Evaluation Reports

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Report on the Evaluation of the Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure: Community Employment Centres Initiative

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS

SIGNATURES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
Program Profile and Logic Model

EVALUATION CONTEXT

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY/DESIGN
Interviews
Surveys
Analyses
KEY FINDINGS
Objective 1: Relevance
Objective 2: Success
Objective 3: Cost Effectiveness/Value-for-Money
Objective 4: Implementation
Objective 5: Unintended Findings

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BEST PRACTICES

REFERENCES

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Logic Model
Appendix B: Questionnaires and Surveys
Appendix C: Site Selection
Appendix D: Data Tables
Appendix E: Corcan database variables
Appendix F: List of Community Employment Centres
Appendix G: Sample of Community Partners

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The evaluation team would like to express appreciation to participating staff and offenders in the following cities: Moncton, New Brunswick; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Montreal, Québec; Laval, Québec; Kingston, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Edmonton, Alberta; Vancouver, British Columbia; and Victoria, British Columbia. Interviewees for the site visits included: parole office Area Directors, Corcan Regional Directors, regional employment coordinators, and employment counsellors. Their insights and contributions were most valuable and appreciated. Special thanks to Audrey Concilio, from the Audit Branch, and staff from the Evaluation Branch, for their significant contributions to the data collection component of the project. Thanks as well to institutional and community parole officers, and employment counsellors who completed electronic surveys, and to employment counsellors for administering surveys to offenders. Appreciation is expressed to the IT group at National Headquarters (Mike Charron, John Corbeil, Mandeep Saluja, Ha Tan), for their work in implementing the on-line surveys.

 

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS 

Christa Gillis
Evaluation Manager
Evaluation Branch, Performance Assurance
Correctional Service Canada

Mark Nafekh
Evaluation Manager
Evaluation Branch, Performance Assurance
Correctional Service Canada

Marlene Pepin
Analytical Assistant
Evaluation Branch, Performance Assurance
Correctional Service Canada

Marie-Lynn Beriau
Analytical Assistant
Evaluation Branch, Performance Assurance
Correctional Service Canada

Michael Jeffery
Statistical Information Analyst
Evaluation Branch, Performance Assurance
Correctional Service Canada

 

SIGNATURES

 

Report on the Evaluation of the Enhancing
Community Corrections Infrastructure:
Community Employment Centres Initiative

 

 

Cheryl Fraser
Assistant Commissioner
Performance Assurance

Original signed by 2005-03-31
_______________________________
Date

 

Thérèse Gascon
Director General
Evaluation Branch

Original signed by 2005-03-24
_______________________________
Date

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background and Evaluation Objectives

Effective Corrections Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure funding was used to introduce and enhance services and programs targeted at increasing offender employment in the community, as CSC research indicates that about sixty percent of offenders have employment-related needs (identified during the Offender Intake Assessment process). When offenders are conditionally released, they should have access to meaningful employment interventions to build on what they have learned in the institution. Per the Treasury Board Decision letter, the centres were implemented to offer a spectrum of employment services, including individual assessment, counselling, job-search techniques and on-the-job placement.

The purpose of the evaluation was to explore the functioning of the centres as it relates to offender referral, assessment, services and community supports. Another intention was to compare community-based results (e.g., length of time in the community) for offenders who used the centres, to other offenders with similar employment needs. Within CSC, the results have potential implications for offenders, management, staff (and parole officers, in particular), both in institutions and in the community. Other potential stakeholders include parties involved with, or impacted by, community employment centres, including: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (formerly HRDC), Elizabeth Fry Society, John Howard Society, St. Leonard's Society, and other local community-based service delivery agencies of the private sector as well as the general public.

Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation was conducted by the Evaluation Branch, CSC, in consultation with members and stakeholders from Corcan, of the Correctional Operations and Programs Sector. A multi-source, multi-method approach comprised of three major components was used to collect information for the evaluation : database analysis; a survey with parole officers; and site visits to interview key informants in the Service, including 9 CSC managers (District and Area Directors) and 9 Corcan managers (regional directors and regional employment coordinators), 24 employment counsellors and two criminal justice partners. The following areas were selected for the key informant interviews for the evaluation, given their proximity to employment centres, parole offices, and regional headquarters: Moncton, New Brunswick; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Montreal, Québec; Laval, Québec; Kingston, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Edmonton, Alberta; Vancouver, British Columbia; and Victoria, British Columbia. The on-line survey was completed by parole officers in institutions (n=122) and parole offices (n=70) close to the employment centres; 40 offenders completed surveys in the community.

The evaluation was initiated in April 2004, methodology, questionnaires and surveys developed from April 2004 through September 2004, terms of reference finalized in August 2004, and data collected by January 2005. Data were analyzed from January through February, and a final report completed in March 2005.

Financial Expenditures:

Money for the employment centres is distributed and managed by Corcan. Corcan Regional Directors are responsible for the implementation and delivery of employment services and programs. A total of five million dollars was allocated over five years for Community Employment Centres under the Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure initiative.

