Community Maintenance Program

Evaluation Report

Community Maintenance Program

Evaluation Division
Policy Sector
June 2010

Acknowledgements

The evaluation team would like to gratefully acknowledge all individuals who contributed to the evaluation of the Community Maintenance Program. First, our appreciation is extended to the members of the Community Maintenance Program evaluation consultative group; specifically, Lynn Stewart, Diana Jardine, Corina Hayward, Mark Christie, and Philippe Bensimon. Thank you for providing technical advice and direction in the development of the evaluation methodology and for facilitating the identification of key stakeholders. Second, we wish to express our gratitude to all key informants who provided valuable information to this evaluation project, namely Community Maintenance Program participants, service providers, and all members of Correctional Service Canada who took the time to share with us their experiences and insights through surveys and interviews. In particular, we would like to extend our appreciation to Jan Carson, Rachel Cantin, Carmen Long, Reyhan Yazar, and Dan Kunic for their assistance on various aspects of this evaluation. This evaluation benefited greatly from your collective support and contributions.

Evaluation Team Members

Evaluation Report Prepared by:

Duyen Luong
Senior Evaluator
Evaluation Branch, Policy
Correctional Service Canada

Mark Nafekh
Director
Evaluation Branch, Policy
Correctional Service Canada

Paul Verbrugge
Evaluation Officer
Evaluation Branch, Policy
Correctional Service Canada

Eugenia Didenko
Evaluation Officer
Evaluation Branch, Policy
Correctional Service Canada

Evaluation Team Members:

Kendra Delveaux, Director
Michael Olotu, Director
Bernard Marquis, Senior Portfolio Manager
Martin Beaupre, Senior Evaluator
Tamara Jensen, Evaluation Officer
Amanda Nolan, Evaluation Analyst
Brittany MacDonald, Evaluation Analyst
Elizabeth Loree, Evaluation Analyst
Lindsey Pecaric, Evaluation Analyst
Christopher Rastin, Evaluation Officer
Vanessa Anastasopoulos, Senior Evaluator

Signatures

Correctional Service Canada's
Community Maintenance Program

Lynn Garrow
Associate Assistant Commissioner
Policy

Date

Dr. Pamela M. Yates
Director General
Evaluation Branch

Date

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Community Maintenance Program was developed in 2001 in response to challenges in the provision of correctional treatment programs in the community (Correctional Service Canada [CSC], 2004a). These challenges included the availability of aftercare services, particularly in remote areas and for higher risk offenders, lengthy waitlists, and the need for multiple maintenance programs to meet the program needs of offenders. At smaller sites, it was difficult to have a sufficient number of offenders to warrant program delivery. In addition, the Community Maintenance Program was intended to reduce the training time that would be required to ensure that program delivery staff members met competency requirements in multiple maintenance programs.

The Community Maintenance Program was designed to overcome these difficulties by offering one generic program that served as aftercare to almost every reintegration program. Its potential advantage over the previous maintenance strategy (i.e., an array of program-specific or specialized maintenance programs), included its flexibility: after one training session a qualified facilitator would be able to provide aftercare for most types of offenders in the community, either individually or in a group (CSC, 2004a). It was also the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) first aftercare program which targeted all types of criminal re-offending rather than individual risk factors or specific types of crime (CSC, 2004a).

Evaluation Context

The evaluation of the Effective Corrections Initiatives was conducted between July 2008 and December 2009 as part of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat's Evaluation Policy requirements. The initiative consisted of five distinct projects: the Aboriginal Community Development Officer Initiative, Pathways Initiative, Community Employment Centres, Community Maintenance Program and Residential Alternatives. The focus of the present report is on the evaluation of the Community Maintenance Program.

The Community Maintenance Program was piloted in 2003 at 10 sites across the country. It was evaluated as part of CSC's Correctional Programs Evaluation in 2009 (Nafekh et al., 2009). The evaluation results revealed that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male Community Maintenance Program participants were more likely to have positive community correctional outcomes than their counterparts in an untreated comparison group. The evaluation also found that the Community Maintenance Program had a relatively low completion rate compared to other programs. One of the recommendations from the evaluation was to strengthen the community maintenance programs to increase the program completion rate.

Evaluation Strategy

This evaluation was conducted by the Evaluation Branch, CSC. The objective was to inform decision-making on the future disposition of the Community Maintenance Program and focused on continued relevancy, implementation, success, and cost-effectiveness, as well as unintended program outcomes. The evaluation also assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program compared to specialized maintenance programs (i.e., substance abuse and family violence maintenance programs).

The evaluation used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.  Information used to facilitate these analyses was collected through:

  • Interviews with Community Maintenance Program participants;
  • Electronic surveys with CSC staff members and contracted service providers;
  • Data derived from CSC's automated database - the Offender Management System (OMS), and the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) data;
  • A review of documentation (e.g., Commissioner's Directives [CD] and program documents) relevant to the Community Maintenance Program, Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992), information provided by CSC staff members to the evaluation team, and the evaluation of CSC's Correctional Programs (Nafekh et al., 2009); and,
  • A review of the relevant literature regarding community maintenance programs.

Interviews with program participants were conducted by the evaluation team in person in March 2009. Sites were selected based on participant enrolment and in consultation with program delivery staff members and program managers. Staff members and contracted service providers participated in the evaluation by completing an electronic survey.

CSC's OMS data were used to identify offenders' program assignment status and a sample of first-term federal admissions between 1997 and 2007. Multiple comparison groups were created: an enrolment group that consisted of offenders who were exposed to the Community Maintenance Program through varying degrees of program participation (Community Maintenance Program enrolment group); a comparison group of offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, the Community Maintenance Program; subgroups of offenders who participated in various specialized maintenance programs in the community; and subgroups of offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, specialized community maintenance programs. Among the specialized maintenance programs, only substance abuse and family violence maintenance programs had sufficient sample sizes to enable further analyses. Participants in each of these two groups were compared to subsamples of the Community Maintenance Program with identified substance abuse and family violence needs, respectively.

Effectiveness outcomes included early release and community outcomes (technical revocations and re-offending) that extended beyond an offender's warrant expiry date.

Financial Expenditures

The budget and expenditures for the Community Maintenance Program have increased yearly since the program was first implemented. In 2008/2009, the budget and expenditures for the Community Maintenance Program were $1,223,958 and $1,186,846 respectively.

Table 1. Annual budget and expenditures for the Community Maintenance Program.
Fiscal Year Budget Expenditures
Source: Integrated Management Reporting System (IMRS).
2004/05 $2,491 $60,900
2005/06 $58,163 $187,615
2006/07 $274,197 $373,797
2007/08 $410,274 $600,429
2008/09 $1,223,958 $1,186,846

Key Findings

  • FINDING 1: The Community Maintenance Program is consistent with government and departmental priorities.
  • FINDING 2: CSC staff members and service providers indicated that the Community Maintenance Program adhered to Correctional Program policy standards.
  • FINDING 3: CSC staff members, service providers and program participants indicated that a variety of communication tools were used by Community Maintenance Program staff members to support case management practices in the community.
  • FINDING 4: CSC staff members and service providers indicated that the Community Maintenance Program resulted in reduced need for multiple maintenance programs. Interviewed program participants concluded that the Community Maintenance Program met their needs.
  • FINDING 5: Although CSC staff members and service providers indicated that the Community Maintenance Program eligibility criteria and referral process were clear, a substantial proportion of respondents noted that there was a need to examine or modify the eligibility criteria.
  • FINDING 6: Although one of the goals of the Community Maintenance Program was to increase admissions to maintenance programs in the community, a higher proportion of referred offenders participated in specialized community substance and family violence maintenance programs compared to the Community Maintenance Program. However, basic enrolment in the Community Maintenance Program increased while enrolment in specialized substance abuse maintenance programs decreased from 2007/08 to 2008/09.
  • FINDING 7: One of the goals of the Community Maintenance Program was to increase access to maintenance programming in remote locations. While offenders supervised in remote locations were more likely than offenders supervised in urban locations to enrol in the Community Maintenance Program following referral, the program's enrolment levels were lower than those of specialized maintenance programs in remote and urban community locations.
  • FINDING 8: The completion rate for the Community Maintenance Program was lower than completion rates for specialized community maintenance programs.
  • FINDING 9: For both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders, Community Maintenance Program participants were less likely than non-participants to return to custody or commit a new offence.
  • FINDING 10: For non-Aboriginal offenders, Community Maintenance Program participants were more likely to return to custody than specialized maintenance program participants but there was no significant difference in first readmission returns for new offences. Aboriginal offender sample sizes were relatively small, and in some cases impacted upon the ability to conduct further analyses.
  • FINDING 11: Although the costs of delivering the Community Maintenance Program and a specialized community substance abuse maintenance program were comparable, the cost per completion was higher for the Community Maintenance Program due to lower completion rates.
  • FINDING 12: The Community Maintenance Program was estimated to be more cost-efficient than the delivery of multiple maintenance programs for offenders with multiple needs, although this could not be examined directly due to lack of accurate financial and enrolment data for the community family violence maintenance program.

Recommendations

  • RECOMMENDATION 1. In order to provide further direction regarding the use of specialized versus generic maintenance programs in the community, CSC should complete specific analyses to re-assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program as part of the scheduled research to be conducted on the Integrated Correctional Program Model pilot. Furthermore, in accordance with CSC's approved 5-year evaluation plan, CSC should re-evaluate the relative effectiveness of maintenance programs in the community as part of the evaluation of CSC's Correctional Reintegration Programs.
  • RECOMMENDATION 2. CSC should ensure that accurate future and archival enrolment, completion, and expenditure data are available to allow additional comparisons between the Community Maintenance Program and all specialized maintenance programs in the community.
  • RECOMMENDATION 3. CSC should identify and address the reasons for low completion rates of the Community Maintenance Program.

List of Acronyms

CASA
Computerized Assessment of Substance Abuse
CCRA
Corrections and Conditional Release Act
CD
Commissioner's Directive
CLAI
Computerized Lifestyle Assessment Instrument
CPIC
Canadian Police Information Centre
CRS
Corporate Reporting System
CSC
Correctional Service Canada
EC
Effective Corrections
ICPM
Integrated Correctional Program Model
IMRS
Integrated Management Reporting System
NGO
Non-governmental Organization
NSAP
National Substance Abuse Program
OMS
Offender Management System
PS
Public Safety
SARA
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment
SIR-R1
Statistical Information on Recidivism - Revised 1
SPSS
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Correctional programs in the community play an integral role in maintaining the knowledge and skills acquired through institutional program participation after offenders are released to the community. Research has shown crime reduction through effective correctional treatment programs in the target domains of education, employment (Brews et al., 2010; Gillis & Nafekh, 2005; Taylor et al., 2008), substance abuse, living skills, sexual offending, violent offending, and family violence (Dowden, Antonowics & Andrews, 2003; Motiuk, Cousineau, & Gileno, 2005; Nafekh et al., 2009). Maintenance programming plays an important part in community reintegration by ensuring continuity of care (in accordance with Commissioner's Directive [CD] 726: Correctional Programs; Correctional Service Canada [CSC], 2003a) in order to maximize treatment outcome.

Maintenance components are included in all core correctional programs offered by the Correctional Service Canada (CSC).Footnote 1 However, providing offenders with maintenance programming in the community can be challenging for several reasons. First, an offender may be required to take several follow-up programs (Yazar, 2003). Second, access to and availability of, programs for offenders, particularly in remote areas, may present significant barriers to participation in maintenance programs in the community (Yazar, 2003). As such, the Community Maintenance Program was developed in 2001 to address the challenges associated with the design and delivery of specialized maintenance programs in the community, particularly to the address concerns over access to, and availability of programs in the community (Yazar, 2003). Specifically, the program was designed to address these specific challenges (CSC, 2004a, p. 9):

  • Lack of availability of after-care, especially in remote locations and for higher risk offenders;
  • Lengthy waiting periods for available programs;
  • Requirements for multiple maintenance programs;
  • Excessive training time required to achieve competence in multiple maintenance programs; and,
  • Difficulty generating the required numbers of offenders are smaller sites to be able to deliver those programs

In addition, it appeared that the Community Maintenance Program was being implemented in such a way as to gradually replace specialized maintenance programs (CSC, 2005). According to the September 2005 entry in CSC's Permanent Briefing Book,

"by the end of 2006-2007, CMP will be the primary maintenance strategy in the community"

(p. 2).

In 2009, CSC indicated that the National Substance Abuse Program (NSAP) - Maintenance Program in the community

"is being phased out in order to be replaced by the Community Maintenance Program"

(CSC, 2009d, p. 61).

As of March 2008, the Community Maintenance Program was identified as

"the priority intervention in the community" and "the follow-up prevention/self-management program for all CSC programs (with the exception of Sex Offender programs)"

(Memorandum, March 7, 2008, p.1 and p.3).Footnote 2

1.2. Policy and Legislation

CSC is mandated by law to provide correctional programs (Corrections and Conditional Release Act [CCRA], 1992, s. 5[b])Footnote 3. The CCRA (1992), section 3, paragraph 5(b) and sections 76, 77, 79 and 80 provide the legislative framework guiding the development, implementation, and maintenance of reintegration programming for CSC. Specifically, section 5(b) states that CSC is responsible for

"the provision of programs that contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders and to their successful reintegration into the community".

In addition to the CCRA, several Commissioner's Directives (CD)Footnote 4 provide a policy framework from which CSC can implement reintegration programming. The policy objectives outlined in CD 726: Correctional Programs (CSC, 2003a) are

"to ensure that correctional programs meet the identified needs of offenders and promote successful reintegration"

(p. 1) and

"to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the correctional programs offered to offenders"

(p. 1).

Further, one of the principles outlined in CD 700: Correctional Interventions (CSC, 2006) states that

"case management practices and decisions must be responsive to, and respectful of, the diverse and individual needs of the offender population such as culture, language, ethnicity, religion, linguistic differences, etc..."

(p. 6). The importance of responsivityFootnote 5 considerations was reiterated in CD 726: Correctional Programs, which states that correctional programs must

"take into account the particular characteristics of offenders to help ensure that they derive maximum benefit"

(CSC, 2003a, p. 3).Footnote 6

1.3. Effective Corrections Initiative and Programs Infrastructure

In May 1996, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice recommended a strategy to better protect Canadians while reducing Canada's incarceration rate and its associated costs. In response to this strategy, funding was provided for the Effective Corrections Initiative in 2000 to three agencies within the Government of Canada Public Safety PortfolioFootnote 7 to implement three categories of offender interventions:

  1. Aboriginal corrections,
  2. community corrections infrastructure, and
  3. public education/citizen engagement.

Effective Corrections funding supported initiatives that were designed to enhance the community corrections infrastructure, including Community Residential Alternatives, training and job placements, and programs and program infrastructure, under which falls the Community Maintenance Program.

1.3.1. Community Maintenance Program: Background

The Community Maintenance Program was developed in 2001 in response to challenges in the provision of correctional treatment programs in the community (CSC, 2004a). These challenges included the availability of aftercare services, particularly in remote areas and for higher risk offenders, lengthy waitlists for programs, and the need for multiple maintenance programs to meet the needs of offenders. In smaller sites, it was difficult to have a sufficient number of offenders to warrant program delivery. In addition, the Community Maintenance Program was intended to reduce the training time that would be required to ensure that program delivery staff members met competency requirements in multiple maintenance programs.

The Community Maintenance Program was designed to overcome these difficulties by offering one generic program that served as aftercare to almost every reintegration program. Its potential advantage over the previous maintenance strategy (i.e., an array of specialized community maintenance programs) included its flexibility. Specifically, after one training session, a qualified facilitator would be able to provide aftercare for most types of offenders in the community, either individually or in a group (CSC, 2004a). It was also CSC's first aftercare program which targeted all types of criminal re-offending rather than individual risk factors or specific types of crime (CSC, 2004a).

The Community Maintenance Program was also intended to enhance efforts to support non-governmental organization (NGO) service providers. It was expected that engaging community partners in the delivery of one standardized program would help to ensure consistent delivery and quality assurance, to streamline management, and to enable assessment of program effectiveness. Additional information on the theoretical bases of the Community Maintenance Program and the guidelines on which the Community Maintenance Program was developed are provided in Appendix B.

1.3.1.1. Target Group and Service Delivery Model

When the Community Maintenance Program was first implemented, offenders who had completed any of the following programs were eligible to participate in the Community Maintenance Program (CSC, 2004b): Violence Prevention Program, Moderate or High Intensity Family Violence Programs, Substance Abuse Programs, Counterpoint, Anger and Emotions, and Aboriginal-specific programs (In Search of Your Warrior, Aboriginal Offenders Substance Abuse Program and the National Aboriginal High Intensity Family Violence Program). Initially only offenders who presented a moderate to high risk to re-offend (as measured by the Statistical Information on Recidivism - Revised 1 [SIR-R1]) were eligible for the Community Maintenance Program. As of 2005, offenders at all levels of risk were eligible. In March 2008, the Community Maintenance Program was identified as "the priority intervention in the community" with the exception of sex offender programs (Director, Reintegration Programs, Memorandum, March 7, 2008). By June 2009, however, offenders who completed any correctional program became eligible to participate in the Community Maintenance Program (CSC, 2009b; 2009d).

The objective of the Community Maintenance Program is to "review and apply a selected sub-set of "core" skills learned in the feeder programs to real-life tasks, problems and high-risk situations in the community in order to prevent re-offending" (CSC, 2004b, p.24). The six core skills addressed by the Community Maintenance Program include:

  1. working towards goals;
  2. self-management;
  3. problem-solving;
  4. dealing with high-risk thinking;
  5. emotions management; and
  6. healthy relationships (Yazar, 2008).

In addition, the Community Maintenance Program targets seven criminogenic need domains,Footnote 8 and the program can be delivered by qualified and trained facilitators, including community parole officers, service providers from NGOs and psychologists (CSC, 2004b). A more detailed program description is provided in Appendix B.

1.3.1.2. Program Theory and Developmental Background

The Community Maintenance Program is based on the relapse prevention and self-regulation management models of treatment. Programs that incorporate relapse prevention have been used with substance-abusing offenders (Peters, 1993), sexual offenders (Laws, 1999; Ward & Hudson, 1996), and general offenders (Dowden, et al., 2003). Results from a meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of relapse prevention suggested it was moderately successful, in that there was a 15% difference in recidivism rates between participants of programs that incorporated a relapse prevention component into their framework and those that did not (i.e., recidivism rates of 42.5% and 57.5%, respectively; Dowden et al., 2003). Moreover, as the number of relapse prevention components targeted within the program increased, the therapeutic potential of the program was enhanced considerably (Dowden et al., 2003). When the various elements of relapse prevention were examined individually, the components that were most effective included providing training to significant others, examination of the offence cycle (i.e., the precursors that lead to criminal behaviour), and relapse rehearsal.Footnote 9 Coping skills and booster sessions were found to be the least effective components.

Dowden and colleagues (2003) also found that relapse prevention was effective when the program adhered to the principles of effective correctional interventions (i.e., risk, need, and responsivity) and that the effect was additive, such that the greatest effect was observed for relapse prevention programs that adhered to all three principles. Relapse prevention programs that adhered to one or none of the principles did not have any effect on recidivism.

