Performance Assurance

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Report on the Evaluation of Citizens' Advisory Committeess: CSC Perspective

Evaluation of Citizens' Advisory Committees

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

List of Tables

List of Figures

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 Background and Evaluation Objectives

1.2 Evaluation Methodology

1.3 Evaluation Findings and Recommendations

2.0 Introduction and Context

2.1 Description

2.2 Evaluation Context

3.0 Methodology/Design/Data

3.1 Methodology

3.2 Limitations and Impacts

4.0 Key Findings

4.1 Structure of CAC

4.2 Interactions

4.3 Activities

4.4 Perceptions of CACs

5.0 Key Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Structure of CAC

5.2 Liaise

5.3 Observe

5.4 Advise

6.0 References

7.0 Appendixes

Appendix A: CAC Impact Model

Appendix B: Questionnaires

Appendix C: Rural Survey

Appendix D : Statistical Terms Legend

_____Original signed by _____

Thérèse Gascon

Director General

Evaluation and Review

___November 8th, 2004___

Date

_____Original signed by _____

Cheryl Fraser

Assistant Commissioner

Performance Assurance

___November 8th, 2004___

Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This examination of Citizens’ Advisory Committees (CACs) was initiated by the Citizen Engagement Branch (Community Engagement Sector, Correctional Service Canada National Headquarters), who requested research and evaluation projects to explore the functioning of CACs. The Research methodology was conceptualized by Shelley Trevethan and Christopher Rastin (Research Branch), with contributions by Christa Gillis (Evaluation & Review Branch), in consultation with Helen Friel and Christine Cloutier (Citizen Engagement Branch), Charles Emmrys (the former CAC National Executive Chair), and an advisory committee comprised of CAC members. Questionnaires for the evaluation were developed by Christa Gillis, Shelley Trevethan and Christopher Rastin. Many other people were involved in various components of this multi-faceted project.

For the Research component of the study, the following people were involved: Shelley Trevethan, Christopher Rastin, and Amey Bell conceptualized the research, managed the project and analysis, and wrote the research report; Martine Maybury (interviewing, data entry and qualitative analysis), Marlène Pepin (interviewing CAC Chairs), Reagan Letourneau (qualitative data analysis, interviewing CAC Chairs, and assistance with organizing the study), Michael Jeffreys and Lynn Thrasher (logistics of the study).

For the Evaluation component of the study, on-site interviews were conducted by Christa Gillis, Michel Burrowes, Marlène Pepin and Christopher Rastin. Data entry and preliminary data analyses were conducted by Karen de Vleeshauer, Hongping Li, and Marlène Pepin, with detailed data analysis performed by Paul Verbrugge. The follow-up survey for rural sites was developed by Christa Gillis and Marlène Pepin following the site interview portion of the study. The evaluation report was prepared by Christa Gillis, with comments on the draft version of the report from Shelley Trevethan, Helen Friel, and Marlène Pepin.

The evaluation team would like to express appreciation to participating staff and offenders at the following sites: Westmorland Institution, Dorchester Penitentiary, Moncton Parole Office, Ferndale Institution, Mission Institution, Matsqui Institution, Vancouver Parole Office, Abbotsford/Fraser Valley Parole, Kent Institution, Mountain Institution, Grande Cache Institution, Edmonton Institution for Women, Edmonton District Parole Office, Edmonton Institution, Millhaven Institution, Collins Bay Institution, Bath Institution, Pittsburgh Institution, Établissement Joliette, Centre Régional de Réception, Établissement Ste-Anne des-Plaines, and Établissement Archambault, as well as Regional Headquarters staff.

Interviewees for the site visits included: management (Wardens/Directors, Assistant Warden of Management Services [AWMS], Assistant Warden Correctional Programs [AWCP]), CSC-CAC representatives, programs officers, parole officers, executive assistants and/or administrative assistants to the Warden/Director or AWMS, Inmate Committee representatives, and Lifers' Group representatives. Their insights and contributions were most valuable and appreciated. Special thanks to the executive assistants of Wardens and District Directors for their time and effort in setting up interviews at institutions and parole offices.

It is hoped that results of this project will contribute to an enhanced understanding of the functioning of CACs - the many ways in which they contribute to the Service, and aspects that may be addressed to ensure their most effective functioning in the future.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Role of the CAC as perceived by staff and offenders

Table 2: Role of the CAC as perceived by respondents to the rural survey

Table 3: Management perspectives of their role with respect to the CAC

Table 4: Perceptions of CAC member diversity

Table 5: Comparison of management and Chair ratings on satisfaction with recruitment

Table 6: Comparison of perceptions of the level of interaction between the CAC and operational unit

Table 7: Comparison of management and Chair perceptions of staff awareness of CAC events and issues

Table 8: Management and Chair perceptions of CAC sharing of information with the community

Table 9: Between group comparisons on community outreach participation

Table 10: CAC interactions with offenders as perceived by management and Chairs

Table 11: Primary activities of the CAC as perceived by management and staff

Table 12: Between group comparisons on ratings of CAC involvement toward goals

Table 13: Comparison of ratings of CAC member knowledge level

Table 14: Between groups comparisons on ratings of CAC knowledge

Table 15: Between groups comparisons on ratings of CAC effectiveness

Table 16: Between groups comparisons on ratings of CAC achievement

Table 17: Management and staff perceptions of the strengths of CACs

Table 18: Rural survey respondent perceptions of the strengths of CACs

Table 19: Offender perceptions of the strengths of CACs

Table 20: Management and staff perceptions of the beneficial aspects of CACs

Table 21: Offender perceptions of the beneficial aspects of CACs

Table 22: Management, staff and offender perceptions of opportunities for improvement

Table 23: Rural survey respondent perceptions of opportunities for improvement

Table 24: Management, staff and offender perceptions of aspects to be addressed to ensure the most effective functioning of CACs

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The CAC System

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Background and Evaluation Objectives

Citizens' Advisory Committees (CACs) serve a key role in facilitating the link between the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the community, through observing institutional day-to-day life and sensational incidents; liaising with the community and with CSC management, staff and offenders; and providing advice to CSC. The purpose of this evaluation was to ascertain areas of CACs that are functioning well, and to explore opportunities for improvement, from the CSC perspective1. This review was designed to obtain a better understanding of CACs - their composition and activities at the local level - and is therefore primarily descriptive in nature. The information will be used to provide feedback to the CAC (locally, regionally, and nationally) and to the Service (locally, regionally, and nationally). Moreover, the results will serve as a blueprint for CACs in initiating any required changes, and will provide feedback to CSC as to how they are supporting CACs, and how they can further facilitate the work of CACs. Furthermore, the current study will provide baseline information for future evaluations (i.e., that are summative in nature - providing information on effectiveness) that can compare current functioning to performance following the opportunity to incorporate changes based on information provided in the evaluation. Interviews will be conducted with the National Executive Committee members and National Headquarters staff in fiscal year 2005/06 to gain their perspective on the functioning of CACs.

1.2 Evaluation Methodology

The Research and Evaluation & Review Branches undertook a comprehensive study involving four phases: a survey with CAC members (n=244); phone interviews with CAC Chairs (n=38); site visits to interview key informants in the Service (management, program staff and parole officers, CSC-CAC regional coordinators, and offenders [Inmate Committee representatives and Lifers' groups]); and a survey of staff in rural CSC offices and institutions. The following areas were selected for the key informant interviews for the evaluation, given their proximity to institutions, parole offices, and regional headquarters: Moncton, New Brunswick; Laval, Québec; Kingston, Ontario; Edmonton, Alberta; and Abbotsford, British Columbia. Interviews and discussions were held with 28 managers (Wardens, District Directors, Directors, Assistant Warden Correctional Programs [AWCP], and Assistant Warden Management Services [AWMS]), 90 staff members (primarily parole officers and program officers), and 28 Inmate Wellness Committees (IWCs), consisting of approximately 75 offenders. A total of 28 institutions and parole offices participated in the on-site interview component of the evaluation and 18 sites completed the rural survey.

The research study was designed to address six key areas, examined from the perspective of CAC members and Chairs:

  1. What is the profile of CAC members?
  2. What attitudes do CAC members hold (e.g., toward corrections, rehabilitation, etc.)?
  3. In what activities are CACs involved?
  4. What models of CACs are in place across Canada?
  5. How effective are CACs?
  6. What issues face those involved in CACs?

These research questions are addressed in detail in the Research report; results will only be briefly presented, where applicable, in the current evaluation report. For a more detailed analysis of the findings and implications of these research questions, please refer to the Forum article (Trevethan, Rastin & Gillis, 2003) and to the full research report (Trevethan, Rastin, Bell & Gillis, 2004).

The evaluation explored the “CSC perspective” on some of the same issues, with a focus on gaining an enhanced understanding of the following areas:

  1. What is the role of CACs?
  2. What are the primary activities of CACs?
  3. How effective are CACs in carrying out their activities?
  4. What are areas of strength in the functioning of CACs?
  5. What are the current opportunities for improvement in the functioning of CACs?

Questionnaires containing both qualitative and quantitative questions were developed for the evaluation component of the study. The questionnaires were constructed in a manner similar to those developed for the research study, with the intention of comparing CSC and CAC responses on questions exploring knowledge of CAC members, effectiveness in various activity areas, and issues to be addressed. Separate questionnaires were designed for management (including Wardens and/or Assistant Warden Management Services and Assistant Warden Correctional Programs, District Directors, and the CSC-CAC regional coordinator), staff (primarily parole officers and program officers), and offenders (typically, the IWC Chair and/or Committee, although some Lifers' group representatives also participated).

1.3 Evaluation Findings and Recommendations

In terms of evaluation findings, it is noteworthy that a high degree of agreement was obtained among respondents (management, staff, offenders, CAC members and CAC Chairs) in many areas. Specifically, on the overall ratings for CAC involvement in working toward goals, knowledge, effectiveness in activities, and effectiveness in working toward goals, there were no significant differences between the CAC respondents and CSC respondents. Likewise, similar areas were identified as strengths and benefits by management, staff and offenders, and a similar level of consensus was attained with regard to opportunities for improvement. These findings provide a good starting point - we know what is working well, and have concrete areas on which to focus to enhance the role of CACs, and areas in which CSC can provide support to facilitate their work.

The following synthesis of key conclusions and corresponding recommendations was drawn from the evaluation results and is presented for consideration. The synthesis and recommendations focus on findings related to the structure/role and specific activities of the CAC - liaising, observing and providing advice.

Structure/Role of CACs

Generally, respondents indicated that they believe the CAC reflects the local community in terms of diversity, but these findings conflict with the profile compiled by Research which indicated that CAC members tend to differ from the Canadian population on various characteristics. It was noted by managers that recruitment could be improved by bringing in more Aboriginal members, visible minority members, and younger members. It is recommended that CSC assist the CAC with strategies and initiatives to facilitate the recruitment of more Aboriginal members, visible minority members, and younger members when this need is identified by CAC Chairs and CSC management.

Furthermore, with respect to the structure of the CAC, management, staff and offenders indicated that role definition among CAC members was an area that, if improved, could contribute to more effective functioning of the CAC. This is an area that could be readily addressed through expansion of the current national CAC member training to focus more intensively on CAC-specific activities and roles, to ensure maximal understanding of the role of a CAC member. Additionally, it is important to ensure that staff and offenders are aware of the specific role of the CAC. One means of improving their level of awareness is to incorporate a brief component in orientation training for staff and offenders at reception, and to ensure that current CAC pamphlets are available to staff, offenders and the community.

Liaise

Liaison was mentioned by all groups as one of the most prevalent and effective activities of the CAC. The general consensus is that CAC members perform an important role with the public - they come from the community, therefore provide a critical link, and outreach is generally recognised by management, staff and offenders as something that the CAC does well. However, the lack of funding at the local (i.e., institution/parole office) level was mentioned by a number of managers as a deterrent to expanding outreach endeavors. To this end, it would be beneficial to review the funding structure of the CACs, to ensure that funds are allocated in such a way as to facilitate the activities and initiatives of the CACs at the local level.

Furthermore, all groups of CSC respondents indicated that there is work to be done to improve the interaction between CAC members and staff. Whereas it was recognised by all respondents that the CACs are effective in working with offenders, most groups also indicated that the CAC could be more visible in the institution, which would increase the interaction with both staff and offenders, as well as contribute to an enhanced understanding of the roles and activities of the CAC and an increased opportunity for sharing of information/enhanced communication. Increased communication and sharing of information could be accomplished through such means as reciprocal attendance at meetings for CAC members and staff, and through ensuring follow-up with offenders via the development and/or maintenance of monthly meetings with offender representatives and the CAC. Moreover, to enhance communication and understanding of the role and activities of the CAC, it would be useful if CACs prepared and distributed, on a quarterly or bi-yearly basis, a one-page description of current CAC initiatives and endeavors to staff and offender representatives.

Observe

One of the primary areas of strength and effectiveness of the CAC, as identified by management and staff, is their role as impartial observers. During the interviews, however, many managers indicated that the CAC role varies considerably by institutional security level, particularly with respect to observing. Moreover, many managers emphasised the need for flexibility in the manner in which the CAC may operate, with recognition of the differential emphasis on activities at different types of operational sites. They indicated that, in their opinion, the work of the CAC is potentially constrained by the policy on CACs (i.e., CD-023; Correctional Service Canada, 2003a), with its equal emphasis on the CAC roles of liaising, observing, and providing advice. It is recommended that CSC consider reviewing CD-023 to examine whether the policy offers CACs a sufficient degree of flexibility with respect to operating in different types of CSC facilities (e.g., at different security levels and in varying locations).

Advise

Although one-quarter of staff and one-third of management perceived providing advice as a primary activity of the CAC, advising was not one of the main areas of strength identified by management, staff, or offenders. According to managers, the advising role is contingent, to a degree, on the knowledge of CAC members, which is typically linked to their tenure and/or level of experience. Some groups and individuals are recognised as highly knowledgeable, whereas others, as indicated above, are in the process of learning about the role of CACs and of the Service. It is recommended that the CAC clarify their role of providing advice and communicate this role to CSC staff (including management) and CAC members, so that CSC maximally benefits from this activity.

In sum, the CAC is respected for its contributions to the Service but its role could be further enhanced by implementing the specific measures detailed above. In particular, according to staff, increased visibility and sharing of information would go a long way toward furthering understanding of the functioning of the CAC among staff and offenders, thereby contributing to an enhanced capacity to pursue their mandate of observing, liaising, and providing advice to the Service.