Key Findings:

The following key findings are presented under their respective Evaluation Objectives. It is important to note the high degree of agreement between respondents (management, employment counsellors, parole officers, and offenders) in many areas. Specifically, on the overall findings linked to the four activity areas under Success: referral, assessment, services and supports, there were few differences between management, employment counsellors, and parole officers. Likewise, similar areas were identified as strengths by management, employment counsellors, parole officers, 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 employment centres, and areas in which CSC can provide support to facilitate their work.

Objective 1: Relevance:

  • The Effective Corrections Community Employment Centres Initiative is consistent with CSC priorities. The reach of the centres is significant, impacting offender employment attainment, a key criminogenic area that when effectively addressed, contributes to a reduction in recidivism. The activities of the centres are therefore aligned with CSC's Mission, Core Values and Corporate Objectives, as well as the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , which states in Section 76 that "The Service shall provide a range of programs designed to address the needs of offenders and contribute to their successful reintegration into the community".1

1The Correctional Service of Canada's Mission Statement, Core Values, Corporate Objectives and Corrections and Conditional Release Act can be accessed at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca.

Objective 2: Success:

Efficiency:

  • The Effective Corrections funds were spent as planned, directed toward introducing new centres, and enhancing existing employment centres.

  • Strengths of the centres, identified by managers, employment counsellors and parole officers included offenders' access to resources for employment, the many community-based partnerships formed by employment counsellors, and the expertise of employment counsellors in a single, non-threatening (i.e., accepting and supportive) environment.

  • Continued and consistent funding, in-reach to staff and offenders and access/outreach to community employers were the primary mechanisms suggested to improve the efficient functioning of employment centres.

Effectiveness:

  • Research demonstrates the impact of employment on offenders' successful community reintegration and the data presented in this evaluation comparing the impact of employment on correctional outcomes for offenders on conditional release provides further support for the reintegrative effect of employment.

  • Since the inception of employment centres, a yearly average of approximately 1000 offenders have found work or pursued training after using the services of the employment centres. In fiscal years 2001 and 2002 over 3000 employment services were provided and these numbers increased to 8304 in fiscal year 2003, and 11,269 in fiscal year 2004.

  • The perceived effectiveness of the referral, assessment, services and support processes, derived from questionnaire/survey responses, indicated the following: 1) the majority of referrals come from the community, and most often, from parole officers; 2) assessments are conducted at virtually all employment centres and address relevant employment need areas; 3) offenders felt that using the services of employment centres increased their confidence to find/keep a job, and employment counsellors, managers, and parole officers also felt the services contribute to positive outcomes for offenders; and 4) numerous community partnerships exist to provide support to employment centres, and offenders, themselves, felt they received good support from the employment centres.

Objective 3: Cost Effectiveness:

  • Some additional costs have been associated with the operation of employment centres, and these costs have been absorbed by CSC.
  • The average costs per offender and costs per service vary significantly within and between regions. The average cost per offender is $161.30 and per employment service, $30.04. Future evaluation will include a comparison of costs with similar employment services offered in the community, including those offered to offenders and other people with employment issues.
  • As shown in one set of analyses in the report, a sample of offenders from CSC who found employment remained in the community an average of 37 months, compared to 11 months for offenders who did not find employment. Given that the federal average daily inmate cost was $222.48 in 2002-2003, or $81,206 per year (men) or $169,399 per year for women (PSEPC, 2004) and that it costs substantially less to maintain an offender in the community than in a penitentiary ($20,478 per year versus $81,206 per year), it can be extrapolated that there are potentially significant cost savings associated with the provision of services designed to facilitate job acquisition and retention. However, the extrapolation of costs could not be completed in the current evaluation due to the limitations identified in the current Corcan database.

Objective 4: Implementation

  • Prior to the Effective Corrections Initiative, only 8 employment centres existed (7 in Quebec, and one in Toronto). Treasury Board funding was used to create the capacity to establish an additional 17 centres, and to implement referral and assessment processes, as well as services and supports for offenders.

Objective 5: Unintended Findings

  • Two issues related to results-reporting were revealed throughout the course of the evaluation. The Corcan database only contains information on offenders who used the centres, and who subsequently found employment, thus limiting some of the conclusions that can be derived for the present evaluation. Additionally, a total of 20 employment centres exist in the Quebec region, with 8 supported through funding provided by the Effective Corrections Initiative; the remaining 12 are supported internally by CSC. Outcome results are reported only by the 8 centres supported through the Initiative, but not by the 12 centres supported internally by CSC, which does not allow for evaluation of the overall effectiveness, or impact, of the deployment (location) of employment services in the community.

Conclusions

  • Effective Corrections funding allowed for increased capacity to provide employment services and interventions to offenders, where few existed prior to the Initiative. Specifically, where 8 centres existed prior to the inception of the initiative, 25 centres now provide employment services to offenders, and these centres are found in each region.2

  • The employment centres are recognized as providing important services to meet offenders' employment needs and to contribute to their community reintegration. Numerous strengths were noted with the centres, including access to employment resources (accessibility to information and employment counsellors), and community-based partnerships, all within a supportive and non-threatening environment. Opportunities for improved functioning of the centres (i.e., to improve job acquisition and retention for offenders) revolved primarily around increased communication to staff and offenders, particularly at the institutional level, and to community partners/potential employers.