There is a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that cognitive-behavioural programs facilitate the safe and successful reintegration of offenders into the community (Andrews et al., 1990; Dowden & Andrews, 2000; French & Gendreau, 2006; Hanson et al., 2002; Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus & Hodgson, 2009; Lipsey, Chapman, & Landenberger, 2001). Research has shown that offenders who participate in cognitive-behavioural programs that target their risk and needs have lower rates of institutional misconducts (French & Gendreau, 2006). Further, there is ample evidence suggesting that correctional programs reduce rates of recidivism (Andrews et al, 1990; Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Dowden & Andrews, 2000, 2004; Hanson et al., 2002; Hanson et al., 2009; Lipsey et al., 2001; Lowenkamp, Latessa, & Smith, 2006; Nicholaichuk & Yates, 2002). The recently completed evaluation of CSC's Correctional Programs (Nafekh et al., 2009) found that participation in correctional programs was associated with reductions in any readmissions (first readmission for technical revocations or new offence). However, Nafekh and colleagues also found that the effectiveness of correctional program participation was reduced when the programs did not correspond to offenders' identified needs.

1.3.1.3. Community Maintenance Program Pilot

The Community Maintenance Program was piloted in 2003 at ten sites across the country, including eight urban and two mixed urban/remote locations. An internal review of the pilot program found that, by August 2004, 95 offenders had participated in the program, of whom 28 (i.e., 29%) had not completed the program due to suspension or completion of their sentence (i.e., reaching their warrant expiry date or WED) prior to program completion (CSC, 2004a).Footnote 10

1.4. Governance Structure

The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs (ACCOP), is accountable for the Effective Corrections Initiative. With regards to the Community Maintenance Program, at the national level, the Offender Programs and Reintegration Branch is responsible for the development of tools and training materials as well as the overall monitoring of the program. At the regional level, regional trainers (who are also the regional managers) are responsible for initial training and ongoing supervision of program delivery as well as planning for regional implementation. At the program site level (the Parole District), the Chief of Programs is responsible for the implementation of the program and for program planning.

1.5. Planned Results

The Community Maintenance Program is comprised of two components:

  1. a cognitive-behavioural based correctional program for offenders in the community; and
  2. a program infrastructure component which focuses on program service delivery.

The planned results of the Community Maintenance Program (cognitive-behaviour based correctional program component) defined in the Effective Corrections Evaluation Framework (CSC, 2004a) were as follows:Footnote 11

  • Reduce the number of suspensions in the community due to elevated risk in cases where the risk can be safely addressed by programming instead of through suspension; and,
  • Reduce recidivism for moderate to high risk offenders.

The planned results of the program infrastructure component of the Community Maintenance Program (focuses on program service delivery), are to:

  • Reduce the time for admission to maintenance programming after release to the community;
  • Increase the number of admissions to maintenance programming in the community, especially in remote regions;
  • Reduce the number of cross-referrals to multiple maintenance programs in the community;
  • Reduce the need for multiple maintenance programs in the community;
  • Increase the information available to parole officers in the community through Community Maintenance Program casework records (CWR), intake, interim and final reports, and case-conferencing;
  • Increase the number of non-CSC service providers (from the not-for-profit and voluntary sectors) providing CSC reintegration programs;
  • Create regional capacity for quality review for CSC and non-CSC program providers;
  • Create national capacity for training facilitators; and,
  • Create regional capacity for program delivery.

1.6. Evaluation Context

The present evaluation was summative in nature and was conducted to assess the continued relevance, implementation, success, cost-effectiveness, and unintended outcomes of the Community Maintenance Program.

The Community Maintenance Program was previously evaluated as part of the evaluation of CSC's Correctional Programs (Nafekh et al., 2009). Results from this evaluation revealed that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male Community Maintenance Program participants were more likely to have positive community correctional outcomes than their counterparts in an untreated comparison group. In addition, the dropout rate for the Community Maintenance Program (47%) was higher than the dropout rates for substance abuse maintenance and family violence maintenance programs (31% and 17%, respectively). However, due to the scope of the evaluation of CSC's Correctional Programs, the evaluation of the Community Maintenance Program focused on the statistical analysis of outcomes and it was not possible to examine factors that might have contributed to the high dropout rate.

One of the recommendations from the evaluation of Correctional Programs (Nafekh et al., 2009) was to strengthen community maintenance programs to increase the program completion rate. In response, the Correctional Operations and Programs SectorFootnote 12 proposed to develop an Integrated Correctional Program Model (ICPM) that will include a Community Maintenance Component as well as an integrated Motivation-Based Intervention Strategy which will enable staff members to assess and intervene with offenders who refuse, drop out of, or fail to participate in, the Community Maintenance Program. The development and research review of the pilot program are scheduled for completion in January 2010 and March 2011, respectively.

The present evaluation focused exclusively on the Community Maintenance Program and included interviews with Community Maintenance Program participants in order to collect qualitative information to assist in the interpretation of quantitative findings. The evaluation also examined the accessibility of the Community Maintenance Program, as one of the goals of the program was to increase admissions to maintenance programming in remote regions or other areas where delivery of specialized maintenance programs might not be feasible for various reasons (e.g., operational factors, insufficient number of offenders to warrant delivery of specialized maintenance programs).

Given that the Community Maintenance Program is being implemented in such a way as to gradually replace specialized maintenance programs (CSC, 2005), the present evaluation also assessed the effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program compared to specialized maintenance programs delivered in the community. According to the September 2005 entry in CSC's Permanent Briefing Book,

"by the end of 2006-2007, CMP will be the primary maintenance strategy in the community"

(p.2).

In 2009, CSC indicated that the NSAP - Maintenance Program in the community

"is being phased out in order to be replaced by the Community Maintenance Program"

(CSC, 2009d, p. 61).

As of March 2008, the Community Maintenance Program is

"the priority intervention in the community" and "the follow-up relapse prevention/self-management program for all CSC programs (with the exception of Sex Offender programs)"

(Memorandum, March 7, 2008, p.1 and p.3).Footnote 13

In order to facilitate this priority intervention, resources that were used for the community specialized substance abuse maintenance program (i.e., NSAP - Maintenance Program) were realigned to the Community Maintenance Program as of FY 2008/09 (Memorandum, March 7, 2008, p. 1).Footnote 14

Research has consistently found that the most effective programs are those that adhere to the principles of risk, need, and responsivity (e.g., Andrews et al., 1990; Andrews & Dowden, 2006; Dowden & Andrews, 2004; Hanley, 2006; Hanson et al., 2002).Footnote 15 Briefly, these principles state that correctional interventions should target identified criminogenic needs of offenders (need principle), tailor the intensity of interventions to match offenders' level of risk (risk principle) and be delivered in a manner that matches the learning styles, motivation, abilities, and strengths of offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Andrews et al., 1990; Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Furthermore, Andrews and Dowden (2006) found that adherence to the risk principles was effective only if the program also targeted criminogenic needs, and Dowden and Andrews (2004) found that adherence to the responsivity principle in the absence of risk and need did not improve program effectiveness. Bonta and Andrews (2007) also found that treatment effectiveness increased incrementally with adherence to each additional principle. With respect to the need principle, the specialized maintenance programs that have traditionally been in place at CSC, adheres to the need principle to a greater extent than the Community Maintenance Program as each program is designed to target a specific need rather than a more generic set of needs. If the specialized maintenance programs and the generic Community Maintenance Program are comparable with respect to the extent to which they respond to offender risk and responsivity, the specialized maintenance program model would still be expected to be more effective than the generic model due to its greater adherence to the need principle. However, only one study was found that directly compared the effectiveness of specialized and non-specialized programs.

In a study examining the relative effectiveness of a specialized sexual offender program in the community, non-specialized treatment, and no treatment, McGrath, Hoke, and Vojtisek (1998) found that the specialized program had a significantly lower rate of recidivism than the other two groups, which in turn did not differ significantly. It is important to note, however, that few of the programs that were included in the non-specialized treatment group included relapse prevention components. Although the Community Maintenance program is a generic aftercare program, its design was based on the relapse prevention and self-regulation models. As such, the Community Maintenance Program may be more effective in reducing recidivism than no treatment. Indeed, the evaluation of CSC's Correctional Programs (Nafekh et al., 2009) found a significant positive treatment effect for the Community Maintenance Program compared to a group of offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, the program.

1.7. Financial Expenditures

The annual program budget and expenditures for the Community Maintenance Program are presented in Table 1. The total expenditures have increased over the years since the program's inception, and in FY 2008/09 the total expenditures were approximately $1.2 million.

Table 1 . Annual budget and expenditures for the Community Maintenance Program.
Fiscal Year Budget Expenditures
Source: Integrated Management Reporting System (IMRS).
2004/05 $2,491 $60,900
2005/06 $58,163 $187,615
2006/07 $274,197 $373,797
2007/08 $410,274 $600,429
2008/09 $1,223,958 $1,186,846

2. Evaluation Method

2.1. Scope of the Evaluation

The evaluation was conducted by the Evaluation Branch, CSC, to inform decision-making on the future disposition of the Community Maintenance Program. As such, it focused on continued relevancy, implementation, success, and cost-effectiveness, as well as unintended program outcomes. At the outset of the current evaluation, the following expected results were identified under each evaluation objective.Footnote 16

Objective #1: Continued Relevancy

  1. Community Maintenance Program activities are consistent with other correctional reintegration strategies, continue to operate under originally intended principles and guidelines, and serve the public interest.
  2. There is an appropriate, legitimate, and necessary role for CSC in Effective Corrections Initiatives, specifically in the Community Maintenance Program.

Objective #2: Program Implementation

  1. The Community Maintenance Program operates according to standards set out in policy.
  2. The Community Maintenance Program is supported by both internal and external CSC staff, and partnerships exist and function at an optimal level.
  3. There is a reduction in the time for admission to maintenance programming after release to the community.
  4. There is an increase in the number of admissions to maintenance programming in the community, especially in remote regions.
  5. There is a reduction in the number of cross-referrals to multiple maintenance programs in the community.
  6. There is a reduction in the need for multiple maintenance programs in the community.

Objective #3: Success (Effectiveness & Efficiency)

  1. There is a regular pattern of offender intervention.
  2. There is a well-developed cadre of tools and resources made available to aid in the facilitation of the offender reintegration process.
  3. There is high usage of the Community Maintenance Program by the specialized groups.
  4. The initiative's target group demonstrates positive results.

Objective #4: Cost-effectiveness

  1. Outputs and outcomes have been effectively achieved with designated funding.
  2. Community Maintenance Program value-for-money analyses yield positive results.

Objective #5: Unintended Outcomes

  1. Positive and/or negative unintended outcomes created by or encountered through the Community Maintenance Program have been identified.

2.2 Sample Composition

2.2.1 Study Groups for Quantitative Analyses

To examine the effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program, data from CSC's Offender Management System (OMS) were used. The data were originally drawn for the Correctional Programs evaluation and were further limited to those offenders for whom a complete set of data (including follow-up data on recidivism) was available (N = 5,008). In addition, the Community Maintenance Program was developed specifically for male offenders, thus all of the analyses in this evaluation were conducted for male offenders.Footnote 17 The specialized community substance abuse maintenance program group was comprised of offenders who were assigned to participate in the NSAP - Maintenance Program. The specialized community family violence maintenance program group was comprised of offenders who were assigned to participate in the National Family Violence Maintenance Program.

Several samples of offenders - who were admitted between the years of 1997 and 2007 and who were released for the first time in relation to their current sentence - were constructed based on their assignment to one of the following types of maintenance programs in the community:Footnote 18, Footnote 19

  1. Community Maintenance Program (n = 1,323);
  2. Specialized community substance abuse maintenance program (n = 3,414); and,
  3. Specialized community family violence maintenance program (n = 308).

An intent-to-treat design was used for this evaluation. Specifically, within each program type, the sample was further divided according to the offender's program enrolment status. Specifically, offenders who participated in the program to some extent after being assigned to the program were included in the "enrolment" category, whereas offenders who were assigned to the program but did not receive any treatment were included in the "comparison group". For example, the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group consisted of all offenders who were referred to and participated in the program to varying extents while the Community Maintenance comparison group was comprised of offenders who were referred to, but did not participate in, the program (i.e., waitlisted). For comparisons between the generic and specialized community maintenance programs, the Community Maintenance Program enrolment and comparison samples were further broken down into subsamples according to whether an offender required substance abuse or family violence programming as determined by the appropriate supplementary intake assessment instrument.Footnote 20, Footnote 21 Detailed information for all of the group profiles (i.e., age, Aboriginal status, risk, need) is presented in Tables A2 through A5 in Appendix D.

Finally, the issue of multiple program assignments was also addressed in all analyses to ensure independence between observations, both within and between each program type. Within each program type, where an offender was assigned to a program more than once, the last assignment where the offender actually participated in the program was selected to represent the case. Between program types, where an offender was assigned to more than one program type, the offender was excluded from the analyses. Thus, in analyses that compared the Community Maintenance Program subsample with a substance abuse need and the specialized substance abuse maintenance groups, 329 offenders were excluded, and 45 offenders were excluded in the analyses that compared the Community Maintenance Program subsample with a family violence group and the specialized family violence treatment groups.

2.2.2. Automated Data

Data from CSC's automated database OMS were extracted as part of the evaluation of CSC Correctional Programs. Offenders meeting the criteria noted in Section 2.2.1 were included in the present evaluation.

The financial information and enrolment data used for the cost-effectiveness analyses were drawn from CSC's Integrated Management Reporting System (IMRS) and Corporate Reporting System (CRS), respectively.

2.2.3. Key Sources of Qualitative Data

Offender interviewees

A total of 30 offenders who participated in the Community Maintenance Program completed interviews as part of this evaluation, which represented approximately 2% of all Community Maintenance Program participants. The majority of interviewed participants were living in a private home (50%; n = 15) or halfway house/community residential facility (43%; n = 13) at the time of the interview.

Analyses were conducted to compare the interviewed program participants and all Community Maintenance Program participants in order to determine whether the interview sample was representative of the general Community Maintenance Program population. Overall, no differences were found between interviewed participants and all participants in terms of age at release and sentence length. However, Aboriginal offenders were under-represented in the interviewed sample and offenders serving indeterminate sentences were over-represented in the interviewed sample. Finally, there was no difference between the interviewed participants and all Community Maintenance Program participants with respect to the proportion of offenders serving sentences for a serious offence against the person (Schedule I), but a larger proportion of the interviewed participants were serving sentences for a serious drug offence (Schedule II), Interviewed participants had lower risk ratings and higher motivation and reintegration potential scores compared to all program participants. However, no significant differences in need levels were found between the interviewed participants and all Community Maintenance Program participants.

Staff and Contracted Service Provider Surveys

A total of 306 CSC staff members and contracted service providers completed the electronic survey,Footnote 22 of which 55% (n = 168) reported at least moderate familiarity with the goals and objectives of the Community Maintenance Program. As the survey was designed for staff members who had at least moderate familiarity with the Community Maintenance Program, only results from these staff members were reported. The majority of survey respondents worked in the community (52%; n = 87) and in institutions (40%; n = 66) and the remainder worked at national or regional headquarters (8%; n = 14). One-third (33%; n = 55) of survey respondents was directly involved with the delivery or management of the Community Maintenance Program. The positions of staff members who completed the survey are summarized in Table A1 in Appendix D.

2.2.4. Document Review

Documents reviewed for various components of the evaluation included:

  • Departmental reports (e.g., Report on Plans and Priorities; CSC 2009c) and policy documents (i.e., CDs);
  • Evaluation of CSC's Correctional Programs (Nafekh et al., 2009);
  • Program Description Tables (CSC, 2004b); and,
  • Published and unpublished research and evaluation literature.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were created with Snap Survey software to collect information from program participants. Interviews were comprised of a combination of closed-ended and open-ended questions. Closed-ended questions were generally 5-point Likert-type scale, dichotomous (yes/no), or categorical items. Community Maintenance Program participants (past and current) were asked to volunteer to participate in face-to-face interviews with evaluation staff.

2.3.2. Electronic Surveys

Electronic surveys were created and administered online (via CSC's Infonet) using Snap Survey software. Contracted service providers who did not have access to the Infonet were asked to print an electronic copy of the survey, complete it, and return via fax to the Evaluation Branch. Survey questions were designed to address the evaluation objectives and, similar to the offender interviews, were comprised of a combination of closed-ended and open-ended questions. Closed-ended questions were generally 5-point Likert-type scale, dichotomous (yes/no), or categorical items.

2.3.3. Supplementary Intake Assessment Instruments

Offenders' programming needs are assessed to determine in which correctional program and at what intensity level they should participate. Referrals to correctional programs occur on the basis of several assessment activities and tools, including:

  • an interview with the offender;
  • objective tools assessing static and dynamic indicators; and,
  • supplementary specialized assessments conducted at intake (e.g., supplementary intake assessments) for programs including substance abuse, family violence, violent offenders, and sexual offender programs.

For the present evaluation, Community Maintenance Program participants were compared to participants of the specialized substance abuse maintenance and family violence maintenance programs.Footnote 23 The following section provides a description of the supplementary intake assessment used as referral criteria for the substance abuse and family violence programs. Results on these supplementary intake assessments were used to denote substance abuse and family violence needs.

Substance Abuse

As mandated by Offender Intake Assessment and Correctional Planning, Standard Operating Practice 700-04 (CSC, 2003b, s. 34), when an offender meets one or more criteria indicating the possibility of substance abuse problems, they must be referred to complete a supplementary substance abuse intake assessment. The results of these assessments are then used to guide referrals to the appropriate intensity level of substance abuse programming. Within CSC, the Computerized Lifestyle Assessment Instrument (CLAI) and its successor, the Computerized Assessment of Substance Abuse (CASA), are used to determine offender referrals for substance abuse programming.

Computerized Lifestyle Assessment Instrument (CLAI; Robinson, Fabiano, Poporino, Millson, & Graves, 1993)

The CLAI is a computer-administered inventory with over 600 items assessing substance abuse among offenders and is comprised of several standardized screening instruments including the Alcohol Dependence Scale and the Drug Abuse Screening Test. Together, the inventory examines a variety of factors associated with substance abuse, including physical health, mental health, nutrition, family and social functioning, education/work, criminal behaviour patterns, substance abuse and its relationship to criminal activity, past substance abuse treatment, and readiness for future treatment. The CLAI can be administered in both French and English (Weekes, Vanderburg, & Millson, 1995), has been used with Aboriginal offenders (Vanderburg, Weekes & Millson, 1994), and key components have been tested on women offenders (Lightfoot & Hodgins, 1988). Weekes and colleagues (1995) reported high internal consistency for the Alcohol Dependence Scale and the Drug Abuse Screening Test for Anglophone (α = .96 and .88, respectively) and Francophone offenders (α = .94 and .87, respectively). Validity studies have demonstrated strong criterion validity for CLAI (e.g., Beal, Weekes, Millson, & Eno, 1997; Robinson & Millson, 1991; Weekes, Moser & Langevin, 1997).

