Evaluation Report

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Evaluation Report: Community Employment Centres Initiative

Evaluation Branch
Policy Sector
January 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS

Evaluation report prepared by:

Albert Brews
Evaluation Officer
Evaluation Branch, Policy Sector
Correctional Service Canada

Duyen Luong
Senior Evaluator
Evaluation Branch, Policy Sector
Correctional Service Canada

Mark Nafekh
Director
Evaluation Branch, Policy Sector
Correctional Service Canada

Evaluation Team Members:
Paul Verbrugge, Evaluation Officer
Tamara Jensen, Evaluation Officer
Amanda Nolan, Evaluation Analyst
Brittany MacDonald, Evaluation Analyst
Eugenia Didenko, Evaluation Officer
Liz Loree, Evaluation Analyst
Lindsey Pecaric, Evaluation Analyst
Christopher Rastin, Evaluation Officer
Vanessa Anastasopoulos, Senior Evaluator

Correctional Service Canada’s
Community Employment Coordinator Program

SIGNATURES

Original signed by

……………………………………………
Dr. Pamela M. Yates
Director General
Evaluation Branch

March 11, 2010
……………………………………………
Date

Original signed by

…………………………………………
Lynn Garrow
Associate Assistant Commissioner
Policy

March 11, 2010
……………………………………………
Date

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

According to data from the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) Offender Management System (OMS), approximately 61% of offenders admitted to federal institutions have some or considerable need in the employment domain. Furthermore, research has found that offenders conditionally released to the community who are employed were significantly less likely to recidivate than those who were unemployed (Gillis & Nafekh, 2005; Taylor et al., 2008). As such, Correctional Service Canada’s1 (CSC’s) Community Employment Centres initiative provides services and programs intended to provide meaningful employment interventions to conditionally-released offenders, thus increasing their likelihood of safe and successful reintegration.

Community Employment Centres offer employment services to offenders through partnerships with CSC 2, other government and community partners such as Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, John Howard Society, St. Leonard’s Society and the private sector. The primary objectives of Community Employment Centres are to provide a spectrum of employment services, including individual employment assessment, counselling, job search techniques, and on-the-job placements, to offenders released to the community. Funding was allocated to augment Community Employment Centre services from the original eight centres in 2000 to 25 centres in 2005 (Gillis, Nafekh, Pepin, Beriau & Jeffery, 2005). There were 53 Community Employment Centres at the time this evaluation was prepared (CSC, 2009).

Evaluation Context
Evaluations of the five Effective Corrections Initiatives were conducted between July 2008 and June 2009 as part of the mandated Treasury Board of Canada reporting requirements. The evaluations consisted of five distinct evaluations – specifically 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 Community Employment Centre initiative.

The importance of addressing offenders’ employment needs has been the theme of recent internal and external reviews. Specifically, offender employment has been emphasized in an independent review, and two internal evaluations.

Results of the independent review, A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety (CSC Review Panel, 2007), were published in December 2007, and focused on the operations, policies and plans of CSC in order to strengthen its contribution to public safety. Briefly, the report sets out a vision for transforming the federal corrections system based on, among other things, more employment and employability skills for offenders.

The first internal evaluation was an evaluation of the Community Employment Centre initiative completed in 2005 (Gillis et al., 2005) that found Effective Corrections funding allowed for an increased capacity to provide employment services and interventions to offenders, where few had existed prior to the initiative. Nine recommendations emerged from the 2005 evaluation (Gillis et al., 2005) which included improving the referral and assessment processes, enhancing outreach services, ensuring that offenders released from the institutions have relevant documentation required to obtain employment, and reviewing the service delivery model once performance measurement strategies had been in place for a sufficient period of time.

The second internal evaluation (Taylor et al, 2008) evaluated CSC’s Employment and Employability Program. The purpose of the evaluation was to examine the intake assessment and assignment process and the institutional intervention process, as they related to employment initiatives and resulting correctional outcomes. Briefly, results of the evaluation indicated a number of positive outcomes, yet highlighted limitations such as gaps in the availability of job placements and vocational programs.

Evaluation Strategy
The evaluation was conducted by the Evaluation Branch of CSC. The evaluation was completed to inform decision-making on the future disposition of the Community Employment Centre initiative and focused on continued relevancy, implementation, success, and cost-effectiveness as well as unintended impacts.

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

  • Interviews with Community Employment Centre participants;
  • Electronic surveys with community employment coordinators and CSC staff members;
  • Data derived from CSC’s automated database - the Offender Management System (OMS), and the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC);
  • A review of relevant documentation [e.g., Commissioner’s Directives (CDs) and program documents), Corrections and Conditional Release Act,information provided by CSC staff members to the evaluation team, a previous evaluation of the Community Employment Centres completed by the Evaluation Branch (Gillis et al., 2005), an evaluation of CSC’s Employment and Employability Program (Taylor et al, 2008); and,
  • A review of the relevant literature regarding community employment programs.

Information was gathered through the Offender Management System operated by Correctional Service Canada on all offenders who participated in the Community Employment Centres initiative from 2000 to 2008 with known employment status, employment need, and a start date for participation in the Community Employment Centre initiative. (N = 6,937). These participants were compared to a group of offenders with known employment status and employment need who were released between January 1, 2002 and June 1, 2009 and who did not receive services from Community Employment Centres.

Further information was gathered though interviews with offenders who had participated in Community Employment Centres and Community Employment Coordinators and through surveys with staff members of Correctional Service Canada who were aware of the services offered by Community Employment Centres. Interviews were conducted in person by the evaluation team and members of CSC’s Evaluation Branch in March, 2009.

In order to address the effectiveness of Community Employment Centres, the evaluation examined program participation and readmission. Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the effect of program participation on readmission. Cost effectiveness was examining the initiative ability to achieve its desired outcomes within the budget allocated.

Financial Expenditures
Financial resources to support the Community Employment Centres are provided by the Treasury Board3 (TB) and CORCAN. The Quebec Region also has an additional annual budget of $361,417 allocated to fund Community Employment Centres. Since 2006/07, the total funds allocated for the Community Employment Centre initiative was approximately $7.2 million.

Resource allocations for the Community Employment Centres initiative for 2005/06 to 2008/09
  2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

TB Allocation

500,000

500,000

500,000

CORCAN Contribution from Revenue Generation

1,393,016

1,448,792

1,732,558

Quebec Region

361,417

361,417

361,417

Total Budget

2,254,433

2,310,209

2,593,975

Region Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual

Atlantic

351,600

320,300

365,893

395,961

410,558

396,268

Quebec from TB and CORCAN

306,000

271,556

306,000

354,455

459,000

422,545

Quebec (region) a

361,417

352,500

361,417

352,700

361,417

349,300

Ontario

541,016

484,519

573,300

458,727

541,000

541,983

Prairie

353,900

364,204

362,599

346,858

455,500

498,555

Pacific

340,500

254,171

341,000

292,330

366,500

353,200

Total

2,254,433

2,047,250

2,310,209

2,201,031

2,539,975

2,561,851

Note. a In addition to funds from TB and CORCAN, the Quebec Region also has an additional annual budget of $361,417 allocated to fund Community Employment Centres in the region.

Key Findings

FINDING 1: The Community Employment Centres initiative is consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities.

FINDING 2: The services provided through the Community Employment Centres are similar to those found in international jurisdictions that have shown promise in improving offenders' employment status and decreasing recidivism rates.

FINDING 3: There is a continued need for the Community Employment Centres initiative, given the goals and objectives of the initiative and the current offender profile.

FINDING 4: Not all regions assessed employment needs in the same manner, therefore, making comparative analyses inconclusive.

FINDING 5: Offenders with high employment needs as well as those with low employment needs received services from the Community Employment Centres.

FINDING 6: Community Employment Centres were located in 30 of the 75 largest municipalities in Canada.

FINDING 7: Community employment coordinators and CSC staff members indicated that the continuum of employment services offered in the institution and in the community could be better integrated by: i) raising awareness of Community Employment Centre services; and ii) increasing the level of collaboration between institution and community staff members.

FINDING 8: Staff members and community employment coordinators indicated that there was frequent communication between employment coordinators and current and potential employers; however, there is a need to increase potential employers’ awareness of the Community Employment Centres.

FINDING 9: CSC staff members and community employment coordinators were not aware of formal processes to link employment assessment results to programs and services. However, participants nonetheless indicated that assessments were completed and that they were directed to the services they required.

FINDING 10: Services offered by Community Employment Centres were being accessed by offenders regularly and by offenders who were in need of the service.

FINDING 11: Interviewed participants and CSC staff members indicated a need to increase training and educational opportunities for offenders in the community.

FINDING 12: According to interviewed participants, the Community Employment Centres have resulted in enhancements to the number of employment opportunities, the quality work, the availability of support, and the level of offenders’ self-esteem and confidence to obtain employment. Interviewed participants also reported using significantly more job search methods to obtain employment after incarceration than before.

FINDING 13: Community Employment Centre participants were more likely to obtain employment than the control group. In addition, interviewed participants who obtained employment through the Community Employment Centres were more likely to be satisfied with their employment than their counterparts who found employment on their own.

FINDING 14: Offenders who received services through Community Employment Centres were significantly less likely to be readmitted, for both technical violations and new offences, when compared to those who did not receive services. The results were strongest for women offenders, non-Aboriginal offenders and offenders with high employment needs.

Recommendations

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CD
Commissioner’s Directive
COMO
Cost of Maintaining an Offender
CSC
Correctional Service Canada
IFMMS
Integrated Financial and Material Management System
IMRS
Integrated Management Reporting System
GCS
Government Consulting Services
OIA
Offender Intake Assessment
OMS
Offender Management System
SAS
Statistical Analysis  System
SPSS
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
TB
Treasury Board
VET
Vocational, Educational and Training Programs

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Program Profile

The Community Employment Centres initiative seeks to help offenders who have been released into the community and are still under the jurisdiction of CSC to find additional training or employment. Offenders are offered employment services through CORCAN4, partnerships with government (e.g., Human Resources and Skills Development Canada), non-government community partners (e.g., John Howard Society, OPEX, St. Leonard’s Society) and the private sector. The primary activities of the Community Employment Centres are the provision of individual employment assessments, job counselling, job search techniques and on-the-job placements to offenders released to the community.

Gillis and Nafekh (2005) reported that conditionally released Canadian federal men and women offenders who were able to find employment fared better in the community than a matched group of men and women offenders who were unemployed during conditional release. Specifically, employed men offenders were significantly more likely to successfully complete their community release and to spend more time in the community prior to a return than their matched unemployed counterparts. Further, employed male offenders were also less likely than their counterparts to be readmitted to federal custody for a technical revocation or with a new offence.

In a recent evaluation of Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) Employment and Employability Program, Taylor et al. (2008) found that unemployed offenders in the community were significantly more likely than employed offenders to be readmitted and to be convicted of a new offence. Specifically, compared to employed offenders, unemployed offenders were almost three times more likely to be readmitted within one year, over 2 times more likely to commit a new offence within two years, and 1.2 times more likely to commit a new violent offence within two years. The positive effect of being employed in the community on recidivism was true for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders and men offenders. Furthermore, employed women offenders were less likely to be readmitted to a federal institution than unemployed women offenders. Additional background information can be found in Appendix A.

1.2 Policy and Legislation

CSC is mandated by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide correctional programs to offenders. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (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 Corrections and Conditional Release Act, Commissioner’s Directive 726: Correctional Programs (CSC, 2003) provides a policy framework from which CSC can implement reintegration programming. The policy objectives are “to ensure that correctional programs meet the identified needs of offenders and promote successful reintegration” and “to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the correctional programs offered to offenders” (p. 1).

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 containing Canada’s incarceration rate and its associated costs. This strategy was to provide three categories of offender interventions: Aboriginal corrections, community corrections infrastructure, and public education/citizen engagement.

Starting in 2000, five million dollars was allocated over five years for Community Employment Centres under the Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure initiative. Effective Corrections funding supports initiatives that enhance the Community Corrections infrastructure, including Community Residential Alternatives, programs and program infrastructure, and training and job placements under which the Community Employment Centres initiative falls.

Community Employment Centres Initiative: Background

The Community Employment Centres initiative provides services and programs intended to increase offender employment in the community, with the intention of providing meaningful employment interventions to conditionally released offenders, and to build on skills attained in the institution through correctional interventions. This objective is consistent with CSC’s Mission and with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which states that “the Service [CSC] shall provide a range of programs designed to address the needs of offenders and contribute to their successful reintegration into the community” (Section 76). The community employment centres were implemented to offer a spectrum of employment services, including individual assessment, counselling, job-search techniques and on-the-job placement.

CORCAN, which operates Community Employment Centres across Canada for CSC, assists in the safe reintegration of offenders into the community by developing and providing the National Employability Skills Program and by providing employment and training opportunities to offenders during their incarceration and during supervision in the community. Each year, CORCAN trains approximately 4,000 offenders in employability skills, including communication and problem-solving, personal management and teamwork as well as providing training in four business areas: textiles, manufacturing, construction and services5. Results from the evaluation of the Employment and Employability Program suggested that employment interventions provided to offenders were consistent with their vocational skills, abilities, and interests (i.e., vocational congruence; Taylor et al., 2008). Furthermore, Taylor and colleagues found that vocational congruence is related to recidivism. Specifically, they reported that offenders employed in a position congruent with their interests, skills, and abilities were less likely to reoffend than those who were unemployed or employed in a position that was low on vocational congruence.