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

2.1 Description

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), operates in a way to contribute to the safety of society through the rehabilitation and safe reintegration of offenders to the community. Part of this objective is accomplished by increasing public awareness of its roles, actions and challenges, which requires a strong link between CSC and the community. Citizens' Advisory Committees (CACs) serve a key role in facilitating this reciprocal link, through their activities of observing institutional day-to-day life and sensational incidents; liaising with the community and with CSC management, staff and offenders; and providing advice to CSC.

The violent and hostage-taking incidents of 1975 and 1976 lead to the establishment of a parliamentary subcommittee whose function was to study security, custodial facilities and correctional programs in the federal institutions. The MacGuigan Report (1977), which summarized the subcommittee's research, contained several recommendations to improve the correctional system. Among them, recommendation 49 concerns the public involvement in the system:

Citizen Advisory Committees must be established in all maximum, medium and minimum [security] penal institutions (MacGuigan, 1977, p. 126).

Although CACs have been in operation since 1965, the McGuigan report rendered their function official, and expanded their mandate to operate in all institutions. In 1992, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA; Department of Justice, 1992), further solidified the position of the CAC, enhancing the partnership between the two organizations by stating the importance of public involvement in CSC matters. Presently, all federal institutions have a CAC, and the Service now requires CACs to be in place at each operational unit, including institutions, area and district parole offices, and community correctional centres (CSC, 2003a).

Figure 1 depicts the CAC structure, consisting of the National Executive Committee (NEC), regional committees, local committees, and their link to communities. CAC local committees are comprised of volunteer members who are appointed for a term of two years. Regional Deputy Commissioners approve appointments based on the recommendations of the local operational head and the facility's CAC chairperson. A CAC typically consists of between 5 to 15 community members who represent the community. Policy dictates that current CSC employees and offenders cannot be part of a CAC committee. All local CACs are members of a regional CAC for each of the administrative regions of the CSC (Atlantic, Québec, Ontario, Prairies, and Pacific). The elected Regional Chairperson is automatically appointed as a member of the National Executive Committee. The NEC is comprised of the five CAC Regional Chairpersons as well as the National Chairperson. The election of a National Chairperson is held every two years. The NEC, along with the responsible unit and the CSC/CAC liaison representatives located at CSC’s National Headquarters, are responsible for the national coordination of all CACs across Canada.

Citizens’ Advisory Committees complete their activities considering the following six goals:

  1. To contribute to the overall development of correctional facilities and programs by serving as impartial advisors to the facility's management, staff and offenders;
  2. To promote public knowledge and understanding of corrections through communication among offenders, CSC staff and the public;
  3. To foster public participation in the correctional process;
  4. To participate in developing community resources designed to support correctional programs;
  5. To act as impartial observers, particularly during times of crisis;
  6. To positively contribute in the development and implementation of new policies and programs through meaningful consultation.

In short, these goals represent the overarching fact that most offenders will return to the community, which supports the importance of societal involvement in helping to achieve these aims. The CAC Mission is thus closely linked to the Mission of the Correctional Service of Canada (2002), in its focus on the protection of society:

Citizens' Advisory Committees, through voluntary participation in the Canadian federal correctional process, contribute to the protection of society by actively interacting with staff of the Correctional Service of Canada, the public and offenders, providing impartial advice and recommendations, thereby contributing to the quality of the correctional process (CSC, 2003b).

Appendix A contains the impact model depicting the links between program activities - observing, liaising, and providing advice - and outcomes. The logic model demonstrates the manner in which outputs of the various CAC activities are ultimately linked to the protection of society, through their contributions to the quality of the correctional process. Given that the current evaluation focuses primarily on implementation issues, a detailed description of the impact model will not be provided in the current report, but will be elaborated upon in the future summative evaluation.

2.2 Evaluation Context

This was the first opportunity for a large-scale evaluation of CACs, soliciting the participation of all members and Chairs, offering a unique occasion to explore the activities and functioning of CACs. During the planning phase, following review of pertinent documents, and discussions with various stakeholders (including the CAC and NEC), it was determined that the evaluation should be formative in nature, focusing primarily on implementation, or process, issues. Whereas the research component addressed the "CAC side", including the exploration of attitudes of CAC members, and profiles of those involved, the evaluation focused primarily on the “CSC side”, exploring similar questions, with a focus on the CAC structure (i.e., how they work) and activities (i.e., what they do). The purpose of the evaluation was to ascertain areas of CACs which function well, and opportunities for improvement, from the perspective of CSC. These responses are compared in the present report, where applicable, to those provided by the CAC participants in the Research study.

The project was initiated following a request from the Citizen Engagement Branch in 2002 for research on, and evaluation of, the CACs. The evaluation was requested by the CAC NEC and Citizen Engagement Branch for feedback purposes, with the intention of ultimately improving the effectiveness of CACs. Although CACs have been officially in operation for over 25 years, no national projects simultaneously exploring the perspectives of CAC Chairs, CAC members, CSC management, staff and offenders have been conducted to date. A number of projects have explored various aspects of CACs over the years. Briefly, these projects provided a review of advisory committees (CSC, 1991), two national membership surveys (CAC, 1995), a CSC Warden and District Director national survey of CACs (Demers, 2000) and a CAC membership survey in the Ontario region (Andrychuk & Howarth, 2002). The research report by Trevethan and her colleagues (2004) provides a detailed summary of the methodology and findings of these studies.

Results from the present evaluation will be used as a blueprint for CACs (i.e., to provide direction to them) as to where they may direct their energy in improving CACs. Likewise, the information will be valuable to CSC, providing feedback on the ways in which the Service can facilitate the endeavors of the CAC. Thus, the client, audience and key stakeholders for the evaluation include the CACs (local, regional, and national), CSC (local, regional, and national), and the broader community that stands to benefit from improvements to the CAC. Within CSC, the results have potential implications for management, staff, and offender groups. Additionally, the study results will provide important baseline information to CSC that can be used to measure change over time, which will serve an important role in the future summative evaluation of the CACs.

Following consultation, it was determined by the Research and Evaluation & Review Branches to conduct a collaborative study, first focusing on the research piece (CAC member surveys and Chair interviews), followed by the evaluation (interviews with key stakeholders from CSC, including management, CSC-CAC regional coordinators, staff, and offenders and a survey of rural, or less centralized, CSC offices)2. The research project was initiated in June 2002, questionnaires and surveys developed in September 2002, data compiled by March 2003, and the draft Research report completed in November 2003. Preliminary evaluation work (e.g., questionnaire development) began in September 2002, with completion of data collection anticipated by the end of fiscal 2002. Unfortunately, due to travel restrictions, the evaluation team was unable to commence data collection until May 2003 and only completed the site visits in December 2003. Development of the rural CAC survey took place in January 2004, with a survey completion date of March 2004. Data were analysed by April 2004, with a draft report completed in August of 2004.

The research study was designed to address six key areas, examined from the perspective of CAC members and Chairs:

  1. What is the profile of CAC members?
  2. What attitudes do CAC members hold (e.g., toward corrections, rehabilitation, etc.)?
  3. In what activities are CACs involved?
  4. What models of CACs are in place across Canada?
  5. How effective are CACs?
  6. What issues face those involved in CACs?

These research questions are addressed in detail in the Research report; results will only be briefly presented, where applicable, in the current evaluation report. For a more detailed analysis of the findings and implications of these research questions, please refer to the Forum article (Trevethan, Rastin & Gillis, 2003) and to the full research report (Trevethan, Rastin, Bell & Gillis, 2004).

The evaluation explored the “CSC perspective” on some of the same issues, with a focus on gaining an enhanced understanding of the following areas:

  1. What is the role of CACs?
  2. What are the primary activities of CACs?
  3. How effective are CACs in carrying out their activities?
  4. What are areas of strength in the functioning of CACs?
  5. What are the current opportunities for improvement in the functioning of CACs?

Evaluations may often simultaneously address issues of implementation, relevance, success/effectiveness (including cost-effectiveness) and efficiency3. Given that this was the first evaluation of this magnitude and that the evaluation and research were designed to gain a comprehensive understanding of CACs in place, the emphasis was on implementation issues. This focus was adopted to provide important feedback to the CACs and to the Service on what is working well, and areas that could be improved.

3.0 METHODOLOGY/DESIGN/DATA

3.1 Description of the Methodology/Design

A multi-method, multi-source approach was used to collect the data. The overall study involved four components: a mail-out survey to CAC members (the Membership Survey); telephone interviews with a sample of CAC Chairs; site interviews with key informants (Wardens/District Directors, programs staff, parole officers, Inmate Wellness Committee [IWC] Chairperson and members, Lifers' Groups, and CSC-CAC regional representatives); and a mail-out survey to selected rural CSC parole offices and institutions.

Briefly, the Research piece involved a mail-out membership survey designed to provide a profile of CAC members, to examine their perceptions of the criminal justice system and offenders, and to explore their experiences with the CAC (including activities, knowledge, effectiveness and satisfaction). The CAC Chair interview, designed to examine Chairs' perceptions of CACs, was administered by telephone and consisted of four sections: CAC structure, CAC interactions, CAC activities, and experiences with CACs. A full description of the methodology and a copy of the instruments are available in the research report (see Trevethan et al., 2004).

Questionnaires containing both qualitative and quantitative questions were developed for the evaluation component of the study. The questionnaires were constructed in a manner similar to those developed for the research study, with the intention of comparing CSC and CAC responses on questions exploring knowledge of CAC members, effectiveness in various activity areas, and issues to be addressed. Separate questionnaires were designed for management (including Wardens and/or Assistant Warden Management Services and Assistant Warden Correctional Programs, District Directors, and the CSC-CAC regional coordinators), staff (primarily parole officers and program officers), and offenders (typically, the IWC Chair and/or Committee, although some Lifers' group representatives also participated).

The management questionnaire was comprehensive in scope, exploring the structure of the CAC, interactions, activities, and experiences with CACs (management perceptions of CAC members' knowledge, effectiveness, strengths and opportunities for improvement). The staff questionnaire was an abbreviated version of the management tool, designed to examine the same four areas. The offender questionnaire was similar to that used with staff, with less of a focus on the activities of CAC members. A copy of each of these questionnaires is provided in Appendix B.

Site visits were undertaken in each region to conduct face-to-face interviews. The following areas were selected for the key informant interviews, given their proximity to institutions, parole offices, and regional headquarters: Moncton, New Brunswick; Laval, Québec; Kingston, Ontario; Edmonton, Alberta; and Abbotsford, British Columbia. The Evaluation Manager contacted the Executive Assistants (EAs) of the Wardens and District Directors (DDs) to explain the purpose of the study, and to schedule an interview with the Warden/Director and with the EA (who typically works closely with the CAC). At the same time, the Evaluation Manager explained that the assistance of individuals from the following groups of staff and offenders would be solicited: two parole officers, two program officers, the Assistant Warden Management Services or Assistant Warden Correctional Programs (if they also work closely with the CAC), and the IWC Chair and/or committee. Follow-up letters were sent to Regional Deputy Commissioners and to all participating sites, describing the purpose and requirements of the evaluation, as well as the proposed sites and corresponding dates for data collection. Interviews and discussions were held with 28 managers (including CSC-CAC regional coordinators), 90 staff members, and 28 Inmate Wellness Committees (IWCs), consisting of approximately 75 offenders. A total of 28 institutions and parole offices participated in the on-site interview component of the evaluation.

Following completion of the site visit component of the evaluation, the author designed a brief survey to capture similar information to that obtained in the staff survey, with an additional focus on assessing issues specific to CACs in rural settings. This survey was compiled in response to management feedback that rural CACs may have issues uniquely attributable to their locale, and that these issues should be represented in an overall study of the CACs (see Appendix C for a copy of the rural survey). The survey was developed in January 2004 and sent to 25 parole offices and institutions for completion by the end of March 2004. A total of 18 respondents completed the survey.

3.2 Limitations and Impacts

Generalizability may be an issue for both the research and evaluation findings. Although the CAC membership survey was intended for all individuals involved with the CAC, full participation was not obtained (with a response rate of 54%) as not all members were willing or able to complete the surveys. Furthermore, Chairs were selected to participate in the phone interviews through a stratified sampling procedure designed to provide an over-representation of Chairs in the Atlantic provinces, and of those affiliated with womens' institutions and Healing Lodges. This approach was adopted to provide a sufficient sample size to conduct separate analyses with these smaller groups.

Moreover, a convenience sample was selected for the evaluation component of the study, focusing primarily on institutions and parole offices in urban centres, for ease of travel, access to Regional Headquarters, and cost-effectiveness. These responses were supplemented, however, with the additional sample of 18 management staff from less centralized (i.e., rural) CACs. Furthermore, the evaluation data primarily reflects the institutional perspective, as institutions typically have more well-established CACs that had been functioning for longer periods of time than the more recently-implemented parole office and/or CCC sites. It is recognised that CACs affiliated with parole offices may present with unique issues (e.g., availability of offenders for consult, etc.) and these issues will be explored more in-depth in the future summative evaluation of CACs, once they have been in existence for a sufficient amount of time to warrant detailed examination.

Missing data is an issue for the evaluation, as many staff and offenders did not feel sufficiently knowledgeable about the CAC to respond to detailed questions. Management were sufficiently knowledgeable to answer the detailed questions, given their level of involvement with the CAC, but due to the length of the interviews and occasional time pressures, some interviews with Wardens were selective. The entire interview was completed where time allowed, but abbreviated versions of the interviews were used when necessary. Also, some questions adapted from the CAC Chair interview applied more readily to the Chair than to CSC management or staff; these questions were consequently eliminated from the interview.

The small number of management in the sample somewhat limits the statistical analyses that can be conducted, but statistical adjustments were made, where possible, in order to compare responses among management, staff and CAC respondents. Furthermore, the small number of participants in the management and offender groups, as well as the need to maintain the confidentiality of individual operational sites, precludes more detailed analyses of results by region or security level.

4.0 KEY FINDINGS

Key findings are presented following the order of the questionnaires.  First is a report on the structure of CACs, including a very brief summary of findings on the profile of CAC members from the research report.  This section focuses primarily on the perceived role of the CAC, with a brief presentation of findings on diversity and recruitment issues.  The next section describes findings on interactions between the CAC, staff, and offenders, followed by the section on activities of the CAC as perceived by management and staff.  An important dimension of the evaluation consists of an exploration of the perception of CACs, including knowledge, effectiveness, and achievement of goals.  Finally, the evaluation explores effectiveness of CACs in various areas, with a focus on identifying what is working well (i.e., strengths and beneficial aspects), and opportunities for improvement (i.e., issues that, if addressed, could contribute to more effective functioning of the CACs).  Responses to the rural survey are embedded within the relevant sections described above.  Although the evaluation focused on the perceptions of CSC management, staff and offenders, responses are compared, where possible, to those obtained from CAC members and Chairs through interviews and surveys conducted for the research portion of the study. 