Computerized Assessment of Substance Abuse (CASA)

Following consultations with operational staff members and members of an international accreditation panel, the Reintegration Programs Branch developed a new assessment system to replace the CLAI. In 1999, the CASA was developed, field tested, and refined by the Addictions Research Centre. The CASA is a 288-item, bilingual, audio-enhanced instrument that is a compilation of a number of standardized instruments used to assess substance abuse severity, including the Alcohol Dependence Scale (Skinner & Horn, 1984), Problems Related to Drinking Scale, and the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (Selzer, 1971). Together, the CASA assesses substance abuse in seven domains: alcohol abuse severity; drug abuse severity; patterns of use; link to criminal behaviour; parental substance abuse; previous program participation; and treatment readiness. Research suggests that the CASA accurately differentiates cases for referral to substance abuse programs (Kunic & Grant, 2006). Specifically, offenders with higher substance abuse severity as measured by the CASA had more criminogenic needs and higher static risk scores, and higher scores on the SIR-R1, which is an actuarial risk assessment tool. With respect to the reliability of the CASA, although the internal consistency of the standardized instruments that comprise the CASA were high (ranging from .81 to .95; refer to Kunic & Grant), the alpha level for the composite assessment tool was not reported. Due to the time period covered in the present evaluation, scores from either the CLAI or the CASA were used as a measure of need for substance abuse programming.

Family Violence
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA; Kropp, Hart, Webster & Eaves, 1995):

When screening criteria on a Family Violence Risk Assessment (FVRA) are met, the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) is then completed. Results of this assessment are used to determine whether the offender's level of risk for family violence is low, moderate, or high. Kropp and Hart (2000) found that the SARA had moderate internal consistency (alpha values ranged from .62 to .83) and high inter-rater reliability (r of .65 using a 3-point scale) among a sample of adult male offenders. With respect to criterion validity, Kropp and Hart found that offenders with a history of spousal assault had significantly higher scores on the SARA than those without. Furthermore, scores on the SARA significantly differentiated between recidivists and nonrecidivists. The SARA has been found to be useful in guiding parole officers in making recommendations regarding family violence programming, private family visits, and for release considerations (Gitzel, 1997). Offenders classified as low risk on the SARA are referred to a family violence awareness program, whereas offenders assessed as moderate or high risk are referred to moderate or high intensity family violence treatment programs, respectively (for specific referral criteria, refer to CSC, 2009b).

2.3.4. Program Completion and Readmission

In order to address the effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program, the evaluation examined program completion and dropout rates, and readmission. Readmission was defined as the first readmission to custody. Two measures of readmission were examined, namely any return to custody and return for a new offence. Any return to custody refers to returns as a result of a technical violationFootnote 24 or a new offence. Returns for a new offence included:

  1. violation of terms of conditional release with an offence;
  2. revocation with an offence;
  3. revocation with an outstanding charge;
  4. new conviction that resulted in a provincial sentence; and
  5. new conviction that resulted in a federal sentence.

Note that offenders were followed to their first incident of readmission. If an offender was revoked, re-released, and was subsequently readmitted for a new offence during or following that specific sentence, the new offence would not be captured utilizing this data gathering method.

2.3.5. Effectiveness

Multiple analyses were conducted to examine the effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program in reducing first readmission, which was disaggregated into technical revocations without an offence and new offence (as defined in section 2.3.4). First, the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group was compared to the Community Maintenance Program comparison group to examine whether participants in the Community Maintenance Program were less likely to be readmitted than program non-participants (Analysis A). Second, the effectiveness of the community substance abuse maintenance program was assessed by comparing the substance abuse enrolment group with the substance abuse comparison group (those who were assigned to, but did not participate in, community substance abuse maintenance programs; Analysis B). Next, analyses were conducted to examine the relative effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program and specialized substance abuse programs in reducing readmission for offenders with an identified substance abuse need (Analysis C). The second and third analyses were also completed for the Community Maintenance Program and the comparison group of offenders with identified family violence needs (Analyses D and E).

2.3.6. Cost-Effectiveness

Financial data were obtained from CSC's IMRS. Program enrolment and completion rates for fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09 were obtained from CRS. The cost of delivery (cost per participant enrolment) and cost-efficiency (cost per completion) were calculated for the Community Maintenance Program and compared to the specialized community substance abuse maintenance program to examine the relative costs associated with each of the programs.Footnote 25

2.4. Procedures

2.4.1. Interviews

Interviews were conducted by the evaluation team in person during the month of March 2009. The interview process included site visits across all regions. Interviews were approximately 25 to 40 minutes in duration.

Interview data were entered into Snap Survey software and exported into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Qualitative data generated as a result of the interview process were exported into Microsoft Word. Themes relevant to the evaluation objectives were then developed by evaluation analysts. Quantitative interview data were analyzed in SPSS.

Summary data from quantitative and qualitative interview questions are provided in the text related to the relevant findings. All interview results are presented as a percentage of the valid responses to the question, as some questions were not applicable, or interviewees were unable to answer some questions.

2.4.2. Operational Data

Data from the Offender Management System originally drawn from OMS for the Correctional Programs evaluation were used in the sections that examined offenders who were assigned to maintenance programs with respect to their demographic profile, program enrolment rates, and recidivism outcomes.

For recidivism outcomes, offenders were followed to their first incident of readmission, and both OMS and Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) data were used to collect recidivism data. OMS data were used to record technical revocations of conditional release for the period of time between an offender's conditional release and their warrant expiry date. Where the follow-up period extended past an offender's warrant expiry date, CPIC data were used.  For each offender, his/her CPIC criminal record was extracted using CSC's CPIC terminal as a text file. The criminal records were then coded automatically using a SAS program, which parsed the data using character functions, and created a structured data file.

2.5. Analyses

Quantitative methods were used to profile the Community Maintenance Program participants, to identify trends and to compare demographic, criminal history, and other correctional variables (e.g., risk and need levels) with a group of offenders who participated in specialized maintenance programs as well as an untreated comparison group of offenders.  Between-group differences on continuous variables were identified using one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc tests.Footnote 26 Contrasts on categorical variables were performed using logistic regression.Footnote 27 Where a profile variable had two levels, direct logistic regressionFootnote 28 was used. Where a profile variable had three levels, multinomial logistic regression with ordered categoriesFootnote 29 was used. In addition, for categorical variables, differences between groups were expressed using the odds-ratio effect size. In most cases, the effect size, rather than the test for statistical significance, was more informative because the sample sizes were large. The odds-ratio can be understood as "the times more likely a member of a treatment group is to have the profile characteristic". Tables that concern a categorical profile variable that has more than two levels used the cumulative logit coefficient.Footnote 30

The outcome analyses were performed using Proportional Hazards Regression, or Cox Regression.Footnote 31 Like all forms of survival analysis, Cox regression enables the analysis of censored data (i.e., data where the follow-up time varies between cases). In addition, Cox regression makes it possible to model the effects of covariates in addition to treatment effects. The main effect size associated with Cox regression is the Hazard Ratio.Footnote 32 Similar to the odds-ratio, the hazard ratio can be interpreted as the "times more likely a member of the treatment group is to fail, at any point in the follow-up period".

Potential differences among some important variables between comparison groups were controlled in all outcome analyses. These variables included age at release, overall static risk level, and overall need ratings from the Offender Intake Assessment.Footnote 33 All group comparisons and tests of hypotheses were conducted at the .05 significance level.

2.6. Limitations

The evaluation team experienced difficulty recruiting Community Maintenance Program participants to volunteer to be interviewed about the program, despite flexibility in scheduling interviews. The total number of offenders interviewed was 30 across the regions. Anecdotally, staff members who coordinated the site visits frequently reported lack of incentive to participate as a factor that contributed to the low participation rate. As a result, caution is required in interpreting the results from the interviews, as views expressed by the offenders who agreed to participate in interviews may not be representative of all Community Maintenance Program participants. As discussed previously, interviewed participants tended to be of lower risk and had higher ratings on motivation and reintegration potential compared to all program participants.Footnote 34 Furthermore, it was not possible to obtain feedback from participants who did not complete the Community Maintenance Program due to time constraints and access to participants. As such, it was not possible to obtain direct accounts of factors that impacted program non-completion.

The data analyzed in the present evaluation were originally extracted for the evaluation of Correctional Programs (Nafekh et al., 2009) and included offenders who were admitted to CSC between the years 1997 and 2007. This sample was further reduced to those offenders who were referred to the Community Maintenance Program, specialized substance abuse maintenance programs, or specialized family violence maintenance programs for whom there were follow-up data. However, enrolment and completion data were also drawn from CRS for fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09 in order to supplement the data presented in the sections related to offender enrolment and cost-effectiveness.

The present evaluation assessed the effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program on reducing readmission by comparing a group of offenders who participated in the Community Maintenance Program to offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, the Community Maintenance Program. Additional analyses were completed to examine the relative effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program and specialized community substance abuse and family violence maintenance programs in reducing readmission for offenders with needs in the areas of substance abuse and family violence, respectively. It was not possible to examine the relative effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program compared to community violence prevention maintenance as no such program exists (Manager, Community Maintenance Program and Violence Prevention Program, personal communication, November 9, 2009). Offenders who complete the moderate or high intensity Violence Prevention Program are offered Violence Prevention Program Maintenance in the institution and the Community Maintenance Program in the community (CSC, 2009d). Furthermore, comparisons were not conducted for those offender groups which were not originally targeted by the Community Maintenance Program pilot, for example, sexual offenders.Footnote 35

Cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency were examined by comparing cost per enrolment and cost per completion for the Community Maintenance Program and community substance abuse maintenance. At the time of the evaluation, there were significant inconsistencies in the financial, program enrolment, and program completion data available for community family violence maintenance which precluded analyses to compare the costs of the Community Maintenance Program and specialized family violence maintenance programs. Similarly, cost-efficiency analyses could not be completed for offenders who were referred to the Community Maintenance Program to address multiple needs (e.g., substance abuse and family violence).

3. Key Findings

The following results are presented under their respective Evaluation Objectives, namely:

  1. (Continued Relevancy;
  2. Implementation;
  3. Success (effectiveness and efficiency);
  4. Cost Effectiveness; and
  5. Unintended Outcomes.

Objective 1: Continued Relevancy

The extent to which the initiative remains consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities, and realistically addresses an actual need.

FINDING 1: The Community Maintenance Program is consistent with government and departmental priorities.

Government-wide Priorities

Canadian federal departments' Strategic Outcomes and Program Activities are grouped into 13 long-term benefits to Canadians in three broad sectors (social, economic, and international) that are referred to as Government of Canada Outcomes.Footnote 36 CSC contributes to the Social Affairs sector, under the Government of Canada Outcome, Safe and Secure Communities. CSC's program activities of Custody, Correctional Interventions, Community Supervision, CORCAN, and Internal Servicesand the plans associated with them, support CSC's single strategic outcome that

"the custody, correctional interventions, and supervision of offenders, in communities and institutions, contributes to public safety"

(CSC, 2009c).

The Effective Corrections Initiative falls under the program activities of Correctional Interventions and Community Supervision. The Correctional Interventions Program Activity encompasses all activities related to the delivery of correctional interventions and programs in institutions and communities designed to successfully reintegrate offenders into society as law-abiding citizens (CSC, 2009c). The Community Supervision Program Activity encompasses all activities related to

"the safe and humane supervision of eligible offenders in the community"

(p. 28).

Addressing offenders' individualized risk and needs in order to reduce violent re-offending is a part of CSC's program activity of Correctional Interventions. Part of this particular plan is to promote the Community Maintenance Program as an aftercare strategy for offenders who have participated in institutional violence prevention and substance abuse programming.

CSC Departmental Performance Report

The Community Maintenance Program is directly related to one of the five strategic priorities identified in the 2007-2008 Departmental Performance Report (CSC, 2008a), namely,

"safe transition of eligible offenders into the community"

(p. 11).

At CSC, the development of correctional programming has been guided by a growing awareness of the need for aftercare in order to help ensure that offenders are able to maintain skills gained through institutional treatment programs upon their release into the community (CSC, 2003a; Yazar, 2003).

The Community Maintenance Program, a generic program which serves as aftercare to most reintegration programs provided by CSC thus aims to ensure the continuity of care to offenders in the community in order to maximize treatment outcome through increased access to maintenance programs. It is also available to diverse offender populations and targets a variety of offender needs, while addressing several obstacles to the provision of correctional treatment programs in the community. For instance, in a review of studies in the United States, Wodahl (2006) noted that the challenges faced by offenders upon release from the institution to rural communities include limited employment opportunities, affordable housing, and lack of resources in the community which offenders can access. With a goal of increasing admissions to maintenance programming in remote regions, the Community Maintenance Program aims to alleviate such challenges.

CSC Review Panel

The Correctional Service Canada Review Panel (2007) noted that the Community Maintenance Program is an important initiative being undertaken by CSC. According to the Panel, the Community Maintenance Program's

"continuous admission and risk-based intensity level is customized to the ever-changing needs and challenges that offenders face in the community"

(p. 130). The Panel recommended:

...that CSC review its community program base and the resources required to support the implementation of maintenance programming. Particular attention should be given to the development and availability of community programs for women and Aboriginal offenders.

(CSC Review Panel, 2007, p. 137)

Finally, the majority of CSC staff members and service providers surveyed indicated that the goals and objectives of the Community Maintenance Program were consistent with CSC's mission and strategic priorities (95%; n -= 143). Only 5% (n = 8) indicated otherwise and most of these individuals indicated that the program was not sufficiently flexible (63%; n = 5). Further, since admission to the Community Maintenance Program is possible at any time, the program is expected to serve as an effective risk management tool where it can be used to maintain offenders in the community as an alternative to suspension in cases where risk is elevated. It therefore supports the principle of the CCRA to use the least restrictive measures to manage risk.

Objective 2: Implementation

This evaluation objective ascertains whether the initiative is organized or delivered in such a way that goals and objectives can be achieved. This involves appropriate and logical linkages between activities, outputs, outcomes and long-term outcomes.

FINDING 2: CSC staff members and service providers indicated that the Community Maintenance Program adhered to Correctional Program policy standards.

The Correctional Program policy standards are outlined in CD 726: Correctional Programs (CSC, 2003a; refer to Appendix A for further information). Formal accreditation of the Community Maintenance Program is not required as it is an aftercare program to supplement correctional programs. However, according to CSC's Reintegration Programs Division (CSC, 2009d), the Community Maintenance Program was endorsed by an international accreditation panel in 2005 as "meeting the requirements as an appropriate and effective follow-up". During the present evaluation, however, no report was produced on the accreditation panel's review of the Community Maintenance Program.

The majority of CSC staff members and contracted service providers agreed that the Community Maintenance Program was based on theory and supporting research (82%; n = 129), targeted criminogenic factors (85%; n = 135), and addressed diverse offender needs (71%; n = 115). Furthermore, more than three-quarters of CSC staff members and contracted service providers agreed that the Community Maintenance Program accounted for offender risk (79%; n = 124) and need (76%; n = 121). However, just over one-half of respondents (56%; n = 88) agreed that responsivity factors were considered in the program.

FINDING 3: CSC staff members, service providers and program participants indicated that a variety of communication tools were used by Community Maintenance Program staff members to support case management practices in the community.

All of the interviewed Community Maintenance Program participants indicated that their community parole officers and program instructors worked together to ensure that the offenders' program needs were met (100%; n = 27). According to CSC staff members and contracted service providers, various communication tools were important in facilitating communication between Community Maintenance Program staff and community parole officers. Specifically, the majority of surveyed CSC staff members and service providers indicated that program final reports (82%; n = 126), case conferences (81%; n = 125) and casework records (69%; n = 105) were very important. Respondents' ratings of the importance of program intake records and interim reports varied; nonetheless, approximately two-thirds rated these two communication tools as moderately or very important (64%; n = 89 and 68%, n = 99; respectively).

Timely access to information by community parole officers was another topic of interest. The majority of CSC staff members and service providers agreed that community parole officers received timely information through case conferences (83%; n = 96), final reports (80%; n = 94) and casework records (79%; n = 91). A somewhat lower proportion of respondents agreed that the interim reports (67%; n = 70) and intake records (57%; n = 57) were transmitted in a timely fashion. The importance of these communication tools may have contributed to their timely transmission, as respondents generally indicated that these latter two communication tools were not as important as the others. When probed further regarding other potential means of fostering community contact, respondents suggested face-to-face contacts, informal and continuous discussions outside of case conferences (45%; n = 9) and the use of technology-based communication (35%; n = 7).

FINDING 4: CSC staff members and service providers indicated that the Community Maintenance Program resulted in reduced need for multiple maintenance programs. Interviewed program participants concluded that the Community Maintenance Program met their needs.

Two of the challenges of providing maintenance programs were the need for multiple offence-specific maintenance programs and the ability of programs to meet the multitude of offender needs. The generic nature of the Community Maintenance Program was intended to overcome these challenges. Overall, the majority of CSC staff members and contracted service providers surveyed agreed that the Community Maintenance Program resulted in a reduced need for, and number of referrals to, multiple maintenance programs in the community (65%, n = 80; and 77%, n = 87, respectively), while still meeting multiple offender reintegration needs. The majority of staff members and contracted service providers surveyed (63% to 92%) agreed that the Community Maintenance Program was responsive to substance abuse, attitude, personal/emotional, community functioning, and marital/family needs of offenders (refer to Figure 1).

Figure 1 : Extent to which Survey Respondents Agreed that the Community Maintenance Program was Responsive to Offenders with the Following Needs

Figure 1 : Extent to which Survey Respondents Agreed that the Community Maintenance Program was Responsive to Offenders with the Following Needs

Source: CSC staff and service provider surveys.

Description:

This horizontal stacked bar chart demonstrates the extent to which survey respondents agreed that the Community Maintenance Program (CMP) was responsive to their program needs. From the top of the axis to the bottom, the Y axis lists the following five areas for which offenders have needs: Substance abuse Attitude Personal or emotional matters Community functioning Marital or family matters The X axis is measured in percentages and increases by increments of ten from 0 to 100. The X axis lists three categories, which are: Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree 92% of respondents agreed that the Community Maintenance Program was responsive to their substance abuse needs. 2% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that the CMP was responsive to their substance abuse needs. 6% disagreed that the CMP was responsive to their substance abuse needs 72% of respondents agreed that the Community Maintenance Program was responsive to their needs related to attitude. 13% neither agreed nor disagreed that the CMP was responsive to their needs related to attitude. 15% disagreed that the CMP was responsive to their needs related to attitude. 71% of respondents agreed that the Community Maintenance Program was responsive to their personal or emotional needs. 13% neither agreed nor disagreed that the CMP was responsive to their personal or emotional needs. 16% disagreed that the CMP was responsive to their personal or emotional needs. 70% of respondents agreed that the Community Maintenance Program was responsive to their needs concerning community functioning. 15% neither agreed nor disagreed that the CMP was responsive to their needs concerning community functioning. 15% disagreed that the CMP was responsive to their needs concerning community functioning. 63% of respondents agreed that the Community Maintenance Program was responsive to their needs concerning marital or family matters. 16% neither agreed nor disagreed that the CMP was responsive to their needs concerning marital or family matters. 21% disagreed that the CMP was responsive to their needs concerning marital or family matters.

In addition, the majority of interviewed participants agreed that the program met their program needs (86%; n = 25) and helped them to address the problems that had led to their offences (79%; n = 22). Specifically, the Community Maintenance Program was designed to focus on six core skills, including working toward goals, problem-solving, dealing with emotions, challenging high-risk thinking, interpersonal communication, and self-management. The majority of interviewed participants indicated that these core skills were learned through institutional programs (from 88% to 100%) and reviewed in the community through the Community Maintenance Program (from 88% to 100%).