Community Employment Centres offer employment services to offenders not only through CORCAN but also via partnerships with CSC and other government and community partners such as Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, John Howard Society, OPEX, St. Leonard’s Society and the private sector. The primary objectives of Community Employment Centres are to provide a spectrum of employment services, including individual employment assessment, counselling, job search techniques and on-the-job placements to offenders released to the community.

The number of Community Employment Centres has increased with the onset of the Effective Corrections Initiative. When the Community Employment Centres initiative was evaluated in 2005, the number of Community Employment Centres in operation increased to 25 from the original 8 in 2000 (Gillis et al., 2005). There were 53 Community Employment Centres across the country as of the date this evaluation was prepared (Correctional Service Canada, 2009).

1.4 Governance Structure

CSC’s regions with the exception of Quebec each have a Community Employment Coordinator (full or half-time) who manages relationships between institutional and community-based parole officers, employment centres and employers. Each community employment coordinator is accountable to the CORCAN Regional Director who is responsible for the implementation and delivery of employment services and programs. Information is reported to the Employment and Employability Director at National Headquarters.

1.5 Planned Results

There were a number of results expected for this initiative.  Specifically, immediate outcomes included:

  • Increased parole officer and offender awareness of employment centres and services;
  • Identification of offenders’ employment strengths and areas for intervention;
  • Increased offender job readiness; and
  • Increased access to support resources.

Intermediate outcomes include:

  • Increased use of employment centre services;
  • Increased offender confidence/self-efficacy with regards to job searches;
  • Increased awareness of job search techniques; and
  • Job placements.

The ultimate outcome expected by Community Employment Centres is to contribute to the successful community reintegration of offenders through sustained employment – specifically including job readiness and employment, successful reintegration, and decreased recidivism.

1.6 Evaluation Context and Purpose of the Evaluation

The present evaluation was summative in nature and was conducted in accordance with TBS requirements to assess the continued relevance, implementation, success, cost-effectiveness, and unintended impacts of the Community Employment Centres initiative. The Community Employment Centres initiative had previously been evaluated by CSC (Gillis et al., 2005) and the Government Consulting Services (2006).

Gillis and colleagues’ (2005) evaluation of the Community Employment Centres found that offenders benefited from the centres through increased access to employment resources and community-based partnerships. Further, employment centres were recognized by stakeholders as providing important services to meet offenders’ employment needs and contributed to their community reintegration. Potential cost-savings associated with employment centres were significant, as employed offenders were more likely to remain in the community for longer periods of time than offenders who were unemployed. Gillis and colleagues also noted opportunities for improved functioning of the centres, most of which revolved around increased communication with staff members and offenders, particularly at the institutional level, and to community partners/potential employers. A need was also noted for a more comprehensive database that would enable CSC to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the current functioning and location of employment services in the community and to compare the relative efficacy of partner-operated and CSC-operated employment centres.

Nine recommendations emerged from this evaluation (Gillis et al., 2005) which included: implementing a process to identify and monitor participant progress; improving the referral and assessment processes; enhancing outreach services, ensuring that offenders released from the institutions have relevant documentation required to obtain employment; implementing a comprehensive financial tracking system; enhancing communication efforts to CSC staff members and external partners; and reviewing the service delivery model once the performance measurement strategies had been in place for a sufficient period of time.

In 2006, following a request from CORCAN, Government Consulting Services (GCS) reviewed the service delivery models used by CORCAN to provide employment services to offenders across the country (Government Consulting Services, 2006). The findings from interviews, site visits, and an online survey revealed that areas of potential improvement were related to data collection, contracts for the delivery of employment services, service delivery models, partnerships and bridging, and resources providing employment services. These findings were similar to the recommendations from the 2005 evaluation completed by the CSC’s Evaluation Branch (Gillis et al., 2005). Results of CSC’s evaluation of the Community Employment Centres initiated a series of actions aimed to address the recommendations that emerged from the evaluation, some of which directly affected the present evaluation. For example, as a response to one of the recommendations, data on Community Employment Centre participation have been systematically collected. These data enabled assessment of the relationship between Community Employment Centre participation and community outcome in the present evaluation.

Recently, CSC’s operational priorities, strategies and business plans underwent an intensive review. One finding tabled in the concluding report noted that employment programs had taken a lower priority to other correctional programs such as substance abuse and violence prevention programs, among other core need areas (Sampson, Gascon, Glen, Louiem & Rosenfeldt, 2007). The review also indicated that CSC staff members identified a need to enhance both the quantity and quality of work opportunities available in penitentiaries, to move from employing large numbers of offenders in general maintenance jobs to providing more meaningful skills development to prepare the offender for employment upon release.

Furthermore, the panel provided specific recommendations pertaining to offender employment issues (Sampson et al., 2007). Specifically, that “CSC/CORCAN focus on building formal relationships with employers to expand the employment opportunities for offenders” (p. 78) and that “CSC pay more attention to the attainment of higher educational levels and development of work skills and training to provide the offender with increased opportunities for employment in the community” (p. 65). These issues were addressed in the present evaluation.

1.7 Financial Expenditures

Table 1 presents the resource allocation for the Community Employment Centre initiative for the three-year period from 2005/20006 to 2008/2009.

Table 1: Resource Allocations for the Community Employment Centres Initiative for 2005/06 to 2008/09
 

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

TB Allocation

500,000

500,000

500,000

CORCAN Contribution from Revenue Generation

1,393,016

1,448,792

1,732,558

Quebec Region

361,417

361,417

361,417

Total Budget

2,254,433

2,310,209

2,593,975

Region Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Actual

Atlantic

351,600

320,300

365,893

395,961

410,558

396,268

Quebec from TB and CORCAN

306,000

271,556

306,000

354,455

459,000

422,545

Quebec (region) a

361,417

352,500

361,417

352,700

361,417

349,300

Ontario

541,016

484,519

573,300

458,727

541,000

541,983

Prairie

353,900

364,204

362,599

346,858

455,500

498,555

Pacific

340,500

254,171

341,000

292,330

366,500

353,200

Total

2,254,433

2,047,250

2,310,209

2,201,031

2,539,975

2,561,851

Note. a In addition to funds from TB and CORCAN, the Quebec Region receives additional funding directly from CSC to fund Community Employment Centres in the region.

1.8 Logic Model

The Community Employment Centre logic model, presented in Appendix B, provides a detailed listing of the activities, outputs, immediate and intermediate outcomes, as well as the ultimate goal of the initiative.

2.0 EVALUATION METHOD

2.1 Scope of the Evaluation

The evaluation was conducted to inform decision-making on the future disposition of the Community Employment Centres and focused on continued relevancy, implementation, success, cost-effectiveness and unintended impacts. The comprehensive evaluation matrix is shown in Appendix C, identifying the evaluation questions, performance indicators, and sources of data. At the outset of the current evaluation, the following expected results were identified under each evaluation objective:

Objective #1: Continued Relevancy

  1. Community Employment Centre 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 the Community Employment Centre initiative.

Objective #2: Program Implementation

  1. Community Employment Centres operate according to standards set out in policy.
  2. Community Employment Centres are supported by both internal and external CSC staff members, and partnerships exist and function at an optimal level.

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 Community Employment Centres
  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 Employment Centre value-for-money type analyses yield positive results.

Objective #4: Unintended Impacts

  1. Positive and/or negative unintended impacts created by or encountered through the Community Employment Centre initiative have been identified.

2.2 Sample Composition

Study Groups for Quantitative Analyses

In order to determine the effectiveness of Community Employment Centres on participant community outcomes, CSC’s Offender Management System6 (OMS) data were used to identify all offenders who participated in the Community Employment Centres initiative from 2000 to 2008 with a known employment status, employment need level, and a start date for participation in the Community Employment Centre initiative  (N = 6,937). This group of Community Employment Centre participants was compared to a group of offenders released between January 1, 2002 and June 1, 2009 with a known employment status and employment need level, who did not participate in the Community Employment Centre initiative.

Automated Data

Offender data (such as offender risk, need, demographic characteristics, correctional outcomes, time spent in the community, and other pertinent information) were extracted from OMS for offenders who met the criteria noted in section 2.2.1.

The key data source of financial information, used for the cost-efficiency analyses, was drawn from CSC’s Integrated Management Reporting System (IMRS).

Key Sources of Qualitative Data

Feedback regarding issues related to the relevance, implementation, and success of the Community Employment Centres initiative was obtained from three different key informant groups: 1) community employment coordinators; 2) CSC staff members; and 3) offenders. 

Offender Interviewees
Interviews with Community Employment Centre participants were conducted at parole offices, Community Correctional Centres, and Community-based Residential Facilities in each region during March, 2009. The Evaluation Branch selected two sites from each region. Since Community Employment Centres services may be provided by CSC staff members or contract service providers, one CSC and one contracted Community Employment Centre site were selected for site visits in each region7.

A total of 99 interviews were completed with offenders who had received services from Community Employment Centres, the majority of who were still receiving services at the time of the interview (70%, n = 67).

The Community Employment Centre participants who were interviewed were comparable to all Community Employment Centre participants in many respects. The majority of Community Employment Centre participants were male, non-Aboriginal, and were serving sentences for Schedule 1 offences8. There were also no significant differences between gender, Aboriginal status, commission of Schedule 29 offences, static risk level, dynamic risk level, motivation level, reintegration potential, and specific employment needs categories.

Interviewed participants were significantly older at the time of the evaluation, had longer sentences, and were incarcerated for a longer period of time prior to release than all other Community Employment Centre participants. A disproportionately greater proportion of interviewed participants was serving an indeterminate sentence and was convicted of a schedule 1 offence than all Community Employment Centre participants10.

Community Employment Coordinators
An electronic survey was distributed to Community Employment Coordinators11 via email. The survey was completed either in web-based or paper format.

Twenty-one employment coordinators completed the coordinator survey. The highest proportion of coordinators who responded were from the Quebec and Ontario Regions (6 of 21 or 29% from each of the two regions, respectively), followed by the Prairie Region (19%; 4 of 21). The Pacific (14%; 3 of 21) and Atlantic (10%; 2 of 21) Regions had the fewest respondents. Among the respondents, 11 (52%) were CSC staff members while 10 (48%) were involved with the Community Employment Centres initiative through contracted partner agencies. On average, CSC coordinators had been in their current position for a significantly shorter period (M = 3.00 years, SD = 3.21) than contracted coordinators (M = 7.94 years, SD = 5.91). Similarly, CSC community employment coordinators had been working with CSC for a significantly shorter period of time (M = 3.95 years, SD = 4.54) than contracted coordinators had been for their respective agencies (M = 11.85 years, SD = 5.87).

CSC Staff Members
An electronic survey was distributed through CSC internal email announcements (i.e., General Communication) to all CSC staff members. The survey was active for a period of 11 days from May 1, 2009 to May 11, 2009. Surveys from respondents who indicated they had experience or knowledge in the areas of offender employment or employability were included in the evaluation.

A total of 169 CSC staff members completed the staff member survey. Of all respondents, 45% (75 of 165) indicated that they were at least moderately familiar with the goals and objectives of the Community Employment Centre. Over one-half (55%; 90 of 165) indicated that they had no or limited familiarity while four respondents indicated “don’t know”. As the survey was designed for staff members who had at least moderate familiarity with the goals/objectives of Community Employment Centres, only results from staff member respondents who met this criterion are reported in the remainder of the report12. Staff member position titles are described in Table 2.

Table 2: Staff Member Respondent Position Titles
Position Title Staff (n = 75)
(n) (%)

Community parole officer/supervisor

18

24

Program manager

10

13

Institutional work supervisor and CORCAN/CSC shop instructor

9

12

Area/District/Associate District Director/Director

8

11

Institutional program staff

4

5

Educational specialist

4

5

Institutional parole officer

3

4

Community Program Delivery Staff/Supervisor

3

4

Correctional officer

3

4

Psychologist/psychiatrist/nurse/mental health care specialist

3

4

Finance

2

3

Program/project officer/manager (unspecified)

5

5

Other or Unspecified

3

4

The highest proportion of staff members was from the Pacific Region (29%; 22 of 75), followed by the Ontario (24%; 18 of 75), and Prairie (20%; 15 of 75) Regions. Quebec and Atlantic Regions and National Headquarters had the fewest respondents (9%, 13%, and 4%, respectively). Staff member respondents were employed by CSC for a mean of 14 years (SD = 9.58) and in their current position for a mean of 5 years (SD = 4.69).

Document Review

Documents reviewed for various components of the evaluation include:

  • Departmental reports (e.g., Report on Plans and Priorities; CSC 2009)
  • Commissioner’s Directive 26, (Correctional Service Canada, 2003);
  • Report on the Evaluation of the Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure: Community Employment Centres Initiative (Gillis et al., 2005);
  • Evaluation Report: Correctional Service of Canada’s Employment Strategy: Institutional Component (Taylor et al, 2008); and
  • Published and unpublished research and evaluation articles.

2.3 Measures

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-like scale, dichotomous (yes/no), or categorical items. Community Employment Centre program participants (past or current) were asked to volunteer to participate in face-to-face interviews with evaluation staff members.

