ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content Contenu archivé

Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

1S-0 6 1 the Crown. R(11 Copyright of this document does not belong to author for — the must be obtained fro m ROM' authorization 19s1 any intended use. present document n' appartiennent Les droits d'auteur du du contenu du present pas à l'État. Toute utilisation enlellt peauteur. document do 1 1

1 PROJECT 2-3284

JULY 1981

1 review of the Sentence Calculation Process and an Opinion Regarding the Feasibility of Automating the Process )

Correctional Services Canada

LIBRARY SOLIGITOR GENERAL CANADA

u UN HV JOIN 23 1995 9506 R49 PIDLIOTW:OUE SOLLICITEUR OfflIAL CANADA 1981 OTTAWA (OWAR1O) KiA aP8 D.). DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction On May 1, 1981, Mr. Duncan of D. J. Duncan & Associates Limited was instructed to undertake a seven point program to study the feasibility of automating the sentence calculation process. The study has now been . completed and the conclu- sions and recommendations are contained in the report which follows. Nature of the Study The sentence administration process was reviewed with Mr. P. Carey. The process was then examined from the courts, through the pronouncement of sentence transcribed by the Clerk of the Court, to the Penitentiary Placement Officer down to the Sentence Administrator at the institutions. We were also fortunate in being able to interview individuals indirectly concerned with sentence administration, such as Correctional Services Legal Advisors, senior officers from the Ministry of Solicitor General, and the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Organization of Report The terms of reference for this study requested that we specifically examine four main areas and therefore the first four sections of the report will be devoted to our analysis of these four topics. 1. Standardization of warrant procedures 2. The legislation and Acts that impinge on Sentence Administration 3. The sentence calculation procedure 4. The options to automate or to establish a uniform Sentence Administration system During the course of our study we encountered several other groups whose work, both directly and indirectly, could have a significant bearing upon an automated sentence adminis- tration system. We have therefore devoted a section to their activities. In the concluding section, we have summarized our opinion_ and set out our recommendations. We have also recommended further analysis to confirm the system scope, objectives, and user needs as well as to confirm the development and implementation costs for the automated sentence administra- tion system. D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- ii -

Opinion The principal objective of this study was to evaluate the present manual sentence calculation function and to express an opinion regarding the feasibility of the automation of this process. It is certainly feasible and desirable to automate the sentence calculation process. We do not, however, recommend automation of the sentence calculation process alone. We recommend the building of a comprehensive sentence administration system, and that "sentence calculation" would simply be one part of the system. Of equal importance, we recommend that warrant interpretation and sentence calculation should be performed early in the sentence administration cycle, and close to the court and judge responsible for the verdict. Sentence calculation is a simple arithmetic calculation. The difficult part of the sentence calculation process is the interpretation of the Warrant(s) of Committal and any complications to this interprétation from the prisoner's -prior criminal record. We consider warrant interpretation to be more of a legal function than an administrative function; that warrant(s) should be clearly interpreted and the sentence calculated before the prisoner leaves Provincial custody. Analysis of the sentance administration process in two institutions in different regions and the court house in Ottawa revealed that the manual procedures and supporting forms and paperwork vary considerably with each region, and probably with each institution. We concluded that there was not a uniform manual sentence administration process. Options to Automate or to Establish a Uniform Manual Sentence Administration System Our principal recommendation is to build an automated sentence administration system which would include a sentence calculation routine, and to initiate this system at the Clerk of the Court phase. We are well satisfied with the logic of our recommendation. We do appreciate however, that we have presented a substantial and novel change to present practice, as well as proposed an extensive computer controlled network to service the 800 to 1,000 Provincial court houses in Canada. D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- iii -

We have therefore presented a second less extensive computer option as well as a third option recommending an improvement and standardization of the present sentence administration procedures. Recommendations Option I Initiate an automated sentence administration system with the staff of the Clerk of the Court. Support the system with a Word Processor or intelligent terminal device in each court house which could type Warrants of Committal, calculate sentences, and have a communication link to a central computer with complete inmate history records. Option II Initiate an automated sentence administration system and calculate sentences, at the Penitentiary Placement phase. Support the system with a Word Processor or intelligent terminal device in each of the fifty-two (52) Parole (Reporting) Offices. Each field unit would have a communication link to a central computer with complete inmate history records. Option III Improve the manual sentence administration procedures through the establishment of a uniform manual system with a reduction and standardization of forms.

D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- iv -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS iv I INTRODUCTION 1 A. Background 1 B. Objective 1 C. Methodology 1

II ANALYSIS 3 A. Standardization of Warrant Procedures 3 B. The Legislation and Acts that Impinge on Sentence Administration 5 C. The Sentence Calculation Procedure 7 D. Options to Automate or to Establish a Uniform Manual Sentence Administration System 8 Option I - System Initiation at the Clerk of the Court Phase 8 Option II - System Initiation at the Penitentiary Placement Phase 10 Option III - Establish a Uniform Manual Sentence Administration System 12 E. Other Programs Under Way that can Affect the Sentence Administration System 13 1. New Legislation Initiated by the Ministry of Solicitor General which Includes a Redesign of "Form 18" 13 2. The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics 14 3. Rationalization of the Sixty Reports Outlined in the CSC Case Book by Messrs. McVie and Hyme 14 4. Expansion of the O.I.S. Terminal Network from Ten to Eighteen Installations by Spring, 1982 15 5. Apocalypse Enterprises Inc. Automated Sentence Calculation Computer Package 15 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- v -

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.)

Page

III CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 A. Future Action 18 1. Workplan to Confirm System Scope 18 2. Workplan to Confirm Financial Data - Cost and Benefits 20 B. Summary of Findings and Opinion 21 I D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- vi -

LIST OF APPENDICES

1. Significant Statistics 2. The O.I.S. Organization, Equipment, and Major Files 3. Sentence Administration Staff by Region 4. Approximate Sentence Administration Staff Costs 5. Estimated Manual Sentence Calculation Cost I Analysis 6. Significant Acts and Legislation Affecting Criminal Sentencing t 7. Effective Dates of Legal Rulings and Amendments to the Acts that Affect Sentence Interpretation

I 8. A Standard Automated System Development Cycle Methodology I 9. Sentence Administration System Development Estimates. Development Costs for Field Units and Central Computer System. I 10. Block Diagram of Inmate Movement and Supporting Document Flow I 11. Block Diagram - Automation of the Sentence Calculation Function at the Clerk of the Court Phase

I I

I I

I

I t D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- vii -

LIST OF EXHIBITS

1. Automated Sentence Calculation by Alan G. Law of Apocalypse Enterprises Inc. 2. Correspondence from Mr. Allan S. Manson in reply to Mr. P. Carey 3. Draft of "Form 18" submitted with new legislation by the Ministry of Solicitor General 4. Sample sentence documents from the Ottawa Supreme Court 5. Excerpts from the "Report to Parliament - the Sub-Committee on the Penitentiary System in Canada", page 96 - Recommendation 35 6. Sentence Administration Person-year Requirements - by Mr. W.A.J. Atack - January 14, 1980 7. Computation of a Sentence - Sample Problem by the Ministry of Solicitor General 8. Ontario Region - Millhaven Institute - Inmate Admission Forms 9. Ontario Region - Millhaven Institute - Miscellaneous Inmate Transfer Forms 10. Ontario Region - Millhaven Institute - Inmate Release Forms 11. Québec Region - Québec Regional Reception Centre - Inmate Admission Forms 12. Québec Region - Québec Regional Reception Centre - Inmate Transfer Forms 13. Québec Region - Québec Regional Reception Centre - Inmate Escape Forms 14. Québec Region - Québec Regional Reception Center - Inmate Release Forms 15. Volume 1 and Volume 2 - Report of the Implementation Work • Group on Justice Statistics towards the Establishment of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- viii -

LIST OF EXHIBITS (cont'd.)

16. Justice Information Report - Correctional Services in Canada 1978/79, 1979/80 17. Wangwriter Model 5503 Word Processing System Literature 18. AES PLUS Word Processing System Literature D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

I INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND • Sentence calculations are performed manually for each prisoner by the Sentence Administrators from fifteen (15) to forty-five (45) days after the sentence(s) has been imposed by the courts. The accurate calculation of a sentence is critical because it determines the length of time an inmate is incarcerated. The length of sentence is also necessary to determine when a prisoner is eligible for parole and the calculation of an earned remission date. Errors, delays, and misunderstandings in sentence calculation have many serious side-effects, the most significant are: 1. Prisoner morale 2. Subsequent litigation to resolve the length of a sentence 3. Prison inmate facilities and movement costs A constant audit of all sentence calculations by very experienced Regional Sentence Administrators eventually uncovers virtually all the sentence calculation errors. Nevertheless, the critical and sensitive nature of this process is such that we have been commissioned to undertake a review of the sentence administration process and assess the feasibility of improving or automating the routine. B. OBJECTIVE The objective of the assignment was to conduct a preliminary review of the existing sentence calculation procedures and to explore and cost options for the consideration of senior management to automate the sentence calculation process. C. METHODOLOGY Mr. Pat Carey was assigned to assist us on a full-time basis. We spent seven (7) days with Mr. Carey and in that time secured a good overview of: - The Correctional Service organization - The duties, functions and responsibilities of the Sentence Administrator - The major forms used in the Sentence Administrative system - The sentence calculation process

./2 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 2 -

The sentence administration process and supporting paperwork was then followed from the examination of the preparation of the Warrant(s) of Committal by the Clerk of the Court in Ottawa, to witnessing Sentencing Administrators in two (2) H I institutions complete the cycle of inmate admission. During the course of this study, we encountered several other study and implementation groups whose work could have an effect upon a revised sentence administration system. Section II-E of our report describes in some detail their efforts.