Overall, the interviewed participants reported positive responses to the program. The majority of interviewed participants (97%; n = 29) indicated that the information delivered in the Community Maintenance Program was easy to understand. Of note, the interviewed participants were unanimous (100%; n = 30) in stating that the goals of each of the program sessions were clear and meaningful. Several offenders further commented that effective facilitators (23%; n = 7) and the logical and clear progression of course material (23%; n = 7) were keys to success. Nearly all program participants (97%; n = 28) indicated they would recommend the services they received from the Community Maintenance Program to other offenders with similar needs. Several offenders further provided comments on the value of the program, namely that it helped with reintegration (23%; n = 7), and served as a refresher of lessons learned in the institutions (17%; n = 5).

FINDING 5: Although CSC staff members and service providers indicated that the Community Maintenance Program eligibility criteria and referral process were clear, a substantial proportion of respondents noted that there was a need to examine or modify the eligibility criteria.

In order to be eligible to participate in the Community Maintenance Program, offenders are required to have completed any correctional program (CSC, 2009d). The majority of CSC staff members and contracted service providers indicated that the eligibility criteria for the Community Maintenance Program and referral process were clear (72%, n = 105; and 78%, n = 115, respectively). Similarly, just over one-half of respondents indicated that the program targeted the appropriate groups of offenders (57%; n = 84).

However, 43% (n = 58) also indicated that there was a need to examine or modify the eligibility criteria. Of those who indicated that there was a need to examine or modify the eligibility criteria, respondents most frequently reported that CMP eligibility criteria, or the CMP program in general, was too generic (33%; n = 19), making it difficult to target offenders' specific needs. Conversely, some respondents appeared to suggest that the referral criteria should be even broader, commenting that offenders who did not complete a correctional program should not be excluded (14%; n = 8), or that offenders who completed non-CSC or non-accredited programs should be admitted to the Community Maintenance Program (7%; n = 5). However, the Community Maintenance Program was designed to reinforce the skills that were acquired through correctional programs rather than to teach new skills. As such, offenders who have not completed any correctional programs may not have the foundation necessary to understand the program content or derive potential benefit from the aftercare program.

The majority (70%; n = 10) of staff members and contracted service providers surveyed indicated that the Community Maintenance Program was responsive to offenders with a history of violence, although only 35% (n = 51) indicated that the program was responsive to offenders with a history of sexual offending. In fact, half of the respondents (n = 73) disagreed with the latter. This may not be surprising, given that completion of a violence prevention program was one of the original eligibility criteria for admission into the Community Maintenance Program while completion of sexual offender programming was not.Footnote 37

Objective 3: Success

The extent to which a policy, program, or initiative is meeting its planned results.

Efficiency: The extent to which a policy, program, or initiative is producing its planned outputs as a result of the initiative and in relation to resources used.

FINDING 6: Although one of the goals of the Community Maintenance Program was to increase admissions to maintenance programs in the community, a higher proportion of referred offenders participated in specialized community substance and family violence maintenance programs compared to the Community Maintenance Program. However, basic enrolment in the Community Maintenance Program increased while enrolment in specialized substance abuse maintenance programs decreased from 2007/08 to 2008/09.

To examine the issue of access to maintenance programming, enrolment patterns were compared between the generic Community Maintenance Program and specialized maintenance programs in given target domains (e.g., substance abuse, violent behaviour, etc.). Due to a small number of participants in specialized maintenance programs, only substance abuse and family violence programs were included in the comparative analyses discussed in the respective sections below. All analyses were limited to the male population, as no women received services through the Community Maintenance Program. Furthermore, offenders referred to both the generic and specialized maintenance programs were excluded from comparative statistical tests. Finally, as acknowledged in Section 2.2, the dataset used in this evaluation only included those individuals for whom complete follow-up data were available.

Enrolment as a Function of Referrals

During the period covered by the evaluation (i.e., admissions from 1997 to 2007; refer to section 2.2.1 for a description of offenders included in the analyses), 1,072 offenders with an identified substance abuse need were referred to the Community Maintenance Program and 3,414 offenders were referred to specialized community substance abuse maintenance programs. Over one-third (41%; n = 440) of those referred to the Community Maintenance Program ultimately enrolled, compared to the 64.3% (n = 2,196) enrolment rate for offenders referred to specialized community substance abuse maintenance programs. This difference in enrolment between the Community Maintenance Program and community substance abuse maintenance program was statistically significant (χ2(1, N = 3,438) = 153.33, p < .0001).Footnote 38

With respect to community family violence maintenance programs, 308 male offenders were referred to a specialized family violence maintenance program, of which 151 (49%) individuals ultimately enrolled. In comparison, a total of 253 offenders requiring family violence intervention were referred to the Community Maintenance Program and 98 (38.7%) of those enrolled. Overall, the difference observed in the enrolment levels between the generic community maintenance and specialized community family violence maintenance programs reached a statistically significant level (χ2(1, N = 386) = 4.02, p < .05).Footnote 39 It is important to note that these sample sizes were substantially smaller than those for substance abuse maintenance. This may highlight one of the challenges of delivering multiple maintenance programs in the community (and one of the factors that the Community Maintenance Program was designed to address), namely, insufficient number of offenders to warrant program delivery.

It was also of interest to compare participation rates of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders in these maintenance programs. Among offenders who were referred to the Community Maintenance Program who had a substance abuse treatment need, non-Aboriginal offenders were significantly more likely to enrol in the Community Maintenance Program than Aboriginal offenders (43.2% vs. 34.4%, respectively; χ2(1, N = 1,072) = 6.42, p < .05). Similarly, a significantly higher proportion of non-Aboriginal offenders who were referred to specialized substance abuse maintenance programs enrolled in the program compared to Aboriginal offenders (66.0% vs. 59.2%, respectively; χ2(1, N = 3,414) = 12.69, p < .001).

Similar results were observed for offenders with a need for family violence treatment. Specifically, Aboriginal offenders requiring family violence intervention were less likely than non-Aboriginal offenders to enrol in the Community Maintenance Program (29.6% and 43.6%, respectively; χ2(1, N = 253) = 4.80, p <.05). The same held true for specialized community family violence maintenance programs (27.8% and 53.5%, respectively; χ2(1, N = 308) = 11.83, p <.001; Refer to Appendix E for details). The reason for the lower participation rate by Aboriginal participants is not clear. However, a few comments were raised by CSC staff members and service providers suggesting that the Community Maintenance Program did not include culturally-sensitive components, where appropriate (n = 7). Nonetheless, the Community Maintenance Program was associated with significant reduction in readmission for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders compared to their counterparts who were referred to, but did not participate in, the Community Maintenance Program (see Finding 9).

It is necessary to discuss two important issues related to program enrolment to provide context for these findings. The first issue is that of program availability. The Community Maintenance Program was implemented nationally in 2003/04 and therefore, may not have been available in as many sites as the specialized maintenance programs (Project Officer, Community Maintenance Program, personal communication, December 21, 2009). The second issue is program enrolment over the last two years, which has changed drastically since the 2007 cut-off date for the data extraction for this evaluation. In order to supplement enrolment data beyond this cut-off date, enrolment numbers were drawn from CRS and are shown in the following section.

Enrolment Data to 2008/09

The number of participants enrolled in the Community Maintenance Program increased steadily across the first four years of program implementation. Over the same period, program expenditures also increased steadily from $60,900 in FY 2004/05 to $600,429 in FY 2007/08.  Moreover, from 2007/08 to 2008/09, there was a 135% increase in the number of participants enrolled in the Community Maintenance Program (from 460 to 1,081 participants). At the same time, enrolment in the specialized substance abuse maintenance program decreased by 64% (from 903 to 322 participants). Figure 2 summarizes the number of offenders enrolled in the Community Maintenance Program and specialized community substance abuse maintenance program (i.e., NSAP - Maintenance) from 2003/04 to 2008/09.

Figure 2. Program Enrolment across Time

Figure 2. Program Enrolment across Time

Notes: CMP = Community Maintenance Program; SAMP - Substance Abuse Maintenance Program. There were concerns regarding the accuracy of the data for specialized community family violence programs for 2007/08 and 2008/09. As such, enrolment data for this program are not included here.
Source: CRS

Description:

This line graph demonstrates the number of offenders enrolled in the Community Maintenance Program (CMP) and the Substance Abuse Maintenance Program (SAMP) during fiscal years 2003-2004 through 2008-2009. It also demonstrates that in fiscal year 2008/2009, the number of offenders enrolled in the CMP rises considerably while there is a notable drop in the number of offenders enrolled in the SAMP. The X axis presents six fiscal years beginning with 2003-2004 and ending with 2008-2009. The Y axis presents the number of offenders enrolled in each program. The Y axis is numeric and increases in increments of two hundred from 0 to 1,200. In fiscal year 2003-2004, 87 offenders were enrolled in the Community Maintenance Program. In fiscal year 2004-2005, 116 offenders were enrolled in the CMP. In fiscal year 2005-2006, 213 offenders were enrolled in the CMP. In fiscal year 2006-2007, 348 offenders were enrolled in the CMP. In fiscal year 2007-2008, 460 offenders were enrolled in the CMP. In fiscal year 2008-2009, 1081 offenders were enrolled in the CMP. In fiscal year 2003-2004, 465 offenders were enrolled in the Substance Abuse Maintenance Program. In fiscal year 2004-2005, 711 offenders were enrolled in the SAMP. In fiscal year 2005-2006, 989 offenders were enrolled in the SAMP. In fiscal year 2006-2007, 863 offenders were enrolled in the SAMP. In fiscal year 2007-2008, 903 offenders were enrolled in the SAMP. In fiscal year 2008-2009, 322 offenders were enrolled in the SAMP.

A number of factors may have contributed to these changes. For instance, the Community Maintenance Program was identified as

"the priority intervention in the community"

(Director, Reintegration Programs, Memorandum, March 7, 2008, p. 1) for offenders who completed institutional violence and substance abuse programs. In addition, CSC commenced realignment of NSAP - Maintenance resources to the Community Maintenance Program beginning in fiscal year 2007/08 in an effort to prioritize Community Maintenance Program interventions in the community (Director, Reintegration Programs, Memorandum, March 7, 2008). Furthermore, according to recent program descriptions, the NSAP - Maintenance program in the community "is being phased out in order to be replaced by the Community Maintenance Program" (Reintegration Programs, 2009d, p. 61). Thus, increase in enrolment in the Community Maintenance Program may be an artefact of increased availability of the Community Maintenance Program and decreased availability of specialized substance abuse maintenance programs in the community.

Time from Institutional Release to Admission into Maintenance Program

One of the goals of the Community Maintenance Program is to reduce the time between offenders' release from institutions to admission into maintenance programming. There was no significant difference between the Community Maintenance Program and specialized community substance abuse maintenance program and family violence maintenance program groups with respect to number of days between release from the institution and admission into the maintenance programs (refer to Table 2).

Table 2 . Between-Treatment Group Analysis of Time (in Days) from Release to Program Start
  n Mean SD Median
Notes. One-way ANOVA on the log transformation of time from release to program start was not significant, F (2, 2467) = 0.04, p = 0.97.
Source. OMS.
CMP 386 350.76 455.64 166
Substance Abuse 1958 341.37 429.66 173
Family Violence 126 258.79 281.89 177
Stakeholders' Perceptions Regarding Enrolment

Issues related to access to, and enrolment in, the Community Maintenance Program were also reflected in CSC staff members and service providers' survey responses. For example, more than half (57.4%; n = 74) of respondents noted they were aware of offenders who did not receive maintenance services through the Community Maintenance Program, despite being eligible for these. Among the major reasons for not having received services, respondents identified limited program availability in the community (64.7%; n = 44), lengthy waitlists for services (57.8%; n = 37) and/or offender refusal to participate in the program (56.5%; n = 35). The timeliness with which offenders were identified for services (42%; n = 25) and the availability of appropriate alternative programs (39%; n = 24) were also reported by substantial portions of respondents as barriers to enrolment.

Furthermore, the majority (63.5%; n = 80) of staff members and service providers considered that multiple specialized maintenance programs would better meet the needs of offenders. Several respondents further elaborated on their choice of answer, noting that specialized programs would be particularly beneficial for higher risk offenders (n = 33), while another 19 respondents underscored that the generic nature of the program did not allow for offender needs to be fully addressed.

CSC staff members and contracted service providers had mixed responses regarding the accessibility of the Community Maintenance Program. While 63% (n = 82) of CSC staff members and contracted service providers agreed that the Community Maintenance Program contributed to an overall increase in accessibility to maintenance programming in the community, nearly two-thirds of survey respondents (65%; n = 44), as noted above, indicated that the program was not available in the community to which the offender was released as a reason for those offenders not having received these services.

It was difficult to corroborate these survey results with participant interviews as the majority (83%; n = 25) indicated that they were able to access the maintenance programs they required and only one person (3%) indicated access as an issue. Furthermore, none of the 30 offenders reported that the Community Maintenance Program was unavailable in their area. Three interviewed participants (10%) reported they encountered transportation difficulties in getting to the program location. Although two of them indicated that these issues had been resolved. It is worth pointing out, however, that these results may likely have been artefacts of the interviewed sample and may, therefore, not have been sufficiently representative of the program population. As highlighted in the Limitation section, only offenders who participated in the program were interviewed. Furthermore, site visits were not made to remote locations.

FINDING 7: One of the goals of the Community Maintenance Program was to increase access to maintenance programming in remote locations. While offenders supervised in remote locations were more likely than offenders supervised in urban locations to enrol in the Community Maintenance Program following referral, the program's enrolment levels were lower than those of specialized maintenance programs in remote and urban community locations.

To better understand whether the goal of the Community Maintenance Program to facilitate program delivery in remote locations was being achieved, two sets of analyses were performed. The first focused on comparing enrolment levels between urban and remote locations within the Community Maintenance Program. The second set of analyses examined the differences in enrolment levels across specialized and generic maintenance programs, by treatment need domain and location type. In the latter approach, individuals referred to both specialized and generic maintenance programs were excluded from the statistical calculation, as well as offenders who did not require substance abuse or family violence programs according to results on the secondary assessment tools.

Community Maintenance Program Enrolment Rates by Location

Overall, approximately one-half (47.7%; n = 152) of offenders referred to the Community Maintenance Program and supervised in remote locations subsequently enrolled in the program. At the same time, the program's enrolment in urban locations was significantly lower at a rate of 38.3% (n = 368; χ2(1, N = 1,279) = 8.6, p < .01). This pattern of results was similar (48.1% enrolment in remote and 39.1% in urban locations) and statistically significant when the analysis was repeated for offenders with substance abuse needs who were referred to the Community Maintenance Program (χ2(1, N = 1,038) = 6.7, p < .01). With respect to offenders with identified needs for family violence treatment, there was no significant difference in enrolment levels between remote (42.4%) and urban (38.2%) locations (χ2(1, N = 245) = 0.3, p =.56, ns).

Enrolment Rates by Location for the Community Maintenance Program vs. Specialized Maintenance Programs

The second set of analyses was performed to determine whether enrolment patterns were consistent between the Community Maintenance Program and specialized maintenance programs in the community for the cohorts of offenders with substance abuse needs and offenders with family violence needs.

As seen in Table 3, enrolment levels in the specialized community substance abuse maintenance program did not differ by remote or urban location, yet were significantly higher than enrolment in the Community Maintenance Program.

Table 3. Program enrolment rates for offenders with substance abuse treatment needs, by program and location types
  CMP SAMP χ2
n % n %

Footnotes

Notes: CMP = Community Maintenance Program, SAMP = Substance Abuse Maintenance Program.

Footnote ***

p < .001

Return to footnote *** referrer

n represents the count of offenders in urban and remote areas who enrolled in each of the two programs.

Urban areas 226 39.30 1356 66.15 135.11Footnote ***
Remote area 89 48.37 372 66.07 18.39Footnote ***

Enrolment rates for offenders with a family violence treatment need were also examined. No statistically significant difference in enrolment between the Community Maintenance Program and specialized family violence maintenance program was observed in either remote or urban location in our samples (χ2(1, N = 162) = 3.03, p=.08, ns; Table 4).

Table 4 . Program enrolment rates for offenders with substance abuse treatment needs, by program and location types
  CMP FVMP χ2
n % n %
Notes: CMP = Community Maintenance Program, FVMP = Family Violence Maintenance Program. There was no significant difference between the two programs. n represents the count of offenders in urban and remote areas who enrolled in each of the two programs.
Urban areas 63 37.95 67 48.91 3.68
Remote area 21 41.18 11 45.83 0.14

CSC staff members and service providers also commented upon the accessibility of maintenance programming for offenders. Of note, approximately half of respondents indicated that accessibility of maintenance programming in remote locations and the accessibility of aftercare for offenders residing in remote locations did not improve as a result of the Community Maintenance Program (53.3%, n = 56 and 51%, n = 49, respectively).

FINDING 8: The completion rate for the Community Maintenance Program was lower than completion rates for specialized community maintenance programs.

CRS completion data available for fiscal years 2007/08 and 2008/09 indicated that 49% (n = 752/1,535) of offenders enrolled in the Community Maintenance Program and 60.2% (n = 732/1,215) of offenders enrolled in specialized community substance abuse maintenance programs had successfully completed their respective programs.Footnote 40

The dataset used for the present evaluation,Footnote 41 drawing data directly from OMS up to 2007, revealed similar patterns with respect to program completion. Please refer to Figure 3 for details on program completion and dropout rates, as well as the proportion of population management cases (i.e., when an offender was transferred, released, temporarily reassigned or paroled; a program was cancelled; when Warrant Expiry Date was reached; or when an assignment was transferred).

Figure 3. Completion Rates for Maintenance Programs in the Community (1997-2007)
Figure 3. Completion Rates for Maintenance Programs in the Community (1997-2007)

Notes: CMP - Community Maintenance Program; SAMP - Substance Abuse Maintenance Program; FVMP - Family Violence Maintenance Program. The data are comprised of offenders admitted between 1997 and 2007 for whom complete follow-up data were available.
Source: OMS.

Description:

This is a bar chart that demonstrates the completion rates for maintenance programs in the community between the years of 1997 and 2007. The X axis lists the three maintenance programs, which are: Community Maintenance Program (CMP), noted as having a sample size of 532 Substance Abuse Maintenance Program (SAMP) noted as having a sample size of 2196 Family Violence Maintenance Program (FVMP) noted as having a sample size of 151 Each maintenance program is composed of three vertical bars: The first bar represents the percentage of completions The second bar represents the percentage of dropouts The third bar represents the percentage of population management cases, which are cases in which: An offender was transferred An offender was released An offender was temporarily reassigned or paroled A program was cancelled The warrant expiry date was reached An assignment was transferred 43.4% completed the Community Maintenance Program 47.2% dropped out of the CMP 9.4% of those in the CMP were classified as population management cases 55.5% completed the Substance Abuse Maintenance Program 29% dropped out of the SAMP 15.5% of those in the SAMP were classified as population management cases 65.6% completed the Family Violence Maintenance Program 23.8% dropped out of the FVMP 10.6% of those in the FVMP were classified as population management cases.

The difference in completion rates for Community Maintenance Program participants with a substance abuse need and specialized community substance abuse maintenance program participants was statistically significant (χ2(1, N = 2,073) = 20.09, p < .0001). With respect to community family violence programs, while a higher proportion of offenders completed the specialized family violence maintenance program compared to the Community Maintenance Program (65.6% vs. 43.4%), this difference did not reach statistical significance (χ2(1, N = 164) = 2.60, p = .107, ns).Footnote 42

Furthermore, considering that the sample of Community Maintenance Program participants differed from the sample of specialized community substance abuse maintenance program participants on risk and need indicators,Footnote 43 additional analyses were performed to take into account these differences. Once statistical controls for risk and need were introduced, the difference in completion rates between the specialized community substance abuse program and the Community Maintenance Program remained significant (p < .0001). Program participants in the specialized community substance abuse maintenance program were 1.65 times more likely to complete the program than offenders participating in the generic Community Maintenance Program (please refer to Table 5). It is worth mentioning that, in this statistical model, offenders' risk levels were not a significant contributing factor to program non-completion, unlike offenders' need levels.