Qualitative responses were examined and codes assigned to answers appearing two times or more; the percentages associated with each of these coded responses are presented in various tables throughout the text.  Other questions used a dichotomous (i.e., categorical) yes/no format for responding; these responses are presented and compared, where possible, to other group responses using chi square (c) tests of significance.  Numerous questions used a five-point Likert scale to evaluate respondents' opinions on CAC member knowledge, effectiveness, etc.  Mean (M), or average, responses were then calculated for each response option by group.  Where Likert scales were used to evaluate respondents' opinions, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the mean responses across groups.  If overall differences were found in the average response, post hoc analyses were conducted to determine where the differences lay (i.e., which groups differed in their average responses).   

Finally, overall ratings were conducted for some of the groupings of questions.  An attempt was made to combine responses within subsections of the surveys that consisted of questions rated on a five-point scale and centered on a common theme. Each subsection was scanned for missing data. If less than 20% of the responses in each subsection were missing then missing values were replaced by the median value of all responses.  Cronbach's alpha (a) was calculated for each subsection using all available data.  Cronbach's alpha represents the degree to which items or variables are interrelated.  A high Cronbach's alpha indicates that the items or variables measure a single construct.  Cronbach's alpha was high within four of the subsections: involvement towards fulfilling CAC goals (5 items, n=110, a=.82), CAC member knowledge (13 items, n=289, a=.90), CAC effectiveness (12 items, n=276, a=.93), and achievement of CAC goals (5 items, n=274, a=.83).  Consequently, an overall score was created to represent each subsection by summing the responses within each area.  

4.1 Structure of CACs

Role of CACs 

Staff and offenders were asked, in an open-ended question format, to describe what they perceive to be the role of CACs.  Each of the responses was coded, yielding the categories in Table 1.  As shown in Table 1, the highest percentage of responses was concentrated in activities related to liaising with the community, with offenders, and with staff and management.  Approximately one-third of staff members also perceived the role of CACs as ensuring accountability/transparency for the Service, and providing CSC with advice.  Approximately one-fifth of offenders also identified providing advice as a role, as well as assisting offenders with community reintegration.

The most frequently endorsed responses depicted in Table 1 are similar to those obtained from CAC members in the research report, with 63% of CAC members indicating that the main purpose of the CAC should be to liaise with the community.  Similarly, CAC members felt it was their role to observe the correctional process (29%), to provide advice (28%) and to communicate with/about offenders (19%).

Table 1

Role of the CAC as perceived by staff and offenders

 

 

 

Item

Staff

Offenders

 

n

%

n

%

 

 

 

 

 

Liaising with community/represent community in institutions

59

76.7

13

59.1

 

 

 

 

 

Advising CSC at all levels

23

29.9

5

22.7

 

 

 

 

 

Observing

7

9.1

2

9.1

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting with/advise offenders

27

35.1

13

59.1

 

 

 

 

 

Ensuring accountability/transparency/ impartial voice

25

32.5

3

13.6

 

 

 

 

 

Being knowledgeable about activities/events

16

20.8

1

4.5

 

 

 

 

 

Helping with community reintegration for offenders

7

9.1

5

22.7

 

 

 

 

 

Liaising with offenders, staff and management

15

19.5

10

45.4

 

 

 

 

 

Providing a fresh perspective

-

-

3

13.6

 

 

 

 

 

Note. n=77 staff and n=22 IWC groups

A similar pattern was observed in the responses to the rural survey, with community liaison endorsed as the primary role of the CAC.  Notably, a higher percentage of rural respondents (than staff and offender respondents in Table 1) indicated that advising is a main role of the CAC.  This may be attributable to the fact that most respondents to the rural survey were management, who tend to work closer with the CAC, and therefore are more aware of the extent to which the CAC provides advice.  Additionally, it is noted that the percentage of respondents endorsing each item is higher than in Table 1, most likely due to the format of the question.  Whereas the original questionnaire asked about the role of the CAC in an open-ended format, the rural survey used the responses generated by participants in the on-site interviews to compile the series of responses depicted in Table 2.

Table  2

Role of the CAC as perceived by respondents to the rural survey

 

 

 

Item

n

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liaising with the community/representing the community in the institution/parole office/CCC

18

100.0

 

 

 

Advising CSC

15

83.3

 

 

 

Observing (during an incident and/or everyday events)

14

77.8

 

 

 

Working with offenders/parolees

6

33.3

 

 

 

Ensuring accountability/transparency

13

72.2

 

 

 

Providing an impartial voice/perspective

16

88.9

 

 

 

Being aware/knowledgeable about activities/events

16

88.9

 

 

 

Helping with community reintegration for offenders

8

44.4

 

 

 

Liaising with staff and management

9

50.0

 

 

 

Other

4

22.2

 

 

 

Note: n=18

The management group was asked, in an open-ended question, what they perceived their role to be with respect to the CAC.  Their responses were coded to yield a series of activities and roles, presented in Table 3.  The highest percentage of responses involves interacting with the CAC, including an education and information function, attending meetings, and serving as the primary contact at the institution or parole office. 

Table 3

Management perspectives of their role with respect to the CAC

 

 

 

Item

n

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communication between CSC representatives and CAC

3

13.6

 

 

 

Providing information/answering questions

13

59.1

 

 

 

Communication between staff and CAC

5

22.7

 

 

 

Be present/attend meetings

14

63.6

 

 

 

Let CAC know what is going on (crisis/incidents)

7

31.8

 

 

 

Primary contact at the institution for CAC

11

50.0

 

 

 

Coordinator

5

22.7

Note. n=22

Profile of CAC members 

An important assumption of CACs is that members are reflective of the communities they represent (e.g., ethnicity, profession, etc.).  To this end, an important component of the research project was to devise an overall profile of CAC members, using demographic information obtained from the CAC membership survey.  These data were then compared to information on the overall Canadian population, obtained from Statistics Canada (2001).  As described in the research report (see Trevethan et al., 2004), CAC members tend to differ from the Canadian population on various characteristics.   Most notably, CAC survey respondents are older than the Canadian population, and more likely to be married, retired, and to have completed post-secondary education.  In terms of ethnicity, a higher percentage of CAC members are Aboriginal than the general population (at 5% versus 4%), whereas a smaller percentage of CAC members report belonging to a visible minority group. 

The CSC management questionnaire also addressed the issue of community representation of CAC members via the following question: Does your CAC membership reflect the diversity of the local community (e.g., ethnicity, profession, etc.)?  One-half of the management group felt that their CAC was reflective of their community.  Results of a chi-square analysis to compare responses across participant groups indicated no statistical difference in the perception of the diversity of CAC members (see Table 4).  It should be noted that this question assesses perceptions of diversity; as described above, the research data used to compile CAC member profiles indicated that members were not truly reflective of their communities.  Furthermore, more than one-half of staff and offenders indicated they did not have enough knowledge of the CAC to accurately respond to this question, as they were not familiar with individual CAC members, which may impact the reliability of the findings of this analysis. 

Table 4

Perceptions of CAC member diversity

           
Item Group n Yes No c[4]
           
           
Does your CAC membership reflect the diversity of the local community? Management 18 50.0 50.0 3.42
Staff 40 70.0 30.0  
Offenders 13 76.9 23.1  
Chairs 37 59.5 40.5  
         

 Recruitment

 Management and Chairs were also asked to rate the extent to which they were satisfied with the recruitment process for CAC members, on a five-point scale ranging from "Not at all satisfied" (1) to "Somewhat satisfied" (3), to "Very satisfied" (5).  As shown in Table 5, virtually identical satisfaction ratings were obtained for both groups, in the "satisfied" range.

Table 5

Comparison of management and Chair ratings on satisfaction with recruitment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item

Groups

n

M

SD

df

t

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How satisfied are you with the recruitment process for the CAC?

Management

18

3.7

1.0

52

0.57

Chairs

36

3.8

1.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note.  p=ns 

Management was asked to describe ways that recruitment could be improved.  Interestingly, most of the responses generated by management (n=23) were related to the issue of diversity, with the highest percentage of management respondents indicating the need to recruit more Aboriginal members (21.7%), visible minority members (34.8%), and younger members (17.4%).  Their perspective supports the data obtained from the research component of the study, indicating that CAC members tend to be older and less ethnically diverse than the Canadian public.  Furthermore, the expressed need by managers to target visible minority and Aboriginal members via recruitment was also mentioned by CAC Chairs in the research report. 

A total of 12 (of 18) respondents to the rural survey indicated that they experienced difficulty in the recruitment process.  Areas identified as posing the most significant challenges included a lack of interest from the community (75%) and geographic location/large territory (50%).  

Management respondents also identified positive aspects that they felt contributed to an effectively functioning CAC.  The primary suggestion, with 47.8% of the 23 who responded mentioning it, was to have prominent community figures, such as the mayor or member(s) of council, participate in the CAC as they can readily share information with the public.  This was proposed as an important way to facilitate the community liaison function of the CAC, and to ensure that the perspective of the community is reflected back to the institution.

4.2 Interactions

Liaison with the institution/parole office

Each group of participants was asked to rate the level of interaction between the CAC and the institution/parole office, using a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all” (1), to “Some” (3) to “A great deal” (5). Chair ratings, from the research report, are also presented for comparison purposes. Overall, ratings indicated the level of interaction to be between “some” and “good” (i.e., 4). The average responses across groups were compared, and analyses indicated significant differences in the degree of interaction perceived by the various groups (see Table 6). Specifically, Chairs perceived higher levels of interaction between the CAC and institution/parole office than did staff and offenders. This finding may reflect the tendency of Chairs to have more consistent dealings with the institution, but staff and offenders may not be aware of these interactions.

Table 6
Comparison of perceptions of the level of interaction between the CAC and operational unit

Item

Groups

Post-Hoc

n

M

SD

df

F


How would you rate the level of interaction between the CAC and the institution/parole office?

Management

A, B

22

3.6

1.2

3,147

4.06**

Staff

A

69

3.3

1.1

Offenders

A

22

3.1

1.2

Chairs

B

38

4.0

1.0

Post-hoc comparisons conducted using unprotected t-tests, p < .05
-- Post-hoc comparisons not performed.
** p < .01

Liaison with staff

Staff were asked if the CAC meets with staff directly; the majority (78.3%) of the 69 staff who responded indicated that the CAC does meet with staff. However, few staff were able to indicate the frequency with which meetings tend to occur, so these numbers are not presented. Similar percentages for CAC interactions with staff were reported by management, with 81.8% of 22 respondents indicating that CAC members meet with staff directly.

As a function of interacting with the CAC, one might expect staff to possess a certain level of knowledge of CAC issues. Management and staff were both asked to rate, on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all” (1) to “Somewhat” (3) to “Very” (5), the extent to which they believed staff were informed about events or issues relevant to the CAC. As shown in Table 7, both management and staff indicated staff were not well informed, with average responses of less than 3 (i.e., less than “somewhat” informed).

Table 7
Comparison of management and Chair perceptions of staff awareness of CAC events and issues

Item

Groups

n

M

SD

df

t

How informed… [are] staff… about events or issues relevant to the CAC?

Management

21

2.5

1.0

98

1.12

Staff 79 2.2 1.2    

Note. p=ns

Liaison with the community

Another role of the CAC is reciprocal sharing of information - with the public regarding the functioning of correctional facilities and operations, and with institutions and parole offices concerning the perception of the community (i.e., “the pulse”) about CSC and corrections in general. To explore the perception of the extent to which this is accomplished, management were asked to rate, on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all” (1) to “Somewhat” (3), to “A Great Deal” (5), the extent to which the CAC accurately represents the views of the community to CSC, and the extent to which the CAC accurately represents CSC. Table 8 presents these findings, along with comparative data obtained from Chairs as part of the research project.

No significant differences were obtained in the responses of management and Chairs, with both groups with a mid-range average response (i.e., slightly more than “somewhat”), on how the CAC represents the views of the community to CSC. The perception of the groups was that the CAC accurately represented CSC to the community to a greater extent (with an average response of almost 4 - a “good” representation).

Additionally, an important vehicle for the accurate depiction of the functioning of CSC to the community is outreach. Management and Chairs were also asked to indicate their perception of the extent to which CSC provides support to the CAC for outreach activities. Both groups were in agreement that CSC provided support, with an average rating of nearly 4; an important caveat is that many of the management respondents indicated that CSC was supportive in providing staff resources (including staff time and effort) but that few financial resources are available to CSC to assist the CAC in their outreach endeavors.

Table 8
Management and Chair perceptions of CAC sharing of information with the community

Item

Groups

n

M

SD

df

t

Does your CAC accurately represent the views of the community to CSC?

Management

21

3.4

1.3

54

-0.93

Chairs 35 3.7 1.0    

Does your CAC accurately represent CSC?

Management

21

4.1

0.9

54

1.10

Chairs 35 3.8 1.0    

Do you feel you the CAC receives support from CSC for outreach activities?

Management

19

3.8

1.1

53

0.48

Chairs 36 3.6 1.0    

Note. All ps=ns

A specific list of outreach activities was provided to management and Chairs, and they were asked to indicate whether the CAC affiliated with the institution or parole office participated in any of the activities (see Table 9). Differences were obtained in several areas, with CAC Chairs significantly more likely to indicate involvement in the following activities: presentations to community groups; discussions with family, friends, neighbours; liaising with criminal justice partners; liaising with NGO criminal justice partners; participating in public forums to enhance community education and awareness; and hosting an open house in the institution/CCC. A likely explanation for the discrepancy in these responses is that since CACs operate autonomously, they may not inform the institution of some of the informal outreach activities in which they participate (e.g., discussions with family, friends, criminal justice partners, etc.). Results from the rural survey show that few CACs associated with less centralized CSC institutions, parole offices or CCCs participate in outreach activities. However, no specific reasons were provided for the lack of involvement in outreach.

Table 9
Between Group Comparisons on Community Outreach Participation

Item
Group
N
Yes
No
X 2

Have you had the opportunity to participate in any community outreach activities?  

