

and improving the relationships between the NPB and CSC.

,../188

I

- 188 -

o Board members and staff are looking for and expect clear corporate

direction and leadership.

o The public image and credibility of the work of the NPB is a major

concern.

o Board members and staff want more concise and precise data and

information of a statistical nature pertinent to their work.

Obviously, these are only a few of the issues identified through personal

interviews with approximately one hundred individuals. Through regular

meetings of Board and staff focussed on corporate and operational

matters, these issues and others no doubt will be raised and hopefully be

resolved.

In summary, the existing organizational structure of the National Parole

Board should be realigned to bring the structure into conformity with the

changed nature of the work processes of Board members and staff. In so

doing, improvements in the effectiveness and the efficiency of the work

processes should be the goal.

This Final Draft Report of the NPB Organizational Review has presented

issues, options and recommendations for organizational change based on an

analysis and assessment of the roles, responsibilities, duties and func-

tions of specified senior staff positions within the context of the

corporate and operational work processes of Board members and staff. To

what extent, this Review has achieved its purpose is for the reader to

judge.

1

I

III1I

1I1f

IIII

APPENDIX A

March 19, 1986

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD

WORK PLAN FOR THE NPB ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

The purpose of the Review is to make recommendations for change based on an examination of the organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board.

The review will consist of eight phases over a seven month period:

Phase 1: Orientation of NP3 members and staff to purpose and methodology of Review.

Phase 2: Assessment of statutory, organizational and operational environment within which NPB carries out its mandate.

Phase 3: Definition of functions performed within each organizational unit of the National Parole Board.

Phase 4: Identification of variances between mandated functions and actual work performed by each organizational unit of the National Parole Board.

Definition of the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board with particular reference to policy development and implementation of a strategic, operational and administrative nature.

Assessment of the functional relationships between and among specified senior staff and relevant subordinate staff within the existing structural and operational organization of the National Parole Board.

Assessment of the structural and operational efficiency and effectiveness of the National Parole Board as an organizational entity with respect to its existing mandate.

Presentation of recommendations for change in the organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board.

Phase 5:

Phase 6:

Phase 7:

Phase 8:

2

SCHLDULL FOR UftGAN11AFi0NAL KLVILW

PHASES MARCH ANRIL

Phase I Orientation of National Parole Boardmembers and staff to purpose andmethodology of Review

Phase 2Assessment of statutory, organizationaL and operationa.lenvironment within which the National Parole Board carried outits mandate

= = m m ^ = m m m m m m m m m = = = m

ma um am urn am am um am um am am am am mu am ma MI am ma 3

SCHEDULE FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

PHASES MAY JUNE JULY

Phase 4

Phase 5

Definition of functions performed within each organizational unit of the National Parole Board

Identification of variances between mandated functions and actual work performed by each organizational unit of the National Parole Board

Definitions of the roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board with particular reference to policy development and implementation of a strategic, operational an administrative nature.

Phase 3

4

SCHEDULE FOR ORGANILATIONAL REVIEW

PHASES

Phase 6

AUGUST SEPTLi•IUER

Phase 7

Phase ti

Assessment of thefunctional relationshipsbetween and among specified

senior staff and relevantsubordinate staff within theexisting structural and

operational organizationof the Natiônal Parole 130ard.

Assrssment of the structural andoperational efficiency and effectivenessof the National Parole Board as anorgai ► izationai entity with respect toits existing mandate.

Presentation of recoiumendation:for change in the oryaniz<i-tional structure, roles,responsihi lit Les, duties andfunctions of specified seniorstaff positions wlthin theNational Parole 13uard.

M M M M M M M M M W M M M M M M - M M

= = = = = = = = = = M M = = M = = = M

5

WORK PLAN FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

Phase 1: Orientation of National Parole Board hiembers and Staff to Purpose and methodology of Review.

APPROACH March 3-14 March 17-21

Study and assessment ofpertinent backgrounddocumentation - statutes,

regulations, reports, policies,procedures, guidelines,organization charts, MYOP,

strategic plans.

Planning and development of Preparation ofReview methodology detailed Work Plan

and Data Collectionguide

Development of CommunicationsPlan

March 24-28

Preliminary information and Informal conversations Scheduled Interview withdata gathering with NPB staff' HQ staff, Executive

Director, Vice-Chairman,Chairman

Consultation with Organization Revision and approval ofReview Reference Group for Organizational Reviewdirection.and confirmation approachof approach

Introduction of Review leader Scheduling of interviews Memo from Chairman, to NPB mtmber:to NPB members and staff with NPB staff and staff outlining the purpose

and nature of the OryanizatiorialReview

Tuning into the culture and environment of decision-making within the NPB.

Regular progress reports to NPB Organizational Review Reference Croup.

WORK_PLAN FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVILW

Phase 2: Assessment of statutory, organizational and operational environment within which the NPB carries out its mandate.

APRIL . 7-11 APPROACH

Data collection and analysis using a structured interview format.

March 31-April 4

Interviews with selected WES staff at HU and in Regional Offices.

APRIL 1-4-18 APRIL_21 725

Confirmation of direction of Review and/or revision of work plan concomitant with changes in direction.

Introduction of Review leader to WO members through attendance at NPB General Board meeting, other decision making meetings, panel hearings and other meetings focussing on strategic and operational policy.

Preparation of an assessment of the NIU Statutory, oi;ganizaLiona and operational environ-ment based on data and information collected through interviews und documents.

ZINIM11311111111111M111111111•1111111I111111•11111113 ■131111111111111111 ■11111•1•111111111

WORK PLAN FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

Phase 3: Definition of functions performed within each organizational unit of the National Parole Board.

APPROACH April 28-May 2

Data Collection Interview with specifiedand analysis. senior staff for

clarification of data

collected to date.

Understanding

the structural andoperational framework of the NPf3.

Regular progressreports to NPBOrganization

Review Reference

Group.

May 5-9 MAY 12-16 MAY 19-30

Review of Annual Reports,annual work plans,evaluation reports, AGReport, Nielsen Report and

other documents pertinent tothe Review process.

Confirmation ofdirection ofReview.

8

WORK PLAN FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

Phase 4: Identification of variances between mandated functions and actual work performed by each organization unit of WeNational Parole Board.

APPROACIi

Analysis ofstructural.,operational and

environmentalaspects of NPL3.

June 2-6 June 9-13

Development of case study Interviews with selected staffapproach for use with in CSC and Ministry Secretariatselected Board members in order to gather data andand staff in Workshop in information with respect toPhase 5. their level of understanding of

the organizational structure,

roles, responsibiLities,duties and functions of seniorNPB staff and of the day-to-dayissues common to bothorganizat.ions.

June 16-20 June 23-27

Painting a pictureof the internal andexternal environ-ment of the NPB

Regular progressreports to NPB

OrganizationalReview ReferenceGroup.

Confirmation ofdirection ofReview.

Communication withNPB members andstaff.

Consultation with selected NPB

members and staff with respectto issues identified in interimreport.

Preparation of interimreport based on analysisof' data collected todate.

IZuview and revision ofwork plan for remaini.nyPhases of Review.

Nemo from Chairman W NPIimembers and 5taffoutLining status of

Urganizations Review.

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

APPROACH JUNE 30-JULY 4 JULY 7-11 JULY 14-18 jULY 21-25

Review of job descriptions, classifications, span of control, delegated authority, reporting relationships.

Data Collection and analysis.

Clarification of the work of specified senior staff in policy development.

Regular progress reports to NPB Organizational Review Reference Group.

Confirmation of direction of Review.

9

WORK PLAN FOR ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

Phase 51 Definition of roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board with particular reference to policy development and implementation of a strategic, operational and administrative nature.

2 to 3 day Workshop with selected Board Members and staff using a case study approach designed to analyse the policy development process in NPB with respect to the role of Board Members and the role of staff and to differentiate the strategic, operational and administrative policy development and implementation processes.

Assessment of data and information collected during and as a result of workshop.

.or

10

WURK PLAN FUR URGANILATIUNAL REVIEW

Phase 6: Assessment of the functional relationships between and among specified senior staff and relevant subordinate staffwithin the existing structural and operational organizational of the NPU.

APPROACH JULY 28-AUGUST 1 AUGUST 4-8 AUGUST 11-15 AUGUST 18-29

Analysis of the day Interviews with Seniorto day ope:rat.ions board Members focussing onof the NPU. the nature of the work of

the NPl3. from a Boardperspective. interviewswith selected senior stafffor purposes ofclarification of data and

information collected inPhases I to 15.

Understanding the Review of operational policies,decision making procedures, guidelines, paperprocess within the flow, communications systemssenior staff of the and approaches, feedback mecha-NP13. nisms, evaluation processes,

time frames for action, problemsolving mechanisms, relation-ships with external environ-ment, ie., CSC, central agenc-ies.

Regular progressreports to NPUOrganizationalReview ReferenceGroup.

Confirmation ofdirection ofReview.

Assessment of authoriLyand dec is ion-mak i ncisLructure - Who is re-sponsible for whal? Whois accountable for what?Are those responsiblealso accountahlc: for cJe-cisions? lilenl.if'icatiunof prnhlems/issues per-tinent to senior staffpositions, inclucliny lineand stal'f' reporting re-lati.onship. (SecAppendix A for specificquestions '.^.^ N. aclfarl;;]s-

= = = = M M = = M s ^ ^ ^ ^ =IW")===

M M M M M M M M M ! M M M M M M M M M

1l

WORK PLAN FOR ORGANILATI(1NAL RLVILW

Phase 7: Assessment of the structural arid operational effectivenrss* and efficiency** of the NP13 as an organizational entitywith respect to its existing mandate.

APPROACH September 1 to 12 September 15 to 19

Analysis of the structural and

operational aspects of the NPB inorder to answer the question. Do theexisting organizational structuresand operational processes support thework of the NPB in the most effectiveand efficient manner possible?

Regular progress reports to ReviewReference Group.

Confirmation of direction of Review

Review and analysis of data and information

collected with respect to:

- Environmental factors impacting on work of

NPf3 including perceptions of Board, staff,target population, co-operators, lobby/influence groups, central ayencies;

- General Management processes related tostatutory authorities, mandate, mission,goals, objectives, priorities, strategies;- Operational Management processes relatedto policies, standards, procedures,directives, operational plans, technology,

management information systems,co-ordinating mechanisms, performanceindicators;

- Resource Management processes related tothe -allocation and conversion ôf resourceinputs into desired outputs or results;

- Organization structures reflective offunctiohs, position levels, span of control,decision-making authority and

accountability, reporting relationships andpatterns of interaction, informal and formalcommunication and co-ordination networks.