1

I D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

II ANALYSIS

A. STANDARDIZATION OF WARRANT PROCEDURES The preparation of the Warrant of Committal is a Provincial task. According to the Criminal Code a Warrant of Committal is specified as "Form 18". We have been advised, however, that although "Form 18" is specified by the Criminal Code of Canada (C.C.C.), it is not mandatory that the Provincial Courts use this form. Over the years, therefore, each Province, and indeed many courts, have amended and revised the Warrant of Committal to their own peculiar specifications. Three years ago, Mr. H. Needham working with Mr. H. Wakabayashi (Ministry of Solicitor General) redesigned "Form 18" and submitted this new design together with other legislation. Mr. Wakabayashi expects the legislation to be examined by Cabinet by late summer and with good fortune, this legislative package, together with the amended "Form 18" could pass parliament by spring of 1982. (See Exhibit 3 - Draft of "Form 18".) The new form will make a great improvement. If each court in future would prepare all warrants as specified, it will indeed become, in our opinion, the most important step towards a standardization of warrant procedures, and become a great help to warrant interpretation. The Warrant of Committal is the key to a smooth and efficient sentence calculation procedure. In many instances, the Sentence Administrator receives a warrant that is unclear or ambiguous and consequently the interpretation of the warrant becomes a very subjective exercise. The successful automa- tion of the sentence calculation function depends largely upon an objective and logically quantifiable interpretation of the Warrant of Committal. We recommend that warrant interpretation and the sentence calculation function should be done by the Clerk of the Court staff at the court house. We also recommend that warrant interpretation and subsequent sentence calculations should not be treated as a stand alone function, but should become the front end of a comprehensive sentence administration system. The calculation of a sentence is very simple mathematically. The degree of difficulty, or confusion, comes from the interpretation of the warrant plus complications from any prior or pending convictions with the prisoner. • • •/4 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

■•■■ 4 ■•••

Warrant interpretation could, and in our opinion, should be solved at the court house and the prisoner should almost immediately be informed of the length of sentence. The clerical staff of the Clerk of the Court would be provided with a small terminal with logic capability to perform the sentence calculation and type the Warrant of Committal. This device would need a teleprocessing connection to a central computer containing inmate history files. We are in agreement with Recommendation 35 of the Parliamentary Sub-Committee which recommends a simplification of sentence calculation and early advice to the prisoner. (See Exhibit 5 - Recommendation 35). The redesign and implementation of a standard Warrant of Committal plus the interpretation and sentence calculation within the courts would provide the following advantages: 1. A Warrant designed to encourage the Clerk of the Court to indicate sentencing sequence, to indicate which sentences are concurrent or consecutive, and to what specific sentence each subsequent sentence is consecutive or concurrent. A redesigned standard Warrant of Committal is critical in the efficient and accurate interpretation and calculation of a prisoner's sentence. 2. Warrant interpretation and each sentence quantified in days as close as possible to the source (sentencing Judge). 3. The logic capabilities of the terminal or word processing system would assist in sentence and warrant preparation and calculate the single term sentence. We recommend that this unit would also have the capability to interrogate and update a central inmate computer file. 4. The teleprocessing facilities of the terminal could extract historical inmate sentence data from a central file. 5. The total sentence could be reviewed by the sentencing judge within days. 6. The prisoner could also be advised of his total sentence within days of his trial, certainly within the thirty-day (30) appeal period. 7. Sentencing documentation could precede (and should precede) the prisoner to the Federal Institution. 5 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

■•■ 5

8. Ambiguous and difficult sentencing problems could be detected close to the legal source and hopefully solved by professional legal opinion, instead of placing this burden upon the non-professional Sentence Administrator. NOTE: Non-professional in the legal sense. It is significant to state here that during our sessions with the Legal Advisory Group, we were impressed with the genuine respect they held for the knowledge and experience of the senior Sentence Administrator. 9. The early and accurate capture of personal identification data for each prisoner could be used to print heading information for the many forms used in the institution, as well as the Sentence Administration System. We have been advised, however, that the installation of a system such as we have described above would be politically infeasible because: à) The Provinces probably would not cooperate and, even if Provincial approval was obtained, b) The Judges might object to the procedural change and automation of their routine. Although we have been advised that this starting point for a Sentence Administration System is not feasible politically, we believe that this is the logical starting point. We recommend that the advantages of this option should be further pursued by senior Federal executives with their Provincial counterparts. B. THE LEGISLATION AND ACTS THAT IMPINGE ON SENTENCE ADMINISTRATION

At least eighteen (18) Acts can be referenced in the sentencing of an individual to a Federal Institution (Appendix 6). The most difficult and interesting task of a Sentence Administrator is often the interpretation of the Warrant of Committal. To successfully perform this task, the Sentence Administrator should be thoroughly familiar with at least four (4) of the Acts: 1. Canadian Criminal Code 2. Parole Act and Mandatory Supervision 3. Penitentiary Act 4. Prison and Reform Act.

./6 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

6

There have been six (6) major amendments to these Acts since 1962, as well as eight (8) significant rulings with which the Sentence Administrator must be familiar. (Appendix 6) In short, there is a massive amount of legislation which, theoretically, the Sentence Administrator should be knowledgeable. Our observation is that the amount of legislation is so vast that even the legal professionals, i.e. lawyers and judges, are not familiar with all aspects, but specialize in specific segments of criminal, civil, or commercial law. It is also noted that the legislation that can affect the criminal judicial system has not been carefully planned and co-ordinated. Apparently, there are many inconsistencies and even contradictions between Acts such as the Criminal Code and the Parole Act (Exhibit 2). It should not be the Sentence Administrator's task to resolve these differences. These differences can (and should) only be resolved by further litigation and subsequent judicial opinion in the form of a ruling from a court of law. Therefore, we do not recommend that the Sentence Administra- tor endeavour to become more expert in the interpretation of the warrants. We should not expect a CR-5 or AS-1 to debate fine points of law with the professional, particularly when in many cases the 'professionals cannot agree without bringing in the third party - a Judge, and a subsequent ruling from a new trial in a court of law. The Sentence Administrator receives almost no formal training. The Sentence Administrator's training program is an "on the job" apprentice type of learning process. We do not mean to discourage the Sentence Administrator from gaining further knowledge of the Acts - in fact we would strongly recommend a formal training program for the Sentence Administrator, and a portion of this training should be devoted to Criminal Legislation. We do recommend, however, that interpretation of the warrant should not be a Sentence Administrator function. Warrant interpretation should be done at the Clerk of the Court phase or the Penitentiary Placement phase, in keeping with our phi- losophy that the warrant should be interpreted and quanti- fied, as close, and as soon as possible to the origination source. If the warrant is unclear or ambiguous, it should be forwarded directly to the responsible Clerk of the Court, the Judge, or to Legal Services for interpretation. This should not be a Sentence Administration problem.

.../7 I D.). DUNCAN & ASSOCIATÈS LTD.

7 -

In summary, we recognize and agree that a good knowledge and understanding of the Acts are essential for accurate warrant interpretaion. Our recommendation, however, is that the warrant should be interpreted and the sentence calculated prior to the prisoner's arrival at the Federal Institution. All the training in the world will not make a CR-5 a competent lawyer, or recognized by the profession, without formal training in a recognized law school. C. THE SENTENCE CALCULATION PROCEDURE The sentence calculation procedure is presently a manual function that varies in degree of difficulty with both the interpretation of the warrant and the prison or prior criminal record of the inmate. This combination can complicate the calculation of a sentence. Sentence calculation can be roughly divided into two phases: 1. Warrant interpretation and calculation of the single term sentence in days. 2. Calculation of remission and a projected release date. After the warrant(s) has been accurately interpreted and each sentence quantified in days, the arithmetic calculation to determine the length of sentence is not difficult. In December 1978, the Operational Information Services designed and programmed a computer routine which successfully computed a single term sentence after the warrant was interpreted and quantified in days. With ten (10) interactive terminals installed, the department does have experience with telecommunications, remote terminals, and the utilization of prompting screens. We believe that with well designed prompting screens, and good line communications to a central (well maintained) inmate history file, the sentence calculation part of the procedure could be performed by a reasonably well trained clerk. The major degree of difficulty, nevertheless, is in Phase I where the Sentence Administrator is often placed in an awkward and difficult position to interpret the warrant, and consequently the sentence imposed by the judge. As noted above, this is often very difficult without expert opinion or clarification from the Clerk of the Court, even the sentencing judge. For several offences, the warrants are often not entirely clear as to which sentence is concurrent, consecutive, or what is concurrent to what, and the simple computation of the single term sentence suddenly becomes a morass.

• • •/8 D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 8 -

This complication is then passed along to Regional, then to National Headquarters, and finally to Legal Services. We suggest that this should not be a Sentence Administration problem and that the sentencing sequence and all legal warrant interpretations should be clearly defined before the document leaves the Clerk of the Court. D. OPTIONS TO AUTOMATE OR TO ESTABLISH A UNIFORM MANUAL SENTENCE ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM Sentence calculation is one step in the sentence administra- tion system. Although it is possible to automate this calculation by itself, we do not believe that the automation of the sentence calculation function alone is a solid recom- mendation. We recommend an overhaul of the present paper flow and the building of an automated sentence administra- tion system with the sentence calculation function as one step within this system. Automation of the sentence admin- istration system should begin with the staff of the Clerk of the Court. This is our principal recommendation described below as Option I. Political or financial considerations may render this option infeasible. Should this be the case, we recommend, as Option II, automation of the sentence administration system-to start with the Penitentiary Placement Parole Officer. Our third option is based upon our conclusion that a uniform sentence administration system does not exist. If the Correctional Service Canada does not pursue either of the above options to build an automated sentence administration system, we recommend the establishment of a uniform manual system with a reduction and standardization of forms.

Option I - System Initiation at the Clerk of the Court Phase Description A cardinal rule for all well designed automated or manual systems is to edit and balance the input data as close to the originating source as possible. The calculation of a sentence is very simple mathematically. The difficulty with the sentence calculation process, according to our observation, comes mainly from the interpretation of the warrant plus any prior and/or pending convictions with the prisoner. It seems illogical to us that this vital function (sentence calculation), which often requires good legal judgement, should be left to a CR-4 or 5

• • •/9 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

9 to perform some fifteen (15) to forty-five (45) days after sentencing, and perhaps several hundred miles from the originating source. Option I, therefore, is to initiate an automated sentence administration system in the courts by the installation of a Word Processor, or intelligent terminal linked to a central computer inmate file. This equipment would be operated by the staff of the Clerk of the Court to prepare Warrants of Committal and perform the sentence calculation.

Advantages • Interpretation of the warrant and sentence calculation performed within the judicial system by the legal professional. Opportunity to have the sentencing judge review the sentence calculation within days of the rendering of his/her verdict. Legal sentencing problems uncovered as a result of encountering sentence calculation difficulties can be resolved more promptly and sympathetically by legal experts at the court. This should also tend to reduce the number of subsequent court trials that result from warrant interpretation and sentence calculation disputes. • The prisoner would be promptly advised of the total sentence within days of trial, while he/she is still in Provincial custody, and during the thirty-day (30) appeal period. • The Federal Sentence Administration Officer could concentrate upon their profession as an administrator, and not be responsible for the semi-judicial task of interpreting legal documents. • The prisioner file, together_with warrant and sentence calculation, could in most cases be forwarded to the Federal Institution ahead of the arrival of the prisoner. • The sentence would be calculated "officially" with an accepted and proven routine. This should eliminate the practice of recalculating a sentence each time a prisoner is transferred.