Management  
Chairs

19  
37
94.7  
73.0
5.3  
27.0
3.7

Media interviews

Management
Chairs

22
30
50.0
53.3
50.0  
46.7
0.06

Presentation to community groups

Management
Chairs

22
30
40.9
76.7
59.1
23.3
6.9**

Discussions with family, friends, neighbours

Management
Chairs

22
30
40.9
80.0
59.1
20.0
8.36**

Arranging tours of CSC facilities

Management
Chairs

22
30
36.4
56.7
63.6
43.3
2.10

University/college presentations

Management
Chairs

22
30
36.4
36.7
63.6
63.3
0.00

Liaising with our criminal justice partners (e.g., police, legal)

Management
Chairs

22
30
36.4
66.7
63.6
33.3
4.69*

Liaising with NGO criminal justice partners (e.g., John Howard Society)

Management
Chairs

22
30
13.6
60.0
86.4
40.0
11.33***

Sharing annual reports with the public/community

Management
Chairs

22
30
36.4
46.7
63.6
53.3
0.55

Public forums to enhance community education and awareness

Management
Chairs

22
30
31.8
76.7
68.2
23.3
10.46***

Keeping the media informed of what is happening with CACs

Management
Chairs

22
30
31.8
33.3
68.2
66.7
0.01

Using the media to dispel myths

Management
Chairs

22
30
45.5
43.3
54.6
56.7
0.02

Hosting an open house at the institution/CCC

Management
Chairs
22
30
36.4
66.7
63.6
33.3
4.69*

*p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001

Liaison with offenders

Another key function of the CAC is to liaise with offenders, a question asked of both management and Chairs (see Table 10). A significant difference was obtained in the response, with management more likely to indicate that CAC members meet with offenders. Whereas all managers indicated that the CAC liaises with offenders, 80% of Chairs indicated interaction between CAC members and offenders.

Table 10
CAC interactions with offenders as perceived by management and Chairs

Item
Group
N
Yes
No
X 2

Do CAC members meet with offenders?  

Management  
Chairs

18  
38
100.0  
79.0
0.0  
21.1
4.42*

*p < .05

Offenders were asked the same question, and of the 24 groups who responded, more than four-fifths (83.3%) indicated that CAC members meet with offenders. Too few offenders could provide details on the frequency of meetings, so these percentages are not included.

4.3 Activities of CACs

Primary activities of the CAC

Management and staff were asked to list what they perceive to be the primary activities of CAC members at their institution or parole office. This list generated by staff and management was coded to yield the categories listed in Table 11. Notably, only twothirds of staff felt they knew enough about the specific activities of the CAC to be able to generate a meaningful list of their activities.

One-half to two-thirds of management and staff respondents indicated that the main activities of CAC members involve liaising with the community and working with offenders. Similarly, one-half of the rural survey respondents felt that community liaison and working with offenders were primary CAC activities. Providing advice and attending meetings were the activities mentioned most often after community liaison and working with offenders, with more than one-quarter of staff and one-third of management listing these as prominent activities.

Table 11
Primary activities of the CAC as perceived by management and staff

  Management Staff
 
n
%
n
%
Liaison with community
15
60.0
36
57.1
Observe
4
16.0
11
17.5
Build knowledge base
5
20.0
8
12.7
Provide advice
8
32.0
17
27.0
Serve as a third party

3

12.0

0

0

Orienting/training to learn about the CAC

3

12.0

1

1.6

Working with offenders

17

68.0

35

55.6

Community reintegration for offenders

1

4.0

9

14.3

Working with staff

3

12.0

12

19.0

Attend meetings

8

32.0

16

25.4

Note. n=25 management and n=63 staff

Involvement in working toward goals

Each of the key informant groups was asked to indicate the extent to which their CAC has been involved in working toward five particular goals (rated on a five-point scale ranging from "Not at all" (1) to "Somewhat" (3) to "A Great Deal" (5)), as a means of assessing the types of activities of the CAC. Response rates were low, particularly for offenders. Given the low frequency of response for offenders, their results will not be presented as they may not reflect this group of respondents, as most offenders indicated they could not assess specific activities with accuracy. Although less than one-half of staff responded to these questions, their average response is presented in Table 12 for comparison with the responses of management and Chairs.

Interestingly, no differences were obtained in the average responses of staff, management, and Chairs, with respect to the extent of CAC involvement in working toward their goals (rated on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all” [1], to “Somewhat’ [3], to “A Great Deal” [5]). In fact, the overall rating of involvement in working toward CAC goals was virtually identical for the different groups. The CAC was rated as most involved in acting as independent observers, followed by promoting public knowledge and understanding of corrections through communication among offenders, CSC staff and the public (i.e., liaison/outreach). The CAC was rated as least involved in contributing to the overall development of correctional facilities and developing community resources and programs.

Table 12
Between Groups Comparisons on Ratings of CAC Involvement toward Goals

Item

Groups

Post-Hoc

n

M

SD

df

F

Involvement Overall

Management

--

18

15.6

3.8  

2,99

0.12

Staff -- 48 15.3 5.4    

Chairs

--

36

15.9

4.2

Promoting public knowledge…

Management

--

19

3.5

1.2

2,106

0.14

Staff -- 52 3.3 1.3    

Chairs

--

38

3.4

1.1

Development of correctional facilities…

Management

--

19

2.3

0.9

2,111

1.80

Staff -- 57 2.8 1.4    

Chairs

--

38

3.0

1.2

Fostering public participation…

Management

--

18

3.0

1.2

2,102

0.49

Staff -- 52 2.9 1.3    

Chairs

--

35

3.2

1.2

Developing community resources…

Management

--

16

2.6

1.3

2,91

0.33

Staff -- 42 2.7 1.3    

Chairs

--

36

2.9

1.3

Acting as independent observers

Management

--

16

3.8

1.2

2,101

0.30

Staff -- 51 3.7 1.4    

Chairs

--

37

3.5

1.5

-- Post-hoc comparisons not performed.

4.4 Perceptions of CACs

The final section of the questionnaire explored perceptions of the following: CAC members’ knowledge, functioning of CACs, effectiveness of CACs, and strengths and opportunities for improvement.

Knowledge

All four groups of participants were asked to rate CAC members’ knowledge of CSC, on a five-point scale ranging from “Not at all” (1), to “Some” (3) to “A Great Deal” (5). As shown in Table 13, no differences were obtained between the groups in terms of their perceptions of CAC members’ knowledge level, with an average rating of about 3.5 (slightly more than “some”). Many respondents qualified their selection during the interview with the caveat that knowledge level was highly dependent on the length of time a member had served on the CAC; most with experience would be rated as highly knowledgeable, whereas most new members would have little to no knowledge of CSC (as they were typically in the process of orienting themselves to the Service).

Table 13
Comparison of ratings of CAC member knowledge level

Item

Groups

Post-Hoc

n

M

SD

df

F

How knowledgeable would you rate your CAC members?

Management

--

23

3.6

0.8

3,126

0.15

Staff -- 50 3.5 0.9    
Offenders -- 19 3.5 1.4    
Chairs -- 38 3.4 0.9    

Management and Chairs were asked to rate, using the same five-point scale, the knowledge level of CAC members in specific areas pertaining to the CAC (see Table 14). Members were also asked to provide a self-rating in the same areas. Few differences were found in the average ratings across groups, with the exception of policy and procedure for serving as an observer during a crisis situation. Members indicated that they felt they were less knowledgeable than did CAC Chairs. The highest knowledge ratings were provided for CAC members’ knowledge of the CAC Mission, the role of CAC members, and the CSC Mission (with average ratings in the “good” range). Additionally, relatively high ratings were received for knowledge of issues affecting offenders (with average ratings between “somewhat” and “good”). The lowest perceived knowledge ratings were obtained for CSC policy and procedure for serving as an observer during a crisis, and knowledge of issues affecting staff.

Table 14 Offenders
Between Groups Comparisons on Ratings of CAC Knowledge

Item
Groups
Post-Hoc
n
M
SD
df
F
         

Overall knowledge Management

Management  

--
16 43.1 6.0 2,276 1.64
Members
--
229 41.5 9.4

Chairs

--
34 44.4 8.7
         
CAC's mission

Management  

--
23 4.0 0.8 2,291 1.23
Members
--
233 3.9 0.9

Chairs

--
38 4.1 0.7
         
Role of CAC members

Management  

--
23 3.6 1.0 2,292 2.32
Members
--
234 3.9 0.9

Chairs

--
38 4.1 0.8
         
CSC's mission

Management  

--
23 3.8 0.9 2,292 0.12
Members
--
234 3.7 1.0

Chairs

--

38

3.7

0.8

CSC policies and procedures

Management  

--

23

2.8

0.6

2,292

1.36

Members
--
234 3.1 0.9    

Chairs

--

38

3.2

0.9

Issues affecting offenders

Management

--

23

3.4

1.0

2,291

0.89

Members
--
233 3.3 1.0    

Chairs

--

38

3.6

1.0

Issues affecting staff

Management

--

22

2.8

1.0

2,288

0.26

Members
--
231 2.9 1.0    

Chairs

--

38

3.0

1.2

Corrections in general

Management

--

23

3.4

0.7

2,294

0.57

Members

--

236

3.4

0.9

Chairs

--

38

3.6

0.8

Criminal justice system

Management

--

23

3.2

0.8

2,290

0.73

Members

--

235

3.3

1.0

Chairs

--

35

3.1

0.9

Victims

Management

--

22

2.9

0.9

2,290

0.68

Members

--

233

2.9

1.1

Chairs

--

38

3.1

1.1

Correctional programs

Management

--

22

3.4

0.7

2,289

1.10

Members

--

233

3.2

0.9

Chairs

--

37

3.4

0.9

Offenders' reintegration process

Management

--

22

3.5

0.6

2,286

2.21

Members

--

231

3.1

0.9

Chairs

--

36

3.4

1.1

Policy for serving as an observer during a crisis situation

Management

A, B

17

3.1

1.3

2,284

3.63*

Members
A
234 2.5 1.3    

Chairs

B

36

3.0

1.3

Procedure for serving as an observer during a crisis situation

Management

A, B

16

2.9

1.2

2,282

3.11*

Members
A
234 2.5 1.4    

Chairs

B

35

3.0

1.4

Post-hoc comparisons conducted using unprotected t-tests, p < .05
-- Post-hoc comparisons not performed.
*p < .05

Effectiveness

A preliminary exploration of the effectiveness of the CAC in various areas was conducted as part of the evaluation. Respondents were asked to rate member effectiveness in various CAC activity areas, using the five-point scale ranging from “Not at all” (1) to “Very” effective (5). As illustrated in Table 15, several significant differences were found in the ratings, with Chairs rating members as more effective (than members themselves) in the following areas: contributing to the protection of society, contributing to the safe operation of institutions or parole offices, and contributing to correctional programs. Management, however, rated members higher with regard to their effectiveness in interacting with offenders.

The highest effectiveness ratings were allocated to serving as independent observers in the correctional system, whereas the lowest ratings of effectiveness were associated with contributions to correctional policy and correctional programs.

Table 15
Between Groups Comparisons on Ratings of CAC Effectiveness

Item

Groups

Post-Hoc

N

M

SD

df

F

               

Effectiveness overall

Management

--

23

37.7

12

2,273

1.96

Members

--

219

36.4

10.3

Chairs

--

34

40.1

9.7

Providing advice to CSC

Management

--

25

2.8

1.2

2,280

2.88

Members
--
222 3.3 1.1    

Chairs

--

36

3.5

1.1

Serving as independent observer in the correctional system

Management

--

20

3.6

1.0

2,269

1.30

Members
--
220 3.3 1.2    

Chairs

--

32

3.5

1.2

Serving as liaison between CSC and the community

Management

--

24

3.3

1.3

2,280

0.33

Members
--
223 3.2 1.0    

Chairs

--

36

3.1

1.3

Contributing to the quality of the correctional process

Management

--

24

3.1

1.2

2,276

1.56

Members
219 3.1 1.1    

Chairs

--

36

3.5

1.2

Interacting with staff

Management

--

24

3.2

1.2

2,278

1.29

Members
--
222 3.3 1.0    

Chairs

--

35

3.6

1.1

Interacting with offenders

Management

B

24

3.8

1.2

2,278

5.53**

Members
A
221 3.0 1.2    

Chairs

A, B

36

3.4

1.4

Interacting with the public

Management

--

20

3.3

1.4

2,274

0.38

Members

--

221

3.1

1.1

Chairs

--

36

3.2

1.2

Providing recommendations to CSC

Management

--

23

3.4

1.3

2,277

0.31

Members

--

221

3.2

1.1

Chairs

--

36

3.3

1.2

Contributing to the protection of society

Management

A, B

24

2.9

1.3

2,276

3.36*

Members
A
221 2.9 1.1    

Chairs

B

34

3.5

1.2

Contributing to the safe operation of institutions or parole offices

Management

A, B

24

2.9

1.3

2,270

3.87*

Members
A
216 2.8 1.2    

Chairs

B

33

3.4

1.2

Contributing to correctional programs

Management

A, B

23

2.6

1.2

2,274

3.83*

Members
A
220 2.6 1.1    

Chairs

B

34

3.2

1.1

Contributing to correctional policy

Management

--

23

2.6

1.2

2,272

0.40

Members
--
218 2.5 1.2    

Chairs

--

34

2.7

1.1

Post-hoc comparisons conducted using unprotected t-tests, p < .05.
-- Post-hoc comparisons not performed.
* p < .05
** p < .01

Achievement of CAC goals

Whereas an earlier question probed management, staff and Chair perceptions of CAC involvement in working toward goals, this section focuses on achievement of goals (i.e., effectiveness). No differences were obtained between management, member and Chair responses in any of the six areas, nor in the overall rating, as depicted in Table 16. However, ratings were relatively low, with most average ratings indicating that the CAC was “somewhat” effective in achieving their goals in each area. The exception was in the area of acting as independent observers, which received an average response in the “effective” range (between “somewhat” and “very” effective).

Table 16
Between Groups Comparisons on Ratings of CAC Achievement

Items

Groups

Post-Hoc

n

M

SD

df

F

               

Achievement overall

Management

--

22

15.5

4.7

2,271

0.31

Members

--

216

14.7

4.6

Chairs

--

36

14.9

4.4

Promoting public knowledge and understanding of corrections…

Management

--

22

3.2

1.3

2,275

0.29

Members
--
219 3.2 1.1    

Chairs

--

37

3.1

1.3

Contributing to the… development of correctional facilities and programs

Management

--

23

2.6

1.1

2,277

0.73

Members
--
221 2.9 1.1    

Chairs

--

36

2.8

1.0

Fostering public participation in the correctional process

Management

--

22

3.1

1.1

2,275

0.68

Members
--
220 2.8 1.2    

Chairs

--

36

2.9

1.3

Developing community resources… to support correctional programs

Management

--

20

2.9

1.4

2,269

0.36

Members
--
217 2.7 1.2    

Chairs

--

35

2.6

1.2

Acting as independent observers

Management

--

17

3.7

1.2

2,257

1.93

Members
--
209 3.2 1.3    

Chairs

--

34

3.6

1.3

Note. ps=ns

-- Post-hoc comparisons not performed.

