2018 PPSC Survey of Investigative Agencies

Table of Contents

• Overview
• Survey Methodology and Response Rate
• Respondent Characteristics
• Survey Results
  • Support and Advice Provided to Investigative Agencies
  • Training Activities
  • PPSC Service Standards
• Conclusions
• Recommendations

Overview

Strong cooperation and collaboration between Investigative Agencies and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) is essential to effective prosecutions. The PPSC relies heavily on the work of Investigative Agencies in order to fulfill its mandate. As a result, the PPSC has put a strong focus on working collaboratively with them. To support that effort, the PPSC regularly surveys Investigative Agencies to solicit their feedback with the overall goal of strengthening prosecution services and helping the PPSC to better respond to the needs of Investigative Agencies. The 2018 survey is the third time the PPSC has surveyed Investigative Agencies.

Overall, the results of the survey show that the relationship between the PPSC and Investigative Agencies is strong and working well. A majority of respondents are satisfied with the support they received from the PPSC, as well the comprehensiveness and timeliness of legal advice. PPSC training activities were reported to have been effective in building knowledge and helping respondents modify their practices. While a majority of respondents were unaware of the PPSC’s service standards, when asked how often PPSC counsel met specific standards, over 80% reported these standard were regularly met. In addition, good progress has been made to address the concerns raised in the 2014 survey.

When respondents were dissatisfied with the support they received from the PPSC, the explanations for their dissatisfaction tended to fall into three main themes: prosecutors were slow or unresponsive, inconsistency between the advice provided by prosecutors, and a perceived lack of resources at the PPSC leading to staff being overworked.

Based on these findings, the report recommends that the PPSC

1. continue existing training activities and consider ways to increase awareness of training opportunities among relevant Investigative Agency staff;
2. look at ways to increase awareness of PPSC service standards among Investigative Agencies;
3. consider methods to reduce inconsistencies between prosecutors both in terms of their perceived quality and the consistency of their legal advice;
4. continue to emphasize the importance of good communication with Investigative Agencies and keeping them updated on key issues in significant cases.

Survey Methodology and Response Rate

The survey sought feedback from both police services and regulatory agencies. Regulatory agencies were selected based on those agencies with highest average billings with the PPSC over the last three years. These agencies were contacted directly by PPSC Headquarters and asked to identify staff to participate in the survey. Police services were selected at the regional level. Each Chief Federal Prosecutor was asked to contact key police services in the region and requested that they identify staff to participate in the survey. Both police and regulatory agencies were asked to identify individuals who interact regularly with the PPSC and provide email contacts for these individuals to the PPSC Evaluation and Research Unit. A particular focus was placed on identifying Investigative Agency staff working at an operational level, including those managing and leading operational units or teams. The Evaluation and Research Unit then emailed these contacts the link to participate in the survey. This method of asking Investigative Agencies to provide email contacts for survey recipients was selected to allow the PPSC to keep track of the number of survey recipients and calculate the response rate to the survey. The identity of the survey recipients who completed the survey was not tracked in order to maintain respondent anonymity.

The survey link was sent to 1138 individuals (382 from regulatory agencies and 756 from police). Of these recipients, 637 people (267 from regulatory agencies and 370 from police) completed the survey for an overall response rate of 56%. The 2018 response rate was higher than the previous two surveys of Investigative Agencies; the 2008 survey had a response rate of 38%, while the 2014 survey, which only tracked the response rate from federal regulatory agencies, had a response rate of 43%. The table below shows the 2018 survey response rate broken down by police service and regulatory agency.

Table 2, provides a further breakdown of response rates for police services¹ at a regional level. As the table illustrates, the response rates ranged from a low of 30% in Alberta to a high of 76% in the Atlantic region.

Respondent Characteristics

In terms of the distribution of respondents between police services and regulatory agencies, 58% of respondents came from police services, while 42% came from regulatory agencies. As figure 1 shows, this proportion is similar to the breakdown of respondents to the 2014 survey.

Figure 1: Breakdown of survey respondents by agency type, 2018 vs 2014

Compared to the 2014 survey, figure 2 indicates that the 2018 survey had a more even distribution of police respondents, with 50% coming from the RCMP and 40% from municipal police services. In 2014, the majority (82%) of police respondents came from the RCMP.

Figure 2: Police respondents by police service, 2018 vs 2014

Figure 3 shows the distribution of regulatory agency survey respondents by agency. The four agencies with the most respondents to the survey were: the Canada Revenue Agency, Environment and Climate Change Canada, the Canada Border Service Agency, and the Competition Bureau.