000/10 D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 10 -

• The installation of a quality automated device could be of great assistance with everyday clerical tasks within the court. • The communication link to a central computer could update a master inmate history file and also provide an excellent vehicle for other groups such as the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics to gather statistical data. Disadvantages • Warrant interpretation and sentence calculation at the Clerk of the Court phase would be a significant change to present practice. The effort to convince each Province to endorse this change may prove to be a lengthy task. We assume that senior level negotiations would have to be carried forward by CSC executives and this could be very expensive in management time. . The installation and operation and maintenance of a quality automated device with a communication link in 800 to 1,000 courts to a central inmate file may prove to be too costly. Our preliminary estimate for a quality system is $14.1 million. This figure includes $13 million for equipment in the courts and $1.1 million for system development and training. The details for our cost estimates are broken down in Appendix 9. Option II - System Initiation at the Penitentiary Placement Phase Description Option II would be to initiate an automated Sentence Administartion System with the Penitentiary Placement Parole Officer. Essentially, we visualize a similar system to that described in Option I and supported by interactive terminals installed in each of the fifty-two (52) Parole (Reporting) Offices to assist with the input of prisoner acceptance data and sentence calculation. The initiation of the system at this point would remove warrant interpretation and sentence calculation away from the courts and the judicial system, however, these functions would at least be performed in close proximity of the courts. We have listed below our assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of starting an automated sentence administration system at the Penitentiary Placement stage.

.../11 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 11 -

Advantages • Interpretation of the warrant and sentence calculation would be performed close to the sentencing court and judicial authorities responsible for sentence pronunciation and transcription. This theoretically should prove helpful when legal sentencing problems are encountered with warrant interpretation or sentence calculation. • The prisoner could be advised of his total sentence during the Penitentiary Placement interview. The prisoner would still be in Provincial custody and the thirty-day (30) appeal period would not have expired. • The Federal Sentence Administrator would be relieved of the semi-judicial task of warrant interpretation and sentence calculation and could concentrate upon administrative functions.

• The prisoner file including the Warrant(s) of Committal, sentence calculation, and Penitentiary Placement Report could be forwarded to the appropriate Federal Institution ahead of the prisoner. ■ • The sentence would be calculated "officially" with an accepted and proven routine. A proven calculation program should eliminate the practice of recalculating a sentence each time a prisoner is transferred. • The installation of a quality automated device could be of great assistance with other clerical tasks in the Parole (Reporting) Offices. • The installation of automation devices in the fifty-two (52) Parole (Reporting) Offices would be entirely within the control and direction of Correctional Service personnel which would: - eliminate Federal/Provincial negotiations - reduce the capital cost from approximately 1,000 terminals to 52 - reduce substantially the training, installation and communication costs - reduce the on-going training and maintenance responsibilities.

.../12 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 12 -

Disadvantages • Warrant interpretation and sentence calculation at the Penitentiary Placement phase would also represent a major change to present practice. Organizational and responsi- bility realinements in any governmental or industrial organization create a temporary period of unease. • A training program would have to be designed and imple- mented for Penitentiary Placement Parole Officers. During the training period substitute Penitentiary Placement Officers would have to assist with the workload. • Correctional Service personnel would still be performing (in our opinion) a semi-legal function. Warrant interpretation is a task for the courts and the Provincial judiciary system and not for the unprofessional (in a legal sense) Correctional Service employee. Option III - Establish a Uniform Manual Sentence Administration System Description The Sentence Administration organization, functions, and responsibilities were discussed with Mr. P. Carey, Chief Sentence Administrator in CSC Headquarters in Ottawa. Two institutions were visited: Millhaven in the Ontario Region and the Québec Reception Centre in the Québec Region. Our visit to Archambault was cancelled because the Sentence Administrator was absent the day of our scheduled visit. According the Mr. Carey, Sentence Administration training is the responsibility of the regional Sentence Administrator and there is not a nationally co-ordinated or standardized training program. There is, however, a well documented (case study) Sentence Administration Manual. From our limited exposure, the Québec and Ontario Sentence Administration procedures vary considerably, although certain key forms such as the Admission, Transfer, Release, Escape, and Statutory Remission forms are in common use. We surmise that the present regional training policy has encouraged the Regional Sentence Administrator to improvise their own training program, and it is only natural that various bootleg and special purpose forms have been devised to satisfy the idiosycrasies of each particular institution or Regional Sentence Administrator. .../13 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 13 -

We spent one day in each institution, and therefore, we do not pretend we have captured all the details of each procedure. We did note, however, that the Québec Reception Centre required seventeen (17) forms to admit a prisoner whereas approximately twenty-four(24) forms were used at Millhaven to admit a prisoner (see Exhibit 8 and 11). Although the Québec procedures appeared to be smoother and have certain advantages, in both operations inmate identification data was laborously copied over and over again. Our conclusion was that there is not a uniform sentence administration system. We believe that there is a very fertile field for improved manual system techniques. We recommend, as a third option, that following an appropriate methods study (Item 3, Appendix 9), the implementation of a uniform manual sentence administration system and training program. A principal objective of the redesigned manual system should be a reduction and standardization of forms. E. OTHER PROGRAMS UNDER WAY THAT CAN AFFECT THE SENTENCE ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM During our study we encountered five (5) projects that are presently in various stages of completion that we felt were worthy of mention in a separate section of our report. We will briefly discuss each of these five(5) projects under a separate heading and highlight the reasons that prompted us to believe they could assist the justification of an automated Sentence Administrative System. 1. New Legislation Initiated by the Ministry of Solicitor General which Includes a Redesign of "Form 18" (Warrant of Committal) The Ministry of Solicitor General has presented legislation, which includes a redesign of "Form 18", has been mentioned before in this report. It is repeated here to emphasize the importance of having this source document clearly identify all aspects of the sentence imposed by the judge. Clear and concise sentencing instructions are essential for either an automated or an improved manual system. With or without the passage of new Federal legislation, we recommend that senior management within the Correctional Service approach the responsible Provincial authorities and strongly point out the worthwhile nature of a redesign and standardization of the Warrant of Committal.

.../14 1 D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 14 -

2. The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics is an organization created by Statistics Canada, in June, 1981. We have met with Messrs. McDonell and Conally of Justice Statistics and discussed their mandate to collect, tabulate, and distribute statistics in seven (7) major areas. - Law Enforcement - Adult Criminal Courts I . - Non-Criminal Courts - Courts: Manpower, Resources and Costs - Juvenile Courts and Post-Court Services - Corrections - Legal Aid We have enclosed the 78/79 - 79/80 "Justice Information Report - Correctional Services in Canada" as Exhibit 16. Messrs. McDonell and Conally stated that the CSC Operational Information Services Division played a very important part in providing various statistics for this publication. According to page 43 of Volume 1, "Report of the Implementa- tion Work Group on Justice Statistics Towards the Establish- ment of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics", the yet to be established Technical Assistance Directorate will be responsible, over the next year, to "work closely with each of the jurisdictions, making the Centre's data requirements known and determining, in consultation with the jurisdiction, the best means of collecting this data" (Exhibit 15). Of the seven (7) areas noted above where the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics need to establish a system(s) to gather statistical data, four (4) areas relate to court activities. In our opinion therefore, this group, and in particular their Technical Services Directorate, theoretically should be most interested in any effort or recommendation that the CSC would make to the Provincially controlled courts regarding the installation of a standard automated device in each court with the potential to gather statistical information for their annual publication. 3. Rationalization of the Sixty Reports Outlined in the CSC Case Book by Messrs. McVie and Hyme In our discussions with Mr. McVie and a subsequent session with Mr. Hyme, we were advised that Mr. Hyme has been assign- ed the task of reviewing the sixty (60) reports, described in

.../15 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 15 -

Chapter 19 of the "Case Management Policy and Procedures Manual". These forms, similar to the Admission, Release, and Transfer forms used by the Sentence Administrator, all require an inmate identification section - Name, FPS No., Inmate No., Institution, etc. With a modern and flexible computer inmate history file, a great number of these forms could not only be formatted on blank paper by a remote printing device in each institution, but the required inmate identification data printed promptly and efficiently in the appropriate locations on the form. 4. Expansion of the O.I.S. Terminal Network From Ten to Eighteen Installations in the Spring of 1982 From our discussion with Messrs. McKay and Knowles, the immediate plan is to install eight (8) additional terminals by the spring of 1982 and the long term plans are to install terminals in each of the Regional/District Offices. Should our recommendation to install terminals in each court, to initiate the sentence calculation system, prove politically or economically infeasible, we should encourage the O.I.S. Division to accelerate their District Office Terminal Program and include Parole (Reporting) Offices. Our secondary recommendation that the Penitentiary Placement Parole Officer initiate and perform the sentence calculation function could piggy-back on the long term O.I.S. District Office Terminal Program. 5. Apocalypse Enterprises Inc. Automated Sentence Calculation Computer Package Apocalypse Enterprises Inc. have advertised that they have developed a sentence calculation computer package. Mr. Au Coin has provided us with a copy of an article describing the highlights of this computer package and has also written to the firm and ordered a demonstration disk with documentation (Exhibit 1). We like the system approach with the prompting screen illustrated in the article. The Apocalypse minicomputer routine should be closely investigated. We firmly believe that in today's computer marketplace, it is usually more expedient and less expensive wherever possible to buy and modify available software than to design and program your own routines. D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

III CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objective of this reconnaissance study was to evaluate the feasibility of automating the sentence calculation pro- cess. Our early conclusion was that the sentence calculation process was a relatively simple arithmetic calculation and the major complication to sentence calculation was in the ability of the Sentence Administrator to accurately quantify each Warrant of Committal in days and in some cases dollars. We do not see any material advantages of an automated sentence calculation routine over the present manual process for the following reasons. - The Sentence Administrator will never be able to compete on an equal basis with the legal profession in warrant inter- pretation. - Warrant interpretation and sentence calculation, in our opinion, should be a legal (court) responsibility. - Warrant interpretation and sentence calculation should be completed accurately and early in the sentence administra- tion cycle. Both the prisoner and CSC authorities could then be promptly advised. - The manual sentence calculation process by itself is not expensive, and in our opinion would not justify the develop- ment and implementation cost of a stand alone automation routine. .(See Appendix 5 - manual sentence calculation cost estimated at $109.7 thousand per annum.) From our observations during the course of the study, we con- cluded that there was not a uniform manual sentence adminis- tration system. The sentence calculation process was one of many functions performed by the Sentence Administrator. Further study lead us to conclude that these functions could be logically grouped into four (4) major phases or activities. 1. Inmate acceptance - including the sub-functions of sen- tence calculation and Penitentiary Placement. 2. Inmate admission - including the creation of institutional paperwork. 3. Inmate historical record retention files with statistical by-products for both internal and external users.