  • The potential cost-savings associated with employment centres is significant, as employed offenders are more likely to remain in the community for longer periods of time than offenders who are unemployed.
  • The evaluation revealed the need for a more comprehensive database that will enable CSC to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the current functioning and location of employment services in the community and to compare the relative efficacy of partner-operated and CSC-operated employment centres.

2An additional 12 employment centres are supported by CSC in the Quebec region. These 12 centres are not included in the evaluation as no data is currently available and they were not funded through the Effective Corrections Initiative.


Recommendations:

- Recommendation #1: Maintain records of all offenders who use the centres (including employment centres supported internally by CSC), so the progress of all may be tracked, to allow for research/evaluation that can ascertain the relationship between employment centre services and community outcome (e.g., status and time in community) and determine the most effective and efficient model for the delivery of employment services. Explore the option of entering the information into the Offender Management System (OMS) for consistency across sites and to facilitate access for results reporting.

- Recommendation #2: Automatic referral in OMS when employment is identified as a need (some, considerable) in offenders' Community Strategy.

- Recommendation #3: Expand/enhance communication about the centres to institutions, and particularly to institutional parole officers (i.e., regarding the location of employment centres, referral process, and services offered). Also include sharing of results with key stakeholders (within CSC and partners), to increase "buy in" and further promote the utility of the centres.

- Recommendation #4: For continuity and a standardized approach, review existing assessments used by employment counsellors, amalgamate and develop a streamlined "friendly" but comprehensive tool to be piloted with employment counsellors. Once in place, obtain feedback regarding the utility of the assessment tool and conduct research/evaluation to link it to correctional results for offenders.

- Recommendation #5: Ensure offenders leave the institution with all relevant documentation (such as birth certificates, social insurance numbers, certificates demonstrating educational attainment) and the proper tools (e.g., clothing, footwear, bus pass) when needed for employment.

- Recommendation #6: Enhance outreach endeavours, including exploring other jurisdictions with successful partnerships.

- Recommendation #7: Review the different delivery models and deployment of services, once Recommendation #1 is implemented long enough to be able to track more detailed results.

- Recommendation #8: Implement a more detailed and consistent tracking system for employment centre expenditures to facilitate future evaluation (i.e., for more in-depth assessment of the efficiency, value-for-money, and cost-effectiveness of the centres).

- Recommendation #9: Ensure that information on all current and future employment initiatives are reported to Corcan, as coordinator of offender employment for the Service.


INTRODUCTION

Program Profile and Logic Model

Research has identified unstable employment and lack of conventional ambition as important need factors among offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Dowden, 1998; Enocksson, 1981; Finn, 1998; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Gendreau, Goggin, & Grey, 1998; Glaser, 1964; Hodanish, 1976; McDonald, 1998; Motiuk, 1996; Motiuk, 1997; Ryan, 1998), with 60% of offenders identified with employment needs upon entry to federal institutions (Boe, Nafekh, et al., 2003). Furthermore, researchers have reported the reintegrative effect of skilled employment, or a history of employment prior to incarceration, for offenders released to the community (Enocksson, 1981; Glaser, 1964; Markley, Flynn, & Bercaw-Dooen, 1983). These findings illustrate the importance of assessing factors construed as employment deficits (e.g., lack of employment skills) and competencies (e.g., strong employment history prior to incarceration) for their contributions to community-based outcomes for offenders (Gillis & Andrews, 2005), and also demonstrate the potential role of employment intervention in contributing to successful community reintegration for offenders.

Recent research findings provide support for the role of employment in facilitating offenders' successful transition to the community (Gillis, 2002, Gillis & Andrews, 2005). Moreover, this research identified social support for employment (i.e., resources for finding work and affective ties to employment) as one of the most powerful factors contributing to offenders' ability to find and maintain work in the community. Importantly, social support for employment was also linked to offenders' ability to remain in the community. These results corroborate previous research findings ( Azrin & Besalel, 1980 [as cited in Cellini & Lorenz, 1983]; Soothill, Francis, & Ackerley, 1997; Soothill, Francis, & Escarela, 1999; Soothill & Holmes, 1981) relating social support to community-based employment outcomes for offenders. Community employment centres have the potential to fulfill this critical social support role by providing required assistance to offenders in their job preparation and job search techniques. Corcan's mandate is to aid in the safe reintegration of offenders into Canadian society by providing employment and training opportunities to offenders incarcerated in federal penitentiaries and, for brief periods of time, after they are released into the community. With its focus on safety and the reintegration of offenders, this mandate is consistent with and reflective of the overall CSC Mission.