Strengths and opportunities for improvement

A principal objective of evaluation is to provide feedback on the functioning of a program, policy or initiative. To this end, the present evaluation explored positive aspects and contributions of CACs, as well as perceived areas for improvement. These issues were addressed with four qualitative (i.e., open-ended) questions, asked of each set of respondents (management, staff and offenders):

  1. What do you think are the strengths of CACs?
  2. What do you think are the most beneficial aspects of CACs?
  3. What aspects of CACs, if any, do you think could be improved?
  4. What do you think are the most important issues that need to be addressed in order to ensure the most effective functioning of CACs?

Each set of questions was coded using the themes that emerged upon review of the responses, and these main themes were then analyzed for frequency of response. The primary themes for each question are provided in each table, with the number of responses and corresponding percentages listed in each row. The items generated by offenders in response to the strengths of CAC question differed from those provided by management and staff, and are presented in a separate table.

Strengths

Close to one-half of management and staff indicated that strengths of CACs included their work as independent/impartial observers, and their liaising with the community (see Table 17). Furthermore, almost one-third felt that CAC members bring accountability, honesty, and/or objectivity to CSC. Notably, few respondents mentioned “providing advice to the Service” as a primary strength of the CAC.

Table 17
Management and staff perceptions of the strengths of CACs

Management

Staff

n

%

n

%

Recognise issues to be improved

2

7.8

0

0

Accountability for CSC/honesty/ objectivity

8

30.8

25

32.0

Liaise with community

17

65.4

33

43.6

Independent/impartial observer

14

53.8

35

44.9

Involved in decision making

2

7.7

1

1.3

Good values/professionalism/dedication

8

30.8

11

14.1

Work with offenders

7

26.9

12

15.4

Critical thinking

4

15.4

5

6.4

Assisting CSC

4

15.4

9

11.5

Knowledgeable/life experience

5

19.2

5

6.4

Liaise with offenders, staff and management

3

11.5

6

7.7

Fresh perspective

3

11.5

13

16.7

Representative of the community

1

3.8

7

9.0

Provide advice

0

0

3

3.8

Note. n=26 management staff and n=78 staff

A similar pattern of results was evident for the rural survey (see Table 18), with almost all respondents listing community liaison and nearly two-thirds, independence/impartiality, as important areas of strength. More respondents endorsed the “advice” questions, with one-quarter indicating that the CAC is involved in decision-making, and nearly two-thirds replying that a strength of the CAC is to assist CSC.

Table 18
Rural survey respondent perceptions of the strengths of CACs

Item

n

%

Provides accountability for CSC

10

55.6

Liaising with community

17

94.4

Independent/impartial

11

61.1

Involved in decision-making

5

27.8

Dedication to/enthusiasm for the work they do

7

38.9

Provide a different perspective to CSC (“a fresh eye”)

16

88.9

Work with offenders

6

33.3

Assisting CSC

11

61.1

Their knowledge base

7

38.9

     

Note. n=18

As shown in Table 19, a high percentage of offenders (63.6%) similarly felt that an area of strength of CACs was their ability to liaise with the community, as well as their objectivity/independence (nearly 50%). One quarter indicated that an area of strength of the CAC was their role as intermediary between offenders and management, and similarly, their good relationship with offenders.

Table 19
Offender perceptions of the strengths of CACs

n

%

Good relationship with CAC members

6

27.3

Good for reintegration

5

22.7

Real issues are discussed

3

13.6

Liaise with community

14

63.6

Involved in various projects

2

9.1

Objective and independent

10

45.4

Relay the message to management

6

27.3

Knowledgeable

4

18.2

Accountable

3

13.6

Liaise with offenders, staff, management

4

18.2

Fresh perspective

3

13.6

Other

4

18.2

   
Note. n=22 IWC groups

Another question asked respondents about beneficial aspects of CACs and a similar set of responses was obtained. As shown in Table 20, nearly one-half of the management group and staff felt that a benefit of the CAC was its liaison capacity with the community. Impartiality/independence was also listed as an important benefit, with 30% of management, and 25% of staff mentioning it in their response.

Table 20
Management and staff perceptions of beneficial aspects of CACs

Management

Staff

n

%

n

%

Recognise issues to be improved

0

0

2

3.0

Accountability for CSC/honesty/ objectivity

3

15.0

19

28.4

Liaise with community

9

45.0

30

44.8

Independent/impartial observer

6

30.0

17

25.4

Involved in decision making

1

5.0

0

0

Good values/professionalism/dedication

1

5.0

1

1.5

Work with offenders

5

25.0

11

16.4

Critical thinking

8

28.6

2

3.0

Assisting CSC

1

5.0

9

13.4

Knowledgeable/life experience

4

20.0

4

6.0

Liaise with offenders, staff and management

2

10.0

3

4.5

Fresh perspective

8

40.0

8

11.9

Representative of the community

3

15.0

9

13.4

Provide advice

0

0

1

1.5

Note. n=20 management staff and n=67 staff

For offenders, objectivity/independence (47.4%), followed by community liaison (36.8%) and mediation between offenders and management (31.6%) were listed as the primary benefits associated with the CAC (see Table 21).

Table 21
Offender perceptions of the beneficial aspects of CACs

n

%

Good relationship with CAC members

6

31.6

Good for reintegration

2

10.5

Real issues are discussed

0

0

Liaise with community

7

36.8

Involved in various projects

1

5.2

Objective and independent

9

47.4

Relay the message to management

6

31.6

Knowledgeable

2

10.5

Accountable

2

10.5

Liaise with offenders, staff, management

2

10.5

Fresh perspective

4

21.0

Other

1

5.3

Note. n=19 IWC groups    

Opportunities for improvement

Different patterns of responses were obtained for management, staff and offenders with respect to their perceptions of opportunities for improvement (see Table 22). Management were primarily concerned with training and role definition, whereas staff and offenders indicated they felt there should be more promotion of CACs to staff, increased liaison with offenders/increased institutional presence, and increased communication.

Table 22
Management, staff and offender perceptions of opportunities for improvement

Management

Staff

Offenders

n

%

n

%

n

%

Promoting CACs to the public

2

8.0

0

0

0

0

Promoting CACs to staff

5

20.0

39

53.4

8

34.8

Training (initial and ongoing)

9

36.0

15

20.5

5

21.7

Role definition

11

44.0

26

35.6

5

21.7

Liability and security issues

1

4.0

1

1.4

0

0

Increased liaison with offenders/institutional presence

5

20.0

25

34.3

15

65.2

Increase budget

6

24.0

3

4.1

1

4.3

Ensure diversity

3

12.0

2

2.7

0

0

Communication

5

20.0

29

39.7

12

52.2

Follow-up process/follow through on ideas

4

16.0

4

5.5

6

26.1

Management of CACs (implementation, organization, policies)

6

24.0

11

15.1

0

0

Increase liaison with the community

6

24.0

11

15.1

4

17.4

Recruitment

2

8.0

8

11.0

2

8.7

Support/recognition

4

16.0

3

4.1

1

4.3

Geographic location

3

12.0

1

1.4

0

0

Note. n=25 management staff, n=73 staff and n=23 IWC groups.

Responses to the rural survey showed a slightly different pattern, with the highest percentage of respondents indicating the need to promote CACs to the public (see Table 23). A set of responses was related to CAC members, including training, role definition, recruitment, ensuring diversity and ensuring that the CAC receives the requisite support and recognition. Finally, slightly more than one-half of respondents indicated that increasing the CAC budget at the local level was an area that could be improved.

Table 23
Rural survey respondent perceptions of opportunities for improvement

Item

n

%

Promoting CACs to the public

13

72.2

Promoting CACs to staff

7

38.9

Their training (initial and ongoing)

10

55.6

Role definition/role clarity

10

55.6

Liability and/or security issues

2

11.1

Increasing liaison with offenders/presence in institution/parole office/CCC

2

11.1

Increasing the CAC budget at the local level

10

55.6

Ensuring diversity/representativeness

10

55.6

Improving communication (e.g., sharing minutes, information, etc.)

5

27.8

Improving the follow-up process

2

11.1

Management aspects of the CAC

1

5.6

Increasing liaison with the community

8

44.4

Recruitment

9

50.0

Support/recognition

9

50.0

Note. n=18    

In terms of areas to be addressed to ensure the most effective functioning of CACs, nearly three-quarters of offenders indicated that there should be increased liaison with offenders/increased institutional presence (see Table 24). Management was primarily concerned with improving the CAC role definition, with 50% indicating this would be helpful, and approximately one-quarter of staff and offenders endorsing this idea. Managers also listed the overall management of CACs (e.g., implementation, organization) as an area that could receive attention, and approximately one-third listed recruitment, and a budget increase, as areas which, if addressed, would contribute to more effective functioning of the CAC. All three groups felt that improved communication would contribute to more effective functioning of the CAC, with approximately one-third of respondents in each group indicating this was an important opportunity for improvement.

Table 24
Management, staff and offender perceptions of aspects to be addressed to ensure the most effective functioning of CACs

Management

Staff

Offenders

n

%

n

%

n

%

Promoting CACs to the public

1

4.2

1

1.7

1

5.6

Promoting CACs to staff

6

25.0

20

34.5

2

11.1

Training (initial and ongoing)

8

33.3

9

15.5

2

11.1

Role definition

12

50.0

15

25.9

2

22.2

Liability and security issues

1

4.2

0

0

0

0

Increased liaison with offenders/institutional presence

3

12.5

16

27.6

13

72.2

Increase budget

7

29.2

8

13.8

1

5.6

Ensure diversity

1

4.2

1

1.7

0

0

Communication

7

29.2

19

32.8

7

38.9

Follow-up process/follow through on ideas

2

8.3

4

6.9

5

27.8

Management of CACs (implementation, organization, policies)

10

41.7

10

17.2

3

16.7

Increase liaison with the community

4

16.7

7

12.1

4

22.2

Recruitment

7

29.2

7

12.1

3

16.7

Support/recognition

6

25.0

7

12.1

3

16.7

Geographic location

3

12.5

1

1.7

1

5.6

Note. n=25 management staff, n=73 staff and n=23 IWC groups.

5.0 KEY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Citizens’ Advisory Committees are comprised of independent members who volunteer their time to represent their community in their liaison, advisory and observer roles. Therefore, in providing recommendations and suggestions, it is imperative to strive to maintain a balance between having CACs that operate autonomously and independently, yet that work in concert with CSC to facilitate the most effective functioning of the Service. Given this situation, it is important to provide informed suggestions as to how the CAC and CSC might proceed in adopting changes to enhance the effective functioning of the system. The Citizen Engagement Branch initially requested feedback regarding CAC functioning to serve as a blueprint for change, and the following suggestions are offered to facilitate their endeavors and to enhance the existing relationship between the CAC and the Service.

First, it is important to reiterate the high degree of agreement between respondents (management, staff, offenders, CAC members and CAC Chairs) in many areas. Specifically, on the overall ratings for CAC involvement in working toward goals, knowledge, effectiveness in activities, and effectiveness in working toward goals, there were no significant differences between the CAC respondents and CSC respondents. Likewise, similar areas were identified as strengths and benefits by management, staff and offenders, and a similar level of consensus was attained with regard to opportunities for improvement. These findings provide a good starting point - we know what is working well, and have concrete areas in which to focus to enhance the role of CACs, and areas in which CSC can provide support to facilitate their work.

The following key conclusions and corresponding recommendations were drawn from the evaluation results and are presented for consideration. The synthesis and recommendations focus on findings related to the role and specific activities of the CAC - liaising, observing and providing advice - with reference to the appropriate data tables contained in the body of the evaluation report, where applicable.

5.1 Structure of CACs

Diversity

Generally, respondents indicated that they feel the CAC reflects the local community in terms of diversity (Table 4), but many did not answer this question as they indicated they did not have enough knowledge of the CAC. Additionally, it was noted by managers that recruitment could be improved by bringing in more Aboriginal members, visible minority members, and younger members. This perception is supported by the Research data (Trevethan et al., 2003, 2004), which indicate that CAC members tend to differ from the Canadian population on various characteristics. Most notably, CAC survey respondents are older than the Canadian population, and more likely to be married, retired, and to have completed post-secondary education. In terms of ethnicity, a higher percentage of CAC members are Aboriginal than the general population (at 5% versus 4%), whereas a smaller percentage of CAC members report belonging to a visible minority group.

Recommendation #1:

The CSC should assist the CAC with strategies and initiatives to facilitate the recruitment of more Aboriginal members, visible minority members, and younger members when this need is identified by CAC Chairs and CSC management.

Role of CAC members

Many staff and offenders were not able to elucidate the specific roles and activities of the CAC, instead responding to the question “in theory”. Management, staff and offenders indicated, however, that role definition among CAC members was an area that if improved, could contribute to more effective functioning of the CAC (Tables 22, 23 and 24).

At the time the interviews were conducted, national training for CAC members had been developed and was being delivered in the various regions. There was a high degree of recognition of the quality and utility of the training among management and CSC-CAC regional coordinators, particularly with respect to the comprehensive coverage of CSC. Moreover, there was agreement regarding the need to expand the training to focus more intensively on CAC-specific activities and roles, to ensure maximal understanding of the role of a CAC member. Training emphasizing CAC roles and activities was being provided in the Pacific region, and it was felt that this training could be adapted for national distribution. It was mentioned by respondents that an enhanced emphasis on the role of CACs and of CAC members in training would empower and enable CACs to re-examine their objectives and goals. Likewise, given that many staff and offenders are not fully aware of the specific role of the CAC, it is important that this information be provided, minimally, to all new staff and offenders. The CAC pamphlet provides basic information on the roles and functioning of the CAC and should be readily available to staff, offenders and the community.

Recommendation #2:

That CSC expand the CAC member training to include more of a focus on CAC-specific information relating to roles and activities.

Recommendation #3:

That CSC incorporate basic information on CACs (who they are, their role, activities, etc.) in training for staff during their orientation and for offenders at reception.

Recommendation #4:

The CSC should ensure that up-to-date pamphlets describing the CAC are available to CAC members for distribution to staff, offenders and the community.