.../17 D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 17 -

4. Inmate release - including the sub-functions of transfer, escape, parole, pardon etc. These four (4) phases represent the principal transactions within our concept of a comprehensive sentence administrative system. Our principal recommendation, as Option I, is to build an automated sentence administration system starting with the Clerk of the Court. Each court would be provided with a Word Processor or intelligent terminal device to assist in warrant preparation and sentence calculation. Each device would have a communication link to a central computer with complete inmate history records. We are confident that warrant interpretation and sentence calculation at the court house, within the judicial system, is the most practical and logical location to initiate a sentence administration system. We also recognize that to install such a large system (approximately 1,000 Provincial courts) may prove to be both politically difficult and costly. (See Appendix 9 - system cost estimate of $14.1 million.) Therefore, according to your request and our terms of reference, we have provided two (2) alternative recommendations to develop a sentence administration system entirely within Federal control and at less cost. Option II

Inj.tiate an automated sentence administration system and calculate sentences, at the Penitentiary Placement phase. Support the system with a Word Processor or intelligent terminal device in each of the fifty-two (52) Parole Reporting Offices. Each field unit would have a communication link to a central computer with complete inmate history records. (See Appendix 9 - system development cost estimate of $1,020,000.) Option III - Improve the manual sentence administration procedures through the establishment of a uniform manual system with a reduction and standardization of forms. (See Appendix 9 - system development cost estimate of $198,000.) Should the CSC management agree with our concept of a comprehensive sentence administration system and accept our .../18 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 18 - opinion that there is a need to build either an automated or a uniform manual system, further analysis is required before a well informed decision can be made. In the next section of this report, we have described a workplan to confirm our preliminary estimates of system scope and development costs. A. FUTURE ACTION In Appendix 9, we have outlined in point form a sequence of activities and estimated costs for the development of each of our three (3) recommended options based upon the system development methodology described in Appendix 8. In this section, we have described as two (2) separate workplans the activities for Items three (3) and five (5) of Appendix 9. The results from these studies should confirm and provide the more accurate detail necessary for management to make a well informed decision to develop or reject a comprehensive sentence administration system. 1. Workplan to confirm System Scope The following list of activities form the basis of a workplan which we believe is necessary to confirm the scope of the project in terms of: - user needs - system objective - expected results and benefits • Name a project team headed by an executive who is interested in improving the sentence administration system and is also familiar with the day-to-day institutional routine. Support this man with two systems people. . Review briefly the results and objectives that senior CSC management expect from an improved or automated sentence administration system. 3 days • Advise the Regional Sentence Administrators of the project plan and justification for further - study. 1-2 days • Assign task responsibilities for the project team. Plan a seminar for the Regional Sentence Administrators. 3 days

.../19 D. j. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 19 -

Arrange and prepare a working seminar primarily for the Regional Sentence Administrators. The major purpose of this seminar will be to familiarize the participants with the plans and objectives of the study plan and to enlist their support and objective critique. 5 days Conduct and lead Regional Sentence Administrators working seminar. 2 days Visit at least one, preferably two institutions in each Region. Study and confirm for each major step the present documentation and paper flow. Critique flow chart prepared in feasibility study. Major steps: - inmate acceptance - inmate admission - inmate record retention - inmate release 45-50 days Summarize findings and present to Project Leader and CSC Special Projects group an analysis of User needs. 10-15 days Confirm conceptualization of system to CSC management in terms of satisfying: - user needs - system objectives - expected results and benefits 10-15 days Project cost estimates are 4.5 person-months and $27,000. (Item 3 - Appendix 9). Travel and miscellaneous expenses have not been estimated. The time and expenses for the executive project leader are also not included in our estimates. During the two to three month duration of this study, one or more CSC senior executives will be able to explore with the appropriate senior Provincial authorities, their reaction to the initiation of a sentence administration system at the Clerk of the Court phase. (Item 4 - Appendix 9) Should the Provincial authorities endorse the system, and the system objectives and user needs prove positive, more financial data should be gathered before a final system review is made.

.../20 D.). DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 20 -

The following activities outline a workplan to gather and confirm cost estimates for an automated sentence administration system. (Item 5 - Appendix 9) 2. Workplan to Confirm Financial Data - Cost and Benefits We assume that the CSC executive named to lead the system scope and objectives study will also lead and co-ordinate this study. • Review the automated system concept with respect to the recently gathered data on user needs, system scope, objectives and anticipated results. 5 days • Review of the estimated cost of resources and equipment to develop and implement the automated sentence administration system. - System design 5-7 days - Forms design and preparation 5-7 days - Field equipment 5-7 days - Field equipment software 5-7 days - Lines and telecommuniceion equipment 5-7 days - Central computer 10-12 days - Central computer software 10-12 days - Program design and programming 5-7 days . Automated System Benefit Review - Warrant interpretation and sentence calculation by the Clerk of the Court or the Penitentiary Placement Officer instead of the Sentence Administrator 5-7 days - Reduction of court cases seeking sentence rulings 5-7 days - Improvement of prisoner morale resultant from an early and accurate confirmation of total sentence 2-3 days - Reduction of redundant paperwork, forms and files, at Headquarters, the Regions and Institutions 5-7 days - Reduction of sentence calculation effort by the Sentence Administrators 2-3 days - Other uses of an accurate and timely inmate data file 5-7 days .../21 D.). DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 21 -

- Other uses and benefits the courts or Parole Offices will derive from the installation of a quality automated device such as a word processor or intelligent terminal 5-7 days . Arrange and prepare a working seminar for senior institutional and sentence administration officials to critique findings. 5-7 days . Summarize data for a management presentation 10 days . Management presentation 1 day

Project cost estimates are six (6) person-months and $36,000. Travel and miscellaneous expenses have not been estimated. The results of these studies, plus the reaction from Provincial authorities should indicate clearly the logical and most practical option to persue and provide a solid basis for an objective system review.' (Item 6 - Appendix 9) We trust that our principal recommendation, to initiate a comprehensive automated sentence administration system with the Clerk of the Court, will prove valid. We look forward to the development and smooth installation of a sentence administration system and that an automated or uniform manual sentence administration system will greatly contribute to the operational efficiency and management control of the Correctional Service Canada. We wish to record our appreciation for the excellent cooperation extended to us by the officers and staff of the Correctional Service Canada and the Bureau of Management Consultants while this feasibility study was in progress. We found the task to be interesting and challenging, and look forward to being of further service. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to discuss any matters pertaining to this report. B. SUMMARY OF FrNDINGS AND OPINION The following is a chronological summary in point form of our findings and opinion. This summary is the logic sequence of findings that support our conclusion that the sentence calculation process by itself does not justify automation,

.../22 D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 22 - but, in our opinion, substantial benefits can be obtained through the establishment of an automated sentence administration system. 1. The difficult portion of the sentence calculation process is primarily the interpretation of the warrant, and warrant interpretation is often complicated by the prisoner's prior criminal record. 2. In the majority of cases, particularily first offenders, warrant interpretation and the sentence calculation process is manually performed quite smoothly. Conversely prisoners with multiple warrants that are not entirely clear, and complicated by an active prison record can be very difficult to interpret, but are still not difficult to calculate. 3. After the warrant has been interpreted the arithmetic calculation of a sentence is not difficult. 4. The annual cost for the manual sentence calculation process is estimated to be $109 thousand. (Appendix 5) 5. The sentence calculation process by itself does not justify automation. 6. There is, however, justification in building either an automated or uniform manual sentence administration system. The system would include the major steps of the sentence administration cycle. • Inmate acceptance - including sentence calculation and Penitentiary Placement. . Inmate admission to a Federal Institution. • Inmate record retention to form a current and comprehensive file. Prisoner identification data from this file could assist in the preparation of other CSC and administration forms. Statistical data from this file could be very useful to both internal and external users. Inmate release - including the sub-functions of transfer, escape, parole, pardon, etc. 7. A standardized warrant would be of great assistance. The Ministry of Solicitor General has submitted draft legislation which includes a redesign of the Warrant of .../23 D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 23 -

Committal ("Form 18"). It is not mandatory that the Provincial Courts use the Federal design of the Warrant of Committal. It is recommended that CSC make every effort to encourage the Provincial authorities to adopt a standardized warrant. A clear unambiguous Warrant of Committal is the key to either an automated or manual sentence administration system.

8. Warrant interpretation is considered to be a legal function, not an administration function. Therefore, we recommend initiation of the automated sentence administration system with the Clerk of the Court. The principal advantages of starting the system with the Clerk of the Court are: . Warrant interpretation by the legal profession. • Prompt advice to the prisoner, while still in Provincial custody, of total sentence duration. This should help reduce prisoner anxiety, and also reduce subsequent trial rulings. . Early collection by a central computer system of inmate identification and criminal data. • Construction of a master computer inmate history file which could reduce or eliminate the voluminous Institutional, Regional, Headquarters, and Parole files. • A comprehensive inmate history file could have the design flexibility to format and print inmate identification data on sentence administration and other CSC forms. • Installation of a quality automated device could assist the courts with other clerical tasks as well as other Federal and Provincial agencies to collect statistics. There are two potential difficulties with starting the sentence administration system with the Clerk of the Court. • Potential difficulties to negotiate, install, and control a Federal system with a vital portion of the system under Provincial jurisdiction.