Preparation of final report ofOrganizational Review, including

recomme,ndations for change.

* effectiveness - doing the right

thing*^ efficiency - doing things right

12

WURK PLAN FUR ORGANIZAIIUNAL REVIEW

Phase 8: Presentation of recommendat ions for change in the organizational structure, roles, responsibilities, dut les and functions of specified senior staff positions within the National Parole Board.

APPROACH

Presentation of final report to Review Reference Group.

Revision of recommendations in final report following discussion with NPB Organizational Review Reference Group.

Consultation with NPB members and staff on recommendations in Final Report.

Development of Action Plan based on recommendations.

Communication with NPB members and staff.

SEPTEMBER 22-26 SEPTEMBER 29-OC IOBER 3

Memo Urom Chairman Lo NPB members and staff on status of Organizational Review and Final Report of the Review.

11111111111111111113011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111•1111•111111111111111111111111111111111161111

Appendix A

Specific Questions to be Addressed in Organizational Review

IIII1IIIIIII

1. Should the Executive Director's span of direct control be maintained,

increased or reduced? If the latter, should some responsibilities be

allocated to another existing position, or a new position?

2. Should the Regional Executive Officer position be enhanced with additional

managerial or administrative responsibilities?

3. Should the Regional Executive Officer report to the Director General?

4. Should a distinction be recognized between "macro" and "micro" policy

issues (depending upon the actual or potential level of impact) with

responsibility for development assigned to the Director, Planning &

Analysis and the Secretary to the board, respectively or to a new

directorate that would report to the Executive Director or the Chairman?

5. Should the Director, Planning and Analysis assume the policy functions

presently under the responsibility of the Secretary to the Board?

6. Should the Director, Planning & Analysis report directly the the Executive

Director?

7. Should the present senior staff positions at Headquarters be retained?

8. Should the present reporting relationships or structure. be revised in

other ways?

I

1 ./2

APPENDIX B

National Parole Board

Organization Review

Data Collection and Analysis

Given that the Organizational Review Reference Group provides the ongoing

leadership to the Review process, this paper therefore attempts to both fully

apprise and to seek direction and approval from the Reference Group for the

proposed data collection and analysis process of the Review.

As indicated in the Organizational Review Work Plan, interviews with NPB members and staff are of prime importance in the collection of data and

information pertinent to the Review. Given that the purpose of the Review is

to make recommendations for change based on an examination of the

organizational structure roles, responsibilities, duties and functions of

specified senior staff positions within the NPB, one might be tempted to

interview each NPB member and staff; however, neither time nor resources

permit such an approach, nor does it appear to be necessary.

The preferred approach is one which attempts to select positions and therefore

individuals working in these positions for interviews. This approach requires

the development of criteria for selection purposes. Such a criteria-based

approach appears rationale and less-biased to both those who are selected for

interviews and those who are not selected.

As is the case with most "rational" processes, this one is not "fail-safe" and

should be used as a guideline for selection purposes and not as a rigid rule

for exclusion of individuals whose work may be key to the Review process but

whose position in the organization falls outside the criteria. Consistent

with the purpose of the Review, the application of the criteria should first

identify the key positions in the organization and then by implication the key

individuals to be interviewed.

• 1

-2-

In addition to the collection of data and information through interviews.,

other sources of data - statutes, regulations, reports, studies, policies

procedures, guidelines, organization charts, P1YOP, Estimate - will be examined

and assessed. Attendance by the Review leader at selected meetings of key NPB

committees will also provide data and information pertinent to the Review.

A - Suggested Criteria for Selection of Positions

I. specified senior staff positions

2. positions to which specified senior staff report

3. positions which report to specified senior staff

4. positions with membership in key NPB committees

5. positions of liaison between the NPB and department agencies and

organizations outside the NPB

6. positions representative of the work, workload and key functions of

the NPB in HQ and Regional offices

7. positions in departments, agencies and organizations outside the NPB

with liaison functions with the yPi3 on a regular basis.

B - Suggested Positions and Individuals to be Interviewed

*Asterisk refers to position and name listed more than once

1. Specified Senior Staff Positions

i) Executive Director Jim Siberry

ii) Director General, HQ, Operations Gord Parry

iii) Regional Executive Officers Erv Williams

Serge Lavallée

Norm Fagnou

Betty-Lou Edwards

I

IIIIIIII1III1 1

I

1

-3-

I

IIIIIIIII

II

iv) Secretary to the Board

v) Director, Planning and Analysis

vi) Director, Finance and Administration

vii) Director, Personnel and Official Languages

2. Positions to Wnich Specified Senior Staff report

Chairman

Vice-Chairman

*Executive Director

3. Positions Which Report to Specified Senior Staff

*Secretary to the Board

*Director, General, H.Q., Operations

*Director, Finance & Admin.

Director, Communications

*Director, Personnel and O.L.

Sr. Corporate Planning Officer

ii) *Director, Planning and Analysis

Director, HQ, Operational Programs

iii)r-Regional Manager/Case Prep.

Atlanticl Regional Manager/Case Sup.

LRegional Administrator

Gilles Depratto

Line Audet

Ray Simms

Jim Scrimger

William Outerbridge

Roger Labelle

Jim Siberry

Gilles Depratto

Gordon Parry

Ray Simms

John Nugent

Jim Scrimger

Brendan Reynolds

Line audet

Bernard Cloutier

Gerry Greene

Diane McConkey

Enid Holmes

.../4

I

r-Regional Manager/Case Prep. Prairies' Regional Manager/Case Sup.

[...Regional Administrator

r_Regional Manager/Case Prep. Ontario ' Regional Manager/Case Sup.

L_Regional Administrator

r-Regional Manager/Case Prep. Pacific I Regional Manager/Case Sup.

L_Regional Administrator

John Wilson

Carol Sperling

Audrey Cavanaugh

John Bissett

Len Meier

Ron Mihell

Fraser Simmons

Gerry Ayotte

Sharone Young

-4-

r-Regional Manager/Case Prep. .Micnel Frappier

Quebec I Regional Manager/Case-Sup. Guy Petit-Clair

L_Regional Administrator Thérèse Beaulieu

iv) Senior Advisor on Professional

Standards and Development Jean Sutton

v) Position reporting to Director, Planning

and Analysis

vi) Chief, Financial Management Terry Kennedy

Chief, Administrative Services Vince Nation

vii) Chief, Personnel and DI. Audit & Policy Liz Phillips

Chief, Staff Relations and Human Resources Elaine Shaw

Chief, Personnel Operations Earl Hanratty

• • •/5

1II1II11II1I

-5-

4. Positions with Membership in Key NPB Committees

i) Executive Committee

*Chairman

*Vice-Chairman

Senior Board Members

Chairman, Appeals Committee

Quartet

*Chairman

*Vice-Chairman

*Executive Director

iii) Management Committee

*Executive Director

*Secretary to the Board

*Director General, HQ Operations

*Director, Finance and Administration

*Director, Communications

*Director, Personnel and O.L.

*Director, Corporate Planning

and Management Practices

Wm Outerbridge

Roger Labelle

Roy Evans

Jean-Paul Gilbert

Mac Stienburg

Noël Sharp

Kathy Louis

Wm Outerbridge

Roger Labelle

Jim Siberry

Jim Siberry

Gilles Uepratto

Gord Parry

Ray Simms

John Nugent

Jim Scrimger

Brendan Reynolds

I

-6-

*Regional Executive Officers

Coordinator, Management Committee

Erv Williams

Serge Lavallée

Norm Fagnou

Betty-Lou Edwards

Don Tully

5. Positions of Liaison between the NPB and department agencies and

organizations outside the NPB

*Chairman William Outerbridge

*Vice-Chairman Roger Labelle

*Executive Director Jim Siberry

*Senior Board Members Roy Evans (Atlantic)

Jean-Paul Gilbert

(Québec)

Mac Stienburg

(Ontario)

Noël Sharp (Prairies)

Kathy Louis (Pacific)

6. Positions Representative of tne work, workload and key functions of the

NPB in HQ and Regional Offices

Chief, Clemency and Pardons

Chief, Case Analysis and Review

Chief, Access to Information and Privacy

Chief, Liaison and Program Development

Chief, Media Relations and Public Affairs

Corporate Planning Officers

Project Manager, Program Evaluation

Correspondence and Information Officer

Paul Connolly

Dave Johnston

Janet Ackroyd

M. MacNaughton

Andy Roy

Cathy Gainer

Don Tully

Sheila Faure

Elaine Cherkewich

(Prairies)

IIIIIII

ItIIIII

II

--7-

Senior Notifications Clerk .

Secretary to Senior Board Members

Verification Clerk

Betty Warden (Ontario)

Betty Dick (Atlantic)

Sonia Lacroix (Québec)

Marg Kelly (Ontario)

Donna Flessa (Pacific)

Li' Prysiazniuk

(Prairies

Paul L'Espérance

(Québec)

7. Positions in Departments, Agencies and Organizations outside the NPB with

liaison functions with the NPB.

Correctional Services Canada

Deputy Commissioner Offender Programs

Director, Community Release Programs

Director General, Policy, Planning and Systems

Solicitor General - Ministry Secretariat

Director, Strategic Policy

Director, Policy Analysis and Support

Policy Analyst

Gordon Pinder

Drew Allen

Andrew Graham

Joan Nuffield

Richard Zubicki

Mariève Marchand

As noted at the outset of this paper, the interview process is designed to

elicit information and gather data pertinent to the purpose of the Review. At

the same time, the interview process can be used to convey information about

the purpose and nature of the Review and thereby engender staff participation

in and a sense of investment in the outcomes of the Review. With this

interactive process in mind, the interviews should be structured in such a way

as to encourage discussion focussed on some broad questions.

•/8

-8-

C - Suggested Questions for interviews

° What is the nature of your work and how do you carry it out?

° What statutes, policies, procedures, guidelines, and directives are

essential/not essential to your work and that of your unit?

° How would you rate the level of understanding of the roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions of your unit among staff in your

unit? At lower levels in the organization? At higher levels in th:i

organization? At the Board member level?

°Is there overlap, and duplication and/or gaps in roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions across organizational units? If

so, what are they? What should be done? Who should initiate any

changes?

° What problems, issues and concerns (if any) do you encounter in your

work as it relates directly to the work of other Departments, agencies

and organizations outside the NP8? What should be done? How? by Whom?