5.2 Liaise

Liaison was mentioned by all groups as one of the most prevalent (Table 11 - liaise with the community, working with offenders), and effective (Table 15), activities of the CAC. Specifically, as demonstrated in Table 15, respondents indicated that the CAC is most effective in liaising with the community, as well as in interacting with offenders. The general consensus is that CAC members perform an important role with the public - they come from the community, therefore provide a critical link, and outreach is generally recognised by management, staff and offenders as something that the CAC does well (Table 17).

The lack of funding at the local (i.e., institution/parole office) level was mentioned by a number of managers as a deterrent to expanding outreach endeavors. Specifically, a lack of availability of funds for CAC activities at the local level was mentioned by approximately one-quarter of the managers who participated in the interviews (Table 24) and more than one-half of the respondents to the rural survey (Table 23). To this end, it would be beneficial to review the funding structure of the CACs, to ensure that funds are allocated in such a way as to facilitate the activities and initiatives of the CACs at the local level.

Recommendation #5:

That CSC review the funding structure of the CAC to ensure that funds are allocated in such a way as to facilitate the activities and initiatives of the CACs at the local level.

Increased visibility of CAC members and increased communication between CAC members and the operational unit

The CAC is respected for what it brings to the Service, with impartiality and objectivity recognised as strengths/benefits by management, staff and offenders (Tables 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21). However, all groups of respondents indicated that there is work to be done to improve the interaction between CAC members and staff (Tables 22, 23 and 24). Whereas it was recognised by all respondents that the CAC are effective in working with offenders (Table 15), most groups also indicated that the CAC could be more visible in the institution (Tables 22 and 24), which would increase the interaction with both staff and offenders, as well contribute to an enhanced understanding of the roles and activities of the CAC. The visibility issue is evident in the fact that a high percentage of staff mentioned “attend meetings” (i.e., often one of the more visible undertakings) as one of the most prevalent activities of the CAC (Table 11).

Offenders indicated that they have a good relationship with the CAC (Tables 19 and 21). This relationship simply needs to be expanded with more offenders, as the increased presence and visibility of CAC members should contribute to an increased opportunity for sharing of information. Interconnected with liaison is the issue of communication, and results from several questions suggest that improved communication between the CAC and the Service - staff and offenders, in particular - would be beneficial (Tables 22 and 24). Increased communication with staff and inmates would involve more sharing of information regarding CAC initiatives, which is important given the generally low level of awareness of staff with respect to CAC issues reported by management and staff alike (Table 7). Likewise, staff has an important role to play in assisting the CAC in their role; in providing information on their role, they can provide the CAC with an enhanced awareness of operations and programs. Many institutions post the minutes of CAC meetings on their shared network drive, but some staff are not aware of the specific location, or indicated that they don't have the time to read detailed accounts of meetings.

Offenders indicated that an improved follow-up process, particularly with regard to outcomes of meetings with management would be beneficial to them (Tables 22 and 24), as it would provide an enhanced understanding and sustained awareness of the current endeavors of the CAC.

Recommendation #6:

To increase the visibility of CAC members with staff other than management, through such potential means as reciprocal attendance at meetings, involvement in specific projects, etc.

Recommendation #7:

That a one-page description of current CAC initiatives and endeavors be prepared by the CAC and sent quarterly or bi-yearly to staff and offender representatives (e.g., the IWC and/or Lifer’s Groups), to enhance communication and ensure ongoing awareness of CAC activities and events.

Recommendation #8:

That follow-up with offenders is ensured following CAC meetings with management on issues brought forward by offender representatives. This can be established by developing and/or maintaining monthly meetings with offender representatives (e.g., the IWC and/or Lifer’s Groups) at each operational site.

5.3 Observe

One of the primary areas of strength of the CAC identified by management and staff is their role as impartial observers (Table 17). All CSC respondents indicated that the CAC brings with it a certain objectivity and impartiality (Tables 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21), which provides an important accountability mechanism to the Service (Tables 17 and 18). There was general concensus across respondents, and high ratings across many of the questions, regarding the effectiveness of the CAC in their role as independent observers (Table 15). Specifically, the role as observer was rated highest in “effectiveness in working toward goals” (Table 16), as well as being rated one of the most effective CAC activities (Tables 15).

During the interviews, many managers made the observation that the CAC role varies considerably by institutional security level. Managers indicated, for instance, that a primary CAC role in a maximum security institution is observation, with CAC members routinely participating as observers during a crisis situation. The limited mobility in maximum security institutions may inhibit the ability of the CAC for less formal (i.e., day-to-day) observation, as well as limiting interaction with offenders. Observation of sensational incidents figures much less prominently, if at all, at lower security level institutions.

Many managers emphasized the need for flexibility in the manner in which the CAC may operate, with recognition of the differential emphasis on activities at different types of operational sites. Furthermore, the recently revised CD-023 states that every operational site must have a CAC affiliated with it, which has caused some concern among less centralized sites and/or satellite offices. Staff indicated that it may not be realistic, in cases where the site is operating with only one staff member, to have a CAC comprised of five CAC members and advocated the need for more flexibility with respect to the implementation and operation of CACs in less centralized areas and/or satellite offices.

Recommendation #9:

That CSC consider reviewing CD-023 to examine whether the policy offers CACs a sufficient degree of flexibility to operate in different types of CSC facilities (e.g., at different security levels and in varying locations).

5.4 Advise

Although one-quarter of staff and one-third of management perceived providing advice as a primary activity of the CAC (Table 11), advising was not one of the main areas of strength identified by management, staff, or offenders (Tables 17 and 19). However, the CAC received virtually the same effectiveness rating on “providing advice/ recommendations” as did “observing” by management, members themselves, and Chairs (Table 15).

Some managers reported that committees are in a rebuilding or educational stage, and thus are not yet prepared to provide substantive advice and/or recommendations. In this case, they are often used as a "sounding board" for input (versus “providing advice”), as they provide a different perspective, and one typically reflective of the community. Other managers indicated that they regularly confer with their CAC and routinely consider their input in the decision-making process.

Therefore, the advising role is contingent, to a degree, on the knowledge of CAC members, which is typically linked to their tenure and/or level of experience. Some groups and individuals are recognised as highly knowledgeable, whereas others, as indicated above, are in the process of learning about the role of CACs and of the Service.

Recommendation #10:

That the CAC clarify their role of providing advice and communicate this role to CSC staff (including management) and CAC members, so that CSC maximally benefits from this activity.

In sum, the CAC is respected for their contributions to the Service but their role could be further enhanced by implementing the specific measures detailed above. In particular, according to staff, increased visibility and sharing of information would go a long way toward furthering understanding of the functioning of the CAC among staff and offenders, thereby contributing to an enhanced capacity to pursue their mandate of observing, liaising, and providing advice to the Service.

REFERENCES

Andrychuk, D., & Howarth, A. (2002). Report on the CAC Survey/Questionnaire of CSC Operations, Services, and Programs, Kingston, ON, Citizen Advisory Committee, Collins Bay Institution.

Citizen Advisory Committees (1995). 1995 CAC Membership Survey, Ottawa, ON, CAC National Executive.

Correctional Service of Canada (2003a). Commissioners Directive 023: Citizens' Advisory Committees, Ottawa, ON, Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada (2003b). Working together: Citizens’ Advisory Committees to the Correctional Service of Canada Resource Manual.

Correctional Service of Canada (2002). Core values of the Correctional Services Canada, Ottawa, ON, Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada (1999). Citizens' Advisory Committees to the Correctional Service of Canada: 1999-2000 Annual Report, Ottawa, ON, Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada (1991). Review of Advisory Committees, Ottawa, ON, Evaluation Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service of Canada (1990). Commissioners Directive 023: Citizens' Advisory Committees, Ottawa, ON, Correctional Service of Canada.

Demers, T. (2000). Citizens' Advisory Committees Questionnaire for Wardens and District Directors: National Survey Results, Ottawa, ON, Communications and Consultation Sector, Correctional Service of Canada.

Department of Justice Canada (1992). Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Ottawa, ON, Department of Justice Canada.

MacGuigan, M. (1977). The Sub-Committee on the penitentiary system in Canada, Ottawa, ON, Report to Parliament, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Second Session, Thirtieth Parliament.

Statistics Canada (2001). Census of Canada 2001, Ottawa, ON, Statistics Canada.

Trevethan, S., Rastin, C.J., & Gillis, C. (2003). Citizens’ Advisory Committees: A profile of members. Forum on Corrections Research, 15 (1), 19-21.

Trevethan, S., Bell, A., Rastin, C.J., & Gillis, C. (2004). Citizens’ Advisory Committees in Canada. Research report (No. 147), Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

APPENDIX A
Citizen's Advisory Committee Impact Model

APPENDIX B
Interviews and surveys

CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CSC MANAGEMENT STAFF INTERVIEW

By a joint request of the Citizen Engagement Division of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the National Executive Committee of Citizens' Advisory Committees, the Research and Evaluation Branches of CSC are conducting an examination of Citizens' Advisory Committees (CACs) in Canada .

This study is being conducted in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of CACs. As a CSC staff member, this interview will include questions about your experiences and impressions of your CAC and CACs in general.

This information will be of great assistance to both the Correctional Services Canada and Citizens' Advisory Committees. Your participation is voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential. If there are questions that you do not feel comfortable answering, do not feel obligated to answer them.

This interview will take approximately 45-60 minutes to conduct. If you would like any further information about this research, please contact Christopher Rastin, Research Officer at CSC at (613) 947-9296 or rastinch@csc-scc.gc.ca.

We would like to thank you for participating in this important study. Your time is greatly appreciated.

I agree to participate in the interview
_________________________________

(participant name - please print)
_________________________________ ___________________

(participant signature) (date)

Evaluation of Citizens' Advisory Committees

CSC MANAGEMENT STAFF INTERVIEW

Identification Number: __/__/__/__/__

Province: __/__

Institution/Parole Office: __/__/__

Interviewer: __/__

Date: __/__/__

Respondent:

[1] Warden [5] Other Staff (specify) ________________

[2] Parole Office Director [6] CSC CAC Representative

[3] Program Staff [7] Other (specify) ____________________

[4] Parole Officer

SECTION A: STRUCTURE OF CAC

I'm going to begin by asking you some questions about the structure of the CAC that you are associated with. These questions are intended to provide information regarding your role with regard to your CAC, and your personal and professional perspectives of your CAC.

Could you describe your role with respect to the CAC?

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

I am going to read a list regarding what you may think are your primary roles with respect to the CAC. Please indicate what you feel are your primary roles (check one for each):

Yes No DK Refused

  1. Provide support [1] [2] [7] [8]
  2. Seek advice [1] [2] [7] [8]
  3. Liaison between local and regional CACs [1] [2] [7] [8]
  4. Liaison between local CAC and CSC [1] [2] [7] [8]
  5. Respond to advice/recommendations from CAC [1] [2] [7] [8]
  6. Other (specify): _________________ [1] [2] [7] [8]
  7. Other (specify): _________________ [1] [2] [7] [8]

What do you think about the structure of the CAC (e.g., number of members, how organized, chair, etc.)?

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

In your opinion, does your CAC membership reflect the diversity of the local community (e.g., ethnicity, profession, etc.)?

[1] Yes [7] Don't Know (go to follow-up question)

[2] No (go to follow-up question) [8] Refused

A. If no, what do you think could be done to attract CAC members that are more reflective of the local community?

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused [9] Not Applicable

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "very", how satisfied are you with the recruitment process for the CAC?

Not at all Somewhat Very

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

How do you think the recruitment process could be improved?

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

SECTION B: INTERACTIONS

In this section, I'm going to ask you about interactions with your CAC. Some of these questions may not be applicable to you - if so, please let me know and we will move on.

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", how would you rate the level of interaction between yourself and the CAC?

Not at all Some A great deal

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", overall how would you rate the level of interaction between the CAC and the institution/parole office?

Not at all Some A great deal

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

Do CAC members meet directly with staff?

[1] Yes (go to follow-up questions) [7] Don't Know

[2] No [8] Refused

A. If yes, on average, how often do CAC members meet with staff (check one):

[1] Once per month [7] Don't Know
[2] Two to three times per month [8] Refused
[3] Four or more times per month [9] Not Applicable

B. Interactions with staff tend to be with (check all that apply):

[1] Individual staff [7] Don't Know
[2] Union representatives [8] Refused
[3] Other (specify) ______________ [9] Not Applicable

C. How would you characterize the nature of CAC members' interactions with staff (check one):

[1] Formal (i.e., participation in scheduled meeting)
[2] Informal (i.e., talking to staff as they see them)
[3] Combination of formal and informal interactions

[7] Don't Know

[8] Refused

[9] Not Applicable

D. I am going to read a list of issues possibly discussed with staff. Please indicate whether or not the CAC addresses these issues with staff:

Yes No DK Refused N/A
Case-specific staff concerns [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
General staff-related advice [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Day-to-day functioning - [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
institution/parole office
Incidents [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Offender-related issues [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Programming issues [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Policy issues [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Other (specify): __________ [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Other (specify): __________ [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

Do CAC members meet with regional CSC-CAC representatives?

[1] Yes (go to follow-up question) [7] Don't Know

[2] No [8] Refused

A. If yes, what types of issues are discussed?

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused [9] Not Applicable

To your knowledge, do local CACs consult with any other CSC representatives regarding any issues (e.g., national headquarters, regional headquarters)?

[1] Yes (go to follow-up question) [7] Don't Know

[2] No [8] Refused

A. If yes, what types of issues are discussed?

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused [9] Not Applicable

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", to what extent does the CAC provide the institution/parole office with advice?

Not at all Somewhat A great deal

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

I am going to read you a list of types of advice the CAC may provide. Please indicate whether or not your CAC offers this form of advice:

Yes No DK Refused

  1. Day-to day functioning of [1] [2] [7] [8]

institution/parole office

  1. Incidents [1] [2] [7] [8]
  2. Staff-related advice [1] [2] [7] [8]
  3. Offender-related advice [1] [2] [7] [8]
  4. Programming advice [1] [2] [7] [8]
  5. Policy advice [1] [2] [7] [8]
  6. Other (specify): _________________ [1] [2] [7] [8]
  7. Other (specify): _________________ [1] [2] [7] [8]

On average, how many recommendations:

# DK Refused

  1. Does your CAC propose/generate in one year ______ [7] [8]
  2. Are carried forward to the Regional CAC ______ [7] [8]
  3. Are carried forward to the CAC National Exec. ______ [7] [8]

How are these recommendations presented (check one):

[1] Verbal communication
[2] Written communication
[3] Other (specify): ____________________________________________
[7] Don't Know
[8] Refused
[9] Not Applicable

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "always", how often does the institution/parole office seek advice from the CAC?