.../24 D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

- 24 -

• The potentially high cost (approximately $14.1 million) and substantial technical task of installing an interactive network with approximately 1,000 terminals. (Appendix 9) 9. A second automation alternative is to initiate the sentence administrative system at the Penitentiary Placement phase. This option has the disadvantage of moving warrant interpretation away from the courts. Nevertheless, the Penitentiary Placement Parole Officer is certainly closer to the court, and has the opportunity to inform the prisoner of his/her sentence much sooner than the Sentence Administrator. The design concept is similar to the initiation of the system within the courts, however, control would be completely under Federal authority. The installation of fifty-two (52) terminals would be less costly and the technical difficulties of the project reduced. (See Appendix 9 - system cost estimate of $1,020,000.) 10. From our observations, we concluded that each region and probably each institution have developed administration procedures peculiar to their own needs, and that a uniform sentence administration system does not exist. 11. Our third option, therefore, is to design and implement a uniform manual sentence administration system supported by a national training program. One of the objectives of this system would be to reduce and standardize sentence administration forms and paperwork. (See Appendix 9 - development cost estimate of $198,000.) D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

APPENDIX 1

SIGNIFICANT STATISTICS

1978/79 1979/80

1. Number of Correctional Fac .ilities 62 62 - Maximum 15 16 - Medium 15 15 - Minimum 16 15 - CCC 16 16 2. Average Daily Inmate Count CSC Facilities 9,448 9,184 3. Average Daily Count on Parole and Mandatory Supervision 6,758 4. Expenditures Adult Correctional Services 351.0 355.4 5. CSC of Canada staff 11,198 person-years, 1979/80 6. National Parole Board staff 265 person-years, 1979/80 7. Parole (eeporting) Offices - 52 8. Institutional Rated Capacity 9,606 (Sick Bay, dissociation, segregation, etc.) (1,908) 9. Admissions 4,866 4,602 10. Warrants of Committal 7,215 11. Releases 4,430 12. Escapes 386 13. Transfers - approximately 12,000 14. Regions - i) Atlantic ii) Québec iii) Ontario iv) Prairies v) Pacific 15. It is estimated that there are at least 800 and possibly 1,000 courts in Canada. - Criminal Court Levels: i) The Supreme Court of Canada ii) Provincial Courts of Appeal iii) Provincial Supreme or Superior Courts iv) Courts of Queen's Bench v) County/District Courts vi) Sessions of the Peace Courts vii) Provincial Courts (Criminal and Family Division) viii) Municipal Courts D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

APPENDIX 2 • THE O.I.S. ORGANIZATION, EQUIPMENT AND MAJOR FILES 1. Organization - Manager, Mr. R. MacKay and secretary - Approximately 9 computer systems and technical staff - Approximately 5 methods staff - Approximately 10 quality control clerks (code and input) - Approximately 3 information clerks (query terminals) 2. Equipment and Software - Use of a Digital Model 10 mainframe at Datacentre with System 1022 Data Base Management System and Query Language - Standard Bell 103 Models with Dial-up 300 Band lines to 10 institutions with Vucom. No. 4 Screen supported by a slave printer at each location. This equipment will be replaced this fall by Digital PDP-150 Screens and LA34 printers which will provide screen prompting, store and forward capabilities at each site. There will be 18 sites on-line by next February. The equipment is used by Sentence Administration and Security (IPSO) officers in maximum security institutions. 3. On-line Files a) The Acts: i) Criminal Code - approximately 563 codes identified ii) Food and Drug Act - approximately 8 codes identified iii) Other Federal Statutes - The Immigration Act (only one code) iv) Juvenile Delinquent Act - 2 codes identified V) Municipal By-Laws - 1 code identified vi) Narcotics Control Act - 6 codes identified vii) National Parole Act - 1 code identified viii) Provincial Statutes - 1 code identified b) Personnel File - TOMB.DMC. - Inmate personal data - Approximately 30 elements and 111 characters I D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

I • APPENDIX 2 (cont'd.)

C) Term File - OFFNCE.DMS. - Inmate sentence data - Approximately 15 elements and 54 characters d) Term File - TERM.DMS. - Inmate sentence data - Approximately 29 elements and 131 characters e) Transfer File - TRF.DMS. - Inmate transfers - Approximately 9 elements and 45 characters f) Security Narrative File - INCID.DMS. - Inmate security status - Approximately 7 elements and 72 characters g) Alias File - ALIAS.DMS. - Inmate Alias(s) - Approximately 4 elements and 43 characters h) Feature File - FEAT.DMS. - Inmate - Approximately 4 elements and 54 characters D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

APPENDIX 3

SENTENCE ADMINISTRATION STAFF BY REGION

Pacific Québec Reg. Hdgs. A. S.3 Reg. Hdgs. A.S.3 - A.S.1 .William Head CR. 4 Reg. Rec. Centre CR. 5 - CR. 4 Kent CR. 5 - CR. 4 - CR. 3 Matsqui CR. 5 - CR. 4 Archambault CR. 5 Mission CR. 4 Ste-Anne Minimum CR. 4 Fed. Tr. Centre CR. 5 TOTAL 7 Leclair CR. 5 Laval CR. 5 Corr. Dev. Centre CR. 5 Montréal St-François CR. 4 Prairies La Maccaza CR. 4 Cowansville CR. 5 Reg. Hdgs. A.S.3 Edmonton CR. 5 TOTAL 14 Drumheller CR. 5 - CR. 3 Brouden CR. 5 Prince Albert CR. 5 - CR. 3 Atlantic Psychiatric Centre (Saskatchewan) CR. 5 Reg. Hdgs. A.S.3 Stony Mountain CR. 5 - CR. 3 Springhill CR. 5 - CR. 4 Dorchester CR. 5 - CR. 4 TOTAL 10 TOTAL -5

Ontario NATIONAL TOTAL 44 Reg. Hdgs. A.S.3 NAT. HDGS. AS-4 1 Reg. Rec. Centre CR. 5 Psychiatric Centre CR. 4 TOTAL STAFF 45 Joyceville CR. 5 Collins Bay CR. 5 Millhaven CR. 5 Mackworth CR. 5 Prison for Women CR. 5 TOTAL 8

D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

APPENDIX 4

APPROXIMATE SENTENCE ADMINISTRATION STAFF COSTS

Staff Minimum Maximum Approx. Salary Total Grade Salary Salary Mid-Point

1 AS-4 $24,502 $27,266 $25,884 5 AS-3 22,685 25,310 23,998 1 AS-1 19,128 22,150 20,639 23 CR-5 18,303 20,017 19,160 11 CR-4 16,126 17,633 16,880 4 CR-3 14,527 15,875 15,219 45

Approx. Salary Average Salary Staff Mid-Point Cost

1 AS-4 x $25,884 $ 25,884 5 AS-3 x 23,998 119,990 1 AS-1 x 20,639 20,639 23 CR-5 x 19,160 440,680 11 CR-4 x 16,880 185,680 4 CR-3 x 15,219 60,876 Total Average Staff Cost $853,749

Average cost per man = $18,972. At a standard of 1,435 hr. pe person-year, the average cost per person-hour = $13.22/hr.

D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

APPENDIX 5

ESTIMATED MANUAL CALCULATION COST ANALYSIS -

We did not conduct a detailed cost analysis of the sentence calculation function. However, Mr. W.H.J. Atack did provide us with his January 14, 1980, report of the "Sentence Administration Person-Year Requirement" which we found useful in assisting us to estimate an annual sentence calculation manpower cost. (Exhibit 6) Mr. Atack estimates that admission procedures average 2.5 hours per admission, and transfer in procedures average 1 hour. For the purposes of this study, we have been advised to use a time of .5 hours per sentence calculation time for both admission and transfer in.

ESTIMATED SENTENCE CALCULATION COST

Ave. S.A. cost per hour: $ 13.22 1979/80 Admissions •. 4,602 1979/80 Transfers . 12,000 (estimate)

Total Admission/Transfer transactions: 16,602 16,602 transactions x $13.22 x .5 hr.: $109,739.22 Estimated Annual Manual Sentence Calculation Cost $109.7 Thousand D. J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIÀTES LTD. APPENDIX 6

SIGNIFICANT ACTS AND LEGISLATION AFFECTING CRIMIMAL SENTENCING

MOST SIGNIFICANT ACTS: 1. Canadian Criminal Code (772 Sections) 2. Parole Act - including Mandatory Supervision 3. Penitentiary Act 4. Prison and Reform Act OTHER IMPORTANT ACTS: 5. Immigration Act 6. Transfer and Offender Act 7. Criminal Records Act 8. Fugitive Offender Act 9. Records Day Act 10. Extradition Act 11. Identification Act 12. Interpretation Act 13. Pension Act 14. Canada Evidence Act 15. Canadian Bill of Rights 16. Food and Drug Act 17. Juvenile Delinquent Act 18. Narcotic Control Act

NOTE: According to Mr. P. Carey the most successful sentence administration officers have a good working knowledge of the first four Acts noted above, as well as a familiarity with the following fourteen (14) Acts.

D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

APPENDIX 7

EFFECTIVE DATES OF LEGAL RULINGS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE ACTS THAT AFFECT SENTENCE INTERPRETATION Date or Ruling Effect 1 April 1962 Remission Change 25 August 1969 Bill C-150, affected the Criminal Code, Parole Act and Penitentiary Act 1 August 1970 Mandatory Supervision implemented 1972 Section 137 of Criminal Code amended 14 March 1973 Credit of old E.R. on month admitted MARCOTTE Inmates who have been paroled prior to (credit of S.R.) 26 August 1969 and have been revoked either before or after that date. LEHEINSWORTH Inmates who have been paroled prior to (credit of S.R.) 26 August 1969 and have been forfeited either before or after that date. SPICE Overruled by S.C.O. All inmates recom- mitted to penitentiary on Parole Revoca- tion must serve S.R. recredit due to this ruling. ISMOND Credit of S.R. on overlap portion of sentence. (See D-3 of S.A.M.) RANKIN Credit of time spent after release on M.S. in other custody pending U.A.L. sentence. 15 October 1977 Credit of days spent under supervision while under Parole Day Parole or Mandatory Supervision. 15 October 1977 Repeal of Sec. 659(6) C.C.C. Indeterminate portions of sentences not to be served. 15 October 1977 Repeal of Sec. 137 C.C.C. If sentence for U.A.L. or E.L.C. is silent or concurrent it is not served. NOTE: In 1977 approximately 100 amendments to the Criminal Code and Parole Act. D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

APPENDIX 7 (cont'd.)

Date or Ruling Effect CLARKE Forfeiture of S.R. nullified for period 26 August 1969 to 14 October 1977. MORGAN Forfeiture of i S.R. in accordance with Sec. 22(4) P.A. does not apply for period 15 October 1977 to 30 June 1978. 1 July 1978 Bill C-51. New Earned Remission. 21 November 1978 Recredit of old E.R. for period 15 October 1977 to 30 June 1978 now under authority of National Parole Board. CUNNINGHAM Credit of * Statutory Remission to inmates sentenced prior to 1 July 1978, but admitted to penitentiary after that date. Di. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

APPENDIX 8

A STANDARD AUTOMATED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CYCLE METHODOLOGY

1. System Reconnaissance 2. Agreement that system merits further study 3. Feasibility study stage Prerequisites Deliverable Agreement on: . Conceptual Design • Objectives . Functional Specifications • User Needs • Resource Requirements • Assignments • Financial Data • Tentative Schedule . Time Schedules

4. Feasibility Study Presentation System and User Management Approval of: • Conceptual Design • Functional Specifications • Resource & Financial Requirement • Time Schedule . System Priority, Need, and Value

5. System Design Stage Prerequisites Deliverable • Feasibility Study Approval • System Design • Authorization of Funds • Program Design • Determination of Responsi- • Installation Plan bilities and Authorities

6. Status Report • Management review Costs and Benefits

7. System Development • Prerequisites Del iverable Management Concur with • Program Listings . Status Report and • System Manuals . Approve Funds • User Guide . Conversion Plan D.J. DUNCAN & ASSOCIATES LTD.