Electronic Surveys

Electronic surveys were created using Snap Survey software. Electronic surveys were emailed directly to the community employment coordinators to complete online or on paper and returned to the Evaluation Branch via fax. The CSC general staff member survey was administered online through the CSC InfoNet. 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 5-point Likert-like scale, dichotomous (yes/no), or categorical items.

Program Completion and Readmission

In order to address the effectiveness of Community Employment Centres, the evaluation examined program participation and readmission. Any readmission included readmissions for technical revocations and readmissions for new offences .

Employment Need

Employment need is one domain of seven dynamic criminogenic factors assessed at the time of admission to a federal institution as part of the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA). High employment need is defined for the purposes of this evaluation as having a rating of ‘some’ or ‘considerable difficulty’ in the employment domain, while low employment need was defined as a rating of ‘asset’ or ‘no difficulty’ in the employment domain.

Cost Effectiveness

Cost-effectiveness was examining the initiative ability to achieve its desired outcomes within the budget allocated.

2.4 Procedures

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 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 generated by evaluation analysts. Quantitative interview data were analyzed using SPSS.

Community Employment Centre participant and comparison groups were drawn from CSC’s OMS (total sample of N =34,905; 27,968 and 6,937 in the control and treatment groups, respectively). For community outcome measures, the evaluation extended the follow-up period beyond an offender’s federal sentence to include provincial re-offending in the definition of recidivism. As such, offender OMS records were linked to CPIC data. These records were then parsed through a routine programmed in Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software. The resulting electronic database contained provincial offending, and sentencing information subsequently used in the community outcomes analyses.

Financial information regarding individual Correctional Programs was obtained from CSC’s Integrated Management Reporting System.

2.5 Analyses

Themes generated from open-ended survey and interview responses are presented in the appropriate Key Findings sections, and are detailed in Appendix D. 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.

Quantitative methods were used to profile the samples of offenders, to identify trends and to compare various characteristics with a comparison group of offenders. Specifically, Pearson’s chi-square test of independence analyses15 were used for within and between group comparisons on categorical variables (e.g., static and dynamic risk levels) while Student’s t-tests16 were used to compare continuous variables (e.g., sentence length). Outcome measures examined for between-group analyses were employment status, length of time in the community without re-offending and likelihood of re-offending. Similarly, within-group analyses of comparative outcome measures were those listed above, in addition to static and dynamic risk levels, criminal history, age at admission, and aggregate sentence.

Cox regression analyses17 were conducted to examine whether the likelihood of being suspended and revoked differs between Community Employment Centre participants and the control group after controlling for age at admission, sentence length, and overall need level and overall risk level. For each analysis, age at admission, sentence length, and need and risk levels were entered into block 1 and group (Community Employment Centre vs. comparison) was entered into block 2, and time at risk18 was entered as the dependent variable.

Potential differences among some important variables between the comparison group and Community Employment Centre group were statistically controlled in all analyses. These variables included age at admission, sentence length, dynamic need, static risk, and custody rating scale.  All group comparisons and tests of hypotheses were conducted at the 5% significance level.

Cost-effectiveness was determined by assessing the initiatives ability to achieve the desired results with the designated funding. The ability to achieve desired results was assessed in the effectiveness section of this evaluation. Financial records were examined for the mot recent three years available.

2.6 Limitations

A number of limitations need to be taken into consideration in interpreting the evaluation results.

Site selection for participant interviews was based on consideration of a number of factors. Two sites from each region were selected. Because community employment coordinators may be a CSC staff member or a contracted service provider, where possible, one of each within each region was selected. In addition, since the sites visits for this evaluation were completed concurrently with site visits for other evaluations, geographical considerations were also taken into account to maximize efficiency.

Data available on the offenders’ employment duration were limited. Although the data on employment duration for the Community Employment Centre participants were fairly complete, the same could not be said for the comparison group. This is not unexpected as employment information (e.g., status, duration) is specifically tracked as a performance measure for Community Employment Centre participants while this may not be the case for the comparison group. As such, it was not possible to examine whether Community Employment Centre participants were more likely to maintain employment for a longer period of time than the comparison group.

3.0 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 Impacts.

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 Employment Centres initiative is consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities.

CSC Departmental Performance Report
The Community Employment Centres initiative is directly related to one of the five strategic priorities identified in the 2007/08 Departmental Performance Report (CSC, 2008), namely, “safe transition of eligible offenders into the community” (p. 11). There is a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that correctional programs facilitate the safe and successful reintegration of offenders into the community (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta & Cullen, 1990; Dowden & Andrews, 2000; French & Gendreau, 2006; Lipsey, Chapman, & Landenberger, 2001, Nafekh et al., 2008). Research on CSC offenders has also found relationships between employment and successful completion of community release and reductions in recidivism (Gillis & Nafekh, 2005; Taylor et al., 2008). At the time of writing, 3,214 offenders had received services from Community Employment Centres (CSC, 2008) and there had been an increase of 16% in the number of offenders who obtained employment with the assistance of Community Employment Centre services from the previous year.

CSC Panel Review and Transformation Agenda
Recommendations from the CSC Review Panel focused on five themes, one of which is directly relevant to the Community Employment Centres initiative, namely offender employment and employability (Sampson et al., 2007). Correspondingly, addressing offender employment and employability is also one of the foci of CSC’s Transformation Agenda (Correctional Service Canada, 2008). At the time of the panel review, high proportions of federal offenders had unstable work histories, no knowledge in skills and trades, and had low educational attainment. The panel made seven recommendations related to offender employment and employability. In particular, recommendation 24 identified the need to “support the job and skill needs of offenders on conditional release in the community” (p. 221).

Generally, the Community Employment Centres initiative appears consistent with government and departmental priorities. In addition, almost all staff members (99%, n = 70) and all of community employment coordinators (100%; n = 21) indicated that the goals and objectives of the Community Employment Centres were at least moderately consistent with CSC’s mission statement and strategic priorities. Respondents specifically noted that employment assists in the successful reintegration of offenders (staff member: 32%, n=24; coordinators: 48%, n=10).

Government-wide Priorities
Canadian federal departments’ Strategic Outcomes and Program Activities are grouped into four broad sectors: social, economic, international and government affairs). CSC contributes primarily to the Social Affairs sector (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2009). CSC’s program activities of Custody, Correctional Interventions, Community Supervision, CORCAN, and Internal Services and the plans associated with these, support CSC’s strategic outcome: “the custody, correctional interventions, and supervision of offenders, in communities and institutions, contributes to public safety” (CSC, 2009).

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 (Correctional Service Canada, 2009). The Community Supervision Program Activity encompasses all activities related to “the safe and humane supervision of eligible offenders in the community” (p. 28).

FINDING 2: The services provided through the Community Employment Centres are similar to those found in international jurisdictions that have shown promise in improving offenders' employment status and decreasing recidivism rates.

Stable employment has long been considered one of the key factors in offenders’ successful reintegration (Uggen & Staff, 2004). The research literature on the effectiveness of employment-focused interventions for offenders, however, has produced equivocal results that largely stem from weak methodological character of evaluation studies (Bouffard, MacKenzie & Hickman 2000; Visher, Winterfield & Coggeshall, 2006; Wilson, Gallagher & Mackenzie, 2000).

A review of recent literature revealed several examples of offender employment services, similar to those provided through CSC’s Community Employment Centres. The following is a brief description of programs and services offered in Australia and the United States, and the available evidence of their effectiveness.

Australia
Although there is no federal correctional system in Australia similar to CSC, the state and territory agencies provide corrective services for offenders (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006). In 2001, the National Strategy for Vocational Education and Training for Adult Prisoners and Offenders was endorsed by all key government stakeholders (Australian National Training Authority, 2001), aiming to provide offenders with “educational and vocational pathways which will support their productive contribution to the economic and social life of the community”. To this end, various rehabilitation and employment programs have been put in place in Australia’s correctional facilities and the community; some of which have since been evaluated (Halliday & Wynes, 2007).

A 2005 study of the Queensland Prison System Vocational, Educational and Training (VET) programs by Callan and Garder (2005a) revealed that participation in any VET program before initial release was a significant predictor of recidivism. Specifically, 23% of VET participants returned to custody compared with 32% of VET non-participants, and 32% of VET participants returned to the corrective system compared to 42% of non-participants. Of interest, the Post-Release Employment Assistance Program, which provides offenders with employment-centered services (e.g., skills assessment, job search and additional training) six months before and after release, was not found to be a significant predictor of recidivism despite slightly lower rates of return to custody and return to the corrective system (Callan & Garder, 2005b).

Corrections Victoria provides employment assistance to offenders under their jurisdiction through the Correctional Services Employment Pilot Program, Women4Work and other initiatives. The Correctional Services Employment Pilot Program underwent an evaluation in 2005, and the preliminary evaluation results were promising (Graffam et al., 2005). The overall employment placement rate was 34% in the first two years, with 16% of offenders achieving 13 weeks of continuous employment at 20 or more hours per week. For program participants, the rate of re-offending was low (7.5%), compared to the rate reported in the literature (approximately 40%), although the 12-month timeframe for program involvement was shorter than in other studies. Additional exploratory analyses comparing recidivism for a group of randomly selected program participants and non-participants revealed a positive effect on all three outcome measures: number of offences per day, rated severity of offences, and the number of different offences. Positive treatment effect on recidivism was also found when examining pre- and post-program recidivism for program participants.

United States
Findings from several earlier US evaluation studies on pre- and post-release employment programs reported positive, although somewhat insignificant results on various recidivism and employment outcomes between program participants and comparison groups (Bouffard et al. 2000; Turner & Petersilia, 1996). A statistically significant difference between employment program participants and non-participants was observed in a study by Menon and colleagues (1992, as cited in Finn, 1998) on the effectiveness of the Texas Re-Integration of Offenders program. They found that high-risk program participants had significantly fewer re-arrests and reconvictions when compared to a matched group of high-risk non-participants (48% versus 57% and 23% versus 38%, respectively).

Another offender subgroup reported to benefit from employment services is ex-offenders over the age of 27. Uggen (2000) found that those aged 27 and over had arrest rates 8% lower than those in the control group at one year and 11% lower at year 319 . Bierens and Carvalho (2007) examined the risk of recidivism for the employment services for Ex-Offenders program participants, and established that the risk of recidivism was dependent upon age and location. Positive treatment effects were observed for offenders over the age of 27 in two program locations and over the age of 36 in another program location.

Among recent evaluations of US programs was a descriptive study conducted by Bauldry and McClanahan (2008) of the Ready4Work Program and a quasi-experimental study of Vermont’s Workforce Development Program (Community High School of Vermont, 2007). Results of the study on Vermont’s Workforce Development Program found that 91% of male program participants and 71% of female participants obtained employment within 30 days of release, compared to 64% of male and 30% of female non-participants, respectively. Also, 59% of male and 38% of female participants were re-incarcerated following release, compared to 74% of male and 63% of female non-participants. Although encouraging, the findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations, namely program selection criteria, non-random assignment and a limited post-release follow-up period. A multi-site evaluation of the US Department of Justice Serious and Violent Offenders Reentry Initiative is currently underway. Preliminary findings provide encouraging results on a range of employment and recidivism outcomes for high-risk offenders (Lattimore, 2009).

Overall, meta-analytic and systematic reviews suggest the available evidence base is insufficient to conclude that employment-focused programs reduce recidivism. In general, these studies point out that evaluated employment-focused interventions were highly heterogeneous in nature, ranging from generic employment services to multi-faceted, holistic interventions that target a spectrum of offender needs. In the latter context, isolating the effects of the employment-focused interventions becomes challenging. However, positive effects (e.g., on recidivism) were found for certain offender groups (offenders ages 27 and older) (Bierens and Carvalho, 2007; Uggen, 2000). High-risk offenders (Finn, 1998; Lattimore, 2009) were found to have lower rates of recidivism.

FINDING 3: There is a continued need for the Community Employment Centres initiative, given the goals and objectives of the initiative and the current offender profile.

Between 2000/2001 to 2008/2009, the proportion of offenders assessed upon admission to CSC institutions to have some to considerable employment need has increased. Further, analyses of OMS data for the present evaluation indicated that approximately 61% (n = 6,218) of all Community Employment Centre participants were assessed as having had a high need in the employment domain upon admission to CSC. Offenders who received services from community employment centres most frequently had educational needs that would affect employment, (73%, n = 6,534), a problematic employment history (82%, n = 7,397), and had been dismissed from a previous position (76%, n = 6,895). Appendix E contains a breakdown of the specific needs under the employment domain for offenders who had received services from community employment centres. Figure 1 presents the proportion of offenders admitted to a federal institution with high employment needs for fiscal years 2000/2001 to 2008/2009.

Figure 1 Proportion of Offenders with High Employment Need at Admission to a Federal Institution
This line graph presents the proportion of offenders identified with high employment needs at admission to federal custody from 2000/01 to 2008/09.
Source: OMS

[D]

In a large study examining all offenders newly admitted to federal institutions for the fiscal years 1995/96 to 2003/04, Boe (2005) reported younger offenders (aged 18-24) to have more severe employment challenges than older offenders (aged 25+). Younger offenders were more likely than older offenders to have been unemployed at the time of their arrest (77% vs. 61%), and if younger offenders were employed at the time of their arrest, they were more likely to have been unemployed more than 90% of the time prior to that (50% vs. 27%). Furthermore, as previously discussed, offenders who were employed during their conditional release to the community were significantly more likely to be successful on release and less likely to reoffend than their counterparts who were not employed (Gillis & Nafekh, 2005).

