JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT ON FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT ON FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT ON FEDERAL
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
A COMPARISON OF THE DUTIES, WORKING CONDITIONS
AND COMPENSATION LEVELS OF FEDERAL
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, UNIFORMED RCMP OFFICERS
AND SELECTED PROVINCIAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
April 2000
JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT ON FEDERAL
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
A COMPARISON OF THE DUTIES, WORKING CONDITIONS
AND COMPENSATION LEVELS OF FEDERAL
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, UNIFORMED RCMP OFFICERS
AND SELECTED PROVINCIAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
April 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ......................................................................................................................i
READER’S NOTE - UPDATE ......................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
THE ORIGINS OF THIS STUDY..............................................................................................1
The Joint Union-Management Process ................................................................................3
The Research Workplan ........................................................................................................4
The Contents of this Report ..................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 2 AN OVERVIEW OF STRUCTURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
ABOUT THIS CHAPTER .........................................................................................................7
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND THE CSC .......................................................7
CSC and the Canadian Correctional System .......................................................................7
Correctional Services: Growth, Development and Reform...........................................8
The CSC Mission..........................................................................................................9
Recent Policy and Legislative Changes........................................................................9
The Correctional Officers: Basic Facts ..............................................................................11
A Brief Overview of the Roles and Responsibilities of Correctional Officers ...............12
THE RCMP AND UNIFORMED RCMP OFFICERS ...............................................................14
Overview of the RCMP.........................................................................................................14
Uniformed RCMP Officers: Basic Facts .............................................................................15
A Brief Overview of the Roles and Responsibilities of General Duty
Constables and Special Constables ...........................................................................16
THE PROVINCIAL CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND THE ROLE OF
CORRECTONAL OFFICERS ...........................................................................................18
Provincial Corrections.........................................................................................................18
In Brief: The Role of Provincial Correctional Officers in the Selected
Jurisdictions .............................................................................................................19
CHAPTER 3 - JOB EVALUATION
ABOUT THIS CHAPTER .......................................................................................................21
METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................21
Selection of the Job Evaluation Plan..................................................................................21
Selection of Comparator Work Descriptions .....................................................................21
Validation of the Work Descriptions...................................................................................23
Rationale for Ratings ...........................................................................................................23
THE FINDINGS......................................................................................................................25
RCMP General Duty Constable ...........................................................................................25
Federal Correctional Officers I and II and Primary Workers .............................................27
RCMP PRO-I and PRO-II ......................................................................................................29
Provincial Correctional Officers .........................................................................................29
IN SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................30
CHAPTER 4 - WORKING CONDITIONS
ABOUT THIS CHAPTER .......................................................................................................33
DEFINING WORKING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................33
METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................34
Site Visits, Written Testimonials, and Town Hall Meetings ..............................................34
Focus Groups.......................................................................................................................36
How They Were Done ................................................................................................36
Focus Group Themes.................................................................................................37
THE FINDINGS......................................................................................................................37
Duties and Responsibilities of Correctional Officers........................................................38
Correctional Officers as Professionals ..............................................................................38
Providing a Safe and Secure Environment ........................................................................39
The Evolution of the Correctional Officer Profession .......................................................41
Comparisons with the RCMP ..............................................................................................44
The Transition to Case Management: The Impact on Officers .........................................45
The Work and its Environment............................................................................................46
Possibilities for Advancement ............................................................................................49
The Impact of the Job on Personal and Family Lives .......................................................50
IN SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................53
CHAPTER 5 - TOTAL COMPENSATION
ABOUT THIS CHAPTER .......................................................................................................55
HOW WAGES ARE DETERMINED .......................................................................................55
TOTAL COMPENSATION COMPARABILITY: HOW IT WAS DONE ....................................56
The Comparator Groups......................................................................................................56
The Total Compensation Approach ....................................................................................57
Comparing Different Wages and Benefits ..................................................................58
Dealing with Demographic Differences Among the Groups ........................................59
Arriving at the «Typical» CX .......................................................................................59
Calculating the Compensation Comparisons: The Steps .................................................60
What Benefits have been Included in this Total Compensation
Comparison ..............................................................................................................61
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................62
RESULTS OF THE TOTAL COMPENSATION ANALYSIS ...................................................62
Wages and Salaries .............................................................................................................64
All Other Benefits and Allowances .....................................................................................64
Total Compensation.............................................................................................................66
Table 1 .......................................................................................................................67
Table 2 .......................................................................................................................69
Table 3 .......................................................................................................................71
IN SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................72
CHAPTER 6 - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
ABOUT THIS CHAPTER .......................................................................................................73
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS.............................................................................................73
Job Evaluation .....................................................................................................................73
Working Conditions .............................................................................................................75
Total Compensation.............................................................................................................77
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED AREAS FOR ACTION ...............................78
Compensation ......................................................................................................................78
The Workplace .....................................................................................................................80
Professional Pride and Respect..................................................................................81
Balancing Security and Case Management Responsibilities.......................................82
Effective Communication with Correctional Officers ...................................................83
Training ......................................................................................................................83
A FINAL NOTE ......................................................................................................................85
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Public Service Alliance
of Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Governing the CX
Joint Study in 1999/2000
Appendix 2
List of Federal Correctional Institutions by Region and Security
Level
Appendix 3
Responsibility Matrix - Case Management
Appendix 4
The Willis Plan
Appendix 5
Benefits Valued/Not Valued in the Total Compensation Model
PREFACE
Over the past nine months, the ten members of the Joint Union-Management
Committee have worked together to produce this report. From the start, our
objective has been to produce a well-documented account of the jobs of federal
correctional officers as they compare to those of uniformed RCMP officers and
correctional officers in selected provincial jurisdictions.
This report is based on research we commissioned and on our meetings with
hundreds of federal correctional officers across the country. We used the most
timely data available to us at the time. Providing a fair and accurate report based
on all the information we collected has been at the heart of our many
deliberations and discussions.
The original mandate of this study, as per Appendix G of the Terms and
Conditions of Employment for federal Correctional Officers expiring May 31, 2000,
specifies that the final report of this Committee is to be submitted to the
respective parties for their consideration. The CX Joint Committee respectfully
submits this report to the three parties: the Treasury Board Secretariat,
Correctional Service of Canada, and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
ii
CX Joint Study
READER’S NOTE - UPDATE
This report is based on research we commissioned and on our meetings with
hundreds of federal correctional officers across the country. We used the most
timely data available to us at the time.
The compensation analysis, and more particularly the comparison of pay and
benefits between the federal correctional officers and the RCMP, was based on
the information available when the total compensation research was
commissioned. All references and comparisons to RCMP pay in this report were
based on information available up to April 10, 2000. Shortly prior to the printing
of this report, the Committee was advised that the Treasury Board had approved
further pay and benefit increases for the RCMP for the years 2000 and 2001. The
approved pay increases are 2% effective January 1, 2000, 2.73% on July 1, 2000
and a further 3% on January 1, 2001. There are also a number of adjustments to
the benefits, such as the shift differential, the senior constable allowance and
service pay.
Measuring the exact impact of these increases would require a re-calculation of
the total compensation comparisons using the methodology described in Chapter
5 of this study. In order to avoid a delay in the release of this report, the Joint
Committee decided to highlight these facts herein. Nevertheless, the Joint
Committee recognizes that these recent increases in wages and benefits for the
RCMP have a direct impact on the wage and total compensation comparisons
with federal correctional officers and their provincial counterparts.
To assess the impact of the recent RCMP pay increases, the parties involved in
this study are making a commitment to update the compensation comparison in
order to ensure that the results reflect the latest developments. The new results
will be released in an addendum to the Joint Study and will be available on the
PSAC web site (www.psac-afpc.com), the Treasury Board Secretariat web site
(www.tbs-sct.gc.ca) and the Correctional Service of Canada web site (www.cscscc.gc.ca).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study would not have been possible without the contributions of many
individuals throughout the country. Their time, expertise, generosity, and
commitment were invaluable to this study.
The Joint Committee wishes to thank the hundreds of federal correctional
officers who gave generously of their time and shared their work
experiences with us. Their contributions – during the Committee’s site
visits, the focus groups, the town hall meetings, and the written
testimonials – are at the heart of this study.
As a Committee, we had the opportunity to visit federal institutions in every
region across the country. These work site visits provided us with
insightful information on the jobs of federal correctional officers and the
day-to-day environment in which their work is done. What we learned
through these site visits guided our research and our many discussions
and deliberations. Some institutions opened their doors to others involved
with this study. We extend our sincere appreciation to the management,
union locals and correctional officers that welcomed us in the following
federal institutions from east to west:
Dorchester Penitentiary
Westmorland Penitentiary
Donnacona Penitentiary
Établissement de détention de
Joliette
Regional Reception Center,
Québec
Federal Training Centre,
Québec
Special Handling Unit, Québec
Leclerc Penitentiary
National Depot, Québec
Kingston Penitentiary
Joyceville Penitentiary
Millhaven Penitentiary
Bath Institution
Collins Bay Institution
Pittsburg Institution
Regional Treatment Center, ON
Stony Mountain Institution
Saskatchewan Penitentiary
Riverbend Institution
Edmonton Institution
Edmonton Institution for Women
Mountain Institution
Kent Institution
Visits to RCMP detachments and provincial correctional institutions were
also an important aspect of this study. The Committee wishes to thank the
following officers and management:
“J” Division, RCMP, Shediac and Fredericton Detachments
“E” Division, RCMP, Abbottsford and Chilliwack Detachments
“F” Division, RCMP, Saskatoon Detachment
Acknowledgements
CX Joint Study - April 2000
v
Établissement de détention de Montréal (Bordeaux)
Quinte Regional Detention Centre in Napanee, Ontario
Saskatchewan Provincial Correctional Centre
This report required an extensive amount of data and information from
many different sources. The Committee wishes to thank all the staff in the
following locations:
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Human Resources Branch
Correctional Service of Canada, National Headquarters, Personnel and
Training Sector
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, National Headquarters, Human
Resources Directorate, National Compensation Policy Center and
Organization Design and Job Evaluation Branch
British Columbia Public Service Employee Relations Commission
British Columbia Ministry of Attorney General
Nova Scotia Department of Human Resources
Nova Scotia Department of Justice
Ontario Management Board Secretariat
Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services
Secrétariat du Conseil du trésor du Québec
Ministère de la Sécurité publique du Québec
Saskatchewan Public Service Commission
Saskatchewan Department of Justice and the Attorney General
Finally, the Committee members would like to recognize the many
contributions to this study -- financial and other -- made by all of our
respective parties, namely:
Public Service Alliance of Canada
Union of Solicitor General Employees
Correctional Service of Canada
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat
Their commitment and support helped to make it happen.
The CX Joint Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE ORIGINS OF THIS STUDY
This study was prescribed by Order in Council, pursuant to federal legislation passed
on March 25, 1999. Indeed, the Terms and Conditions of Employment for the
Correctional (CX) Group, which were prescribed under Bill C-76, the legislation that
ended the four-day strike by federal correctional officers, included the following clause:
Appendix G:
“The parties agree to establish a joint committee comprised of an equal number
of employee and Employer representatives for the purpose of comparing the
duties, working conditions and wage rates of persons employed in the
Correctional Group bargaining units and those of uniformed Royal Canadian
Mounted Police officers and correctional officers in provincial jurisdictions. This
committee shall meet by July 1, 1999 and shall report its conclusions within nine
months.”
THE RESEARCH WORK PLAN
The Joint Committee developed a three-part research work plan to carry out its
mandate.
•
To compare duties, a joint union-management team of classification experts was
commissioned to undertake a job evaluation exercise, using the Willis Plan as the
common yardstick. Each of the jobs received a numerical rating on the Willis Plan.
•
The Committee defined ‘working conditions’ to include the work, the environment
in which the work is done, and the broader impact of the work on the professional
and personal lives of the individuals who do it. Focus groups were undertaken by
an independent research firm in order to further explore working conditions. In
addition, the Committee conducted site visits to federal institutions in every region in
the country, as well as to selected RCMP detachments and provincial institutions.
Town hall meetings organized by the union members of the Joint Committee and
written testimonials from federal correctional officers also constituted important
sources of information on working conditions. The Committee developed an
assessment and analysis of working conditions based on all these sources of
information.
Executive Summary
•
CX Joint Study - April 2000
viii
The Committee chose to compare all aspects of compensation, including wages,
other forms of pay, leave, and benefits. An independent research firm was
commissioned to carry out what is commonly referred to as a ‘total compensation
analysis’. The result is a net value per hour for federal correctional officers
compared to the other groups of officers in this study.
Federal correctional officers are at the heart of the study. Federal correctional officers
at the CX-1 and CX-2 levels are compared to RCMP general duty constables, RCMP
special constables (PRO-I and PRO-II), and correctional officers in five selected
provinces covering the five Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) regions in the
country: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Québec and Nova Scotia.
THE RESULTS
The comparative job evaluation exercise revealed both differences and similarities in
the jobs being compared. With respect to the differences in Willis ratings among the
jobs rated in this study, it is recognized that two of the RCMP positions - the PRO-I
(rated at 173 points) and PRO-II (rated at 220 points) - rated lower than any of the
correctional officer positions.
It is also recognized that the RCMP general duty constable received a higher overall
rating of 376 points than did the federal correctional officers whose ratings ranged
between 244 points for CX-1 officers to 279 points for CX-2 officers and 302 points for
Primary Workers whereas the provincial correctional officer positions ranged between a
low of 234 points in Nova Scotia to 305 points in Saskatchewan. The higher rating for
the RCMP general duty constable is attributable to such factors as the degree of the
required knowledge of federal, provincial and municipal legislation, the high level of
responsibility and accountability with respect to policing in an uncontrolled environment,
especially in isolated communities, as well as mental demands and interpersonal
communications skills.
It is important to note that in the context of the entire Willis Plan, which is designed to
value a wide range of jobs, the jobs that were rated in this study fell within a relatively
narrow range. Concretely, while the maximum rating on the Willis Plan is 1,804 points,
the jobs rated in this study ranged from 173 points (9.6% of the possible total) to 376
points (20.8% of the possible total). To a certain extent, this closeness in ratings is to
be expected, given that all of the jobs are part of the ‘enforcement’ universe. All the
jobs evaluated have similar requirements in terms of knowledge, skill, effort and
working conditions.
While these numerical ratings provide an indication of the relative value of the jobs on a
classification scale, the actual point ratings themselves should not be misinterpreted.
For example, while a job rated at 300 points is of higher value for job classification
purposes than a job rated at 150 points, one cannot make an argument that the first job
is worth double the second job. The nature of the Willis scale does not allow such
Executive Summary
CX Joint Study - April 2000
ix
comparisons to be made about the magnitude of the difference in ratings. In contrast,
in the case of dollars we do know that $300.00 is double $150.00, and that the wage
gap between wages of $300.00 and wages of $150.00 is 100%.
Finally, the ratings can in no way be used to determine compensation or the value of
the jobs for classification purposes, given that only eleven positions were valued. To do
so does not fall within standard statistical practices for valuation or compensation
determination.
Furthermore, notwithstanding these differences in ratings with the RCMP general duty
constables, the ratings of federal correctional officers with respect to skill, knowledge
and effort reflect the fact that their job is much more than ‘turning keys’. Federal
correctional officers require a high level of skill, knowledge and split-second judgement,
regardless of the specific ‘post’ in the institution or the security level of the institution.
There is no doubt that the range of duties and responsibilities are routinely carried out
under conditions that can best be characterized as difficult and demanding. The risk
involved in the job, the consequences of making an error, and the constant internal and
external scrutiny, add to the already difficult conditions. The job has long-lasting
impacts on the personal and professional lives of those who do it.
Furthermore, the changes in the Canadian correctional system over the past ten years
have added to the professional requirements of the job for officers at both the CX-1 and
CX-2 levels. From the officers’ perspective, the single most important change has been
their involvement in and responsibility for case management, either directly in the case
of CX-2s or indirectly in the case of CX-1s. Officers are the front-line members of a
team of professionals that includes parole officers, psychologists, chaplains, teachers,
and health professionals. In addition to providing a safe and secure environment in
which the entire team can do their work, correctional officers make direct contributions
to reintegration objectives.
The working conditions, broadly defined, comprise some important similarities with
the jobs of RCMP general duty constables, including contact with the criminal justice
system, response to emergency situations, violence, and the exposure to danger.
There are also important differences in working conditions that provide correctional
officers with added challenges: the daily contact with offenders, including those who
officers themselves may have reported and charged, and the risk of contracting
infectious diseases, are but two examples.
In spite of the important work they do, there is a general feeling among federal
correctional officers that their profession is poorly understood, if not misunderstood, not
only by CSC management but also by the media and the general public. Compared to
the RCMP, the correctional officer profession is permeated by a lack of pride and
respect. While these collective feelings may not be easily quantifiable, they are
nevertheless a significant reality.
Executive Summary
CX Joint Study - April 2000
x
There are marked differences in the wages and total compensation of the three
groups of officers being compared in this study. The wages per hour paid to an RCMP
general duty constable are $23.72, or 20% higher than the comparable hourly rate of
$19.75 for a typical CX officer over his or her career (combination of level CX-01 and
CX-02). When all aspects of compensation are considered, including pensions and
group benefits, the RCMP general duty constable is also at a level 20% higher per hour
paid than the typical CX officer over the course of a career.
RCMP special constables (PRO-I) receive wages of $17.71 per hour paid. Federal
correctional officers are therefore paid 11.5% more per hour, and have a 10.7%
advantage over RCMP PRO-Is when it comes to total compensation.
When compared to the wages per hour paid to provincial correctional officers, federal
correctional officers are at the same level as officers in Ontario. Federal correctional
officers earn more per hour paid than officers in the four other selected provinces, with
differences ranging from 1% to more than 20%. In terms of total compensation, the
advantage of federal correctional officers over provincial correctional officers follows a
similar pattern.
CONCLUSIONS
Compensation
The Committee notes that throughout the focus groups, site visits, town hall meetings
and written letters from one end of the country to the other, federal correctional officers
have singled out the issue of compensation as being essential to improving their
professional situation.
Among other findings, this study demonstrates why and how the role of the federal
correctional officer has evolved significantly over the past decade.
While a
classification conversion resulted in a wage increase for federal correctional officers in
1991, this evolution also coincided with legislation that limited wage increases and froze
increments. Moreover, this evolution also coincides with a widening of the wage gap
between correctional officers and the RCMP general duty constables.
The Committee recognizes that for federal correctional officers, compensation is
paramount. However, this Committee does not have the mandate to recommend a
wage increase for federal correctional officers. Collective bargaining between the
Public Service Alliance of Canada as the bargaining agent and the Treasury Board as
the Employer is the appropriate forum for determining these wage increases. The
Committee recognizes that this study will be used in the upcoming bargaining process
starting in April 2000.
Executive Summary
CX Joint Study - April 2000
xi
Improving the Workplace
While monetary compensation is a central element in improving the situation of federal
correctional officers, it is clear to the Committee that improvements in compensation
alone will not bring viable solutions to all of the workplace issues facing federal
correctional officers. There are a range of other important areas in which changes
would make a significant improvement in their working lives. As a first step in improving
the working conditions of correctional officers, the Committee wishes to highlight the
following issues and suggested areas for action.
There is a definite need to restore collective pride, respect and professional attachment
among correctional officers.
•
CSC management could improve the provision of systematic, timely
recognition to individual correctional officers for their positive contributions
and professionalism -- with respect to specific events within institutions, or
for longer-term contributions to CSC over the course of a career.
•
Changes to the correctional officer uniform will go a long way to improving
the image of correctional officers.
Correctional officers have spoken about the far-reaching impact of their negative image
generally portrayed in the media and shared by much of the Canadian public.
•
The Committee suggests the need for a public education campaign in order to
highlight the many positive contributions of federal correctional officers to
public safety and the reintegration of offenders, both inside and outside the
institutions.
One of the consistent and near unanimous messages from CX-2s from every region in
the country was their difficulty in accomplishing case management duties. As a general
observation, the Committee notes the importance and benefits for federal correctional
officers and CSC of having time and space for case work.
•
As a first step, the Committee suggests that a compendium of ‘best case
management practices’ could be compiled from institutions across the
country. Institutions could build on these positive examples and adapt them
to their specific work environments where needed.
The perceived lack of support from management on the part of federal correctional
officers suggests the need for more timely and frequent communication on changes to
policies and procedures, the meaning of the rule of law and the reasons for some of the
changes that have a profound impact on the day-to-day work of correctional officers.
Executive Summary
•
CX Joint Study - April 2000
xii
Where possible, more frequent direct consultation with officers on a range of
issues, including consultations with front-line correctional officers in
developing polices and programs that directly affect their work, would be
beneficial to the entire CSC organization. Federal correctional officers have
the knowledge and expertise to contribute to the development of effective
solutions that would improve the overall operations of CSC.
Throughout the site visits and focus groups in particular, training was among the most
frequent and important concerns raised by federal correctional officers.
•
The Committee suggests that CORE training might be enhanced by placing a
greater emphasis on case management, legal awareness, and computer
literacy.
•
The Committee suggests that organization-wide improvements to training for
federal correctional officers would make an important contribution to their
working lives and to their sense of collective pride. Given the input received
from federal correctional officers, the Committee suggests that investment in
computer literacy training, increased training on the legal framework
governing the CSC and the jobs of correctional officers, case management,
and health and safety training, would have organization-wide benefits.
Increased on-going training will also contribute to officers’ sense of collective
pride. Further opportunities for professional development training and
educational leave would also make a positive contribution.
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
THE ORIGINS OF THIS STUDY
Officially, this study was prescribed by Order in Council, pursuant to federal legislation
passed on March 25, 1999. Indeed, the Terms and Conditions of Employment for the
Correctional (CX) Group, which were prescribed under Bill C-761, the legislation that
ended the four-day legal strike by federal correctional officers, included the following
clause:
Appendix G:
“The parties agree to establish a joint committee comprised of an equal number
of employee and Employer representatives for the purpose of comparing the
duties, working conditions and wage rates of persons employed in the
Correctional Group bargaining units and those of uniformed Royal Canadian
Mounted Police officers and correctional officers in provincial jurisdictions. This
committee shall meet by July 1, 1999 and shall report its conclusions within nine
months.”
However this joint initiative -- between the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and
the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) as Employer representatives, and the Public
Service Alliance of Canada and the Union of Solicitor General Employees (USGE), as
employee representatives -- has some earlier history.
Federal correctional officers first raised the issue of their comparability with officers of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) following the publication in 1977 of the
Report of the Sub-Committee on the Penitentiary System in Canada, commonly
referred to as the ‘MacGuigan Report2’. The MacGuigan Report directly states that the
pay scales for federal correctional officers should be ‘upgraded significantly,’ and
Recommendation 11 suggests how this measure could be achieved: “Staff must be
1
The official title of Bill C-76 is An Act to provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Government
Services, 1999. Bill C-76 received royal assent on March 25, 1999. This legislation gave the Governor in
Council, on the recommendation of Treasury Board Ministers, the authority to prescribe Terms and
Conditions of Employment as well as their duration and expiry date.
2
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, The Sub-Committee on the Penitentiary System in
Canada, Report to Parliament, Mark MacGuigan, Chairman, Second Session of the Thirtieth Parliament,
1976-1977.
Chapter 1
Introduction
CX Joint Study - April 2000
2
paid in keeping with their training and status and we find the R.C.M. Police to be the
appropriate model.”3
More recent events linked to labour relations and wage patterns in the federal public
service have revived the federal correctional officers’ request to be compared to the
RCMP general duty constable rank.
In October 1991, all federal Public Service Employees became subject to the Public
Sector Compensation Act (PSCA), which extended all compensation plans for two
years. Employee benefits were frozen for two years and pay was frozen for the first
year (0%) and limited to 3% in the second year. In April 1993, The Government
Expenditure Restraint Act amended the PSCA by extending all compensation plans for
a further two years. Pay and benefits continued to be frozen (0% and 0%). The Budget
Implementation Act - 1994, amended the PSCA to extend all compensation plans for a
further two years. In addition to continuing to freeze employee pay and benefits for
another two years (0% and 0%), it also froze annual pay increments. These legislative
measures effectively removed any collective bargaining in the federal public service and
froze the wages of all federal employees for five of the six years between 1991 and
1997.4 The RCMP was subject to the same six years of wage restraint.
Collective bargaining resumed between the PSAC (representing federal correctional
officers) and the Treasury Board Secretariat (representing the Employer) shortly after
June 1, 1997.5 After 18 months of negotiations, a tentative agreement was reached,
but this tentative agreement was rejected by a majority of federal correctional officers in
January 1999. In early March 1999, both parties presented their respective positions to
a three-member Conciliation Board appointed by the Public Service Staff Relations
Board (PSSRB). In its presentation to the Conciliation Board, the PSAC made the
argument that, while the RCMP and federal correctional officer jobs had become more
similar since the 1977 MacGuigan report, the wages of RCMP officers had increased
almost twice as fast as those of federal correctional officers since 1984.6
On March 19, 1999, the independent Chair of the Conciliation Board made
recommendations that the union representative agreed to, forming a majority
Conciliation Board report, with the Employer representative presenting a dissenting
report. In addition to wage increases and increments that would have totaled over 13%,
the majority Board report recommended the creation of a joint union-management study
to document the comparison of duties, working conditions and wages of federal
3
MacGuigan Report, Recommendation 11, p. 57.
In 1994, however, the Collective Agreement for the CX group was changed due to the implementation of
st
a revised classification standard effective June 1 , 1991. New rates of pay were authorized, resulting in
an increase to the wage bill of about 2.3%.
5
This is the date at which the federal wage restraint legislation ceased to apply to federal correctional
officers.