Table 5 . Factors associated with substance abuse maintenance program completion
Factors χ2 Odds Ratio

Footnotes

Note: Overall model is statistically reliable, χ2 (3, N = 2058) = 47.96, p < .0001. SAMP = Substance Abuse Maintenance Program; CMP = Community Maintenance Program.

Footnote ***

p < .001

Return to footnote *** referrer

Risk .57 .94
Need 18.58 .66Footnote ***
Program type: SAMP vs. CMP 15.63 1.65Footnote ***

Given that no differences on risk and need ratings were observed between offenders in the Community Maintenance Program and specialized community family violence maintenance programs and considering small sample sizes, additional analyses were not repeated for community family violence maintenance programs.

Following the analysis of program completion for both the generic and specialized community maintenance programs, a profile of Community Maintenance Program dropouts and completers was constructed. Several important offender characteristics were examined between Community Maintenance Program dropouts (n = 251)Footnote 44 and completers (n = 231), such as age at release, Aboriginal status, risk and need levels, and requirements for substance abuse and family violence treatment. Overall, no differences were found between these two offender groups in terms of age at release, Aboriginal status and requirement for family violence treatment. Nonetheless, a greater proportion of offenders with higher risk and need levels and a requirement for substance abuse treatment tended to dropout from the Community Maintenance Program than offenders with lower risk and need levels and no substance abuse need (detailed analyses are provided in Appendix E).

In the context of program completion, it is important to discuss relative program length. Participants in the community National Family Violence Maintenance Program attend at least three sessions and additional sessions as necessary in light of risk and need (CSC, 2009d). The length of the NSAP - Maintenance varies in accordance with offender risk and need and each session is 2 hours in duration (CSC, 2009d). The Community Maintenance Program was originally implemented as 12 weekly 2-hour sessions (Yazar, 2003) and offenders can start and terminate at any point and repeat the sessions as necessary in accordance with their needs. According to recent program descriptions, the program length is 12 hours (each group session is two hours in duration; CSC, 2009d).

It is possible that the length of these programs may have impacted upon program completion rates (i.e., offenders might be more likely to complete shorter programs). However, as the duration of the maintenance programs assessed in this study could vary according to offender risk and needs, it was not possible to control for program length in the analyses for program completion. Furthermore, because program duration is dependent on offender needs, program completion in itself would appear to be the most important factor to assess.

Effectiveness: The extent to which a policy, program, or initiative is meeting its planned results.

FINDING 9: For both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders, Community Maintenance Program participants were less likely than non-participants to return to custody or commit a new offence.

FINDING 10: For non-Aboriginal offenders, Community Maintenance Program participants were more likely to return to custody than specialized maintenance program participants but there was no significant difference in first readmission returns for new offences. Aboriginal offender sample sizes were relatively small, and in some cases impacted upon the ability to conduct further analyses.

The Community Maintenance Program and specialized community maintenance program enrolment groups (i.e., offenders who were referred to, and participated in, these programs), and comparison groups (i.e., offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, these programs) differed on a number of demographic, criminal history, and other correctional variables, some of which were found to be related to recidivism. As such, it was necessary to control for these pre-existing group differences in all outcome analyses. Sequential Cox Regression analyses were conducted controlling for age at release,Footnote 45 risk level, and need level.

In order to ascertain the effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program and specialized community substance abuse and family violence programs, the evaluation examined two measures of readmission, namely any return to custody and return for a new offence. Any return to custody refers to returns for technical revocations or new offences. Returns for a new offence included offenders whose first return to custody was a result of a conviction for a new offence, violation of conditional release with an offence, revocation with an offence, or revocation with an outstanding charge. A consideration that should be taken into account in the interpretation of the finding is that the model examined the first incident of readmission. In other words, if an offender returned to custody for a technical revocation on a conditional release, he or she was excluded from the analyses pertaining to new re-offending. Thus, any offences that he or she may have committed on the same sentence following his or her technical revocation or following his or her warrant expiry date, would not have been captured using this data extraction method.Footnote 46

Overall, analyses revealed that both the Community Maintenance Program and the specialized maintenance programs had significant positive treatment effects on outcomes for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men. Results of these analyses are described in the sections below and detailed statistical analyses are presented in Appendix E.

Analysis A: Community Maintenance Program Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group

Participants in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group were significantly less likely to be returned to custody than offenders in the Community Maintenance Program comparison group. This finding was true for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male offenders. As such, referred non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal offenders in the Community Maintenance Program comparison group were 1.41 and 1.72 times more likely to experience any return to custody than offenders in the program enrolment group, respectively. A similar pattern of results emerged when the analysis was conducted for new offences only. Non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group were 1.69 and 2.11 times more likely than program participants to return for a new offence, respectively than their counterparts in the Community Maintenance Program comparison group.Footnote 47 A summary of these readmission outcomes for non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal offenders is presented in Table 6 and Table 7, respectively).

Table 6 . Readmission outcomes for non-Aboriginal offenders, by program types
  Any Return to Custody New Offence OnlyFootnote a
Comparisons χ2 Hazards-Ratio χ2 Hazard-Ratio

Footnotes

Notes:

Footnote a

Offenders were followed to their first incident of return. As such, all offenders who were returned on a technical revocation were censored at the time of their revocation; if these offenders incurred a new offence after the technical revocation, they would not be captured in the new offence outcome analyses.
In all analyses, the reference groups (coded as 0) were the program enrolment groups. For Analyses C and E, the reference groups were the Community Maintenance Program enrolment groups.

CMP-comparison = offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, the Community Maintenance Program. CMP-enrolment = Community Maintenance Program enrolment group; offenders who participated in Community Maintenance Program to some extent. SA-comparison = offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, specialized community substance abuse maintenance treatment
SA-enrolment = Community substance abuse maintenance program enrolment group. CMP-enrolment-SA = offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group who had an identified substance abuse treatment need. FV-comparison = offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, specialized community family violence maintenance program. FV- enrolment = Community family violence maintenance program enrolment group. CMP-enrolment-FV = offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group who had an identified family violence treatment need

Return to footnote a referrer

Footnote *

p < .05;

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote **

p < .01;

Return to footnote ** referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS and CPIC.

A. Community Maintenance Program Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group (N = 981)
CMP - comparison vs. CMP - enrolment 21.19Footnote *** 1.41 17.99Footnote *** 1.69
B. Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group (N = 2,216)
SA - comparison vs. SA - enrolment 40.82Footnote *** 1.45 23.11Footnote *** 1.56
C. Relative Effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group and Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Programs Enrolment Group (N = 1,921)
CMP - comparison - SA vs. CMP - enrolment - SA 11.53Footnote *** 1.39 9.92Footnote ** 1.66
SA - enrolment vs. CMP - enrolment-SA 14.04Footnote *** 0.73 2.40 0.80
D. Specialized Community Family Violence Maintenance Program Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group (N = 150)
FV-comparison vs. FV-enrolment 8.89Footnote ** 2.19 6.18Footnote * 2.72
E. Relative Effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group and Specialized Family Violence Maintenance Programs (N = 208)
CMP-comparison-FV vs. CMP-enrolment-FV 6.63Footnote * 1.69 1.95 1.75
FV-enrolment vs. CMP-enrolment-FV 14.28Footnote *** 0.35 2.02 0.52

_____________
Table 7 . Readmission outcomes for Aboriginal offenders, by program types
  Any Return to Custody New OffenceFootnote a
Comparisons χ2 Hazard-Ratio χ2 Hazard-Ratio

Footnotes

Notes:

Footnote -

analyses could not be completed due to insufficient sample size;

Return to footnote - referrer

Footnote a

Offenders were followed to their first incident of return. As such, all offenders who were returned on a technical revocation were censored at the time of their revocation; if these offenders incurred a new offence after the technical revocation, they would not be captured in the new offence outcome analyses.
In all analyses, the reference groups (coded as 0) were the program enrolment groups. For Analyses C and E, the reference groups were the Community Maintenance Program enrolment groups.

CMP-comparison = offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, the Community Maintenance Program. CMP-enrolment = Community Maintenance Program enrolment group; offenders who participated in Community Maintenance Program to some extent. SA-comparison = offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, specialized community substance abuse maintenance treatment
SA-enrolment = Community substance abuse maintenance program enrolment group. CMP-enrolment-SA = offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group who had an identified substance abuse treatment need. FV-comparison = offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, specialized community family violence maintenance program. FV- enrolment = Community family violence maintenance program enrolment group. CMP-enrolment-FV = offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group who had an identified family violence treatment need

Return to footnote a referrer

Footnote *

p < .05;

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote **

p < .01;

Return to footnote ** referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS and CPIC.

A. Community Maintenance Program Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group (N = 302)
CMP - comparison vs. CMP - enrolment 14.07Footnote *** 1.72 10.83Footnote ** 2.11
B. Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group (N = 732)
SA - comparison vs. SA - enrolment 19.8Footnote *** 1.49 6.16Footnote * 1.37
C. Relative Effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group and Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Programs Enrolment Group (N = 587)
CMP - comparison - SA vs. CMP - enrolment - SA 10.45Footnote ** 1.78 14.14Footnote *** 3.21
SA - enrolment vs. CMP - enrolment-SA 0.08 0.95 3.29 1.69
D. Specialized Community Family Violence Maintenance Program Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group (N = 38)
FV-comparison vs. FV-enrolment Footnote - Footnote - Footnote - Footnote -
E. Relative Effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group and Specialized Family Violence Maintenance Programs (N = 88)
CMP-comparison-FV vs. CMP-enrolment-FV Footnote - Footnote - Footnote - Footnote -
FV-enrolment vs. CMP-enrolment-FV Footnote - Footnote - Footnote - Footnote -

Analysis B: Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group

For both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal male offenders, participants in the specialized community substance abuse maintenance program enrolment group were significantly less likely to return to custody than offenders in the community substance abuse maintenance program comparison group. Specifically, for non-Aboriginal offenders, the program's comparison group was 1.45 times more likely to experience any return to custody and 1.56 times more likely to have returned on a new offence than the enrolment group. For Aboriginal offenders, the comparison group was 1.46 times more likely to experience any return to custody and 1.37 times more likely to return on a new offence (refer to Table 6).

Next, comparisons were drawn between the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group and the specialized community substance abuse programs enrolment group for non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal men. Overall, analyses suggested that specialized community maintenance programs had a more positive impact on readmission outcomes than the Community Maintenance Program, although the strength of these results varied between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Results are summarized in the following analyses.

Analysis C: Relative Effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group and Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Programs Enrolment Group

When non-Aboriginal offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group were compared to participants in the specialized community substance abuse maintenance program enrolment group, those in the specialized substance abuse maintenance program enrolment group were 0.73 times less likely to experience any return to custody than their counterparts in the Community Maintenance Program. However, no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups was found when the analysis was limited to new offences only (see Table 6 and refer to Appendices for detailed results).

For Aboriginal offenders with a substance abuse need, there was no evidence to suggest that the specialized substance abuse maintenance program was more effective than the Community Maintenance Program in reducing readmission (either any return to custody or new offence on first readmission) for Aboriginal participants (refer to Table 7).Footnote 48 However, smaller sample sizes may have reduced the power to detect any significant difference.

Analysis D: Specialized Community Family Violence Maintenance Program Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group

Non-Aboriginal male offenders in the specialized community family violence maintenance program comparison group were 2.19 times more likely to experience any return to custody or return for a new offence than offenders in the specialized community family violence maintenance program enrolment group. They were also 2.72 times more likely than non-Aboriginal program participants to return to custody on a new offence (refer to Table 6). Please note that small sample sizes precluded analyses for Aboriginal offenders.

Analysis E: Relative Effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group and Specialized Family Violence Maintenance Programs

When offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group were compared to specialized community family violence maintenance enrolment group, offenders in the specialized community family violence maintenance enrolment group were 0.35 times less likely to experience any return to custody than offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment program. There was no significant difference between the two group with respect to returns for a new offence (refer to Table 6).Footnote 49 Given the small sample size, these analyses were not conducted for Aboriginal offenders.

Objective 4: Cost-Effectiveness

Cost-effectiveness determines the relationship between the amount spent and the results achieved relative to alternative design and delivery approaches.

FINDING 11: Although the costs of delivering the Community Maintenance Program and a specialized community substance abuse maintenance program were comparable, the cost per completion was higher for the Community Maintenance Program due to lower completion rates.

The average enrolment and completion rates and expenditures for the Community Maintenance Program and the specialized community substance abuse maintenance program were calculated based on values from FY 2007/08 and FY 2008/09.Footnote 50 To calculate the average cost per enrolment and per completion, the average expenditures were divided by the average enrolment numbers and by the average completion numbers, respectively. The results are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8 . Average cost per enrolment and per completion of the Community Maintenance Program and the specialized community substance abuse maintenance program
  Average Enrolment
(A)
Average Completion
(B)
Average Expenditure
(C)
Average Cost per Enrolment
(D=C/A)
Average Cost per Completion
(E=C/B)
Note. Averages calculated using annual values from Fiscal Years 2007/08 and 2008/09.
Source: CRS.
Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Program 607.5 366 $595,314 $979.94 $1,626.54
Community Maintenance Program 767.5 376 $737,798 $961.30 $1,962.23

The average costs per participant enrolled in the Community Maintenance Program and the specialized community substance abuse maintenance program were approximately $961 and $980, respectively. However, the Community Maintenance Program was less cost-efficient than the specialized community substance abuse maintenance program in terms of completions. Consequently, the cost per completion for the Community Maintenance Program was 21% higher than the cost per completion for the specialized community substance abuse maintenance program ($1,962 vs. $1,627, respectively).

FINDING 12: The Community Maintenance Program was estimated to be more cost-efficient than the delivery of multiple maintenance programs for offenders with multiple needs, although this could not be examined directly due to lack of accurate financial and enrolment data for the community family violence maintenance program.

One of the goals of the Community Maintenance Program is to reduce the need for referrals to multiple programs. Among offenders who were referred to participate in the Community Maintenance Program, 23% had both substance abuse and family violence treatment needs.Footnote 51 At the time of the evaluation, accurate financial, enrolment, and completion data were not available for other specialized maintenance programs in the community. Nonetheless, for those offenders who had two or more needs, the cost of delivering multiple maintenance programs in the community could be less efficient compared to the delivery of the single Community Maintenance Program if program completion and effectiveness were comparable.

It is important to interpret these cost results in the context of the results in the Effectiveness Section. The Community Maintenance Program was more effective than the untreated comparison group in reducing readmissions. However, for non-Aboriginal offenders with substance abuse and family violence treatment needs, the Community Maintenance Program was not as effective in reducing the likelihood of readmission as the specialized maintenance programs, although no differences were observed between the groups with respect to a new offence on first return to custody. Furthermore, the present evaluation did not examine the relative effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program compared to participation in two specialized maintenance programs (i.e., substance abuse and family violence) due to the small number of offenders who were enrolled in both specialized programs. Thus, although the Community Maintenance Program is presumed to be more cost-efficient than the delivery of multiple maintenance programs, it is not known if the single program would be more effective in reducing readmission than participation in multiple programs. Of note, readmission is associated with increased cost of incarceration compared to community maintenance, as well as increased costs of the police, court and other criminal justice systems and services.

Objective 5: Unintended Outcomes

Unintended outcomes are areas wherein the program created or encountered any positive or negative effects.

The evaluation did not identify any unintended outcomes resulting from the implementation of the Community Maintenance Program.

Conclusion

The present evaluation replicated the positive treatment effect of the Community Maintenance Program on readmission compared to no treatment that was reported in the evaluation of CSC's Correctional Programs (Nafekh et al., 2009). In addition, this evaluation examined the relative effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program and specialized maintenance programs in the community. For non-Aboriginal offenders with substance abuse and family violence treatment needs, the specialized maintenance programs were associated with more significant reductions in returns to custody compared to the Community Maintenance Program. There was no difference between the programs with respect to readmission for a new offence on first return. For Aboriginal offenders, participants in the specialized substance abuse maintenance program were as likely as participants in the Community Maintenance Program to experience any return to custody and return for new offence. With respect to family violence, small Aboriginal offender sample sizes precluded comparative analyses.

These results, however, were based on data on a subsample of all Community Maintenance Program participants and excluded those who enrolled in the program since 2007. Moreover, although the cost of delivering the Community Maintenance Program is comparable to that of specialized substance abuse maintenance program in the community, the cost per completion is higher for Community Maintenance as a result of a lower program completion rate. Recent basic enrolment data for the Community Maintenance Program and specialized substance abuse maintenance program in the community indicate that there has been a substantial shift in enrolment in FY 2007/08 and 2008/09 where enrolment in the Community Maintenance Program increased by 135% while enrolment in specialized substance abuse maintenance decreased by 65%. However, the Community Maintenance Program completion rate remained lower (49% vs. 60.2%, respectively).

The finding that the Community Maintenance Program had a lower program completion rate relative to other programs was also reported in the evaluation of Correctional Programs (Nafekh et al., 2009). It was recommended that CSC strengthen the Community Maintenance Program to increase the number of successful program completions. In response, the Correctional Operations and Programs Sector proposed specific actions to address the recommendation and a management review of the strategy to be completed by March 2011. The development of an ICPM, of which the Community Maintenance Program is a part, has been completed and is undergoing a pilot testing.

Potential cost-savings as a result of increased efficiency in program delivery (i.e., providing the single Community Maintenance Program to offenders with multiple needs rather than multiple specialized maintenance programs) could not be assessed in the present evaluation, as reliable 2007/08 and 2008/09 data on enrolment, completion, and expenditures for specialized family violence maintenance programs in the community were not available at the time of evaluation. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that the cost of delivering the Community Maintenance Program per offender enrolled was comparable to that of delivering specialized substance abuse maintenance program. Thus, for offenders who have multiple needs, the Community Maintenance Program could potentially result in substantial cost-savings if the effectiveness of the single program is comparable to those of multiple specialized maintenance programs.

Finally, future evaluations will need to examine the relative effectiveness, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program and specialized maintenance programs in the community. Since the Community Maintenance Program was implemented in such a way as to gradually replace specialized maintenance programs in the community, it is important to ensure that archival program enrolment, completion, and financial data are available for future evaluations in order to enable examination of the relative effectiveness of specialized maintenance programs in the community and the Community Maintenance Program (e.g., through a quasi-experimental cohort study).

RECOMMENDATION 1. In order to provide further direction regarding the use of specialized versus generic maintenance programs in the community, CSC should complete specific analyses to re-assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program as part of the scheduled research to be conducted on the Integrated Correctional Program Model pilot. Furthermore, in accordance with CSC's approved 5-year evaluation plan, CSC should re-evaluate the relative effectiveness of maintenance programs in the community as part of the evaluation of CSC's Correctional Reintegration Programs.

RECOMMENDATION 2. CSC should ensure that accurate future and archival enrolment, completion, and expenditure data are available to allow additional comparisons between the Community Maintenance Program and all specialized maintenance programs in the community.

RECOMMENDATION 3. CSC should identify and address the reasons for low completion rates of the Community Maintenance Program.