Not at all Some Always

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

Please indicate if the institution/parole office seek advice in any of the following areas:

Yes No DK Refused

a. Day-to day functioning of [1] [2] [7] [8]

institution/parole office

b. Incidents [1] [2] [7] [8]
c. Staff-related advice [1] [2] [7] [8]
d. Offender-related advice [1] [2] [7] [8]
e. Programming advice [1] [2] [7] [8]
f. Policy advice [1] [2] [7] [8]
g. Other (specify): _________________ [1] [2] [7] [8]
h. Other (specify): _________________ [1] [2] [7] [8]

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "always", to what extent does the institution/parole office use the advice offered by the CAC?

Not at all Some Always

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "always", how often does the institution/parole office respond to these recommendations?

Not at all Sometimes Always

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

How does the institution/parole office typically communicate your responses to the CACs (check one):

[1] Verbal communication to the Chair of the CAC
[2] Verbal communication to the CSC Regional Representative
[3] Verbal communication at the local CAC meeting
[4] Written communication
[5] Other (specify): ____________________________________________
[7] Don't Know
[8] Refused

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "very", how informed does the institution/parole office keep the CAC regarding relevant events or issues?

Not at all Some Very

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "very", how informed do you think staff are about events or issues relevant to the CAC?

Not at all Some Very

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "very", how satisfied are you regarding your interactions with the CAC?

Not at all Some Very

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", in your opinion, to what extent:

-----1---------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5-----

Not at all Some A Great Deal

A. Does your CAC accurately represent the views of the community to CSC

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

B. Does your CAC accurately represent CSC (e.g., functioning, Mission, etc.) to the community

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

C. Do you feel you the CAC receives support from CSC for outreach activities?

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

Do CAC members meet with community members?

[1] Yes (go to follow-up questions) [7] Don't Know

[2] No [8] Refused

A. If yes, on average, how often do CAC members meet with community members (check one):

[1] Once per month [7] Don't Know

[2] Two to three times per month [8] Refused

[3] Four or more times per month [9] Not Applicable

B. Interactions with community members tend to be with (check all that apply):

[1] Individual community members [7] Don't Know

[2] Groups/organizations of community members [8] Refused

[3] Other (specify) ______________ [9] Not Applicable

C. How would you characterize the nature of CAC members' interactions with community members (check one):

[1] Formal (i.e., participation in scheduled meeting)

[2] Informal (i.e., talking to community members as we see them)

[3] Combination of formal and informal interactions

[7] Don't Know

[8] Refused

[9] Not Applicable

Do CAC members meet with offenders?

[1] Yes (go to follow-up questions) [7] Don't Know

[2] No [8] Refused

A. If yes, on average in a year, how often do CAC members meet with offenders (check one):

[01] Once a year [06] Bi-weekly

[02] Once every 9 months [07] Weekly

[03] Once very 6 months [77] Don't Know

[04] Once every 3 months [88] Refused

[05] Once a month [99] Not Applicable

B. Interactions with offenders tend to be with (check all that apply):

[1] Individual offenders [7] Don't Know

[2] Inmate committee representatives [8] Refused

[3] Other (specify) ______________ [9] Not Applicable

C. How would you characterize the nature of CAC members' interactions with offenders (check one):

[1] Formal (i.e., participation in scheduled meeting)

[2] Informal (i.e., talking to staff as we see them)

[3] Combination of formal and informal interactions

[7] Don't Know

[8] Refused

[9] Not Applicable

D. I am going to read a list of issues possibly discussed with offenders. Please indicate whether or not your CAC addresses these issues with offenders (check one for each):

Yes No DK Refused N/A

Case-specific offender concerns [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

General offender-related advice [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

Day-to-day functioning - [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

institution/parole office

Incidents [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

Staff-related issues [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

Programming issues [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

Policy issues [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

Other (specify): ________________ [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

Other (specify): ________________ [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

SECTION C: ACTIVITIES

In this section, I'm going to ask you about the activities that your CAC is involved in.

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", to what extent has your CAC been involved in work toward the following goals:

-----1---------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5-----

Not at all Some A Great Deal

A. Promoting public knowledge and understanding of corrections through communication among offenders, CSC staff and the public

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

B. Contributing to the overall development of correctional facilities and programs

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

C. Fostering public participation in the correctional process

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

D. Participating in developing community resources designed to support correctional programs

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

E. Acting as independent observers

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

Can you list for me the main activities your CAC is involved in:


[77] Don't Know [88] Refused

Does your CAC participate in any community outreach activities?

[1] Yes (go to follow-up question) [7] Don't Know

[2] No [8] Refused

A. If yes, I am going to read you a list of community outreach practices your CAC may engage in. Please indicate which outreach activities your CAC engages in (check all that apply):

[01] Media interviews

[02] Presentation to community groups

[03] Arranging tours of CSC facilities

[04] University/college presentations

[05] Liaising with our criminal justice partners (e.g., police, legal)

[06] Liaising with NGO criminal justice partners (e.g., John Howard Society)

[07] Sharing annual reports with the public / community

[08] Hosting/participating in public forums to enhance community education and awareness

[09] Keeping the media informed of what is happening with CACs

[10] Using the media to dispel myths

[11] Hosting an open house at the institution/CCC

[12] Other - specify _______________________________________

[77] Don't Know

[88] Refused

[99] Not Applicable

SECTION D: EXPERIENCES WITH CACs

This section of the interview will examine your experiences with CACs. It is intended to get a better understanding of the effectiveness of CACs. Again, there may be some areas that you do not know about - just let me know and we will move on.

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", how would you rate CAC members' knowledge of CSC?

Not at all Some A great deal

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Don't Know [8] Refused

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", how knowledgeable would you rate your CAC members in the following areas:

-----1---------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5-----

Not at all Some A Great Deal

A. CAC's Mission

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

B. Role of CAC members

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

C. CSC's Mission

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

D. CSC policies and procedures

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

E. Offender issues affecting offenders

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

F. Issues affecting staff

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

G. Corrections in general

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

H. Criminal justice system

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

I. Victims

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

J. Correctional programs

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

K. Offenders' reintegration process

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

L. Policy for serving as an observer during a crisis situation

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

M. Procedure for serving as an observer during a crisis situation

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "very", how effective would you rate your CAC in each of the following areas:

-----1---------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5-----

Not at all Some Very

A. Providing advice to CSC

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

B. Serving as independent observers in the correctional system

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

C. Serving as liaison between CSC and the community

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

D. Contributing to the quality of the correctional process

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

E. Interacting with staff

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

F. Interacting with offenders

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

G. Interacting with the public

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

H. Providing recommendations to CSC

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

I. Contributing to the protection of society

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

J. Contributing to the safe operation of institutions or parole offices

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

K. Contributing to correctional programs

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

L. Contributing to correctional policy

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "very", how effective would you rate your CAC on the achievement of the following goals:

-----1---------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5-----

Not at all Some Very

A. Promoting public knowledge and understanding of corrections through communication among offenders, CSC staff and the public

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

B. Contributing to the overall development of correctional facilities and programs

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

C. Fostering public participation in the correctional process

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

D. Participating in developing community resources designed to support correctional programs

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

E. Acting as independent observers

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

The next set of questions refer to your opinion about the functioning of CACs, and areas that you may feel could use improvement. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "very", to what extent do you agree with the following statements:

-----1---------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5-----

Not at all Some Very

A. I think CAC members feel recognised as volunteers.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

B. I think CAC members feel they are contributing to CSC.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

C. I think CAC members feel they are contributing to the CAC.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

D. I believe that local CAC recommendations are heard at the regional CAC level.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

E. I believe that local CAC recommendations are heard at the national CAC level.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

F. I believe that local CAC recommendations are heard by CSC.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

G. I feel CAC members could improve their understanding of CSC policy.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

H. I think CAC members feel CSC management could provide more support to the CACs.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

I. I think that CAC members feel their involvement with the CAC has a positive impact on CSC programs and/or operations.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

J. I think CAC members feel their involvement with the CAC has a positive impact on offenders.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

K. I think CAC members feel that their roles as CAC members are clearly defined.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

L. I think CAC members have a clear understanding of where the CAC role ends and CSC's role begins.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

M. I think CAC members feel that CSC holds them (CACs) back in carrying out our mandate.

1

2

3

4

5

7 8
N. I think CAC members have a clear understanding of the mandate of CACs.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

O. I think CAC members feel that their CAC functions in an organized manner.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

P. I think CAC members feel like their work with the CAC is time well spent.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

Q. I think CAC members feel they received an adequate orientation when they joined the CAC.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

R. I think CAC members feel they have the opportunity to receive adequate ongoing training as a CAC member.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

S. I think CAC members worry about safety issues in their work with CACs.

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

 And using the same scale, how would you rate the following statements: 

-----1---------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5-----

Not at all Some Very

A. The responsiveness of staff at the institutional or parole office staff to the work of the CAC? 1 2 3 4 5 7 8
B. The responsiveness of the Warden or Director to the work of the CAC? 1 2 3 4 5 7 8
C. The responsiveness of CSC to the recommendations of your CAC? 1 2 3 4 5 7 8

What do you think are the strengths of CACs?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

What do you think are the most beneficial aspects of CACs?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

What aspects of CACs, if any, do you think could be improved?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

What do you think are the most important issues that need to be addressed to ensure the most effective functioning of CACs?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

Do you have anything else you would like to add?

Thank you very much for your time!

 

March 1, 2003

FINAL
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
STAFF INTERVIEW

 

By a joint request of the Citizen Engagement Division of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the National Executive Committee of Citizens' Advisory Committees, the Research and Evaluation Branches of CSC are conducting an examination of Citizens' Advisory Committees (CACs) in Canada.

 

This study is being conducted in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of CACs. This interview will include questions about your experiences and impressions of your CAC.  This information will be of great assistance to both the Correctional Services Canada and Citizens' Advisory Committees.

 

Your participation is voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential.  If there are questions that you do not feel comfortable answering, do not feel obligated to answer them.

 

This interview will take approximately 20-30 minutes to conduct.  If you would like any further information about this research, please contact the Research Branch at CSC at (613) 996-3287.

 

We would like to thank you for participating in this important study.  Your time is greatly appreciated.

 

 I agree to participate in the interview

 

_________________________________

 (participant name - please print)

 

_________________________________                  ___________________

(participant signature)                                                 (date)

 

STAFF INTERVIEW

 

Identification Number:  __/__/__/__/__

Province: __/__

Institution/Parole Office:  __/__/__

Interviewer:  __/__

Date: __/__/__

 

Respondent:

[1] Warden                                [5] Other Staff (specify) ____________________

[2] Parole Office Director [6] CSC CAC Representative

[3] Program Staff                        [7] Other (specify) ________________________

[4] Parole Officer

 

SECTION A: STRUCTURE OF CAC

 

I'm going to begin by asking you some questions about the structure of the CAC that you are associated with. These questions are intended to provide information regarding the role of your CAC, and your perspectives of your CAC.

 

Could you describe what you think is the overall role of your CAC (e.g., what do you see as the mandate)?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

In your opinion, does your CAC membership reflect the diversity of the local community (e.g., ethnicity, profession, etc.)?

[1] Yes                                                  [7] Don't Know (go to follow-up question)

[2] No (go to follow-up question)  [8] Refused

 

A.      If no, what do you think could be done to attract CAC members that are more reflective of the local community?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused        [9] Not Applicable

 

SECTION B: INTERACTIONS

 

In this section, I'm going to ask you about interactions with your CAC.

 

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", overall how would you rate the level of interaction between your CAC and the institution/parole office?

Not at all                              Some                                 A great deal

1                      2                      3                      4                      5

[7] Don't Know               [8] Refused

 

Do CAC members meet with staff?

[1] Yes (go to follow-up questions)           [7] Don't Know

[2] No                                                    [8] Refused

 

A.      If yes, on average, how often do CAC members meet with staff (check one):

[1] Once per month                                            [7] Don't Know

[2] Two to three times per month              [8] Refused

[3] Four or more times per month                       [9] Not Applicable

 

B.     Interactions with staff tend to be with (check all that apply):

[1] Individual staff                                   [7] Don't Know

[2] Union representatives                        [8] Refused

[3] Other (specify) ______________    [9] Not Applicable

                        [4] Management, primarily

 

C.     How would you characterize the nature of CAC members' interactions with staff (check one):

[1] Formal (i.e., participation in scheduled meeting)

[2] Informal (i.e., talking to staff as we see them)

[3] Combination of formal and informal interactions

[7] Don't Know  

[8] Refused

[9] Not Applicable

 

D.     I am going to read a list of issues possibly discussed with staff.  Please indicate whether or not your CAC addresses these issues with staff (check one for each):

Yes      No        DK    Refused     N/A

Case-specific concerns                         [1]        [2]        [7]        [8]        [9]

General staff-related advice                    [1]        [2]        [7]        [8]        [9]

Day-to-day functioning –              [1]        [2]        [7]        [8]        [9]

institution/parole office   

Incidents                                               [1]        [2]        [7]        [8]        [9]       

Offender-related issues                          [1]        [2]        [7]        [8]        [9]

Programming issues                               [1]        [2]        [7]        [8]        [9]

Policy issues                                          [1]        [2]        [7]        [8]        [9]

Other (specify): _______________      [1]        [2]        [7]        [8]        [9]

Other (specify): ________________    [1]        [2]        [7]        [8]        [9]

 

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", how would you rate the level of interaction between yourself and the CAC?

Not at all                              Some                                 A great deal

1                      2                      3                      4                      5

[7] Don't Know               [8] Refused

 

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "very", how informed do you think staff are about events or issues relevant to the CAC?

Not at all                              Some                                      Very

1                      2                      3                      4                      5

[7] Don't Know               [8] Refused

 

Could you describe the interactions you have had with the CAC associated with your institution (e.g., who have you met with, what have you discussed)?

_______________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

SECTION C: ACTIVITIES

 

In this section, I'm going to ask you about the activities that your CAC is involved in.

 

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", to what extent has your CAC been involved in work toward the following goals:

-----1---------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5-----

Not at all Some Very

A. Promoting public knowledge and understanding of corrections through communication among offenders, CSC staff and the public 1 2 3 4 5 7 8
B. Contributing to the overall development of correctional facilities and programs 1 2 3 4 5 7 8
C. Fostering public participation in the correctional process 1 2 3 4 5 7 8
D. Participating in developing community resources designed to support correctional programs 1 2 3 4 5 7 8
E. Acting as independent observers 1 2 3 4 5 7 8

Can you list for me the main activities your CAC is involved in: 

____________________________________________

 [77] Don't Know            [88] Refused

 

SECTION D: EXPERIENCES WITH CACs

 

This section of the interview will examine your experiences with CACs.  It is intended to get a better understanding of the effectiveness of CACs.  There may be some areas that you do not know about - just let me know and we will move on.