Figure 3: Regulatory agency respondents by agency, 2018 vs 2014

Looking at the geographic distribution of respondents, figure 4 demonstrates that just over one third of all respondents came from Ontario (36%), with the next highest percentages coming from BC (17%), Quebec (11%), and Saskatchewan (11%).

Figure 4: Overall geographic distribution of 2018 survey respondents

However, geographic distribution of police respondents was more heavily weighted towards Ontario than those of regulatory agency respondents. Almost half (47%) of all police respondents came from Ontario, whereas approximately 20% of regulatory agency respondents came from each of the following regions: BC, Ontario, the National Capital Region, and Quebec (see figure 5, below).

Figure 5: Geographic distribution of 2018 survey respondents, police service vs regulatory agencies

As figure 6 illustrates, the majority of survey respondents reported interacting regularly with the PPSC. Over half of respondents (57%) reported that they were involved in investigations or prosecutions involving the PPSC at least monthly, while only 7% reported having no interaction with the PPSC in the last 12 months.

Figure 6: Frequency of involvement in investigations or prosecutions involving the PPSC in the last 12 months

Survey Results

A key aim of the survey was to get feedback from Investigative Agencies across the breadth of their interactions with the PPSC. As a result, respondents were asked for their feedback in three key areas:

• Support and advice provided to Investigative Agencies by the PPSC;
• Training activities organized by the PPSC;
• PPSC service standards.

Support and Advice Provided to Investigative Agencies

Respondents were asked for their feedback on the frequency they received four main types of support from the PPSC and the usefulness of that support. The four types of support were:

• Preparation of witnesses for court;
• Pre or post-charge legal advice;
• Cooperation in the preparation of disclosure materials;
• Guidance in the preparation of search warrants, wiretap authorizations and/or production orders.

Key findings: Pre or post-charge legal advice and cooperation in the preparation of disclosure materials were the two types of support most frequently received by both police and regulatory agencies.

1. Frequency of support received from the PPSC

Survey respondents most often received support from the PPSC in the form of pre or post-charge legal advice and the preparation of disclosure, with 62% of respondents reporting they had “often” or “sometimes” received pre or post-charge legal advice in the last 12 months and 59% of respondents reporting they “often” or “sometimes” received support in the preparation of the disclosure materials. This trend held true across both police services and regulatory agencies. The one distinction being that police most frequently received disclosure support followed by pre or post-charge advice, while regulatory agencies received pre and post-charge advice most frequently followed by disclosure support. These two types of support were also the most frequent support received in the 2014 survey (see figure 7).

Figure 7: Frequency of support received by the PPSC in the last 12 months, by type of support

Key finding: An average of 75% of survey respondents rated the support they received from the PPSC as “useful” or “very useful”.

2. Usefulness of PPSC support to Investigative Agencies

Figure 8 shows how respondents rated the usefulness of the support they received from the PPSC. Across all four types of support the majority of respondents (75%) rated the support they received as “useful” or “very useful”. Pre or post-charge legal advice received the highest ratings among police, with 81% of police respondents rating the support “useful” or “very useful”. Federal agencies rated guidance in the preparation of search warrants, wiretap authorizations and/or production orders the highest, with 79% of respondents rating the support they received as “useful” or “very useful”. This was followed closely by pre or post-charge legal advice, with 76% of regulatory agency respondents rating this support as “useful” or “very useful”.

Figure 8: Usefulness of supports received from the PPSC over the last 12 months, by type of support

Key findings: 76% of respondents were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the frequency of their interaction with the PPSC.
The most commonly cited explanation for why respondents were unsatisfied with the frequency of their interaction was that the PPSC was too slow to respond, or failed to respond, to requests from Investigative Agencies.

3. Investigative Agency satisfaction with the frequency of their interaction with PPSC

As figure 9 illustrates, roughly three quarters of both police and regulatory agency respondents reported being satisfied with the frequency of their interactions with the PPSC over the previous 12 months. The proportion of police (79%) was slightly higher than the proportion of regulatory agency staff (73%) reporting their satisfaction with the frequency.