6
Submission of the Public Service Alliance of Canada in the matter of the Public Service Staff Relations
Act and a dispute affecting the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Her Majesty in Right of Canada as
represented by the Treasury Board, in relation to the employees of the Employer in the Correctional (CX)
(Supervisory and Non-Supervisory) Group , dated March 3, 1999.
4
Chapter 1
Introduction
CX Joint Study - April 2000
3
correctional officers, uniformed RCMP officers and correctional officers in provincial
jurisdictions.7
No agreement was reached between the parties following the release of the
Conciliation Board report, despite the fact that the PSAC indicated its acceptance of all
of its recommendations. As per the provisions of the PSSRA pertaining to legal strikes,
the first strike by federal correctional officers began seven days later. The Order in
Council applied Bill C-76 to the Correctional Group and effectively put an end to this
strike four days later, on March 30, 1999.
During the Senate debate surrounding Bill C-76, it was at the behest of the PSAC that
Members of the Senate secured a commitment from Treasury Board to include the
Conciliation Board’s recommendation for the establishment of a joint comparability
study as part of the prescribed Terms and Conditions of Employment.
In short, this is how the joint study came about.
THE JOINT UNION-MANAGEMENT PROCESS
While the overall objective of this study is clearly articulated in Appendix G of the Terms
and Conditions of Employment for the Correctional Group, the specific terms of
reference and research workplan were developed by the Joint Committee.
In July of 1999, union and management representatives signed a Memorandum of
Understanding8 that set the terms governing this joint study, and appointed a tenmember Joint Committee (hereinafter ‘the Joint Committee’ or ‘the Committee) to
undertake this study.9 Co-chaired by representatives from PSAC and the Treasury
Board Secretariat, the Committee members also includes federal correctional officers
who are members of the PSAC/Union of Solicitor General Employees, management
from the Correctional Service of Canada, and an additional representative from the
Treasury Board Secretariat and one from the Public Service Alliance of Canada. The
Committee includes at least one member from each of the five CSC regions in Canada.
7
The Conciliation Board Report states the following regarding the comparison to the RCMP and
provincial correctional officers: “On the surface, this proposition may have some merit. .. Without a great
deal of study and discussion, it is not possible for anyone to make an informed judgement about the
degree of applicability, if any, of these comparisons.” The recommendation included in the majority
Conciliation Board Report is identical to that of Appendix G in the Terms and Conditions of Employment
for correctional officers.
8
The full text of the Memorandum of Understanding is included in Appendix 1.
9
Given the restricted number of Joint Committee members, the need for regional input and the
importance of communicating with federal correctional officers throughout the country, the PSAC
established a Union Advisory Committee to the CX Joint Study. This Union Advisory Committee, which
includes three correctional officers (from the Prairies and Québec) in addition to the three Joint Committee
members, was tasked with providing input and advice to the union representatives on the Joint Committee
and was responsible for organizing direct involvement of correctional officers into the Joint Study in their
respective regions.
Chapter 1
Introduction
CX Joint Study - April 2000
4
As set out in the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties, the Joint
Committee was given the responsibility to establish its terms of reference, develop the
research workplan, and determine the need to commission any specific studies to
support the mandated comparisons of duties, working conditions and wages.
The Committee met monthly starting in August 1999 in order to complete its work. Site
visits to federal institutions across the country, as well as to selected RCMP
detachments and provincial correctional facilities, formed an integral part of the
Committee’s work.
THE RESEARCH WORKPLAN
The Joint Committee developed a three-part research workplan, which corresponds to
the comparison of duties, working conditions and wages.
1. Job Evaluation
An essential step in the Joint Study was to compare the duties and working conditions
of selected federal correctional officers, uniformed RCMP officers and provincial
correctional officers using a common job evaluation plan. The Committee tasked a joint
team of four classification experts to carry out this analysis. As is the case for all job
evaluation plans that are approved by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the
Willis Plan selected for this study measures four factors - skill, responsibility, effort and
working conditions.
2. An Analysis of Working Conditions
While working conditions is one of the four factors that is taken into consideration in the
job evaluation exercise, the Committee recognized the importance of understanding the
work done by correctional officers, the context in which this work is done, and the
impact this work has on their lives. To this end, site visits by Committee members
made an important contribution to the overall study, and to the comparison of working
conditions in particular. In order to delve further into some of the issues raised by
correctional officers during the site visits, the Committee commissioned an independent
research firm to set up focus groups on working conditions.
3. A Comparison of Wages and Benefits
A total compensation methodology comparison was commissioned by an independent
research firm for this portion of the study. Total compensation considers all elements of
compensation, including base salary, overtime, allowances, pensions, leave and other
paid time, benefits, insurance, and medical and dental coverage, to name only a few.
Chapter 1
Introduction
CX Joint Study - April 2000
5
It is important to note that the Committee’s approach is a global one. The objective is
not to carry out three separate comparisons, as described in each of the three parts of
the research plan. Rather, it is to integrate these comparisons into an analysis that will
recognize the links among wages, duties and working conditions. Given the origins of
this study, federal correctional officers are the central focus.
THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT
The report is divided into five remaining chapters.
• Chapter 2 provides some background information on the federal officers, uniformed
RCMP officers, and provincial correctional workers.
• Chapter 3 presents the results of the job evaluation. It explains how the jobs were
rated in the three comparison groups.
• Chapter 4 provides an analysis of the working conditions of federal correctional
officers, including comparisons, with the RCMP and provincial correctional officers.
• Chapter 5 presents the results of the total compensation analysis, which compares
the wages and benefits for each of the three groups.
• Chapter 6 provides a synopsis of the findings and the Committee’s conclusions.
Chapter 2
AN OVERVIEW OF STRUCTURES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
ABOUT THIS CHAPTER
As its title suggests, this chapter is designed to provide background information on the
three groups being compared in the study. For each of the three groups -- federal
correctional officers, uniformed RCMP officers, and provincial correctional officers -- a
general overview of the structures within which each group operates, some basic facts
on who they are and where they work, and the basic roles and responsibilities of each
are described.
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AND THE CSC
CSC AND THE CANADIAN CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM
The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), along with the RCMP, is one of the four
federal agencies that are part of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada. As a
whole, this Ministry is responsible for the protection of the public and the maintenance
of a just, peaceful and safe society.
Within the broader criminal justice system, CSC is responsible for all aspects of
incarceration and conditional release for offenders sentenced by the courts for two
years or more. Offenders awaiting their sentence, offenders placed on probation or
sentenced to incarceration of less than two years, are the responsibility of the provinces
or territories.
CSC is organized into five regions: Atlantic, Québec, Ontario and Nunavut, the Prairies
and the Northwest Territories, and the Pacific. There are fifty-two federal penitentiaries
located throughout Canada10 in the five regions. Penitentiaries are operated as
maximum, medium, minimum, or multi-level security facilities. Multi-level facilities
house offenders with varying security classifications. All regional women’s facilities are
designated multi-level, given that they house offenders with minimum and medium
10
See Appendix 2 for a full list of the federal penitentiaries by region and security level. In addition to the
penitentiaries, CSC has 19 district offices which oversee 81 parole offices. There are also 17 Community
Correctional Centres, which are small facilities in urban areas that house offenders on day parole or other
forms of conditional release. CSC also contracts out, to non-profit community-based agencies, the
operation of approximately 175 Community-Based Residential Facilities, commonly referred to as half-way
houses. These facilities are used to provide accommodation, counseling and programming for offenders.
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
8
security classifications.11 Various institutions throughout the country, such as Regional
Reception Centres and Regional Psychiatric Centres, are designated multi-level
because offenders at all levels of security and/or those yet to be classified, are
incarcerated there.
Correctional Services: Growth, Development and Reform
Imprisonment as we know it in Canada today dates back to the building of the Kingston
Penitentiary in 1835. In the Depression years of the 1930s, a rash of inmate strikes
and riots focussed attention on penal philosophy and management style, and led to the
formation of the Archambault Royal Commission of Inquiry. With its emphasis on crime
prevention and the rehabilitation of offenders, the Commission’s 1938 report was a
landmark in Canadian corrections, and much of its philosophy remains influential today.
Among the Archambault Commission’s recommendations was the complete revision of
penitentiary regulations to provide “strict but humane discipline and the reformation and
rehabilitation of prisoners.” In many ways, the Archambault report reflected a society
that was less concerned with retribution and more with rehabilitation.
Further reform ensued during the post World War II years following rising prison
populations, overcrowding and disturbances. These events spurred the creation, in
1953, of the Fauteux Committee, which envisioned a new type of prison beyond that of
a custodial facility, a place with programs focusing on attempting to change basic
behaviour patterns and attitudes of inmates.
In the 1970s, Correctional Services of Canada managed institutions in two different
ways. A traditional model, with uniformed correctional officers working directly in
offender accommodation areas and in all other security posts, was in operation in some
institutions. Other institutions were managed based on the Living Unit concept, where
non-uniformed correctional officers worked exclusively in offender living units. These
Living Unit Officers provided a blend of security and case management function. All
other institutional security posts were staffed by uniformed correctional officers.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, these two models were replaced by the current Unit
Management Model, which is in existence today in all federal male institutions. Each
institution is divided into units, which house a group of inmates. Within this model, the
emphasis is on staff teamwork, where a team of correctional officers and other
professional staff works consistently with the same group of inmates. In practice,
security, case management, and program functions are integrated within each unit.
11
The initial plan for the regional women’s facilities was for the institutions to house female offenders at
all levels of security. As a result of a number of serious security incidents during the early months of
operation of these facilities, a corporate decision was made to remove all maximum security offenders
from the new institutions until such time as a more suitable accommodation plan was devised. The
maximum security women are temporarily housed in separate units in various male institutions throughout
the country and at the Prison for Women in Kingston. It is expected that the maximum security women
will be returned to the regional women’s facilities within the next two years.
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
9
The female facilities operate on a modified version of unit management, according to a
model emanating from a Task Force entitled Creating Choices. This model is based on
a women-centered approach to corrections. From the perspective of Correctional
Service of Canada, both these approaches promote accountability on the part of both
staff and offenders, consistency of operations for all institutions, and the successful
reintegration of offenders.
The CSC Mission
Adopted in 1989 to reflect basic Canadian values with respect to criminal justice, the
Mission articulates the fundamental goals and direction of the Canadian correctional
system as follows:
The Correctional Service of Canada, as part of the criminal justice system and
respecting the rule of law, contributes to the protection of society by actively
encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens, while
exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control.
Reflected in this statement is the notion that effective reintegration is ultimately the best
means of achieving public safety. This clear focus, and priority for CSC, places staff at
the center of the correctional process, through their interaction with offenders.
Moreover, it speaks to the important contributions made by staff to the broader criminal
justice system. The CSC Mission has remained stable, enduring, and compatible with
legislative change which has been since introduced. In fact, it is now enshrined in
law.12
The value of staff in the corrections process is further articulated in CSC Core Value 3
flowing from the Mission Statement,
“We believe that our strength and our major resource in achieving our objectives
is our staff and that human relationships are the cornerstone of our endeavor.”
Recent Policy and Legislative Changes
The current and primary legislation that governs the operations of the CSC is the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), which was brought into force in 1992.
The CCRA details the provisions for the custody and conditional release of federal
offenders. Concretely, it outlines the conditions of confinement of offenders and the
procedural obligations for staff and management within the CSC. The Corrections and
Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR) provide further specific direction on these
matters, including case management, offender programs, searches and seizures, use
of force, offender discipline, and segregation policies and practices, to name a few.
12
The Mission has been part of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act since it was passed in 1992.
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
10
The introduction of the Act and Regulations has had a significant impact on the CSC
and staff working within the legislation. Together, both legal instruments clearly
establish the responsibilities and accountabilities within the correctional setting. For
example, in the case of cell searches, the CCRA specifies that correctional officers are
required to conduct them within the context of an institutional search plan, which is
authorized by the Warden of the facility. The search plan specifies the frequency and
process for the searches. There are also circumstances in which officers have the
authority to initiate searches beyond those outlined in the search plan. This example
illustrates the authority granted to staff, on the one hand, and the restrictions under
which they are obliged to operate, on the other. Officers must have an extensive
knowledge of the CCRA, given that this law and the related regulations are prescriptive
and specify direction on their day-to-day responsibilities.
The CCRA also establishes the national Office of the Correctional Investigator (CI), the
mandate of which is to respond to inquiries and complaints on the part of offenders.
This Office reports directly to the Solicitor General of Canada (i.e. the Minister), and has
complete access to institutions, records, and any other information deemed relevant in
the course of its investigations. Correctional staff are obliged to respond to CI inquiries
and may be called upon to defend their decisions or actions involving specific offenders
or incidents. While the CI provides a further avenue of redress for offenders, it also
represents an additional level of scrutiny for correctional officers and other correctional
staff.
A number of CSC policies and procedures provide further direction regarding the
implementation of the CCRA and the CCRR. Some of the most relevant to the work of
correctional officers include Commissioner’s Directives, Special Operating Procedures,
Regional Instructions, Institutional Standing Orders, and Post Orders. These policies
address a range of issues, from broad descriptions on questions of national relevance
to the most specific directions regarding officers’ duties and responsibilities at each post
within an institution.
Other legislative requirements and obligations that guide and influence the work in
correctional settings are set forth in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal
Code of Canada, the Privacy Act, and the Canadian Human Rights Act. Within the
institutional context, issues like access to information, human rights, discrimination,
claims of harassment, laying institutional charges, access to legal counsel, and contact
with the judicial system, take on a particular significance for correctional staff.
Since the introduction of the CCRA, the Report of the Arbour Commission has been
singled out by some as the most significant event impacting on the Canadian
correctional system as we know it today. This Report stemmed from “certain incidents”
at the Prison for Women in Kingston. The inquiry was extensive and had an impact on
many aspects of the correctional system. One of the major issues under review was
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
11
CSC’s compliance with policy and the law. A finding that compliance was problematic
resulted in a renewed emphasis on respecting the rule of law throughout the Canadian
correctional system. The addition of the reference to the rule of law in the CSC Mission
attests to the profound effect of the Arbour Report.
THE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS - BASIC FACTS
Correctional Officers who are members of the union bargaining unit13 are the single
largest group of staff within the Correctional Service of Canada. Throughout Canada,
CSC employs 2,404 correctional officers at the CX-1 level and 2,421 at the CX-2 level,
for a total of 4,825 officers14. Within the CX group, CSC also counts 460 correctional
supervisors and preventive security officers (CX-3s) and 32 coordinators of correctional
operations (CX-4s), the majority of which are excluded from the bargaining unit. Taken
together, CX-1s and CX-2s make up 90.8% of the entire CX group, including those
outside the bargaining unit. The CX group constitutes 40% of all CSC staff across the
country.
Recent hiring initiatives at CSC will result in a 20% increase in the size of the
correctional officer group by the end of the fiscal year 2000-2001. In April 1998, the
Solicitor General announced the creation of 1,000 new correctional officer positions in
order to improve CSC’s capacity with respect to the safety and security within federal
institutions. CSC plans to fill all of these new positions by the 2000-2001 fiscal year.
The profile of the current correctional group reflects this recent hiring initiative. Today,
15
correctional staff (CXs) have an average of 11 years of service. Female correctional
officers, who now comprise 21.8% of all CXs, have an average of 6.3 years of service,
while the average length of service for male correctional officers is almost double at
12.4 years.16
A closer look at the CX group profile reflects the recent increase in the number of
officers hired. In terms of age, today’s correctional group is a relatively young one:
almost one in four CXs (23.7%) is 30 years old or younger, and half (50.9%) are less
than 40. The average age of a CX employee is 39.4 years. The data on years of
13
This distinction is important because Appendix G of the Terms and Conditions of Employment for the
CX Group restricts the comparisons in this study to correctional officers who are members of the
bargaining unit. Although there may be a few exceptions, CX-1s and CX-2s are generally part of the
bargaining unit, whereas CX-3s and CX-4s are not. For sake of clarity, the term ‘correctional officers’ will
be used to refer to the CX-1s and CX-2s, while the term ‘CX group’ will include staff at all CX levels.
14
Unless otherwise specified, these numbers are as of December 31, 1999.
15
From this point onward, the statistics provided are based on data for the CX group as a whole, including
the CX-3s and CX-4s. Given that the CX-1s and CX-2s make up 95.7% of the CX group that are
members of the bargaining unit, the statistics are likely to paint an accurate picture of the CX-1s and CX2s as a group.
16
Women were first hired as correctional officers in male institutions starting in 1977. At first, they were
only hired in medium security and specialized male institutions.
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
12
service reflect an important increase in the recent number of new hires. Indeed, four in
ten correctional officers (39.4%) have less than six years of service, and more than half
(52.7%) have been a correctional officer for 10 years or less. The recent hires have
been relatively young, as indicated by the fact that today, almost one quarter (23.8%) of
all officers are less than 35 years of age and have less than three years of service.
Increasingly, correctional officers who are being hired have a university education. All
of these trends are likely to remain consistent over the next few years, meaning that in
five years from now, correctional officers will have attained a higher level of formal
education, be more numerous and younger than ever before.
A Brief Overview of the Roles and Responsibilities of Correctional Officers
A brief overview of the range of jobs held by correctional officers today is provided
below. It should be noted that some specialization is inevitable, given the increasingly
complex legal system within which institutions operate. However in spite of the more
specialized jobs, all correctional officers maintain a key role in making the environment
safe for all other essential functions to be carried out within federal institutions.
CX-1s and CX-2s are commonly referred to as non-supervisory correctional officers.
As a general rule, CX-1s are mainly responsible for the care, custody, and control of
offenders, the security of the institution and the protection of the public. CX-2s have
these responsibilities as well, but are also primarily responsible for correctional
influence (case management) of offenders. The common distinction between CX-1s
and CX-2s, in fact, is the level of responsibility for case management. While both CX1s and CX-2s are responsible for input into the case management process, CX-2s are
required to complete a number of specific case management reports17 in accordance
with the case management accountability matrix.
Within each of these two levels, there are job categories which are compatible with the
general description but distinct in their specific routine duties.
At the CX-1 level, there are four main categories.
•
17
Correctional Officer I, the predominant group, is primarily assigned duties such as
the supervision, control, and monitoring of inmate movement and activities within
and outside the institution. Institutional security checks and perimeter security
duties are included. Participation as a member of a correctional team of correctional
officers, parole officers, and other professionals within a unit is a function common
to this group of officers.
The Unit Management Accountability Matrix - Case Management outlines the specific responsibilities of
CXs and other professionals in the case management process. See Appendix 3.
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
13
•
At the CX-1 level, the Admission and Discharge Officer, is responsible for
admitting and discharging all inmates entering the institution from either the court
system or from another institution, as well as for procedures for the control and care
of the personal effects of inmates.
•
Visits and Correspondence Officers are primarily responsible for the supervision
and control of visiting for inmates and their families, including the processing and
searching of inmate mail and parcels.
•
As a CX-1 on a Regional Hospital Surveillance Team18, the officer ensures the
protection of the public at virtually all times. As part of this team, CX-1s provide and
receive vital information on offenders’ activities and behaviour with colleagues and
medical personnel, escorts and maintains custody of offenders, and maintains
reports. Verifying security equipment, authorizing visitors and other forms of
communication are other important aspects of this job.
CX-2 officers can occupy the following job categories:
•
The Correctional Officer II is the predominant CX-2 group. These officers
contribute to the development and implementation of case management plans with
a team of other professional staff. This CX-2 monitors and supervises the daily
activities of offenders, and performs security checks of buildings and physical
plants. The Correctional Officer II has significant case management responsibilities,
and report writing for an assigned offender caseload is a key activity.
•
Like the Correctional Officer II, Primary Workers, who work exclusively in
institutions for women, perform security functions and perform a significant degree
of case management activities for an assigned caseload. The CX-2 Kimsinaw (Our
Older Sister) is similar to a Primary Worker, with a focus on Aboriginal-specific
activities. In some regional women’s facilities, the absence of Parole Officers
means that Primary Workers have added case management responsibilities.
•
The Security Maintenance Officer develops institutional policy with respect to all
security equipment, and monitors its implementation. Further, this CX-2 produces
and maintains records with respect to security equipment, advises senior
management regarding proper maintenance and storage of security equipment and
devices, performs regular inspections of same, and provides relevant training to
staff.
•
The Shift Supervisor for the regional hospital escort team schedules and assigns
work placements of other CX officers in local community hospitals, receives and
reviews information regarding offenders, and ensures other correctional staff are
18
Not all CSC regions have Regional Hospital Surveillance Teams, but generally, CX-1s do medical
escorts and hospital surveillance.
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
14
kept informed. This position maintains constant contact with hospital in-charge
personnel and police in emergencies, and meets with and briefs offender visitors
with respect to visiting procedures.
•
Under the general direction of the Coordinator Correctional Operations, the Senior
Admission and Discharge Officer trains and supervises other staff in the
department, and carries out other functions held by the CX-1 Admissions and
Discharge Officer (see above).
THE RCMP AND UNIFORMED RCMP OFFICERS
OVERVIEW OF THE RCMP
As one of the four government agencies that comprise the Ministry of the Solicitor
General, the RCMP contributes to the protection of the public and the maintenance of a
just, peaceful and safe society. As the country’s national police force, the RCMP plays
an essential role in upholding and enforcing the law, by both reacting and being
proactive in its policing approach.
In summary, the RCMP enforces federal laws, provides contract policing to eight of ten
provinces, all three territories, and some 200 municipalities and First Nations
communities, and provides expertise in areas like forensics and criminal intelligence to
Canadian and international police. More specifically, the RCMP’s activities can be
19
grouped under three basic types of policing.
•
Federal policing includes federal law enforcement, protection of national security,
anti-drug enforcement, economic crime, customs and excise, immigration and
passports, safety of state officials and visiting foreign dignitaries.
•
Provincial contract policing involves provincial police functions in all provinces
and territories except Québec and Ontario.
•
Municipal contract policing occurs where municipalities choose not to have their
own police force and the RCMP are contracted to provide this service. Moncton and
Chilliwack are examples of municipalities for which the RCMP provides the policing
service.
Over the past ten years, the RCMP has moved towards community policing as an
overall model for the delivery of police services.20 The ultimate objective of community
policing is to be more responsive to the needs of the community that it serves. For the
RCMP, community policing has meant changes not only in the way in which programs
19
The RCMP also provides resources to United Nations Peacekeeping efforts.
In 1990, the Solicitor General endorsed this model as the most appropriate approach for policing in
Canada.
20
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
15
are delivered, but also in the organizational structure and culture of the force.
Concretely, community policing involves decentralization, decision-making at the local
level, community consultation, problem solving and the mobilization of community
resources to supplement the role of the police. In this transition, the RCMP has
focused on proactive policing and problem solving using the CAPRA model (Clients,
Acquisition, and Analysis of Information Partnerships, Response and Assessment for
Continuous Improvement). This model was adopted by the CSC and is also used
within institutions under its jurisdiction.
Like the change to Unit Management for the CSC, which requires a balanced approach
between traditional control of offenders and rehabilitation through case management,
the transition to community policing for the RCMP has required that a balance be
exercised between proactive and reactive policing.
UNIFORMED RCMP OFFICERS: BASIC FACTS
There are three categories of personnel within the RCMP: regular members, civilian
members, and federal public service employees. The on-strength establishment of the
RCMP as of January 1, 2000 was 19,989. Of this total 72.4% are regular members,
and are referred to in this study as uniformed members21. Civilian members make up
10.1% and federal public service employees account for 17.4%.22
The RCMP is organized into 15 divisions, plus Headquarters in Ottawa. Of these
divisions, 14 are operational, encompassing four geographical regions: Atlantic
(Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI), Central (Québec, Ontario, National
Capital Region), Northwestern (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, NWT, Nunavut), and
Pacific (BC, Yukon).
Regular members are found in each region: 32.5% are located in the Pacific region,
27.4% in the Northwestern region, 16.9% work in Central region, and 15.5% in Atlantic.
A further 7.8% work at Headquarters or at the Training Academy in Regina23. Of the
numerous posts where RCMP officers can be located, many are designated as isolated
communities and 204 are designated as limited duration posts. Forty of the 204 limited
duration posts are staffed with only one or two members, which increases the isolation
and accountability of officers. Nearly 10% of all RCMP members are assigned to
isolated or limited duration posts. On average, more than 10% of RCMP members are
required to move annually from one community or location to another.
21
Given the specific reference in the mandate to uniformed RCMP officers, this study focuses largely on
the regular RCMP members, and more specifically on the general duty constable level. Specialized
constables at the PRO-1 and PRO-II levels are also included in the job evaluation portion of this study.
See Chapter 3 for a further explanation.
22
Figures are for January 1, 2000 and are taken from the RCMP web site, National Profile section, under
the heading ‘Organization of the RCMP’, at the following address: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/frames/rcmpgrc1.htm.
23
These figures are as of February 1, 2000.
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
16
General duty constables, who are being compared to correctional officers in this study,
are the single largest category of RCMP employees: they account for 45.2% of all
RCMP staff and for 62.3% of all regular members. Special constables, who are also
included in the comparison of duties in the following chapter, only account for 0.5% of
the RCMP staff and for 0.6% of all regular members.
A Brief Overview of the Roles and Responsibilities of General Duty Constables
and Special Constables
The RCMP’s multi-faceted mandate has a significant impact on its members. The
RCMP’s unique nature as a national, federal, provincial and municipal policing body
requires that its members be capable of fulfilling multiple roles and be sufficiently
flexible to move and fulfil these different roles and functional responsibilities throughout
their careers.
In general, most RCMP Officers will rotate between the various policing functions or
duties within the first 7 to 10 years of their careers. Moreover, RCMP Officers are
expected to shift from their regularly assigned duties, on very short notice, to respond to
an emergency or an assignment anywhere in Canada where additional resources are
required.
