EVALUATION DOCUMENT
MEASURES TO COMBAT ORGANIZED CRIME
Mid-Term Evaluation
Summary, Recommendations and Management Response
February 2004
- 6. RECOMMENDATIONS
- 6.1 Design and delivery: implementation and resources
- 6.2 Performance Measurement
- 6.3 Management of the Initiative
- 6.4 Training and increased stakeholder knowledge of Bill C-24
- 6.5 Partnerships
- 6.6 Other Policies and Legislation
Previous Page | Table of Contents
6.1 Design and Delivery: Implementation and Resources
While Initiative activities are not fully implemented as they were originally designed, progress is being made toward achieving the Initiative objectives. Within the FPS, activities have been undertaken in the areas of pre-charge advice and assistance, disclosure management, prosecution, and international assistance. However, to meet operational demands and the evolving nature of organized crime prosecutions, the IFPS requires flexibility to allow for the reallocation of resources within the Strategy and some FPS directors reported being unable to dedicate prosecutors to one task (e.g., pre-charge advice or disclosure management) or to the prosecution of one type of file (e.g., organized crime prosecution teams). They stated that increased and stable funding would assist them in implementing their activities under the Initiative.
The departmental hiring freeze in 2002/2003 has also affected the Initiative; some offices had unfilled Initiative-funded positions when the freeze took effect. Since regions do not have sufficient prosecutors, new hires become fully occupied with ongoing prosecutions and have limited time for pre-charge advice. However, key informants do not attribute the need for more staff (prosecutors and paralegals) solely to the most recent FPS fiscal situation.
Recommendation 1: FPS review and make any necessary adjustments to the implementation of the IFPS and current resource mix to ensure the objectives of the Initiative are being achieved in the most efficient manner.
Management Response
The FPS has been re-evaluating its implementation of the IFPS, and a discussion paper on this subject was recently circulated to regional FPS Directors for consideration and comment. As well, the MCOC Initiative should not be viewed in isolation from other closely related initiatives, such as the Integrated Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Smuggling initiatives, nor from the need to re-evaluate the mandate and priorities of the FPS generally in light of available resources.
Over the next fiscal year, FPS, in consultation with regional FPS Directors, will be conducting a comprehensive review of its priorities and available resources. FPS will make the necessary adjustments to its allocation and mix of resources to respond most effectively to the various demands upon it, including the IFPS, to ensure that the objectives of the IFPS are met.
6.2.1 Financial Information
Demonstrating the need for additional Initiative funding is difficult due to the limited nature of financial data available. In particular, since the use of Initiative funds is not tracked by activity, it is difficult to attribute specific activities directly to the Initiative. This is a limitation of how information is currently being captured in the financial management system used by the Department.
In addition, the FPS receives funding under several initiatives, many of which have activities that overlap with the MCOC Initiative. Without the ability to segregate activities funded by each initiative, assessing prosecution results becomes difficult and can only result in estimates.
Recommendation 2: FPS and CLPS meet with Corporate Services to examine the financial management system currently being used by the Department with a view to developing short term and long term strategies for identifying resources by activity as identified in the RMAF.
FPS Management Response
As noted above, the MCOC Initiative should not be viewed in isolation from other related initiatives nor from the activities and mandate of the FPS generally. FPS is aware of the need to develop better mechanisms for tracking our activities and expenditure of resources in all areas of our work, and has been working with Regional FPS Directors and financial administrators towards that goal. As recognized in the Evaluation Report, the tracking of resources by initiative or by activity related to that initiative is a major challenge for the FPS, as our work does not fall neatly into categories which correspond with identified initiatives. For instance, a particular prosecution may contain elements of drugs, proceeds of crime, organized crime, anti-smuggling and tax fraud. Furthermore, our resources are primarily tied up in the employment of prosecutors and other personnel. While the Salary Management System records the nominal source of funding for individual positions, FPS managers must assign cases on the basis of their subject matter and complexity, and on the basis of the expertise and availability of personnel at a given time, rather than on the theoretical source of their funding. Similarly, the need to maintain flexibility to respond to shifting demands makes it difficult and often counter-productive to dedicate personnel full-time to particular activities. Hence, financial management systems do not easily give a fair picture of the actual work being conducted, and are likely not the best tool to track IFPS resources and FPS implementation of the initiative.