 

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", how would you rate CAC members' knowledge of CSC?

Not at all                              Some                                 A great deal

1                      2                      3                      4                      5

[7] Don't Know               [8] Refused

 

And using the same scale, how would you rate the following statements:

-----1---------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5-----

Not at all Some Very

D. The responsiveness of staff at the institutional or parole office staff to the work of the CAC?

1

2

3

4

5

 

7

8

E. The responsiveness of the Warden or Director to the work of the CAC?

1

2

3

4

5

 

7

8

F. The responsiveness of CSC to the recommendations of your CAC?

1

2

3

4

5

 

7

8

 

What do you think are the strengths of CACs?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

What do you think are the most beneficial aspects of CACs?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

What aspects of CACs, if any, do you think could be improved?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

What do you think are the most important issues that need to be addressed to ensure the most effective functioning of CACs?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

 

Do you have anything else you would like to add?

____________________________________________

 

Thank you very much for your time!

 

March 1, 2003

FINAL
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OFFENDER INTERVIEW

 

By a joint request of the Citizen Engagement Division of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the National Executive Committee of Citizens' Advisory Committees, the Research and Evaluation Branches of CSC are conducting an examination of Citizens' Advisory Committees (CACs) in Canada.

 

This study is being conducted in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of CACs. This interview will include questions about your experiences and impressions of your CAC.  This information will be of great assistance to both the Correctional Services Canada and Citizens' Advisory Committees.

 

Your participation is voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential.  If there are questions that you do not feel comfortable answering, do not feel obligated to answer them.

 

This interview will take approximately 20-30 minutes to conduct.  If you would like any further information about this research, please contact the Research Branch at CSC at (613) 996-3287.

 

We would like to thank you for participating in this important study.  Your time is greatly appreciated.

 

  I agree to participate in the interview

 

_________________________________

 (participant name - please print)

 

_________________________________                  ___________________

(participant signature)                                                 (date)

 

OFFENDER INTERVIEW

 

Identification Number:  __/__/__/__/__

Province: __/__

Institution/Parole Office:  __/__/__

Interviewer:  __/__

Date: __/__/__

 

SECTION A: STRUCTURE OF CAC

 

I'm going to begin by asking you some questions about the structure of the CAC that you are associated with. These questions are intended to provide information regarding the role of your CAC, and your perspectives of your CAC.

 

Could you describe what you think is the overall role of your CAC (e.g., what do you see as the mandate)?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

In your opinion, does your CAC membership reflect the diversity of the local community (e.g., ethnicity, profession, etc.)?

[1] Yes                                                  [7] Don't Know (go to follow-up question)

[2] No (go to follow-up question)  [8] Refused

 

B.     If no, what do you think could be done to attract CAC members that are more reflective of the local community?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused        [9] Not Applicable

 

 

SECTION B: INTERACTIONS

 

In this section, I'm going to ask you about interactions with your CAC.

 

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", overall how would you rate the level of interaction between your CAC and the institution/parole office?

Not at all                              Some                                 A great deal

1                      2                      3                      4                      5

[7] Don't Know               [8] Refused

 

Do CAC members meet with offenders?

[1] Yes (go to follow-up questions)           [7] Don't Know

[2] No                                                   [8] Refused

 

E.     If yes, on average, how often do CAC members meet with offenders (check one):

[1] Once per month                                            [7] Don't Know

[2] Two to three times per month             [8] Refused

[3] Four or more times per month            [9] Not Applicable

 

F.      Interactions with offenders tend to be with (check all that apply):

[1] Individual offenders                            [7] Don't Know

[2] Inmate committee representatives       [8] Refused

[3] Other (specify) ______________     [9] Not Applicable

 

G.     How would you characterize the nature of CAC members' interactions with offenders (check one):

[1] Formal (i.e., participation in scheduled meeting)

[2] Informal (i.e., talking to staff as we see them)

[3] Combination of formal and informal interactions

[7] Don't Know  

[8] Refused

[9] Not Applicable

 

H.     I am going to read a list of issues possibly discussed with offenders.  Please indicate whether or not your CAC addresses these issues with offenders (check one for each):

Yes      No        DK    Refused     N/A
Case-specific offender concerns [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
General offender-related advice   [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Day-to-day functioning –            [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
institution/parole office 
Incidents                                  [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Staff-related issues                   [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Programming issues                 [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Policy issues                           [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Other (specify): ____________  [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]
Other (specify): ____________  [1] [2] [7] [8] [9]

 

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", how would you rate the level of interaction between yourself and the CAC?

Not at all                              Some                                  A great deal

1                      2                      3                      4                      5

[7] Don't Know               [8] Refused

 

Could you describe the interactions you have had with the CAC associated with your institution (e.g., who have you met with, what have you discussed)?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", to what extent do you deal with reintegration issues with CAC members (i.e., contributing to offenders' capacity to settle back into the community upon release)?

Not at all                              Some                                 A great deal

1                      2                      3                      4                      5

[7] Don't Know               [8] Refused

 

SECTION C: ACTIVITIES

 

In this section, I'm going to ask you about the activities that your CAC is involved in.

 

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", to what extent has your CAC been involved in work toward the following goals:

 

-----1---------------------2---------------------3---------------------4---------------------5-----

Not at all Some Very

F.      Promoting public knowledge and understanding of corrections through communication among offenders, CSC staff and the public

1

2

3

4

5

 

7

8

G.     Contributing to the overall development of correctional facilities and programs

1

2

3

4

5

 

7

8

H.     Fostering public participation in the correctional process

1

2

3

4

5

 

7

8

I.         Participating in developing community resources designed to support correctional programs

1

2

3

4

5

 

7

8

J.       Acting as independent observers

1

2

3

4

5

 

7

8

 

SECTION D: EXPERIENCES WITH CACs

 

This section of the interview will examine your experiences with CACs.  It is intended to get a better understanding of the effectiveness of CACs.  There may be some areas that you do not know about - just let me know and we will move on.

 

On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating "not at all" and 5 indicating "a great deal", how would you rate CAC members' knowledge of CSC?

Not at all                              Some                                  A great deal

1                      2                      3                      4                      5

[7] Don't Know               [8] Refused

 

What do you think are the strengths of CACs?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

What do you think are the most beneficial aspects of CACs?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

 

What aspects of CACs, if any, do you think could be improved?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

What do you think are the most important issues that need to be addressed to ensure the most effective functioning of CACs?

____________________________________________

[7] Don't Know         [8] Refused

 

 

Do you have anything else you would like to add?

____________________________________________

 

Thank you very much for your time!

 

APPENDIX C
 Rural survey

CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CSC MANAGEMENT STAFF SURVEY

 

By a joint request of the Citizen Engagement Division of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the National Executive Committee of Citizens' Advisory Committees, the Research and Evaluation Branches of CSC are conducting an examination of Citizens' Advisory Committees (CACs) in Canada.

 

This study is being conducted in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of CACs.  As a CSC staff member, this interview will include questions about your experiences and impressions of your CAC and CACs in general.  This information will be of great assistance to both the Correctional Service Canada and Citizens' Advisory Committees. 

 

Your participation is voluntary and will be kept strictly confidential.  If there are questions that you do not feel comfortable answering, do not feel obligated to answer them.

 

This survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete.  If you would like any further information about this evaluation, please contact Christa Gillis, Evaluation Manager at in the Evaluation & Review Branch, CSC at (613) 995-9901 or gillisca@csc-scc.gc.ca

 

We would like to thank you for participating in this important study.  Your time is greatly appreciated.

 

 I agree to participate in the interview

 

_________________________________

 (participant name - please print)

 

_________________________________                  ___________________

(participant signature)                                                 (date)

 

CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE SURVEY FOR MANAGEMENT STAFF

 

Respondent:                              ______________________

Institution/Parole Office:  ______________________ 

Province:                                   ______________________

 

What do think is the overall role of your CAC (i.e., what do you see as the mandate)? Please check all that apply.  

 

[01] Liaising with the community/representing the community in the institution/parole office

[02] Advising CSC

[03] Observing (i.e., during an incident and/or everyday events)

[04] Working with inmates

[05] Ensuring accountability / transparency

[06] Providing an impartial voice / perspective

[07] Being aware/knowledgeable about what's going on (e.g., getting the "pulse" of the institution/parole office)

[08] Helping with community reintegration for offenders

[09] Liaising with staff and management

[10] Other (please specify): ___________________________________

[77] Don't Know  

 

  1. Of the roles of the CAC listed in Question 1, what do you see as the top three most important?

 

Most important role:                                  _____________________________

Second most important role:                    _____________________________

Third most important role:                                    _____________________________

 

Have you had any difficulties with recruiting CAC members?

[01] No                   [02] Yes                       [77] Don't Know         

 

A.      If yes, what type of difficulties have you faced with the recruitment process? Please check all that apply.

 

[1] Lack of interest from the community

[2] Bringing in appropriate people (i.e., the "right" kind of person)

[3] Lack of diversity (i.e., same occupation, SES, ethnicity)

[4] Lack of funding for recruitment activities

[5] Geographic location (e.g., large territory)

[6] Other (please specify): ______________________________

[77] Don't Know   

 

B.     Of the issues listed in Question 2A, what do you see as the biggest difficulty with recruiting CAC members?

 

Biggest difficulty in recruiting:       _____________________________

 

Is your CAC involved in community outreach?

[01] No                   [02] Yes                       [77] Don't Know         

 

  1. If yes, please indicate which outreach activities your CAC engages in. Please check all that apply.

 

[01] Media interviews                               

[02] Presentation to community groups  

[03] Arranging tours of CSC facilities      

[04] University/college presentations

[05] Liaising with our criminal justice partners (e.g., police, legal)

[06] Liaising with NGO criminal justice partners (e.g., John Howard Society)

[07] Sharing annual reports with the public / community

[08] Hosting/participating in public forums to enhance community education and awareness

[09] Keeping the media informed of what is happening with CACs

[10] Using the media to dispel myths

[11] Hosting an open house at the institution/CCC

[12] Other - specify _______________________________________

[77] Don't Know

[99] Not Applicable

 

Have you faced any obstacles with community outreach?

[01] No                   [02] Yes                       [77] Don't Know         

 

A.      If yes, what obstacles have you faced with community outreach? Check all that apply.

 

[01] Lack of community interest

[02] Not a main goals/objective of our CAC

[03] Lack of funding for outreach

[04] Lack of clear direction regarding the role of CAC members in outreach

[05] Members do not reflect the community so the public cannot identify with them

[06] Management aspects of the CAC (e.g., general organization)

[07] Geographic location makes it difficult to reach out

[08] CAC Members do not have enough experience to do outreach

[09] Other (please specify): ______________________________

[77] Don't Know   

 

B.     What do you see as the biggest obstacle CAC members face in doing outreach?

 

Biggest obstacle in doing outreach:         _____________________________

 

Have you had any problems retaining CAC members?

[01] No                   [02] Yes                       [77] Don't Know         

 

A.      If yes, what is the most common reason why members leave the CAC?

 

[01] Too time consuming

[02] Frustrated with bureaucracy

[03] Don't feel they are contributing

[04] Not enough direct contact/work with offenders

[05] Personal reasons (e.g., illness)

[06] Other (please specify):  _________________________________

[77] Don't Know   

 

In what types of activities does your local CAC participate? Please check all that apply.

 

[01] Liaising with community

[02] Observing (i.e., during an incident and/or everyday events)

[03] Learning about CSC (i.e., through training, reviewing CSC documents, etc.)

[04] Providing advice

[05] Acting as a neutral (i.e., third) party

[06] Orienting / training to learn about being a CAC member

[07] Working with offenders

[08] Dealing with community reintegration  issues for offenders

[09] Other (please specify):  ___________________________________

[77] Don't Know   

 

What do you think are the strengths and/or benefits of CACs? Please check all that apply.

 

[01] Provides accountability for CSC

[02] Liasing with community

[03] Independent / impartial

[04] Involved in decision-making

[05] Dedication to / enthusiasm for the work they do

[06] Provide a different perspective to CSC (i.e., a "fresh eye")

[07] Work with offenders

[08] Assisting CSC

[09] Their knowledge base

[10] Other (please specify):  ___________________________________

[77] Don't Know     

 

What aspects of CACs, if any, do you think could be improved? Please check all that apply.

 

[01] Promoting CACs to the public

[02] Promoting CACs to staff

[03] Their training (initial and ongoing)

[04] Role definition / role clarity

[05] Liability and/or security issues

[06] Increasing liaison with offenders / institutional presence

[07] Increasing the CAC budget at the local level

[08] Ensuring diversity / representativeness

[09] Improving communication (e.g., sharing minutes, information, etc)

[10] Improving the follow-up process

[11] Management aspects (e.g., the general organization of CACs)

[12] Increasing liaison with community

[13] Recruitment

[14] Support / recognition

[15] Other (please specify):  ___________________________________

[77] Don't Know     

 

A.       In your opinion, what are the three main areas requiring improvement (please list three areas from the list in question 8).

 

Most important area requiring improvement:                    _____________________

Second most important area requiring improvement:      _____________________

Third most important area requiring improvement:          _____________________

 

What do you think are the most important issues facing CACs affiliated with less central institutions / parole offices?

_____________________________________________

_________________________________________

 [77] Don't Know     [99] Not applicable to this site

What do you think are the issues specific to rural CACs that need to be addressed to ensure the most effective functioning of CACs?

____________________________________________

[77] Don't Know      [99] Not applicable to this site

 

Do you have anything else you would like to add?

____________________________________________

 

Thank you very much for your time!

 

APPENDIX D
Statistical terms legend

STATISTICAL TERMS LEGEND

 

 

Symbol

 

Meaning

 

n

Sample size

 

 

M

mean or average

 

 

c2

Chisquare statistic

 

 

p

p-value or probability value

 

 

ns

(statistically) non-significant

 

 

SD

standard deviation

 

 

ANOVA

analysis of variance

 

 

Post hoc comparisons

Testing after the ANOVA is conducted to seek out where significant differences lie.

 

 

t test

Statistical test to determine if there is a difference between the means of two groups

 

 

t

t statistic (for t-test)

 

 

F

Main effect F test (for ANOVA)

 

 

df

degrees of freedom