Lastly, in addition to these findings, in the present evaluation, the majority of surveyed CSC staff members (92%; n = 60) and all surveyed community employment coordinators (100%; n = 17) indicated that there was a continued need for the services provided through the Community Employment Centres.

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 4: Not all regions assessed employment needs in the same manner, therefore, making comparative analyses inconclusive.

FINDING 5: Offenders with high employment needs as well as those with low employment needs received services from the Community Employment Centres.

Overall, there was a relationship between participation in Community Employment Centres and employment need. Community Employment Centre services were more likely to be delivered to offenders with a high employment need (57%). Although statistically significant (χ2 (1) = 9.61, p<.01), this proportion was only slightly greater than the proportion of high need offenders found in the control group (55%). That is, although a higher proportion of Community Employment Centre participants had high employment needs, this was likely an artefact of offenders having a high employment need in general. The employment needs of offenders in the Quebec Region were considerably different than offenders in the other regions20. When the Quebec Region was excluded from analyses, Community Employment Centres services were delivered to a more substantial proportion of offenders with a high employment need (70%) and this proportion was greater than the proportion of offenders with high needs in the community (66%; χ2 (1) = 40.14, p<.0001). The considerable change in proportions following the exclusion of the Quebec Region indicates a need to determine how this region assesses employment need and uses this assessment to direct offenders to Community Employment Centres.

The proportion of community employment services offered to offenders with a high employment need varied across regions. In the Atlantic (χ 2(1) = 16.14, p<.0001) and Ontario (χ2 (1) = 13.88, p=.0002) Regions, the employment needs of offenders influenced the delivery of Community Employment Centre services. In these regions, offenders with high employment needs were more likely to receive services than to not receive services. In the Pacific (χ2(1) = 2.94, p=.086), Quebec (χ2(1) = 0.874, p=.35), and Prairie (χ2(1) = 2.19, p=.139) Regions, offenders with a high employment need were equally likely to receive Community Employment Centre services as they were to not receive services (refer to Figure 2).

Figure 2 Proportion of Offenders with High and Low Employment Needs Receiving and Not Receiving Community Employment Centre Services by Region
In the Pacific region, 69% of offenders in the comparison group (not receiving CEC services) had a high employment need, while 32% had a low employment need.
Source: OMS.

[D]

In addition to differences noted between regions, differences were also noted between subgroups after excluding the Quebec Region. While non-Aboriginal offenders with a high employment need were more likely receive Community Employment Centre services than to not receive services (χ2 (1) = 38.92, p<.0001), Aboriginal offenders with a high employment need were equally likely to receive services as they were to not receive services (χ2 (1) = 0.40, p=.529). Also, while male offenders with high employment needs were more likely to receive services than to not receive services (χ2 (1) = 44.13, p<.0001), women offenders with high employment needs were as likely to receive Community Employment Centre services as they were to not receive services (χ2 (1) = 0.09, p=.761). Figure 3 displays the proportion of offenders with high and low needs who received Community Employment Centre services by subgroup.

Figure 3: Proportion of Offenders with High and Low Employment Needs Receiving and Not Receiving Community Employment Centre Services by Ethnicity and Gender
62% of non-Aboriginal offenders who were not receiving CEC services had a high employment need, while 38% had a low need. Of the non-Aboriginal offenders receiving CEC services, 68% had a high need while 32% had a low need.
Source: OMS.

[D]

In accordance with the need principle of effective correctional interventions (Andrews et al., 1990), Community Employment Centre services should be provided first and foremost to offenders with high employment needs, particularly in light of outcome results to be discussed in the success section.

Although, officially, referral to Community Employment Centres is directed by a high employment need rating on the OIA, Community Employment Centres frequently provided services to offenders with low employment needs. This appears to be driven by a practice of not refusing services to any offender requesting services and by the desire to provide services to specific groups (i.e., Aboriginal and women offenders). However, in accordance with the need principle of effective correctional interventions (Andrews et al., 1990), Community Employment Centre services should be provided first and foremost to offenders with high employment needs. To best accommodate the present practice of service provision and the recommendation of the need principle, it is therefore recommended that inclusion criteria be developed and implemented to ensure that services are better directed to offenders whom the program is intended to support.

FINDING 6: Community Employment Centres were located in 30 of the 75 largest municipalities in Canada.

Community Employment Centre services are available in 40% of the 75 most populous urban areas21 and available in 90% of the 10 most populous urban areas in Canada (refer to Table 3).

Table 3 Number of Community Employment Coordinators by Region with Population and National Population Rank
Region and City Population a,b National Population Rank a Number of Community Employment Coordinators
Atlantic      

Halifax

281,924

14

2

St John’s

151,322

20

1

Moncton

97,065

30

1

Saint John

90,016

32

1

Fredericton

56,245

51

1

Charlottetown

38,801

66

1

Quebec      

Montreal

3,316,615

2

6

Québec City

659,545

7

2

Hull/Gatineau

212,448

6 d

1

Sherbrooke

134,610

23

2

Trois-Rivières

121,666

24

1

Saguenay/Lac St. Jean

274,919 b

--- c

2

Chaudière-Appalaches

402,019 b

--- c

2

Ontario      

Toronto

4,753,120

1

2

Ottawa

648,480

6 d

1

Hamilton

647,634

8

1

London

353,069

11

1

Guelph

115,635

25

1

Kingston

109,431

26

1

Peterborough

76,925

38

1

Prairie      

Calgary

988,079

4

1

Edmonton

862,544

5

1

Winnipeg

641,483

9

1

Saskatoon

202,425

17

1

Regina

179,246

18

1

Prince Albert

34,542

75

1

Pacific      

Vancouver

1,953,252

3

2 e

Victoria

304,683

13

1

Abbotsford

138,986

21

3

Kelowna

126,384

23

2

Nanaimo

83,751

34

1

Prince George

65,082

44

1

Note. a Statistics Canada (2007). b Institut de la statistique du Québec (2009). c Saguenay/Lac St. Jean and Chaudière-Appalaches are recorded by Institut de la statistique du Québec as administrative regions and not recorded as urban areas by Statistics Canada  d Hull/Gatineau and Ottawa are grouped together by Statistics Canada but separated here to better illustrate regional data. Together they place 6th on the national population rank.  e Statistics Canada groups New Westminster with Vancouver for the purposes of defining urban areas. One community employment coordinator is found in New Westminster and one in Vancouver.

Of note, the number of community employment coordinators in each city did not appear to correspond to the local population. For instance, whereas Toronto had the highest population in the country, only two community coordinators provided services in the city. In contrast, six community employment coordinators provided services in Montreal, which was the second most populous city in Canada.

There is a need to examine the allocation of community employment coordinators to ensure maximum service coverage. Furthermore, expansion of the Community Employment Centres may be required in order to meet the employment needs of offenders and in consideration of the density of released offenders and availability of non-CSC community-based employment services.

Recommendation 1: Given the absence of parity across regions, CSC should develop a standardized approach to assessing employment needs upon admission and release. Furthermore, CSC should calibrate employment services commensurate with needs, with priority given to offenders with high needs at release.

Recommendation 2: CSC should consider expanding the number of Community Employment Centres to locations to which offenders with high employment needs are released.

RECOMMENDATION 3: CSC should examine the allocation of community employment coordinators to ensure maximum service coverage.

FINDING 7: Community employment coordinators and CSC staff members indicated that the continuum of employment services offered in the institution and in the community could be better integrated by: i) raising awareness of Community Employment Centre services; and ii) increasing the level of collaboration between institution and community staff members.

As indicated previously, the CSC review panel advocated for integrated offender management strategies from intake through conditional release, including integrated correctional programs, education, employment in the institution to the community (Sampson et al., 2007). The continuum of employment services from the institution to the community requires coordination between service providers and case management personnel in the institution and in the community. The panel review noted that:

CORCAN supervisors, working at the front line, have an important personal relationship with offenders. As such, they are in a position to have a significant positive impact on them. They are seen as providing offenders with a sense of purpose, and are a key contributor to increasing offender motivation for employment and in promoting self awareness among offenders in being able to handle a job effectively. Any integrated approach must maintain the CORCAN staff’s personal and professional leadership and relationship with offenders, and should actively pursue the input of CORCAN staff in the case management process and community release planning. (p. 70).

Communication between community employment coordinators and institutional staff (parole officers, program officers, work supervisors, and shop instructors) was frequently reported by community employment coordinators (60% to 65%) and CSC staff (63% to 90%) to be important. However, the coordinators surveyed indicated that the actual levels of communication with institutional staff were only high between 20% and 60% of the time.

Communication between community employment coordinators and community parole officers was reported by all community employment coordinators and CSC staff surveyed as at least moderately important and accordingly, all community employment coordinators rated the level of communication with community parole officers as high.

The majority of CSC staff members indicated that parole officers, CORCAN supervisors, program staff members, social programs officers and management were at least moderately aware of the Community Employment Centres. Nonetheless, approximately one-third (34%; n = 23) of staff members indicated that offenders were not at all or slightly aware of the program (refer to Table 4).

Table 4: CSC Staff Member Ratings on the Extent to Which Offenders and CSC Staff Members are Aware of the Community Employment Centre
  Frequency (%)
  Not at all or Slightly Moderately Considerably to Completely

Offenders (n = 67)

34%

43%

22%

Parole Officers (n = 65)

14%

28%

59%

CORCAN Supervisors (n = 46)

13%

17%

70%

Programs Staff (n = 59)

12%

46%

42%

Social Programs Officers (n = 45)

20%

44%

36%

Management Services (n = 52)

25%

33%

42%

Source: CSC Staff Member Surveys.
Note. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

However, there may be a need to provide additional information to staff members regarding the process to refer incarcerated offenders to Community Employment Centres Although the majority of community employment coordinators (94%; n = 15) indicated that there was a process to refer these offenders, the majority of CSC staff members (55%; n = 41) indicated that they did not know whether there was such a process.

Some regions (e.g., Ontario) have designated one community employment coordinator to perform in-reach services to engage incarcerated offenders and collaborate with institutional staff members. Such in-reach efforts may be valuable to ensure employment continuity and should be expanded to regions where the service is currently not available.

RECOMMENDATION 4: CSC should consider expanding in-reach services to locations that currently do not provide such service in order to ensure that offenders who would benefit from Community Employment Centres are made aware of the services available.

FINDING 8: Staff members and community employment coordinators indicated that there was frequent communication between employment coordinators and current and potential employers; however, there is a need to increase potential employers’ awareness of the Community Employment Centres.

The majority of CSC staff members and community employment coordinators indicated that there is some to considerable communication between community employment coordinators and current and potential employers (refer to Table 5).

Table 5: Staff Member and Community Employment Coordinator Ratings of the Level of Communication between the Community Employment Centres and Current and Potential Employers
  Frequency n (%)
None to a little Some to considerable
Staff members  
Current Employers (n = 44)

30% (13)

70% (31)

Potential Employers (n = 44)

32% (14)

68% (30)

Community Employment Coordinators  
Current Employers (n = 22)

14% (3)

86% (19)

Potential Employers (n = 22)

18% (4)

82% (18)

Source: CSC staff member and community employment coordinator surveys.

Although the majority of surveyed CSC staff members and community employment coordinators indicated that current employers were at least moderately aware of the goals and objectives of the Community Employment Centres [56% (n = 27) and 75% (n = 15), respectively], approximately one-half of CSC staff members (53%; n = 25) and community employment coordinators (50%; n = 11) indicated that potential employers had limited awareness of the initiative’s goals and objectives. One factor that may contribute to these findings is the absence of a formal process to inform potential employers about the initiative. The majority of staff members (77%; n = 58) indicated that they did not know if there was a formal process in place to inform potential employers about the Community Employment Centres. Most coordinators surveyed (60%; n = 12) confirmed that there was no such formal process in place. Community employment coordinators recommended a position dedicated to developing job opportunities should be created (50%, n=6).

A two-day employment symposium was held in Toronto in February 2009 with current and potential employers to discuss CORCAN’s contribution to the Canadian workforce, the labour needs of employers, and approaches to encourage potential employers to hire offenders. The latter discussions were facilitated by community employment coordinators (mainly from the Ontario Region). Although it is premature to use the conference as a model to engage potential employers, it represents a goal-directed strategy to approach potential employers. Future efforts to engage employers should be strategically aligned with the objective to develop partnerships with employers.

RECOMMENDATION 5: CSC should develop and implement formal strategies to increase awareness and engage potential employers in order to optimize employment opportunities available to participating offenders.

FINDING 9: CSC staff members and community employment coordinators were not aware of formal processes to link employment assessment results to programs and services. However, participants nonetheless indicated that assessments were completed and that they were directed to the services they required.

Employment Assessment
The method of directing offenders to the Community Employment Centres most commonly reported by staff members was direct referral via case management staff, and parole officers. The vast majority of staff members who indicated that they were aware of such processes also indicated that the employment coordinator frequently followed up with the parole officers regarding offenders’ employment assessments and other Community Employment Centre services (81%; n = 13).