Figure 9: Satisfaction with the frequency of interaction with the PPSC over the last 12 months

Survey respondents were provided an opportunity to explain why they were unsatisfied with the frequency of their interaction and 103 respondents (16%) provided feedback. Their responses were analyzed for themes and categorized accordingly. The most frequently cited explanation for dissatisfaction was PPSC staff not responding to, or taking a long time to respond, to requests of Investigative Agencies. This explanation was cited 37 respondents (6% of all respondents). Eighteen respondents noted that responsiveness varied significantly depending on the prosecutor they were dealing with, some prosecutors responded quickly and others were seen as being much less responsive. Eighteen respondents (3% of all respondents) also flagged the lack of PPSC resources and their perception that PPSC staff are overworked as a key factor in their lack of satisfaction with the frequency of their interaction with the PPSC (see figure 10).

Figure 10: Explanations for lack of satisfaction with frequency of interaction with the PPSC, by theme and number of times cited

Key findings: 80% of respondents were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the comprehensiveness of the legal advice they received from the PPSC.
The most commonly cited explanation for why respondents were unsatisfied with the comprehensiveness of the legal advice they received was inconsistent or contradictory advice from different prosecutors.

4. Investigative Agency satisfaction with the comprehensiveness of the legal advice they received

Of the three areas where respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the PPSC (i.e. frequency of interaction, comprehensiveness of legal advice, and timeliness of legal advice) the comprehensiveness of legal advice received the highest ratings of satisfaction. As shown in figure 11, 81% of police and 77% of regulatory agency respondents reported being “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the comprehensiveness of the legal advice they received from the PPSC.

Figure 11: Satisfaction with the comprehensiveness of legal advice received from the PPSC in the last 12 months

As with the frequency of interaction, survey respondents were provided an opportunity to explain why they were unsatisfied with the comprehensiveness of the legal advice they received, and 59 respondents (9%) provided feedback. Their responses were analyzed for themes and categorized accordingly. The most frequently cited explanation for dissatisfaction from respondents was that they received inconsistent or contradictory advice between prosecutors. This explanation was cited by 22 respondents (i.e. 3% of all respondents and 37% of those that answered the question) (see figure 12).

Figure 12: Explanations for lack of satisfaction with the comprehensives of legal advice, by theme and number of times cited

Key findings: 72% of respondents were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the timeliness of the legal advice they received from the PPSC.
The most commonly cited explanation for why respondents were unsatisfied with the timeliness of the legal advice they received was that the PPSC was slow to respond, unresponsive or it took multiple follow-ups to get a response.

5. Investigative Agency satisfaction with the timeliness of the legal advice they received from the PPSC

Although nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) reported that they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the timeliness of the advice they received, it received a lower rating of satisfaction than the frequency of interaction and the comprehensiveness of legal advice. A greater proportion of police (76%) were satisfied with the timeliness of the advice they received than respondents from regulatory agencies (66%) (see figure 13).

Figure 13: Satisfaction with the timeliness of legal advice provided by the PPSC in the last 12 months

As with the previous two questions, survey respondents were provided an opportunity to explain why they were unsatisfied with the timeliness of the legal advice they received and 88 respondents (14%) provided feedback. Their responses were analyzed for themes and categorized accordingly. The results are highlighted in figure 14 below. The most frequently cited explanation for dissatisfaction was that the PPSC was slow to respond, unresponsive or that it took multiple follow-ups to get a response. This explanation was cited 44 times. The two other themes identified in respondents’ explanations were:

• The perception that the PPSC lacked resources and was overworked, which prevented PPSC staff from responding to requests from Investigative Agencies in a timely manner; and
• Inconsistency in timeliness between prosecutors, with some responding quickly, and others being much slower to respond.

Figure 14: Explanations for lack of satisfaction with the timeliness of legal advice, by theme and number of times cited

Training Activities

Key findings: 27% of respondents participated in training organized by the PPSC in the last 12 months.
Out of 27% that participated, 73% reported this training was “extremely useful” or “very useful” in enhancing their understanding of the topic covered.
51% reported that the training they received contributed “quite a bit” to them modifying their practices and 90% reported the training had at least some contribution to them modifying their practices.
Disclosure management was the most common type of training received; 55% of respondents reported receiving training on this topic.

1. Investigative Agency feedback on the training they received from the PPSC

Figure 15 shows the types of training respondents reported receiving from the PPSC and the percentage of respondents that received each type. Just under a third (27%) of respondents reported that they participated in a PPSC organized training in the last 12 months, with 21% of police and 36% of regulatory agency respondents participating. This is an increase in proportion of respondents participating in training from the 2014 survey where only 18% of police and 26% of regulatory agency respondents had participated in training in the preceding 12 months.