Caseview/iCase is the key tool being looked at to provide the information required to account for the implementation of the initiative. The Executive Services Office of the FPS has formed a committee, which includes regional FPS Directors to examine information reporting requirements. The objective of this committee is to identify the core information, including resources, which FPS requires both regionally and nationally to manage its priorities and to account across initiatives, and to ensure that information is being captured in Caseview/iCase or through some other method. This will include ensuring that files are tracked to initiatives and developing a methodology for reporting on files or activities, which cross initiatives. The committee is expected to produce recommendations in the near future.
While recognizing the inherent difficulties outlined above, FPS agrees with the recommendation and will meet with Corporate Services to examine the financial management system and to develop strategies to better achieve the initiative goals.
CLPS Management Response
The activities identified under the MCOC Initiative for which CLPS has primary responsibility for either carrying out directly or for commissioning fall under Component I of the Results Based Management Accountability Framework. This Component responds to the need for appropriate legislative tools to address organized crime, training and education on the use of those tools, and information on the nature, scope and impact of organized crime. The activities identified in the MCOC Initiative include legislation and policy development; research, evaluation and coordination; and training and education that are related to the implementation of Bill C-24 and other legislative initiative pursued in regard to organized crime, particularly those identified as part of the National Agenda to Combat Organized Crime process.
Since the inception of the MCOC Initiative, CLPS has undertaken extensive policy development on organized crime issues and carried out large-scale and broad-based legislative training on Bill C-24, as mandated under the Initiative, and has commissioned the necessary research and evaluation activities. As a result of the varying nature of this work, earmarking Initiative resources to specific activities is a challenge. In particular, it would be impossible to break down the salary dollars devoted to specific activities on anything more than a general approximation basis, as CLPS does not have need for a time-keeping system. However, when possible, management does support the overall objective of developing short and long-term strategies for identifying resources by activity.
As a first step toward this effort, CLPS will meet with Corporate Services to discuss the viability of attributing resources under the categories of specific activities identified in the MCOC Initiative.
6.2.2 Performance Information
There is also limited performance data for the Initiative and in particular the IFPS. The FPS has only recently begun to identify organized crime files in its electronic file management system. In addition, regional offices do not have a standard method for assigning file numbers: some offices assign a different file to each accused; others have files for each information and indictment; and some create separate files for the overall police operation. This complicates large-scale studies of the nature and volume of organized crime because the unit of measure – the file – is not consistent.
There is a cost to keeping information, and FPS regions need guidance on what type of information they are required to keep and standards to ensure its reliability and validity. If it is to be used to monitor organized crime prosecutions and evaluate initiatives, FPS needs directions from a central authority on how to manage the information. As well, the amount of information required must be realistic and not very burdensome.
Recommendation 3: FPS work with the Research and Statistics Division, Information Management Branch and the Evaluation Division to develop standardized systems for on going performance monitoring of activities funded under the IFPS, develop protocols to access data for performance management and research to support the Initiative, and continue to identify organized crime files in Caseview and iCase.
Management Response
As noted above, the MCOC Initiative should not be viewed in isolation from other related initiatives nor from the activities and mandate of the FPS generally. Furthermore, the tracking of resources by initiative or by activity related to that initiative is a major challenge for the FPS, as our work does not fall neatly into categories which correspond with identified initiatives. While recognizing these challenges, the FPS is committed to finding better mechanisms for tracking our activities and expenditure of resources in all areas of our work, and has been working with Regional FPS Directors and others towards that goal.