° What is your role in the policy formulation and implementation process

within the NPB? How would you distinguish strategic policy from

operational policy matters?

°How would you describe the organizational culture and environment of

your unit? Are there major differences in organizational culture and

environment across the NP8? If so, describe them and how they impact

your work.

° How have your role, responsibilities, duties and functions changed since

you first assumed your position?

III1III

ItIII

II

-9--

o Which features of your work are unique within the NPB and which

distinguish the work of the NPB from the work of Other organizations?

o From your position in the organization what resources and strategies are

essential to carrying out your work in an effective* and efficient**

manner?

o What standards do you use to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of

your work? If standards do not exist, then what should they be? Who

should establish the standards? How should they be used?

o Are there alternate ways of performing your work and that of your unit

in order to improve effectiveness and efficiency, in terms of more

timely results? If so, what are they? Who should initiate any changes?

o What mechanisms exist and are essential to ensure effective and

efficient co-ordination of work of your unit and other organizational

units across the NPB? What changes should be made? By whom?

.0 What are the strengths and weaknesses of the organizational structure of

your unit and that of the NPB as a vehicle for carrying out the mandate,

goals, objectives and priorities of the NPB?

o Do you have any recommendations for changes to your position, positions

reporting to you, position to which you report, other positions within

your organizational unit and your Division, and the NPB as an

organization? If so, what is your rationale for these changes? When?

How?

*effective - doing the right thing

**efficient - doing things right

-../10

-10-

Other comments. What have we missea that is important for the purposes

of the Organizational Review?

These questions will be used with selected staff in interviews on a one-to-one

basis and in some instances in small groups. It is anticipated that each

interview will not exceed 90 minutes. In preparation for the interview, each

person selected will receive a copy of the Review Work Plan and the Suggested

Questions in advance of the interview date.

For interviews with Board members, there will be a more Board-oriented series

of questions focussing on tne nature of the work of the NPB.

Interviews with selected individuals in the CSC and the Ministry Secretariat

will focus on gathering data, information and perspectives with respect to the

level of knowledge and understanding of the NPB, including the reporting and

authority structures, roles, responsibilities of senior NPts staff and the

day-to-day issues common to both organizations. A secondary but no less

important focus would be the use of the interview as a means of clarifying

lines of communication.

D - A Case Study Approach

A second series of interviews, though important for confirmation of data, may

not be the sole preferred approach for clarification of the roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions of specified senior staff in policy

development and implementation. As an approach complementary to the

interviews, a case study would engender the discussions and analysis essential

to the differentiation of strategic from operational policy and administrative

policy and in so doing clarify and redefine the roles of senior staff and

Board in each. A case study approach can provide a relatively non-threatening

opportunity for key members of an organization, as a group, to examine their

roles, responsibilities, duties, functions and decision making approaches.

Using a relevant but fictitious case, senior staff would analyse the

IIII

IIIIIIIi

I

II1

I

I

IIIII

.I1tI1II

situations presented and by inference gain a better understanding and

appreciation of their roles and work within the NPB. The case study would be

designed to focus on the following outcomes: an increased appreciation of the

context in which decision making on policy issues takes place within an

organization similar to the NPB; a more in-depth understanding of the decision

making process with respect to differentiating strategic policy issues from

operational policy matters; clarification of roles, responsibilities, duties

and functions of specified senior staff and Board members vis à vis policy

development and implementation; and suggestions for change pertinent to an

improved policy development process for the NPB.

E - Proposed Schedule for Data Collection

As indicated in the Review Work Plan, the first five Phases of the Review

focus on data collection and preliminary analysis of such. For this reason, a

first round of interviews with selected staff is scheduled for late March and

April. Should a second round of interviews be necessary in order to complete

the assessment of functional relationships between specified senior staff and

relevant subordinate staff, then these interviews would be scheduled for July

and early August.

Interviews with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman as the key decision makers in

the NPB will be scheduled early in the Review process, that is, in

March/April. The process of clarification and confirmation of data may

require that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman be interviewed at least twice

during the period of the Review.

Interviews with Senior Board members should not require more than one session

with each individual and probably should take place in the appropriate

Regional Office in late July or August, that is, as part of the final

assessment of the NPB as an organizational entity.

I

-12-

Interviews with staff in the CSC and Ministry Secretariat should require only

one session and will scheduled for the month of June.

Consistent with the purposes and desired outcomes proposed for the case study

approach, a two to three day workshop for specified senior staff (and selected

Board members if desired) will be scheduled in July, that is, during Phase 5

of the Review. With sufficient advance notice, it should be possible to

schedule this workshop so that the vacation schedules of those involved can be

respected.

In summary, this paper attempts to outline in broad terms some preferred

formal approaches to the collection of data and information pertinent to the

Organizational Review. Opportunities exist for the informal collection of

information through day-to-day contact between the Review leader and staff

working in various positions on a variety of tasks. By its nature, this

informal process defies easy description and is therefore undefined but not

unrecognized in this paper. Suffice to say that data and information

collected through both formal and informai processes will be useful to the

attainment of the purposes of the Organizational Review.

March 21, 1906

APPENDIX C

I

I

I

1I

IIIiII

National Parole Board

Organizational Review

Suggested Questions for Interview with NPB Staff

The interview process is designed to elicit information and data pertinent to

the purpose of the Organizational Review. The suggested questions are

designed to engender a discussion of the nature of the work of individuals in

a variety of positions within the NPC and by inference illuminate the

structural and operational aspects of the NPB as an organizational entity.

The interviews which should take approximately one hour and not exceed ninety

minutes, will be conducted by the Organizational Review leader, Sheila

Murray. Prior to the interview, each person to be interviewed should have

received and be conversant with the Organizational Review Work Plan and

Questions for Interviews with NPB Staff.

-2-

Suggested Questions

o What is the nature of your work and how do you carry It out?

o What statutes, policies, procedures, guidelines and directives are

essential/not essential to your work and that of your organizational unit?

o How would you rate the level of understanding of your roles,

responsibilities, duties and functions among staff In your unit? At lower

levels in the organization? At higher levels in the organization? At the

Board member level?

o Is there overlap, duplication and/or gaps in roles, responsibilities, duties

and functions across organizational units? If so, what are they? What

should be done? Who should initiate any changes?

o What problems, issues and concerns (if any) do you encounter in your work as

it relates directly to the work of other Departments, agencies and

organizations outside the NPB? What should be done? How? By whom?

o What is your role in the policy formulation and implementation process

within the NPB? How would you distinguish strategic policy from operational

policy matters?

o How would you describe the organizational culture and environment of your

unit? Are there major differences in organizational culture and environment

across the NPB? What are the major cultural and environmental factors which

affect your work?

o How have your role, responsibilities, duties and functions changed since you

first assumed your position?

. . ./3

IIII1I11III1IIaI1I

-3-

Which features of your work are unique within the NPB'and which distinguish

the work of the NPB from the work of other organizations?

° From your position in the organization what resources and strategies are

essential to carrying out your work in an effective* and efficient" manner?

C What standards do you use to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of

your work? If standards do not exist, then what should they be? Who should

establish the standards? How should they be used?

Are there alternate ways of performing your work and that of your unit in

order to improve effectiveness and efficiency, in terms of more timely

results? If so, what are they? Who should initiate any changes?

What mechanisms exist and are essential to ensure effective and efficient

co-ordination of work of your unit and other organizational units across the

NPB? What changes should be made? By whom?

° What are the strengths and weaknesses of the organizational structure of

your unit and that of the NPB as a vehicle for carrying out the mandate,

goals, objectives and priorities of the NPB?

u Do you have any recommendations for changes to your position, positions

reporting to you, position to which you report, other positions within your

organizational unit and your Division, and the NPB as an organization? If

so, what is your rationale for these changes? Who should initiate these

changes? When? How?

°-Other comments. What have we missed that is important for the purpose of

the Organizational Review?

*effective - doing the right thing

"efficient - doing things right

March 12, 1986

I

APPENDIX D

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD

ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

III11IIItI11I

The attainment of the goals of the NPB Organizational Review requires that NPB

members and staff are supportive of these goals and the processes proposed for

their achievement. Of the several strategies key to engendering this support,

a plan for communicating information pertinent to the origins of the Review,

the purpose and the nature of the Review process is of prime importance. If

one assumes that a successful communications strategy requires interaction

among the key players in a process, then one must ensure that the resulting

communications plan provides opportunities for feedback on the proposed

process for conducting the NPB Organizational Review. In other words, the

communications plan should identify ways and means for engaging NPB members

and staff as active participants in the Review and at the same time engender

their support as owners of the process.

The objectives of the proposed communications plan are as follows:

To provide NPB members and staff with information pertinent to:

- background events and issues which have given rise to the need for a

Review.

- the overall purpose and nature of the Review.

- the leadership and management processes of the Review.

° To introduce to the NPB members and staff, Sheila Murray, a Tap Officer, in

her role as the leader of the Review process, reporting for administrative

purposes to the Executive Director and for ongoing overall direction to the

Organizational Review Reference Group, composed of the Chairman,

Vice-Chairman and Executive Director;

C

To provide ongoing opportunities for interaction between the Review Leader

and NPB members and staff;

I

Time Frames Specified Action Person Responsible

Review Leader drafts

the memo following con-

sultation with

Executive Director and

other staff as appro-

priate.

Approval of final draft

of memo by the Chairman

prior to translation

and revision.

-2-

O To establish a schedule for periodic reporting' . on the direction and

progress of the Review process by the Chairman to NP6 members and staff.

o To provide mechanisms for the Chairman to communicate the results of the

Review process to NPB members and staff.

From these broad objectives for the communications plan flows the following

action plan.

ACTION PLAN

Week of March 3 Preparation of memo from Chairman

to NP6 members and staff out-

lining:

- background information support-

ing the need for the Review,

- overall purpose and nature of

the Review;

- the leadership roles of

Chairman, Vice-Chairman and

Executive Director in manag-

ing the Review process;

- the role of the Review Leader;

- the proposed schedule for

periodic reports on direction

and progress of Review process;

- requests for ongoing involvement

and support of NPB members and

staff in Review process.

.../3

I

I

tI

III

.1I1III

-3-

Time Frames Specified Action

Week of March 24 Distribution of approved memo in

both official languages to ail NPB

members and staff.

Consideration should be given to

the distribution of the memo to

union representatives one day prior

to the general distribution using

the normal existing union-management

mechanisms of the NPB.

Efforts should be made to .tnform

NPB members and staff in HQ and

regional offices at approximately

the same time.