Resources were allocated through the Effective Corrections Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure initiative to introduce and enhance services and programs targeted at increasing offender employment in the community. Corcan invested the funds to establish community-based employment centres, with the primary objective of providing a spectrum of employment services, including individual employment assessment, counselling, job search techniques and on-the-job placements to offenders released to the community.3 The concept of national employment centres for offenders originated in Montreal with Opex 82 in 1978, which provides a continuum of employment services to offenders from the institution to the community. Additionally, the Toronto worksite, in existence since 1995, served as a model for the development of the community-based employment centres. A total of 8 such centres (7 in Quebec, and one in Toronto) existed prior to the inception of employment centres under the Effective Corrections Initiative.

A total of five million dollars was allocated over five years (from 2000-2001 through 2004-2005) for Community Employment Centres under the Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure portion of Effective Corrections funding. Funds were used to establish community-based employment centres in selected metropolitan areas in each of CSC's five regions, as more than fifty-five percent of released offenders are supervised in major cities.4 Services are provided through a partnership contract with local community-based service delivery agencies recognized for their knowledge of CSC's clients and the needs they present (e.g., John Howard Society). Currently, the centres offer employment services to offenders through partnerships with CSC and other government and community partners such as Human Resources & Skills Development Canada (HRSDC; formerly HRDC), Elizabeth Fry Society, John Howard Society, St. Leonard's Society and the private sector. Each of the five regions has a community employment coordinator (full or half-time) who manages relationships between institutional and community-based parole officers, employment centres and employers. Each community employment coordinator, located at Regional Headquarters, is accountable to the Corcan Regional Director. Information is reported to the Employment and Employability Director at National Headquarters. Money for the employment centres is distributed and managed by Corcan. Corcan Regional Directors are responsible for the implementation and delivery of employment services and programs.

Offenders are referred to the centres, or can drop-in, for assessment, employment and placement services, and employment support. Each of these activities is designed to promote further use of the centre, with the intention of preparing offenders for employment (i.e., increasing their job readiness). The ultimate purpose of the centres is to contribute to offenders' successful community reintegration through sustained employment. A graphic depiction and description of the activities (referral, assessment, services and supports), outputs and impacts is provided in Appendix A.

3Decision of the Treasury Board - Meeting of July 27, 2000

4Ibid

 

EVALUATION CONTEXT

Correctional Service Canada research indicates that about sixty percent of offenders have employment-related needs, as identified during the offender Intake Assessment process (Boe et al., 2003). A component of the Effective Corrections Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure funding was used to introduce services and programs targeted at increasing offender employment in the community, with the intention of providing meaningful employment interventions to conditionally-released offenders, to build on what they have learned in the institution. This objective is consistent with CSC's Mission and with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), which states that "The Service shall provide a range of programs designed to address the needs of offenders and contribute to their successful reintegration into the community" (Section 76). Per the Treasury Board Decision letter, the centres were implemented to offer a spectrum of employment services, including individual assessment, counselling, job-search techniques and on-the-job placement.

The purpose of the evaluation was to explore the functioning of the centres as it relates to offender referral, assessment, services and community supports. Another intention was to explore community-based results for offenders who used the centres, to offenders with similar employment needs. Results from the present evaluation will be used as a blueprint for Corcan (i.e., to provide direction) as to where they may direct their energy in improving the employment centres. Likewise, the information will be valuable to CSC overall, providing feedback on the ways in which the Service can facilitate the endeavours of Corcan. Within CSC, the results have potential implications for offenders, management, staff (and parole officers, in particular), both in institutions and in the community. Other potential stakeholders include parties involved with, or impacted by, community employment centres, including: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (formerly HRDC), Elizabeth Fry Society, John Howard Society, St. Leonard's Society, and other local community-based service delivery agencies of the private sector as well as the general public.

The evaluation was initiated in April 2004, methodology, questionnaires and surveys developed from April 2004 through September 2004, terms of reference finalized in August 2004, and data collected by January 2005. Data were analysed from January through February, and a final report completed in March 2005.

The current evaluation was summative in nature, simultaneously exploring issues of relevance, success and cost-effectiveness5, in addition to implementation issues and unanticipated findings. Embedded within the exploration of relevance and cost-effectiveness, where relevant, were the seven policy test questions from the Expenditure Review Committee, namely:

  • Public Interest - Does the program area or activity continue to serve the public interest?

  • Role of Government - Is there a legitimate and necessary role for government in this program area or activity?

  • Federalism - Is the current role of the federal government appropriate, or is the program a candidate for realignment with the provinces?

  • Partnership - What activities or programs should or could be transferred in whole or in part to the private/voluntary sector?

  • Value-for money - Are Canadians getting value for their tax dollars?

  • Efficiency - If the program or activity continues, how could its efficiency be improved?

  • Affordability - Is the resultant package of programs and activities affordable? If not, what programs or activities would be abandoned?

5Relevance: Does the policy, program or initiative continue to be consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities, and does it realistically address an actual need? Success: Is the policy, program or initiative effective in meeting its intended outcomes, within budget and without unwanted negative outcomes? Cost-effectiveness: Are the most appropriate and efficient means being used to achieve outcomes, relative to alternative design and delivery approaches?