References

Allison, P. D. (1999). Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Altschuler, D. M, & Armstrong, T. L. (1999). Reintegrative confinement and intensive aftercare. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4th Ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/ Matthew Bender.

Andrews, D. A., Bonta., J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.

Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1), 88-100.

Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.

Beal, C., Weekes, J. R., Millson, W. A., & Eno, J. (1997). Computerized vs. personal interviews for the identification of offender substance abuse problems. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario.

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. (Cat. No. PS3-1/2007-6). Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.

Brews, A., Luong, D., Nafekh, M., Verbrugge, P., Jansen, T., Nolan, A., et al. (2010). Evaluation Report: Community Employment Centres Initiative (File # 394-2-82). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Brown, B. S., O'Grady, K. E., Battjes, R. J., Farrell, E. V., Smith, N. P., & Nurco, D. N. (2001). Effectiveness of a stand-alone aftercare program for drug-involved offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 21, 185-192.

Brown, J. D. (2004). Managing the transition from institution to community: A Canadian Parole Officer perspective on the needs of newly released federal offenders. Western Criminology Review, 5, 97-107.

Castellano, T. C. (1995). Aftercare. Corrections Today. 95, 80-88.

Correctional Service Canada. (2003a). Commissioner's Directive 726: Correctional Programs. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2003b). Offender intake assessment and correctional planning, Standard operating practice: 700-04. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2004a). Evaluation Framework for the Effective Corrections Initiative (File # 394-2-21). Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2004b). Program Description Tables: December 2004, Version 1.2. Ottawa, ON: Reintegration Programs Division, Correctional Service Canada.

Correctional Service Canada (2005, May 18). Transition to the National Substance Abuse Programs (NSAP) Model. Bulletin: Reintegration Programs. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correction Service Canada (2006). Commissioner's Directive 700: Correctional Interventions. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2007a). Commissioner's Directive 705: Intake Assessment Process. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2007b). Commissioner's Directive 705-6: Correctional planning and criminal profile. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2008a). 2007-2008 Departmental Performance Reports. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correction Service Canada (2008b). Community Maintenance Program Pre-Post Program Assessment Summary. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2009a). Correctional Operations and Program. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2009b). National Correctional Programs Referral Guidelines. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2009c). Correctional Service Canada 2009-2010 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2009d). Correctional Program Descriptions. Ottawa, ON: Reintegration Programs Division, Correctional Service Canada.

Correctional Service Canada (2009e). Commissioner's Directive 712-1: Pre-release decision making. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada Review Panel (2007). A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety. A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca .

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. (1992), c.20.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2004). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48(2), 203-214.

Dowden, C., Antonowicz, D., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). The effectiveness of relapse prevention with offenders: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(5), 516-528.

Gillis, C. A., & Nafekh, M. (2005). The impact of community-based employment on offender reintegration. Forum on Corrections Research, 17, 10-14.

Gitzel, N. (1997). Family Violence Risk Assessment and Family Violence Programming Prairie Region. Unpublished manuscript.

Government of Canada (2006). Canada's Performance: The Government of Canada's Contribution. Annual Report to Parliament (Catalogue No. BT1-10/2006). Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Grella, C. E., & Greenwell, L. (2007). Treatment needs and completion of community-based aftercare among substance-abusing women offenders. Women's Health Issues, 17, 244-255.

Hanley, D. (2006). Appropriate services: examining the case classification principle. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 42(4), 1-22.

Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., et al. (2002). First report of the Collaborative Outcome Data Project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment of sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169-194.

Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principle of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 36(9), 865-891.

Kropp, P.R. & Hart, S.D. (2000). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) guide: Reliability and validity in adult male offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 101-118.

Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Eaves, D. (1995). Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (2nd ed.). Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Institute on Family Violence.

Kunic, D., & Grant, B. A. (2006). The Computerized Assessment of Substance Abuse (CASA): Results from the demonstration [2006 No. R-173].Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Laws, D. R. (1999). Relapse prevention: The state of the art. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 285-302.

Lightfoot, L. O., & Hodgins, D. (1988). A survey of alcohol and drug problems in incarcerated offenders.  International journal of the addictions, 23, 687-706.

Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 6, 611-641.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575-594.

MacKenzie, D. L. (1999). Commentary: The effectiveness of aftercare programs examining the evidence. In D. M. Altschuler, T. L. Armstrong, & D. L. MacKenzie, (eds.) Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Reintegration, supervised release, and intensive aftercare. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Marlatt, G. A., & Gordon, J. R. (1985). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviour. New York: Guilford.

Matheson, F. I., Doherty, S., & Grant, B. A. (2008). Women offender substance abuse programming & community reintegration (2009 No R-202). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada. Retrieved on January 28, 2010 from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r202/r202-eng.shtml

McGrath, R. J., Hoke, S. E., Vojtisek, J. E. (1998). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of sex offenders: A treatment comparison and long-term follow-up study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25(2), 203-225.

Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. (2007). Report of the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel (Cat. No. PS84-14/2007E). Ottawa, ON: Author.

Motiuk, L., Cousineau, C., & Gileno, J. (2005). The Safe Return of Offenders to the Community: Statistical Overview. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Nafekh, M., Allegri, N., Fabisiak, A., Batten, D., Stys, Y., Li, H., et al. (2009). Evaluation Report: Correctional Service Canada's Correctional Programs. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Nicholaichuk, T., & Yates, P. (2002). Treatment efficacy: Outcomes of the Clearwater Sex Offender Program. In B. K. Schwartz (Ed.), The sex offender: Current treatment modalities and systems issues (pp. 7.1-7.8). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Peters, R. H. (1993). Relapse prevention approaches in the criminal justice system. In T. T. Gorski, J. M. Kelley, L. Havens, & R. H. Peters (Eds.), Relapse prevention and the substance-abusing criminal offender (Technical Assistance Publication Series, No. 8DHHS, Pub. N, SMA, 95-3071). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment.

Reintegration Programs Division, Correctional Service Canada (2004a). Program Description Tables: December 2004, Version 1.2. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Reintegration Programs Division (2009). Correctional Program Descriptions. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Robinson, D., Fabiano, E., Porporino, F. P., Millson, W. A., & Graves, G. (1993). A guide to the use of the Computerized Lifestyle Assessment Instrument for substance abuse (2nd ed.). Ottawa, ON: Research and Statistics Branch, Correctional Service Canada.

Robinson, D., & Millson, W. A. (1991). Comparison of computerized interview and file information in the identification of offender substance abuse problems. Unpublished manuscript, Correctional Service of Canada.

Selzer, M. L. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 1653-1658.

Skinner, H. A., & Horn, J. L. (1984). Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS): User's Guide. Toronto, ON: Addiction Research Foundation.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Taylor, K., Stys, Y., Jensen, T., Batten, D., Fabisiak, A., Eredyli, L., et al. (2008). Evaluation Report: Correctional Service Canada's Employment Strategy: Institutional Component (File # 394-2-74). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2007). About the Treasury Board. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved on October 13, 2009, from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/tbs-sct/abu-ans/tb-ct/abu-ans-eng.asp

Vanderburg, S. A., Weekes, J. R., & Millson, W. A. (1994). Assessment of substance abuse problems in Native offenders: The Computerized Lifestyle Assessment Instrument. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Walsh, T. (2006). Is corrections correcting? An examination of prisoner rehabilitation policy and practice in Queensland. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39, 109-133.

Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (1996). Relapse prevention: A critical analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8, 177-200.

Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (2000). A self-regulation model of relapse prevention. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Weekes, J. R., Moser, A. E., & Langevin, C. M. (1997). Assessing substance abuse offenders for treatment. Workshop presented at the meeting of the International Community Corrections Association, Cleveland, Ohio.

Weekes, J. R., Vanderburg, S. A., & Millson, W. A. (1995). A comparison of the French and English versions of the Computerized Lifestyle Assessment Instrument. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service Canada.

Wodahl, E. J. (2006). The challenge of prisoner reentry from a rural perspective. Western Criminology Review, 7, 32-47.

Wormith, J. S., & Olver, M. E. (2002). Offender treatment attrition and its relationship with risk, responsivity, and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 447-471.

Yazar, R. (2003). The Community Maintenance Program: A new strategy for providing treatment follow-up in the community. Forum on Corrections Research, 15(1).

Yazar, R. (2008). Community Maintenance Program: Program Manual Version IV. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Zamble, E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1997). The criminal recidivism process. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Appendices

Appendix A: Commissioner's Directive 726: Correctional Programs

According to CD 726: Correctional Programs (CSC, 2003a), offenders are to

"be assigned to a correctional program based on their Correctional Plan and on established correctional program selection criteria"

(p. 3). Furthermore, CD 726: Correctional Programs (CSC, 2003a) specifies that correctional programs must:

  1. be based on theory and supporting research (an empirically-based model of change);
  2. target criminogenic factors;
  3. address the diverse needs of women, Aboriginal and other groups of offenders with special requirements;
  4. be skills-oriented;
  5. take into account the particular characteristics of offenders to help ensure that they derive maximum benefit from the program (responsivity);
  6. address the particular risk and need profiles of offenders through their scope, intensity, duration and type of group setting (program intensity);
  7. ensure a continuum of care between institutions and the community (continuity of care);
  8. include a detailed program description;
  9. include a plan for monitoring and evaluation; and
  10. be delivered using proven treatment methods, in the least restrictive environment possible consistent with staff, offender and public safety, and according to approved standards. (CSC, 2003a, p. 3.)

Appendix B: Community Maintenance Program: Background

The Community Maintenance Program framework (Yazar, 2003) is based on the relapse prevention model, which is a cognitive-behavioral treatment technique that focuses on teaching individuals alternate responses to high risk situations. It was initially developed to prevent substance abuse relapse following treatment (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985) but was adapted for use with sexual reoffending (Laws, 1999). To date, relapse prevention is the most common model underlying most of CSC's treatment programs. The Community Maintenance Program is also based on the self-regulation model (Ward & Hudson, 1998), which was designed to address the limitations of the relapse prevention model. The self-regulation model describes two possible goals regarding reoffending (i.e., avoidance and approach) and two possible strategies (i.e., active and passive) that result in four possible offence pathways (i.e., passive or active avoidance, and automatic or explicit approach). Treatment strategies differ depending on the offence pathway that is applicable for the offender of interest. Further, the Community Maintenance Program is also based on a coping model of criminal recidivism (Zamble & Quinsey, 1997), which implies that treatment should be based on the identification of an offender's individual offence path and precursors and stress active and collaborative problem-solving.

To summarize, the development of the Community Maintenance Program was based on the following guidelines (Yazar, 2003):

  • Based on a relapse prevention or self-management model of treatment;
  • A follow-up program to maintain already learned skills, rather than teaching new skills;
  • Focus on applying skills to everyday problems which offenders experience;
  • Written and delivered using a simplified and jargon-free language;
  • Readily comprehensible and usable by graduates of the different programs which would "feed" into it;
  • Continuous intake to enable an offender to begin maintenance quickly, if not immediately, upon entry into the community;
  • Be capable of being delivered either individually or in a group format to increase availability and accessibility; and
  • Recognize the risk and need principles of effective correctional interventions (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, & Cullen, 1990) - that is, target the criminogenic needs of moderate or high risk offenders.

The Community Maintenance Program consists of a cycle of 12 weekly two-hour sessions (Yazar, 2003). Six of the sessions are structured and consist of skills rehearsal: review and practice of six core skills clusters common to many correctional treatment programs. The remaining six sessions are less structured, and consist of the application of the core skills to everyday problems, obstacles, and high risk situations. The skills and application sessions alternate, with the full cycle requiring approximately 90 days to complete. Each of these sessions is independent from one another, and as such, offenders may begin or terminate the program at any point in the cycle. Program participants may also repeat sessions or the entire cycle as necessary to address their needs.

The Community Maintenance Program also aims to enhance risk management in the community by providing parole officers with regular and comprehensive information about dynamic risk. Alternating bi-weekly sessions, called self-management sessions, focus on reviewing individual risk factors and high risk situations, as well as coping strategies. This information is recorded in casework records in CSC's automated Offender Management System (OMS) for information purposes (CSC, 2004a).

Community Maintenance Program: Assessment of Skill Competence Prior to and After Treatment

A core component of the Community Maintenance Program was the development of comprehensive dynamic risk and skills measures to assess risk and need (skill competence) before and after the program. As of 2008,Footnote 52 participant performance in the Community Maintenance Program is measured using pre-post program ratings (CSC, 2008b). The pre-program rating summary is designed to help identify the participant's risk factors and level of skill in the six core skill areas, and includes summary of life style and other risk factors, and responsivity factors. The post-program rating summary is completed by the facilitator immediately following the program, and indicates the level of skill knowledge and understanding and application demonstrated by the participant during the program. The program facilitator also completes a "summary of current risk factors" which is an inventory of indicators of increased risk for harmful behaviour. The summary is completed on an ongoing basis to monitor progress and help identify the need for immediate intervention as well as upon completion of the program to determine the need for continued participation in the Community Maintenance Program.

Appendix C: Evaluation Matrix

Evaluation Objective 1: Relevance:
Does the policy, program or initiative remain consistent with departmental and government wide priorities?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Information Sources
  1.  
Effective Corrections Initiatives' activities are consistent with other correctional reintegration strategies, and continue to operate under originally intended principles and guidelines. The initiative is comparable to those existing in other correctional jurisdictions.
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • Document review
Initiative's activities are run according to program handbooks
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • Document review
Initiative's planned results are consistent with CSC's Report on Plans and Priorities
  • Document review
Initiatives target client group is consistent with CSC's Report on Plans and Priorities
  • Literature and document reviews
  1.  
Effective Corrections Initiatives serve the public interest. Research (national and international) support the relevance of the initiative.
  • Literature and document reviews - Auditor General's Report: 1999, 2003
Initiative's activities support CSC's Mandate
  • Document review
  1.  
There is an appropriate, legitimate and necessary role for CSC in Effective Corrections initiatives. Stakeholders concede/ confirm the initiative(s) are relevant.
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
Initiative's activities support CSC's Mandate
  • Document review
Initiative's planned results are consistent with CSC's Report on Plans and Priorities
  • Document review - Auditor General's Report: 1999, 2003
Evaluation Objective 2: Success: (Efficiency)
Is the policy, program or initiative producing its planned outputs in relation to expenditure of resources, and meeting its planned results?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Information Sources
  1.  
Community contact for capacity development purposes occurs regularly. (Increase the information available to Parole Officers in the community through CMP Case Work Records, Intake, Interim and Final Reports, and case-conferencing) Increased collaborations between Community and Institutional Parole Officers.
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • File reviews.
Parole officers perceive they have enough information
  • Interview / surveys with key informants
Parole officers receive the required information in a timely manner
  • Interview / surveys with key informants
Increased availability of (or access to) after-care in rural locations Programs are run more frequently
  • list of program available by region
Participants have easy access to programs
  • Frequency count of offender locations
  • Key informant interviews / surveys
  1.  
There is a regular pattern of offender-intervention. (Increase the number of admissions to maintenance programming in the community, especially in remote regions) More programs offered in rural locations
  • Link data above to postal codes and analyse for urban/rural settings
Offenders are able to access programs being offered
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • OMS
Increased ability to generate the required number of program participants at smaller sites to be able to deliver programs
  • Use the same geo-mapping software Kelly is using
  1.  
There is a well developed cadre of tools and resources made available to aid in the facilitation of the offender reintegration process. (Create national capacity for training facilitators) (Create regional capacity for program delivery) Training programs are available to facilitators
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • List of training programs
More programs are offered across all regions
  • List of training programs by region
Reduced program facilitator training times typically required for competence in multiple maintenance programs
  • Key informant interviews / surveys
Increased support for professionals involved in community programming
  • Key informant interviews / surveys
Reduce the time for admission to maintenance programming after release to the community Offenders are admitted to maintenance programs immediately upon release
  • OMS - time from release to first program participation /
  • proportion of all referals that result in program participation
Reduce the number of cross-referrals to multiple maintenance programs in the community More offenders are referred to only one maintenance program
  • If CMP is working at least as well as other programs, then this answers the question
  • Program data
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
Offenders are referred to fewer maintenance programs
  • Program data
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
Reduce the need for multiple maintenance programs in the community Existing maintenance programs are better able to offer all services required
  • If CMP is working at least as well as other programs, then this answers the question
Offenders are more likely to be enrolled in only one maintenance program
  • Program data
Offenders are more likely to be enrolled in fewer maintenance programs
  • Program data
Increase the number of non-CSC service providers (from the voluntary sector) who provide CSC reintegration programs More programs are offered by non-CSC service providers
  • List of who is performing CMP
More non-CSC service providers are available to offer programs
  • List of who is performing CMP
  • Key informant interviews / surveys
Create regional capacity for quality review for CSC and non-CSC program providers Outside scope of this review Outside scope of this review
Evaluation Objective 2: Success: (Effectiveness)
Is the policy, program or initiative producing its planned outputs in relation to expenditure of resources, and meeting its planned results?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Information Sources
  1.  
High Usage of Effective Corrections Initiative activities by the targeted groups High pre-post participation rates.
  • Program data
Offenders are appropriately referred to Pathways
  • OMS programs module.
  • Interviews with participants and stakeholders
Referred offenders utilize the services
  • OMS programs module.
  • Interviews with participants and stakeholders
  1.  
The initiative's target group demonstrates positive results. (Reduce the number of suspensions in the community due to elevated risk in cases where the risk can be safely addressed by programming instead of through suspension) (Reduce recidivism for moderate to high risk offenders) Needs of offenders better addressed when compared to a matched group.
  • OMS.
  • Interviews / surveys with participants and stakeholders
Improved reintegration when compared to matched counterparts.
  • Pre-post measures (OMS data)
Within group analyses reveal positive pre-post changes across dynamic risk factors.
  • Pre-post measures (OMS data)
Evaluation Objective 3: Cost-effectiveness
Have the most appropriate and efficient means being used to achieve outcomes?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Information Sources
  1.  
Outputs / Outcomes listed in the logic model have been effectively achieved with designated funding. An examination of all measures of success (see above) reveals initiative outcomes are appropriately and effectively achieved.
  • Interviews / survey with Stakeholders, file reviews and OMS queries.
  1.  
Effective Corrections Initiatives value for money type analyses yield positive results. Comparisons of costs and success levels will be drawn with other initiatives where appropriate.
  • Interviews / survey with Stakeholders, file reviews and OMS queries.
Evaluation Objective 4: Implementation Issues
Has the policy, program or initiative been managed in such a way that goals and objectives can be realistically achieved, and have management implementation issues been adequately considered?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Information Sources
  1.  
Staff members and offenders at other institutions have knowledge of Effective Corrections Initiative activities and their purpose. Staff at other institutions know the goal of the Effective Corrections initiative and how the initiative intends to achieve that goal
  • Interviews / survey with Institution Staff
Offenders know of the initiative and admission criteria
  • Offender interview / survey
  1.  
Initiatives operate according to standards set out in policy. Stakeholders confirm implementation key results have been achieved adequately.
  • Interviews/ surveys with stakeholders
Review of relevant documents reveals implementation key results have been achieved.
  • Review of relevant documentation.
  1.  
The Effective Corrections Initiative activities are supported by both internal and external CSC staff. Internal and External staff have a positive regard for the initiative
  • Interviews / survey with Institution Staff
  • Interviews/ surveys with stakeholders
Internal and External staff would recommend the initiative to clients if possible
  • Institution Staff Survey
  • Interviews/ surveys with stakeholders
  1.  
Effective Corrections Initiative activities are carried out in a similar manner and fashion, where initiatives extend beyond a single institution, area or region. All Institutions offering the initiative have been identified
  • Interviews/ surveys with stakeholders
All institutions offering the initiative are aware of and follow the same initiative documentation
  • Review of relevant documentation.
  1.  
Partnerships exist and function at an optimal level. The most appropriate partners are responsible for the delivery of services and/or programs.
  • Interviews / survey with partnership stakeholders.
Evaluation Objective 5: Unintended Findings - Has the
policy, program or initiativecreated/encountered any positive or negative unintended effects?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Information Sources
  1.  
Have there been any other impacts or effects resulting from the initiative? Views of senior management, staff, offenders, community stakeholders regarding any unintended impacts
  • Survey of staff and community stakeholders
  • Interviews with offenders Review of documents and files

Appendix D: Evaluation Strategy

Staff and Contracted Service Provider Surveys

Staff and contracted service provider survey respondents who had no or limited familiarity with the CMP were asked the extent to which information about the CMP would be beneficial to their work capacity. The majority of this group (62%; n = 73) indicated that the information would be moderately to completely beneficial and the majority (78%) indicated that they would like to learn more about the CMP. Most frequently, respondents indicated that workshop or information sessions would be the best method to deliver information about the CMP (43%; n = 18), followed by email (33%; n = 14).

