Evaluation of the Criminal Investigations Program: Section 3

Human resources

To determine whether regions have sufficient resources (i.e., the right number of investigators), the evaluation examined the number of leads received from 2016 to 2017 through 2020 to 2021 in comparison to the average number of investigators working in each Region. However, this analysis is somewhat limited, as the number of leads received may not fully reflect the level of risk^{Footnote 32} and volume of work per case in a given region.

As can be seen in table 7, the Program had an average of 207 investigators available per year to conduct investigations. The number of investigators allocated to each region does not appear to be linked to the number of leads received each year. As a result, the number of leads per investigator varies widely by region.

Currently, regions select the number of cases to open based, in part, on the number of investigators available^{Footnote 33}, which limits certain regions since their number of investigators might not be reflective of the current volume of leads or level of risk that exists. There is therefore the potential that in some regions, leads are not being investigated because of a lack of resources rather than the merits of the leads themselves.

As illustrated in table 7, the Prairie Region has the highest number of leads per Investigator at 21.9, in contrast to the 5.9 leads per Investigator in Quebec Region, which could indicate a lack of investigative resources in Prairie region. While this analysis has limitations, the wide variance between regions suggests a potential need to review how resources are allocated to reflect current operational realities.

An examination of CIIMS and HR data also showed that the average number of cases opened per Investigator also varies by Region (refer to table 8), from 4.5 cases per Investigator in Northern Ontario Region, to 1.3 cases per Investigator in the Greater Toronto Area Region. The number of cases opened is not an indicator of workload. This variation can be a result of the different ways regions choose to manage their resources. Some regions choose to focus on Major and Complex cases and open relatively fewer cases as a result, while some regions focus more on Port Prosecution cases and open relatively more cases as a result. The selection of Port Prosecution cases may not be aligned with Program guidance to focus the majority of activities on Major and Complex cases, for acceptable reasons; however, data on the level of effort or hours worked per case is needed to determine the extent to which this may be problematic.

Availability of tools and resources

Regional managers interviewed noted the lack of training and MCM software has led to cases taking longer to complete than they otherwise would. Stakeholders suggested that adopting MCM software would reduce the amount of time spent preparing evidence for disclosure, as it would reduce the need for manual tracking and organizing of the evidence collected. In addition, Public Prosecution Services Canada (PPSC) explained during the 2022 CBSA-PPSC Symposium that implementing MCM principles for case management would improve investigation planning and managing the volume of evidence collected – leading to more efficient use of investigation resources. Improved training completion could also allow new investigators to get up to speed quicker and improve quality of investigation planning, both of which could further improve efficiency.

"No administrative support to handle certain tasks in the investigation that should not be done by investigators but rather by clerks."

All regional managers interviewed said they do not have enough administrative support staff given their volume of work, which has led to investigators doing administrative work – reducing their time available for core responsibilities and impacting their efficiency. This sentiment was also expressed by investigators across four of the regions through the survey. The lack of administrative support staff is further exacerbated by the lack of MCM software, which increases the amount of clerical work needed to prepare for disclosure. Currently, only the Atlantic, Greater Toronto Area, Pacific, and Quebec regions have investigative support staff^{Footnote 34} to assist investigators. The Program also indicated that it has a need for Analysts to provide tactical analytical support that will facilitate the advancement of investigations in a more efficient and effective manner. While the Program Headquarters (HQ) staff was looking into the use of intelligence analysts to support investigations, this was still in the exploration phase when this evaluation was completed^{Footnote 35}.

Stakeholders expressed concern that the lack of tools and resources noted above has potentially led to cases taking too long to resolve. For example, in interviews with CBSA and PPSC, concerns were raised about cases possibly being closed due to the Supreme Court of Canada's Jordan decision, which limits the period between when a person is charged and when a decision is rendered to 18 months for provincial court trials and 30 months for superior court trials^{Footnote 36}. This means that if resolution of a case takes too long after charges are laid, proceedings have to be "stayed" (a temporary or permanent stop to a trial). Given that investigators can continue to support PPSC in the collection of evidence after charges are laid or in the preparation of disclosure, their timeliness could impact whether a case is stayed due to the Jordan decision. While CIIMS data showed zero cases as being marked not successful due to the Jordan decision, one region mentioned they had knowledge of at least "a couple" of cases in their region that were unsuccessful for this reason.

To validate stakeholder perceptions that cases may be taking too long to resolve, the evaluation analyzed available CIIMS data on the length of cases concluded (court process has been completed). Although there were limitations to this analysis (refer to Appendix D: Evaluation limitations), the overall trend supported interviewee perceptions. Data showed that from 2016 to 2017 through 2020 to 2021, 1,069 cases were concluded. While most cases were resolved within a year, 43% of complex cases took two or more years to conclude. This is notable as complex cases can have a greater impact on the individual investigated and present a higher risk to the safety, security, and prosperity of Canada. In interviews and during the 2022 CBSA-PPSC Symposium, PPSC also noted that large and lengthy cases can have diminishing returns due to the large amount of evidence created that must be collected and prepared for disclosure, and the risk that witnesses will become unavailable over time.