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY/DESIGN 

For the evaluation, information was acquired from individuals from the community and institutions, Regional Headquarters and National Headquarters. A multi-source, multi-method approach consisting of interviews6, surveys and database analyses was used to gather a broad range of information. Participation was solicited by way of a request to contribute observations through an on-site interview (or telephone interview for respondents unavailable at the time of the site visits), through the completion of a questionnaire sent by email (to employment counsellors who did not participate in the site interviews) or by completion of an on-line version of the survey (parole officers).

6See Appendix B for questionnaires and surveys.

Interviews

A convenience sample was selected for the site visit component of the study, focusing primarily on community employment centres in urban areas, for ease of travel, access to Regional Headquarters, and cost-effectiveness (see Appendix C for site selection). The visits to selected community employment centres, surrounding parole offices, and regional and national headquarters were undertaken to conduct interviews with the following groups: employment counsellors (n=24), District/Area Directors (n=13), Corcan management (n=9, i.e., regional employment coordinators and regional directors), and two community partners. Corcan's Director, Employment and Employability and CEO, Corcan were interviewed at National Headquarters. These interviews with Corcan and CSC management were an important source of information regarding the referral, assessment, employment and placement services, support processes and the awareness level and suggestions for improved functioning of centres. All information gathered provided the evaluation teams with the different perspectives of stakeholders regarding the management and service delivery structure of the centres.

Interviews were conducted with offenders (n=41) by employment counsellors, as another source of information on the offenders' awareness level of the community employment centres, the referral, assessment and support processes and the need for services and any suggested improved functioning of centres. This information provided the evaluation team with the primary clients' perspective of the effectiveness of the centres and their specific employment needs in the community.

Surveys

Surveys were used to facilitate the collection of information from employment counsellors7 who did not participate in the site visit component of the evaluation, and selected community and institutional parole officers. Participation was solicited by way of a request to contribute observations through a questionnaire sent by email to employment counsellors, or by completion of an on-line version of the survey for parole officers. A total of 122 institutional parole officers and 70 community parole officers completed the surveys.

7Employment counsellor surveys are counted among the 24 listed under interviews.

Analyses

Interview/Survey Analyses

Questionnaires containing both qualitative and quantitative questions were developed for the interview/survey components of the study. The questionnaires were constructed with the intention of comparing management, employment counsellor and parole officer responses on questions exploring the functioning and effectiveness in various activity areas, and issues to be addressed. Separate questionnaires were designed for management (CSC area directors, Corcan regional directors, Corcan regional employment coordinators), employment counsellors, institutional parole officers, community parole officers, and offenders. Many questions employed a five-point Likert scale, ranging from "Not at all" (1) to "Very much" (5) to evaluate respondents' opinions on various issues related to referral, assessment, services and support. The five-point scale was collapsed to simplify the presentation of responses. Responses of 1 and 2 were collapsed to indicate "Little/no agreement" with the question posed, 3 indicates "Some" level of agreement and 4 and 5 were collapsed to depict "Agreement/high level of agreement". Mean, or average, responses were also calculated for each response based on the 5-point scale, and compared, where possible, across respondents. Qualitative (i.e., open-ended) responses were examined and codes assigned to answers representing distinct ideas, or themes. These themes were then counted and the number of people endorsing each theme is also presented in the data tables found in Appendix D. 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, although statistical comparisons are not possible, given the small number of respondents.

Although a convenience sample was selected for the evaluation component of the study, focusing primarily on community employment centres in urban areas, the participation of all employment counsellors was solicited via an email from each Corcan Regional Director. A total of 5 additional employment counsellors completed the survey.8 Additionally, because interviews with offenders were conducted by employment counsellors, offenders may have responded in socially desirable manner (i.e., in such a way to please the employment counsellor). Results of the offender interviews should be interpreted with this caveat in mind.

Moreover, the small sample limits the statistical analyses that can be conducted. Given the small number of participants, percentages can be misleading; results are therefore presented using the number of respondents endorsing each item/question. 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. The parole officers (institution- and community-based) completed the on-line surveys under a condition of anonymity; given that demographic data were not collected, it is not possible to report their results by region.

8Two of the five employment counsellors submitted their surveys in March 2005, which was too late for inclusion in the data analysis.

Corcan Database Analysis

Information relevant to establishing the levels of effectiveness of the community employment centres was extracted from the database compiled by Corcan during the first five years of operation of the centres (Appendix E displays a list of variables contained in the Corcan database). The database information was used to provide a profile of a sample of offenders who have used the services and to track their performance on release. The client database created by Corcan to explore the impacts of employment centres on employment-related outcomes for offenders was used to analyze the following information:

  • basic profile information;
  • the employment needs of offenders at release (asset, no need, some need, considerable need);
  • the number of offenders with a current status of incarcerated;
  • the number of offenders still employed per the last work record entered under the community employment standard profile in OMS.