Week of June 1. Preparation of memo from Chairman

30 to NPB members and staff out-

lining the overall progress of an

any changes in direction of the

Review process.

Person Responsible

Review Leader following

consultation with ap-

propriate NPB staff.

Review Leader drafts

the memo following con-

sultation with the

Executive Director and

the staff as appro-

priate.

Approval of final draft

of memo by Chairman

prior to translation

and revision.

.../4

I

-4-

Time Frames Specified Action

2. Distribution of approved memo in

both official languages.to all

NPB staff following procedures

outlined in Step 2 of March 10

memo.

Week of I. Preparation of memo from Chairman

September 29 to NP13 members and staff out-

lining the results of the Review

process.

2. Distribution of approved memo

in both official languages to

all NPB members and staff

following procedures outlined

in Step 2 of March and June

memos.

Person Responsible

Review Leader following

consultation with ap-

propriate NPb staff.

Review Leader drafts

the memo following con-

sultation with

Execut.ive Director.

Approval of final draft

of memo by Chairman

prior to translation

and revision.

Review Leader following

consultation with ap-

propriate NPti staff.

II

IIIIIIIIIII1III1

SECURITY - CLASSIFICATION - DE SECUR1TÉ

OUR FILE - N / RÉFÉRENCE

YOUR FILE - V / RÉFÉRENCE

DATE 27/03/86

APPENDIX E

-1

_J

_J

To

r- DISTRIBUTION

À

r- CHAIRMAN

FROM PRÉSIDENT DE

SUBJECT OBJET

ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW REVUE ORGANISATIONNELLE

Government Gouvernement of Canada du Canada MEMORANDUM NOTE DE SERVICE

As we all know, the National Parole Board, like many other organizations and agencies, is being buffeted by many forces for change. Of these forces, several quickly come to mind due to their potential impact on the day-to-day work of the Board. For instance, changes can be anticipated as a result of: the proposed amend-ments to the National Parole Act; court-based challenges to NPB deci-sions under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; recommendations emanating from the Program Review process under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister; new central agency policies directed towards decreasing program expenditures and increasing account-ability; increasing workload for both NPB members and staff within a con-text of decreasing resources and demands for increased efficiency; and finally, recommendations contained in a variety of studies and reports focussing on policy and operational aspects of the NPB.

Comme nous le savons tous, la Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles est soumise, l'instar d'un grand nombre d'autres organismes, à de nombreux impératifs de changement. De ces impératifs, plusieurs viennent immédiatement à l'esprit en raison de leurs répercus-sions éventuelles sur le travail quotidien de la Commission. Par exemple, des changements sont à pré-voir à la suite des circonstances suivantes: les projets de modifica-tions de la Loi sur la libération con-ditionnelle de détenus; les contesta-tions en justice des décisions de la CNLC aux termes de la Charte des droits et libertés; les recommanda-tions découlant du processus d'examen des programmes' sous la direction du Vice-premier ministre; l'adoption par les organismes centraux de nouvelles politiques axées sur la réduction des dépenses des programmes et sur l'accentuation du respect de l'obliga-tion de rendre compte; l'augmentation de la charge de travail des commis-saires et des employés de la CNLC compte tenu de ressources moins nombreuses et d'exigences en vue d'une efficacité accrue; et, enfin, les recommandations contenues dans divers rapports et études portant sur les aspects stratégiques et opérationnels de la CNLC.

GC 177

.../2

7540-21-798-8998 0

IWith this scenario in mind, we- havedecided to undertake a review of the

NPB as an organization in order toascertain its current structural andoperational capacity for successfully

meeting these challenges for change.To this end, we have seconded SheilaMurray, an officer from the TemporaryAssignment Pool (TAP) of TreasuryBoard, to conduct the OrganizationalReview. Mrs. Murray, though a new-comer to the NP13, has conductedreviews of a similar nature withinfederal government departments aswell as in organizations outsidegovernment.

During the seven month period of theReview, she will work under the over-

all direction of the OrganizationalReview Reference group, composed ofthe Chairman, Vice-Chairman andExecutive Director and will report ona day-to-day basis for administrativepurposes to the Executive Director.Specifically, Mrs. Murray has amandate to make recommendations forchange based on an examination of theorganization structure, roles,responsibilities, duties and func-tions of specified senior staffpositions within the NPB. It isessential to her mandate that Mrs.Murray have as many opportunities aspossible to meet with Board andstaff. This memo merely serves asthe first step in officially intro-

ducing her in her role as Reviewleader. Midway through and at theend of the Review process, corn-muniqués of this nature will beissued in order that you will be keptabreast of the ongoing activities andoutcomes of the organizationalReview. A copy of the OrganizationalReview Communications Plan which out-lines a schedule for ongoing com-munication pertinent to the Reviewprocess will be sent to you shortly.

-Z-

.../3

Or, étant donné cette conjoncture,nous avons décidé de procéder à unexamen de la CNLC en tant qu'organismeafin de déterminer dans quelle mesuresa capacité structurelle et opération-nelle lui permet de relever cesdéfis. A cette fin, nous avons obtenules services de Mme Sheila Murray,agent en détachement du Groupe desaffectations temporairies (GAT) duConseil du Trésor, qui dirigera larevue organisationnelle. Bien qu'elleen soit à ses débuts à la CNLC, MmeMurray s'est chargée d'examens sembla-

bles au sein de ministères fédéraux,ainsi que dans des organismes du sec-teur privé.

Au cours des sept mois que durera larevue, elle oeuvrera sous la direction

générale du groupe de référence de larevue organisationnelle, composé duPrésident, du Vice-président et duDirecteur exécutif, et, à des finsadministratives, elle rendra compte deses activités quotidiennes auDirecteur exécutif. En l'occurrence,Mme Murray a pour mandat de présenterdes recommandations en se fondant sur

l'examen de la structure organisation-nelle, des rôles, des responsabilitéset des fonctions de certains postes decadres supérieurs au sein de la CNLC.Dans le cadre de son mandat, il estessentiel que Mme Murray ait toutesles occasions voulues de rencontrerles cadres et le personnel de laCommission. La présente ne se veutqu'une première démarche visant à laprésenter officiellement dans son rôlede responsable de l'Examen. A mi-chemin et à la fin du processus, nouspublierons des communiqués de cettenature afin de vous tenir au fait des

activités et des résultats de l'Examende l'organisation. Un exemplaire duPlan de communications, qui donne unaperçu du calendrier des activitésprévues, vous sera envoyé sous peu.

1

III1III

III111,II

-3-

It is our intent to ensure that the Review process encourages participa-tion. by Board Members and staff in any proposals for organizational change directed towards strengthening the capacity of the National Parole Board to carry out its mandate.

Nous avons l'intention de veiller à ce que le processus d'examen favorise la participation des commissaires et des employés de la Commission à la mise en oeuvre de toute proposition en vue d'un changement organisationnel visant à accroître la capacité de la Commission nationale des libérations conditionnelles de s'acquitter de son mandat.

•

- • /

/ Outerbridge

DISTRIBUTION

Vice-Chairman - Vice-président Senior Board Members - Commissaires principaux Executive Director - Directeur exécutif Director General - Directeur général Headquarters Directors - Directeurs de l'Administration centrale Secretary to the Board - Secrétaire de la Commission Regional Executive Officers - Agents exécutifs régionaux

^ ^ ^ man ^ ^ mug #M W

Na me

Ole Ingstrup

Bill Outerbridge

Roger Labelle

Marg Benson

Phil Young

Jean-Paul Gilbert

Roy Evans

Marc Gallant

Mac Steinburg

Roy Richards

Alphonse Beaupré

Tom Lamothe

Jack MacDonald

Kathy Louis

Non Harrison

Position

Chairman, NPB

Former Chairman, NPB

Vice-Chairman, NPB

APPENDIX F

National Parole Board

Organizational Review

Interview Schedule

Date for Interview

Chairman, Appeals Division

Board Member, Appeals Division

Board Member, Appeals Division

Senior Board Member, Atlantic Region

Board Member, Atlantic Region

Senior Board Member, Ontario Region

Board Member, Ontario Region

Board Member, Ontario Region

Board Member, Ontario Region

Board Member, Ontario Region

Senior Board Member, Pacific Region

Board Member., Pacific Region

July 9, August 7

March 25, April 18

March 24, April 14,

August 6

June 3

June 17

June 17

June 16

June 16

June 20

June 20

June 20

June 20

June 19

June 25

June 23

Comments

Name

Ed Chang

Noel Sharp

Ron Boucher

Ken Howland

Romeo Beaupré

Germaine Tremblay-CBté

Louis Laporte

Pierre liarel

Crv Williams

Serqe: Lnvallée

(3renrlan Reynolds

Position

APPENDIX F

National Parole Board

Organizational Review

Interview Schedule

Date for Interview

Board Member, Pacific Region June 23

Senior Board Member, Prairies Region June 26

Board Member, Prairies Region June 26

Board Member, Prairies Region June 26

Senior Board Member, Québec Region July 28

Board Member, Québec Region July 2B

Board Member, Québec Region July 20

Board Member, Québec Region July 28 cancelled due to

an Interim Hearing

Executive Director March 13, March 21,

July 17

Director General, IIQ Operations March 24, April 9,

July 25

RD, Atlantic Region April 8

RD, Québec Region Apri L 30

Acting RD, Ontario Region June 1`)

Director, Corporate Planning Jiily 21

Comments

^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ lm M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ M a" au ne

Norm Fagnou

Betty-Lou Edwards

Bill MacGregor

Gilles Depratto

Line Audet

Ray Simms

Jim Scrimger

John Nugent

Bernard Cloutier '