General Duty Constables can be posted anywhere in Canada and must be capable of
performing any of the tasks that are required under the following general headings:
•
problem identification and resolution: includes the collecting and analysis of
information pertaining to a specific situation, the development of a planned
response, and carrying out the appropriate intervention;
•
patrolling an assigned zone: includes attending calls, responding to alarms, and
apprehending suspects;
•
maintaining order: providing a visible patrol presence, assessing potential lawbreaking events and deciding on the appropriate action;
•
protecting public safety and security, for example by responding to traffic
accidents, stabbings, shootings, assaults, coordinating search and rescues (missing
child, lost hunters or skiers, etc.), responding to natural disasters (floods,
avalanches, etc.), and providing security at national events;
•
providing general assistance to the public, such as referring people on noncriminal matters, or next-to-kin notification in cases of death or injury;
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
17
•
conducting investigations, including traffic accident investigations, which
involves a range of duties from securing crime scenes, compiling data from
interviews and physical evidence, interrogating suspects, attending to victims and
deceased persons, attending autopsies and seizing evidence;
•
enhancing highway-related safety, including monitoring traffic violations, pursuing
vehicles, pulling them over, checking for criminal records, deciding on issuing tickets
or warnings, conducting roadside screening, and preparing and serving all
appropriate documents;
•
providing airport-related security, including patrolling and securing aircraft and
perimeter, responding to complaints investigating bomb threats and suspicious
baggage, and observing and monitoring security personnel;
•
preparing documentation and assembling evidence, testifying in court,
including drafting the wording of charges, preparing legal documents for crown
counsel, and participating in pretrial interviews;
•
Community relations, education and promotion of the RCMP image, including
attending public events, giving presentations to schools and liaising with community
groups.
Special Constables, or Provost members (PRO) at levels I and II carry out tasks
primarily related to the care and custody of prisoners in RCMP custody. PRO-II
members have supervisory responsibilities, in addition to carrying out the same tasks
as the PRO-I. These tasks can be grouped under the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
prisoner escort and transport;
providing court security, including acting as a jury guard;
public contact;
assisting RCMP detachments and other police forces with tasks involving
prisoners;
maintenance of cell blocks;
interviewing guards and matrons (non-RCMP personnel working in cell blocks);
training of new personnel;
liaising with penal institutions, the Corps of Commissionnaires, and others.
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
18
THE PROVINCIAL CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS AND THE ROLE OF
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
PROVINCIAL CORRECTIONS
While each provincial Corrections and/or Justice department has its own mandate and
Mission, their general philosophies regarding the protection of society and the safe
reintegration of offenders are similar to each other and to the federal correctional
framework. Provincial employees are bound by the same basic legislative framework
that guides the operation of the Correctional Service of Canada. Each province has
established its own directives, policies and procedures to provide more specific
direction to staff.
In accordance with federal/provincial powers described in the Canadian Constitution, all
provinces and territories are responsible for administering the incarceration of
24
individuals sentenced by the courts to serve no longer than two years less one day.
Provinces are also responsible for a variety of alternatives to incarceration, including
probation, electronic monitoring programs and other diversion programs.
Most
provinces operate a number of half-way houses, community training residences,
programs and work camps.
Although each province/territory operate differently, most provincial facilities house
offenders on remand status (awaiting sentencing, but considered inappropriate for
release on bail), those held on temporary detention status (suspension of early release
status) and inmates sentenced to a term of no more than 2 years less one day. In
Canada, provinces and territories also have jurisdiction for Young Offenders, and in
some instances young offenders are housed within the same facility as adult offenders.
Most provincial facilities do not classify offenders as maximum, medium and minimum
security in the same manner as federal penitentiaries. Practically speaking, many
offenders in provincial facilities could not easily be classified, as their status (guilty or
not guilty) and sentencing have yet to be determined. In reality, provincial facilities
incarcerate inmates for all types of Criminal Code offenses. Consequently, for
comparison purposes, most provincial/territorial jails would be considered multi-level.
The average length of stay for a provincially sentenced offender in Canada is
approximately 6 months, compared to just under 4 years for a federally sentenced
offender. As a result, correctional staff in provincial facilities face particular challenges
regarding programming for offenders. Often programs are less in-depth than those
found in federal facilities, given the short sentence lengths and the multi-need
population serviced by these jails.
24
In some unique circumstances, federally sentenced individuals may serve their time in a provincial
facility under an Exchange of Service Agreement. When this occurs, the federal government remunerates
the province on a per diem basis. Alternatively, a provincially sentenced offender may be incarcerated in
a federal penitentiary under a similar agreement.
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
19
IN BRIEF: THE ROLE OF PROVINCIAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS IN THE
SELECTED JURISDICTIONS
Given that each province operates distinct correctional systems, the Joint Committee
decided to restrict its comparison to five provincial jurisdictions. One from each of the
five regions in Canada25 was selected, namely Nova Scotia, Québec, Ontario,
Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Jobs that were most comparable to that of a
federal correctional officer were the ones retained for the job evaluation and wage
comparison portions of this study.26
As in the federal system, the role of corrections workers in the five selected provinces
has evolved in the recent past. In most provincial facilities, front-line staff are
responsible for both security and case management of the offenders.
Case
management normally includes intake assessment, on-going case monitoring,
preparation of assessment reports, and release planning. The level of involvement in
case decision making varies among the provinces, but in most instances the
correctional officers have input into decisions regarding offender case management and
release into the community.
In brief, the roles of the correctional officers in each of the selected provinces with
27
respect to security and case management can be summed up as follows.
Nova Scotia: For the most part, the Correctional Officer II focuses almost exclusively
on security tasks, and does very little case management. Interaction with offenders is
therefore relatively limited.
Québec: In general, Correctional Service Officers have a relatively high caseload of
offenders, and interaction with offenders is high. Officers are responsible for offender
intake, the development of initial correctional plans, and community liaison.
Ontario: General Duty Officers in Ontario work in two types of institutions. In
detention/remand centres, correctional officers focus heavily on security, with virtually
no case management.
In correctional centres, however, management and
programming are the key priorities, with very little involvement in security tasks.
Saskatchewan: The Saskatchewan Corrections Worker performs a full range of case
management and security duties. Case management also includes community
assessment; however workers do not have their own caseloads.
25
The five regions refer to those around which the CSC is organized.
The classification specialists, who were commissioned to undertake the job evaluation exercise,
assisted in the determination of the most comparable jobs in each of the selected provinces. These job
matches were determined based on a comparison of job descriptions for various correctional officer
positions in the selected provinces with those of the federal correctional officers (CX-1s and CX-2s).
27
Further details on each of these jobs are provided in Chapter 3.
26
Chapter 2
Overview of Structures
and Responsibilities
CX Joint Study - April 2000
20
British Columbia: The BC Living Unit Officer is responsible for a set caseload, but has
a full range of security responsibilities as well.
The full range of roles and responsibilities carried out by officers in each of these
provincial jurisdictions is compared to that of the RCMP general duty constables and
special constables (PRO-I and PRO-II) and to the federal correctional officers (CX-1s
and CX-2s) in the following chapter on job evaluation.
Chapter 3
JOB EVALUATION
ABOUT THIS CHAPTER
This chapter describes one of the three elements of the Joint Committee’s research
plan: the job evaluation exercise. The purpose of this component was to compare the
specific duties and working conditions of selected federal correctional officers,
uniformed RCMP officers and provincial correctional officers. This comparative job
evaluation exercise assessed several jobs from each of the above-noted sectors, using
a single evaluation plan and assigning numerical values to each.
METHODOLOGY
In October 1999, the Joint Committee commissioned the services of a four-member
team of classification experts to evaluate the duties of the selected comparator groups.
The team consisted of two representatives from the Public Service Alliance of Canada
and two representatives from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. This group
was specifically selected because of their vast experience in the area of job evaluation
and classification.28
SELECTION OF THE JOB EVALUATION PLAN
After careful consideration, the job evaluation chose the Willis Plan as the most
appropriate tool to assess the jobs in the comparator groups.29 The Willis Plan,
approved by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, uses the four criteria outlined in
section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act: skill, effort, responsibility and working
conditions. These factors will be further defined in a later section of this chapter.
SELECTION OF COMPARATOR WORK DESCRIPTIONS
As with any job evaluation exercise, it was necessary to obtain work descriptions from
federal and provincial correctional institutions and from the RCMP. In consultation with
28
The full report of the Job Evaluation Team is available on the PSAC web site (www.psac-afpc.com), the
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat web site (www.tbs-sct.gc.ca), and the Correctional Service of
Canada web site (www.csc-scc.gc.ca).
29
The Willis Plan charts are included in Appendix 4.
Chapter 3
Job Evaluation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
22
the Joint Committee, the job evaluation group selected eleven (11) position descriptions
for a comparative evaluation. The following position descriptions were selected:
•
Federal:
Correctional Officer I, Correctional Officer II and Primary Worker
(Edmonton Institution for Women).
•
RCMP: Provost Officer I, Provost Officer II, and General Duty Constable.
•
Provincial: Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia.
For the federal correctional officers the job evaluation team used the new Universal
Classification Standard (UCS) position descriptions. It is noted that, although the UCS
position descriptions are not yet finalized, they represent the best available description
of the work performed by federal correctional officers at all levels of security. As
indicated below, these work descriptions were verified and supplemented through
personal interviews with correctional officers.
The Correctional Officer I and Correctional Officer II position descriptions were chosen
because they are generic and representative of the work of the vast majority of federal
correctional officers. The Primary Worker (Correctional Officer II) positions were also
evaluated because the work of these correctional officers is somewhat different than
the Correctional Officer II working in male institutions. Indeed, the position descriptions
for Primary Workers were designed using a different model. As such, the job
evaluation team felt it would be necessary to evaluate both of these jobs despite the
fact that they are both classified at the CX 2 level.
The work descriptions for the RCMP officers consist of two Task Banks, or list of
duties. The Provost Officer (PRO-I and PRO-IIs) share the same Task Bank and duties
with some exceptions, given that the Provost Officer II is a supervisory position. The
general duty constable position has its own Task Bank.
The general duty constable job description represents a wide range of activities at
different posts and describes all of the work that an officer could perform over the
course of a career. The RCMP reports that general duty constables would normally
have performed all of the duties described in the Task Bank after six years of service.
In the case of provincial correctional officers, position descriptions in five provinces
were retained for this analysis. The quality of the position descriptions helped
determine the selection of the following five provinces: British Columbia, Saskatchewan,
Québec, Ontario and Nova Scotia. Only one position description was evaluated in each
of the five provinces.
Chapter 3
Job Evaluation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
23
VALIDATION OF THE WORK DESCRIPTIONS
To ensure the integrity of the evaluation process, the job evaluation team validated the
work descriptions through on-site visits and interviews. The team visited federal and
provincial institutions in Ontario and Saskatchewan, and conducted telephone
interviews with correctional officers in the other selected provinces. An RCMP
detachment in Saskatchewan and RCMP Headquarters in Ottawa were also visited
during the validation phase.
Information obtained from the interviews assisted the team in better understanding the
unique working conditions in each of the jurisdictions under review, and thereby greatly
assisted in the overall evaluation process.
As is customary in a job evaluation exercise, team members studied all of the
information gathered and then performed individual evaluations. An overall comparison
of the ratings was then completed and consensus was achieved. Through the
validation process the team reported complete and unanimous confidence in their
findings.
RATIONALE FOR RATINGS
The complete set of numerical ratings is included below in the table entitled
"Consensus of Evaluations". This section provides a detailed description of how these
ratings were achieved for each of the comparator groups.
The Willis Plan used in this study assesses four (4) key criteria as follows:
Knowledge and Skills: This factor measures job knowledge, managerial skills, and
interpersonal communication skills. It encompasses the total amount of understanding
of and familiarity with information necessary to perform the job in a satisfactory manner.
Such information can be obtained through experience or learning. Managerial Skills
refers to the degree to which elements of management must be practised in
coordinating activities, functions or sub-functions. The interpersonal component
measures direct contact skills in relationships both within the organization and external
to it.
Mental Demands: This factor measures independent judgement and problem-solving.
Specifically, this component weighs the degree of effort required to analyze alternatives
in reaching solutions. It also defines the latitude permitted for independent judgement
and the extent and nature of the job’s problem-solving requirements.
Accountability: This factor measures freedom to take action, significance of impact and
nature of impact. The amount of contribution to the achievement of desired results is
also weighed in this factor.
Chapter 3
Job Evaluation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
24
Working Conditions: This measures effort, hazards and discomfort, that is, the
undesirable conditions the work requirements impose. Effort refers to the degree of
mental concentration or physical energy exerted. Hazards include the degree of risk of
injury or harm. Discomfort includes such things as noise, temperature, isolation,
exposure to emotionally draining situations and other unfavorable conditions.
It is important to note that the Willis Job Evaluation Plan was designed to address a
broad range of jobs at all but the highest echelons of the public service. Consequently,
some of the highest possible ratings were not applicable to the jobs evaluated. To
further illustrate this point, it is possible to obtain a maximum rating of 1,804 points
using the Willis Plan. However, the highest rating achieved by the jobs evaluated for
this study was 376 (RCMP general duty constable).
In the "Consensus of Evaluations" table, each numerical rating under the factor
columns is preceded by two letters and a number. This represents the ratings achieved
in the sub-categories of each of the four Willis plan criteria. The reader will note that
there is a wide range of possible ratings, but in the jobs being compared in this study,
the range is relatively narrow.
By way of example, it is useful to look at the four criteria described above. Looking
specifically at the area of Knowledge and Skills, it was possible to apply the entire
range of Interpersonal Communication Skills ("K" to"Y") to the jobs being evaluated;
however, only a narrow range could be applied to the factor assessing Job knowledge.
("A" to "D").30 In this example, for a job to rate higher than "D" level would normally
require an extensive education period (for example, post-secondary or an advanced
degree). The reader will see that all of the jobs selected for evaluation rated at the "D"
or "C" level. All of the jobs were assigned a rating of "1" in the area of Managerial
Skills.
Looking at the Mental Demands Factor, more flexibility was possible. Only the highest
level of each component did not apply. The Accountability criterion evaluates the results
expected of the position, but not the consequences of achieving a result. The
evaluation team expanded the definition to enhance its applicability. The two highest
levels out of 5 of the Size of Impact dimension and the highest rating of 5 for the
Freedom to Take Action item were not applicable. Only in the Working Conditions
factor did the full range of ratings apply.
The job evaluation team assigned a level (numerical and alphabetical) to all factors
based upon stringent criteria. Once this level was assigned, there were several
possible numerical values that could have been assigned. For example, "D1N" on
Knowledge can carry weighted values of 122, 140 or 160. The actual value chosen
reflects either a solid rating on a particular component, a lean downward or a lean
upward in consideration of information available.
30
The Willis plan uses a combined alphabetical and numerical scheme in its ratings. Some factors are
more heavily weighted than others are and some are dependent upon other related factors. See
Appendix 4.
Chapter 3
Job Evaluation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
25
Knowledge and Skills is the most heavily weighted factor in the Willis plan, comprising
approximately 41% of the total evaluation. The Mental Demands follows (worth 27%)
and is directly related to the rating achieved on Knowledge and Skills. The relationship
of Accountability (worth 27% of the total rating) to the other factors is not a direct
numerical one.
Conversely, Working Conditions is considered completely
independently, and accounts for only 5% of the total rating.
THE FINDINGS
This section provides a detailed explanation of the ratings in relation to the comparator
universe of Federal Correctional officers, RCMP and Provincial corrections workers. It
is important to understand that all of the jobs rated fell within a relatively narrow range.
The closeness is to be expected given that all of the positions fall within the "law
enforcement stream".
RCMP GENERAL DUTY CONSTABLE
The RCMP general duty constable was assigned the highest total numerical value (376)
of the eleven (11) positions rated. The general duty constable scored the highest on all
factors, except that of Working Conditions. In fact the general duty constable rating on
the working conditions factor was lower than that of either federal or provincial
correctional officers.
In the area of Knowledge and Skills the general duty constable achieved a higher rating
in consideration of the following. Firstly, the job evaluation team evaluated a
comprehensive Task Bank, which considers everything an officer may be required to do
in the course of a career. Secondly the strong emphasis on all aspects of training was
noted, including five months at the RCMP Training Academy, followed by six months in
the field and on-going initiatives to address the ever-changing requirements of the job.
Thirdly, the general duty constable is required to know, interpret and apply the Criminal
Code and other federal, provincial and municipal laws and by-laws. This breadth of
knowledge required for the position necessitated a higher rating on this factor. Lastly,
the general duty constable rated higher on Interpersonal Communication Skills given
the extent of involvement in community relations and public education activities.
Persuasion skills are also a requirement of the job given the need to respond to
situations involving people in crisis, such as domestic disputes and automobile
accidents.
Chapter 3
Job Evaluation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
26
Consensus of Evaluations for the RCMP/Correctional Officer Comparative
Analysis
Willis Plan Ratings
Account.
1.
Position Title Know.
& Mental
Skills
Demands
RCMP GDC
D1Y 184
D4J 70
Total
D3S 92
Working
Conditions
S4C 30
2.
SASK CO
D1Y 160
C3H 46
C2S 53
M3D 46
305
3.
Primary
Worker,
D1Y 160
C3H 46
C1D 61
M3C 35
302
376
EIFW
(CX-2 level)
4.
QUE. CO II
D1N 140
C3H 40
C2S 61
M3D 46
287
5.
FED. CO II
(CX-2)
D1N 140
C3H 40
C2S 53
M3D 46
279
6.
ONT. CO II
D1N 140
C3H 40
C2S 53
M3D 46
279
7.
BC. LUO
D1N 140
C3H 40
C2S 53
M3D 46
279
8.
FED. CO I
(CX-1)
C1N 122
C3G 30
C2S 46
M3D 46
244
9.
NS CO II
C1N 122
C2F 26
C2S 46
M3D 40
234
10. RCMP PRO II C1N 122
C3G 30
C2S 53
S2C 15
220
11. RCMP PRO I
B2E 20
B1S 30
S2C 17
173
C1X 106
The general duty constable rated higher on both Mental Demands and Accountability.
The key activities considered in this rating were involvement in criminal investigations,
significant contributions to the safety of entire communities and the requirement to act
freely and autonomously in problematic situations. The level of responsibility and
accountability for policing in remote communities is particularly significant. The job
evaluation team did, however, assign a relatively low value in the area of Accountability,
in recognition of the many legal and regulatory restraints on an officer’ s actions.
Chapter 3
Job Evaluation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
27
As noted above, the overall rating of the general duty constable on Working Conditions
was lower than that of the other comparator groups. Ratings on Effort and Discomfort
reflect the fact that there is not a continuous output of physical and mental energy. In
addition, many aspects of community work are considered pleasant, and there is a fair
degree of administrative work required. It is noted that Hazards were rated higher for
the general duty constable than for correctional officers, because the general duty
constable is subject to unknown hazards such as stopping vehicles or responding to
domestic disputes. The correctional officers were seen to work in a more controlled
environment. While it is clearly recognized that serious incidents can and do occur in
correctional institutions, the requirement to face the unknown in an uncontrolled
environment accounts for the slightly higher rating on Hazards for the general duty
constable.
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS I AND II AND PRIMARY WORKERS
The federal correctional officers were rated as three separate groups, with the Primary
Worker position receiving the highest in this category (302). The Correctional Officer II
position received the next highest rating (279). The Correctional Officer I position
achieved a point rating of 244.
In rating the Knowledge and Skills factor, the initial training requirement was a
consideration.
All federal correctional officers must complete a thirteen-week
Correctional Training Program before beginning work in an institution. In the area of
Job Knowledge, the Correctional Officer II (CO-II) and the Primary Worker were
evaluated equally, although it is noted that the focus of the jobs is somewhat different.
As there are usually no Parole Officers in the female facilities, the Primary Workers are
the principal case managers. Primary Workers, like their CO-II counterparts, are also
responsible for balancing these case management responsibilities with their security
duties. Although the caseload of a Primary Worker is usually smaller than that of a COII, the Primary Worker must perform a full range of case management duties, including
intake assessment, security level assignment, development of correctional plans and
submissions to the National Parole Board.
While CO-IIs also perform many of these duties they are not the primary case
managers. Primary Workers are also often required to deliver programs as part of their
job requirements. This is not an expectation for CO-II officers. Both Primary Workers
and CO-IIs interact significantly with offenders and can exert a great deal of influence in
motivating offenders to change. The key difference noted by the job evaluation team
between the two groups was that in the case of the Primary Workers the level of
intervention was seen as more in-depth, as a result of the case management
requirement. The Primary Worker Knowledge and Skills overall rating is therefore
slightly higher than that of the CO-II.
Chapter 3
Job Evaluation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
28
The Mental Demands for both Primary Workers and Correctional Officers II is virtually
the same; however this dimension is a percentage of the Knowledge and Skills rating
and is therefore slightly higher for the Primary Worker. The rating in Mental Demands
recognizes that there is latitude for independent judgement and selection of
alternatives, but that there are often limited options. The need for analysis of
substantial and diverse data, as well as the recurring nature of some of the problems, is
clearly recognized.
The Primary Worker position was rated higher on the Accountability Factor as a result
of the direct influence exerted over an inmate caseload, and the sole responsibility that
the Primary Worker has in relation to managing a case and assessing risk. While, as
noted above, the CO-II does perform a number of casework duties and has input into a
number of decisions, there are other staff (parole officers) in the institution who have
greater responsibility in this area. In rating Accountability, the fact that Correctional
Officers II are in some cases in charge of an institution was considered. In addition, the
job evaluation team noted CO-II involvement and leadership in "extra" duties such as
participating on the Emergency Response Team. Both Correctional Officers II and
Primary Workers achieved a mid-range rating on the Accountability factor, which
reflects that, while much of the work is controlled by strict procedures and methods,
there are alternative courses of action to choose. This rating was arrived at in
recognition of their freedom to take action.
The Correctional Officer I position was seen to focus mainly on security with limited
input in case management. This factor accounts for the lower rating on the Job
Knowledge factor. Recognition was given to the fact that Correctional Officer I’s are
often required to counsel offenders in crisis situations, thereby increasing the rating on
interpersonal skills. The areas of Mental Demands and Accountability were rated
somewhat lower than Correctional Officer II positions because the focus on security
requires that the work must be completed in accordance with many routine procedures,
offering limited options. The ratings do reflect the need to deal with a wide range of
crisis situations, and in some cases to assume a leadership role (for example, on the
Emergency Response Team). It is further recognized that Correctional Officer Is must
possess excellent observation skills and be able to anticipate and prevent incidents,
including death or serious injury.
All federal correctional officers rated higher in Working Conditions then their RCMP
counterparts. Correctional Officers II and I rated higher in this area then did Primary
Workers mainly due to the Discomfort level. This rating recognizes that it is somewhat
less "disagreeable" to work in a new female facility than, for example, in a maximumsecurity environment. Nevertheless, a fair degree of "disagreeableness" was also
recognized in female institutions. The Hazards ratings reflect a significant degree of risk
for all federal correctional officers. The federal correctional officers rated lower in the
area of Hazards then their RCMP counterparts due to the existence of a more
controlled environment. The job evaluation team did, however, recognize the difficulties
associated with sustained contact with a difficult inmate population, and noted that this
condition does not exist for RCMP officers.
Chapter 3
Job Evaluation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
29
RCMP PRO-I AND PRO-II
The above noted positions were rated lower than any of the federal or provincial
correctional officers, with the PRO-I achieving 173 and the PRO-II achieving 220. In
relation to Knowledge and Skills, there is a three-week training period required to
qualify for these jobs. These jobs consist mainly of transporting and escorting
offenders and suspects in RCMP custody. There is also some court security and work
inside detention centers, but no significant interaction with offenders is required. The
rating recognizes that some interaction with the public is a requirement of this position.
Both positions work mainly under set routines and procedures, thus explaining the
lower rating in Accountability factors. The PRO-II has been credited with some
organizing and coordinating activities. The supervisory element was also accounted for
in this element.
The PRO-1 rated moderately in Working Conditions. Key considerations here were:
some probability of injury or illness but not to a significant degree, sustained contact
with offenders, adverse weather conditions, and sitting in restrained positions for
significant periods of time. While discomfort was seen as considerable, it did not reach
the level of correctional officers, who are required to interact in more significant ways
with offenders. Another difference is that PRO-I officers normally deal with restrained
offenders, whereas the correctional officers must work with offenders who have much
more freedom of movement. The PRO-II rated lower on this factor due to the
supervisory nature of this position and the limited contact with offenders.
PROVINCIAL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
As noted earlier in this chapter, the provincial correctional officer comparator was the
most difficult for the job evaluation team given the lack of current information. In
addition, documentation on working conditions was very sparse in all of the position
descriptions. Most of the provincial position descriptions are generic in nature and not
necessarily reflective of the many different jobs performed in a variety of diverse
institutions (for example Remand facilities and Young Offender facilities). As a general
rule, most provinces require a training period similar to that of the federal system.
The highest rated provincial job was the Saskatchewan Corrections Workers (305),
which rated only slightly higher than the federal Primary Worker. The reasons for this
rating were that the Saskatchewan job comprises a full range of case management
duties, including community assessments as well as some program delivery. A heavy
security component was also taken into consideration, as the security focus in some
areas of the institutions is quite high. This position achieved a higher rating on the
Knowledge and Skills component then did the CX-2; however, on this factor it rated the
same as the Primary Worker position. In the area of Accountability, the Saskatchewan
corrections worker was seen as similar to the CX-2, but lower than the Primary Worker.
Chapter 3
Job Evaluation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
30
The direct accountability for a caseload was seen as a determining factor in this rating.
The Working Conditions factor was rated the same as for federal correctional officers.
These are the key differences in comparison to federal correctional officers.
The Québec Correctional Service Officer (287) is comparable in Knowledge and
Skills to the federal Correctional Officer II because of similarities in the area of case
management. The major differences were found in the area of responsibilities for
offender intake, development of initial correctional plans, and community liaison
activities. The Primary Worker position and the Saskatchewan corrections worker rated
slightly higher overall. This difference was due to the former position’s focus on
significant interaction with offenders. The slightly higher rating on working conditions
reflects the fact that some staff work in remand centers with very difficult offenders.