Table A 1. Staff and Contracted Service Provider Positions
  Frequency (n) Percentage (%)
RegionFootnote a

Footnotes

Note.

Footnote a

One staff member did not respond to the region item. Percentages calculated out of N = 167.

Return to footnote a referrer

Atlantic 25 15%
Quebec 28 17%
Ontario 24 14%
Prairie 53 32%
Pacific 33 20%
NHQ 4 2%
Staff Respondent Position
Community Program Delivery Staff 40 24%
Institutional Program Delivery Staff 27 16%
Community Parole Officer/ Supervisor 24 14%
Program Manager 18 11%
Institutional Parole Officer 16 10%
Other 9 5%
Project Coordinator 6 4%
Regional Coordinator/ Area Director/ Associate District Director 5 3%
Correctional Officer 4 2%
Manager of Assessment and Intervention 4 2%
Unspecified 4 2%
Psychologist/ Psychiatrist 3 2%
Manager (unspecified) 3 2%
Project officer/ analyst/ assistant 3 2%
Program Coordinator 2 1%
Total 168 100%
Study Groups for Quantitative Analyses
Description of group comparisons performed

Quantitative methods were used to compare the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group (CMP-enrolment) with different comparison groups on specific demographic and correctional variables (i.e., age, aboriginal ethnicity, risk and need). For each variable, the CMP-enrolment group was compared to a group of offenders who were assigned to, but did not participate in, the Community Maintenance Program (CMP-comparison). Furthermore, subsamples of the CMP-enrolment group with a substance abuse need (CMP-enrolment-SA) and family violence need (CMP-enrolment-FV) were respectively compared to offenders who participated in a specialized substance abuse maintenance program (SA-enrolment) and in a specialized family violence maintenance program (FV-enrolment).

Age at release

The mean of age at release for all the relevant program and comparison groups is presented in Table A2. Differences were only found among offenders who had an identified substance abuse need. Specifically, offenders who were in the specialized substance abuse maintenance program (SA-enrolment) were slightly older than those in the CMP-enrolment-SA group who had a substance abuse need.

Table A 2. Age at release
  N M SD rc

Footnotes

Note:

Footnote a

SA: Refers to offenders identified as having a need for substance abuse treatment.

Return to footnote a referrer

Footnote b

FV: Refers to offenders identified as having a need for family violence treatment.

Return to footnote b referrer

Footnote c

Performed using the log transformation of age at release to improve the distribution and reduce the influence of outliers.

Return to footnote c referrer

Footnote *

p < .05.

Return to footnote * referrer

Sources: OMS.

CMP Total SampleFootnote c t(1281) = -0.09
CMP-enrolment 510 32.73 8.86 --
CMP Comparison 773 32.73 8.94 .00
Substance AbuseFootnote c F(2, 2505) = 4.45Footnote *
CMP-enrolment-SAFootnote a 308 32.46 8.74 --
CMP Comparison -SAFootnote a 450 32.79 8.61 .02
SA-enrolmentFootnote a 1,750 33.99 9.65 .05Footnote *
Family ViolenceFootnote c F(2, 293) = 1.23
CMP-enrolment-FVFootnote b 83 35.95 8.02 --
CMP Comparison-FVFootnote b 135 34.18 7.57 -.07
FV-enrolmentFootnote b 78 34.87 8.58 -.01
Aboriginal Status

The proportion of Aboriginal offenders for all groups is depicted in Table A3. The proportion of Aboriginal offenders in the CMP-enrolment group was significantly smaller than the proportion of Aboriginal offenders in the CMP-comparison group. With respect to offenders assigned to the Community Maintenance Program, a smaller proportion of participants in the CMP-enrolment were Aboriginal in comparison to those who were assigned to but who did not participate in the Community Maintenance Program (CMP-Comparison). Furthermore, a smaller proportion of offenders in the specialized family violence (FV-enrolment) group was Aboriginal compared to the CMP-enrolment group.

Table A 3. Aboriginal status
  N Yes No Odds Ratio

Footnotes

Note:

Footnote a

SA: Refers to offenders identified as having a need for substance abuse treatment.

Return to footnote a referrer

Footnote b

FV: Refers to offenders identified as having a need for family violence treatment.

Return to footnote b referrer

Footnote**

p < .01,

Return to footnote ** referrer

Footnote ***

p <. 001.

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS.

CMP Overall χ2(1, N = 1283) = 8.15Footnote **
CMP-enrolment 510 19% 81% --
CMP Comparison 773 26% 74% 1.48Footnote **
Substance Abuse χ2(2, N = 2508,) = 3.93
CMP-enrolment-SAFootnote a 308 21% 79% --
CMP Comparison -SAFootnote a 450 27% 73% 1.35
Specialised SAFootnote a 1,750 23% 77% 1.09
Family Violence χ2(2, N = 296) = 25.64Footnote ***
CMP-enrolment-FVFootnote b 83 29% 71% --
CMP Comparison -FVFootnote b 135 41% 59% 1.74
Specialised FVFootnote b 78 10% 90% .28Footnote **
Risk Level

Only two groups differed in terms of level of risk. Offenders in the specialized substance abuse maintenance program had lower risk ratings compared to the subsample of offenders in the CMP-enrolment group who also had a substance abuse need (see Table A4).

Table A 4. Risk
  N Low Moderate High Odds Ratio

Footnotes

Note:

Footnote a

Logistic regression performed on data where low risk and moderate risk were collapsed because the too few risk ratings were low risk.

Return to footnote a referrer

Footnote b

SA: Refers to offenders identified as having a need for substance abuse treatment.

Return to footnote b referrer

Footnote c

FV: Refers to offenders identified as having a need for family violence treatment.

Return to footnote c referrer

Footnote *

p < .05,

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001.

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS.

CMP OverallFootnote a χ2 (1, N = 1283) = 1.78
CMP-enrolment 510 4% 43% 54% --
CMP Comparison 773 6% 37% 57% 1.7
Substance AbuseFootnote c χ2 (2, N = 2508) = 33.64Footnote ***
CMP-enrolment-SAFootnote b 308 3% 43% 55% --
CMP Comparison-SAFootnote b 450 5% 36% 59% 1.19
Specialised SAFootnote b 1,750 11% 44% 45% .68Footnote ***
Family ViolenceFootnote a χ2 (2, N = 296) = 7.64Footnote *
CMP-enrolment-FVFootnote c 83 4% 37% 59% --
CMP Comparison-FVFootnote c 135 4% 27% 69% 1.54
Specialised FVFootnote c 78 6% 44% 50% .69
Need Level

Offenders in the specialized substance abuse maintenance program had lower need levels compared to offenders in the CMP-enrolment group who had a substance abuse need. Finally, with respect to offenders with a family violence need, offenders in the CMP-comparison group were more likely to have higher need ratings than those in the CMP-enrolment group (refer to Table A5).

Table A 5. Need level
  N Low Moderate High Odds RatioFootnote c

Footnotes

Note:

Footnote a

SA: Refers to offenders identified as having a need for substance abuse treatment.

Return to footnote a referrer

Footnote b

FV: Refers to offenders identified as having a need for family violence treatment.

Return to footnote b referrer

Footnote c

Logistic regression performed on data where low need and moderate need were collapsed because too few ratings were low need.

Return to footnote c referrer

Footnote *

p < .05,

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001.

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS.

CMP Overall χ2(1, N = 1283) = .17
CMP - enrolment 510 3% 27% 69% --
CMP Comparison 773 2% 28% 71% 1.05
Substance Abuse χ2(2, N = 2508) = 17.69Footnote ***
CMP - enrolment - SAFootnote a 308 1% 25% 74% --
CMP Comparison - SAFootnote a 450 2% 25% 73% .96
Specialised SAFootnote a 1,750 4% 32% 65% .66Footnote *
Family Violence χ2(2, N = 296, 2) = 14.57Footnote ***
CMP - enrolment - FVFootnote b 83 2% 22% 76% --
CMP Comparison - FVFootnote b 135 0% 13% 87% 2.20Footnote *
Specialised FVFootnote b 78 5% 29% 65% 0.60

Appendix E: Findings

Detailed results from chi-squared tests on enrolment levels.
Substance Abuse MaintenanceFootnote 53
Table A 6. Enrolment levels for the Community Maintenance Program and specialized community substance abuse maintenance programs.
Enrolment Result CMP SAMP Chi-Square
n % n %
Note. CMP = Community Maintenance Program, SAMP = Substance Abuse Maintenance Program
Overall Enrolled 321 41.21 1752 65.89 χ2(1, N = 3438) = 153.33, p < .0001
Comparison 458 58.79 907 34.11
Aboriginal Offenders Enrolled 67 35.26 401 60.67 χ2(1, N = 851) = 38.48, p < .0001
Comparison 123 64.74 260 39.33
Non-Aboriginal Offenders Enrolled 254 43.12 1351 67.62 χ2(1, N = 2587) = 115.89, p < .0001
Comparison 335 56.88 647 32.38
High Intensity Interventions Enrolled 22 40.00 134 67.00 χ2(1, N = 255) = 13.24, p < .001
Comparison 33 60.00 66 33.00
Medium Intensity Interventions Enrolled 206 41.28 1181 68.19 χ2(1, N = 2231) = 119.23, p < .0001
Comparison 293 58.72 551 31.81
Low Intensity Interventions Enrolled 132 58.67 437 60.11 χ2(1, N = 952) = 24.55, p < .0001
Comparison 93 41.33 290 39.89
Urban locations Enrolled 226 39.30 1356 66.15 χ2(1, N = 2625) = 135.11, p < .0001
Comparison 349 60.70 694 33.85
Remote locations Enrolled 89 48.37 372 66.07 χ2(1, N = 747) = 18.39, p < .0001
Comparison 95 51.63 191 33.93

Table A 7. Enrolment levels for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal participants.
Enrolment Result Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Chi-Square
n % n %
Community Maintenance Program Enrolled 90 34.35 350 43.21 χ2(1, N = 1072)= 6.42, p < .05
Comparison 172 65.65 460 56.79
Specialized Substance Abuse Maintenance Enrolled 498 59.22 1698 65.99 χ2(1, N = 3414)=12.69, p < .001
Comparison 343 40.78 875 34.01

Table A 8. Enrolment levels for offenders supervised in remote and urban locations.
Enrolment Result Remote Urban Chi-Square
n % n %
Community Maintenance Program Enrolled 129 48.13 301 39.09 χ2(1, N = 1038) = 6.70, p < .01
Comparison 139 51.87 469 60.91
Specialized Substance Abuse Maintenance Enrolled 485 64.24 1675 64.62 χ2(1, N = 3347) = 0.04, p = .8463
Comparison 270 35.76 917 35.38
Family Violence Maintenance ProgramFootnote 54
Table A 9. Enrolment levels for Community Maintenance Program and specialized community family violence maintenance programs.
Enrolment Result CMP FVMP Chi-Square
n % n %
Note: CMP = Community Maintenance Program, FVMP = Family Violence Maintenance Program
Overall Enrolled 86 38.22 78 48.45 χ2(1, N = 386) =  4.02, p < .05
Comparison 139 61.78 83 51.55
Aboriginal Offenders Enrolled 25 30.49 8 25.00 χ2(1, N = 114) =  0.34, p = .5615
Comparison 57 69.51 24 75.00
Non-Aboriginal Offenders Enrolled 61 42.66 70 54.26 χ2(1, N = 272) =  3.66, p = .0558
Comparison 82 57.34 59 45.74
High Intensity Interventions Enrolled 30 37.04 22 38.60 χ2(1, N = 138) = 0.03, p = .8523
Comparison 51 62.96 35 61.40
Medium Intensity Interventions Enrolled 56 38.89 56 53.85 χ2(1, N = 248) =  5.46, p < .05
Comparison 88 61.11 48 46.15
Urban locations Enrolled 63 37.95 67 48.91 χ2(1, N = 303) = 3.68, p = .0552
Comparison 103 62.05 70 51.09
Remote locations Enrolled 21 41.18 11 45.83 χ2(1, N = 75) =0.14, p = .7037
Comparison 30 58.82 13 54.17

Table A 10. Enrolment levels for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.
Enrolment Result Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Chi-Square
n % n %
Community Maintenance Program Enrolled 26 29.55 72 43.64 χ2(1, N = 253) = 4.80, p <.05
Comparison 62 70.45 93 56.36
Specialized Family Violence Maintenance Enrolled 15 27.78 136 53.54 χ2(1, N = 308) = 11.83, p <.001
Comparison 39 72.22 118 46.46

Table A 11. Enrolment levels for offenders supervised in remote and urban locations.
Enrolment Result Remote Urban Chi-Square
n % n %
Community Maintenance Program Enrolled 25 42.37 71 38.17 χ2(1, N = 245) = 0.03, p=.5647
Comparison 34 57.63 115 61.83
Specialized Family Violence Maintenance Enrolled 26 49.06 124 48.82 χ2(1, N = 307) = 0.001, p=.9749
Comparison 27 50.94 130 51.18
Description of Community Maintenance Program Completers and Dropouts
Table A 12. Age of Release
  N M SD t-value
CMP completers 231 33.20 9.38 t(480) =1.55, p = .1210
CMP dropouts 251 31.94 8.47

Table A 13. Aboriginal Status
  N Yes No Chi-Square
CMP completers 231 18.18% 81.82% χ2(1, N = 482) = .02, p = .8780
CMP dropouts 251 18.73% 81.27%

Table A 14. Risk
  N Low Moderate High Odds Ratio

Footnotes

Note:

Footnote *

p < .05

Return to footnote * referrer

χ2(1, N = 482) = 4.54, p = .0330Footnote *
CMP completers 231 5.63% 45.02% 49.35% - -
CMP dropouts 251 2.79% 39.44% 57.77% 1.405Footnote *

Table A 15. Need Level
  N Low Moderate High Odds Ratio

Footnotes

Note:

Footnote *

p < .05

Return to footnote * referrer

χ2(1, N = 463) = 5.84, p = .0157Footnote *
CMP completers 231 4.57% 31.96% 63.47% - -
CMP dropouts 251 2.87% 22.95% 74.18% 1.518Footnote *

Table A 16. Requirement for Substance Abuse Treatment
  N Yes No Chi-Square

Footnotes

Note:

Footnote **

p < .01.

Return to footnote ** referrer

CMP completers 223 82.06% 17.94% χ2(1, N = 462) = 6.77, p = .0093Footnote **
CMP dropouts 239 90.38% 9.62%

Table A 17. Requirement for Family Violence Treatment
  N Yes No Chi-Square
CMP completers 159 28.93% 71.07% χ2(1, N = 336) = 2.49, p = .1148
CMP dropouts 177 21.47% 78.53%

Detailed Description of Cox Regression Analysis results for Readmission
Non-Aboriginal offenders

Table A 18. Analysis A: Community Maintenance Program Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group for Non-Aboriginal Offenders
  Any return to custody New Offence
Comparisons χ2 Hazard Ratio χ2 Hazard Ratio

Footnotes

Notes: For any return to custody, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(4, N = 981) = 51.21, p < .001. For new offence, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(4, N = 981) = 58.90, p < .001.

Footnote **

p < .01,

Return to footnote ** referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001.

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS.

Age at Release (log transformation) 14.02Footnote *** 0.60 38.61Footnote *** 0.24
Risk 6.97Footnote ** 1.246 2.47 1.24
Need 3.69 1.19 0.37 1.09
CMP-comparison vs. CMP-Enrolment 21.19Footnote *** 1.41 17.99Footnote *** 1.69

Table A 19. Analysis B: Offenders with identified substance abuse need: Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group for Non-Aboriginal Offenders
  Any return to custody New Offence
Comparisons χ2 Hazard Ratio χ2 Hazard Ratio

Footnotes

Notes: For any return to custody, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(4, N = 2216) = 111.46, p < .001. For new offence, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(4, N = 2216) = 78.51, p < .001.

Footnote *

p < .05,

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote **

p < .01,

Return to footnote ** referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001.

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS.

Age at Release (log transformation) 32.97Footnote *** 0.56 45.10Footnote *** 0.34
Risk 16.34Footnote *** 1.29 4.19Footnote * 1.23
Need 9.61Footnote ** 1.22 2.57 1.18
SA - comparison vs. SA - Enrolment 40.82Footnote *** 1.45 23.11Footnote *** 1.56

Table A 20. Analysis C: Relative Effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group and Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Programs Enrolment Group for Non-Aboriginal Offenders
  Any return to custody New Offence
Comparisons χ2 Hazard Ratio χ2 Hazard Ratio

Footnotes

Notes: For any return to custody, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(5, N = 1921) = 129.22, p < .001. For new offence, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(5, N = 1921) = 73.97, p < .001.

Footnote **

p < .01,

Return to footnote ** referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001.

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS.

Age at Release (log transformation) 22.58Footnote *** 0.60 35.73Footnote *** 0.35
Risk 14.65Footnote *** 1.28 3.75 1.23
Need 2.84 1.12 0.17 1.05
CMP-comparison-SA vs.
CMP-Enrolment-SA
11.53Footnote *** 1.39 9.92Footnote ** 1.66
SA-Enrolment vs.
CMP- Enrolment -SA
14.04Footnote *** 0.73 2.40 0.80

Table A 21. Analysis D: Offenders with family violence treatment need: Specialized Community Family Violence Maintenance Program Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group for Non-Aboriginal Offenders
  Any return to custody New Offence
Comparisons χ2 Hazard Ratio χ2 Hazard Ratio

Footnotes

Notes:For any return to custody, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(4, N = 150) = 10.82, p = .03. For new offence, the overall model is marginally reliable, χ2(4, N = 150) = 8.96, p = .06.

Footnote *

p < .05,

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote **

p < .01,

Return to footnote ** referrer

Sources: OMS.