FPS will work to determine the core information, which needs to be gathered and to develop a standardized system of reporting on a regular basis on the various activities of the FPS, including the IFPS. Caseview/iCase is the key tool being looked at to provide the information required to account for the implementation of the initiative. The Executive Services Office of the FPS has formed a committee, which includes regional FPS Directors to examine information reporting requirements. The objective of this committee is to identify the core information which FPS requires both regionally and nationally to manage its priorities and to account across initiatives, and to ensure that information is being captured in Caseview/iCase or through some other method. This will include ensuring that files are tracked to initiatives, and to develop a methodology for reporting on files or activities, which cross initiatives. The committee is expected to produce recommendations in the near future.
About half of the FPS prosecutors and paralegals interviewed were unaware of the Initiative and/or the IFPS. They could not provide information about what activities had been undertaken under the Initiative or about the management of the Initiative in their office. Some FPS directors also indicated that they knew little about activities at DOJ headquarters. Although, this limited awareness does not necessarily reflect that Initiative and IFPS activities are not being pursued in FPS regional offices, it does limit information that can be provided by the regions on implementation as well as outcomes.
Recommendation 4: FPS and CLPS work together to implement an internal communication strategy and identify a coordinator with a view to ensuring that counsel and support staff are informed of Initiative policies, performance management and research activities.
Management Response
Despite some difficulty in front line prosecutors specifically identifying the elements of the Measures to Combat Organized Crime Initiative, it was clear from the findings of this summary evaluation report that these same prosecutors are actively participating in its implementation.
Management acknowledges that maximizing participant awareness of MCOC initiative elements would allow for more accurate and timely reporting of prosecution activity for evaluation purposes, a uniformity of approach in the management of organized crime files, and an increased capacity for prosecutors participation in legislative consultation. To this end, management will take steps, in conjunction with regional FPS Directors, to ensure that FPS personnel are better informed of the key elements of the initiative, the resources attached to it, and the need to account for the implementation and management of initiative activities.
Therefore, CLPS and FPS will meet in order to identify a MCOC Initiative coordinator. This individual will be in regular contact with FPS Regional Directors, be apprised of ongoing activities and recent developments under the MCOC initiative and act as a central source of information for crown prosecutors and support staff.
In addition to identifying a coordinator, CLPS and FPS will explore the lines of communication currently in place for disseminating MCOC Initiative information to front line prosecutors and support staff, with a view to modification or enhancement if such is found to be required.
6.4 Training and Increased Stakeholder Knowledge of Bill C-24
DOJ has provided extensive training on Bill C-24 to prosecutors and law enforcement officers. Earlier studies and the evaluation found that this training has increased stakeholder knowledge of the legislation, which is one of the objectives of the Initiative. For most training sessions on the law enforcement justification, a training evaluation form was provided to and completed by participants. This allowed the gathering of valuable information with respect to the training, including information that assisted in consideration of how the sessions could be refined as further training was performed.
In order to assess the continued effectiveness of the Bill C-24 training and to consider ways to constantly adapt and improve training, there is a continued need to collect training evaluation information, and to make this collection systematic. Information should also be collected at each session on when and where the training took place, number and type of participants, who delivered the training and the type of materials used. Collecting this information on an on-going basis would reduce the need to conduct additional studies, which can be costly and increase respondent burden unnecessarily.
Recommendation 5: CLPS, in consultation with FPS, maintain on-going training capacity, continue to provide Bill C-24 legislative training when the need has been identified, collect on a systematic basis relevant descriptive data about the sessions, including evaluations provided by trainees and basic data on the nature of the training itself.
Management Response
As the MCOC Mid-Term Evaluation Report indicates, approximately 1,742 individuals received training on C-24. According to informant interviews, the training was well received; participants found it to be relevant to their jobs and thought it helped them understand the legislative provisions.