Only 31% (n = 23) of CSC staff members and 50% (n = 10) of community employment coordinators surveyed indicated that they were aware of a formal process to link offenders’ employment needs to services provided by Community Employment Centres. One potential explanation is that sites may have adopted strategies that are specific to their locations; however, small sample sizes precluded examination of regional differences in results.

In contrast to the survey results from CSC staff members and community employment coordinators, participant interviews suggested that employment assessments were completed and used to direct them to services that they required. The majority of interviewed participants (78%; n = 73) indicated that their employment strengths and weaknesses were assessed by the community employment coordinator, most frequently through informal interviews (66%; n = 45), although some were assessed through formal interviews (18%; n = 12) and some used both informal and formal interviews (16%; n = 11). In addition, the majority of interviewed participants indicated that the assessments identified the challenges that they had in obtaining employment (93%; n = 64) and factors that assist in finding employment (88%; n = 61).

Overall, interviewed participants frequently indicated that their employment or educational needs were addressed. Interviewed participants indicated that the results from their employment assessments (85%; n = 46) and their identified strengths (95%; n = 58) were used to inform referrals to employment programs and services. Furthermore, 79% (n = 52) indicated that they were referred to the services that they required.

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 10: Services offered by Community Employment Centres were being accessed by offenders regularly and by offenders who were in need of the service.

Service Utilization
According to data maintained by CORCAN, since the inception of the Community Employment Centre initiative, 10,363 offenders have received services from the initiative. In 2008/09, 3100 offenders participated in the Community Employment Centre initiative.

The frequency of contact between interviewed participants and community employment coordinators ranged from an as-needed basis to several times a week, with 34% and 23% of the interviewed participants indicating contact at frequencies of more than once or once a week, respectively. Most offenders (89%; n = 79) indicated that there were no problems accessing Community Employment Centre services.

More than half of CSC staff members indicated that the employment and placement services22 provided by the community employment coordinators were utilized at least moderately by offenders with those needs23. Assistance with resume and cover letters and one-on-one employment counselling were the two most frequently identified services utilized by the participants (71% and 59%, respectively). Results are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Staff Member Ratings on the Extent to which Community Employment Centre Services Utilized by Participants with Corresponding Needs
  Frequency (%)
Not at all or Slightly Moderately Considerably to Completely Not offered

Intake and strategy planning (n = 43)

21%

30%

37%

12%

Referral to community resources and employment necessities (n = 55)

11%

35%

47%

7%

Obtaining key employment documents (n = 52)

19%

33%

42%

6%

Computer training (n = 50)

46%

14%

26%

14%

Referral to employability or social skills preparation (n = 60)

13%

35%

43%

8%

Internet-related services (n = 58)

28%

21%

29%

22%

Job searching (n = 59)

25%

20%

53%

2%

One-on-one employment counseling (n = 56)

21%

16%

59%

4%

Referral to employer (n = 50)

26%

14%

52%

8%

Resumes/cover letters (n = 58)

17%

12%

71%

0%

Interview preparation (n = 57)

23%

26%

51%

0%

Emails/faxes for offenders (n = 51)

18%

16%

43%

24%

Case conference with parole officer (n = 56)

20%

20%

57%

4%

Mediation/resolution of employer/employee relationship issues (n = 40)

35%

23%

28%

15%

Aboriginal Employment Service (n = 43)

19%

23%

40%

19%

Transportation service (n = 46)

28%

24%

26%

22%

Source: CSC staff member survey.

FINDING 11: Interviewed participants and CSC staff members indicated a need to increase training and educational opportunities for offenders in the community.

Approximately 26% (n = 26) of interviewed participants indicated there were additional services they would like to have offered. Specifically, it was suggested that there should be increased training and schooling available in the community (79%, n=19). Community employment coordinators suggested there should be additional training available (36%, n=4) as well as additional support for the offenders employment needs (45%, n=5).  CSC staff members also suggested that there should be increased training and schooling available in the community (43%, n=12) and in institutions prior to release (18%, n=5), as well as additional support for the employment needs of offenders (25%, n=7).

RECOMMENDATION 6: CSC should develop and implement processes to link offenders’ employment needs and services in order to adequately respond to offender employment needs.

RECOMMENDATION 7: CSC should explore whether additional training and educational opportunities are required to ensure offenders are able to access services that meet their employment needs.

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

FINDING 12: According to interviewed participants, the Community Employment Centres have resulted in enhancements to the number of employment opportunities, the quality work, the availability of support, and the level of offenders’ self-esteem and confidence to obtain employment. Interviewed participants also reported using significantly more job search methods to obtain employment after incarceration than before.

According to interviewed participants, Community Employment Centres have resulted in increased support in a number of areas, from availability of support from community employment coordinators (92%; n = 81) to access to training (71%; n = 64) and higher quality work (69%; n = 59; refer to Table 7).

Table 7: Interviewed Participants’ Ratings of the Impact of Community Employment Centres on Areas of Support
  Frequency % (n)
Decrease No Change Increase

Access to work opportunities (in general) (n = 92)

1% (1)

21% (19)

78% (72)

Access to higher quality work (n = 86)

6% (5)

26% (22)

69% (59)

Availability of support from employment coordinators (n =88)

2% (2)

6% (5)

92% (81)

Self-esteem (n = 92)

0% (0)

22% (20)

78% (72)

Work ethic (n = 91)

1% (1)

41% (37)

58% (53)

Access to training (n = 90)

3% (3)

26% (23)

71% (64)

Source: Participant interviews.

Furthermore, whereas 40% (n = 36) of interviewed participants indicated that they were very to extremely confident in their ability to find employment before receiving services from the Community Employment Centres, 75% (n = 67) indicated they were very to extremely confident after receiving Community Employment Centre services. The majority of interviewed participants (78%; n = 72) also indicated that the Community Employment Centres contributed to increased self-esteem. The majority of CSC staff members also agreed that the Community Employment Centres have resulted in at least a moderate increase in offenders’ confidence in their ability to search for employment (85%; n = 47).

Overall, interviewed participants indicated that the Community Employment Centres have increased the number of ways that they look for work (84%; n = 75). Interviewed participants indicated that they used significantly more methods to look for employment after incarceration than before (Mafter = 5.0, SDafter = 2.83 vs. Mbefore = 3.9, SDbefore = 2.48; t(85) = 3.93, p<.001).. Figure 4 presents the proportion of interviewed participants who used each method prior to and after incarceration.

Figure 4: Methods Used by Interviewed Participants to Search for Work Prior to and After Incarceration
Figure 4 describes the methods used by interviewed participants to search for work prior to and after incarceration..

[D]

With the exception of three methods, a greater proportion of offenders indicated they used each method more after incarceration than prior to incarceration. The three exceptions included searching for employment through friends or acquaintances, family, and by walk-in to businesses and inquiring. The majority of CSC staff members (90%; n = 52) also indicated that the Community Employment Centre has resulted in participants’ increased awareness of job search techniques.

Although offenders reported an increased number of job search techniques, it was also noted that the Community Employment Centres were frequently relied upon. Of the 14 offenders who reported using an additional job search technique, 64% reported that they used the Community Employment Centres. Furthermore, the majority of staff members (76%; n = 38) indicated that the Community Employment Centre has resulted in increased job placements. If offenders grow to rely too much on Community Employment Centers to find employment, problems may develop when the centres are no longer available (i.e., after they are no longer under the jurisdiction of CSC).

The majority of community employment coordinators (79%; n =15) indicated that they were aware of community-based agencies that could support their work with offenders, not only to provide employment but other services as well (87%; n = 13). Most frequently, the services of community-based agencies were used to inform offenders about the community and provide additional community support (43%, n=6), and to provide additional training to offenders (43%, n=6). Coordinators also referred offenders to community-based agencies for funding, job necessities (29%, n=4) and correctional programming (14%, n=2). The majority of the community employment coordinators (94%; n =17) also indicated that they made use of local employment agencies; however, almost half (41%; n = 7) reported they have encountered difficulties partnering with these agencies because offenders are either not readily accepted or suitable as clients (63%, n=5), or the agencies do not offer suitable employment or resources (38%, n=3).

FINDING 13: Community Employment Centre participants were more likely to obtain employment than the control group. In addition, interviewed participants who obtained employment through the Community Employment Centres were more likely to be satisfied with their employment than their counterparts who found employment on their own.

According to data compiled from OMS, offenders who received Community Employment Centre services were more likely to obtain employment than offenders in the control group,. Regional analyses also revealed that the proportions of program participants who obtained employment were higher than the control group. A similar pattern of results was found for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders, men and women offenders, and offenders with low and high employment needs (refer to Table 8).

Table 8: Proportion of Program Participants who Obtained Employment Compared to the Control Group
  Control CEC Participants χ2 p-value

Overall

53%

78%

1286.59

.0001

Region

       

Pacific

36%

62%

195.53

.0001

Prairies

59%

79%

300.23

.0001

Ontario

60%

83%

244.62

.0001

Quebec

55%

82%

354.61

.0001

Atlantic

43%

71%

168.47

.0001

Aboriginal Status

       

Non-Aboriginal

55%

80%

1039.74

.0001

Aboriginal

42%

69%

273.12

.0001

Gender

       

Men

53%

78%

1180.09

.0001

Women

47%

78%

106.66

.0001

Employment Need

       

Low Need

58%

82%

549.44

.0001

High Need

49%

74%

765.69

.0001

Source: OMS.

Interviews with Community Employment Centre participants found that whereas 31% of those who obtained employment through the Community Employment Centres reported that they were extremely satisfied with their work compared to 14% of those who obtained employment on their own. Satisfaction with the work environment (either as a match with interests and skills, 44%, n = 27 or working conditions 62%, n = 38) was identified as the most important contributing factors to work satisfaction for both offenders who found work on their own and found work through the community employment centre. This was identified as vocational congruence. This finding has implications for successful reintegration into the community, as Taylor and colleagues (2008) found that vocational congruence is related to recidivism. Specifically, they reported offenders employed in positions congruent with their interests, skills, and abilities were less likely to reoffend than those who were unemployed or employed in positions that were low on vocational congruence. Results are reported in Table 9.

Table 9: Proportion of Interviewed Participants Able to Find Work, Type of Work Found, and Work Satisfaction
  Without assistance from Community Employment Centres With Assistance from Community Employment Centres
Satisfaction with work a

n = 37

n = 55

Not at all to minimally satisfied

27% (10)

13% (7)

Somewhat satisfied

30% (11)

29% (16)

Very to extremely satisfied

43% (16)

58% (32)

Employed in position at time of the interview a

33% (12)

57% (29)

FINDING 14: Offenders who received services through Community Employment Centres were significantly less likely to be readmitted, for both technical violations and new offences, when compared to those who did not receive services. The results were strongest for women offenders, non-Aboriginal offenders and offenders with high employment needs.

After controlling for pre-existing differences in age at admission, sentence length, and need and risk levels, Cox Proportional Hazard analyses indicated that participation in Community Employment Centres had a positive impact on community outcomes. Overall, offenders who participated in Community Employment Centre services were 13% less likely than those who did not participate to be readmitted for any reason. Specifically, participants were 10% less likely to be readmitted for a technical violation and 17% less likely to be readmitted for a new offence. Table 10 displays the odds ratios and significance of Community Employment Centre participation for all participants as well as for gender, Aboriginal status and employment need subgroups. Please see Appendix F for the complete results from the overall Cox regression analyses.

Table 10 Odds of Readmission by Gender, Aboriginal Status and Employment Need
  Any Readmission Technical Violation New Offence
  Odds Ratio p-value Odds Ratio p-value Odds Ratio p-value

Overall

.871

.000

.898

.000

.834

.000

Gender

           

Women

.678

.000

.635

.000

-a

-

Men

.881

.000

.915

.000

.835

.000

Aboriginal Status

           

Aboriginal

.893

.007

.882

.027

.904

.n.s.

Non-Aboriginal

.864

.000

.902

.001

.811

.000

Employment Need

           

Low

.883

.000

.943

n.s.

.796

.000

High

.861

.000

.868

.000

.850

.000

Note. a The coefficients did not converge for women offenders and so the model was not fitted. This likely was caused by a failure to populate every cell in the dependent and independent variables due to a relatively small sample size for women offenders committing a new offence.

Gender
Male offenders who received services from Community Employment Centres were 12% less likely to be readmitted for any reason than those who did not receive services. Specifically, male offenders were 10% less likely to be readmitted for a technical violation and 17% less likely to be readmitted for a new offence. Women offenders were 32% less likely to be readmitted for any reason if they had participated in the Community Employment Centre. Women offenders who had participated in Community Employment Centres were 36% less likely to be readmitted for a technical violation. The influence of Community Employment Centres on readmission for a new offence could not be calculated for women offenders as this readmission rate was too low to appropriately calculate the hazard ratio.

Aboriginal Status
Non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal offenders were less likely to be readmitted for any reason if they had received services from community employment centres (non-Aboriginal, 14%; Aboriginal, 11%). When considering technical violations, non-Aboriginal offenders who received services from Community Employment Centres were 10% less likely to be readmitted and Aboriginal offenders were 12% less likely. While non-Aboriginal offenders who received Community Employment Centre services were 19% less likely than those who did not to be readmitted for a new offence, participation in Community Employment Centres did not influence readmission for a new offence for Aboriginal offenders.