APPENDIX 8 (cont'd.)

8. System Installation Prerequisites Del iverable System Acceptance • User Training • Operation Group • System Implemented • Maintenance Group • Conversion Completed • User Management

9. Production • System is released to Maintenance and Operations • System Evaluation Report 111111 ale era MI MI MI 11111111 MI OM US OS Me MI MI MID ea IBM Me

APPENDIX 9

SENTENCE ADMINISTRATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION COSTS FOR FIELD UNITS AND CENTRAL COMPUTER SYSTEM OPTION I OPTION II OPTION III Time in Clerk of the Court Penitentiary Placement Manual System Activities Days Rate Phase Cost Phase Cost Cost 1. System reconnaissance 50D 34,980 34,980 34,980 2. System concept acceptance or rejection

3. Confirm system scope, user needs, system objectives, expected results and benefits 90D x 300 ' 27,000 27,000 27,000 4. CSC Management explore Provincial reaction to System initiation at Clerk of the Court phase 5. Confirm financial data costs and benefits 120D x 300 36,000 105D x 300 31,500 60D x 300 18,000 6. System Review with acceptance or rejection

7. Method study - system design: - functional specs. 4op x 300 12,000 12,000 12,000 - system mainline flow 35D x 300 10,500 10,500 10,500 - I/O forms designed & approved 40D x 300 12,000 12,000 60D x 300 18,000 MI en Me OM NM au us an an ma am an ea as ago ea as as an

APPENDIX 9 (cont'd.)

OPTION I OPTION II OPTION III Time in Clerk of the Court Penitentiary Placement Manual System Activities Days Rate Phase Cost Phase Cost Cost

7. - equipment study • field units 20D x 300 6,000 6,000 6,000 • central processor 30D x 300 9,000 9,000 0

8. System resource confirmation - program design field 10D x 300 3,000 3,000 3,000 - program design central CPU 15D x 300 4,500 4,500 0 - program coding and testing 3D x 300 900 900 0 - system test 2D x 300 600 600 600 - user training 6D x 300 1,800 1,800 1,800 - equipment capital cost 10D x 300 3,000 3,000 5D x 300 1,500 - equipment and site installation cost 10D x 300 3,000 3,000 2D x 300 600 - operational cost . • field units 6D x 300 1,800 1,800 1,800 • central CPU 5D x 300 1,500 1,500 0 - communication cost 10D x 300 *3,000 3,000 0 - maintenance cost 6D x 300 1,800 1,800 2D x 300 600

9. System benefits listed and costed 20D x 300 6,000 6,000 15D x 300 4,500

10. System costs/benefit review 1D x 300 300 300 300

11. Proposal seeking resources and funds or advocating project abandonment 30D x 300 9,000 9,000 20D x 300 6,000 OM ala Via IIIMI UM 111MI Mal 111111 Me an as an as MI MI

APPENDIX 9 (cont'd.)

OPTION I OPTION II OPTION III

Time in Clerk of the Court Penitentiary Placement Manual System Activities Days Rate Phase Cost Phase Cost Cost

12. Approval or rejection 13. Name implementation team 14. Project implementation - program design 60D x 300 18,000 18,000 0 - program coding and testing 100D x 300 30,000 30,000 0 - system test 35D x 300 10,500 10,500 20D x 300 6,000 - I/O forms designed screens & hard copy 60D x 300 18,000 18,000 80D x 300 24,000 - system documentation • system manual with mgt. overview 20D x 300 6,000 6,000 15D x 300 4,500 • program manual 15D x 300 4,500 4,500 0 • operations manual 10D x 300 3,000 3,000 0 . user manual 60D x 300 18,000 20D x 300 6,000 20D x 300 6,000

15. Set up pilot project 60D x 300 18,000 18,000 20D x 300 6,000 16. Evaluate pilot project 3D x 300 900 900 900 17. Demonstrate pilot project 10D x 300 3,000 3,000 3D x 300 900

18. Equipment rental or purchase negotiations - field units 20D x 300 6,000 6,000 10D x 300 3,000 - central CPU 40D x 300 12,000 12,000 0

19. Field Equipment cost estimate - 1,000 units x $13,000. 13,000,000 52U x 13,000 676,000 Xerox, Ditto, plastic identification card MI MI IMO WM MI BIIII • 11113 11111 Me MI IMP MI MI MI 111113

APPENDIX 9 (cont'd.)

OPTION I OPTION II OPTION III Time in Clerk of the Court Penitentiary Placement Manual System Activities Days Rate Phase Cost Phase Cost Cost 20. Control CPU cost estimate Not Estimated Not Estimated 21. Site preparation - equipment install'n. 100D x 300 30,000 25D x 300 7,500 10D x 300 3,000

22. User training plan 15D x 300 4,500 4,500 10D x 300 3,000 - field training before equipment arrival 100D x 300 30,000 10D x 300 3,000 10D x 300 3,000 - field training after equipment arrival 2000D x 300 600,000 62D x 300 18,600 30D x 300 9,000 23. Paralleled and/or phased system conversion 500D x 300 150,000 40D x 300 12,000 20D x 300 6,000 24. System implementation and material procedures discontinued 100D x 300 30,000 20D x 300 6,000 20D x 300 6,000

25. System evaluation 300 x 300 9,000 9,000 15D x 300 4,500

26. On-going system cost - system software and hardware maintenance - miscellaneous training NOT ESTIMATED AT THIS TIME Development and Implementation Estimates

Option I - Initiate an Automated Sentence Administration System at the Clerk of the Court phase. Development Team Estimate

- Approximately 3,847 days or 16 person-years and approximately $1,154,100. IIIII MI UM Will UM MI • OM MI MI WO OW MI all IBM

APPENDIX 9 (cont'd.)

Field Equipment Estimate - Approximately $13,000,000. Central Computer System - Not estimated

TOTAL: $14,154,100. Option II - Initiate an Automated Sentence Administration System at the Penitentiary Placement Phase. Development Team Estimate

- Approximately 1,149 days or 4.8 person-years and $344,700. Field Equipment Estimate

- Approximately $676,000. Central Computer System - Not estimated

TOTAL: $1,020,700.

Option III - Establish a Uniform Manual Sentence Administration System. Development Team Estimate

- Approximately 660 days or 2.8 person-years and $198,000. Field Equipment - Not estimated

TOTAL: $198,000. • APPENDIX 9 (cont'd.)

NOTES: 1. The $34,980 cost for this study has not been included in our estimates. 2. The above estimates do not include telecommunication and modem cost estimates. 3. For the manual system, we estimate some mechnical assistance e.g. - Ditto, Xerox or plastic identification plate. 4. Travel and miscellaneous costs have not been estimated. BLOCK DIAGRAM OF INMATE MOVEMENT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENT FLOW

11 A PERSON IS SENTENCED BY 4 JUDGE SENTENCE FOR A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN A PRONOUNCED - SUPREME COURT - PROVINCUL COURT - couorr COURT III roe SA. ARRANGES FOR roe CENTRAL REGISTER INC 61 THE ADMISSIONS AND DISCHARGE OFFICER - ETC. CENTRAL 10 BE TYPED AND oarmeureo - 29 COPIES ADMISSIONS DRAFT 'KILL 11) REGISTER AND ADMISSION ed DRAFT REGISTER OF INCOMMING DISCHARGE FORM ARISONERS AT LEAST ONE DAY IN OFFICER ADVANCE* 4ND FORWARDS 1,2 THE DRAFT REGISTER el PARTIALLY PREPARE 4 DRAFT ADMISSION FORM AND HOLDS FOR PAISCWER ARRIVAL. 2) \TYPE 21 SENTENCE IS TYPED BY 1WE STAFF OF THE CLERK OF rot COURT ALONG win? roe el ASSIGN THE OLO PRISON NUMBER 1IFKNOWNI SENTENCE SENTENCE AND WARRANTIS1 Of COMMITAL. NOTE. PREPARE 1••••■•■ NOTE' PRISONERS ARE ADMITTED TO THE QUE. (TO) wARRANT THE CCC RECOMMENDS THE &Seal:0011MM REGIONAL RECEPTION CENTRE ONLY ON DISTRIBUTE WARRANT OF AS THE ACCEPTED DOCUMENT FOR A WED., THURS., AND FRIDAY. IN 29 COPIES WITHIN COMMITTAL WARRANT OF COMMITTAL. HOWEVER, L8) INSTITUTION PRACTICE !NE PROVINCES (COURTS' OFTEN PRISONER DESIGN WEIR OWN FORM lemfotior) AND 7) 71 roe PRISONERS ARRIVE AT THE orcePrios ARRIVES ceorRe AND THE ESCORTS PRESENT CONSEQUENTLY .7wree IS NO STAAVARDIZATICW WITtt AND A VARIEIY OF FORMS ARE IN USE. DOCUMENTATION TO THE SENTENCE ADMINISTRATOR. ESCORTS THE PRISONERS ARE LEFT WITH rue ADMISSIONS 12) 121 THE SENTENCE ADMINISTRATOR CALCULATES AND FILE AND DISCHARGE OFFICERS. SENTENCE SENTENCES- SINGLE TERM SENTENCE FOR REMISSION CALCULATION 1st OFFENDERS AND SETS ASIDE FILES FOR EARNED I et OFFENDER PREVIOUS OFFENDERS WHILE NIS CLERK' SP-45(79-0-4) FILE OF DUE. 'PHONES AROUND" FOR THE oto MM. ARRANT(S) PREVIOUS OFFENDERS TO BE MAILED TO OF COMMITTAL THE PRISONER HAS SO DAYS TO APPEAL MEDICAL FrOMP 3) WAVER OF BOTH CONVICTION Ale/OR SENTENCE. me CERTIFICATE RIMINAL . 30 DAY PRISONER HAS THE OPTION TO SION A ECORD OR HOLD APPEAL CERTIFICATE TO WAVE APPEAL rotor« POUCE RECORD PREVIOUS IWAVER OF OFFENDER HE/SHE CAN BE SENT DIRECTLY TO AN 'APPEAL FILE INSTITUTION. (IF AVAILABLE)

ADDEO TO PRISONER'S Fat el THE S. A. HAS RECEIVED THE DRAFT REGISTER AHEAD OF THE PRISONER ARRIVAL T THE S.A. AND ASSIGNED NEW PRISON NUMBERS WHERE NECESSARY. THE SA. EXAMINES THE IV AFTER "ABOUT" A wEEK THE OLD FILE OF A 1 3 ) \C ZIIUT NTC:C 4N PREVIOUS OFFENDER WILL Eelt onneetiro oonedrofrArtoo PRESENTED BY roe ESCORTS PREVIOUS ro THE A. AND THE SENTENCE MILL BE caLcia.Area AND IF SATISFIED, PREPARES 4 RECEIPT FOR OFFENDER)OFFENDER b rasoNER DRAFT THE PR/SORE-WS/. THE ESCORTS LEAVE WITH QUEBEC PROCEDURE ONTARIO PROCEDURE -MILLN.4VEN REGISTER THE RECEIPT FILE PRISONER ro PARINENAlS SE PRJSCWER ASSIGNED TO A THEN ro ale REGIONAL RECEIVING INSTITUTION BY RECEPTION CENTRE. PEN. PLACEMENT OFFICER.