Gerry Greene

Diane McConkey

1181 MI OBI Me 11111 OS ND WO 11111 11111111 1111 ISO OM MP NO Me

Name Position

APPENDIX F

National Parole Board

Organizational Review

Interview Schedule

Date for Interview Comments

RD, Prairies Region

Acting RD, Pacific Region

RD, Pacific Region

Secretary to the Board

Director, Planning and Analysis

Director, Finance and Administration

Director, Personnel and Offical

Languages

Director, Communications

Director, HQ Operational Programs

Regional Manager/Case Preparation

Atlantic

Regional Manager/Case Supervision

Atlantic

April 15

April 16

June 4

March 24, April 11

August 25 telephone

interview

March 26, May 13

March 26, April 7

March 26, April 14,

September 12

March 25, April ID

April 8

April 8

APPENDIX F

National Parole Board

Orrlnnizational ReviPw

Interview Schedule

No me Position Date for Interview Comment.^>

Enid Holme.s Regional Administrator - Atlantic April 8

Betty Dick Senior Notifications Clerk - Atlantic April. 8

Flora Collant Verifications Clerk - Jltlantir. April 8

Michel Frappier Regional Manager/Case Preparation April 30

Québec

Guy Petit-Cl.air Regional Manager/Case Supervision April 30

Thrsri^se fieaulleu

Sonia Lacroix

Qufsbec

Rerj.ional Adminstrotor - Qucibr;c Apri l 317

Senior Notifications Clerk - Québec April 30

Paul L'Cspérance Verification Clerk - Québec July 20 - unavailable For

reschedtilod interview

Danielle Mil lette Verifinntion f'lr!r!< - Qu,S!,nc a,ily 28 -,rnnvnilahtc fnr

r, ,. i •,!:,I •,I ii,iorvi.>w

John Wilson Rrqi nnal 11rin:r,fnr /l'rr>o P rrlru•,it i un AI,i• i I

Ontario

SanJr,i l'i Ir*.rim Corraspondcnrr & Informat ion tlf'1'ir^ i- Ahr•i I;;

Ontario

^ ^ ^ mm ^ ^ ^ mm mamom ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Carol Sparling

Audrey Cavanaugh

Betty Warder

Marg Kelly

John Bissett

Len Meier

Ron Mihell

[laine Cherkewich

Lil Prysiaznuik

Fraser Simmons

April 3

April 3

not available

April 15

April 15

April 16

MIR ail IMP MO In 011ie MI ill Mit MIR III. ill lame es. ale MI OP ale

Name Position

APPENDIX F

National Parole Board

Organizational Review

Interview Schedule

Date for Interview Comments

Regional Manager/Case Supervision

Ontario

Regional Administrator - Ontario

Correspondance and Information Officer

Ontario

Secretary to Senior Board Member -

Ontario

Regional Manager/Case Preparation

Prairies

Regional Manager/Case Supervision

Prairies

Regional Administrator - Prairies

Correspondance and Information Officer

Prairies

Verification Clerk - Prairies

Regional Manager/Case Preparation

Pacific

April 3

April 3

April 15

April 15

APPENDIX F

National Parole Board

Organizational Review

Interview Schedule

Name Position Date for Interview

Gerry Ayotte Regiona.l Manager/Case Supervision April 16

Pacific

Sharone Young Regional Administrator - Pacific April 16

Donna Flessa Secretary to Senior Board Member - April 16

Pacific

Evelyn Gaudreau Verifications Clerk - Pacific April 16

Jean Sutton Senior Advisor on Professional March 27, April 11

Standards and Development

Peter Cummings Policy Analyst, Planning and Analysis Ju]y 4

Terry Kennedy Chief, Financial Management April 2

Vince Nadon Chief, Administrative Services March 27

Liz Phillips Chief, Personnel and O.L. Audit and not interviewed

Policy

Elaine Shaw Chief, Staff Relations and fluman March 27, April 9

Resources

Earl I1t3nratty Chief, Personnel Operations March 27

Comments

to NO i M as ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ w so on ^ no w 0-0 "a No

OR MOW MM ^ 1 11440 ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ samomon

APPEP®IX F

National Parole Board

Organizational Review

Interview Schedule

Name Position Date for Interview

Don Tully Planning and Systems Officer July 7, July 8

Coordinator, Management Committee

Paul Connolly Chief, Clemency and Pardons

Dave Johnston Chief, Case Analysis and Review April 4

Jeanette Ackroyd Chief, Access to Information and April 28

Privacy

Mike MacNaughton Editor, Communications April 2

Andy Roy Chief, Media Relations and Public April 4, September 12

Affairs

Maurice Charbonneau Senior Legal Counsel, NPB August 7

Cathy Gainer Management Practices and Special April 23, April 29

Projects Officer

Sheila Faure Project Manager, Program Evaluation April 23, May 12

Mike Halko CAPP - Special Projects April 2, April 29

Gordon Pinder Deputy Commissioner Offender Policy July 31

and Prorlram Development, CSC

Comments

APPENDIX F

National Parole Board

Organizational Review

Interview Schedule

Name Position Date for Interview Comments

Dru Allen

Andrew Graham

Joan Nuffield

Richard Zubrycki

Marie-Eve Marchand

Rhéal Leblanc

Fred Gibson

Jean Charron

Willy Gibbs

Clifford Scott

Director, Community Release Programs, July 30

CSC

Director General, Corporate Policy and August 5

Planning, CSC

Director, Strategic Policy, Ministry July 24

Secretariat

Director, Policy Analysis and Support, July 24 unavailable for

Ministry Secretariat scheduled interview

Policy Analyst, Ministry Secretariat July 25

Commissioner, CSC July 22

Deputy Solicitor General July 23

Assistant Deputy Solicitor General July 23 .

Director General, Correctionul July 22

Operations, CSC

Assistant Commissioner, Administrative July 23

Policy and Services

110) UM 11111 Ole 111111 fill Ili Ile OM IIIIII lilt Ill. fle

^ ^ ^ ^ M go so as no ift =0 moo an do so aw Fft va so

Name

Dan Kane

Arthur Trono

Ron Stewart

Marc Eliany

Linda Golberg

Greg Irwin

Hélène Chevalier.

Dorothy Wardle

Bill Hackett

Bob Young

Position

APPENDIX F

National Parole Board

Organizational Review

Interview Schedule

Date for Interview

Director General, Offender Programs,

CSC

Regional Deputy Commissioner, Ontario

Region, CSC

Correctional Investigator, CSC

Statistical Liaison Officer

Research Officer

Statistical Liaison Officer

Executive Assistant to Chairman, NPB

Temporary Board Member

Ontario•Region

Temporary Board Member

Ontario Region

Temporary Board Member

Prairies Region

July 22

July 16

not available for an

interview

July 30

July 30

July 30

October 7

August 6

August 10 unavailable for

schedul.ed interview

Augiist 18

Comments

Name

Marcia Clark

Joël ilartt

Guy Bureau

Michael Young

Lynne Connell

Dave MacKeen

Melvin MacQuaid

Position

Temporary Board Member

Prairies Region

Temporary Board Member

Québec Region

Temporary Board Member

Québec Region

Temporary Board Member

Pacific Region

T emp o ra ry Board Member

Pacific Region

Temporary Board Member

Atlantic Region

Temporary Board Member

Atlantic Region

APPENDIX F

National Parole Board

Organizational Review

Interview Schedule

Date for Interview

August 10

August 18

August 20

August 19

August 25

August 25

unable to contact either

at office or at home

Comments

^ ^ ^ to ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 01% so so so go Am an Op 4W as

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

CHAIRMAN I

VICE-CHAIRMAN

CHART I

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

RECOMMENDATION NI

OPTION fil

r--1-- Recisnal ,Di , ector !AtIl-tic

Regional Director Quebec

Regional Director Ontari o

Regional Director Pacific

Regional Director Prairies

Director General H.Q. Operations

Secretary te the Board

MI MI 811. re an ass au aum 11. US IRO OM

if ECUTIVE DIRECTOR I

1

ADUNISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

--F r- rcrtor.

Personnel E Official Languages

_____i_ Director Corporal ,' Mannino E Management Pradices

Director Finance I; Administration

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZAfIONAL REVIEW

VICECRAIRMAN

EXECUIIVE DIRFCTOR

f IsIRiw1

CIIAIRMAN

1ASSISTANT

'_1-

Regional

Director

Atlantic

flegional Rrqional flcgional RegionalDirector Direclor Director DirectoOue6ec llntario Prairies Pacific^

IDirector

Director, Appeal Ilu n an ResourceCleeency C Pardons Servicrs

CDART 2

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

RECOMNENDATION ,V1

OPTION 2

-' ---'--- '-----t^--llirector

DireetorAd.ini;trative C

Oeveir.p.entfinancial Service• Corporate

G ScrvicexS"

, as

Dire tor

lnfor.atiun ;iyr.tcu• iand Service,

^ ^ !ls ^► ► ^^ ^ ^ ^ ON vft/^ NO ww"twomw1m

go Aft so w M1 so i^ ^ ^ ^ a" AW as we M go Koo go me

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

VICT É-CNAiRMAN

I CNAIRMANt J

IEXECUTIVC DIRECTOR

_ ADMINISIRATIV^

ASSISTANT

-------- ^

CHART 3

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

RECOMMENDATION //1

OPTION /h3

DIRECT^

CORPORATE MANAGEMENI

SYSTEMS AND SERVICES

t-`iAegional Regional Regional

;Director Oirector Director

L1:1 i ebeOntario

Regional

Director

Prairies

Regionall

Directo,Jl

PaciFicDirector, Appeal

Clemency C Pardons

Director

Numan Resourre

Services

7I __ E1^

-^- - -_- - --^ ---Ûirector Director Direr,tor •Administrative C Devclop n ent InFar.ation SystcmsFinancial Service - Corporate and Services

Systeaz t Service:

^-- -

NATIONAI. PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

ICE-C11A1RNAN

CIIAIRNAN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

,---

_ AONINISIRAEIVE

ASSISTANT

CIIART 4

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IIECONNENDATION #1

CpIION #4

DIRECTOR GENERAL

CORPORATE MANAGEMENT

SYSILNS AND SERVICES

Negional

L_Regional

Director

Quebec

IRegional

Director

Ontario

LARegional

Director

Prairies

1

Director, Appeal

Cle.ency C Pardons

r-____ 1------

Dtrectnr

Resource R.inaycoent I

Service^

LSECT.I

Director Drrrrtor •.

Develnp.entloi

Syte.s

Corporate d Services

Systees F, Scrvires

lm m •^ ^ ^^ 00 M o. M .s ew am .M 310 s M 1110 . lm .r

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

CHAIRMAN

VICE-CHAIRMAN-1

CHART 5

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

RECOMMENDATION #1

OPTION #5

Regional Regional

Director Director

Atlantic Quebec

L [ Director, Appeal

Clemency C Pardons

Regional

Director

Ontario

egional

irector

rairies

egional

irector

aciFic rf-tirector

Information Systems

ad Services

mu »le as gee au aim sat gm Ime aik ale an Ire IN Ole INS

Ex_ECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ADMINISTRATIVE

ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR GENERAL

CORPORATE MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS AND SERVICES

1

Director

Administrative E

Financial Service

"1 Director

Human Resource'

Services

— Director

Development

Corporate

Systems C Services

------------ - -

_I SECRETARY

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZAiIONAL REVIE4

Vice-Chairaan

CIIARf 6

DIRECIOR, HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES

RECONMENDAfION Ni

OPTION #1

Sysleas and Services

L--Iflirector, Ilurran Resource

Services (New)

E:isting position - Director

Personnel C Official Languages

F---f_-

lChief, PersonnctIO,L, ^ladil andiPo1i•:y

'----- .._ .