Employment Need
Offenders with high employment needs who had received services from Community Employment Centres were 14% less likely to be readmitted for any reason; specifically, they were 13% less likely to be readmitted for a technical violation and 15% less likely to be readmitted for a new offence.

Offenders with low employment needs were 12% less likely to be readmitted for any reason if they had participated in Community Employment Centres. While participation in Community Employment Centres did not influence readmission for technical violation for low need offenders, low need offenders who had participated in community employment centres were 20% less likely to be readmitted for a new offence.

Objective 4: Cost-Effectiveness:

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

The Community Employment Centre initiative has demonstrated a reasonable ability to operate its services within budget. While for fiscal year 2008/2009 Community Employment Centres exceeded the allocated funding by 1%, for fiscal years 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 it was able to operate at 9% and 5% under budget. The yearly cost to CSC for providing Community Employment Centre services to one offender was determined to be $826.40. This was calculated by dividing the actual resource use in 2008/2009 ($2,561,851) by the number of new offenders who received services from all community employment centres in 2008/2009 (3,100 offenders). The funding provided to the Community Employment Centre initiative resulted in fewer readmissions to custody. It is expected that as a result of this funding, offenders who received community employment centre services will be 10% less likely to be readmitted into custody. Furthermore, intangible costs that are avoided as a result of reduction in recidivism include harm to victims, victim families, participants’ family and friends, as well as overall public safety.

Often, cost-effectiveness analyses focus on costs to the department and do not pay commensurate attention to the benefits to the offenders as such benefits are often intangible. As reported earlier, Community Employment Centre participants were more likely to find employment than the control group (please refer to Figure 4), to report higher levels of satisfaction with the employment obtained with the assistance of the Community Employment Centres than without (Table 7), and to utilize more methods to search for employment than prior to their incarceration (Figure 3). Although these benefits cannot be quantified and factored into the cost-effectiveness analysis, they represent real benefits to the participants and successes of the Community Employment Centres.

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 Employment Centre.

APPENDICES

Supplementary Text

Additional background information
Employment needs have been found to be an important factor in the probability of committing a re-offence as well as the time to commit a new offence. In a follow-up to his previous study (Farrington et al., 1986), Farrington (2003) reported that for youth who had been convicted of an offence, those that had a stable employment history were less likely to re-offend than those who did not have a stable history. The relationship between employment and reoffence were reliably found regardless of how employment need was determined. Gendreau, Goggin and Gray (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of 67 studies and found significant mean effect sizes (r) of .1, .18, and .19 between recidivism and employment status at intake, employment history, and employment at release, respectively.

For instance, Trevethan, Moore and Rastin (2002) found that 33% of offenders are identified as having an employment need (some or considerable need) at the time of release into the community from a federal correctional facility.  This need is even greater for Aboriginal (43%) and women (39%) offenders (Taylor & Flight, 2004). Furthermore, the longer an offender is incarcerated beyond day parole eligibility, leading up to statutory release, the greater the employment need. For example, Trevethan and Rastin (2003) found that 55% of offenders on statutory release were identified as having an employment need at the time of their release, compared to only 28% on full parole, and 39% on day parole.

In order for employment programs to be successful, offenders need to be both assisted in finding work and accepted in the community (Graffam & Hardcastle, 2007). Support in these areas help offenders overcome personal and employability problems that they encounter while searching for employment. Visher and Travis (2003) reported that offenders were more likely to suffer from employment-limiting health and substance abuse problems. Offenders are also likely to have problems adjusting to routine that is imposed upon them while working and to more frequently encounter low-paying employment opportunities. Furthermore, while incarcerated, offenders find that their skill set has been weakened with a loss of experience and that they lost employment contacts that they once had.

It is also important for offender employment programs to address the acceptance of offenders by potential employers (Fletcher & Taylor, 2001). When compared to other disadvantaged job seekers (e.g., individuals with a chronic illness, physical and sensory disabilities, and communication difficulties), job seekers with a criminal history were rated lower on their ability to obtain and maintain employment (Graffem, Shinkfield & Hardcastle, 2008). Interestingly, when examining special populations of job-seekers with criminal histories, ex-prisoners with training are viewed as more likely to obtain and maintain employment than those with other histories.

A review of CSC was completed in 2007 by an independent panel appointed by then Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Stockwell Day. The final report, entitled “A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety” (Sampson et al., 2007) identified five areas that need to be strengthened to better offer public safety results to Canadians. One of these areas is the employability/employment of offenders. In particular the panel stated that “without the means to earn a living upon release, an offender’s rehabilitation is jeopardized.” (Sampson et al., 2007, p. viii). Further, “the panel recommends that CSC pay more attention to the attainment of higher educational levels and development of work skills and training to provide the offender with increased opportunities for employment in the community” (p. 65). The Community Employment Centres have the capability of fulfilling this recommendation by supporting offenders to overcome the barriers they face in terms of personal struggles and negative attitudes in the community and to obtain employment in the community. It is expected that programming aimed at the employment needs of an offender will assist in the successful reintegration of offenders into the community.

Logic Model

Activities and Outputs
The activities illustrated in the logic model represent what the program does in order to achieve its goals. The four activities of the Community Employment Centres are identified in the logic model.

Referral process. Offenders can seek services at any of the centres, or may receive services as a function of a referral process. Offenders with employment needs, or those with no evidence of employment in the community upon release, must be referred to the employment centre through their community strategy. The target recipients are offenders on day parole, full parole, statutory and work releases and could include offenders on temporary absences.

Employment assessment in the community. Following the referral process, the community employment coordinator conducts an employment assessment in the community of the offender. The output of this activity consists of the type of assessments conducted. The purpose of the employment assessment is to ensure that the offender's strengths and weaknesses are identified and that the individual receives adequate employment and placement services.

Employment and placement services. As indicated above, the employment assessment allows the centre to provide the offender with proper employment and placement services such as counseling, résumé writing, job search techniques, interview preparation, educational upgrading, office resources (computers, internet job search, fax, telephone) and on-the-job placement. The outputs of this activity are the number and types of services/placements offered to offenders.

Support. The community employment coordinators offer employment support to individuals, both at directly and through partnerships with other agencies. The output of this activity is the type of community-based employment networks available to offenders.

Outcomes
Outcomes refer to program goals or what program activities intend to change and/or create, and can also include unintended effects of program activities. As illustrated in the logic model, outcomes are grouped into immediate, intermediate and ultimate goals.

Immediate Outcomes
Parole officer and offender awareness of employment centres and services. Parole officers and offenders should display awareness of Community Employment Centres and services, due to the referral process for offenders with employment needs detailed in the community strategy.

Identification of offenders' employment strengths and areas for intervention. The offenders' employment assessment in the community conducted by the community employment coordinator enables the identification of each individual's employment strengths and areas for intervention. This allows the centres to be more efficient by providing their clients with the appropriate employment and placement services.

Increased offender job readiness. The Community Employment Centres increase offender job readiness through provision of the appropriate employment and placement services.

Increased access to support resources. Finally, by providing the offenders with community-based employment networks, the Community Employment Centres increase offenders' access to support resources which assist them in their job search and placement.

Intermediate Outcomes
All of the above-mentioned activities and immediate outcomes lead to the following shared intermediate outcomes.

Increased use of employment centre services. The referral process and the enhanced awareness of parole officers and offenders of employment centres and services should contribute to an increase in usage of the centres, as reflected in an increase in the number of offenders seeking services from the centre.

Increased offender confidence/self efficacy with regards to job search. The assessment and identification of offenders' employment strengths and weaknesses and the provision of appropriate employment and placement services will help increase the offenders' confidence and self-efficacy with regard to job search.

Increased awareness of job search techniques. Again, the provision of appropriate employment services such as counseling, résumé writing, job search techniques, interview preparation, educational upgrading and office resources should contribute to offenders' awareness of job search techniques.

Job placements. Finally, enhanced awareness and use of Community Employment Centres and the provision of adequate placement services will increase the level of offenders' job placements.

Ultimate Goals
The role and objectives of Community Employment Centres and the delivery of employment and placement services combined with the immediate and intermediate outcomes ultimately lead to two common/shared goals:

Job-ready and employed offenders. Community employment coordinators provide services in view of preparing and assisting offenders for employment in the community, which should result in job-ready and employed offenders.

Successful reintegration/decreased recidivism. By helping offenders obtain and maintain employment in the community, the Community Employment Centres play a vital role in the successful reintegration of offenders (i.e., a reduction in recidivism), as the ability of offenders to obtain and maintain employment upon release is an important factor in the likelihood of success on conditional release.

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

i)

Community Employment Centre 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.

  • Document review

Initiative's activities 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 review
  • Document review

ii)

Community Employment Centres serve the public interest.

Research (national and international) support the relevance of the initiative.

  • Literature review
  • Document review

Initiative's activities support CSC's Mandate

  • Document review

iii)

There is an appropriate, legitimate and necessary role for CSC in Community Employment Centres.

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
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

i)

Community contact for capacity development purposes occurs regularly.

Activities to build community capacity or engage new employers occur regularly

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • Program documents

Current employers are aware of the goals and objectives of CEC

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders

CSC provides necessary information and support to employers

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • Program documents

ii)

There is a regular pattern of offender-intervention (Increased job readiness)

High utilization rates.

  • OMS programs module.

Maintained employment.

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders

Decreased employment need

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • File review.

Identification of offenders’ employment strengths and weaknesses

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • File review.

Linking offender strengths and weaknesses to intervention

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders

iii)

There is a well developed cadre of tools and resources made available to aid in the facilitation of the offender reintegration process.

Services provided which meet the employment needs of offenders.

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
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

i)

High Usage of Effective Corrections Initiative activities by the targeted groups

Offenders are appropriately referred to CEC

  • OMS programs module.
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders

Referred offenders utilize the services

  • OMS programs module.
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders

Parole officers are aware of CEC and services

  • Interviews / surveys with parole officers

Offenders are aware of CEC and services

  • Interviews / surveys with offenders

Increased access to support resources

  • File review.
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders

High pre-post participation rates.

  • OMS programs module.

ii)

The initiative’s target group demonstrates positive results.

Employment needs addressed.

  • Employment domain of the Community Intervention Scale in OMS.
  • File review.
  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders

Target group more likely to successfully find employment when compared to matched cohort.

  • File review.

Increased offender confidence/self efficacy with regards to job search

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders

Increased awareness of job search techniques

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders
  • File review.

CEC participants less likely to be suspended and revoked than comparison group

  • OMS

CEC participants less likely to recidivate than comparison group

  • OMS and CPIC
Evaluation Objective 3: Cost-effectiveness
Have the most appropriate and efficient means being used to achieve outcomes?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Information Sources

i)

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 across regions.

  • Interviews / surveys with stakeholders,
  • File reviews
  • OMS queries.
  • Financial records

ii)

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.

  • File reviews
  • 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

i)

Staff members and offenders at other institutions have knowledge of Community Employment Centres activities and their purpose.

Staff at other institutions are aware of the goal of Community Employment Centres and how they intend to achieve that goal

  • Interviews/ surveys with stakeholders

Offenders are aware of the initiative and admission criteria

  • Interviews/ surveys with stakeholders

ii)

The Community Employment Centre initiative operates 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.

iii)

Community Employment Centres’ activities are supported by both internal and external CSC staff.

Internal and External staff have a positive regard for the initiative

  • Interviews/ surveys with stakeholders

iv)

Community Employment Centres 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

CEC services are delivered in a similar manner across sites and regions

  • Review of relevant documentation.
  • Regional comparisons

v)

Partnerships exist and function at an optimal level.

The most appropriate partners are responsible for the delivery of services and/or programs.

  • Interviews/ surveys with stakeholders
Evaluation Objective 5: Unintended Findings
Has the policy, program or initiative created/encountered any positive or negative unintended effects?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Information Sources

i)

Have there been any other impacts or effects resulting from the initiative?

Views of senior management, staff, offenders, community stakeholders regarding any unintended impacts

  • Interviews/ surveys with stakeholders
  • File review

Open-ended Survey and Interview Responses

OFFENDER

Question 60: Please explain any services that you would like to have seen offered but are not currently offered:
Code Theme Offenders (n=24)

1

Increased availability of training/ schooling

19

2

Ease of access to employment opportunities through CSC initiatives

4

3

Help with employment necessities

2

Question 37: Please explain why you were/were not satisfied with the work you obtained on your own:
Code Theme Offenders (n=21)

1

Match between interests and/or skills with employment

9

2

Working conditions

13

Question 44: Please explain why you were/were not satisfied with the work you obtained through the CEC:
Code Theme Offenders (n=40)

1

Match between interests and/or skills with employment

18

2

Working conditions

25

COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT COORDINATOR

Question 65- When would you typically refer them and for what reasons?
Code Theme Offenders (n=14)

1

Funding and job necessities

4

2

Support and community information

6

3

Training

6

4

Correctional programming

2

Question 70- Please describe the difficulties you have had partnering with local employment agencies.
Code Theme Offenders (n=8)

1

Offenders are not readily accepted or suitable as clients

5

2

Agencies do not offer suitable employment or resources

3

Question 52- What other services could be offered to offenders to increase their likelihood of obtaining employment?
Code Theme Offenders (n=11)

1

Funding

2

2

Community Training

4

3

Employment needs

5

Question 59- Please describe what types of processes and activities should be in place AND the position of the individual who should be responsible for carrying out these activities.
Code Theme Offenders (n=12)

1

Job developer or someone other than CEC

6

2

Symposium

1

3

Handout

2

4

CEC visits

3

CSC STAFF MEMBERS

Question 4.23- What other services could be offered to offenders to increase their likelihood of obtaining employment?
Code Theme Offenders (n=28)

1

Education / training

12

2

Workshops / increased help regarding employment needs

7

3

Increased employment opportunities

3

4

Institutional training

5

5

Help for special populations

1

Summary and Comparison of Community Employment Centre Participants and Interviewees

Table E 1. Age, Sentence Length and Years Served for all Community Employment Centre Participants and Interviewed Community Employment Centre Participants
  All CEC Participants a
(N=10363)
Mean in years (SD)
Interviewed CEC Participants (n=96
Mean in years (SD)
Z-statistic p-value

Age at Evaluation**

35.62 (10.07)

38.58 (11.22)

2.88

<.01

Sentence length b **

3.78 (2.88)

4.60 (3.73)

2.59

<,01

Years served until release***

3.09 (5.10)

5.90 (8.91)

5.40

<.001

Source: OMS.
a All CEC participants include all the offenders who received CEC services since 2000. b Sentence lengths were calculated for offenders who were not serving a life sentence and were capped at 15 years to reduce the effects of outliers.