The General Duty Officer, Correctional Services, Ontario (279) was extremely
difficult to rate because in this province there are two types of provincial facilities: one
that is heavily focused on security (for example, Remand Centers) and others that are
strongly focused on programming and case management. In contrast to federal
facilities, these functions are seen as completely separate and as such the Knowledge
and Skills component is rated lower because officers do not have to balance security
and case management in the same manner as their federal counterparts. The job
evaluation team agreed that this position would be classified somewhere between the
CX-1 level and the Primary Worker position.
The British Columbia Living Unit Officer (279) was seen as closely related to the
federal Correctional Officer II, in view of similarities in the area of case management,
security and, to a lesser extent, programming. Both positions received the same rating.
Each position requires that a balance be achieved between security and case
management.
The Nova Scotia Correctional Officer II (234) rated the lowest of the provincial jobs,
given that these officers do extremely limited case management. This position also
received a lower rating on working conditions, given that there appears to be very little
unrestrained movement by offenders. Most institutions in this province concentrate
primarily on security.
IN SUMMARY
The results of this comparative job evaluation study provide a useful analysis of the
similarities and differences of the eleven positions assessed. As noted earlier, in the
context of the tool used (the Willis Plan) all of the positions fell within a very narrow
range. The closeness of these ratings is not surprising in view of the fact that all of the
positions perform similar functions in the law enforcement field.
Chapter 3
Job Evaluation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
31
The actual point ratings themselves should not be misinterpreted. For example, while a
job rated at 300 points is of higher value for job classification purposes than a job rated
at 150 points, one cannot make an argument that the first job is worth double the
second job. The nature of the Willis scale does not allow such comparisons to be
made about the magnitude of the difference in ratings. 31
The analysis only shows the relative evaluations of the eleven positions based upon a
comparative analysis. The numerical values assigned should not be used to determine
the value of the positions for classification or compensation purposes. To attempt to do
so would not fall within standard statistical practice.
While it is recognized, for example, that the RCMP general duty constable rated higher
than the other positions evaluated, the ratings indicate that, while there are some
differences in focus among the jobs studied, there are also many similarities and
equivalencies. It is worthy of note that the RCMP general duty constable position rated
higher on all factors except that of working conditions, which only accounts for 5% of
the overall rating.
The results of this comparative job evaluation were useful to the Joint Committee in
achieving an improved understanding of the duties and working conditions of the
positions evaluated. This evaluation also provides context to the other elements of
comparison -- working conditions and compensation -- which the Joint Committee was
mandated to consider.
31
In contrast, in the case of dollars we know that $300.00 is double $150.00, and that the wage gap
between wages of $300.00 and wages of $150.00 is 100%.
Chapter 4
WORKING CONDITIONS
ABOUT THIS CHAPTER
The comparison of the working conditions of federal correctional officers with RCMP
officers and provincial correctional officers was an integral part of the Committee’s
mandate and a key component of this Joint Study. Indeed, the job evaluation and wage
comparisons can only be fully understood by examining the context in which the work is
being done. The objective of this chapter on working conditions is to provide this
necessary context.
DEFINING WORKING CONDITIONS
Working Conditions are measured in all job evaluation plans that meet the requirements
of Canadian human rights legislation. As specified in Section 11 (2) of the Canadian
Human Rights Act:
In assessing the value of work performed by employees in the same
establishment, the criterion to be applied is the composite of the skill, effort and
responsibility required in the performance of the work and the conditions under
which the work is performed" (emphasis added).
As noted in the job evaluation chapter, the Willis Plan’s definition of working conditions
focuses on the undesirable conditions of the work requirements, measured through
three dimensions: effort, or the amount of intense mental concentration or physical
energy required; hazards, or the degree of risk of injury; and discomfort, defined as the
environmental or stressful conditions associated with the work.
While entirely adequate for the purposes of job evaluation, the Joint Committee decided
to adopt a broader, more encompassing definition in order to undertake the mandated
comparison of working conditions as specified in Appendix G of the Terms and
Conditions of Employment for the CX group. At the outset of this study, the Committee
recognized the importance of understanding the work done by federal correctional
officers, uniformed RCMP officers and provincial officers, as well as the respective
context in which this work is done and the impact of the work on the officers and their
social networks.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
34
To this effect, working conditions as defined by the Committee include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
the duties and responsibilities carried out;
the work environment, both physical and psychological;
the decision-making structures that impact on the work;
the impact on short and long-term career goals;
the impact on the individuals’ lives outside work;
the impact on the individuals’ family and friends.
METHODOLOGY
From the outset of the study, it was clear to the Committee that working conditions
could be best understood and evaluated by talking with and listening to officers, and by
seeing first-hand the places in which they do their jobs. It was also decided that federal
correctional officers should be at the center of the working conditions assessment, and
that the data collection would therefore focus on their workplaces.
The data on working conditions were collected in the following ways:
•
•
•
•
on-site visits by the Committee to federal institutions across Canada, as well as to
provincial institutions and RCMP detachments;
written testimonials submitted to the Committee by federal correctional officers;
oral testimonials by officers during union-sponsored town hall meetings with
Committee members; and
focus groups conducted by an independent research firm, Environics Research
Group Limited.
SITE VISITS, WRITTEN TESTIMONIALS, AND TOWN HALL MEETINGS
The Committee visited fourteen federal correctional institutions in all five regions across
Canada.32 Taken together, these institutions represent a good cross-section of
minimum, medium, maximum, multi-level and women’s institutions in Canada.
During the site visits, the Committee toured the various work posts in the institutions,
and, more importantly, discussed working conditions directly with the on-duty officers.
In addition to familiarizing all Committee members with the ‘feel’ and the functioning of
institutions, these site visits provided invaluable context for understanding the roles of
correctional officers in the broader correctional universe. It is also from these visits that
the themes for the focus group discussions were developed.
32
In addition to the fourteen federal institutions listed, individual Committee members visited Millhaven
Institution, Bath Institution, the Établissement de Joliette, and the Federal Training Centre.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
REGION
Atlantic
Québec
Ontario
Prairies
BC
CX Joint Study - April 2000
Institutions Visited
Dorchester
Westmorland
Donnacona
Centre régional de réception
Leclerc
Kingston Penitentiary
Joyceville
Stony Mountain
Saskatchewan Penitentiary
Riverbend
Edmonton Institution for Women
Edmonton Institution
Mountain
Kent
35
Security Level
Medium
Minimum
Maximum
Multi-level
Medium
Maximum
Medium
Medium
Maximum
Minimum
Multi-level
Maximum
Medium
Maximum
To gain insight into the working conditions of uniformed RCMP officers and provincial
officers, the Committee visited two RCMP detachments, one in Chilliwack, BC and one
in Shediac, New Brunswick, as well as two provincial correctional institutions, the
Quinte Detention Centre in Napanee, Ontario and the Établissement de détention de
Montréal (commonly referred to as ‘Bordeaux’).
In addition to site visits, correctional officers provided input to the Committee at town
hall meetings. These meetings, organized by the Union representatives and held in
Moncton, Laval, Kingston, Winnipeg, Prince Albert, Edmonton and Chilliwack, were
designed to provide information on the Joint Study, as well as to give the regions the
opportunity to share their experience and their views on their profession and its
personal and professional impact. Hundreds of officers participated in the study
through this venue.
Finally, over twenty-five written testimonials were received from officers across the
country describing what it is like to be a correctional officer. Officers recounted issues
ranging from their involvement in riots, hostage-takings, murders, assaults and other
significant on-the-job incidents, to the long-lasting impact of the day-to-day job on
officers themselves and their families and friends. The importance of this written
material lies in its ability to communicate to the Committee the very personal and
profound impact of the correctional officer’s profession.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
36
FOCUS GROUPS
How They Were Done
Further to the data collected directly by the Committee, focus groups on working
conditions were conducted with correctional officers, correctional supervisors and
uniformed RCMP officers. The focus group research was carried out by the Environics
Research Group33 (hereinafter Environics). In keeping with the Committee’s definition
of working conditions, the overall objective of the focus groups was to examine issues
related to the job, the working environment and the impact of the job.
Environics conducted a total of twelve focus groups in December, 1999. Nine focus
groups were held with correctional officers. One session was held with correctional
supervisors (CX-3 level) in Kingston, in order to supplement the information provided by
correctional officers. For comparison purposes, two focus groups were conducted with
uniformed RCMP officers: one in Abbotsford, BC and one in Moncton, New Brunswick.
The focus groups with correctional officers were held in the following locations:
Region
Atlantic
Québec
Ontario
Prairies
BC
Location of the Focus Groups
Moncton
Montréal (two focus groups)
Cowansville
Kingston
Toronto
Drumheller
Edmonton
Abbotsford
Correctional officers with indeterminate employment status and more than one year’s
experience were randomly recruited to participate in the focus groups in their respective
regions. Officers were recruited from surrounding institutions in the above noted areas
by the Joint Committee based on the following characteristics of the current CX-1 and
CX-2 population :34
33
The final report prepared by the Environics Research Group Limited is available on the PSAC web site
(www.psac-afpc.com), the Correctional Service of Canada web site (www.csc-scc.gc.ca) and the Treasury
Board of Canada Secretariat web site (www.tbs-sct.gc.ca).
34
Given that approximately 85% of correctional officers were concentrated in one of three correctional
officer positions -- Correctional Officer 1 (CX-1 level); Correctional Officer 2 (CX-2 level) and Primary
Worker, Federally Sentenced Women’s Facilities (CX-2 level) -- all focus group participants were recruited
from these three job categories.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
•
•
•
CX Joint Study - April 2000
37
Security Level of the Institutions: 50% in medium institutions, 15% in minimum
institutions, 32% in maximum institutions, 3% in women’s facilities;
Level: 50% CX-1, 50% CX-2
Gender: 80% men, 20% women.
All focus groups were ‘mixed’, meaning that each focus group session included officers
from different institutions, male and female officers, and officers at the CX-1 and CX-2
levels.
The correctional supervisors were randomly recruited from the various institutions in the
Kingston area. The RCMP took responsibility for the selection of their participants.
In total, 103 correctional officers participated in the focus groups, as did 7 correctional
supervisors and 19 uniformed RCMP officers.
Focus Group Themes
The focus group discussion themes were developed by the Committee based on its
definition of working conditions and on recurring issues raised throughout the site visits.
While the questions varied slightly for correctional officers, correctional supervisors35,
and uniformed RCMP officers, all sessions touched on the following themes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the positive and negative aspects of the job;
the working environment;
working conditions;
skills, knowledge and job training;
security concerns;
the impact of the job on respondents’ family and personal life; and
how working conditions could be improved.
THE FINDINGS
Given the origins of this study, federal correctional officers have been at the center of
the Committee’s work from the outset. For this reason, the federal correctional officers
are at the heart of the following assessment of working conditions, with comparisons
drawn to the RCMP and provincial officers where appropriate.
This assessment is based primarily on input from the hundreds of officers from all
regions across the country. Taken together, the site visits, testimonials, town hall
meetings and focus groups provide a very rich and comprehensive source of
information on the many dimensions of working conditions, those of federal correctional
officers in particular.
35
Correctional supervisors were asked to discuss these issues from the perspective of the job of a
correctional officer, a job each of them held prior to their promotion to the supervisor level.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
38
DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
As indicated in the chapter on job evaluation, the work of the federal correctional officer
(hereinafter correctional officer) encompasses a wide range of duties and
responsibilities, and requires a unique and specialized combination of skills and
knowledge.
In actual fact, there are several ‘jobs’ a correctional officer can hold, including a more
typical correctional officer job, a Primary Worker (in women’s institutions), a visits and
correspondence officer, and an admissions and discharge officer36, to name only a few.
Moreover, specific duties and responsibilities are attached to each post in an institution.
As well, the focus of the job varies with the level of security of the institution in which
they work. For example, as a general rule, officers working in minimum security
institutions have more direct and frequent interaction with offenders, whereas those
working in maximum security institutions place a greater emphasis on controlling
offender movement and responding to security-related incidents. Consequently, a
federal correctional officer will likely be exposed to several ‘jobs’ during the course of a
single shift, a shift rotation, a year, and certainly throughout the span of a career.
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS AS PROFESSIONALS
Despite these differences and these possible variations, a clear picture emerged as to
the job, the environment, and the professionalism required of federal correctional
officers.
As front-line workers throughout the institutions, correctional officers make a very direct
contribution to achieving the legislative mandate of Correctional Service of Canada
(CSC), which is to maintain a just, peaceful and safe society for all Canadians37. They
play a vital role in carrying out the Mission set by CSC to encourage offenders to
become law-abiding citizens while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane
control, and while respecting the rule of law.38
Both RCMP officers, and federal correctional officers are mandated by law as peace
39
officers, with the legal obligations and responsibilities that are attached to this status.
36
One indicator of the multiple jobs is the number of distinct work descriptions that exist for correctional
officers. Under the new Universal Classification Standard, or UCS, there are seven distinct work
descriptions for CX-2s and four for CX-1s.
37
‘…the maintenance of a just, peaceful, safe society’ is the purpose of the CSC as stated in the Section 3
of the CCRA.
38
The full mission statement of CSC reads: The Correctional Service of Canada, as part of the criminal
justice system and respecting the rule of law, contributes to the protection of society by actively
encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe,
secure and humane control.
39
For example, Section 32(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada gives certain authority to peace officers with
respect to the use of force.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
39
These obligations and protections are derived from the Criminal Code of Canada.40 In
the case of CX officers the parameters of this status are further defined by the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act.41
CX officers are directly responsible for providing a safe and secure environment for
themselves, the other professional staff, the management team of the institution, and
the offenders. Together with a larger team of professionals, including psychologists,
parole officers, teachers, nurses, doctors, psychiatrists, chaplains, and the like,
correctional officers contribute to the reintegration of offenders. The professionals
encountered by the Committee throughout the site visits confirmed the valuable role
played by officers on the team. In particular, these professionals noted the degree to
which they depend on officers for safety and security, and for first-hand information on
the offenders. In the words of one teacher in an institution the Committee visited, “I rely
more on the CXs than on the psychiatrist for an assessment (of offenders). That’s
where our eyes and our ears are.”
PROVIDING A SAFE AND SECURE ENVIRONMENT
The correctional officer’s job has always involved direct contact with offenders, and the
safety and security considerations associated with this front-line work remain central to
the job. Institutions are essentially about ‘reasonable, safe, secure and humane
control’. Control is achieved in two ways: static security and dynamic security.42 Static
security refers to the bars, locks, control posts, towers, alarmed fences, high walls, and
mobile patrols of the prison perimeter. Dynamic security is accomplished through staff
observations, and through the interactions and relationships between staff and the
43
Both static and dynamic security are necessary in
offenders with whom they work.
making institutions safe.
40
According to Section 2 of the Criminal Code, peace officers include the following: “a member of the
Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other
officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act.”
41
Section 10 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act specifies the following: “The Commissioner
may in writing designate any staff member, either by name or by class, to be a peace officer, and a staff
member so designated has all the powers, authority, protection and privileges that a peace officer has by
law in respect of (a) an offender subject to a warrant or to an order for long-term supervision; (b) any
person, while the person is in a penitentiary.”
42
All institutions rely on both static and dynamic security, albeit to different extents: maximum security
institutions make the most use of static security, medium-security institutions require a balance between
the two, and in minimum-security institutions, which lack the static security barriers, staff rely heavily on
dynamic security.
43
The recent Report of the Task Force on Security defines dynamic security as “those actions that
contribute to the development of professional, positive relationships between staff members and
offenders.” (p. 19).
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
40
Tasks traditionally associated with static security and traditional ‘control’ have always
comprised an important component of the correctional officer’s job, both at the CX-1
and CX-2 levels. Some of these tasks include:
•
Observation and control of offender movement from control posts, such as the
towers, the central ‘dome,’ a range control post, and the ‘catwalks’ that are found in
maximum-security institutions.
•
Conducting offender counts. CX officers must count offenders at regularly
established intervals throughout the day to ensure that they are in custody and to
protect their safety and security.
•
Conducting regular searches of offenders, their cells and various other areas in the
institution. Officers must perform searches of inmates and areas to find contraband
and unauthorized items. Officers often find hand-made weapons, as well as
hypodermic needles, drugs, contraband and other illegal objects.
•
Observation and interpretation of offender behaviour that may result in the writing of
institutional offence reports, or reporting on criminal activity which could lead to
police investigations. Both RCMP and federal correctional officers must have
knowledge of the appropriate laws and must respect the rule of law.
In recent years, new technology, such as ion scan drug detection units, Perimeter
Intrusion Detection Systems (PIDS), sophisticated video and telecommunication
equipment, fire panels, cell alarm calls, metal detectors and the like, have changed the
ways in which officers carry out their duties. The required level of skill and knowledge
has increased accordingly.
Furthermore, legislation and ensuing policy have changed the way in which even the
most ‘traditional’ tasks are now accomplished. For example, in the case of searches
and seizures, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies the rights of offenders and
visitors and therefore frames the actions of officers conducting them. The CCRA and
related regulations specify when and how searches and seizures are done and the
process for reporting them. Officers can only conduct searches and seizures where
there is an established search plan with an approved authorization process, or when
they consider that there are reasonable and probable grounds.
Contrary to what the term may suggest, officers occupying ‘static’ posts may have direct
contact with offenders. During the Committee’s site visits, the on-duty officers
occupying these posts were juggling multiple tasks, including responding to offender
requests and questions. At some posts, the job requires less frequent contact with
offenders, but involves many other tasks, including the operation of a myriad of
computerized equipment. For example, officers working an 8-hour shift in the Main
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
41
Communication and Control Post (MCCP) in one maximum security institution
described their job in this way:
“There’s 48 camera shots (to watch). We monitor all audio equipment, maintain
four radio frequencies, watch the regulated fence alarms, smoke and intrusion
alarms, respond to cell calls (after four minutes if the bubble doesn’t
acknowledge them). We operate four doors, coordinate CX-1 overtime, help the
supervisor lock up. We’re responsible for the count, tracking visits and escorts,
keeping stats on suspensions, OMS44 cell moves in the ‘graveyard’, and counting
and checking PFVs45. When we need to, we call the fire department and the
RCMP.”
THE EVOLUTION OF THE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER PROFESSION
In the last ten years, and perhaps even more so in the last five, dynamic security has
become a much more prominent aspect of the correctional officer job. Today,
correctional officers are required to play a more active and direct role in the
46
reintegration of offenders than ever before. The introduction of unit management
starting in 1986, reflects this shift in emphasis on the part of CSC.
For the CX-2s, the key change in their jobs over the past ten years or so47 has been
their direct responsibility for case management of offenders. Carrying an average
caseload of 6 to 15 offenders, CX-2 officers make a direct contribution to the monitoring
and review of correctional plans. They are responsible for a range of tasks and
activities48, including the following:
•
44
CX-2s must hold regular, face-to-face ‘case conferences’ with offenders and make
regular observations in order to assess their progress and to assess their needs;
OMS stands for Offender Management System, a computerized system containing detailed and
confidential information on offenders.
45
PFV stands for private family visits, which take place in separate units situated on the grounds of
institutions.
46
In brief, unit management is the sub-division of institutions into autonomous units where offenders live.
It facilitates direct and regular staff-offender contact. See Commissioner’s Directive 005 for a full
description of the principles of Unit Management.
47
While officers who participated in the focus groups, town halls and site visits were unanimous when they
spoke of the changes in their jobs resulting from case management, the actual implementation date they
spoke about varied somewhat. CSC reports that unit management was first introduced in 1986, although
the degree of implementation varied from region to region and from institution to institution. The Unit
Management Accountability Matrix - Case Management, released in 1992, describes officers’ roles and
responsibilities. In February 1999, the CSC released and implemented Operation By-Pass, which was
designed to streamline and simplify the case management process and to clarify the role to be played by
all involved in the case management process.
48
The Unit Management Accountability Matrix - Case Management includes a list of the activities and
reports for which the CX-2 is responsible.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
42
•
CX-2s consult with and provide input to the other professional staff, including parole
officers, teachers, psychologists, psychiatrists, chaplains, health care professionals,
and others, on the offenders’ needs, criminal risk, the development and revision of
correctional plans, and release suitability;
•
CX-2s must gather information on offenders from various sources, including the
offenders themselves, their families, other professional staff, the police, and victims,
for use in program planning and decision-making;
•
CX-2s make recommendations regarding offender discipline;
•
CX-2s may assist CX-1 officers in various tasks, including the preparation of reports;
•
CX-2s produce regular verbal and written reports, including Correctional Plan
Progress reports and casework records (at least every 30 days) which provide
ongoing documentation of an offender’s behaviour and progress measured against
the offender’s Correctional Plan;
•
CX-2s are responsible for monitoring the offenders’ work behaviour and completing
offender pay recommendations;
•
CX-2s make recommendations regarding perimeter clearance49, whether or not to
grant private family visits, voluntary transfers and security reclassifications, as well
as escorted and unescorted temporary absences.
Although they generally hold static posts in the institutions, officers at the CX-1 level are
part of the team of professionals. In addition to providing a safe environment for staff
and offenders, they contribute directly to reintegration objectives and to case
management in the following ways:
•
CX-1s often write observation reports, and in some regions write casework records,
which include a great deal of information on offenders’ behaviours. These
observation reports are used by parole officers in decision-making in such areas as
program placement, release planning, work release programs, temporary absences,
and security level decisions. CX-1s reports are also submitted to institutional
managers to facilitate ongoing daily institutional operations.
•
CX-1s provide written and verbal observations to CX-2s and parole officers, which
are extremely valuable in the case management process;
•
Some CX-1s are trained in Program Awareness, and are expected to look for and
record behavioural changes that may have resulted from program participation;
49
Perimeter clearance refers to the authority to leave the confines of the prison, and is usually granted for
work purposes.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
43
•
It is a regular occurrence for CX-1s to counsel offenders. For example, CX-1s work
in living and program areas, including segregation and dissociation units, where they
are in direct contact with offenders and are seen by other professional staff as
valuable sources of information. In these units, CX-1s do a lot of one-on-one
counselling and need to be particularly attentive to signs of danger, such as suicide,
or threats by or against another offender.
•
CX-1s also work in several locations where they are required to report on offenders’
work performance. Examples include supervising cleaners and offender staff in
recreation areas. CX-1s may also have input into work evaluations, which are in
turn considered in reintegration decisions and in inmate pay decisions.
For officers at both the CX-1 and CX-2 levels, the dynamic security portion of their work
involves active intervention with and counselling of offenders. It requires good
interpersonal skills, excellent judgement, and vigilance. The ability to read and interpret
body language in order to prevent potentially volatile situations cannot be overlooked.
Officers must, by law, use informal conflict resolution methods prior to discipline50, and
are required to explore options prior to recommending the placement of offenders in
segregation.51 When considering the use of force, officers must follow very strict
52
parameters .
In some specific units, officers acquire very specialized knowledge. One correctional
officer working in a mental health range describes what he needs to know to do his job:
“I am expected to know and understand psychological terminology and how it
refers to inmates on my unit. This includes knowledge of schizophrenia,
paranoid schizophrenia, and personality disorders. I’m also expected to know
and react to changes in medication introduction of non-prescribed drugs and
their effects, to non-compliance of medication and withdrawal symptoms. Those
who work the mental health unit must be aware of case histories in order to
effectively interact with each offender of this specialized unit. This preserves the
continuity of program delivery, enables crisis intervention, and monitoring.
Suicide prevention and resolution is an ongoing process for officers to know…
Officers must know how to interact with other professionals attached to this unit.
These include psychologists, psychiatrists, clinicians, and health care
professionals.”
50
CCRA, Section 41 (1) and (2).
CCRA, Section 31 (3) c. and Commissioner’s Directive 590.
52
See Commissioner’s Directive 605.
51
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
44
COMPARISONS WITH THE RCMP
While there are important differences in the duties of RCMP general duty constables
and federal correctional officers, there are also many similarities. Both need to know
and keep abreast of the federal laws and statutes, which govern their respective roles in
the justice system like the CCRA , Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, albeit to different degrees. Both carry out searches and
seizures in accordance with these laws. Both are called to respond to emergency
situations; the RCMP officers in uncontrolled environments, and the federal officers in
more controlled environments53 involving sustained contact with offenders. Both jobs
require a significant amount of report writing and other administrative work. In the case
of CX officers, this involves continued contact with offenders to the point of release.
Through this contact officers gain insight into offender behaviour, enabling them to
make significant contributions through the case management process to the safe
reintegration of offenders. As a result, this has meant a more proactive role in their
involvement with offenders.
In the case of the RCMP, a shift towards a community-policing model has similarly
brought the officers closer to the communities they serve. This has required RCMP
officers to focus more on crime prevention than on reacting to crime. This proactive
approach is arrived at by working with community members to identify problems and
develop solutions. Both require good interpersonal skills to influence behaviour. The
evolution of both organizations has significantly contributed to making our communities
safer.
In terms of training, the RCMP general duty constables and federal correctional officers
reported marked differences in both frequency and opportunity. Some of these
differences are directly attributable to the different professional duties that each group
carries out. Nevertheless, the focus groups revealed strong consensus amongst
correctional officers as to the inadequacy of ongoing training they received in order to
do their jobs. In contrast, the RCMP officers in both the focus groups and site visits
noted an extensive basic training program, followed by a strong focus on ongoing
training, especially when new legislation and judicial rulings alter the way in which the
RCMP must operate. In the words of one RCMP officer in the focus groups:
“Training is continually ongoing. You no sooner finish one aspect of it and you
are on another.”