Age at Release (log transformation) 1.05 0.60 1.57 0.37
Risk 0.63 1.28 0.04 0.92
Need 1.70 0.65 0.63 0.69
FV-comparison vs. FV-Enrolment 8.90Footnote ** 2.19 6.18Footnote * 2.72

Table A 22. Analysis E: Relative Effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group and Specialized Family Violence Maintenance Programs for Non-Aboriginal Offenders
  Any return to custody New Offence
Comparisons χ2 Hazard Ratio χ2 Hazard Ratio

Footnotes

Notes: For any return to custody, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(5, N = 208) = 46.24, p < .001. For new offence, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(5, N = 208) = 12.83, p = .03.

Footnote *

p < .05,

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote **

p < .01,

Return to footnote ** referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001.

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS.

Age at Release (log transformation) 6.73Footnote ** 0.32 5.93Footnote * 0.14
Risk 0.22 1.10 0.65 1.37
Need 0.35 0.87 2.30 0.52
CMP-comparison-FV vs. CMP-Enrolment-FV 6.63Footnote * 1.69 1.95 1.75
FV- Enrolment vs. CMP- Enrolment -FV 14.28Footnote *** 0.35 2.02 0.52

Aboriginal Offenders

Table A 23. Analysis A: Community Maintenance Program Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group for Aboriginal Offenders
  Any return to custody New Offence
Comparisons χ2 Hazard Ratio χ2 Hazard Ratio

Footnotes

Notes: For any return to custody, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(4, N = 302) = 40.82, p < .001. For new offence, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(4, N = 302) = 43.02, p < .001.

Footnote *

p < .05,

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote **

p < .01,

Return to footnote ** referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001.

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS.

Age at Release (log transformation) 15.63Footnote *** 0.35 23.40Footnote *** 0.13
Risk 8.63Footnote ** 1.57 4.10Footnote * 1.56
Need 0.41 1.11 0.54 1.20
CMP-comparison vs. CMP-Enrolment 14.07Footnote *** 1.72 10.83Footnote ** 2.11

Table A 24. Analysis B: Offenders with identified substance abuse need: Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Comparison Group vs. Enrolment Group for Aboriginal Offenders
  Any return to custody New Offence
Comparisons χ2 Hazard Ratio χ2 Hazard Ratio

Footnotes

Notes: For any return to custody, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(4, N = 732) = 75.33, p < .001. For new offence, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(4, N = 732) = 67.90, p < .001.

Footnote *

p < .05,

Return to footnote * referrer

Footnote **

p < .01,

Return to footnote ** referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001.

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS.

Age at Release (log transformation) 37.48Footnote *** 0.35 44.47Footnote *** 0.19
Risk 15.27Footnote *** 1.47 10.42Footnote ** 1.56
Need 0.54 1.08 1.33 1.20
SA - comparison vs. SA -Enrolment 19.86Footnote *** 1.49 6.16Footnote * 1.37

Table A 25. Analysis C: Relative Effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Enrolment Group vs. Comparison Group and Specialized Community Substance Abuse Maintenance Programs Enrolment Group for Aboriginal Offenders
  Any return to custody New Offence
Comparisons χ2 Hazard Ratio χ2 Hazard Ratio

Footnotes

Notes: For any return to custody, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(5, N = 587) = 69.62, p < .001. For new offence, the overall model is statistically reliable, χ2(5, N = 587) = 69.56, p < .001.

Footnote **

p < .01,

Return to footnote ** referrer

Footnote ***

p < .001.

Return to footnote *** referrer

Sources: OMS.

Age at Release (log transformation) 21.39Footnote *** 0.42 31.17Footnote *** 0.21
Risk 14.20Footnote *** 1.55 9.69** 1.67
Need 1.32 1.16 2.04 1.31
CMP-comparison-SA vs.
CMP-Enrolment-SA
10.45Footnote ** 1.78 14.14Footnote *** 3.21
SA- Enrolment vs.
CMP- Enrolment -SA
0.08 0.95 3.29 1.70

Appendix F: Offender Risk and Needs

Reintegration potential, static and dynamic risk factors

CSC conducts a full assessment and referral process on each inmate at intake, addressing their program and security needs, which may include medical, psychological, psychiatric, employment and educational assessment. With this information, a Correctional Plan is created. The Correctional Plan is the principal document that provides a comprehensive initial assessment of the offender and an identification of proposed interventions. It is the base document against which all progress is measured. The Correctional Plan provides a succinct description of the critical information that is required to understand how the offender's sentence is to be managed from inception to Warrant Expiry. The Correctional Plan is reviewed at regular intervals and Correctional Plan Progress Reports are prepared to summarize the review process (CSC, 2007a).

Prior to release, a Community Strategy is developed, built upon the Correctional Plan Progress Reports. The Community Strategy includes a risk assessment, outlines how the various dynamic factors will continue to be addressed in the community, how the offender will be monitored in the community and determines the level of intervention to be applied upon the offender's release to the community (CSC, 2009e).

Motivation level is re-assessed against the following criteria:

  • Recognition that a problem exists with lifestyle, behaviour and resulting consequences;
  • Level of comfort with problem and its impact on offender's life;
  • Level of feeling of personal responsibility for the problem(s);
  • Willingness to change or intention to fully participate in correctional plan;
  • Possession of skills, knowledge required to effect change in behaviour (e.g., is ready to change);
  • Level of external support from family, friends or other community members; and,
  • The offender's case management strategy group.

Reintegration potential is assessed based on the following criteria:

  • Score on the Statistical Information on Recidivism - Revised 1 (SIR-R1) scale;
  • Level of intervention based on static factors;
  • Level of intervention based on dynamic factors;
  • Security reclassification scale outcome; and; et,
  • Level of motivation.

Static factors are based on historical information related to risk that is available at the time of the offender's admission to federal custody. The SIR-R1 scale is used in analyzing static factors. The SIR-R1 combines measures of demographic information and criminal history in a scoring system that yields probability estimates of success or failure within three years of release (CSC, 2007b).

The dynamic level of intervention is based on the assessment of dynamic factors. Dynamic factors are based on information related to the offender's needs that are available at the time of the offender's admission into federal custody. When offenders undergo their initial assessment upon intake into the correctional system, part of the assessment involves administering the Dynamic Factor and Identification Analysis (DFIA).Footnote 55 The DFIA assesses dynamic factors. It contains seven components: employment, marital/family, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation, and attitudes.

Footnotes

Footnote 1

The Correctional Service Canada (CSC) is the federal government agency responsible for administering sentences imposed by the courts that are two years or more. Sentence administration includes the management of correctional institutions of various security levels and the supervision of offenders under conditional release in the community. More information regarding CSC, including policy and legislation, is available at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca.

Return to footnote 1 referrer

Footnote 2

Memorandum from Director, Reintegration Programs Division to Regional Administrators Reintegration on the Community Maintenance Program, March 7, 2008.

Return to first footnote 2 referrer

Footnote 3

Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA; 1992) is the act that governs the "corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of the Correctional Investigator". The CCRA defines the purpose of the federal correctional system and outlines the principles that guide CSC.

Return to footnote 3 referrer

Footnote 4

Directives are policy documents that outline a policy's objective, authorities, definitions, responsibilities and principles.

Return to footnote 4 referrer

Footnote 5

Responsivity refers to maximizing "the offender's ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention by providing cognitive behavioural treatment and tailoring the intervention to the learning styles, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offender" (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2007, p. 1).

Return to footnote 5 referrer

Footnote 6

Refer to Appendix A for additional information regarding corrections programs as per CD 726: Correctional Programs.

Return to footnote 6 referrer

Footnote 7

The three agencies are CSC, National Parole Board, and Public Safety Canada.

Return to 7 referrer

Footnote 8

The seven domains are employment, family/marital relationships, associates/social interaction, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation, and attitude, assessed upon admission into the federal correctional system and re-assessed throughout the offender's sentence (CSC, 2006).

Return to footnote 8 referrer

Footnote 9

Relapse rehearsal: involves "identifying potential relapse situations and focuses on the development of skills to address these occurrences through corrective feedback in multiple opportunities for rehearsal of low-risk responses" (Laws, 1999).

Return to footnote 9 referrer

Footnote 10

Additional information could not be provided as a copy of the original report pertaining to the internal review could not be obtained.

Return to footnote 10 referrer

Footnote 11

Based on current evaluation information needs, data availability, and other factors, not all of the planned results were addressed within the scope of the present evaluation. The evaluation questions are defined in section 2.1 of this report.

Return to footnote 11 referrer

Footnote 12

"The Correctional Operations and Programs Sector is responsible for the integrity of community and institutional operations across CSC and for improving the delivery of safe corrections" (CSC, 2009a).

Return to 12 referrer

Footnote 13

Memorandum from Director, Reintegration Programs Division to Regional Administrators Reintegration on the Community Maintenance Program, March 7, 2008.

Return to footnote 13 referrer

Footnote 14

Memorandum from Director, Reintegration Programs Division to Regional Administrators Reintegration on the Community Maintenance Program, March 7, 2008.

Return to footnote 14 referrer

Footnote 15

Andrews and colleagues (2003) found that correctional programs that adhered to the principles of risk, need, and responsivity were associated with a mean reduction of 53% in recidivism compared to control groups.

Return to footnote 15 referrer

Footnote 16

For a more detailed listing of key results, performance indicators, analyses and data sources please see the evaluation matrix in Appendix C.

Return to footnote 16 referrer

Footnote 17

For women offenders, CSC implemented the Community Relapse Prevention and Maintenance program, which was evaluated by CSC's Addiction Research Centre and Research Branch as part of a research study on the Women Offender Substance Abuse Program. Readers who are interested in the impact of the Community Relapse Prevention and Maintenance program on recidivism are directed to the research report completed by Matheson, Doherty, and Grant (2008).

Return to17 referrer

Footnote 18

Due to a small number of participants in specialized community maintenance programs, only substance abuse and family violence maintenance programs were included in the analyses. Offenders who require violence prevention maintenance in the community are referred to the Community Maintenance Program.

Return to footnote 18 referrer

Footnote 19

Some offenders were referred to more than one community maintenance program; therefore, the number of offenders listed for each program type is greater than the total number of offenders in the overall sample. Note that offenders who were assigned to more than one maintenance program were excluded from the outcome analyses to ensure group independence.

Return to footnote 19 referrer

Footnote 20

Supplementary intake assessment instruments are discussed in section 2.3.3 of this report.

Return to footnote 20 referrer

Footnote 21

Note that all of the offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment and comparison groups had initially been referred to participate in the program.

Return to footnote 21 referrer

Footnote 22

Community service providers who did not have access to the online survey were asked to complete a paper version of the survey and return to the Evaluation Branch via fax. Nine of the 306 completed surveys were returned by fax.

Return to first footnote 22 referrer

Footnote 23

The substance abuse maintenance and family violence maintenance programs were the only two groups for which sample sizes were sufficiently large to conduct comparative analyses.

Return to footnote 23 referrer

Footnote 24

Technical revocation includes revocation of day parole, full parole, or statutory release.

Return to footnote 24 referrer

Footnote 25

The cost of delivery and cost-efficiency was not calculated for the specialized community family violence program due to financial data limitations (please refer to the Limitations section for more detail).

Return to footnote 25 referrer

Footnote 26

ANOVA is a statistical procedure used to examine whether or not there is a significant difference between two or more means (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Post hoc analyses are statistical tests that are used to examine specifically where the significant difference lies when the results of the ANOVA indicate that there is a significant difference.

Return to first footnote 26 referrer

Footnote 27

Logistic regression is a statistical analysis to examine whether or not variables predict a categorical (outcome) variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). It can also be used to examine which variables play a significant role in predicting the outcome. In these analyses, the categorical variable was group membership.

Return to footnote 27 referrer

Footnote 28

Direct logistic regression is used when all of the predictors are entered into the statistical model at the same time (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) and in this case, then there were only two levels to the outcome variable.

Return to footnote 28 referrer

Footnote 29

Multinomial logistic regression is the type of logistic regression that is conducted when there are more than two levels of the categorical variable. Ordered multinomial logistic regression generates probability that an observation is above the reference level (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

Return to footnote 29 referrer

Footnote 30

The cumulative logit coefficient is essentially a weighted average of odds ratios based on possible categorizations of the profile variable (Allison, 1999).

Return to footnote 30 referrer

Footnote 31

Cox regression is a type of survival analysis that predicts survival time from a set of covariates (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) while controlling for varying follow-up time.

Return to 31 referrer

Footnote 32

The hazard ratio is the ratio between the instantaneous risk of the event at one level of the covariate, in relation to the instantaneous risk of the event at another level of the covariate, taken over the entire length of the follow-up period.

Return to footnote 32 referrer

Footnote 33

CSC utilizes several measures of risk and need, including the overall risk and overall need levels, which are operational tools that have also been utilized as measures of risk and need in previous research and evaluation studies (e.g., Community Employment Centres Initiatives [Brews et al., 2010]). For these reasons, and since overall risk can be used with non-Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders, whereas other measures (e.g., SIR-R1) have only been validated for use with non-Aboriginal offenders, the overall risk and need scores were utilized in the present study. However, in order to validate the results obtained utilizing these measures, results related to the effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program and specialized maintenance programs for non-Aboriginal offenders were re-run utilizing another possible combination of risk and need indicators (i.e., SIR-R1 and number of dynamic needs). Furthermore, there was a possibility that previous programs taken in the institution may have impacted upon readmission outcomes, including, for example, the NSAP program, which was shown to be associated with significant reductions in readmissions rates (Nafekh et al., 2009). Thus, offender participation in the NSAP program was also included in the alternate model comparing the relative effectiveness of the Community Maintenance Program and the specialized substance abuse maintenance program for non-Aboriginal offenders to determine its impact on the outcome analyses. The overall pattern of results was the same utilizing this alternate model, supporting the findings obtained in this study utilizing the overall risk and need levels which are applicable to both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Thus, no additional analyses are reported in the Effectiveness section.

Return to footnote 33 referrer

Footnote 34

Information regarding the assessment procedures for offender reintegration potential, static and dynamic risk factors is presented in Appendix F.

Return to footnote 34 referrer

Footnote 35

The evaluation team was informed that, although the Community Maintenance Program eligibility criteria were expanded to include offenders who completed any correctional program, sexual offenders were not referred to the Community Maintenance Program to address issues related to sexual offending (Manager, Community Maintenance Program and Violence Prevention Program, personal communication, November 9, 2009).

Return to footnote 35 referrer

Footnote 36

Canada's Performance 2006: The Government of Canada's Contribution. Available at http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/06/cp-rc-eng.pdf.

Return to 36 referrer

Footnote 37

Sexual offender programs were not one of the feeder programs identified in the program descriptions tables in 2004 (CSC, 2004b). According to the Project Officer (personal communications, February 11, 2010), the CMP was also intended to be used as a follow-up to sex offender programs but was not used for that purpose as a result of "the personal comfort level of the facilitators in dealing with this specific population". However, by 2009, the Community Maintenance Program eligibility criteria were revised to completion of any correctional program (CSC, 2009b), thus expanding the program to groups of offenders on whom it has not been piloted or tested.

Return to footnote 37 referrer

Footnote 38

Excluded from this Chi-square test were individuals referred to both generic and specialized maintenance programs, as well as offenders with no identified requirement for substance abuse treatment. This pattern of results was similar when separate analyses were conducted for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders and for different substance abuse treatment intensity levels (high, medium and low). See Appendix E for detailed statistical analyses.

Return to footnote 38 referrer

Footnote 39

However, when the analysis was further limited to various treatment intensity levels and to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offender groups, some differences were not statistically significant. This was likely affected by smaller sample sizes when analyses were conducted separately for these levels. Specifically, the sample sizes for family violence maintenance were smaller than for substance abuse maintenance, thereby limiting the power of the analysis to detect difference between the Community Maintenance Program and the specialized community family violence maintenance program. Refer to Table A8 in Appendix E for detailed statistical results.

Return to footnote 39 referrer

Footnote 40

Note that accurate data for specialized community family violence programs for 2007/08 and 2008/09 were not available through the CRS. As such, enrolment and completion rates for specialized community family violence programs were not reported.

Return to footnote 40 referrer

Footnote 41

As reported in the Sample Composition section, the dataset included only those offenders for whom a complete set of data (including follow-up data on recidivism) was available.

Return to41 referrer

Footnote 42

As was noted elsewhere in the report, sample sizes for family violence maintenance were considerably smaller than those for substance abuse maintenance, thereby limiting the power of the analysis to detect a difference between the Community Maintenance and specialized family violence maintenance programs.

Return to footnote 42 referrer

Footnote 43

Offenders in the specialized substance abuse maintenance program had lower risk and need ratings compared to offenders in the Community Maintenance Program who had a substance abuse need.

Return to footnote 43 referrer

Footnote 44

Analyses were conducted for all Community Maintenance Program dropouts rather than subsamples of participants who had substance abuse of family violence program needs.

Return to footnote 44 referrer

Footnote 45

More specifically, the log transformation of age of release was used as the covariate as the distribution of age of release was skewed.

Return to footnote 45 referrer

Footnote 46

This data extraction method also precluded outcome analyses for returns on violent conviction as the large majority of the offenders (i.e., over 90%) were censored at the preceding readmission event.

Return to first footnote 46 referrer

Footnote 47

These results are consistent with the results reported in the Correctional Programs evaluation (Nafekh et al., 2009) although the hazard ratios in the present evaluation utilized the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group as the reference category (in order to be consistent in Analyses C and E) while the analyses in the Correctional Programs evaluation utilized the Community Maintenance Program comparison group as the reference group. The hazard ratio presented in this report and those presented in the Correctional Programs Evaluation (barring errors associated with rounding) are inverses of one another.

Return to footnote 47 referrer

Footnote 48

Analyses were also completed to examine the readmission outcomes for offenders with substance abuse treatment needs in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment and comparison groups (i.e., Analysis A). For both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders, offenders in the Community Maintenance Program comparison group were more significantly more likely to experience any return to custody and to have returned for a new offence than the offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group.

Return to footnote 48 referrer

Footnote 49

Analysis was also completed to examine the readmission outcomes for offenders with family violence treatment needs in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment and comparison groups (i.e., Analysis A) for non-Aboriginal offenders. The results indicated that non-Aboriginal offenders in the Community Maintenance Program comparison group were more significantly more likely to experience any return to custody than the offenders in the Community Maintenance Program enrolment group. No difference was found for returns on a new offence.

Return to footnote 49 referrer

Footnote 50

At the time of evaluation, cost analyses could not be completed for specialized family violence maintenance program as reliable data were not available.

Return to footnote 50 referrer

Footnote 51

Note that this proportion was calculated at all offenders who were referred to the Community Maintenance Program while the outcome analyses excluded offenders who were referred to both the Community Maintenance Program and the specialized maintenance programs.

Return to footnote 51 referrer

Footnote 52

The program performance measures initially developed to measure program performance were the Dynamic Risk Instrument (DRI-IV) and the Skills Competency Measure (SCM). However, these tools proved to be time consuming and were therefore replaced in 2008.

Return to footnote 52 referrer

Footnote 53

Offenders who were referred to both Community Maintenance and specialized substance abuse maintenance programs were excluded from these calculations, as were individuals with no identified substance abuse need.

Return to footnote 53 referrer

Footnote 54

The calculations exclude offenders who were referred to both Community Maintenance and specialized family violence maintenance programs. In addition, the analyses were limited to those individuals with an identified family violence need.

Return to footnote 54 referrer

Footnote 55

For more information regarding the DFIA, see CD 705-6, Correctional Planning and Criminal Profile (CSC, 2007b).

Return to footnote 55 referrer