Disclosure management training was by far the most common type of training received, with 55% of respondents who participated in training reporting they received training on this topic. The next most frequent types of training received were: training on the respective roles of investigators and prosecutors (36%) and training in the preparation of Crown Briefs (34%). These were the three most common topics of training for both police and regulatory agency respondents, with a slightly higher proportion of police participating in each training.

Figure 15: Types of training received from the PPSC in the last 12 months³

As figures 16 and 17 illustrate, PPSC training appears to have been helpful for respondents, both increasing their understanding of the issue and helping them modify their practices. The majority of respondents (73%) rated the training they received as “very useful” or “extremely useful” in enhancing their understanding of the issue covered (see figure 16). In addition, just over half of respondents (51%) reported that the training played a key role in modifying their practice. A slightly greater percentage of regulatory agency respondents (53%) than police respondents (47%) reported that the training contributed “quite a bit” or “a great extent” to modifying their practice (see figure 17).

Figure 16: Rating of the usefulness of training in enhancing respondent understanding of the topic

Figure 17: The extent to which training contributed to respondents modifying their practice

Survey respondents were also asked to provide details about how they had modified their practices as a result of the training. Fifty two respondents (8%) answered this question. Their responses were analyzed for themes and categorized accordingly. The results are summarized in figure 18. Three main themes emerged from their responses. The training

1. improved their understanding of what information is needed for prosecution;
2. provided them a better understanding of the process involved in preparing a prosecution;
3. helped them make improvements to their own practices.

Figure 18: The ways in which training helped respondents modify their practices, by theme and number of occurrences

Key findings: 75% of respondents were unaware of the PPSC service standards.
When provided with specific service standards, an average of 84% of all respondents reported that in their experience PPSC counsel “always” or “often” met those service standards.
Both police and regulatory agency respondents rated PPSC counsel highest at responding to email and phone calls within the service standard.
Police rated PPSC counsel lowest at contacting their agency before staying, withdrawing or accepting a plea in a significant case.
Regulatory agency respondents rated the PPSC lowest at informing them if more time was needed to review documents.

PPSC Service Standards

Only a quarter of respondents were aware of the existence of PPSC service standards, with a slightly larger proportion of respondents from regulatory agencies (32%) being aware of the standards than respondents from police services (21%).

However, when respondents provided with specific standards and asked how often in their experience PPSC counsel met those service standards, an average of 84% of all respondents reported that PPSC counsel “always” or “often” met the standards. As figure 19 illustrates, both police and regulatory agency respondents rated PPSC counsel strongest at responding to emails within three business days with 88% of regulatory agency respondents and 94% of police respondents reporting that PPSC counsel “always” or “often” met this standard. However, the two groups of respondents differed slightly in terms of which service standard they felt that PPSC counsel were weakest. For police, 23% of respondents reported that PPSC counsel “rarely” or “never” contacted their agency before staying, withdrawing or accepting a plea to a lesser charge in a significant case. Regulatory agency respondents ranked the PPSC weakest at informing them if more time was required to review documents, with 24% reporting the PPSC counsel “rarely” or “never” did this.

Figure 19: Respondents experience with the frequency in which PPSC counsel meet specific service standards

Finally, respondents were given an opportunity provide additional comments on the prosecution services of the PPSC; 94 individuals (15%) provided feedback. As with the other open-ended questions, the answers were analyzed for common themes and categorised accordingly. Many of the same themes that came up early in the survey were reflected here, including issues around the PPSC being overworked and under resourced and inconsistencies in timeliness and effectiveness between prosecutors. However, by far the most common comments were about the positive experience respondents had with the PPSC in the last 12 months (see figure 20).

Figure 20: Additional comments on the PPSC’s prosecution services, by theme and frequency

Conclusions

The results of the survey suggest the following conclusions.

• Investigative Agencies are satisfied with support and services they receive – The results of the survey are quite clear that across all areas, the majority of respondents were satisfied with support and services they received from the PPSC.
• Training activities are building knowledge and helping Investigative agencies to modifying their practices - Nearly three quarters of respondents reported the training they received was useful in building their knowledge and just over half reported that they had modified their practices as result.
• When respondents were dissatisfied with the PPSC, their most common explanations for this dissatisfaction were:
  • PPSC counsel were unresponsive or slow to respond to requests or questions,
  • Inconsistencies between prosecutors, either in terms of the advice they provided or the prosecutor’s responsiveness and preparedness,
  • Perceived lack of resources at the PPSC resulting in prosecutors being overworked and less able to respond to Investigative Agencies.