53
This reference is not intended to underestimate the potential for situations to become uncontrolled in the
prison environment. This reference refers only to the fact that correctional officers have use of static
security elements that are not available in the community.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
45
THE TRANSITION TO CASE MANAGEMENT: THE IMPACT ON OFFICERS
From the input the Committee received, it is clear that the extent and the impact of the
transition to case management, especially for officers with many years of experience,
has been far-reaching.54
Officers clearly express security and rehabilitation as separate and distinct correctional
objectives, rather than as interrelated functions that work together. Some officers
simply do not agree with the shift in philosophy from the old corrections model, with its
focus on the locking-up, punishment, and separation of offenders. Several senior
officers described themselves as no longer being in the job they were hired for. In the
words of one officer, “(the case management) is hard to do when you spent ten years of
your life doing security work and doing it well.”
Several officers pointed to the inherent challenge of the job that involves case work, on
the one hand, and security and protection on the other. As one officer explained:
“A difficulty is handing the two philosophies of corrections right now, which is
security and rehabilitation. Having a caseload and security. The caseload … it’s
hard to be a guard and hug him in the morning and then mace him in the
afternoon because he’s been a bad person. Don’t laugh, it happens.”
Workload was also a main issue raised by officers in the context of case management.
Focus group participants described the job as consisting of a large number of
competing priorities.
The CX-2s handle caseloads and each case involves
considerable paperwork in addition to having to perform the usual security elements of
the job -- such as supervising visits, escorting offenders to appointments and patrolling
the ranges. CXs indicated that the workload had increased at a rapid rate and that
they do not have the time to complete all their duties. When CX-2s have to complete
their casework, CX-1s end up having to ‘cover for them.’ And when faced with a
decision as to whether or not to do report writing or security, security almost always
takes priority, because of their concern for the safety of their professional colleagues
and offenders.
Throughout the focus groups, site visits and town hall meetings, officers expressed their
concern with management and its perceived lack of understanding of the competing
responsibilities and workload associated with the security and rehabilitation functions.
The most common issue raised was described as the lack of understanding and
respect from management for the job that correctional officers do. The difficulty in
adapting the ever-shifting rules and regulations was also commonly mentioned.
54
The tension between the old and the new approaches to corrections has been recognized in other
instances. For example the Report of the Security Task Force (at page 10) highlights this existing tension
and defines it as a ‘cultural tension’ which neither politics or policy can effectively resolve.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
46
Throughout the site visits, lack of training was reported as a key factor in making the
transition difficult. In all the focus groups, there was a consensus on what they
considered to be a generalized lack of training ; however, the lack of case-management
training was singled out as an important case in point. They reported that when
casework became part of the job, they received a short course of “a couple of days” for
learning a task that involves making critical recommendations about whether an
offender should be reclassified. Moreover, many officers reported that they now had to
use computers for the first time in their lives. The training that officers received in basic
computer skills was seen to be quite cursory, and officers often reported that team
members with computer skills were informally training others to use the computer and
write reports. While this initiative was seen as positive, it was deemed by most to be
insufficient and certainly not an adequate replacement for formal training.
THE WORK AND ITS ENVIRONMENT
The physical environment in which the correctional officers perform their professional
responsibilities cannot be described as ‘pleasant’. The presence of bars, gates, locks,
towers, fences and other physical barriers in most institutions serves as a constant
reminder that, by definition, the institution is not a ‘desirable’ place. Moreover, officers
work in offenders’ living areas, which are confined, noisy and crowded. Officers noted
how difficult the summer season can be, especially on hot and humid days and nights,
with no air conditioning, an uncomfortable uniform, and an offender population that may
be volatile as a result of their discomfort.
Cleanliness varies across institutions, as does the quality of the officers’ workspaces.
In recent years, many older institutions have been retrofitted, which has improved and
modernized workstations and posts. However, in some instances officers have
indicated that these retrofits were conducted without adequate consideration for their
work-related needs. Officers have reported that the condition and location of
workstations can leave them feeling demoralized and vulnerable.
The suitability of the workstations where casework is done was a concern in some
institutions. In the newer institutions, it has been possible to design and organize
workspaces, including the location of computers, to respond to the need for case work.
Older institutions were not designed with this requirement in mind. In certain cases,
computers are located in control posts where the regular flow of offenders, and the
need to respond to offender requests and to provide access in and out of the ranges,
place significant limitations on the concentration required to do report writing and case
work.
But the work environment is far more encompassing than the bars, the gates and the
actual physical work sites.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
47
At the risk of stating the obvious, correctional officers work primarily with offenders, and
the renewed emphasis on reintegration objectives have made it all the more important
to establish good working relationships with these offenders. In the institutions, officers
have the most frequent and direct contact with offenders. In the focus groups, officers
mentioned a number of tasks that they carry out in addition to case management,
including supervising meals, dealing with mail, sending offenders to and from their jobs
in the institution, conducting searches, controlling the movement of offenders, assisting
with their finances, and accompanying offenders on escorts to funerals, family visits,
court, and other events. Overall, officers in the focus groups described themselves as
being ‘vastly outnumbered’ and being ‘run off their feet’ attending to offenders’ needs.
It is important to understand the inherent difficulty in establishing good relationships
with offenders and the high level of professionalism required to do so. With few
exceptions, the offenders that federal correctional officers work with have been
convicted of a crime warranting a sentence of two or more years in prison. Federal
officers deal with offenders having committed violent crimes against others, like sexual
assault, child abuse, and murder. Unlike RCMP officers, whose contact with offenders
generally ends with an arrest and/or a conviction, federal correctional officers deal with
a number of offenders on a daily basis. Federal officers are regularly subject to verbal
abuse and are often witnesses to violence.
Officers often spoke to the Committee of specific situations where it was hard to treat
offenders with the necessary respect and dignity, especially in the face of a volatile
situation, knowing what these offenders had done in the past and what they may have
done while in prison. Another dimension of the professionalism required is the need to
refrain from showing any emotion in the face of very difficult situations. In the words of
one officer:
“I was no more than three feet away from [an offender], when she slashed her
throat, numerous times, with a broken mirror. I had nightmares for weeks. I
didn’t mind this inmate. I felt sorry for her. One must always maintain a
professional approach, very little room for human emotion.”
As these stories indicate, institutions are not violence-free, in spite of the efforts,
dedication and the hard work on the part of all correctional staff. Officers are amongst
offenders on a regular basis and are always outnumbered. The threat of violence is a
constant in the institutional environment where officers work. In the focus groups,
officers described a job where, in spite of the heavy workload and the multiplicity of
tasks, a lot of time is spent ‘waiting for something to happen,’ which tends to create a
very tense work atmosphere.
Gang membership and rivalry, the drug trade and contraband production are part of the
work environment of correctional officers, and officers note that these activities are the
most common cause of violence among offenders. One of the most vivid illustrations of
gang rivalry the Committee was able to observe was at the Donnacona Penitentiary in
Québec, a maximum-security institution which has been physically divided into two
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
48
distinct and autonomous units, one which houses Hell’s Angels members and one
which houses members of the Rock Machine. Officers at Donnacona must ensure no
contact occurs between offenders in these units. The consequences of error are very
high: the officers reported that contact would likely result in violence, if not murder.
It is fair to say that over the years, the vast majority of correctional officers have either
directly experienced or will experience a serious violent incident while on the job. And
some will themselves be the target of this violence. National statistics from CSC
indicate that 775 serious violent incidents 55 occurred in federal institutions from 1990 to
1999. Of these, there were 32 major assaults on staff as well as 51 murders of
offenders, 136 suicides, and 474 major assaults on offenders. In the twelve-month
span from April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999, CSC counted 2 major assaults on staff, 6
murders of offenders, 3 hostage-takings, 16 suicides, and 31 major assaults on
offenders.
Being the front-line worker and the first on the scene when violent incidents occur, or
where situations have the potential to erupt, an officer is required to have extremely
good judgement and the ability to make split-second decisions. These decisions must
be anchored in knowledge of the appropriate laws, policies and procedures that govern
the job, including the CCRA, the Criminal Code, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
the applicable Commissioner’s Directives, and the Standing Orders and Operating
Procedures of the Institution.
Unlike the RCMP, federal correctional officers are not usually armed. When time and
circumstances permit, federal officers have various options regarding the use of force
as prescribed by policy. For both RCMP officers and federal correctional officers, the
use of force, including firearms and chemical agents, requires an initial assessment of
the situation. Any pre-planned use of force requires authorization from the respective
management.
As indicated in the chapter on job evaluation, the consequence of error is very high for
both RCMP officers and federal correctional officers. Throughout the focus groups,
town hall meetings, testimonials and site visits, federal correctional officers described
the difficulty of being ‘under scrutiny’ and of having to account for and defend their splitsecond decisions made under difficult circumstances. For both groups, accountability
is high all the way ‘up the line,’ from supervisors to management, and possibly to the
media and the general public. One officer summed it up in this way:
“As with any law enforcement officer, at times we are required to make splitsecond decisions that can and do have life threatening implications. After the
event is over, it will be reviewed, analyzed, investigated, in most cases for many
months. The end result is that a group of individuals spends six months
determining whether the decision you may have less than two or three seconds
55
All statistics are taken from CSC’s Summary of Institutional Security Incidents, December 1999.
Violent incidents are defined to include staff murders, offender murders, hostage-takings, suicides, major
assaults on staff, major assaults on offenders, and serious fights between offenders.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
49
to make was the correct decision. The result to your career can be disastrous if
you are found to have made the wrong decision. The correctional officer faces
this on a fairly regular basis, due to the large number of violent inmates in our
institutions.”
Intrinsically linked to the accountability factor is the officers’ regular contact with the
legal and judicial systems. All the written reports officers prepare have the potential to
be cited in court, at National Parole Board hearings, in disciplinary court, and before
other decision-making bodies. They must meet legal standards and stand up to the
scrutiny of institutional management, defense lawyers, parole board members, the
Correctional Investigator, and others. Officers themselves must defend their reports.
Many expressed concern at having no legal representation from their employer and little
or no training in appearing as a witness or in other legal procedures. As well, officers
spoke of a work environment in which management was often seen as not being
supportive of the decisions made by front-line staff.
POSSIBILITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT
On a professional level, the limited opportunities for career advancement are a reality
for many of the more than 5000 Canadian correctional officers. Promotions to the CX-2
level are possible for officers at the CX-1 level; the data shows that it takes an average
of 12 years as a CX-1 before promotion to the CX-2 level.
For the CX-2 officers, the possibilities are now more limited. The job of parole officer,
which is the most common ‘promotion’ for correctional officers at the CX-2 level, now
requires a university degree. The majority of the officers with a university degree those who have access to these promotions -- have been recruited relatively recently.
As a result, the possibilities of advancement for senior officers with experience but
without a university degree are restricted. Promotions to the CX-3 (supervisor) level are
possible without a university degree, but the small numbers of CX-3s (20%) relative to
CX-2s means that very few CX-2 officers will ever have this opportunity. Further
promotions to the unit manager, deputy warden and warden levels are even more
limited.
Furthermore, being a member of the federal public service provides correctional officers
with very few opportunities for job mobility. Indeed, the very specialized work they do
and the relative absence of any jobs requiring the same type of knowledge and skill in
the rest of the federal public service means that they are at a relative disadvantage
compared to many other federal employees. This inability to transfer from one federal
department to another limits longer-term promotional opportunities.
Provincial
correctional officers are at a similar disadvantage in their respective jurisdictions. In
contrast, RCMP constables indicated that, while the possibilities for promotion have
greatly decreased in the recent past, they do have the opportunity to occupy more
specialized jobs at their level within the RCMP, like commercial crime investigations and
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
50
undercover work, and in organized crime units. These assignments do not involve a
promotion and may result in a geographical move.
Throughout the focus groups, town hall meetings, site visits and testimonials, officers
pointed to problems with the current staffing and promotions system that further limited
the possibilities for advancement. Officers noted that the policies and procedures to
evaluate correctional officers for possible promotions have changed considerably. At
one time, experience and work record were the main determinant ; however, officers
consider that the written tests used today have little to do with how good the person
would be at the job in question. Some correctional officers find it demoralizing to work
for years at a job which they do well, only to be passed over for promotions in favour of
candidates who may ‘look good on paper’ because of their degrees or who know how to
write the kinds of tests one has to write to compete for management level-jobs.
THE IMPACT OF THE JOB ON PERSONAL AND FAMILY LIVES
The written testimonials and the stories officers shared with the Committee speak
volumes to the profound impact of their profession on their lives.
In this study, federal officers have identified the work place, including the environment
itself, the derogatory comments, insults, verbal abuse, threats, the potential for
violence, and the management structure as important sources of stress. RCMP officers
have also indicated that stress is inherent in their jobs. Research supports the fact that
traumatic experiences, like exposure to murder, assault and suicide, which occur
regularly in the institutional environment, are also sources of significant stress.56
The occurrence, and the effects, of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among
correctional staff is well-documented. For example, in her research on exposure to
critical incidents and their effects on Canadian correctional officers, Lois Rosine found
that 17% of the officers interviewed experienced effects severe enough to be diagnosed
as suffering from PTSD. This figure is considerably higher than the 1% in the general
population and approaches the 20% level found in Vietnam War veterans. Rosine’s
findings also discount the common belief that individuals become hardened to critical
57
This helps to validate the concept of the cumulative impact of
incidents over time.
such incidents on correctional officers.
56
These two types of stress have been identified by P.M. Fischer in her forthcoming book on worker
stress in corrections entitled The road back to wellness: Worker stress, burnout and trauma in corrections
(Vancouver, BC: Spectrum Press, 2000). The complex stress model in this research considers two
primary work stress factors which apply to work in corrections, as well as to work in emergency services,
law enforcement, and trauma services: Factor 1 includes the stresses arising from the workplace, and
Factor 2 includes the effects of traumatic experiences in the workplace. This second factor comprises
both primary traumatic stress responses (from experiences of direct threat or injury) and secondary
traumatic stress responses, from hearing about traumatic material or experiencing them second hand.
57
Lois Rosine, “Exposure to Critical Incidents: What are the Effects on Canadian Correctional Officers?”
Focus on Staff, Volume 4, Number 1, 1992.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
51
Research has also documented the far-reaching impact of shift work on workers’
mental and physical health. Officers throughout the country raised the impact of shift
work as one of the most difficult aspects of their job.58 Institutions are 24-hour
operations, and there are always correctional officers on duty. Officers have to run their
lives “continually out of sync with the rest of the general population including for the
most part his/her spouse and children”. Time with family and friends are limited, and
officers often miss out on important events, such as their children’s activities and
organized recreational activities. Further formal education is also hard to pursue when
working rotating shifts.
The close, often physical contact with offenders infected with HIV, hepatitis,
tuberculosis, and other diseases make the risk of contracting them ever-present.
Several officers made it a point to communicate to the Committee the far-reaching
stress and angst associated with being accidentally pricked by a hypodermic needle, a
tattoo device, a razor blade, or by coming into contact with blood and bodily fluids
during slashings, assaults, or other similar incidents. One officer recounts what he
describes as his nightmare following a cell extraction where he and other officers came
into contact with an offender’s blood:
“We went directly to the infirmary and they sent us immediately to the emergency
department at X Hospital. The established protocol was activated and the head
nurse met us upon our arrival. Four out of six officers have to immediately take
medication to protect them against hepatitis and HIV. We are filled with fear and
doubts. What can happen to us in the next days and months? Personally, I
almost never take medication. Now, I have to take 14 pills a day for the next
thirty days. This adds up to 420 pills over the next month and I also have to
suffer the side effects. Let’s talk about these side effects: nausea, chronic
fatigue, diarrhea, difficulties concentrating, and bed-wetting. We are sick but on
top of that we feel humiliated because of what is happening to us. To top it off, I
have a family and they have to live with me while I am experiencing these side
effects. Then I find out that the inmate is refusing to undergo blood testing. This
would not change our situation but at least we would know if he was infected.
We now have to wait for three months in the case of the hepatitis test and six
months for the HIV test to find out if were infected. Imagine the stress on your
family, because of your changed behaviour at home. ‘Daddy doesn’t play with
me like he used to, Mommy.’ My son doesn’t understand his father’s sickness
and he wants a healthy father that can take care of him.”
The actions of officers within the prison walls can have repercussions on the personal
safety of officers when they leave work. Officers told the Committee of threats they
received from offenders who were angry with the decision not to grant them a private
family visit, an escorted temporary absence, or a transfer to another institution ; or with
an internal charge, or other such decisions that officers have the authority to make.
Offenders who are members of a gang have friends on the outside, and officers have
58
See for example Brian A. Grant, “The Impact of Working Rotation Shifts on the Family Life of
Correctional Staff”, Correctional Research and Development, Correctional Service of Canada.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
52
reported being threatened by suspected gang members. Threats to family, especially
officers’ own children, were a significant concern for officers throughout the country.
Family life is affected in other ways as well. Officers in the focus groups reported a
tendency to be overprotective of their families and children. Most officers said that they
try and avoid talking about work with their spouses and children. This is partly because
they do not want to worry their families about the dangers they face, but also to
minimize the threats to them. It quickly becomes a part of life for correctional officers to
walk away from their families in public places after they have seen an ex-offender
because they do not want that person to see who their family members are.
The far-reaching impact of the environment and the cumulative impact of exposure to
verbal abuse and violence are difficult to measure. Albeit intangible, the impact is very
real to many officers. The following two testimonials provide some insight in this
respect:
“The names I was called daily were sometimes unbearable. X, names mean
nothing but after hearing them daily, it was difficult to walk with your head in the
air, and didn’t do much for my self-esteem.”
“My most memorable experience was when I was conducting a range walk,
alone, with 80 male offenders unlocked on a range. I had got to the end of the
range when an offender announced, ‘get off the range or I’ll take you hostage.’ I
can’t describe to you the feeling, my thoughts. I was simply PETRIFIED. I
honestly believed I would never get to the end of the barrier exit at the other end.
… Well somehow I did make it; I got off the range. How? Don’t ask, because I
really have no idea. I completed my walks on the other range, as duty required.
Really don’t recall. I was in Robot mode. I then returned to the Block Office. I
fell apart. Yes. I cried. Uncontrollably. How embarrassing and humiliating, right
in front of other officers. … This incident took its toll on my family in ways that I
am very ashamed of. The anger and fear inside of me ruled my home life. My
temper was out of control and unpredictable. I lashed out at family members for
no reason, well I thought I had a reason but was never sure what the reason
was. … I realized I needed help. I sought professional help. Now I am cured,
well at least my temper is under control (post traumatic stress disorder), for now.
The effects of this incident will never be totally healed for my family or myself.”
This low collective self-esteem shared by federal correctional officers across the
country reaches beyond their professional lives to affect their personal lives as well.
Many officers are secretive about their occupation and prefer not to tell their friends or
neighbors in the outside world what they do for a living. This is partly for security
reasons, but also because there is little pride in being a federal correctional officer.
There was a perception that the media has conditioned the general public to be more
sympathetic to the offenders, which makes officers feel further devalued.
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
53
One officer told the Committee: “It’s not very nice to think I am going to spend the next
15 years of my life being a CX-2, and that’s all I’m ever going to be.” These words
speak not only to the limited possibilities in terms of career advancement, but also to
the low sense of collective professional self-esteem that characterizes the correctional
officer profession.
Nevertheless, there is a sense that the job does contribute to safety and security in the
institution and beyond. Reflecting on the impact of a life-long career, one correctional
officer said it in the following way:
“I guess when all is said and done I will never know who I might have been, but I
will continue with my career as a Correctional Officer because I know that I serve
a useful purpose. Even when some of the public does not view my role as a
professional, productive part of society, I have to believe everyone is safer when
I do my job to the best of my ability. I have sometimes been perceived as a
‘necessary evil’ but that’s even better than some other terms that have been
used to describe me.”
IN SUMMARY
The Committee heard from and met with hundreds of officers across the country
throughout the course of the Joint Study. A key component of the study was to provide
a well-documented account and assessment of the working conditions of federal
correctional officers. The Committee focused on the duties and responsibilities, the
internal and external environment, and the broader impact of the job, on officers, their
families and friends.
From the focus groups, testimonials, site visits, and town hall meetings, the message
has been unanimous. The job of the correctional officer requires a high level of skill,
knowledge and split-second, rock-solid judgement, regardless of the specific ‘post’ in
the institution or the security level of the institution. There is no doubt that the range of
duties and responsibilities are routinely carried out under conditions that can best be
characterized as difficult and demanding.
The risk involved in the job, the
consequences of making an error, and the constant internal and external scrutiny, add
to the already difficult conditions. The job has long-lasting impacts on the personal and
professional lives of those who do it.
Furthermore, the changes in the Canadian correctional system over the past ten years
have added to the professional requirements of the job for officers at both the CX-1 and
CX-2 levels. From the officers’ perspective, the single most important change has been
their involvement in and responsibility for case management, either directly in the case
Chapter 4
Working Conditions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
54
of CX-2s or indirectly in the case of CX-1s. Officers are the front-line members of a
team of professionals, which includes parole officers, psychologists, chaplains,
teachers, and health professionals. In addition to providing a safe and secure
environment in which the entire professional team can do their work, they make direct
contributions to rehabilitation and reintegration objectives.
Today, although there are important differences in their respective jobs, the work of
federal correctional officers is more similar than ever before to that of RCMP general
duty constables. The working conditions of both groups, broadly defined, now comprise
some important similarities, including the contact with the criminal justice system,
response to emergency situations, and exposure to violence and danger. In addition,
the jobs of federal correctional officers and RCMP officers have both evolved over the
last decade, resulting in significant contributions to community safety. There are
important differences in working conditions that provide correctional officers with added
challenges. These include the sustained and daily contact with offenders, the
requirement to perform a range of duties under less than desirable conditions, and the
responsibility to observe and assess offender behaviour with a view to contributing to
their safe reintegration.
In spite of the important work they do, there is a generalized feeling among federal
correctional officers that their profession is poorly understood, if not misunderstood, not
only by CSC management but by the media and the general public. One officer says it
all: “We are asked to work in an environment that imposes a heavy personal toll on us,
and we get no recognition for it. We do not feel valued by management, and we
certainly are not valued by either the inmates or the general public. We’re the only
ones who understand the difficult environment.” Officers are professionally isolated.
Unlike the RCMP, the correctional officer profession is permeated by a lack of pride and
respect. While these collective ‘feelings’ may not be easily quantifiable, they are
nevertheless a reality. Addressing these issues will represent an important step in
improving the working environment for correctional officers.
Chapter 5
TOTAL COMPENSATION
ABOUT THIS CHAPTER
This chapter presents the findings from the third and final aspect of the jobs of federal
correctional officers, uniformed RCMP officers, and provincial correctional officers that
the Joint Committee was mandated to compare, namely compensation.
Wages per hour are only one component of compensation. Other forms of pay,
including overtime and shift premiums; paid leave, including annual leave and sick
leave; and benefits, such as pension plans and dental and health benefits, are also
important elements of remuneration. They have value to those who receive them and
represent a cost to employers. In order to compare the full range of monetary
compensation elements for each of the three groups of officers in this study, the
Committee chose to undertake a ‘total compensation analysis’.
An independent firm, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, was retained by the Committee to
undertake this comparison of total compensation. This chapter presents the findings
from the report submitted by Watson Wyatt Worldwide59.
HOW WAGES ARE DETERMINED
Understanding how wages are determined is an important step in understanding the
wage and benefits comparisons being presented in this chapter. Federal and provincial
correctional officers are unionized, and wages are determined through collective
bargaining. In the case of federal correctional officers, their wages have traditionally
been compared to those of other federal public sector workers, and their wage
increases generally follow the patterns in the federal public service. In contrast, by law,
neither the regular nor the civilian members of the RCMP have the right to unionize or
59
The full report produced by Watson Wyatt Worldwide is available in both official languages on the PSAC
web site (www.psac-afpc.com), the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat web site (www.tbs-sct.gc.ca),
and the Correctional Service of Canada web site (www.csc-scc.gc.ca).
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
56
bargain collectively.60 Specifically, the RCMP members are excluded from the
definition of ‘employee’ under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and do not have
the right to bargain collectively under the Canada Labour Code.61
With respect to pay, the RCMP Act provides that Treasury Board shall establish the pay
and allowances to be paid to members of the RCMP.
Historically, the pay
determination process for RCMP members was based largely on the RCMP seeking,
through a Submission to Treasury Board Ministers signed by the Solicitor General,
improvements to wages and benefits. Since 1996, the RCMP Pay Council has been
charged with the research and development of the RCMP pay position and the
presentation of subsequent recommendations to the RCMP Commissioner, who in turn
makes representations to the Solicitor General, followed by a Treasury Board
Submission.
TOTAL COMPENSATION COMPARABILITY: HOW IT WAS DONE
THE COMPARATOR GROUPS
In keeping with the job evaluation exercise and with the Joint Committee’s decisions
regarding which uniformed RCMP and provincial correctional officers would be
compared to federal correctional officers throughout this study, the total compensation
analysis is based on the following comparison groups:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
60
Federal CXs (levels 1 and 2)
RCMP general duty constables
RCMP special constables (PRO-I)62
British Columbia Living Unit Officer
Saskatchewan Correctional Officer
Ontario Correctional Officer II
Québec Correctional Officer II
Nova Scotia Correctional Officer II
Public service employees working at the RCMP are represented by the public sector unions. The
majority of these workers are members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada - Union of Solicitor
General Employees.
61
The RCMP’s Divisional Staff Relations Representative Program (DSRR), provided for under the
Regulations of the RCMP Act, provides representation for members on labour relations and other
workplace issues.
62
Unlike the job evaluation exercise, the RCMP special constable (PRO-II) was not retained in the total
compensation analysis. The amount of data needed to be collected, coupled with the fact that PRO-IIs
essentially carry out the same job as PRO-Is but with supervisory requirements, motivated the
Committee’s decision to exclude them.