PRISONER • 1 ALL pore-one. PENETENTIARY INMATES ARE RECEIPT PRISONER TO SENT TO THE PARTHENAIS STREET JAIL AND •■••,..11 PARTHENAIS HELD FOR TRANSFER TO THE QUEBEC REGIONAL 141 WHILE THE IA. IS CALCULATING STREET RECEPTION 14) CASE lit OFFENDER SENTENCES THE e4. PRISONER'S ceorRe. THE S.A. JAIL. HISTORY CLERK IS PREPARING NEW fine FILE CLERK JACKETS FOR 1 81, OFFENDERS AND "PHONIN0 AROUND' TO LOCATE THE OLD FILE OF PREVIOUS OFFENDERS PRISONER OFFENDER AND ARRANGING FOR THAT FILE ro FILE ADMIN. BC MAILED TO THE RECEPTION CENTRE. PRISON PHOTOS1 91 THE PRISONER IS FORMALLY ADMITTED BY THE 9) ADMIISSION: ADMISSIONS AND DISCHARGE OFFICER WHO PREPWRES, HOUSEKEEPING AND U RCMP - PRISON ISSUE, AND PERSONNEL POSSESSIONE OPS. DISCHARGE FINGERPRINT FORMS. FFICER FORM SECURITY DRAFT - COMPLETES THE DRAFT ADMISSION FORM ro ADMISSION • ITEM RP s. m(eor,WEIGHn COLOR OF EYES en L J _J iISIONSNS PSYCHOLOGICAL FORM PROVINCIAL 51 THE QUE. PROVINCIAL AuTHORITIES AT roe PARTNINAIS AND PRISON EVALUATI 5) AUTHORITIES JAIL ADVISE THE Q(/E. REGIONAL RECEPTION CENTRE ISSUE _ ADVISE ADMISSIONS AND DISCHARGE OFFICER AT LEAST ONE a« FEDERAL IN ADVANCE OF PRISONER ARRIVAL AND IDENTIFY EACH AUTHORITIES PRISONER 49 TO , - NAME • CI THE NEW FILE JACKETS ARE HELD - PATE OF BIRTH E.A. CLERK UNTIL ALL DOCUMENTATIONTA 1.9 FiLE 15) \ - LENGTH OF SENTENCE AND rrer OF OFFENCE FILES COMPLETED. THE APPROPRIATE - PR(VIOUS PENAL ADMISSION DOCUMENTS DOCUMENTS ARE INSERTED INTO THE cooRecr FILE' AND ME FILES ARE DISTRIBUTED. I01 PRISONER SENT TO ,4 CELL. PRISONER FILE • 10) PRISONER 1 1 TO CELL DISTRIBUTION 14J L20

2/) THE S.A. CLERK pREpaREs 4 0/7-TO mASTER 261 rwE 54 Reviews THE FILES AND DOCuelENTS. /61 ow THE SA PREP4RES N/S /Nm4TE mOvEmENT 26) UPDATES MIS OWN FILE RE0(I/REsiENTS AND 16) \ 21) DITTO TO /41PR/NT /NMATE IDENTIFIC.AT/ONCOMBSTONE, MOvEMENT REGISTER. THE mOVEMENT REGISTER IS HELD ARRANGES FOR THE APPROPRIA TE DISTRIBUTION BY THE 5 A. MASTER DATA FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOwING FORMS THE S.A. REGISTER THE S.A. CLERK AND FORWARD TO THE SA. PRiSONER - E.4RNED REMISSION FORAI PRISONER FILE . - iNAIATE LOCATION C.ARD FILE - iNMATE VISITATION CARD - BACK OF INMATE PHOTOS (5 ONLY)

DISTRIBUTION HOLD EARNED REMISSION 27) NOTE THE PEN PLACEMENT REPORT 15 m4oEuP 411110-1 17)\ COMPLETES /7) THE S.4. COMPLETES THE DRAFT ADMISSION FORM FORM wte/LE THE PR/SONEft /S IN THE RECEPTION CENTRE DRAFT L. FROm /rev 4,27 TO ITEM .ele 40 AFTER THE 5.4. HAS COMPLETED THE ABOVE THE S.A. ADMISSION NOTE: IN QUEBEC THE 5.4. OFTEN USES THE DRAFT 4Dm/N/STRATIvE DOCUMENTATION AND SENTENCE INMIrTE ONTARIO PROCEDURE - MILLHAVEN FORM ADMISSION FORM TO CALCUL ATE THE SINGLE TERM. LOCATION CALCULAT/ON. THE PRISONER 15 USUALLY TIIANSFERED SENTENCE FOR It OFFENDERS. TO 4 PENITENTIARy IN -ABOI./TA WEEK. PRiSOMER INMATE (e3 FILE VISITATION CARD 281 THE PROVINCIAL 4L/THoR/TIES ADVISE THE OF 28) NE4REST PEW PLACEMENT PAROLE OFFICER NE 5 INMATE PROVINCIAL THAT THEY ARE HOLDING 4 POTENTIAL AUTHORITIES FEDERAL 111m4TE. lai ir/rii THE HELP OF THE SENTENCE CALCULAT/ON 18) \ COMPLETES SHEET (SCC -R. 0.1521 THE S.A. F/N1SHES THE CALCULATION I \ SENTEN.CE CALCUL4T/ON i.e. DETERMINAT/ON OF PRISONER THE S.A. SHEET THE POSSIBLE MANDATORY SUPERVISION DATE FIL E CLERK TYPES THE RCMP 22) THE S.A. ecmp 22) FiNGER PIHNT FORM PRISONER THE S.A. FINGER PRINT FILE CLERK F0 RU

PRISONER FILE 291 THE PEA/ PLACEYENT PAROLE oFF/cER /NTERviEwS 29) THE PRISONER 41I'D PREPARES THE PEN PLACEME4IF FEDERAI. PEN. \ PLACEMENT REPORT. PAROLE COMPLETES REPORT EARNED OFFICER REMISSION FORM PRISONER FILE /9) THE S.A. COmPLETES THE EARNED 23) CODE THE CENTRAL REMISS/ON PORN (PEN 1069-3/79) THE S A. DRAFT CPU 1111■-i CLERK ADMISSION (DEC. 10) FORM

/RFEILISONER 231 INC S.A. CLERK CODES THE DRAFT ) THE 54. GATHERS AND FORwARDS TO THE 20 30) THE PEN PLACEMENT PAROLE OFFICER CONTACTS 5.4. CLERK: 404//ss1oN FoRm AND KEYS THE /NPur 30) PEN THE REGIONAL PEW PLACEMENT CO-ORD/NATOR TO DATA v/A1 THE TERm/NAL SCREEN TO PLACEMENT - DRAFT ADMISSION FORAI ARRANGE THE APPROPRIATE INCARCERATION FOR THE OIS cEA/TRAL CPL/ PAROLE - EARNED REMiSS/ON FORM OFFICER THE PRISONER. - CALCULATION SHEET DRAFT - RChiP FINGER PRINT FORAI ADMISSION FORM PHOTOS (5 ONLY) - PR/sONER

EARNED 241 THE S.A. CLERK /NSERTs 4 &ANA, REMISSION TERMINAL 24) ADMISSION FORm INTO THE TERMINAL TmE PRINTS 1111P-i ADMIN. SLAVE PR/A/TER AND PR/NTS THE CLERK F0 RU 40mISS1ON FORM. CALCULATION SHEET 3/) THE PR/SONER 15 ESCORTED FROm THE PROv/NCIAL ./.4/L PRISONER 31) ro THE DESIGNATED PROVINCIAL 111577TUTION WI TH THE 7FILE 4PPRoPRI4TE DOCumENTS. MP FINGER PRINT LFORM

, PRISON

251 THE S.A. CLERK RETuRNS ALL THE l•-•■ 25) DOCum(NTs OF THE PR/SONER FILE THE S A. PRISONER To THE 5. 4. FOR APPROVAL 4A149 FILE CLERK S/G/VATUR(. 21