Performance measurement

The 2015 evaluation recommended that the program:

• develop a performance measurement framework that links key indicators (for each case) across each stage of the investigation process
  • this is to include criteria for the various decision points
• implement regular monitoring of Program performance against intended outcomes and determine if activities are aligned with Program objectives, including national priorities

The current evaluation determined that the Program made good progress in this area, but additional adjustments are required. A performance measurement framework and key performance indicators (KPIs) were developed in response to these recommendations and indicators are regularly monitored by the Program. CIIMS now includes fields for additional decision points and rationale for decisions, as recommended. In addition, the Program has introduced a Quality Assurance Review process to improve data quality, which will improve the Program's ability to use data for decision-making. However, as noted in Section 3.3 and in Annex D, there is further room to improve data in this area by making the reason for coding a case "not successful" a mandatory field in CIIMS.

There is also room to improve the current performance measurement framework to better measure the Program's performance against intended outcomes, notably the alignment of cases with CBSA priorities, the quality of evidence collected, and the utilization of resources against current workload. Ways to improve performance measurement in these areas were noted in this evaluation report in Sections 3.1, 3.3, and 4.1.

Some regional managers also expressed a desire for the performance measurement framework to capture other aspects of performance such as the decision to close a case due to lack of evidence, successful judicial authorizations and search warrants, and completion of court briefs. In their view, the outcome of cases is also influenced by factors outside the control of the CBSA (i.e. PPSC and court decisions) and thus related indicators might be better suited to assess investigation quality.

Obtaining information from other government departments

The 2015 Evaluation recommended that the program identify and mitigate barriers to, and monitor progress in, obtaining evidence from OGDs using the investigative body designation (IBD).

The current evaluation determined good progress in implementing this recommendation as well. Some regional managers and the majority of criminal investigators surveyed through the current evaluation expressed satisfaction with the current process for engaging with OGDs to request information. In interviews, five regions noted continued difficulties in obtaining information and evidence from OGDs, while two regions reported that the ability to get information from OGDs had improved over the last five years. Delays in receiving a response from OGDs was noted as a main challenge through the survey. Nevertheless, 63% of criminal investigators surveyed were highly or somewhat satisfied with the overall process of requesting information from OGDs, and 61% were satisfied with the timeliness of OGD responses.

In interviews, some regional managers noted difficulty in identifying who to contact in OGDs to request information; meanwhile, 48% of criminal investigators surveyed were dissatisfied with the clarity of procedures and steps required to request evidence from OGDs.

In response to the 2015 recommendation, the Program developed an IBD course that explains what IBD is, the scope of the IBD authorities, and how to use the designation to request information. Training completion for the online only course was 91% for investigators working in their position for three to five years, but only 53% and 28% for investigators working fewer than two years, or over five years, respectively. Increasing uptake for the IBD course may address some of the concerns expressed by managers and investigators. This could be addressed by implementing the recommendation, as stated in Section 3.4, related to improving training completion overall.

Optimizing delivery of digital forensic investigation services

The 2015 evaluation recommended that the program develop options to deliver the digital forensic investigation service and to optimize the alignment of existing resources to support evolving demands. The Branch should implement and monitor the selected options.

Some progress has been made in this area, but certain action items are outstanding. In response to this recommendation, the Program completed an internal review of the Digital forensics unit (DFU) that sits within the Criminal Investigations Division at HQ and identified five action items (refer to table 9)^{Footnote 41}. Two items have been completed, while two are currently in progress. As a result of the internal review, the previous backlog for DFIs has been reduced, according to interviewees. Regional managers interviewed felt well supported by the DFU in terms of getting the tools and training required for DFIs to do their jobs. About 93% of criminal investigators surveyed also reported being highly or somewhat satisfied with the overall engagement with DFIs in the regions.

In interviews, three regions noted challenges in relation to attracting and retaining qualified DFI staff in order to keep up with the volume of work. The DFU also noted this challenge. Currently, DFIs must be recruited internally from existing Investigator positions, which means the pool from which to hire DFIs is limited. The DFU is looking into alternatives for the recruitment of DFIs or IT support positions.

An analysis of performance and DFI human resources data demonstrated varying levels of support available from DFIs to criminal investigators in each Region (refer to table 10). A higher number of investigators per DFI indicates that a region has less support available from their DFI positions. An analysis of overtime worked per digital forensic investigators can also provide insight into whether a region has the right level of support from the DFI service – for example, Quebec region digital forensic Investigation services supports the most criminal investigators and work the second most overtime potentially indicating a need for more resources in this region.

There may be an opportunity to share DFI resources across regions to a greater extent. However, this is currently challenging due to technological limitations making it difficult to share large files electronically. [Redacted]