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
57
THE TOTAL COMPENSATION APPROACH
The total compensation approach is a recognized method of drawing valid comparisons
between quite different and complex wages and benefits programs. At a minimum, the
elements normally used for a total compensation valuation comprise the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wages and Salaries (including acting pay)
Pensions (including indexing provisions and supplementary retirement benefits)
Life Insurance
Disability Insurance
Severance Pay and Retirement Allowance
Supplementary Health Insurance Plans
Provincial Health Insurance (employer’s share)
Dental Care
Sick Leave
Paid Holidays
Vacation Leave
Paid Rest Periods
Overtime Pay
Other Extra-Duty Allowances
Other Allowances and Benefits
Hours of Work
Personal Leave (including family-related, marriage, bereavement, court, union
and other such paid leave)
Many of the contributions made by the employer to a pension plan, benefits and paid
time off may not be reflected on a bi-weekly pay stub. Though largely invisible, these
contributions do represent a significant portion of what an employee receives for
services provided to the organization.
Normally excluded from the compensation analysis are elements such as:
•
•
•
•
the costs of training and career development, which are seen as investments in
human resources
the reimbursement of expenses (“out of pocket”) incurred through the
performance of work
internal administrative costs, such as overhead, and
universal plans required by law, such as employment insurance, which apply to
all workers in all sectors and represent identical compensation for purposes of
comparability.
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
58
Each element factored into the total compensation comparison is attributed a numerical
value. The end result is usually a net value expressed in terms of the dollars paid per
hour worked for a ‘benchmark’ group of employees, compared to the net value of the
dollars paid per hour actually worked for all other groups of employees. For obvious
reasons, federal correctional officers are the benchmark group in this study.63
Making meaningful comparisons between groups with a different demographic mix and
different wage and benefit entitlements represents some challenges which total
compensation analysis can overcome.
Comparing Different Wages and Benefits
Comparing wages between groups is a relatively straightforward task: it requires looking
at the established salary structure and where individuals are on the scale in order to
determine an average dollar amount to be used for comparison.
Comparing benefits programs requires more work. The value of most benefits is
dependent upon how a given person or group of people will use the benefit. This usage
will vary as a result of a number of factors including age, gender, family status, and
length of service. For example, a defined pension plan is more valuable to individuals
who are at the end of their career than it is at younger ages. As a result, simply looking
at current costs of the plan may result in a particular conclusion that might be quite
different five years from now.
The total compensation methodology used in this study attempts to smooth out the
variation in usage that will occur over the course of an individual’s career. With respect
to the pension plan, for example, the total compensation model estimates the benefits
that someone would receive over a typical career as a CX. The total of the benefits
received each year is then translated into an average annual cost to provide these
benefits. The result is a level cost for the pension benefit that can be used for
comparison purposes. In the case of group insurance benefits, current costs are a
function of the group as a whole. The model therefore takes the current costs of group
insurance benefits and adjusts them for inflationary trends (using actuarial
assumptions) and salary growth (using economic increase estimates based on past
public sector increases) over the time span used for the valuation, which is normally 35
years.
63
The comparability aspect of a total compensation study does not make the case for making one rate of
pay equal to another. Instead, it simply shows the amount of the increase required to the lower level of
total compensation per hour to make it equivalent to the higher value of total compensation per hour.
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
59
Dealing with Demographic Differences among the Groups
As noted above, the value of the same benefit program to two separate groups of
employees may be quite different as a result of a different demographic mix. For
example, if the federal CXs are, on average, older than the RCMP general duty
constables, then the pension plan will be more valuable to the CX group as a whole
than to the RCMP group.
In order to provide a valid comparison of the groups with respect to benefits, it is
essential to use a single set of demographic assumptions. In other words, it is
necessary to assume that all groups being compared have the same demographic
profile. Holding the demographic profile ‘constant’ in this way means that any
differences in the cost of benefits are due to the actual value of the benefits
themselves, rather than to the age, gender, family status or length of service of the
individuals in the groups being compared.
The total compensation model used in this study eliminates all possible demographic
differences by assuming that all other groups have the same demographic profile as the
federal CXs. How is this achieved? Practically speaking, the total compensation model
takes the wage and benefit programs provided to each of the comparison groups and
applies them to the CX population. Essentially, the question being answered is: what
would be the value of the other wages and benefits programs to the CX population? In
other words, if the typical CX were actually receiving the wages and benefits of officers
in British Columbia, for example, what dollar value would each of them have?
The value of the benefits and wages for CXs are then compared to those they would
have received, were the wages and benefits of the other comparison groups being
applied to them.
This total compensation method is commonly referred to as a ‘simulated costs’ method.
Arriving at the ‘Typical’ CX
The total compensation model attempts to simulate the value of salaries and benefits
over the course of the career of a typical CX. To arrive at the ‘typical CX, one must
take into account the fact that some but not all CX-1s will be promoted to the CX-2
level. In addition, promotions will occur at different stages of a career. Historical
promotional data on a random sample of CXs was used to estimate the pattern of
promotions. Based on this sample, it was assumed that 50% of all CX-1s would be
promoted to a CX-2 position at the 12 years-of-service point. In addition, a typical CX-2
would have been a CX-1 for anywhere from less than 1 year to up to 26 years prior to
being promoted.
The ‘typical CX’ referred to in this study is a combination of the CX-1s and the CX-2s.
All total compensation results are calculated for this ‘typical’ CX.
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
60
CALCULATING THE COMPENSATION COMPARISONS: THE STEPS
While the method used to simulate the cost of salary and benefits over the course of a
typical CX career is complex, the key elements are summarized here:
1. Detailed salary and benefits data were collected from the RCMP and the five
selected provinces. These same data, in addition to demographic data and
entitlement usage data for the federal CX population, were provided by the Treasury
Board Secretariat.
2. Decisions were made by the Joint Committee as to the inclusion or exclusion of
benefits from the analysis (see below for a more detailed explanation of this
process).
3. Demographic and benefit usage assumptions were established and applied.
4. Based on the above, the benefit programs of the federal correctional officers, the
RCMP uniformed officers, the correctional officers from Ontario, Québec, British
Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, were applied to the federal correctional
officers’ population. This made it possible to determine what the value of each of
these benefit programs would be to the CX population.
5. The cost of salaries for the six comparator groups was valued by presuming that the
federal correctional officers had the comparator groups’ salary scale.
6. The results obtained are all expressed in terms of dollars per hour as well as an
annual cost for each group in order to facilitate comparisons.
The report submitted to the Committee by Watson Wyatt Worldwide includes further
technical explanations as to how the actuarial valuation method was applied.
The following uses the pension plan as the example to illustrate how the actuarial
method is applied to a specific element:
1. First, the benefits payable at each age, from the age at which the employee became
a member of the plan until termination of participation in the plan, are projected. For
purposes of this study, the valuation is primarily based on the assumptions
contained in previous actuarial valuations of the Public Service Superannuation Act
(PSSA). The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions conducts these
valuations. These same assumptions have been applied to all seven plans involved
in the comparison study.
2. In determining the benefits payable, economic assumptions were applied since the
benefits increase in the future according to salary increases or other economic
factors.
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
61
3. Benefits payable vary along with the cause of termination of participation
(termination of employment, death, early retirement, normal retirement). As a result,
at each age, the incidence rates for each possible cause of termination of
participation were applied to the benefits payable for each type of termination of
participation. This exercise made it possible to determine the expected amount of
benefits payable at a particular age if a specific type of termination of participation
occurs.
4.
A present value was then calculated for the total benefits that would be payable
based on this typical career by applying assumptions with respect to interest and
actuarial probabilities of reaching these ages.
WHAT BENEFITS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS TOTAL COMPENSATION
COMPARISON
Deciding what compensation elements to include in the final total compensation model
was done by the Joint Committee. These decisions were essentially based on three
criteria:
•
•
•
the availability of reliable and accurate data on the ‘use’ of these benefits in each of
the groups being compared;
the size of the benefit: benefits which represented less than 0.5% of the annual
cost of wages were generally considered ‘not material’ and were excluded from the
analysis;
in the case of benefits available to groups other than the CXs, the potential use by
CXs (relevance to the CX population) was a determining factor.
Appendix 5 includes a full list of the benefits, and the reason for their inclusion or
exclusion from the model. Items like training, acting pay, call back provisions, the
special duty allowance (RCMP only), the plain clothes allowance (RCMP only), and
allowances provided primarily by the RCMP with respect to community relations, are
among the those that are excluded from the comparisons. The lack of quality data and
the difficulty in establishing reasonable assumptions about the use of these benefits
among the CX population account for their exclusion.
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
62
ASSUMPTIONS
Four types of actuarial assumptions were made in order to carry out the total
compensation comparison. Various statistical and actuarial sources were used in
arriving at the actual figures.
•
Economic assumptions: these include such factors as the inflation rate, the real and
nominal rates of return, and the pension cost-of-living adjustment.
•
Demographic assumptions: these include decremental mortality rates, termination of
employment rates, retirement age, and others.
•
Benefits utilization assumptions: information on the utilization of benefits over a five
year period ending in 1999 was obtained from the Treasury Board Secretariat. The
same utilization assumptions were applied to the other comparison groups and
adjusted where benefits were notably different.
•
Group Benefit assumptions: As noted earlier in this chapter, current costs are a
function of the group as a whole. A constant population with an average age of 40
years (the average age of CXs) was used. Various sources were consulted to
determine the projected costs of each benefit plan. Assumptions about the health
care and dental care services trend rate and utilization rate were established.
RESULTS OF THE TOTAL COMPENSATION ANALYSIS
The results of the total compensation comparison are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3:
Table 1 presents the costs per year of all the elements of compensation.
Table 2 presents the costs per hour paid of all elements of compensation. Because
the wages and benefits are costed on an hourly basis, none of the data in Table 2 is
attributable to the differences in hours worked per week.
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
63
Tables 1 and 2 answer the following questions:
•
Given the wages and benefits in place as of January 1, 2000, what would
the ‘typical’ CX expect to earn, averaged out over the course of his or her
career?
•
If CXs were receiving the wages and benefits of RCMP general duty
constables, what would the typical CX be receiving over the course of his
or her career?
•
If the CXs were receiving the wages and benefits of RCMP PRO-I
constables, what would the typical CX be receiving over the course of his
or her career?
•
If the same typical CX were receiving the wages and benefits of
correctional officers in each of the selected provinces, what would the
typical CX be receiving over the course of his or her career?
The costs shown in Tables 1 and 2 represent the present value of salaries
and benefits spread over the course of a full career, and not simply the
present day costs. Thus, the focus of any review of these tables should be
on the relative cost between comparator groups and not the absolute costs.
Table 3 presents the comparison of the dollars per hour paid for each comparator
group expressed as a percentage of those received by the federal CXs.
Essentially, Table 3 answers the following questions:
•
Given the wages and benefits in place as of January 1, 2000, how do
CXs compare to RCMP general duty constables, RCMP PRO-1s, and
officers in each of the selected provinces, in terms of wages and salaries,
additional pay, severance pay, pension plan entitlements, and group
benefits per hour paid, as well as paid time off?
•
When all wages and benefits per hour paid are combined into one total
compensation figure (TOTAL), how do CXs compare to RCMP general
duty constables, RCMP PRO-1s, and officers in each of the selected
provinces?
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
64
WAGES AND SALARIES
The following are some observations one can draw about the comparisons made on
wages and salaries.64
•
Table 1 indicates that, given the wage rates in place on January 1, 2000, the ‘typical’
CX would earn an average of $38,508 annually in base pay over the course of a
career. Based on a 37.5 hour work week, this amounts to an average rate of $19.75
per hour paid, as shown in Table 2.
•
As indicated in Table 1, the ‘annual cost’ of wages and salaries for RCMP general
duty constables, including the paid meal period, is $49,338. Specifically, if the
‘typical’ CX was paid for a 40-hour work week, and was receiving the same wages
as an RCMP general duty constable, that officer would earn $49,338 over a full
year, or $23.72 per hour paid. This represents a difference of 20% per hour paid, as
indicated in Table 3. However, note that federal CXs have more than double the
number of increments than the RCMP general duty constables do prior to attaining
their highest rate of pay. This has been taken into account in these wage
differences, as the wage comparisons are averaged over the course of a typical
career for both these groups.
•
RCMP special (PRO-I) constables are paid 90% of the current annual wages of
federal CXs (Table 3), or $17.71 per hour paid (Table 2).
•
The hourly wages of federal correctional officers are the same or higher than those
paid to correctional officers in the five selected provinces. As indicated in Table 2,
the comparable wages range from $19.75 per hour paid in Ontario (same as that of
federal CXs) to $16.08 per hour paid in Nova Scotia (81% of the wage of CXs).
ALL OTHER BENEFITS AND ALLOWANCES
Without providing an exhaustive comparison of all benefits and allowances received by
federal correctional officers, uniformed RCMP officers, and correctional officers in the
five selected provinces, the following observations can be made:
•
64
As indicated in Table 3, the RCMP general duty constables have a cost advantage
compared to the typical federal CX in all categories of non-wage-related benefits. In
the case of additional pay, the RCMP general duty constables receive 3% more per
hour paid than the federal CXs. In the case of severance pay, the difference is
15%.
As noted above, the figures described below represent the present value of salaries and benefits
spread over the course of a full career, and not simply the present day costs.
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
65
•
The value of group benefits for the RCMP general duty constables is 71% more per
hour paid than CXs, averaged out over the course of their career (Table 3). This
advantage is largely due to the existence of a short-term disability plan for the
RCMP. CXs do not have such a short-term disability plan, but rather have a formal
paid sick leave plan.
•
With respect to pensions, the plan that applies to the RCMP general duty constables
is 29% more valuable than the one that applies to their CX counterparts. Part of this
difference is attributable to the 20% difference in hourly rates of pay. However, the
fact that RCMP general duty constables can retire with a pension (without an age
penalty) after 25 years of pensionable service regardless of their age accounts for
part of the advantage. Federal CXs can retire with a pension (without an age
penalty) after 25 years of operational service only after reaching the age of 50.
•
Table 3 reveals that, with respect to RCMP PRO-Is, federal correctional officers
have a comparative advantage on additional pay, severance pay, and the pension
plan. Part of this advantage is due to the fact that their hourly wage is higher RCMP PRO-Is earn 90% of the federal CX hourly wage.
•
With respect to group benefits, RCMP PRO-Is have a 45% advantage over the
‘typical’ CX over the course of his or her career. The access of the RCMP to a
short-term disability plan accounts for most of this difference.
•
For the most part, the non-wage related benefits of federal CXs are better than
those of the correctional officers in the selected provinces. As indicated in Table 3,
these differences are most notable in the area of pension plans and severance pay.
For example, correctional officers in Saskatchewan, Québec and Nova Scotia do not
receive severance pay at termination, death or retirement. Officers in British
Columbia only receive severance pay at retirement, or 25% of the severance pay
received by the ‘typical’ federal CX.
•
With respect to the pension plan, the Québec correctional officers’ plan provides for
29% of what the federal CXs receive, while the plan applicable in Ontario provides
for 68% of what the federal CXs obtain.
•
The data on paid time off in Tables 1 and 2 are presented as a percentage of
wages, as these various forms of leave are already factored into base pay. As
indicated in Table 2, paid leave represents roughly 20% of the wages of federal
correctional officers, RCMP general duty constables and RCMP PRO-Is. The
proportion is slightly lower in the case of the five provinces: the percentage of wages
represented by the leave elements ranges from 17.3% in Saskatchewan to 18.7% in
British Columbia.
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
66
TOTAL COMPENSATION
•
Considering all wages, benefits and allowances that comprise total compensation,
the RCMP general duty constables have a 20% advantage over federal correctional
officers (Table 3). Given the wages and benefits in place, the ‘typical’ CX would
earn $26.69 per hour paid, averaged out over the course of a career. The
application of the total compensation package of the RCMP general duty constables
to the CXs would raise this figure to $31.96 per hour paid (Table 2).
•
In terms of total compensation, CXs have a 10.7% advantage over RCMP PRO-Is.
Applying the wages and benefits of RCMP PRO-Is to the ‘typical’ federal CX would
result in a total compensation value of $24.11 per hour paid over the course of a
career, compared to $26.69 for federal CXs (Table 2).
•
When compared to correctional officers in the five selected provinces, the total
compensation of federal correctional officers is equal to that of officers in British
Columbia and greater than that of officers in the four remaining jurisdictions. The
gap ranges from 33% more than officers in Nova Scotia to 0.7% more than officers
in Ontario (calculations derived from Table 2).
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
67
Table 1
Total Compensation Comparability Study for Correctional Officers
Annual cost results
Population of 4850
Federal
WAGES & SALARIES
Hours worked
Paid lunch period
Annual cost
ADDITIONAL PAY
Annual service pay
Overtime on normal day
Overtime on day of rest
Holiday premium
Meal allowance
Call back pay
Shift premium
Weekend premium
Travelling time
Bilingualism bonus
Environment factors premium
Gainsharing agreement
Sr. constable allowance
SUBTOTAL
SEVERANCE PAY
At termination (resignation)
At retirement
At death
SUBTOTAL
PENSION PLAN
Employer’s cost
British Columbia
RCMP
Constables LES-PRO1
$
$
$
38,508
38,508
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Saskatchewan
Ontario
Quebec
Nova Scotia
$ 46,254
$ 3,084
$ 49,338
$ 34,530
$ 2,302
$ 36,832
$
$
$
34,721
34,721
$
$
$
38,132
38,132
$
$
$
41,081
41,081
$
$
$
33,156
2,210
35,366
$
$
$
33,437
33,437
3,580
958
1,948
130
40
900
345
12
94
8,007
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
115
4,284
1,003
2,320
125
49
544
14
94
257
8,805
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
115
3,198
749
1,732
125
36
544
11
94
257
6,861
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,310
1,076
2,488
198
47
711
11
10
8,851
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,145
1,108
1,921
46
720
7,940
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,567
835
2,575
94
39
849
345
8,304
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,071
719
1,663
63
33
466
604
6,619
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,903
907
1,075
31
4,916
$
$
$
$
47
324
20
391
$
$
$
$
87
366
26
479
$
$
$
$
64
270
19
353
$
$
$
$
-
91
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
154
297
19
470
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
3,273
$
4,486
$
3,254
$
2,042
$
2,193
$
2,381
$
1,028
$
1,454
91
-
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
68
Table 1 continued
Total Compensation Comparability Study for Correctional Officers
Annual cost results
Population of 4850
Federal
GROUP BENEFITS
Life insurance or benefit
AD&D
Survivor income
Short Term Disability
Long Term Disability
Health
Dental
Post-retirement health
Post-retirement dental
Post-retirement life
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL COMPENSATION
PAID TIME OFF
Vacation
Statutory holidays
Sick leaves *
Injury-on-duty leaves
Maternity leaves
Parental leaves
Marriage leaves
Bereavement leaves
Family-related leaves
Leaves for other reasons
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
15
40
455
665
279
193
192
1,839
52,018
7.3%
4.2%
5.5%
0.5%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
19.8%
RCMP
British Columbia
Constables LES-PRO1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
24
40
1,263
637
755
372
249
3,340
66,448
7.8%
4.2%
5.5%
0.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
19.9%
$
20
$
$
27
$
943
$
476
$
755
$
372
$
249
$
$
$ 2,842
$ 50,142
7.8%
4.2%
5.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
19.8%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
137
34
826
295
596
386
251
94
19
2,638
48,343
Saskatchewan
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8.2%
4.2%
4.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
18.7%
* Please note that 14.3 days per year were used for the federal CXs, RCMP, BC, SK, ON and NS and 8 days for QC.
57
14
513
254
7
845
49,110
7.4%
4.2%
5.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
17.3%
Ontario
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
74
891
381
780
308
349
82
1
2,866
55,102
7.3%
4.2%
4.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1.2%
0.2%
17.9%
Quebec
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Nova Scotia
15
57
852
458
1
1,383
44,396
7.4%
5.0%
3.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
17.7%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
54
13
863
201
409
235
1,775
41,582
7.2%
4.2%
5.5%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
17.4%
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
69
Table 2
Total Compensation Comparability Study for Correctional Officers
Results per hour paid
Population of 4850
Federal
WAGES & SALARIES
Hours worked
Paid lunch period
Annual cost
ADDITIONAL PAY
Annual service pay
Overtime on normal day
Overtime on day of rest
Holiday premium
Meal allowance
Call back pay
Shift premium
Weekend premium
Travelling time
Bilingualism bonus
Environment factors premium
Gainsharing agreement
Sr. constable allowance
SUBTOTAL
SEVERANCE PAY
At termination (resignation)
At retirement
At death
SUBTOTAL
PENSION PLAN
Employer’s cost
British Columbia
RCMP
Constables LES-PRO1
Saskatchewan
Ontario
Quebec
Nova Scotia
$
$
$
19.75
19.75
$
$
$
22.24
1.48
23.72
$
$
$
16.60
1.11
17.71
$
$
$
19.08
19.08
$
$
$
19.64
19.64
$
$
$
19.75
19.75
$
$
$
15.94
1.06
17.00
$
$
$
16.08
16.08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.84
0.49
1.00
0.07
0.02
0.46
0.18
0.01
0.05
4.12
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.06
2.06
0.48
1.12
0.06
0.02
0.26
0.01
0.05
0.12
4.24
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.06
1.54
0.36
0.83
0.06
0.02
0.26
0.01
0.05
0.12
3.31
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2.37
0.59
1.37
0.11
0.03
0.39
0.01
0.01
4.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2.14
0.57
0.99
0.02
0.37
4.09
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.71
0.40
1.24
0.05
0.02
0.41
0.17
4.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.48
0.35
0.80
0.03
0.02
0.22
0.29
3.19
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.40
0.44
0.52
0.02
2.38
$
$
$
$
0.02
0.17
0.01
0.20
$
$
$
$
0.04
0.18
0.01
0.23
$
$
$
$
0.03
0.13
0.01
0.17
$
$
$
$
0.05
0.05
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
0.07
0.14
0.01
0.22
$
$
$
$
-
$
$
$
$
-
$
1.68
$
2.16
$
1.56
$
1.12
$
1.13
$
1.14
$
0.49
$
0.70
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
70
Table 2 continued
Total Compensation Comparability Study for Correctional Officers
Results per hour paid
Population of 4850
Federal
GROUP BENEFITS
Life insurance or benefit
AD&D
Survivor income
Short Term Disability
Long Term Disability
Health
Dental
Post-retirement health
Post-retirement dental
Post-retirement life
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL COMPENSATION
PAID TIME OFF
Vacation
Statutory holidays
Sick leaves *
Injury-on-duty leaves
Maternity leaves
Parental leaves
Marriage leaves
Bereavement leaves
Family-related leaves
Leaves for other reasons
TOTAL
HOURS PER WEEK
Hours of work
Hours as a paid lunch period
Total number of hours
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
RCMP
British Columbia Saskatchewan
Constables LES-PRO1
0.01
0.02
0.23
0.34
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.94
26.69
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.01
0.02
0.61
0.31
0.36
0.18
0.12
1.61
31.96
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.01
0.01
0.45
0.23
0.36
0.18
0.12
1.36
24.11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.08
0.02
0.45
0.16
0.33
0.21
0.14
0.05
0.01
1.45
26.58
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.03
0.01
0.26
0.13
0.43
25.29
Ontario
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Quebec
0.04
0.43
0.18
0.37
0.15
0.17
0.04
1.38
26.49
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Nova Scotia
0.01
0.03
0.41
0.22
0.67
21.35
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
0.03
0.01
0.41
0.10
0.20
0.11
0.86
20.02
7.3%
4.2%
5.5%
0.5%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
19.8%
7.8%
4.2%
5.5%
0.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
19.9%
7.8%
4.2%
5.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
19.8%
8.2%
4.2%
4.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
18.7%
7.4%
4.2%
5.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
17.3%
7.3%
4.2%
4.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.1%
1.2%
0.2%
17.9%
7.4%
5.0%
3.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
17.7%
7.2%
4.2%
5.5%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
17.4%
37.5
0
37.5
37.5
2.5
40
37.5
2.5
40
35
0
35
37.33
0
37.33
40
0
40
37.5
2.5
40
40
0
40
* Please note that 14.3 days per year were used for the federal CXs, RCMP, BC, SK, ON and NS and 8 days for QC.
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
71
Table 3
Total Compensation Comparability Study for Correctional Officers
Results per hour paid compared to the federal CXs
Population of 4850
Federal
WAGES & SALARIES
British Columbia Saskatchewan
RCMP
Constables LES-PRO1
100%
120%
90%
97%
99%
ADDITIONAL PAY
100%
103%
80%
118%
SEVERANCE PAY
100%
115%
85%
PENSION PLAN
100%
129%
GROUP BENEFITS
100%
TOTAL COMPENSATION
Ontario
Quebec
Nova Scotia
100%
86%
81%
99%
97%
77%
58%
25%
0%
110%
0%
0%
93%
67%
67%
68%
29%
42%
171%
145%
154%
46%
147%
71%
91%
100%
120%
90%
100%
95%
99%
80%
75%
PAID TIME OFF
100%
101%
100%
94%
87%
90%
89%
88%
HOURS PAID
100%
107%
107%
93%
100%
107%
107%
107%
Chapter 5
Total Compensation
CX Joint Study - April 2000
72
IN SUMMARY
Clearly, there are differences in the total compensation package for federal correctional
officers, RCMP general duty constables and provincial correctional officers.
The wages per hour paid for an RCMP General Duty Constable are $23.72, or 20%
higher than the comparable hourly rate for a ‘typical’ CX officer over a career. The fact
that federal correctional officers have more than double the number of increments than
the RCMP general duty constables do prior to attaining their highest rate of pay is
already taken into account in these wage differences.
When all elements of compensation are considered, the RCMP General Duty
Constable is at a level 20% higher per hour paid than the ‘typical’ CX officer over the
course of a career.