34

391 THE RECORDS CO-ORDINATOR TYPES immArr 1 32) THE PRISONER eftRivEs AT THE msnrurioy W ITN HIS FILE CARD TO 44J THE SA. UPDATES 7'NE RECORD OF EARNED )1 IDENTIFICATION DATA FROM GAGNE 02 32) 39) RECORD OF WHICH WILL INCLUDE 45 .4 MINIMOMt • ASSiSYANT 44) ' REMISSION CAROTROM THE PRISONER FILE • GAGNÉ ORIGINAL OUT. 4 CARDS AND DISTRiDurEs •wARDEN • EARNED AND THE SENTENCE CALCULATION em-tr PRISONER - WARRANT(S1 oreommirre THEM AS INDICATED. THE S.A. •'REMISSION SOCALiZATION - _ - MEDICAL creilricAre P•N PLACEMENT REPORT -• PRiSONER. wARRANTISI OFli 361 GAGNÉ Pew ISFORWARDED TO THE . CARD TO THE FILE NOTE, THE LAST I6 PLACEMENTS RECEIVED AT MILLHAVEN COMMITTAL DAILY SECURITY CLERK FOR POSTING TO THE DAILY ONLY ONE-ARRIVED »yr.,/ A PEN PLACEMENT REPORT 36)\- , MOVEmENT movEmENT sHEEr THE moirEmEodr.smÉÉÉ , sECURITY , 'CARD TO SECURITY - .% CLERK / SHEET is HELD BY re e.g.«. wAROEN'S MEDICAL •SECRETARY CERTIFICATE • ARD FOR ECORDS • r (7.0) CO -ORDINATOR'S ROLDEX FILE 45) TERMINAL • THE S. INPUT SCREEN • es) THE SA. REI;tEirs THE PRISONER Doà./NENTAreN 57) THE umé 4-Le« uPosirts THE anoù DISTRIBUTIOMAS AND IF ACCEPTABLE WILL PREPARE AND ISSUE REPORT FROM GAGNE *I PRISONER 33) PRISONER 3 11 NAME OF CARD RECEIPT FOR THE PRISONER-5 TO THE ESCORTS FILE RECEIPT • 4 (MIR°. ylititoren Instllullon Routlit• erlor1 INDICATES • • • 451 I71E SA DRAFTS: 4110 TIEN SPIES AN ADMISSION: •4.0) 401 TNE•RECOROS CO - ORDINATOR CLERK TYPES 'FORm AND THEN'KEYS -TNEDATA FROM TNEDRAFT RECORDS LABELS AND PREPARES NEW FILES FOR ALL ADMISSION FORM'INTO THE TERMINAL WHICH I-ORDINATC NEW FILE .171 oFFEArDERS AND °PHONES AROUND" ' 1117047ES THE ck-odePAL 11 0 ciimpuTER,FILEÈ: :CLERK TO LOCATE THE OLD FILES OF PREVIOUS • ' OFFENDERS AND ARRANGES FOR THESE FILES , sorpirit:poomPreo scerŒw L. .•••''' M BE 4141LED. SEQUENCE AS Tie AOMISSIOM FORM. Li JACKETS NOTE, - Es aRrs e 1 NECESSARy WE DID: Ivor NOTE IN DETAIL THE TYPE AND •' 'NUMBER OF THESE FILtS CREATED BY THE - L. - - REC01105 CO-ORDINATOR BECAUSE AT THE 341 THE S.A. ANO THE ADMISSIONS TIME IT DieNOT APPEAR TO BE RELATED TO 461 *E34. iRSERTS A BLANK AOMISSIOMFORM 34) THE AA. • 46) TERMINAL OFFICERS 17"1.801TI7EPARE rivt INTo THE TERMINAL scar( PRuiTER imam(' AND , •.•.; THE S.A. FUNCTION. HOWE VER THE CREATION . PRINTS GAGNE *4.14110 .3 Aoiwissee FILES IS AN S.A. CLERICAL FUNCTION THE SA. EOUIPMENT PRINTS 77IE ADMISSION FORM. ADMISSIONS THEsE ADMISSION Polies or *AHD. IN QUEBEC. / FORM OFFICERS , • (:) •r- 0.4Owo. ,a,À.0l/Pt IC'ATEFORM 381 FROM GAGNE Z ORIGINAL 4 Dam 'sedum? is PREPARED er GAGNÉ .2 : • .PRISONER THE RECORD CO-ORDINATOR CLERK TO MINT tframTE toiwripic.4Tios DISTRIBUTION AND THE WARRANT-SOP COMARTTAL ORIGINAL • ; FILE •• DATA rromosree, ON THE FOLLOWING SEVEN FORMS. 4* 3 ARE arresewto , ro DUPLICATE COPY AND, HELD BY THE SA: THE ORIGINAL ■11111-- IS FORWARDED rene RECORDS CO-OROINATOR (SEE STEP 381. L-- r-77j OAGNÉ 1M 2 OFKOINAL RECORDS 38) \_... „ CO-ORDINATOR 471 THE SA. SIGNS THE ADMINISTRATION RJR0I, - 47)\ - • •CLERK L PRISONER UPDATES NIS PERSONAL .FILES AND WHERE THE SA. FILE APPROPRIATE ARIaNGES FOR 'orsTRieurtow . CLASSIFICATION OF- CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FROM THE. imam THE GAGNE**, ORIGINAL a FORWARDED TO THE PRISONER FILE. 41) • RCMP ADMISSION CLERIC TO ASSIST HIM TO TYPE THE VISITS AND FINGER PRINT RCMP FINGER PRINT REPORT. CORRESPON '• , REPORT THE RCMP FINGER PRINT REPORT IS FORWARDED 35) 331 The ADMISSIONS OFTICER TAKES . 'TO THE SA. RCMP THE PRISONER'S, FINGER PRINT . - FINGER PRINTS ADMISSION AND REPORT - wricHT a HEIGHT' DISCHARGE -.1"---1 CARD NMATE - PERSONAL PROPERTY' 11 DISTRIBUTES ECORD OF PERsorat. PRO - PRISON ISSUE, • STATUTORY AND PERTY CELL "PACKS -INMATE'S PERSONAL PROPERTY, EARNED REMIS- LyCARO ' SHOWERS INMATE' ' SION L--..-"417tA01-.s OF • • AND PREPARES TNE FOLLOWING FORMS , ----RECORD • • , • PERSONAL , OF EARNED . 43) SENTENCE - RCMP FINGER PRINT FORM 401 THE S.4. PRERARES THE WEEffLr tindATE PROPEFiTY- REMISSION • . CALCuLATION - INMAT( PERSONAL PROPERTY CELL CARO :711111e71 • , WEEKLY - POPULATION REPORT 4S A RECAP FROM SHEET 48) - STORAG( OF PE"RSONAL PROPERTY CARD INMATE THE ABOVE INMATE Aoutssios DATA. RECORD CARO POPULATION FOR REGIONAL PRISONER S.A. CALCULATES THE SINGLE H.O. 43) THE -TO FILE • rune SENTENCE FROM THE WARRANTS OF COMMITTAL ATTACHED TO THE PRISONER ,FILE OLE FILE • SECOND COPY OF GAGNE #2, AND OF PRISONÉP • THE SENTENCE THEN WITH THE AID FILE CALCULATION FORM 771( 5.4. COMPUTES THE POSSIBLE EARNED REMISSION DA7E. DISTRIBUTION • BLOCK DIAGRAM - AUTOMATION OF THE SENTENCE CALCULATION FUNCTION AT THE CLERK OF THE COURT PHASE

I1 THE JUDGE NORMALLY WILL WRITE HIS VERDIC AND DESCRIBE THE SENTENCE FOR 6) cLeHt- OF COURT RECEIVES THE DOCUMENTS BACK FROM THE JUDGE 1) JUDGE'S EACH OFFENCE AND FORWARD THIS HAND WRITTEN DOCUMENT TO THE CLERK OF CLERK AND MAKES ANY NECESSARY CORRECTIONS WRITTEN THE COURT. OF THE SENTENCE COURT _

WARRANT OF L COMMIT TAL

SENTENCE CALCULATION T11E SENTENCE 2) CLERK OF THE COURT RECEIVES THE VERD/C AND SENTENCING DETAIL AND HE/SHE WILL CLERK INPUT MANUALLY TRANSCRIBE THIS DETAIL TO A WELL OF THE FORMS COURT DESIGNED INPUT FORM WHICH WILL CLEARLY /NOICATE THE SENTENCE SEQUENCE AND QUALIFY JUDGÉS THE CONCURRANCY AND/OR CONSECUTIVE WRITTEN NATURE OF EACH SENTENCE. SENTENCE 7) THE CLERK OF THE COURT CONTACTS THE PEN PLACEMENT PAROLE CLERK OFFICER AND FORWARDS THE WARRANT «CI OF comAurrAL AND THE OF THE SENTENCE CALCULAnom TOGETHER WITH THE COMPLETE PRISONER FILE COURT

WARRANT(S) OF COMMITTAL CENTRAL CLERICAL W/P CPU SENTENCE UNIT OR MICRO OR TERMINAL CALCULATION SCREEN CRIMINAL 7 SENTENCE RECORDS INPUT FILE FORMS

WARRANT(S) OF 3/ AN INTELLIGENT WORD PROCESSOR, A MICRO COMPUTER, OR AN INTERACTIVE TERMINAL COMMITTAL 8 EN PEN WITH SLAVE PRINTER, WITH 4 PLACEMENT 1110H PLACEMENT COMMUNICATIONS LINK TO A CENTRAL FILE LE . REPORT SENTENCE OFFICER CALCULATION OF CRIMINAL RECORDS. ANY ONE OF THESE \PARO DEVICES COULD ASSIST THE CLERICAL STAFF PRISONER a) THE PEN PLACEMENT OFFICER REVIEWS THE OF THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO PREPARE FILE THE SENTENCE THE WARRANT OF COMMITTAL AND AS A WARRANT (S) OF comm/rTAL, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS IN THE BY- PRODUCT A WELL DESIGNED SYSTEM COULD CALCULATION PRISONER FILE AND AFTER INTERVIEWING THE CALCULATE THE SINGLE TERM SENTENCE AND PRISONER, PREPARES THE PEN PLACEMENT REPORT POSSIBLE REMISSION DATE.

41 THE CLERK OF THE COURT REVIEWS (ED/Te) THE CLERK WARRANT (S) AND THE SENTENCE CALCULATION OF THE BEFORE- FORWARDING THE DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT ---, APPROPRIATE JUDGE FOR FINAL APPROVAL. PEN PEN PLACEMENT PLACEMENT PAROLE CO-ORDINATOR WARRANT OFj OFFICER COMMITTAL PRISONER 9) THE PEN PLACEMENT PAROLE OFFICER CONTACTS CALCULATION FILE THE pEN PLACEMENT co-ORDINATOR AND ARRANGES THE APPROPRIA TE INSTITUTIONAL DESTINATION FOR THE PRISONER.

5) JUDGE REVIEWS THE DOCUMENT /0) THE PRISONER'S FILE /S FORWARDED TO THE S.A. AND RETURNS THEM ro THE 10) S.A. IN THE DESIGNATED INSTITUTION AHEAD OF THE JUDGE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH OR OFFICER ARRIVAL OF THE PRISONER. WITHOUT COMMENTS

/PRISONER WARRANT1 OF I FILE COMMITTAL I Ls- "*1 0E CALCULATION

II) THE PRISONER ARRIVES AT THE DESIGNATED INSTITUTION AND PRISONER BY THE SA. 11) ARRIVES AT THE APPROPRIATE ADMISSION PROCESS /S SUPERVISED FEDERAL INSTITUTION