Chief, Staff Relations

and Illuan Resources

t

---T-- -'-Director Adainistrativc -andFinancial Services

CIIAIRMA

--^

Executive Director '

J nïiiï .JJJ

rectnr General, Corporate Nenageacn

Nf

,- Secretary ^

Director Developnent

Corporate System: G Services

._ ^- -

Chief Personnel Co-Ordinator

Operations Official Lan

g

ua es

NI

^--Director Infnraation

Spstcas and Services

^ ^ ^ ^ lm Mo ^ ^ M Mal ^ ^ M mla im MW ma M M

Diiïaor Administrative

and Financial Services

Chief, Staff Relations C

Human Resources

Professiona] Development

Training Unit

asie lie rani as ore 1110 Mg IRO IOW 0111 all MN lie 11110 1111111 ON lab lale

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

CHAIRMAN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR]

CHART 7

DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION #1

OPTION #7

VICE -CHAIRMii,--

Oirector Human Resources

Services (New)

'Secretary

1 rADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT'

DIRECTOR GENERAL CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SYSFEMS AND SERVICES1

Secretaryi

Director Development

Corporate Systems C Services

)

Director Information

Systems and Services

Chief Personnel 0.1. Audit and

Policy

[—Chief, Personne/ Operationsl

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZAIIONAL REYIfN

YICE-CilA1RMAN

- -^ ---

Director Human Resources

Services (New)

I

hieF PersonnelAudit and

policy^..--- - -^

L Sccretary

Chief, Staff Relations C

Human Resources

CIIART 0

DIRECTOR_IIUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES

RFCOMMFNDATION #1

CXECUTIYE DIRECTOq OPTION /I3-F-

ADMINISTRAIIVf. ASSISTAMI

DIRICTOR GENERAL CORPORATE MANAGE MLNT SYSIEMS AND SERVICES.

Secretary

D u•ector m^n^strattvc ' 1 - --Otrcator ^eveTopeen[and financialServices Corporate Systeas C Services^

------^-^

Chief, Personnel Operationsi T'roFessional Developoent - -_^Training Unit

CHAIRMAN

^

Director Information

Systems and Servicesl

^ ^ ^ 100 lu fue lm «a lm'^* un WM no mm t^ ^ ^ ^ lm

'^ ^ M go' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ M %or me' je M

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

Vice-Chairman

10irector Iluean Resourre

Services

L --- -

Director Administrative and

Financial Services

Secretary

ClIA IRXAMM

EXECDTIVE DIRECTOR

CHART 9

DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE C FIIIANCIAI. SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION #

OPTION #1

H ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

CIRECTOR GENERAL CORPORATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND SEP.VICES

ecretary----J

Director Developuent Corporate

L

Director Information SystemsSystems and Services Services

^ ^ _^ ^ - ---- --- -^

Chl ief, Financial Management Services ^ Chief, Administrative Service1L

ClIARIMO

DIRECTOR ADMINISTRAIIVE . AND EINANCIAt abuccs

in-cow:maim PI

OPTION . 0

I EXECUTIVE DIRECIORI

.1- . Fiiiiitriiiii-Cii:ii;isi-Ailil

[ DIRECTOR GEHERAl_CORPORAFE . MANAGEMENI r.YSIElltl E SERVICES 1

L CHAIRMAN

--- 1-

_ Director Development 1

I Corporate Synteon C ServicesI i Director Information'

Syntens C Services I

NAIIONAl...PAROLUIDARD URGANIZATIONAL . ITEVII.W

r, I a;.."-ih:- •

'..-:orne Services

1 financial

....-,-; 0.„ n i Srrvice

VICE-CHAIRMAN

[

Oi ."-r-ec .t. o-r—iiimini"; trati v—e- antli

Financial Service^. .. .._ . I

Chief, Records Management

Systems C S ,.rvices (New) ChioF, Administrative Serviren I

I . _

11111 «111 MO ant Ma ime 11111 1Me elk um lee ma ail MI MI lag

lm-lm ^ Çu M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ffl 09M .^ M aim mu 'qp M

VICf-CHATRMAN

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD DRGANIZATIDNAL REVIEW

CIIAIRMAN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

CIIART //il

DIRECTDR ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION 1/1

OPTION #2

ADNTN[STRAiIYE ASSISIANI

DIRECTDR GENERAL CDRPDRATE MANAGEMENI SYSTENS E SERYICE^

Secretar^

irector Human

jtesource ServicesDirector Administrative and

Financial Services

IDirector Developnent

Corporate Systens C Services

IDirector Information

Systeas E Services

hief, Financial Chief,Chief, Administrative Servicesana e^ent Service

Corporate Records

9 Systems G Services (Nev) - ^ ^- 1

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

Y[CE-CIlAIRMpN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

CIIART 12

DIRECTOR DEYELOPMENI

CORPORATE SYSTEMS C SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION yl

OPTION #1

BIRECTOR GENERAL CORPORATE MANAGEMENI SYSiEMS AND SERViCES IIEY^--. __.-- --- - ---

----^Secretary

Director Ilu.an Resource Servicesl Director Ad.inistrati Director Development Corporateand Financial Services Systems C Services (New) tl

Existing Position:Direr.tor

Corporate Planning t Management: Practices'- --^ ------..._ i

OCE Operator Secrctary^-^ `^ ---- ---^

1_

--Manage.r.nt

C Special Projects I Planning and- lü ystens

CIIAIRMAN

Progra n ^

Evaluation

Director Information Syste.^

and Services (New)

a^ - MI, am,^ ^ *» '71M M me %* 98 -no M wo au mm ne l1* i

Director Human

!Resclrce Services [

Director Administrative E

financial Services 1 Director Develoment Corporate

Systems E Services (New)

Fr7rotaril

FS irector Information 1 ystems E Services

I OCE Operator I

arlib IOW IN 01le MO ale MO am ale um as sue tom re «la ale

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEN

CHAIRMAN'

VICE-CHAIRMAN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR1

CHAfti 13

DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT - CORPORATE

SYSTEMS AND SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION h 1

OPTION #2

1 lidministrative Assis-tang

Director General Corporate Management Systems E Services'

Secretary '

Chief, Corporate

Systems E Services Development

(Hew) fChief, Policy, Procedures E Ile%rarch Development

(new)

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORLANIZAT10t1A1. RCVIEW CIIART 14

DIRECTOR IILVELOPMENT - CORPOR1TE

SYSIENS C SERVICES

f VICE-CIIAIRMAM

Secretar

E%ECUTiVE DIRECIO

RCCOMMENDATION #1

OPTION #3

_Adninistrat-ive Assistan[ i

Oir^ccnr Ceneral Coraorace Manone"ént Jvstens anA S^rvices ,

- r=. ^- -','rector Hunan rirector Administrative-C•5ourcr Service.sj IFinancial Services

CIIAIRMAN

[DirecLor Develupnent Corporatef

S--stems C Services

L--- •------i

OCE Operator __ -- __ ,ertary

I-_-

l- --- -

1_r

ject ProjectProj ect Pro i Ilea.---- Tcan lean

,gum 4-NB? ^ ^ ^ ^: no "a go; ^ an ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ us

_-3_.

j Director In(oraation

Systens G Service-,

f"^ M amr 'm 'ma j»I' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ .00 am 00

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONALREVIEW

CNAIRMAN

Vice-Chairean

-- T- - ^ ZDiro,tor Ilurran Resourcc Director Administrative &Se-^ice, J Financial Services

CHART 15

DIRFCTOR, INFORMATION SYSTEMS C SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION # I

OPTION #1

Executive Director

_-[ Administrative Assistant

IDirector General Corporate Management Systeos and ServicesT----------'-------- ------------

-Ser,retnry---L _--_ --- -J

Di rec or DeVeiopment

Corporate Systems C Servir.es

-i---I ----Director Information

C Services (New)l1!L12 ms 1T-_--__----

rl D

- -_^? Systems OFFicer APIS, OM;MIS

--__-_ I liaison C

Development.Ilücc...

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORANIZATIONAL REVIEM

Vice-Chairmar1

1CIIA[RMAN---_ ^

Executive Dirr.ctor

^-- -^-.-. --

CHAR T 16

DIRECTOR, INFORMATION SYSTEMS C S[RVIC[S

RFCONM[NDATION NI

OPTION #2

Adainistrative Assistant

'-'----------- --rDl rector feneral .Corporate Management Systems and 'Service s--r-----.--------.---- ---.-- ----

ecreEar•ÿ--'-

--C - ^birector Human Resource Director Administrative Ei

^Services F-nancial Serviceslt__-__ -_ C Director Development

CorporateSystems C ServiceslnForaation Sy^lems L

Servicrs RFFi(rr

qM^ ^- me

Vice-Chairman SECRETARIAL

SERVICES H_1 Senior Board Nemilier

'egu ar :oar tiers

emporary :oar. em.ers

Community :oar. em.ers

i CHAIRMAN

OM 111W Ile Mg »a as am as le sio toe re in ate doe us ai ame

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW CHART l/ _ REGIONAL DIRECTOR - ATLANTIC

RECOMMENDATION # 2

OPTION #1

EXECUTIVE DIRECIORI

FEIONAL DIRECTORI

'SECRETARY '

Regional Manager 1 Case Preparation 1

Regional Manager

Case Supervision Regional

Administrator

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGAMI2ATIOMAI RE4IEY

SECREIARIAL

SCRVICES

CIIAIRNAMI

EXECUtIVE DIRECTOR

REfi10NAL D[RECTOR

SFCRETApY

rlegional Manager J J Regional Manager1 Case Preparation Case Supervision

CIiART 18

REGIONAI. DIRECTOR - QUEOlC

RECONNENOAiIOM p 2

OPTION q1

EReg1onal

Ad!inistrator

aw) sm ^'^ ^ ^ so ow "a Im am go, ow so

00 ^ ^ ^ am M* imp '^ ^ ^ ^ ^ as Ift

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

CRAIRMAN

SECREiARIAL

SERVICES

Vice- atrman

enior oar e^ sr

egu ar oar ea ers

emporary Board ea ars

Couunity Board ea ers

}

I

1

CNART 19

REGIONAI. DIRECTOR - ONTARIO REGION

RECOMMENDATIDN # 2

OPTION /(1

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

IREGIONAL DIRECTDR

,- SECRETARY

Regional Ma

Case Preparation

IRegional Manager

Case Supervisionflegional

Adaini^trator

SECRETARIAL

SERVICES

I—I Vice-Chairman

F-1 Senior Board Member

L_1 Regular Board.Meabors Till temporary Board Meabers

L—I Community Board Nembers

CHARI 20

REGIONAL DIRECTOR - PRAIRIES

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

!CHAIR/IAN I RECOMMENDATION 2

OPTION HI

Ii 'Regional Manager

I Case Supervision

Correspondence C

Information Officer 1

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'

REGIONAL DIRECTOR!