On the pension plan specifically, the pension received by an RCMP general duty
constable per hour paid is 29% higher than that of a federal correctional officer over the
course of a typical career. A major portion of this difference is related to the difference
in annual wages. However, the fact that RCMP general duty constables can retire with
a pension (without an age penalty) after 25 years of pensionable service regardless of
their age accounts for another portion of the difference. Federal CXs can retire with a
pension (without an age penalty) after 25 years of operational service only after
reaching the age of 50.
When compared to the RCMP PRO-I constable, federal correctional officers are paid
11.5% more per hour, and have a 10.7% total compensation advantage.
When compared to the wages per hour paid to provincial correctional officers, federal
correctional officers receive the same wages as officers in Ontario. Officers in
Saskatchewan earn 1% less, and those in British Columbia earn 3% less per hour paid
than their federal counterparts. The difference is greater in the case of Québec and
Nova Scotia. Officers in Québec earn 14% less than federal correctional officers and
officers in Nova Scotia earn 19% less than their federal counterparts. On a total
compensation comparison, the advantage of federal correctional officers over all
provincial correctional officers follows a similar pattern.
Chapter 6
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
ABOUT THIS CHAPTER
Separate comparisons of the duties, working conditions and compensation of the three
groups of officers being studied were provided in the three previous chapters. This final
chapter brings together the key findings from each of the comparisons, with a specific
focus on what they mean for federal correctional officers. The first section summarizes
the key findings. The second section provides the Committee’s overall analysis of the
key issues at stake from the perspective of federal correctional officers, and its
suggested areas for action in order to address some of the issues identified throughout
this study.
Throughout this study, and throughout the conclusions in particular, the Committee has
placed a greater emphasis on comparisons between the federal correctional officers
and the RCMP than on comparisons between the federal correctional officers and their
counterparts in provincial jurisdictions. There are at least three reasons for this
decision. Firstly, the timetable for this study did not allow for a comprehensive
examination of the working conditions and duties of provincial correctional officers in all
the selected jurisdictions. Secondly, both the RCMP general duty constables and
federal correctional officers are in the federal public sector, and their wages and
working conditions are determined at the federal level and paid out by the federal
government. Thirdly, federal correctional officers and the RCMP are both part of the
Ministry of the Solicitor General, and are both part of the federal law enforcement
community. In this sense, they share a strong community of interest.
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
JOB EVALUATION
The comparative job evaluation exercise carried out by a union-management team of
classification specialists using the Willis Plan as the common yardstick revealed that,
while there are some differences in focus among the jobs under consideration, there
are also many similarities and equivalencies.
A few cautions are in order when referring to the actual Willis ratings obtained in this
study. Firstly, it is important to note that in the context of the entire Willis Plan, which is
designed to value a wide range of jobs, the jobs that were rated in this study fell within
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
74
a relatively narrow range. Concretely, while the maximum rating on the Willis Plan is
1,804 points, the jobs rated in this study ranged from 173 points (9.6% of the possible
total) to 376 points (20.8% of the possible total). To a certain extent, this closeness in
ratings is to be expected, given that all of the jobs are part of the ‘ ‘ enforcement‘ ‘
universe. All the jobs evaluated have similar requirements in terms of knowledge, skill,
effort and working conditions.
Secondly, while these numerical ratings provide an indication of the relative value of the
jobs on a classification scale, the actual point ratings themselves should not be
misinterpreted. For example, while a job rated at 300 points is of higher value for job
classification purposes than a job rated at 150 points, one cannot make an argument
that the first job is worth double the second job. The nature of the Willis scale does not
allow such comparisons to be made about the magnitude of the difference in ratings. In
contrast, in the case of dollars we do know that $300.00 is double $150.00, and that the
wage gap between wages of $300 and wages of $150 is 100%.
Finally, the ratings can in no way be used to determine compensation or the value of
the jobs for classification purposes, given that only eleven positions were valued. To do
so does not fall within standard statistical practices for valuation or compensation
determination.
With respect to the differences in Willis ratings among the jobs rated in this study, the
provincial correctional officer positions ranged between a low of 234 points in Nova
Scotia to 305 points in Saskatchewan.
It is recognized that two of the RCMP positions - the PRO-I (rated at 173 points) and
PRO-II (rated at 220 points) - rated lower than any of the correctional officer positions.
It is also recognized that the RCMP general duty constable received a higher overall
rating -- 376 points -- than did the federal correctional officers: the federal Correctional
Officer I job was rated at 244 points, the Correctional Officer II job at 279 points, and
Primary Workers (CX-2 level) at 302 points on the Willis scale. The higher rating for the
RCMP general duty constable is attributable to such factors as the degree of the
required knowledge of federal, provincial and municipal legislation, and the high level of
responsibility and accountability with respect to policing in an uncontrolled environment,
especially in isolated communities. As well, RCMP general duty constables rated
higher than federal correctional officers on issues such as demands and accountability,
given their role in criminal investigations and other problematic situations (like domestic
disputes), and on the degree of interpersonal communication skills, given their need to
respond to a number of varied and unknown situations. On working conditions, which
account for only 5% of the overall rating65, federal officers received a higher score than
65
This proportion of the total ratings accounted for by working conditions is not unique to the Willis Plan
that was used in this study. Job evaluation plans generally attribute from 4% to 7% of the total rating to
working conditions.
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
75
their RCMP counterparts. The high level of sustained, daily interaction with offenders
and the disagreeableness of the working environment explain their higher relative rating
on working conditions.
Notwithstanding these differences in ratings with the RCMP general duty constables,
the ratings of federal correctional officers with respect to skill, knowledge and effort
reflect the fact that their job is much more than ‘turning keys.’ Federal correctional
officers are required to know and apply federal legislation, as well as a number of
policies and procedures that govern their jobs. The involvement of federal correctional
officers in case management requires counselling and other skills that go far beyond
the writing of reports. They must possess good interpersonal skills in order to interact
with and influence offenders. Furthermore, correctional officers are highly accountable
for their decisions and under constant scrutiny.
WORKING CONDITIONS
Through the Committee’s site visits to federal institutions, focus groups, town hall
meetings, and in written testimonials, hundreds of federal correctional officers across
the country were able to provide their perspective on their jobs, their working
environment, and the broader impact of the job on their personal and professional lives.
Site visits to two RCMP detachments and two provincial institutions as well as the two
focus groups with RCMP general duty constables, provided a useful comparative
perspective.
There is a strong consensus among federal correctional officers that their working
conditions are anything but easy. There are serious health, safety and security issues
that are not left at the doorstep when leaving the workplace. For example, while
traumatic events like murders, assaults and suicides are not a daily occurrence, the
likelihood of officers being exposed to such events at least once over the course of their
career is extremely high. Correctional officers noted that the impact of involvement with
these serious incidents, coupled with the cumulative impact of daily exposure to
extensive verbal abuse and other stresses resulting from sustained contact with
offenders, cannot be underestimated.
In terms of safety and security concerns, the contrast between the preoccupations of
federal correctional officers and the RCMP is notable. While the RCMP general duty
constables in the focus groups also expressed concerns with safety, risk and their
cumulative effects, they saw this part of their job as more manageable than did federal
correctional officers. In addition, issues of safety in relation to health, including the
threat of contracting infectious diseases like HIV and hepatitis, were reiterated much
more frequently among federal correctional officers during the focus groups than
among their RCMP counterparts.
As is the case for the RCMP general duty constables, the effects of shift work and the
limitations on the timing and amount of annual leave that can be taken at one time
further contribute to work-related stress.
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
76
Changes in the legal and policy frameworks governing the CSC and the RCMP have
increased the required level of skill and the professional requirements of the job for
correctional officers and RCMP officers. From the federal officers’ perspective, the
single most important change has been their involvement in and responsibility for case
management, either directly in the case of CX-2s or indirectly in the case of CX-1s.
Officers are the front-line members of a team of professionals that includes parole
officers, psychologists, work instructors, teachers, program officers and health
professionals. In addition to providing a safe and secure environment in which the
entire professional team can do their work, they make direct contributions to the
reintegration of offenders.
At the same time, the RCMP officer position has also evolved significantly, thereby
requiring a similarly high level of professionalism. The philosophical shift to a
community policing model has changed the way in which RCMP officers interact with
the public, bringing the officer closer to the community. In this way the RCMP also
contribute directly to public safety.
Furthermore, both federal correctional officers and the RCMP now have greater legal
obligations and face greater scrutiny than ever before. In the case of correctional
officers, these changes are attributable not only to the introduction of the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act in 1992, but also to the emphasis throughout CSC on
respecting the rule of law and the serious organization-wide consequences of failing to
do so.
At the same time, increased educational requirements for positions to which
correctional officers can aspire to be promoted, for example the parole officer position,
limit possibilities for career advancement for those who do not have a university degree.
The impact of these legal and organizational changes upon the CX community has
been dramatic. Correctional officers across the country expressed the inherent
complexity in balancing their dual roles, i.e. their security and case management
responsibilities. Many correctional officers also indicated that they are being asked to
do a job for which they have not been adequately trained. While the will to do the job is
unquestionable, several officers reported that they do not have the necessary tools to
adapt to the new systems and procedures that now govern the management of federal
institutions.
Unlike their RCMP counterparts, there is a generalized perception among correctional
officers that their profession is misunderstood and undervalued by Canadian society in
general, and by CSC management in particular. ‘Management’ at all levels within CSC
is seen as not providing officers with the understanding, the respect and the support
that they need to do their job. The negative portrayal of officers in the media, often as a
result of a major security incident and the ensuing investigation(s), in turn provides the
public with a one-sided and misinformed view of the officers’ actions, and creates and
reinforces the negative stereotypes.
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
77
The overall sense that correctional officers lack recognition and respect leads in turn to
a diminished sense of collective pride in belonging to the correctional officer profession.
This finding confirms the conclusions of the Security Task Force Report that “many
correctional officers do not feel valued and speak of limited discretion and a sense of
powerlessness”.66 The officers’ view of their uniform is indicative of their lack of pride
and collective attachment to their profession. Issues of comfort and practicability aside,
officers are critical of the image the uniform projects and are reluctant to be seen with it
on in public.67
Each of these issues related to working conditions contributes to making the work of a
federal correctional officer difficult. Although intangible and therefore difficult to
measure, the cumulative and compounding impact of the work and its environment on
the professional and personal lives of federal correctional officers makes this job all the
more challenging.
TOTAL COMPENSATION
In terms of wages and benefits, there are marked differences in total compensation
received by federal correctional officers and RCMP general duty constables. The
wages per hour paid to an RCMP general duty constable are $23.72, or 20% higher
than the comparable hourly rate of $19.75 for a typical CX officer over his or her career
(combination of level CX-01 and CX-02). The fact that federal correctional officers have
more than double the number of increments than the RCMP general duty constables
prior to attaining their highest rate of pay is already taken into account in these wage
differences; the wage comparisons are averaged over the course of a typical career for
both these groups.
When all aspects of compensation are considered, including pensions and group
benefits, the RCMP general duty constable is at a level 20% higher per hour paid than
the typical CX officer over the course of a career. On the pension plan specifically, the
pension received by an RCMP general duty constable per hour paid is 29% higher than
that of a federal correctional officer over the course of a typical career. While this
difference is related in part to the difference in wages, it is further attributable to the fact
that RCMP general duty constables can retire without an age penalty after 25 years of
service, regardless of their age, whereas federal correctional officers must be at least
50 years of age in order to retire without penalty after 25 years of operational service.
The RCMP PRO-I constables receive wages of $17.71 per hour paid. Federal
correctional officers therefore earn 11.5% more per hour paid and have a 10.7%
advantage over RCMP PRO-I constables when it comes to total compensation.
66
Report of the Task Force on Security, p. 58.
These findings are also supported by the Report of the Task Force on Security, which states “…(T)here
is concensus that the current uniform should be improved and that to do so would contribute to improved
morale and self-esteem.’ (p. 59).
67
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
78
When compared to the wages per hour paid to provincial correctional officers, federal
correctional officers receive the same wages as officers in Ontario. Officers in
Saskatchewan earn 1% less and those in British Columbia earn 3% less per hour paid
than their federal counterparts. The difference is greater in the case of Québec and
Nova Scotia: officers in Québec earn 14% less than federal correctional officers and
officers in Nova Scotia earn 19% less than their federal counterparts. On a total
compensation comparison, the advantage of federal correctional officers over all
provincial correctional officers follows a similar pattern.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED AREAS FOR ACTION
The findings from each of the three comparisons - duties, working conditions and
compensation - cannot be considered in isolation. Indeed, from speaking with and
listening to federal correctional officers from one end of the country to another, it is
apparent to the Joint Committee that the issues affecting their professional situation are
tightly interwoven and interrelated. The systemic nature of the issues affecting
correctional officers will require systemic solutions, many of which are beyond the
purview of this Committee. The Committee’s role is to draw the following conclusions
from the findings of this study, and to make some suggestions as to the next steps.
COMPENSATION
It is impossible to talk about compensation without first considering the duties, the
evolution of the job, the history of compensation, and the current working conditions.
Among other findings, this study has demonstrated why and how the role of the federal
correctional officer has evolved significantly over the past decade. Over the past ten
years, significant responsibilities related to the reintegration of offenders have been
added to the traditional security-related duties of federal correctional officers. As
previously indicated, the changes in correctional philosophy, the increased emphasis on
strict adherence to the rule of law, and the increased reliance on technology, have led
to an increase in the professional requirements for federal correctional officers.
Today’s correctional officers require a higher level of knowledge, skill, and
accountability than ever before.
The job evaluation ratings obtained during the course of this study cannot, on their own,
be used to determine compensation.68 In other words, the difference in job ratings
cannot be directly compared to the difference in wages and total compensation for the
purposes of establishing a wage increase for either group. However, what these ratings
provide is an indication of the relative value of the jobs under consideration. The job
evaluation rating of the federal correctional officer reflects the fact that their job is
complex and requires a high level of professionalism.
68
As indicated in Chapter 3, neither can they be used to determine the value of jobs for classification
purposes.
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
79
Effective June 1, 1991, correctional officers received a wage increase of approximately
2.3% as a result of a classification conversion from the living unit concept to unit
management. Nevertheless, the increase in professional requirements for federal
correctional officers has also coincided with wage restraint legislation that limited wage
increases and froze increments. In 1999, ten years after their last negotiated collective
agreement, federal correctional officers had terms and conditions of employment set
under back-to-work legislation that provided for annual wage increases of 2.5%, 2%
and 2% over the three years between June, 1997 and May, 2000. In total, wages of
federal correctional officers at the CX 1 and 2 levels have increased by 47.0% since
1984.
In contrast, while the jobs of general duty constables have also evolved over the past
15 years, and while the RCMP was also subject to federal wage controls during the
same period as CX officers, their wage increases have been higher than those of
federal correctional officers since the wage restraint period ended. In fact, RCMP
wages increased by 63.6% between 1984 and January 1, 2000, with a further increase
having been approved by the Treasury Board for the years 2000 and 200169. In 1984,
the maximum salary for an RCMP general duty constable was 17.4% more than that of
a federal CX-1, and 9.2% more than that of a CX-2. As of December 31, 1999, the
RCMP general duty constable at the top increment step earned 28.5% more than the
CX-1 and 19.1% more than a CX-2 at the top increment. The federal CX group will also
likely obtain a wage increase effective June 1, 2000 resulting from the upcoming round
of collective bargaining.
Today, the gap in total compensation between federal correctional officers and the
RCMP general duty constables has reached over twenty per cent per hour paid over
the course of a typical career.
As indicated in this study, both federal correctional officers and RCMP general duty
constables now have a much more complex job, are subject to more public scrutiny and
have a higher level of accountability. The widening wage gap between the two can be
at least partly explained in the context of the different comparator groups used to
determine their wage increases. Even though both federal correctional officers and
RCMP officers are federal employees and both fall under the authority of the Solicitor
General of Canada, there are important differences in the way their pay increases are
currently determined. For pay purposes, federal correctional officers are compared to
the rest of the federal public sector, and their wage increases generally follow the
similar patterns to those of other federal public sector workers. In contrast, since the
early 1980s, the wages of RCMP officers have been compared to certain police forces
69
The 1999 Annual Report of the RCMP Pay Council recommends an increase of 10.55% for RCMP
officers. Following comparisons with other police forces across the country, the Pay Council has
concluded that RCMP compensation should be the average of the top three police forces. The
comparator universe used by the Pay Council includes the municipal police forces of Vancouver, Calgary,
Edmonton, Winnipeg, the Ontario Provincial Police, Toronto, the Sureté du Québec, and Montréal. The
Treasury Board has approved actual increases in RCMP wages and benefits, which are specified in the
Reader’s Note - Update at the outset of this report.
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
80
across the country, rather than to federal public sector workers. Their wages have
therefore increased in step with the police universe rather than with the federal public
service.
•
The Committee notes that throughout the focus groups, site visits, townhall
meetings and written letters from one end of the country to the other, federal
correctional officers have singled out the issue of compensation as being
essential to improving their professional situation. From the perspective of
federal correctional officers, a meaningful increase in wages, one that would
contribute to narrowing the wage gap with the RCMP general duty constables,
would constitute tangible recognition of the increase in job requirements and
would contribute to a renewed sense of collective pride and self-respect. To a
lesser extent, federal correctional officers referred to improvements to the
pension entitlement and benefits as a concrete way of recognizing the difficult
working conditions of federal correctional officers and the far-reaching impact
of their job on their personal and professional lives.
•
The Committee recognizes that for federal correctional officers, compensation
is paramount. However this Committee does not have the mandate to
recommend a wage increase for federal correctional officers. Collective
bargaining between the Public Service Alliance of Canada as the bargaining
agent and the Treasury Board as the Employer is the appropriate forum for
determining these wage increases. The Committee recognizes that this study
will be used in the upcoming bargaining process in the year 2000.
THE WORKPLACE
While monetary compensation is a central element in improving the situation of federal
correctional officers, it is clear to the Committee that improvements to compensation
alone will not bring viable solutions to all of the workplace issues facing federal
correctional officers. There are a range of other important issues that would make a
significant difference in their working lives. During the focus groups, when asked about
the one thing they would like to change to improve their working conditions, federal
correctional officers identified a number of matters, including improvements in
communication with staff, staffing levels and processes, training, flexibility in shift work
scheduling, and greater stability in policies and practices governing the functioning of
the institutions.
As a first step in improving the working conditions of correctional officers, the
Committee wishes to highlight the following issues and suggested areas for action.
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
81
Professional Pride and Respect
There is a definite need to restore collective pride, respect and professional attachment
among correctional officers. It is clear that at this moment, correctional officers do not
feel ‘part of the team.’ While the Canadian correctional system enjoys an international
reputation for their adherence to United Nations standards regarding the treatment of
offenders70, their progressive reintegration objectives, and the measures that have
been taken to achieve them, the front-line workers who make a key contribution to
achieving these objectives do not take professional pride in doing so.
While addressing this issue will take time, there is a range of actions that could
contribute to instilling pride in the correctional officer profession. The Committee offers
the following suggestions as first steps:
•
CSC management could improve the provision of systematic, timely
recognition to individual correctional officers for their positive contributions
and professionalism -- with respect to specific events within institutions, or
for longer-term contributions to CSC over the course of a career. Throughout
the site visits, the Committee encountered examples of instances where such
recognition is given and appreciated. Improvements in this regard would
assist in making CSC Core Value 3 -- which states that staff are the strength
and major resource in achieving the CSC objectives -- a concrete reality.
•
Changes to the correctional officer uniform will go a long way to improving
the image of correctional officers. During the committee’s travels from coast
to coast, a common theme was the disaffection with the present uniform. This
concern was also picked up on in the recent Security Task Force report.
Correctional Officers want a uniform that represents them as the
professionals they are. They want a uniform they can wear with pride and that
is designed for their working environment. In this respect, the Committee
notes that steps have already been taken: a CSC National Clothing Review
Committee involving correctional officers has been established with a
mandate to propose changes to the current uniform.
•
Correctional officers have spoken about the far-reaching impact of their
negative image generally portrayed in the media and shared by much of the
Canadian public. The Committee suggests the need for a public education
campaign in order to highlight the many positive contributions of federal
correctional officers to public safety and the reintegration of offenders, both
inside and outside the walls of federal institutions. Such a campaign would
fall in line with the ‘promoting safer communities’ theme identified in the most
70
See for example the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted
August 30, 1955, by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders. These rules set out what is generally accepted as being good principle and practice in the
treatment of prisoners and the management of institutions.
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
82
recent Speech from the Throne. This campaign, which could be undertaken
on the basis of some of the findings and testimonials that emerged from this
study, would go a long way to de-bunking the many myths about federal
correctional officers. The Committee is aware that a public education
campaign is in the planning stages at CSC, and would encourage CSC to
involve federal correctional officers directly in the process.
Balancing Security and Case Management Responsibilities
One of the consistent and near-unanimous messages from CX-2s from every region in
the country was their difficulty in accomplishing the case management duties.
Correctional officers report that staffing levels and workload are key factors in
explaining this difficulty. Accomplishing both tasks at once can clearly be a challenge.
Officers who are doing case management duties, including report writing (which
requires a concentrated effort), are most often not available to monitor offender
movement and to perform other security tasks at the same time. When having to
decide between the two, officers take into account the potential for a situation to erupt
and the impact on professional colleagues, offenders and the functioning of the entire
institution. Consequently, security tasks may take precedence over casework. It is
clear from this study that, while correctional officers endorse the reintegration objectives
of CSC, and understand the contribution their profession makes via their case
management responsibilities, finding the time and space to do case management is
often an issue.
Some institutions have developed innovative and successful ways of organizing rosters
and scheduling so that CX-2s have dedicated time for casework. As a general rule, the
Committee noted that case management was more easily accomplished when officers
had dedicated time, space, and the support of parole officers and other professional
team members. For example, in one institution the Committee visited, officers were off
the ranges and assigned exclusively to case management duties in an office devoted to
case management, with parole officers on hand to assist with report writing. The office
had two computers and a reference section, with documentation on the CCRA, the
Criminal Code and other legislation and policies that are directly relevant to the CX-2
job. The Committee came upon other initiatives that focussed on making case
management more manageable for CX-2s. Many more probably exist in institutions
across the country.
•
As a general observation, the Committee notes the importance and benefits
for federal correctional officers and CSC of having the time and space for
casework. As a first step, the Committee suggests that a compendium of
‘best case management practices’ could be compiled from institutions across
the country. Institutions could build on these positive examples and adapt
them to their specific work environments where needed.
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
83
Effective Communication with Correctional Officers
The federal correctional officers’ perceived lack of support from management suggests
the need for more timely and more frequent communication with correctional officers on
such issues as changes to policies and procedures, the meaning of the rule of law and
the reasons behind some of the changes that have a profound impact on the day-to-day
work of correctional officers. One officer in the focus groups expressed it this way: “I
guess the general lack of communication has been a problem over the years in all
directions… from the top down, and definitely from the bottom up.”
Officers across the country expressed their frequent frustrations with policies and
procedures being developed with a limited understanding of the front-line work and
limited consultation with front-line workers. The Committee encountered some positive
examples of how direct consultation with correctional officers was well received and
helped to improve the quality of the resulting decisions. For example, in one institution
where retrofitting was imminent, officers indicated that they had been consulted and the
process had enabled them to improve many aspects of their future workplace -- from
workposts to the placement of security barriers -- in a meaningful way. While shift work
and the post responsibilities create barriers to direct, face-to-face communication
between front-line officers and management, it is clear that more frequent
communication would be beneficial to all.
•
Where possible, more frequent direct consultation with officers on a range of
issues, including consultations with front-line correctional officers in
developing polices and programs that directly affect their work, would be
beneficial to the entire CSC organization. Federal correctional officers have
the knowledge and the expertise to contribute to the development of effective
solutions that would improve the overall operations of CSC.
Training
During the site visits and focus groups in particular, training was among the most
frequent and important concerns raised by federal correctional officers. Officers
expressed their concern with both the duration and the content of training.
Many officers recounted to the Committee that in retrospect, their CORE training had
simply not prepared them for their first day on the job. More practical, hands-on training
and a greater focus on the day-to-day tasks were suggested by many as a way to
improve CORE training. In one region the Committee visited, a training facility was
being renovated that would allow new recruits to participate in simulations of incidents
they were likely to encounter very early on in their new job. This facility seemed to
address many of the concerns the Committee heard regarding CORE training.
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
•
CX Joint Study - April 2000
84
The Committee suggests that CORE training might be enhanced by placing a
greater emphasis on case management, legal awareness, and computer
literacy.
The frequency and scope of on-going training was also a serious concern for officers
across the country. Computer training, training in case management, the law and
contact with the legal system, firearms, first aid, and health and safety were among the
many areas identified for further ongoing training. In general, federal correctional
officers requested further training in three broad areas: working with offenders,
compliance with CSC policies and procedures (including case management), and
compliance with the law.
The Committee noted important variations in the implementation of training by region
and even by institution. However as a general observation, the Committee notes that
the training needs and requirements do not appear to have kept pace with the
increased knowledge and skills required of correctional officers. Coupled with gaps in
effective communication and the increased accountability which correctional officers
face, the gaps in training have led to frustration, and, in some cases, fear. Conversely,
in one institution the Committee visited, officers reported that the specialized training on
CSC and the law which they received enabled them better to understand their legal
obligations and responsibilities, and to view the law as a tool rather than as a barrier to
doing their jobs.
Finally, increased opportunities for access to formal education leave and further
professional development training were mentioned by several officers as potentially
beneficial to the organization.
•
The Committee suggests that organization-wide improvements to ongoing
training for federal correctional officers would make an important contribution
to their working lives. Given the input received from federal correctional
officers, the Committee suggests that investment in computer literacy training,
increased training on the legal framework governing CSC and the jobs of
correctional officers, case management training, and health and safety
training, would have organization-wide benefits. Increased on-going training
will also contribute to officers’ sense of collective pride. Further opportunities
for professional development training and formal education would also make
a positive contribution.