Status of the areas for improvement raised in the 2014 survey

The 2014 Survey of Investigative Agencies highlighted four areas of improvement for the PPSC, which the Department has been working to address:

• Increased liaison and training,
• More consultation with Investigative Agencies prior to staying or withdrawing charges or concluding plea agreements,
• Enhanced support in disclosure preparation,
• Clarification of PPSC service standards.

While there is still some room for improvement, the results of the 2018 survey suggest the PPSC has made good progress in each of these areas.

Liaison and training

• Training – As mentioned above, training received very positive ratings from respondents, with the majority of them reporting that the training was effective in building their knowledge and helped them modify their practices. In addition, some respondents reported that they were not aware of training opportunities but would be interested in participating. The PPSC should continue to maintain existing training and consider ways to increase awareness of training opportunities among Investigative Agency staff.
• Liaison – Over 75% of respondents were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with frequency of their interaction with PPSC. In addition, an average 75% of respondents reported that the supports they received from the PPSC were “useful” or “very useful”. These results suggest that the level of communication and collaboration between the PPSC and Investigative Agency staff is strong. However, the respondents’ comments also suggest they would welcome more communication from the PPSC, especially to keep them informed of key aspects of a case. Whenever possible, prosecutors should look for opportunities to keep Investigative Agency staff in the loop on the progress of cases.

Consultation prior to staying or withdrawing charges or concluding plea agreements

• The survey results are quite strong in this area. The vast majority respondents (81% of regulatory agencies and 77% of police) reported that PPSC “always” or “often” consulted them prior staying or withdrawing charges, or concluding a plea agreements in significant cases. Nonetheless, it should be noted, that this was the service standard that received the highest proportion of police (23%) reporting PPSC “rarely” or “never” met the standard. Thus, the PPSC should continue its work in this area, but with a special focus on ensuring police are adequately consulted.

Enhanced support in disclosure preparation

• The results of the survey show that the PPSC has provided significant support in this area. Disclosure Management training was the most common training Investigative Agency respondents received, with over half of all respondents (55%) having participated in this type of training in the previous 12 months. As well, cooperation in the preparation of disclosure materials was the second most commonly reported support respondents reported receiving from the PPSC. However, it does appear the PPSC may have some room for improvement in the usefulness of this support. Despite over 70% respondents rating support in this area as useful, it got the highest percentage of respondents (28%) rating it as only “somewhat useful” or “not at all useful”.

Clarification of service standards

• The picture for service standards is somewhat mixed. Three quarters of respondents were unaware of the PPSC service standards, but when asked how frequently prosecutors met specific standards, the results were very strong, with an average 84% of respondents reporting that PPSC counsel “always” or “often” met the standards.

Recommendations

1. Continue existing training activities and consider ways to increase awareness of training opportunities among relevant Investigative Agency staff.
2. Look at ways to increase awareness of PPSC service standards among Investigative Agencies. While a strong majority of respondents (84%) reported that the PPSC “often” or “always” met key service standards, most Investigative Agency staff remain unaware of the standards. At the same time, nearly a quarter (24%) of regulatory agency respondents reported being unsatisfied with the timeliness of legal advice provided by the PPSC. In addition, PPSC counsel taking too long to respond to Investigative Agency staff was a common complaint raised by respondents. Increasing awareness of the standards may help provide Investigative Agencies with better expectations of how quickly they should expect to get responses from PPSC counsel.
3. Examine ways to reduce inconsistencies between prosecutors, both in terms of perceived quality and consistency of legal advice. This is not an easy issue to address and is made more challenging by the use of Crown agents which further complicates the issue of consistency. One method to address Investigative Agency perceptions of quality might be to work at the regional level with local Investigative Agencies to identify the practices of a prosecutor which they view as particularly helpful in working together and look for ways of encouraging these practices regionally. Alternatively, regional PPSC offices could identify prosecutors who are seen as working particularly effectively with Investigative Agency staff, and work with these prosecutors to generate best practices for working collaboratively with Investigative Agencies.
4. Continue to emphasize the importance of good communication with Investigative Agencies and keep them updated on key issues in significant cases. The survey scores show that the PPSC is doing well in this area, but there is still some room for improvement, especially in consulting with police around staying, withdrawing or accepting a plea to a lesser charge in a significant case. This might be addressed most effectively at a regional level, where PPSC regional offices can work with their local Investigative Agency counterparts to continue to identify effective strategies to enhance communication in their local context.