SECRE TARY

Regional Manager

Case Preparation Regional

Adsinistrator I

law lie me mar eu um ea JIMMJI 11ffle an al> Mille

^ ^ ,mw M aw M, 'ffl '"0 M A* un mm 4M lm MW 4M 'à»

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANI2ATIONAL REVIEW

SECRETARIAL

SERVICES

Vice- airman

enior oar ea er

egu^Tr^a^elriers

e@porary oar en ers

L-4 Conunity oar e n ers

I

I

I

CRART 21

REGIONAL DIRECTOR - PACIFIC

RECOMMENDATION N 2

OPTION #1

CRAIRMAN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

REGIORAL DIRECTOR

^ SECP.ETARY

Regional Manager

Case Preparation

IRegional Manager

Case SupervisionRegional

Administrator

NAIIONAL PAROLE 130ARD ORGANI7ATIONAL REVIEN

SFCRETARIAL

SF[T VICf S

Case Review

lean

-V^ceiT- aira-

cntor oar e n er

egu ar oar e n ers

eaporary oar e n ers l^ f.ouun^ty Uoar e n ers

Regional CaseManager, (Ilew)

Case Review

Tea n

Vorrrspïin e

Inforaation Officer

CIIAIRMAM

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORI

REGIONAL DIRECTOR

SECREIARy

rôicssiona eve op nenE-- -

L Publie Edueation OfFicer (Nev)^

mnef 22

REGIONAL DIRECTOR - ATLANTIC

RECOMNENDAlION N 2

OPTION #7

^--ana9er R gg io p a

Services {New)^

Adainis^e Records Infnraation Syste n sE Support Unit j and ServicesServiees Unit TeeLnician

^^^ low A-m" ^V" on- up owl so 41M so no on

CUART 23

REGIONAL DIRECTOR - QUEBEC

RECOMMENDATION 1 2

OPTION #2

CHAIRMAN

rillice -Chairman SECREIARIAL SERVICES

enior Board Member

__I Regular Board Members

lemporary Board Members

Community Board Members

EXECUTIVE

Regional Case

Manager (New)

1 Cane Review r

Regional Case

Manager (New)

Case Review

Team

Lorrespojience Information Officer

1 Records Information Systems

Unit and Services

Technician

Administrative

C Support

Services Unit

es Mu Imo Ile are me am aim Am aw is ON eM1

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

DIRECTOR!

1 REGIONAL DIRECTOR!

SECRETARY

Professional' Uevetopment

C Public Education Officer (New)

Manager Regional Services (New)

FS ECREIARIAL

Sf.RVICES

1Regional Case -

Nanager (Mev)

Case Revieu

Tea•

^îce- a^raan

en^or oar e^er

egu a-1 -0-0a r e• ers

eaporary oar e n ers

y

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEN

I--

I

Commun ity Boar e n ers

Regional Case

LNana er (Ner)

Case Reriew

Teaa

orrespondenceT-

]nforaation Officer

CRAEkMAN^

P n

L Public Educntion Offieer (Ner)^

SECRETARY

T^ess^ona eve To a-"--

CIIART 24

RfG10NAL OIRECIOR - ONTARIO

RECONRENOAiION #2

OPTION #2

IManager R gg iona$ervsces `Nev)

Adainistralive Record1"foraation SysteasL $upport ^ Onit ^ and Services

Services Unit technician

iN" <ow

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR1

REGIONAL DIRECTOR:

SECRETARY

Protessiona) Development

E Public Education Officer (New)

Administrative

C Support

Services Unit 1

CHART 25

REGIONAL DIRECTOR- PRAIRIES

RECOMMENDATION #2

OPTION #2

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

CHAIRMAN

I Lorrespondence t

Information Officer

1 Manager Region9 Services (New)

Information Systems

and Services

Technician

[-

SECRETARIAL

SERVICES r --J- Vice-Chairman

HA Senior Board Umber

44 Regular Board Members

Temporary Board Members

Community Board Nembe-Fi

1 Regional Case

Nana er (New)

Case Review

Tea.

Regional Case

Manager (New)

1 Case Review

I Team Records

Unit

el> ley +my ell an *la erg mre lie Ile aft te ae die mar elif MO MI

MAIIOMAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANI7A1Ii1MAL REy1fM

SECRf1ARlAL

S[RVICFS

^c^Tiairran-------------1-

--- _^CIIARMAM

enior oar en e-6 r-- - IY-----'--'-

egu ar oar e n ers

e-porary oar ca ers

Co^un^ty Ooar e• ers _____

Reqianal Case Regional Casef-UO-Fre ence

Manager ( New) ] Nana er(New) Information Dfficer j

-^--Case Review l

caseReview

Tea• J Tea•

^FCIITLVE DIRECIOR^

LREGIOMAL DTRECiO,

CIIART 26

REG[OMAt DIRECTOR - PACIFIC

R[CORN[NnAT1oN / 2

OPTION N2

SECREIARfl

ra essiona ïlévéTp^e'T---

C Public Education 0fficer (Me ^I^anayer R ç9 ioServices `Xew

Administrative RecordsSupport Unit

Services Unit

-^'--InFor^ation Systees

and Services

Iccbnician

^ ^"!► ^ ^ 4MW1 ^po. ^i ^ a^ ^ MW a^ !M "a MW loop "a *a âo

'Wi► a-aw ••O 1j1« INJO ^- Mo, t`rr -^By .à.* A" .* dm Olq u.► f»^ B* dm leu$

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIIATIONAL REVIEW

SECRETARIAL

SERVICES

CIIAIRMAN

CHART 27

REGIONAL DIRECTOR - ATLANTIC

RECOMMENDATION p 2

OPTION #3

Regional Case

Manager (Nev)

Case CaseRev^er Review

i Ofiicar Officer

Case CaeeRevie. Reviev

Tean Tean.

(orC-respon ence

Information officer

SECRETARY

Pro essiona keve opn en

t Public Education Officer (New)

Administrative

L Support

Services Unit

I

Manager R qg ional^Servlces `Ilev) I

Records

Unit

I

Fc or

nation Syste n s

Services

hnician-

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW umni 28

REGIOMAL DIRECTOR _ QREREC

RECOMMEMDAIION #2

onion #3

WiCe-Chairean SECRETARIAL

SERVICES egi---niior-7117a7d Member'

Regular Board Members

I Temporary Board Members

Coamunity Board Neabers

Records

Unit

—

:gm n sico. -1 [F

rotessiona) Development E Public Education Officer Pled

fInforslation Systeasl and Services

Technician

Administrative E Support Services Unitj

lei el* 1131 MU> Ile Me !MI Mit 111111 1111» •Ink

'EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR1

!REGIONAL DIRE-atilt

[SECRETARY

I r egional Case I orrespon.ence Manager (New) . Information Officer

-II 1 I Case 1

Cr Re•iew iew Team Tea,

^ ^ ^ ^ to ^ am awl no ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ go oft am a*

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REYIEN

CHAIRMAM

SECRETARTAL

SERVICES

N

L-1

tcY e-Tai.an

Senior Board e• er

egu ar 'oar e• ers

e.porary Board en ers

Coa.unity oaÉira-Ae-OFers

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

iREG10NAL DIRECTOR

Regional Case

Nanager (Nev)

Case Case

Revier Review

Tea n Tea nI

SECRETARY

orrespon ence ro essiona eve op.enInFor.ation OFficer Public Education Officer (New)

CHART 29

REGIONAL DIRECTOR - ONTARIO

RECONIIENOATION #2

OPTION #3

Administrative Records [Information Syste.sC Support Unit and ServicesServices Unit Technician

Nanayer R gg ionaServices LNev)

NATIONAL PAROLE ROARO ORGANI2ATIONAL REVIEW

SECItE IAR IALSERVICES_

icc-CFai^ian

en^ôroârâ elT ier }

CIIAIRNAN

egu r oar c• ers

e^porary oar en ers ^_

Couun^ty Ooar er ers

EXECOTIVE DIRECTOR

LRFGTOMAL DIRECIOR

^- SECRCTARy

Reyicnal Cast^

Ra^ageTr (^ew)

Cas! Case

ReYitY RlVIlV

Team Tea n

orrespon ence

Enfor^atiun OFficer

CHART 30

AMORAL DIRECTOR - PRAIRIES

RECOMMENl1A110N #2

OPTION N3

Pro Fesstona eve ôp^en - Nana9er Re g ionaE Public Education Officer (New) Servtces (New)

1Ad^inistrative

C Support

Services Uniti

[nfornation Syste n s

Jand Services

ledmician

^ ^ -no ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a* /^ ^ ^, "M em "x» «-M MOI ffl& 4010

Vice-Chairman SECRFIAR1AL

SERVICES Senior Board Member

Regular Board Members

41 Temporary Board Members

__4 Community Board Members

Regional Case

Manager (New)

Case f Review 1 Team

Case

Review

Team

Lorrespondence L.