Chapter 6
Findings and Conclusions
CX Joint Study - April 2000
85
A FINAL NOTE
As mentioned earlier, the issues affecting the professional situation of federal
correctional officers are interrelated, and addressing them will require a number of
strategies at various levels.
The Committee strongly believes that this study should be used to address the issues
and concerns raised by correctional officers. All parties involved in this study -PSAC/USGE, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, and Correctional Service of
Canada - have a role to play in identifying the specific issues that fall within their
respective jurisdictions, and in working to develop the appropriate strategies to address
them.
To the Committee’s knowledge, this study is the first of its kind to focus on federal
correctional officers, and to document their duties, working conditions and wages in a
systematic way. It is also one of the most comprehensive union-management
exercises ever undertaken by both parties.
Speaking with and listening to federal correctional officers was an integral part of this
study, and their perspective is central to it.
At the outset of the study, one of the correctional officers on the Joint Committee
expressed the hope that, above all, this report would convey what the job of a federal
correctional officer was all about. Throughout its deliberations, the Committee has kept
this objective in mind, and trusts that in this report it has risen to the occasion.
Appendix 1
Memorandum of Understanding
Between
The Public Service Alliance of Canada
And
The Treasury Board of Canada
Governing the CX Joint Study in 1999/2000
_____________________________________________________________________
_
The Public Service Alliance of Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada, hereinafter
called the Parties, agree to the following terms to govern the Joint Study set out in
"Appendix G" of the Terms and Conditions of Employment and their Duration for
Employees in the Correctional Groups expiring May 31, 2000.
APPENDIX "G"
"The parties agree to establish a joint committee comprised of on an equal
number of employee and Employer representatives for the purpose of
comparing the duties, working conditions and wage rates of persons
employed in the Correctional Group bargaining units and those of
uniformed Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers and correctional
officers in provincial jurisdictions. This committee shall meet by July 1,
1999 and shall report its conclusions within nine months."
Joint Committee
The Parties agree to establish a joint committee comprised of five (5) employee and
five (5) Employer representatives for the purpose of comparing the duties, working
conditions and wage rates of persons employed in the Correctional Group bargaining
units and those of uniformed Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers and correctional
officers in provincial jurisdictions. The joint committee will be co-chaired -- one (1)
co-chair appointed from the employee representatives and the other appointed from the
Employer representatives.
Joint Committee Responsibilities
The joint committee will be responsible for determining terms of reference for its own
work, including any required studies that it deems necessary to support the purpose of
the joint committee as outlined above. The joint committee will file a report of its
findings to the Parties by April 1, 2000. The Parties acknowledge the importance of
both quantitative data, analysis and research that will need to be undertaken by outside
experts and qualitative data and evidence provided by individuals such as federal
correctional officers and managers and others deemed appropriate through neutral
forums such as focus group(s), surveys and on-site interviews.
Funding
The Parties agree to meet and finalize the CX Joint Study funding arrangements after
the joint committee has reached an agreement on what work needs to be carried out,
the terms of reference for the work and the estimated costs. Nevertheless, it is
understood that the joint committee members will be granted leave with pay to attend all
scheduled committee meetings and or to undertake assigned work or tasks on behalf of
the joint committee. It is further understood that the joint committee members who
represent the employees will have all their expenses paid for by the Public Service
Alliance of Canada.
Communication
A cooperative communications approach is essential to maintaining a cohesive and
viable functioning joint committee. The Parties agree that the joint committee as a
whole is responsible for any communication requirements concerning the status of the
joint committee’s work; that the proceedings of the joint committee, to the extent
possible, will be transparent, with the caveat that joint committee meetings will be held
in camera and specific discussions will be treated as confidential until such time and in
such form as the joint committee determines to release the information.
The Parties recognize that they may need to share such confidential information in
order to consult with principals having an interest in the outcome of the joint
committee’s work or to obtain assistance from other professionals and experts. For that
purpose, the Parties undertake to ensure that whoever will be made knowledgeable of
confidential information related to the work of the joint committee will be required to
respect the cooperative communication approach as outlined above.
Joint Committee Findings
Any report or related studies produced by and for the Joint Committee is not binding on
the Parties.
Signed at Ottawa, this 12th day of July, 1999.
The Treasury Board of Canada
The Public Service Alliance of Canada
Linda Gobeil
Jacques Pelletier
Richard Nannini
Nycole Turmel
Lynn Ray
Steve Jelly
APPENDIX 2
List of Federal Correctional Institutions by Region and
Security Level
ATLANTIC REGION
Institutions
•
•
•
•
•
Atlantic Institution (Max)
Dorchester Penitentiary (Med)
Springhill Institution (Med)
Westmorland Institution (Min)
Nova Institution for Women (Multi)
PRAIRIE REGION (CONTINUED)
•
•
•
•
•
•
ONTARIO REGION
Institutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kingston Penitentiary (Max)
Regional Treatment Centre (Max)
Millhaven Institution (Max)
Collins Bay Institution (Med)
Joyceville Institution (Med)
Warkworth Institution (Med)
Bath Institution (Med)
Fenbrook Institution (Med)
Frontenac Institution (Min)
Beaver Creek Institution (Min)
Pittsburgh Institution (Min)
Prison for Women (Multi)
Grand Valley Institution for
Women (Multi)
Isabel McNeill House (Min)
PRAIRIE REGION
Institutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Edmonton Institution (Max)
Saskatchewan Penitentiary (Med)
Stony Mountain Institution (Med)
Drumheller Institution (Med/Min)
Bowden Institution (Med/Min)
Grande Cache Institution (Med/Min)
Okimaw Ohci Healing Lodge
(Med/Min)
Riverbend Institution (Min)
Rockwood Institution (Min)
Pê Sâkâstêw Centre (Min)
Grierson Centre (Min)
Regional Psychiatric Centre Prairies (Multi)
Edmonton Institution for Women
(Multi)
PACIFIC REGION
Institutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regional Health Centre (Max)
Kent Institution (Max)
Matsqui Institution (Med)
Mountain Institution (Med)
Mission Institution (Med)
William Head Institution (Med)
Elbow Lake Institution (Min)
Ferndale Institution (Min)
QUÉBEC REGION
Institutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Donnacona Institution (Max)
Port-Cartier Institution (Max)
Regional Reception Centre (Max)
Cowansville Institution (Med)
Archambault Institution (Med)
Leclerc Institution (Med)
La Macaza Institution (Med)
Drummond Institution (Med)
Montée Saint-François Institution
(Min)
Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines Institution
(Min)
Federal Training Centre (Min)
Joliette Institution (Multi)
APPENDIX 3
RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX
CASE MANAGEMENT
STANDARD OPERATING PRACTICES (SOPs)
(INTERIM)
(700-A)
Issued under the authority of the
Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs
Date: February 1, 1999
ANNEX 700-A
RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX – CASE MANAGEMENT
TYPE OF ACTIVITY/REPORT
COMPLETED
BY
CORRECTIONAL PLAN
PROGRESS REPORT
(completed in relation to
a decision) AND
ASSESSMENT FOR
DECISION
Correctional Plan
PO
Ongoing
documentation
of
offender’s behaviour and progress
Correctional
Plan
against
objectives in the casework record –
one (1) casework record per 30
days per offender
COII
Correctional Plan Progress Reports
– for progress purposes
COII
Change to Correctional Plan
PO
Inmate Pay Recommendation
COII
Perimeter Clearance
COII
Private Family Visits
COII
Administrative Segregation
PO
Voluntary
Transfers/Security
Reclassification
COII
Involuntary
Transfers/Security
Reclassification
PO
Interregional and Interjurisdictional
Transfers
PO
Transfers to the SHU and
Treatment/Mental Health Centres
PO
Escorted Temporary
(Warden authority)
Absences
COII
Escorted Temporary
(NPB authority)
Absences
Unescorted Temporary Absences
(Warden and NPB authority)
Work Release
Submission(s) up until first
1
positive decision – PO
Subsequent Submissions
– COII
Accelerated Parole Reviews
PO
Day and Full Parole
PO
Statutory Release
PO
Detention/Annual
Reviews
1
()
Detention
PO
The Parole Officer is responsible to do the case preparation up until the first positive
decision for ETA (NPB authority), UTA and work release. This applies to the first positive
decision for each type of release regardless of whether the offender has received one of
the other forms of release.
The Parole Officer is also responsible to do the case preparation up until the first positive
decision in cases where:
(1) The ETA, UTA or work release (either individual or the program) has been
cancelled or terminated due to the inmate’s behaviour (NOTE: If the offender is
enjoying both ETA’s and work releases and one of the work releases is terminated,
the next submission for a work release ONLY must be completed by the PO. The
submissions for ETA can continue to be done by the COII);
(2) A conditional release has been suspended, cancelled, terminated or revoked;
(3) The offender has been assigned a higher security classification.
½ The officer responsible to do the case preparation for a particular type of activity/decision must
complete all the associated steps (refer to SOPs).
½ Any report completed by the COII must be quality controlled and locked by the Parole Officer.
The Correctional Supervisor is responsible for the timeliness of any report completed by the
COII.
½ When a review is held by way of a hearing, as the person ultimately responsible for the case,
the parole officer will do the presentation to the NPB.
Appendix 4: Willis Plan
MANAGERIAL SKILLS
KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS
EVALUATION CHART FOR
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
1. Activities are carried out within a subfunction, or
subfunctions, or subordinates are supervised in
performing one or more specific subfunctional
activities.
2. The elements of management are practiced in
coordinating or blending similar activities,
subfunctions, or functions. Management
complexity and impact are significant
3. Elements of management are practiced in
coordinating or blending conflicting activities,
subfunctions, or functions, or a government-wide
function. Management complexity is substantial.
K
X
N
Y
K
X
N
Y
K
X
N
Y
A. No previous experience is needed. Activities follow a
simple pattern requiring a brief on the job learning period.
40
46
53
61
53
61
70
80
70
46
53
61
70
61
70
80
92
80
80
92
106
92
106
122
53
61
70
80
70
80
92
106
92
106
122
140
B. Uncomplicated procedures may be followed. The
operation of machines or equipment and/or application of
a degree of repetitive quickness or manual dexterity may
be required.
53
61
70
80
70
80
92
106
92
106
122
140
61
70
80
92
80
92
106
122
106
122
140
160
70
80
92
106
92
106
122
140
122
140
160
184
C. Activities or procedures require vocational
competence and/or adeptness in the operation of
complicated mechanical equipment or equipment which
may necessitate a high level of speed or manual dexterity
70
80
92
106
92
106
122
140
122
140
160
184
80
92
106
122
106
122
140
160
140
160
184
212
92
106
122
140
122
140
160
184
160
184
212
244
D. A measure of knowledge is required in a specialized
or technological area, enhancing vocational competence.
Alternatively, competence in an involved manual or
mechanical skill is required
92
106
122
140
122
140
160
184
160
184
212
244
106
122
140
160
140
160
184
212
184
212
244
280
122
140
160
184
160
184
212
244
212
244
280
320
122
140
160
184
160
184
212
244
212
244
280
320
140
160
184
212
184
212
244
280
244
280
320
368
160
184
212
244
212
244
280
320
280
320
368
424
F. An advanced level of understanding is required in a
specialized or technological field, or competence in
multiple specialized fields, which may include
management systems and techniques.
160
184
212
244
212
244
280
320
280
320
368
424
184
212
244
280
244
280
320
368
320
368
424
488
212
244
280
320
280
320
368
424
368
424
488
560
G. The position incumbent is required to be highly
knowledgeable having a command of the subject matter
pertaining to a specialized or technological field, or an
advanced understanding in multiple specialized fields.
212
244
280
320
280
320
368
424
368
424
488
560
244
280
320
368
320
368
424
488
424
488
560
640
280
320
368
424
368
424
488
560
488
560
640
736
E. Competence is required in a specialized or
technological field. This includes a comprehension of
complex principles and practices.
Knowledge & Skills encompasses the total amount of
understanding, familiarity with facts or information,
dexterity or aptitude necessary to perform the job in
a satisfactory manner. It may be gained through
experience, association, training and/or education.
There are three parts to this component.
JOB KNOWLEDGE – What the position incumbent must
know or know how to do to perform satisfactorily, giving
appropriate consideration to the importance of the results to
be achieved and the reasonable expectation of reliability in
the avoidance of errors and the consequence of errors.
MANAGERIAL SKILLS – The degree to which the elements
of management must be practiced in coordinating activities,
functions or subfunctions
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SKILLS – Direct contact skills in relationships with
people within and outside the organization. The levels are:
K. Sufficient personal aptitude is needed to get along with fellow employees. Contacts with others
are incidental or required as a member of a work unit
X.
Personal interaction outside of the immediate work unit is required Contacts
normally involve giving or receiving information or materials
N. Influencing and/or personally servicing others are a material part of the job, and require tact and
diplomacy in dealing with others.
Y. Personal contacts with others require the capability to persuade and/or motivate people to
take action.
PROBLEM SOLVING
MENTAL DEMANDS
EVALUATION CHART FOR
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
A. Specific directions and prescribed rules limits the latitude permitted
for independent judgement.
1. Problems encountered
require recall rather than
analysis
a
2. Problems encountered
require some analysis of
uncomplicated data by
established routines or quick
reactions in the initiation of
expected efforts
c
b
B.
Standardized work routines limit the latitude permitted for
independent judgment.
b
d
c
d
f
e
f
j
i
j
l
l
k
k
h
k
k
j
i
This component weights the degree of effort of the
required thinking process in analysis and evaluation of
alternatives in reaching solutions.
i
h
g
j
j
i
h
g
h
g
g
5. Problems encountered
involve in-depth analysis
and evaluation where
significant innovative
thinking or activity is
required.
i
h
f
e
E. Distinct departmental or functional policies and goals steer
independent judgment.
f
f
e
4. Problems encountered
require analysis and
evaluation of a variety of
data pertaining to nonroutine or varying situations.
g
e
d
D. Varying or complex procedures and methods limit the latitude
permitted for independent judgment.
e
d
c
C. Similar procedures and methods limit the latitude permitted for
independent judgment; or performance of multiple work routines is
normally subject to significant interruption.
3. Problems encountered
require analysis of a variety
of data pertaining to
situations of generally
routine or recurring nature.
m
m
l
n
It is represented by the following parts:
•
•
The latitude permitted for Independent Judgement.
The extent and nature of the job’s Problem Solving requirements.
Mental Demands
MD
symbol
K & S points
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
160
184
212
244
280
320
368
424
488
560
640
736
n
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
160
184
212
244
280
320
368
424
488
m
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
160
184
212
244
280
320
368
424
l
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
160
184
212
244
280
320
368
k
20
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
160
184
212
244
280
320
j
17
20
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
160
184
212
244
280
i
15
17
20
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
160
184
212
244
h
13
15
17
20
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
160
184
212
g
11
13
15
17
20
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
160
184
f
10
11
13
15
17
20
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
160
e
9
10
11
13
15
17
20
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
140
d
8
9
10
11
13
15
17
20
23
36
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
122
c
7
8
9
10
11
13
15
17
20
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
106
b
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
15
17
20
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
92
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
15
17
20
23
26
30
35
40
46
53
61
70
80
ACCOUNTABILITY
EVALUATION CHART FOR
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
SIZE OF IMPACT
1. Small Impact
N
A. Duties are routine and specifically delineated; work is closely
controlled
B. Duties are somewhat routine in nature and clearly delineated,
but with limited options; work is closely controlled.
C. Characteristics of the position are such that activities and
methods are clearly defined, and/or work is frequently reviewed.
D. Characteristics of the position are such that activities and
methods are generally defined, and/or efforts are reviewed after
the fact.
E. Characteristics of the position are such that activities and
methods are broadly outlined and/or governed by departmental
policies; administrative direction is afforded.
Each position is designed to make some contribution toward
desired overall results. The amount of contribution required
is represented by the job’s accountability. It has three parts:
S
2. Moderate Impact
D
N
S
3. Significant Impact
D
N
S
4. Substantial Impact
D
N
S
5. Major Impact
D
N
S
D
10
15
23
13
20
30
17
26
40
23
35
53
30
46
70
11
17
26
15
23
35
20
30
46
26
40
61
35
53
80
13
20
30
17
26
40
23
35
53
30
46
70
40
61
92
15
23
35
20
30
46
26
40
61
35
53
80
46
70
106
17
26
40
23
35
53
30
46
70
40
61
92
53
80
122
20
30
46
26
40
61
35
53
80
46
70
106
61
92
144
23
35
53
30
46
70
40
61
92
53
80
122
70
106
160
26
40
61
35
53
80
46
70
.06
61
92
140
80
122
184
30
46
70
40
61
92
53
80
122
70
106
160
92
140
212
35
53
80
46
70
106
61
92
140
80
122
184
106
160
244
40
61
92
53
80
122
70
106
160
92
140
212
122
184
280
46
70
106
61
92
140
80
122
184
106
160
244
140
212
320
53
80
122
70
106
160
92
140
212
122
184
280
160
244
368
61
92
140
80
122
184
106
160
244
140
212
320
184
280
424
70
106
160
92
140
212
122
184
280
160
244
368
212
320
488
FREEDOM TO TAKE ACTION –
SIZE OF THE JOB’S IMPACT ON END RESULTS -
NATURE OF THE JOB’S IMPACT -
The extent of restraint under which the job must
operate.
The general size most representative of the job’s
scope based on the resources and program
objectives affected.
NONDIRECT – Services afforded are
facilitative, collateral or incidental in
nature.
SUPPORTIVE – Services afforded are participative in
nature. Actions taken influence, rather than control
results.
DIRECT – Principal actions – at the position’s
organizational level-are taken in achieving results.
Limitation can be in the form of necessary
supervision or direction, or can be inherent in the
nature of the position.
HAZARDS
WORKING CONDITIONS
EVALUATION CHART FOR
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Å
1. Danger of injury or probability of
illness or physical harm associated with
the job is minimal
2. So me danger of injury or probability
of illness or physical harm is inherent in
the job.
3. A significant degree of danger of
injury or probability of illness or physical
harm is inherent in the job.
4. A severe exposure to potential loss of
life or permanently debilitating injury or
illness is inherent in the job.
Discomfort
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D
5
7
9
6
8
10
13
9
11
15
20
13
17
23
30
6
8
10
7
9
11
15
10
13
17
23
15
20
26
35
7
9
11
8
10
13
17
11
15
20
26
17
23
30
40
5
7
9
11
8
10
13
17
11
15
20
26
17
23
30
40
6
8
10
13
9
11
15
20
13
17
23
30
20
26
35
46
7
9
11
15
10
13
17
23
15
20
26
35
23
30
40
53
7
9
11
15
10
13
17
23
15
20
26
35
23
30
40
53
8
10
13
17
11
15
20
26
17
23
30
40
26
35
46
61
9
11
15
20
13
17
23
30
20
26
35
46
30
40
53
70
9
11
15
20
13
17
23
30
20
26
35
46
30
40
53
70
10
13
17
23
15
20
26
35
23
30
40
53
35
46
61
80
11
15
20
26
17
23
30
40
26
35
46
61
40
53
70
92
L. Activities require little working in tiring or restrained
positions, lifting, climbing or other situations that by their
nature, cause a marked degree of fatigue.
S. Work is characterized to a considerable degree by
tiring or restrained positions, lifting or climbing extended
concentration, or other situations causing mental or
physical fatigue.
M. A substantial expenditure of mental or physical energy
is the nature of and normal to, the work.
H. Work situations normally involve continual and highly
expensive intensive expenditure of mental or physical
energy.
This factor includes undesirable conditions the work requirements impose on the employee. The
dimensions are:
EFFORT – the amount of intense mental concentration or physical energy required to be expended.
HAZARDS – the degree of risk of injury or harm.
DISCOMFORT – The environmental or stressful conditions associated with the work. These include such things as noise,
temperature, isolation, exposure to emotionally draining situations, and other similar or related unfavourable conditions. There
are four levels:
A.
Nature of the work is such that there is a minimum of undesirable conditions.
B.
Normal work conditions tend to be moderately disagreeable on occasion.
C.
Normal work conditions are moderately disagreeable much of the time, or strongly disagreeable on occasion.
D. Strongly disagreeable conditions exist continuously or much of the time.
APPENDIX 5
Benefits Valued/Not Valued in the Total Compensation Model
Benefits Valued
The table below outlines those benefits that were included in the valuation process. We
have also identified those benefits that were excluded and the reason for their exclusion.
In both tables we have indicated the jurisdictions to which each particular compensation
element applies. The following codes have been used to identify each jurisdiction:
F: Federal
R: RCMP
B: British Columbia
S: Saskatchewan
O: Ontario
Q. Quebec
N. Nova Scotia
Valued
Groups Concerned
WAGES & SALARIES
Salaries
All
Annual service pay
R
Overtime
All
Holiday premium
All
ADDITIONAL PAY
Meal allowance
F, R, B, O, Q
Call back pay
All
Shift premium
F, R, B, S, O, Q
Weekend premium
Travelling time
Bilingualism bonus
F, O
F, R, B
F, R
Environment factors premium
Q
Gainsharing agreement
B
Sr. constable allowance
R
Valued
Groups Concerned
SEVERANCE PAY
At termination (resignation)
At retirement
At death
F, R, O
F, R, B, O
F, R, O
PENSION PLAN
Pension plan
All
Life insurance or benefit
All
GROUP BENEFITS
AD&D
Survivor income
B, S, Q, N
F, R
Short Term Disability
R, B, O, Q, N
Long Term Disability
F, R, B, O, N
Health
All
Dental
F, R, B, S, O, N
Post-retirement health
F, R, B, O
Post-retirement dental
B, O
Post-retirement life
F, B, S, O, Q
PAID TIME OFF
Vacation
All
Statutory holidays
All
Sick leaves
All
Injury-on-duty leaves
F, N
Maternity leaves
F, R, B, O, Q
Parental leaves
F, R, B, O, Q
Marriage leaves
F, B, Q
Bereavement leaves
F, R, B, O, Q, N
Family-related leaves
F, R, B, O, Q
Leaves for other reasons
F, R, B, S, O, Q
Benefits Not Valued
The Committee decided not to value a number of benefits given that their related annual
cost would be relatively low, or “not material” in comparison with the annual cost of wages
and salaries.
By “not material” we mean that the value of a particular benefit represents less than
approximately 0.5% of the annual cost of wages and salaries. In addition, for the majority
of these benefits, we did not have strong historical data in order to set an appropriate
assumption on the usage of these benefits over a CX career.
However, it is important to note that Watson Wyatt Worldwide valued some benefits where
costs are less than 0.5% of the annual cost of wages and salaries. It was agreed that
these benefits would be included in the valuation because of availability of good data to
support our assumptions even if they have a relatively low impact on the results.
Not Valued
Explanation for
Not Evaluating the Benefits
Groups
Concerned
WAGES & SALARIES
Acting pay
No data available
F, R, B, S
ADDITIONAL PAY
Court duty
No data available / not
material
Lay-off
No data available / not
material
Rejection on probation
No data available / not
material
Termination for cause of No data available / not
incapacity/incompetence material
Recall from leave
No data available / not
material
Police community relations No data available / not
material
Voluntary duty
Not
material,
no
data
available or not applicable to
CXs
Overtime at home
Not
material,
no
data
available or not applicable to
CXs
Meal & rest periods missed No data available / not
material
Stand-by
No data available / not
material
Leave in lieu of overtime
Not an additional benefit
F, R, N
F, B, S, N
F
F
R
R
R
R
R
R, B, S, O
R
Not Valued
Phone calls after hours
Camp differential
Sleep-over allowance
On-call premium
Call-back during vacation
Explanation for
Groups
Not Evaluating the Benefits Concerned
No data available / not
S
material
No data available / not
S
material
No data available / not
S
material
No data available / not
O
material
No data available / not
N
material
PAID TIME OFF
Court leave
Education
Union leave
Self-funded leave
No data available / not
material
No data available / not
material
No data available / not
material
No cost for the employer
F, B, O, Q
F, B, O
O, Q, N
O
Police community relations No data available / not
material
Relocations
No data available / not
material
Special unpaid leave
No cost for the employer
R
Leave without pay
R
No cost for the employer
R
R
OTHER ALLOWANCES
Dog handlers’ allowance
Transfer allowance
Special duty allowances
Kit upkeep allowance
No data available /
material
No data available /
material
No data available /
material
Not applicable to CXs
not
F, R
not
R
not
R
R
Meal allowance (mess Not applicable to CXs
members)
Isolated post allowances
Not applicable to CXs
R
Foreign service allowances Not applicable to CXs
R
Plain clothes allowance
No data available /
material
Educational allowance for Not applicable to CXs
dependent children
R
not
R, B
R
Not Valued
Commuting allowance
Transportation
Explanation for
Not Evaluating the Benefits
Not applicable to CXs
No data available / not
material
Accommodation at camps No data available / not
material
Drivers license
No data available / not
material
Government
sponsored No benefit from living in one
benefits
province or another
Basic and ongoing training Too
many
differences
between groups
Perquisites
Not
material,
no
data
available or not applicable to
CXs
Groups
Concerned
R
B
B
B
All
All
R
While the above noted compensation elements have not been valued, the Committee also
noted that it wished to capture a qualitative description of these items in our report. This
was particularly true for items such as training, acting pay, call back provisions, paid
lunches, and allowances provided primarily by the RCMP with respect to community
relations, special duty and plain clothes. The CX Joint Study Committee spent
considerable time discussing these specific items but in the end concluded that, given the
fact that high quality data was virtually unattainable for these benefits, there was no basis
for reasonable assumptions. As a result, they could not be valued.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Related manuals

Download PDF

advertisement