Dissemination of Criminal Record Information Policy Working Group: Summary and Initiatives

PREAMBLE:

The Dissemination of Criminal Record Information Policy Working Group held its first conference in Ottawa from January 19-21, 2010. The Working Group is comprised of police service and public safety representatives from across Canada. The content of this document is the result of three days of meetings held by the Working Group. The content was developed through consensus. Not all participants necessarily supported all positions that have been put forward by the group. The content of the document is not to be interpreted as the official position of the Government of Canada and/or the RCMP.

The RCMP is committed to working with partners and stakeholders to develop solutions that will support the requirements of all sectors in Canadian society with respect to criminal record information.

To this end, the RCMP facilitated the working group to help identify potential solutions for analysis and, where appropriate, implementation as expeditiously as possible.

What follows is a synopsis of the Working Group's recommendations. A detailed report supporting this synopsis is being developed and will be provided at a later date.

The synopsis is provided to illustrate the intended direction as determined by the Working Group. Various initiatives both near term and in the longer term may be subject to thorough analysis and further development.

This is the synopsis of the working group. As a result of the Working Group outcomes, CPIC and CCRTIS will update the Interim Policy concerning the release of criminal record information. In the meantime, the Interim Policy as-written will continue to be effective.

Working Group Mandate

• The mandate for the Dissemination of Criminal Record Information Policy Working Group’s initial meeting was to achieve:

1. a common understanding of our shared obligations regarding the dissemination of Canadian criminal records information,

2. a common and consistent language with regard to the nature and content of various types of checks,

3. a significant contribution towards the development and/or validation of clear, uniform practices, policies, and safeguards that will be universally accepted and applied
The Dissemination of Criminal Record Information Policy Working Group (the working group) endorsed and further refined the interim policy on the release of criminal record information.

• The working group identified a number of areas where the interim policy will be enhanced in order to permit additional solutions to be applied by CPIC Category I Police Agencies in their relationships with third party companies, organizations, and individuals with regard to name-based police information checks.

• The working group established that criminal record information is only one component of a broader subset of risk-based decision making information in the possession of the police. All of those components are better described as “Police Information”.

Police Information includes criminal records contained in the RCMP Identification Data Bank, local police agency records contributed to the CPIC Investigative and Intelligence Data Banks, and information held on the local police agency’s Occurrence Records Management System (ORMS).

• The working group identified that fingerprint processing delays have been a contributor to creating the current environment where name-based criminal records searches have been chosen as a popular means to address pre-employment and volunteer screening requirements. To mitigate the challenges associated with processing delays, the working group has identified a number of interim solutions intended to meet today’s challenges.

• The working group confirmed the following principles that will continue to guide its work moving forward:

1. The biometric key of fingerprints is the means by which a criminal record is released.

Exceptions:

1a. Local police services can release records that relate to criminal convictions that exist within their local records management systems without the submission of fingerprints where the said police service was the contributor of the criminal conviction in question.

1b. Local police services can release police information (records) from the CPIC Investigative and Intelligence Data Banks and the police ORMS belonging to another police service directly to the individual concerned when the consent of the other police service that contributed the record in question has been obtained.

 2. The Ministerial Directive on the release of criminal record information may be subject to review and update as a longer term initiative but any near term solutions identified by the working group will be defined in the context of the Ministerial Directive currently in effect.

3. At a high level, the working group determined that a “third party” is any entity in a process that exists between a police agency holding police information that is being sought and the individual to whom it pertains. This could include, but is not limited to, companies who broker information or who provide secure communications solutions as well as organizations in the Vulnerable Sector who may initiate police information checks in relation to individuals.

• Based on the above principles, the Working Group developed a number of proposals regarding criminal record checks. CCRTIS and the CPI Centre committed to evaluating the proposals. All approved proposals will be implemented as soon as possible. Some of the proposals that were developed are:

1. Third party companies can provide a secure means of communication (software solutions) to CPIC Category I agencies to enable individuals, companies and/or Vulnerable Sector organizations to initiate a name-based criminal records search and, if appropriate, a check against the Pardoned Sex Offences data bank of the RCMP national repository of fingerprints and criminal record information.

This approach contemplates that the third party company is providing a product rather than a service that involves the brokering of personal information. The company is required to have no view or possession of any of the information exchanged between the subject individual or the police agency/authorized body.

2. Third party companies involved in providing name-based criminal records search services may provide individuals and clients with a third response option that is in addition to the two response options currently approved in policy (link to the interim policy).

The third response option is based on a process where the individual is required to declare their criminal history to be subsequently confirmed as part of the response option. This approach will afford employers and organizations more information on which to base their decisions than what is possible with the currently approved (2) response options.

 This approach depends on the development of a national standard for individual informed consent supported by a national intake form. The form will include comprehensive adjoining instructions for its completion that will serve to fully inform and educate regarding all aspects of police information holdings as they pertain to the individual. The development of the form is a high priority item for the working group.

3. Identity validation standards established by the working group require that all processes include physical identification of an individual consisting of the submission of approved forms of identification documentation that are necessary to support a name-based police information check.

4. While it is preferable that individuals deal with their local police service when conducting police information checks, the working group established that police information checks, when conducted by another police service instead, should include the police information of the police agency where the individual resides.

5. Vulnerable Sector checks should include the police information of the police agency where the individual has resided for the past five years

• While the proposed solutions by the working group demonstrate that the immediate mandate has largely been achieved by providing for the near term direction that will be pursued, authority to move forward on a number of longer term Federal/Provincial/Territorial (FPT) level initiatives needs to be confirmed so that work continues and successful outcomes are attained.

The working group has determined that further work will be undertaken in the following areas:

• Objectives

1. CPIC Audit functions to be reviewed and adjusted to ensure compliance.

2. An accreditation framework for third party companies.

3. The development of a national association of “authorized bodies” for conducting Vulnerable Sector checks as per the Criminal Records Act.

4. The development of a business case for federal legislation for CPIC that, among other things, codifies some of the issues before this working group.

5. An FPT legislative review in respect of other issues before this working group.

• Strategy

1. A two-way communications network mainly comprised of provincial and territorial public safety officials who share the responsibility to provide communications to their constituents in the justice sectors as well as to the policy centres who are facilitating the initiatives.

2. Sub-groups of available and appropriate working group members who will advance various working group initiatives.

3. An education strategy that includes components directed at police agencies, companies, organizations, other provincial and territorial government agencies and members of the public.