Information Officer

Administrative

E Support

Services Unit I

Manager Regional Services (New)

Records

Unit

Information Systems

and Services

Technician

dub low .fflir our *It aa 411111k Ile ame. , um an au> ele gliee

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

CHAIRMAN

1EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR1

j REGIONAL DIRECTOR'

F- TATI 171

CHART 31

REGIONAL DIRECTOR - PACIFIC

RECOMMENDATION #2

OPTION #3

Protessiona) Development

E Public Education Officer (New)j

MAlIONAI PAROIE DOARO ORGANIIAIPONAL REVIfN

^S[CRI IARIAL

St RV)Lf S

îcé-CÜa^én an __ 1

Chainan, Apptal on_^

egu ar oar e n ers ___^_-,

_r enporary oar AF-7-'.'s -- t_. -

CIIAIRMAN^

f- -- -- ---- - -fChief, Cle nency C Pardonsl

Secretary

feaisor I Tea n Supevisor Tean Supervisor I Secretary C^Cleaency C Pardonsl

1Cle n ency L Pardons C1enency C Pardons Lrivacy Clerk

EXECOTIVC O1REC10R

1DIP.ECTOR, APPEAL,CLEM^MCY C PARDONS

SECRf IARy ^

CIIART 32

DIREf,TOR_ APPf.AL, CIENEMCy L PARDONS

RECOMNEN!)AIfON N 2

OPTION #1

^^ChieF, Case Analysis

-- {Secrttary

-j __ - - - ^..-"--_

---1--Case Manageaent Case M

_anageeent Lase NanageaentAnalys -t Analyst Analyst-_______ f_ =l D=

*»- rmm "^ ^ me 113L' ^ *» '-0-M ** Ime 400' ^ ^ ^ ^ "M le* M*

^ ^ 4w OW, ^W OW `^ ^ 4W A* MW 40' 4W 4* AMP *i* 00 AN& 400

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REYIEN

SECRETARIAI.

SERVICES

ice- air^an

Chairman, Appeal, Clemencyand Pardons Division

Regular Board Remberi

7eiporary oar eo ers

CNAiRMAN

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

DIRECTOR, APPEAL,

CLEMfNCY & PARDONS

SECRFTARY

Secretary

t

------"-' -.r--- ---

Correspolndence CInformation Office

4..W) i

Case Revie^ Case Revie^ Case

ISupervisor Supervisor Sub^ission

Cle^ency t

[Par

E Control

Pardons Pardons Clerk

: Case Manager

I Cleaency C Pardons (new)

I

"I nager Divisional

Services (New)

Casé

Records

Unit

Support

Services

Unit

CIIART 33

DIRECTOR, APPEAL, CLEMENCY E PARDONS

RECOMMENDAIION /

OPTION 112

Professional DevelopmentE Pu lic Education OFfic[Heu

r

1

Case Review

Officer

Appeal

Case Manager Appeal

(New)

--^_

Case Review

Officer

Appeal

Secretary

Case Rev1eY^

Of fi cer

Appeal

Case Manager Clemency E Pardons (new)

Leiftibli, --eWTI.,—] I

CLEM NCY E PARDONS

_ . ..___Ir Sr CR (ir7B371

[ Manager Divisional Services (New)

ase---- ] I spi Services Unit

-------

Records

Unit

[Secretary]

-.ase eeview-uper.isor :lesenry E

•ardoss

Case Review Supervisor Cleoency E Pardons

I Case Manager Appeal I (Neu)

1

I Officer 1 10ffiror Appeal Appcal

Case Review Of f i cer App ea I

_

Case Review Case Review

Chairman, Appeal, Cleaency and Pardons Division

—Regular Moard Members

emporary :oar ■ il-Fthers 1

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW

1—CRAIIMAT.11

CXECIIIVC multi]

CHART 34

DIRECTOR APPEAL, CL ( MENCY E PARDONS

RECOMMENDATION #2

OPIION #3

SECRETARIAL SERVICES - - - - — - — — —

Ille 4•111 watt, lie 'gar iwat al IN» Ile 1101, IMII 11•1*

OW 4W +W OW 406 MW As1 iM 4W 8* 4W, 4"j i^ ^► ^!^` ^► ^ a^l^ a^ll^

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ORGANTZAiIONAL REVIEW

SENIOR BOARU

MEMRERS

REGULAR BOARD

MEMBERS

TEMPORARY OOARD

MEMOERS

COMMUNITY BOARD

MEMBERS I

YICE-CIIAIRMAN ^-^

CIIAIRMAN APP[AL

DIVISION

REGULAR BOARD IIEMBERS

APPEAL DIVISION

TEMPORARY BOARD MEMBERS

APPEAL DIVISION

CIIAIRMAN

Ad-inistrative

Assistant

17[Secretary

Secretartal

Services

Senior

Legal

Counsil

Legal

Counsel

CHAR 1 35

CHAIRMAN

RECOMMENDATION #

OPTION #1

Executive

Assistant

Secretary

Executiv

Director

Director

Communication

rUeputy

IChief, Media Relations

C P airs

Yriter

Public Affairs OfFicer

râ^ecf-DfFici-r1

Adn inistrativc Aseistan!^

SfNIOR ODARD

M[MOERS ^--+

R(6!lLAR 00AR0MCMBENS

ICKPORAAY BOARD

M(MRERS

COMMUNJIY OOARp ^ !M[MO[RS J

VICE CIIAIRMAX

CIIAIRMAN APP[at ---

DIVISION

REGULAR BOARD NrM BERSAPPEAL DIVISION

IlEMPOfiARY BOARD NIMBI_

WEAL DIVISION

IIA110NA1 PAR0t1 NIlARO ORGAR17A110NA1 RfVIfY

I

Ad.inistratirr

Asaistant _

^srcr.e,rY

Sprr.ial

Advisor

Accesa to lnforoatinnl Srcrrtarial

^C Privacy Officer I Srraicra

-^----_._ L; 5¢r.... .., ,

---- Il^riracY Clerl

I Atr► rrEPO Of

icer Officar

aoadancee

Corraspondance ^SecretrrY

CMAIRMAN-_^--

Senior

Legal

Counail

L,gal

Counsel

Special Case

Inguirr Dfficcr

I.I...q

CHAR T 36

CIIAIRMAN

R(COMM(NDAl10N /

OPTION 12

Eaecutire

Secretary

- ---t_ _Esecutire Dir.ctorOirector Coa.unications,

i Secratar

Falnaatra^ivr

A.rIatant

I -oputT

j,^

Cdief, aadla Rrlatian^

L PpA1ic Affaira

'--IPS- -^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ q w , ^ ^ ^ on ^ ^ -Amw

L KARAGER ASE stRvicrs]

Secretary

Executive Correspondence Officer

Correspondence Secretary

Special Case Inquiry Officer

'Access to Information it Privac Officer

I ATIP I I AT I P Officed 'Officer

tary I Linrf tar Y_I

CHART 37

CHAIRMAN

RECOMMENDATION 1/ 3

°PIMA 13

NAIIONAE PAROLE BOARD °AGM/MORAL RIMY

'

Administrative Assistant

1 U----

I Secretary

'

Secretarial Services

Senior Legal Connie

77-71. Legal C 1

Executive Secret ary l Executl Director

Secretaryl

Project Officer Clerk

SPECIAL ASSISTANT MEDIA RELATIORS z PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Special Advisor

Aommistamtvl ASSISTANT

MARAGER. PURER--; IRFORMATION PROGR

Program DevelopmetH Officer

Progran Development

Public Affairs Officer

alle lei AIM lele eigh allt gib» 41.1 II» es ati ffli ai fia ms

SENIOR BOARD [ACI n Î n i S t ra tIVC ASSISt

MEMBERS

VICE-CHAIRMAN ' — '

REGULAR BOARD

CHAIRMAN APPEAL DIVISION 1_

MEMBERS

LE_MPORARY BOARD," MEMBERS

110. MMUITITY BOARD [ ME ABERS

Privacy Clerk

REGULAR BOARD MEMBERS APPEAL DIVISION

TEMPORARY BOARD MEMBERS APPEAL DIVISION

RAIIOYAI PAn0i1- ROARU ORf.AN1lA110NAL RfYIEN

:.SfNiOR OLIARII

LNfM0ER5

IfNP08ART BOARD

MfN0ER5 ^

n1idlR_1SINÀf1V_E it^5Î51ANT

^ . _ - - ... . _ _ _. ..

RCGULAR BOARD

ME NRCRS

At ERS

CGNNUNIIY OOARD

j-

^__YICE CIlA1RNAN___

CIIAIRNAN APPfAI

DIVISION

REGULAR BOARD prKIIERSAPPEAL DIVISION

IEMPORARY BOARD M

APPEAL DIVISION

--._-1

^ L'l1AIRNAN^

---1_ ..

Adoinsstrativs

Assistant

SecretarY

----_-^pccial

A^Ivisor_Senior

Leqal

Counai!

Accesa to Inforaatio Sretar e

ft PrivacY Officer Se

ec

nicea

:SItinTTART- _ _ _^-^- PrivarY Clerk

AfIP j Af1P

Officer Office.

Erecutive

Correspondente

Officer

Correspendance

Secretary

special Casa

Inyuirl Officer

- J

I ,ILERK

la^Cowasl

Oirector, Public lnforoatioaProgren^.C Media Relations

Clsrk

Radia Relatlcnd

Officer I

Proyru

tloeelopeent

Oflicer

CIIART 30

CNAIRMAN

RECONMENDAIIONH3

OP 110% 006

Eaecutir•

Sec etarYrEsecutire

Director

Socretar

Adeinie ratira

Aaaistant

Pro9rao

Deeelopoont

Officer

Project

Offlcar

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No im low A"M a& Ong ow Am 404

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ON ^ ^ ^ M SW

NAIIMAL IllOLE ta0M0 OKMItAtIpNAt t(rIFN

AA^iniytr,ttjvr A^,-i;ltSENIOR BOARD an

MEMDERSL^-----

REGULAR ROAR6----l

MFMOERS

rTFMPORARY 80ARD

OMMUN I TY BOARDl MP 7 f

CE 01A11-Al

^ CIIAIRMAM APP[AI

DIVISION

REGULAR BOARD MEMBERS

APPEAL DIVISION

TEMPORARY BOARD MFMO(RS

APPEAL DIVISION

CNA IRSM

SpecialAiivisor

Access to Inforsatia

C Privacy Officer

A/einistrativr

Assis anl

Secretarl

CHAR 1 .39

CNA i NllAt

ItrCONNENDATION /!3

OPTION /j5

Senior Exocutive ivLe4a1 SecreterY er

^Çeaneiri

fecrstu e Leyalservices CeW*sel

SELRETAR

Olreet.br, ►sile Isfor^atieePro uf$i tisdia feletien•

Clsrt

bdie N4Istlow^{officer I

sroqr=

Oevelor«rt

officer

Proqrae

DaveloPeeat

Officer

Lecreta

Adainlsirative

Assistant

Project

Officer

LIBRARY SOLICITOR GÉNERAL CANADA

OCT I 1993

Ug!.

orrAw.à.

KiA 0P8

LI

LII

r1

C

DATE DUE

JL National Parole Board103 organizational.P3 review final report.N351986

'4C

IGI

IIIIIIIIIIII

1l