The training provided under C-24 has been, and continues to be, a demonstrated success. Management agrees that this activity under the MCOC initiative is a significant factor in contributing to achieving the immediate outcomes identified in the RMAF (increased knowledge and understanding of organized crime issues and tools, ultimately leading to effective investigations and prosecutions of criminal organizations). To this end, management agrees that when an appropriate need has been identified, legislative training will be made available.
In conjunction with CLPS and FPS continuing their training functions, management agrees that training information should continue to be collected and that this should be done on a systematic basis. To this end, CLPS and FPS will continue to use a short trainee evaluation feedback form to be distributed following C-24 training sessions and will also ensure that other basic training data is collected for these sessions. This participant feedback will allow for a timely, accurate and cost effective assessment of C-24 training activities.
It should be noted that as the work on the MCOC continues, it is expected that training needs will evolve and so too must the appropriate training response. For example, the law enforcement justification training of RCMP officers and others that was offered intensively across the country in 2002 and 2003 was a response to an immediate need for the designation of sufficient number of officers to meet law enforcement operational needs. Some supplementary training is still occurring in this regard – especially as other departments with enforcement officers now engage our assistance in training. However, it is expected that in the future, the law enforcement justification training may evolve to be offered in conjunction with regular training for enforcement officers, such as part of the established general training for new undercover officers. The roles of those involved with training, and the training itself, must adapt to meet changing demands.
It should also be noted that the FPS, in partnership with CLPS, has devoted substantial time and energy to the development and delivery of training programs for prosecutors and police, and furthermore that the majority of people trained at the June 2002 session for the purpose of delivering further training regionally were FPS personnel. Given the operational nature of such training, FPS plays a crucial role in its development and delivery. The substantial nature of the ongoing FPS training role, and FPS resources for such training, was not adequately considered in the development of the MCOC. In view of the need for FPS to re-evaluate its key priorities in light of available resources, the issue of adequate FPS training funding must be addressed. In particular, future legislative initiatives should ensure that the key role of FPS in delivering operational training, and the attendant resource implications, are adequately considered.
Although it appears that more regular contact between DOJ and the RCMP during organized crime prosecutions has reduced territoriality and increased openness, it is uncertain whether these changes can be attributed to the Initiative.
Overall, DOJ officials believe that the horizontal partnerships with Initiative partners have been effective. They emphasized the importance of sharing front-line knowledge. However, some officials commented that DOJ is not as well integrated with the RCMP as it would like to be. While the understanding of each department’s culture has increased, implementation of the Initiative is seen as lagging, particularly in disclosure management. According to these DOJ officials, barriers exist at the front-line.
Recommendation 6: DOJ continue to work with the partner departments and agencies to ensure that the Initiative objectives are achieved and in particular with the RCMP in the area of disclosure management.
FPS Management Response
FPS has been working on enhancing partnerships with various enforcement agencies, in particular the RCMP. Increasingly, regional FPS managers are participating in joint management teams or similar bodies to coordinate joint planning on major investigations, and FPS personnel have been assigned to work with various investigative agencies, such as the Organized Crime Agency in British Columbia, with the Toronto Police Service. The FPS now participates in the International Joint Management Team for the Integrated Border Enforcement program.
FPS has also been working with Federal-Provincial-Territorial (F/P/T) partners on a number of key issues. The National Coordinating Committee on Organized Crime (NCC), led by the Office of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, plays a coordinating role across agencies and jurisdictions on operational issues relating to organized crime. Both FPS and CLPS participate in the NCC, along with federal enforcement agencies, provincial and municipal police forces, federal and provincial correctional services, provincial prosecution services, and provincial Solicitors General. Among other issues, the NCC examines proposals for legislative change, enforcement and prosecution issues, research and policy-setting priorities, etc.