Analysis of this database, as well as pertinent OMS data, was performed in February 2005. An additional analysis was conducted on this Corcan database, to explore performance on release for a group of offenders who used the centres and who were subsequently employed, and who had been previously in the community on conditional release (but had not used the CSC employment centres during this previous release). For the purpose of this analysis, all available data for federally sentenced offenders employed through an employment centres were provided through records obtained by Corcan. Community employment information was available for 2,049 federal offenders who were employed through a Community Employment Centre between March 9 th , 2001 and September 3 rd , 2004. Approximately 94% were men ( n =1,924) and 6% were women ( n =125). The history of release periods for federal offenders was identified through CSC's Offender Management System (OMS) using SAS (Statistical Analysis System) software. Next, cases were selected if the current opportunity to remain in the community was, at minimum, the same as that of their previous release period. The pre-post matching process yielded a final sample comprised of 198 men and 4 women, and analyses were conducted to explore how length of time in the community compared at these two different times for the same offender.

With respect to the Corcan database, it should be noted that the TB decision letter stated: "At the end of the five years a database will be available to allow CSC to evaluate if this model of employment program could form the basis for a more permanent community capacity". The database developed by Corcan responds, in part, to this issue, and Corcan has enacted measures to improve the quality and rigour of data collected over the past several years. Initially, little to no data was systematically collected, other than the number of employment services and number of job placements. Over the past two fiscal years, Corcan has ensured that more comprehensive information is collected, including the referral source (institution or community), as well as the number of offenders receiving services and the number of offenders who found employment after using the services of the centres.

However, several issues with the Corcan database remain, which limit some of the conclusions that can be derived for the present evaluation.9 The database includes the names of offenders who found employment after using the services of the centres, and excludes offenders who did not find employment after receiving services from the centres. This limits any comparisons that may be drawn between offenders who used the centres and found work, and those who used the centres but were unable to find work. Moreover, no conclusions can be made regarding the contributions of the centres in assisting offenders to find work, nor can any direct results be made regarding the efficacy of the centres in contributing to correctional results (as it cannot be ensured that a comparison group of offenders did not use the centres). Finally, no data is available for the 12 centres in Quebec not funded through the Effective Corrections Initiative. Consistency in the collection of relevant data facilitates program evaluation, and informs CSC senior management of the effectiveness of its current deployment (location) of resources for employment services in the community. Specifically, a complete database containing all offenders who used all centres (both those who found employment, and those who did not) will allow us to: a) compare results for offenders who used the centres (employed and unemployed) to a comparison group (matched on important variables such as age, risk, release type, employment need, etc.) to evaluate the impact of using employment services on outcomes, including employment status and community reintegration outcome (e.g., time in community, return to institution for technical violation and reoffence); b) compare the profile of offenders who used the centres and either found work or didn't find work to see where future efforts should be expended to improve outcomes for the offenders who did not find work; c) explore the effectiveness of different type of employment centres (i.e., CSC-operated compared to partner-operated) with respect to correctional results for offenders; d) compare the cost-effectiveness of CSC-operated versus partner-operated centres, taking into account their respective impact on community results for offenders; and e) assess the efficiency of the current deployment (location) of resources to provide these services. This full analysis should be possible with modified data collection practices.

9Corcan is currently addressing some of the issues and limitations with the database.

Offender Management System Database Analysis

The Correctional Service Canada has an extensive automated database, containing demographic and offence history information on offenders, in addition to program involvement and community performance on release. Information on employment status was extracted from the Offender Management System (OMS) for federal offenders who were released on community supervision between January 1, 1998 and January 1, 2005. Approximately 95% were men ( N =22,269) and 5% were women ( N =1,256).10

The population was divided into two groups: those who were recorded as being employed between their release date and the end of their sentence, and those who were not. The 'employed' group was then randomly matched to the 'unemployed' group. Matching criteria was used to control for time, opportunity and tendency in the research design. Specifically, the groups were matched on gender, risk level, release year, sentence length, dynamic factors11, and the regional statistic area classification (SAC)12 groupings that corresponded to the offenders' designated supervision office. The matching process yielded samples of 4,640 men and 156 women.13 Survival analysis14 was used to draw comparisons (with separate comparisons conducted for men and women) between employment groups across three events or outcome measures: 1) any return to federal custody before the end of sentence; 2) a return to federal custody with a new offence before end of sentence; and 3) a return to federal custody without a new offence before end of sentence.

As readers interpret results of the OMS analyses, it should be noted that the sample examined employment effects regardless of whether employment centre services were provided. Readers should also be mindful of the fact that 17 of the centres currently functioning were not in existence prior to the Effective Corrections Initiative.15 Furthermore, as there was a staggered implementation of the centres over the past five years, not all centres are necessarily in a position to be evaluating long-term results. With more time, and with a comprehensive database on all centres (including all offenders who received employment services, even if they did not find employment) in place, more sophisticated analyses may be conducted that will yield even more information on correctional results associated directly with the centres.

10The analyses examined unique sentences, thus it is possible for offenders to appear more than once in the population.