Table E 2. Demographic and Sentence Type Characteristics for All Community Employment Centre Participants and Interviewed Community Employment Centre Participants
  All CEC Participants a
(N=10363)
CEC Participants who were Interviewed
(n=96)
Frequency n (%))
Sex χ2 (1) = 0.12, ns

Female

667 (6%)

7 (7%)

Ethnicity χ2(1) = 0.01, ns

Aboriginal

1898 (19%)

18 (19%)

Sentence type χ2 (1) = 18.8, p<.001

Indeterminate sentence

568 (6%)

15 (16%)

Offence type a    

Schedule 1

χ2 (1) = 12.59, p<.001
 

5543 (54%)

69 (72%)

Schedule 2

χ2 (1) = 2.65, ns
 

2564 (25%)

17 (18%)

Source: OMS.
Note: ns= not significant.  a Frequencies denote those offenders who were serving a sentence for a schedule 1 and schedule 2 offence.

Table E 3. Risk and Need Profiles of Community Employment Centre Participants and Community Employment Centre Participants who were Interviewed
  Upon Admission Last CPPR
All CEC Participants a
(N=10363)
CEC Participants who were Interviewed
(n=96)
All CEC Participants a
(N=10363)
CEC Participants who were Interviewed
(n=96)
Overall Static Risk χ2 (2) = 2.63, ns χ2 (2) = 5.87, ns

Low

1838 (18%)

11 (11%)

2509 (24%)

14 (15%)

Moderate

4866 (47%)

48 (50%)

4800 (46%)

46 (48%)

High

3645 (35%)

37 (39%)

3046 (29%)

36 (38%)

Overall Dynamic Risk χ2(2) = 4.84, ns χ2 (2) = 4.38, ns

Low

1077 (10%)

9 (9%)

1938 (19%)

10 (10%)

Moderate

3606 (35%)

24 (25%)

4523 (44%)

47 (49%)

High

5666 (55%)

63 (66%)

3894 (38%)

45 (47%)

Motivation χ2(2) = 5.97, ns χ2 (2) = 4.76, ns

Low

915 (10%)

2 (3%)

1080 (10%)

4 (4%)

Moderate

5858 (63%)

49 (63%)

5133 (50%)

47 (49%)

High

2488 (27%)

7 (35%)

4139 (40%)

45 (47%)

Reintegration Potential χ2(2) = 1.41, ns χ2 (2) = 1.46, ns

Low

2311 (25%)

24 (31%)

1837 (18%)

15 (16%)

Moderate

2715 (29%)

21 (27%)

4862 (47%)

51 (53%)

High

4235 (46%)

33 (42%)

3653 (35%)

30 (31%)

Source: OMS.
Notes: a All Community Employment Centre participants include all the offenders who received Community Employment Centre services since 2000. ns= not significant. None of the Chi-square tests were significant.

Table E 4. Community Employment Centre Participant Need Domain Profile
Need Domains Upon Admission Last CPPR
All CEC Participants a
(N=10363)
CEC Participants who were Interviewed
(n=96)
All CEC Participants a
(N=10363)
CEC Participants who were Interviewed
(n=96)
Employment χ2(2) = 0.77, ns χ2 (2) = 3.78, ns

Asset/no need

4047 (39%)

34 (35%)

5093 (50%)

38 (40%)

Some need

4842 (47%)

48 (50%)

4368 (43%)

48 (50%)

Considerable need

1376 (13%)

14 (15%)

808 (8%)

10 (10%)

Marital/Family χ2(2) = 0.89, ns χ2 (2) = 0.15, ns

Asset/no need

6044 (59%)

55 (57%)

6436 (63%)

60 (63%)

Some need

2619 (26%)

24 (25%)

2900 (28%)

26 (27%)

Considerable need

1571 (15%)

17 (18%)

919 (9%)

10 (10%)

Social interaction χ2(2) = 0.86, ns χ2 (2) = 3.99, ns

Asset/no need

3129 (31%)

33 (35%)

4213 (41%)

47 (49%)

Some need

4415 (43%)

40 (43%)

4317 (38%)

38 (40%)

Considerable need

2697 (26%)

21 (22%)

1729 (10%)

10 (11%)

Substance abuse χ2(2) = 0.99, ns χ2 (2) = 0.29

Asset/no need

2914 (28%)

28 (29%)

3684 (36%)

34 (35%)

Some need

2235 (22%)

17 (18%)

3534 (34%)

35 (36%)

Considerable need

5160 (50%)

51 (53%)

3101 (30%)

27 (28%)

Community functioning χ2(2) = 0.30 χ2 (2) = 3.23, ns

Asset/no need

6941 (68%)

62 (65%)

7284 (71%)

60 (63%)

Some need

2614 (26%)

27 (28%)

2521 (25%)

31 (32%)

Considerable need

651 (6%)

6 (6%)

422 (4%)

5 (5%)

Personal/emotional χ2(2) = 4.23, ns χ2 (2) = 2.49, ns

Asset/no need

1653 (16%)

11 (11%)

2358 (25%)

16 (17%)

Some need

3222 (31%)

24 (25%)

4723 (46%)

45 (47%)

Considerable need

5430 (53%)

61 (64%)

3234 (31%)

35 (36%)

Attitude χ2(2) = 1.36, ns χ2 (2) = 1.64, ns

Asset/no need

4436 (43%)

40 (43%)

5482 (54%)

57 (60%)

Some need

3111 (30%)

25 (27%)

3102 (30%)

24 (25%)

Considerable need

2673 (26%)

29 (31%)

1656 (16%)

14 (15%)

Note: CEC = Community Employment Centre

Table E 5. Employment Needs of Community Employment Centre Participants
Employment Needs at Intake All CEC Participants a
(N =10363)
Interviewed CEC Participants (n=96) χ2 (df=1)

Education

6534 (73%)

56 (74%)

0.05

Impediments to  Learning and  Employment

5526 (61%)

48 (63%)

0.11

Skill Area/ Trade/Profession

5840 (65%)

54 (71%)

1.31

Employment History

7397 (82%)

62 (82%)

0.01

Job Performance

4256 (47%)

40 (53%)

0.90

Dismissal/Departure

6895 (76%)

52 (68%)

2.74

Rewards

6415 (71%)

51 (67%)

0.61

Relations

1028 (11%)

5 (7%)

1.75

Interventions

3059 (34%)

24 (68%)

0.19

Source: OMS.
Notes: Frequencies denote the number (and proportion) of CEC participants who had each of these employment needs. None of the Chi-square tests were significant at p< .05. a All CEC participants include all the offenders who received Community Employment Centre services since 2000.

Cox Regression Analyses

Revocation
Table F 1. Cox Regression Analysis - Odds of Readmission for a Technical Violation as a function of Community Employment Centre Participation
  ß SE Wald df Sig. Odds ratio
Block 1            

Age at Admission

-.022

.001

392.870

1

.000

.978

Aggregate Sentence (1)

   

109.608

3

.000

 

Aggregate Sentence (2 vs. 1)

.688

.087

61.874

1

.000

1.989

Aggregate Sentence (3 vs. 1)

.495

.093

28.479

1

.000

1.641

Aggregate Sentence (4 vs. 1)

.131

.134

.953

1

.329

1.140

Need (low)

   

359.536

2

.000

 

Need (moderate vs. low)

.845

.063

182.154

1

.000

2.329

Need (high vs. low)

1.136

.064

313.937

1

.000

3.114

Risk (low)

   

196.511

2

.000

 

Risk (moderate vs. low)

.442

.043

107.141

1

.000

1.556

Risk (high vs. low)

.632

.046

190.690

1

.000

1.881

Block 2            

Group (Community Employment Centre vs. comparison group)

-.108

.027

16.260

1

.000

.898

Note: The omnibus test of model coefficients found that group added significantly to the model after controlling for age at release, aggregate sentence length, and risk and need levels, -2 log likelihood = 162091.93, total model χ2 (9) = 1766.11, p < .001. Change in χ2 (1) = 16.58, p < .001.

New Offence
Table F 2. Cox regression analysis - Odds of Readmission for a New Offence as a function of Community Employment Centre participation
  ß SE Wald df Sig. Odds ratio
Block 1            

Age at Admission

-0.039

.001

838.249

1

.000

0.962

Aggregate Sentence (1)

-

-

286.486

3

.000

-

Aggregate Sentence (2 vs. 1)

1.945

.161

145.331

1

.000

6.994

Aggregate Sentence (3 vs. 1)

1.468

.166

77.991

1

.000

4.342

Aggregate Sentence (4 vs. 1)

1.048

.206

25.908

1

.000

2.851

Need (low)

-

-

184.664

2

.000

-

Need (moderate vs. low)

0.527

.064

67.881

1

.000

1.694

Need (high vs. low)

0.801

.066

148.749

1

.000

2.227

Risk (low)

-

-

303.632

2

.000

-

Risk (moderate vs. low)

0.579

.049

139.962

1

.000

1.785

Risk (high vs. low)

0.882

.052

283.302

1

.000

2.417

Block 2            

Group (Community Employment Centre vs. comparison group)

-0.182

.032

32.410

1

.000

0.834

Note: The omnibus test of model coefficients found that group added significantly to the model after controlling for age at release, aggregate sentence length, and risk and need levels, -2 log likelihood = 120922.95, total model χ2 (9) = 2241.71, p < .001. Change in χ2 (1) = 33.59, p < .001.

Any Readmission
Table F 3. Cox regression analysis - Odds of Readmission for a New Offence or Technical Revocation as a function of Community Employment Centre participation
  ß SE Wald df Sig. Odds ratio
Block 1            

Age at Admission

-.029

.001

1163.316

1

.000

.971

Aggregate Sentence (1)

   

381.585

3

.000

 

Aggregate Sentence (2 vs. 1)

1.124

.077

214.851

1

.000

3.077

Aggregate Sentence (3 vs. 1)

.813

.081

101.795

1

.000

2.254

Aggregate Sentence (4 vs. 1)

.424

.110

14.757

1

.000

1.528

Need (low)

   

537.533

2

.000

 

Need (moderate vs. low)

.698

.045

243.897

1

.000

2.009

Need (high vs. low)

.980

.046

458.014

1

.000

2.664

Risk (low)

   

483.798

2

.000

 

Risk (moderate vs. low)

.502

.032

242.929

1

.000

1.652

Risk (high vs. low)

.740

.034

461.139

1

.000

2.097

Block 2            

Group (Community Employment Centre vs. comparison group)

-.138

.020

45.420

1

.000

.871

Note: The omnibus test of model coefficients found that group added significantly to the model after controlling for age at release, aggregate sentence length, and risk and need levels, -2 log likelihood = 283194.092, total model χ2 (9) = 3885.023, p < .001. Change in χ2 (1) = 46.611, p < .001.

References

Albright, S. & Denq, F. (1996). Employer attitudes toward hiring ex-offenders.  Prison Journal, 76(2).

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

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Year Book, Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australia Bureau of Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved September 10, 2009 from http://books.google.ca/books?id=06JsNnx7eV0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Australian National Training Authority (2001). National Strategy for Vocational Education and Training for Adult Prisoners and Offenders in Australia. Brisbane, Australia: ANTA

Bauldry, S., & McClanahan, W. (2008). Ready4Work: Final Research Report. Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_resultDetails&pub_id=2397&mp=y

Bierens, H.J., & Carvalho,  J.R. (2007). Job search, conditional treatment and recidivism: The employment services for ex-offenders program reconsidered. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://econ.la.psu.edu/~hbierens/CONDTREAT2.PDF

Boe, R. (2005). Unemployment risk trends and the implications for Canadian federal offenders.  Forum on Corrections Research, 17, 3-5.

Bossler, A., Fleisher, M., & Krienert, J. (2000). Employment and crime: Revisiting the resiliency effect of work on crime.  Corrections Compendium, 25(2), 1-18.

Bouffard, J.A., MacKenzie, D.L., & Hickman, L.J. (2000). Effectiveness of vocational education and employment programs  for adult offenders: A methodology-based analysis of the literature. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31(1/2), 1-41.