In addition, under the F/P/T Heads of Prosecutions Committee,, a Mega-case Working Group has held numerous meetings to develop approaches and best practices for the management of mega-cases, including a three day working session in the spring of 2003. Their recommendations were the subject of review by the Heads of Prosecutions at a one day session in November, 2003, culminating in the development of a series of recommendations on mega-cases for the consideration of the Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies. The FPS plays an active role in the National Coordinating Committee on Organized Crime and its various working groups, such as the Working Group on Marihuana Cultivation which produced and disseminated a number of recommendations for addressing the proliferation of marihuana grow operations, and the Street Gangs Working Group which is working on definitions and recommendations for policy development. The FPS is a key player in the Cross Border Crime Forum and its various working groups, such as a Firearms Trafficking Strategy Working Group and a Cross-Border Enforcement Working Group.
FPS will continue to work in partnership with other concerned agencies on the development and implementation of protocols and inter-agency memoranda of understanding (MOU), concerning issues such as management and best practices for disclosure and major cases. FPS and the RCMP are currently in the process of updating an existing MOU to develop protocols on disclosure and major case management. They are also reactivating a Joint Headquarters Committee, which will oversee the work of a number of joint Working Groups on high profile issues such as wiretap, disclosure and mega-case management.
CLPS Management Response
Currently, CLPS is involved in numerous partnerships aimed at ensuring initiative objectives are achieved and initiative partners are consulted.
As indicated in the FPS management response, CLPS is an active member of the National Coordinating Committee on Organized Crime which plays a coordinating role across agencies and jurisdictions on operational issues relating to organized crime.
CLPS is also a member of the FPT Working Group on Organized Crime Research and Analysis. Established by the National Coordinating Committee on Organized Crime, this working group is committed to data collection and research, and to this end frequently consults and undertakes specific research initiatives. In addition, CLPS plays an active consultative role as a member of the FPT Working Group on Organized Crime Priority Setting and the MCOC Evaluation Committee. As part of an overarching national structure, CLPS participates with FPT partners in ongoing activities under the National Agenda Against Organized Crime. All of these formal partnerships provided a structured and frequently utilized setting for partner consultation. It should be noted that these formal ongoing relationships are complimented by the extensive informal interdepartmental partnerships that develop as a result of consultation on organized policy development.
Therefore, management agrees that these partnerships should be maintained, and that CLPS continue to actively participate on the various FPT Working Groups for which it is currently a member, all with a view to sharing key front line knowledge .
While several DOJ officials at headquarters were involved in developing the Initiative, many of the FPS key informants felt that this evaluation was their first opportunity to provide input into the development of policy and legislation to assist with the investigation and prosecution of organized crime.
Recommendation 7: CLPS and the FPS continue to consult internally, including continuing efforts by FPS to consult with regional offices regarding policies and legislation that would assist in the investigation and prosecution of organized crime cases.
FPS Management Response
CLPS and FPS conducted extensive consultations with Regional Offices during the development of Bill C-24. Consultations with the Regions are continuing on an extensive basis into the development of policies and best practices regarding such issues as disclosure, wiretap policies and major case management. FPS continues to provide input to CLPS and other interested bodies, including input from regional prosecutors, on the development of policy and legislation for the investigation and prosecution of Organized Crime cases. FPS will ensure that counsel are kept informed of opportunities for input on these and other issues.
As an example of the above, FPS regional prosecutors have recently participated in a consultative session on the possible development of reforms to the law surrounding disclosure in criminal cases. This initiative was largely a response to difficulties encountered in managing disclosure obligations in the context of large, complex prosecutions. Along with others in the legal community, representatives of a number of regional FPS offices attended Ottawa for a one day pre-consultation on the development of draft amendments. This session was organized by CLPS with the assistance of FPS Headquarters.
CLPS Management Response
CLPS agrees that the Federal Prosecution Service adds valuable information and experience to the development of organized crime policy and legislation. That is why traditionally, FPS has played a significant role in policy development and legislative consultation. As a result of their internal reporting structure and frequency of contact with regional offices, FPS headquarters is in the paramount position for gathering and representing the views of regional prosecutors in consultation activities undertaken by CLPS.
Previous Page | Table of Contents
|