11Dynamic factors were those assessed just prior to the offenders' release dates. They are comprised of the following domains: employment, family/marital relations, associates, substance abuse, community functioning, personal emotional orientation, and attitudes.

12The SACs identify geographic zones based on population counts and densities resulting from the 2001 Canadian Population Census. The zones are classified as being a component of 1) Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA) which has a population over 100,000, 2) Census Agglomeration (CA) areas which have a population that is less than 100,000 but more than 10,000 and 3) Rural Communities (RC) which include all other town, villages but excludes reserve communities. This geographic designation was based on the premise that offenders resided relatively close to the location where they were being supervised.

13Each sample was comprised of unemployed offenders (50%), and employed offenders (50%).

14Survival analysis is a statistical technique that estimates the time taken to reach some event (e.g., time to recidivism) and the rate of occurrence of that event.

15An additional 12 employment centres are supported by CSC in the Quebec region. These 12 centres are not included in the evaluation as they were not funded through the Effective Corrections Initiative.

 

KEY FINDINGS

Key findings are presented below by groupings of questions responding to relevance, success and cost effectiveness, with the seven Expenditure Review Committee (ERC) policy test review questions embedded within each of the sections, when relevant. Appendix D contains data tables displaying detailed information on specific questionnaire responses, with the primary findings for each set of responses presented in the body of the report.

It is important to note the high degree of agreement between respondents (management, employment counsellors, parole officers, and offenders) in many areas. Specifically, on the overall finding linked to the four activity areas under Success: referral, assessment, services and supports, there were few differences between management, employment counsellors, and parole officers. Likewise, similar areas were identified as strengths by management, employment counsellors, parole officers, 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 employment centres, and areas in which CSC can provide support to facilitate their work.

Objective 1: Relevance:

The first section focuses on relevance, which explores the following question: "Does the program, policy or initiative continue to be consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities and does it realistically address an actual need?"

  • The Effective Corrections Community Employment Centres Initiative is consistent with CSC priorities. The reach of the centres is significant, impacting offender employment attainment, a key criminogenic area that when effectively addressed, contributes to a reduction in recidivism. The activities of the centres are therefore aligned with CSC's Mission, Core Values and Corporate Objectives.16

Since the inception of the initiative, 25 centres have been enhanced or implemented using Effective Corrections funding. With respect to relevance, it is important to ascertain if the service is meeting a need, and more specifically, whether the "right" people are using the services. The following section provides the demographic profile of a sample of offenders who have used the 25 centres funded through the Effective Corrections Initiative over the past five years, derived from the database created by Corcan. The sample profile is compared to the offender population profile, where possible, to explore the representativeness of offenders using the centres.

Profile information was available for 2007 of the 2017 offenders in the Corcan database. Nearly 94% of the clients were men (93.9%) and the remaining 6.1% women; this distribution of clients generally parallels the percentage distribution of men and women in the federal correctional system (96% men and 4% women). The average age at admission for men was 30.1 and for women, 32.3 years, and their average sentence length was 4.0 and 3.6 years, respectively. With respect to marital status, the majority of men and women were single (51.3% and 43.4%, respectively), and the next highest percentage common-law (30.4% men and 21.3% women), with nearly the same percentage of women married (18.0%). Only 8.3% of the men were married. Approximately 10% were separated or divorced (men, 9.0% and women, 10.7%).

The percentage of offenders who used the 25 centres and who found employment, by admitting region is as follows: Atlantic, 11.5% (men, 11.6% and women, 9.8%); Quebec, 11.8% (men, 11.6% and women, 14.7%); Ontario, 23.1% (men, 21.6% and women, 46.7%); Prairies, 42.2% (men, 43.3% and women, 24.6%); and Pacific, 11.5% (men, 11.9% and women, 4.1%). This distribution differs from the distribution of the overall offender population by region, with 9.6% of offenders in the Atlantic region, 25.3% in Quebec, 27.3% in Ontario, 23.1% in the Prairie region, and 14.7% in the Pacific region. Appendix F shows the number and location of employment centres by region; 6 centres are in the Atlantic region, 2 in Ontario , 4 in the Prairie region, 5 in the Pacific region and 8 in the Quebec region.17 As indicated in the Treasury Board decision letter, given that most releases (55%) are to urban centres, it was decided that most employment centres would be located in urban areas.

Table A presents information on overall risk and need ratings obtained prior to release, as well as motivation and reintegration potential ratings for the sample of offenders in the Corcan database. As shown in Table A, approximately 80% of offenders were rated as medium to high risk, and 86%, medium to high need. These ratings are slightly lower than those of the overall population, with 94% identified as medium to high risk and 95%, medium to high need (Boe, Nafekh, et al., 2003). That said, over 90% of the sample were rated as displaying medium to high levels of motivation, and nearly 80% with medium to high reintegration potential.