Burke, H.C. (1997). Perceived factors related to conditional release: Outcome by successful and unsuccessful male offenders. Unpublished master’s thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario.

Callan, V.J., & Gardner, J. (2005a). Vocational education and training provision and recidivism in Queensland correctional institutions. Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved September 11, 2009 from http://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/1592.html

Callan, V.J., & Gardner, J. (2005b). Vocational education and training provision and recidivism in Queensland correctional institutions: Support document. Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Retrieved September 16, 2009 from http://www.ncver.edu.au/publications/1592.html

Community High School of Vermont, Vermont Department of Corrections. (2007). Vermont’s workforce developmentprogram evaluation: Offender-specific goals. Waterbury, VT: Community High School of Vermont, Vermont Department of Correction. Retrieved September 14, 2009 from http://www.chsvt.org/wdp.html

Conference Board of Canada (2007). For a Stronger Canada. Annual Report, 2007. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, 1992, c. 20.
Correctional Service Canada. (2003). Commissioner’s Directive 26: Correctional Programs. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2008). 2007-2008 Departmental Performance Reports. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada. (2009). Correctional Service Canada 2009-20010 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Council of State Governments (2005) Report of the Reentry Policy Council: Charting the safe and successful return of prisoners to the community.  New York. http://www.reentrypolicy.org/rp/Main.aspx.

Davis, R. (1980). Employer stigmatization of ex-offenders and the pardon under the Criminal Records Act. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 22(3), 343-353.

Dawe, S. (2007) Vocational education and training for adult prisoners and offenders in Australia. Adelaide: NCVER.

Delveaux, K., Blanchette, K., & Wickett, J. (2005). Employment needs, interests, and programming for women offenders (Report No. R-166). Ottawa, Ontario: Research Branch, CSC.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Washington, DC.

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D.A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent re-offending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 449-467.

Finn, P. (1998). Texas’ Project RIO (Re-Integration of Offenders). Program Focus. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved September 10, 2009 from http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/texas-rio.pdf

French, S.A., & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 185-218.

Fry, C. (1987). The employment problems of ex-offenders.  New York: Alliance for a Safer New York.

Employment Support Unit (2000). Integra: Working with ex-offenders.  Birmingham: Employment Support Unit.

Farrington, D. (2003). Key results from the first forty years of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. In T. Thornberry and M. Krohn (Eds.) Taking stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies (pp. 137-183). New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum.

Farrington, D. P., Gallagher, B., Morley, L., St. Ledger, R. J., & West, D. J. (1986). Unemployment, school leaving and crime.  British Journal of Criminology, 26(4), 335-356.

Fergusson, D. M., Lynskey, M. T., & Horwood, L. J. (1997). The effects of unemployment on juvenile offending. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 7, 49-68.

Fletcher, D. & Taylor, A. (2001). Recruiting and employing offenders: The impact of the Police Act.  Cited in S. Dawe (Ed.) Vocational education and training for adult prisoners and offenders in Australia. Adelaide: NCVER.

Finn, P. (1998).  Successful job placement for ex-offenders: The Centre for Employment Opportunities. USA: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/168102.pdf

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Gray, G. (2000). Case needs review: Employment domain (Report No. R-90).  Saint John, New Brunswick: Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, UNB. Retrieved on August 11, 2009, from http://www.ccoso.org/employmentaspredictor.pdf.

Gendreau, P., Little, T. & Groggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(3), 401-433.

Gillis, C. (2002). Understanding employment: A prospective exploration of factors linked to community-based employment among federal offenders.  Forum on Corrections Research, 14(1), 3-6.

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

Gillis, C., Nafekh, M., Pepin, M., Beriau, M.L., & Jeffery, M. (2005). Report on the Evaluation of the Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure: Community Employment Centres Initiative (File # 394-2-37). Ottawa, ON: CSC.

Government Consulting Services (2006). Review of the Community Employment Centre operations and effectiveness. Ottawa, ON: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Graffam, J., & Hardcastle, L. (2007).  Ex-prisoners and ex-offenders and the employment connection: Assistance plus acceptance. In S. Dawe (Ed.) Vocational education and training for adult prisoners and offenders in Australia (pp. 47-66). Adelaide: NCVER.

Graffam, J., & Shinkfield, A., Mihailides, S., & Lavelle, B. (2005). Creating a pathway to reintegration: The correctional services employment pilot program (CSEPP). Evaluation Report. Burwood, Australia: Deakin University. Retrieved September 11, 2009 from http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/Home/Prisons/Prisoners/Release/JUSTICE+-+Creating+a+Pathway+to+Reintegration+-+The+Correctional+Services+Employment+Pilot+Program+%28CSEPP%29

Halliday Wynes, S. (2007). The provision of VET for adult prisoners in Australia. In S. Dawe (Ed.), Vocational education and training for adult prisoners and offenders in Australia: Research readings (pp.92 – 138). Adelaide, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Heinrich, S. (2000). Reducing recidivism through work: Barriers and opportunities for employment of ex-offenders. Chicago: Great Cities Institute, University of Illinois.

Houston, M. (2001). Offender job retention. USA: National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2001/016971.pdf.

Institut de la statistique du Québec (2009). Region and RCM profiles. Retreived from http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/donstat/societe/demographie/dons_regnl/regional/ra_1996-2008.htm

Jocovy, L. (2006). Just out: Early lessons from the Ready4Work Prisoner Reentry Initiative. Field Series report. USA: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved from http://www.nicic.org/Library/021435.

Lattimore, P.K. (2009). Impact of SVORI Reentry Program Participation. Anaheim, CA: RTI International. Retrieved on September 17, 2009 from http://www.svori-evaluation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_presentations

Lawrence, S., Mears, D., Dubin, G., & Travis, J. (2002). The practice and promise of prison programming. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.

Lipsey, M.W., Chapman, G.L., & Landenberger, N.A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioural programs for offenders. Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science, 578, 144-157.

Menon, R., Blakely, C., Carmichael, D., & Silver, L. (1992). An evaluation of Project RIO outcomes: An evaluative report.  College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University, Public Policy Resources Laboratory.

Motiuk, L. L. (1997). Classification for correctional programming: The Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process. Forum on Corrections Research, 9(1), 18–22.

Motiuk, L. L., & Vuong, B. (2005). Offender employment: What the research tells us. Forum on Corrections Research, 17, 21-24.

Nafekh, M., Allegri, N., Fabisiak, A., Batten, D., Stys, Y., Li, H., Jensen, T., Loree, E., Henighan, M., Chappell, M., & Scarfone, C. (2009). Evaluation Report: Correctional Service Canada’s Correctional Programs. Ottawa, ON: CSC.

Pettway, C. (2006). Best practices tool-kit: Offender job readiness and job retention.  Ohio: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

Public Safety Canada. (2008). Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview: Annual Report 2008 (Cat. No. PS1-3/2008E).Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Rahill-Beuler, C. & Kretzer, K. (1997). Helping offenders find employment. Federal Probation, 61(1), 35-37.

Sampson, R.J. & Laub, J.H. (1997). A life course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T.P. Thornberry, (ed.), Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency (pp. 133-162). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Sampson, R., Gascon, S., Glen, I., Louiem, C., & Rosenfeldt, S. (2007). The Report of the CSC Review Panel: A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety [Cat. No. PS84-14/2007E] Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Scanlon, W. (2001). Ex-convicts: A workplace diversity issue. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 16(4), 35-51.

Simon, F. & Corbet, C. (1996). An evaluation of prison work and training.  London: Home Office UK.

Soothill, K. & Holmes, J. (1981). Finding employment for ex-prisoners: A ten-year follow-up study.  The Howard Journal, 20, 29036.

Statistics Canada (2005, June). Labour Force Survey: Western Canada’s off-reserve Aboriginal Population (Catalogue no. 71-587-XIE), The Daily. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Retrieved on November 18, 2009 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050613/dq050613a-eng.htm.

Statistics Canada (2007). Population and dwelling counts, for urban areas, 2006 and 2001 censuses - 100% data (table). Population and Dwelling Count Highlight Tables. 2006 Census (Catalogue no. 97-550-XWE2006002). Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Retrieved on October 15, 2009 from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=801&SR=151&S=1&O=A&RPP=25&PR=0&CMA=0.

Statistics Canada (2008, March). 2006 Census: Labour Market activities, industry, occupation, education, language of work, place of work, mode of transportation. The Daily. Ottawa: Author. Retrieved on November 18, 2009, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080304/dq080304a-eng.htm.

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: CSC.

Taylor, K. & Flight, J. (2004). A profile of federally-sentenced women on conditional release. Forum on Corrections Research, 16(1).

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2009). Canada’s Performance: The Government of Canada’s Contribution. Ottawa. ON: Author.

Trevethan, S., Moore, J.P., & Rastin, C.J. (2002). A profile of Aboriginal offenders in federal facilities and serving time in the community. Forum on Corrections Research, 14(3).

Trevethan, S. & Rastin, C.J. (2003). A profile of offenders serving time in the community. Forum on Corrections Research, 15(1).

Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1996). Work release in Washington: Effects on recidivism and corrections costs. The Prison Journal, 76(2), 138-164.

Uggen, C. (1999). Ex-offenders and the conformist alternative: A job quality model of work and crime.  Social Problems, 46(1), 127-151.

Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 76, 529-546.

Uggen, C., & Staff, J. (2004). Work as a turning point for criminal offenders. In J.L.Krienert & M.S.Fleisher (Eds.), Crime and employment: Critical issues in crime reduction for corrections. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Visher, C., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89-113.

Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 295-315.

Visher, C.A., Winterfield, L. & Coggeshall, M.B. (2006). Systematic review of non-custodial employment programs: Impact on recidivism rates of ex-offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration.

Wilson, D.B., Gallagher, C.A., & MacKenzie, D.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 347-368.

Wynes, S. H. (2007). The provision of VET for adult prisoners in Australia. In S. Dawe (Ed.) Vocational education and training for adult prisoners and offenders in Australia(pp. 92-120). Adelaide: NCVER. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3c/73/7d.pdf

1 The Correctional Service of 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. Information regarding CSC, including policy and legislation, can be found at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca

2 Partnerships with CSC are established through CORCAN, a CSC program which provides federal offenders with employment training and employability skills. For more information regarding CORCAN see http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/corcan/index.html.

3 The Treasury Board is a Cabinet committee that “is responsible for accountability and ethics, financial, personnel and administrative management, comptrollership, approving regulations and most Orders-in-Council” (TBS, 2007).

4 CORCAN is a special operating agency of the Correctional Service of Canada aimed at providing employment training and employability skills to offenders in federal correctional institutions.

5 CORCAN is mandated to provide employment training and employability skills to offenders in federal correctional institutions in support of the social policy of the Government of Canada.

6 OMS is an electronic filing system designed to monitor and track offenders under the supervision of the Correctional Service Canada. Data captured in OMS include the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA), a comprehensive and integrated examination of offenders at the time of their admission.

7 In the Quebec Region, all Community Employment Centre services are provided by contracted service providers.

8 Schedule 1 offences refer to offences against the person. (Refer to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-44.6/page-3.html#anchorsc:1 for a list of offences)

9 Schedule 2 offences refer to drug-related offences (Refer to http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-44.6/page-4.html#anchorsc:2  for a list of offences)

10 See Appendix D for a summary and comparison of demographic, criminal history and correctional profiles of all Community Employment Centre participants and interviewed Community Employment Centre participants.

11 Community Employment Coordinators manage relationships between institutional and community-based parole officers, employment centres and employers

12 Most staff members who had limited or no familiarity with Community Employment Centres (67%, n=53) indicated that information on the initiative would be moderately or completely beneficial to them. For these respondents, the best method of information delivery was reported to be workshop or information sessions (36%), email (30%), and information posted on InfoNet (27%)

13 A technical violation is defined as a violation of terms of conditional release without re-offence.

14 New offence was defined as readmission to either federal or provincial custody. Readmission to federal custody included new warrant of committal offences (i.e., new sentence of two years or more), violation of terms of conditional release with an offence, revocation with an offence, revocation with an outstanding charge. Provincial readmission included new sentence after the expiry of the federal sentence that resulted in a return to provincial custody (i.e., a sentence of less than two years).

15 Pearson's chi-square test of independence is used to determine if two  categorical variables are independent of each other by examining the frequency of distruibution.

16 Student’s  t-test is used to determine if the mean of one sample is equivalent to the mean of a second sample.

17Cox regression analysis is used to determine the relationship between the survival rate (the proportion of a sample that has not experienced the studied incident over a period of time) and one or more predictor variables.

18 For revocation, time at risk was the time between release and the date of revocation. For new offence, time at risk was the time between release and the date of the first new conviction regardless of whether a federal or provincial sentence was imposed.

19 Exact percent of those arrested was not reported.

20 Only 13% of offenders in the Quebec Region reported some or considerable employment needs compared to 67% of offenders in the other four regions. This large discrepancy in proportions suggests a systematic difference in reporting procedures between regions that should be examined in greater detail.

21 Defined by Statistics Canada as an “area with a population of at least 1,000 and no fewer than 400 persons per square kilometre”.

22 Employment and placement services include referrals for specific skills training, interview preparation, and referral to employers.

23 The exception was computer training