Table A: Offender risk, need, motivation and reintegration potential ratings for offenders who used the centres and found employment

  Rating  
Low Medium High Total
Men Risk

379
(20.6%)

835
(45.4%)

627
(34.0%)

1841
(100.0%)

Need

265
(14.4%)

704
(38.2%)

872
(47.4%)

1841
(100.0%)

Motivation

169
(9.0%)

1049
(56.2%)

648
(34.7%)

1866
(100.0%)

Reintegration

405
(21.7%)

613
(32.9%)

848
(45.4%)

1866
(100.0%)

 
Women Risk

72
(59.0%)

41
(33.6%)

9
(7.4%)

122
(100.0%)

Need

56
(45.9%)

42
(34.4%)

24
(19.7%)

122
(100.0%)

Motivation

3
(2.4%)

40
(32.8%)

79
(64.8%)

122
(100.0%)

Reintegration

5
(4.0%)

28
(34.0%)

89
(73.0)

122
(100.0%)

Risk and need ratings were not available for 44 offenders
Motivation and reintegration ratings were not available for 19 offenders

 

Table B presents offender rating on the specific need domains (i.e., criminogenic needs) rated at release for the sample of offenders derived from the Corcan database. As depicted in Table B, 60.2% of the men and 58.0% of the women were rated with employment needs (some or considerable). In the population profile compiled by Boe et al. (2003), similar ratings were obtained, with 56% of men and 56% of women identified with employment needs. The associates, substance abuse and personal / emotional domains were most problematic for men, with 68.7%, 69.1% and 87.5% rated as manifesting some or considerable difficulty on these domains, respectively. In comparison, the population profile conducted in March 2002 found ratings of 65%, 73% and 93% for the associates, substance abuse, and personal / emotional domains. For women, the highest need ratings were on the personal/emotional (69.0%), employment (58.0%), and associates (55.7%) domains. The population ratings on personal / emotional were much higher, at 92% and associates, comparable, at 60%.

Table B: Offender ratings on each of the seven need domains for offenders who used the centres and found employment

  Rating  
Asset No Difficulty Some Difficulty Considerable Difficulty Total
Men Employment

81
(5.0%)

568
(34.8%)

705
(43.2%)

277
(17.0%)

1631
Marital / Family

124
(7.6%)

800
(49.0%)

468
(28.7%)

239
(14.6%)

1631
Associates

46
(2.8%)

465
(28.5%)

742
(45.5%)

378
(23.2%)

1631
Substance Abuse
N/A

503
(30.8%)

372
(22.8%)

756
(46.3%)

1631
Community Functioning

59
(3.6%)

967
(59.3%)

497
(30.5%)

108
(6.6%)

1631
Personal / Emotional
N/A

203
(14.1%)

545
(33.4%)

883
(54.1%)

1631
Attitude

71
(4.4%)

725
(44.4%)

495
(30.3%)

340
(20.8%)

1631
 
Women Employment

3
(2.7%)

45
(39.8%)

56
(50.0%)

9
(8.0%)

113
Marital / Family

12
(10.6%)

57
(50.4%)

34
(30.0%)

10
(8.8%)

113
Associates

8
(7.1%)

42
(37.2%)

53
(46.9%)

10
(8.8%)

113
Substance Abuse
N/A

76
(67.3%)

13
(11.5%)

24
(21.2%)

113
Community Functioning

10
(8.8%)

65
(57.5%)

33
(29.2%)

5
(4.4%)

113
Personal / Emotional
N/A

35
(31.0%)

46
(40.7%)

32
(28.3%)

113
Attitude

22
(19.5%)

64
(56.6%)

15
(13.3%)

12
(10.6%)

113

Need ratings on the seven domains were not available for 254 men and 28 women offenders.

 

When employment needs are assessed, and no difficulties are identified, the rating does not necessarily indicate that these offenders do not require employment services. Even skilled workers who have never had difficulties in the past finding work may need some support in doing so after a period of incarceration.

Information on community outcomes is presented below on the 2017 offenders from the Corcan database. As mentioned earlier, all offenders in this database acquired a job after using the services of the centres, so the outcome results may not generalize to all offenders who have used the centres.

The release status for with offenders who used the employment centres was available for 1675 offenders (from the original sample of 2017). The highest percentage (40%) of the offenders in the sample were on statutory release, just over one-third (36.4%) were on day parole and one-fifth (21.5%) on full parole. Less than 2% were on their expiration of their sentence, court order from another jurisdiction, or on long-term supervision.

Of the 2017 offenders in the sample, two-thirds (n=1516) were employed per the most recent employment status record in the community. The other 497 (24.6%) were unemployed and 6 (0.3%) were listed as students. A total of 200 of the 2017 (9.9%) were incarcerated, as of February 2005. The high percentage of offenders who remained employed (75%) and who remained in the community (90%) is significant, given that the potential time in the community for the offenders in the sample ranged from one to four years. These outcomes are consistent with the long-term goals of the employment centres, namely, to assist offenders in obtaining employment, and to contribute to their successful community reintegration.

  • Community employment centres address a programmatic need area that, prior to the Effective Corrections Initiative, was not systematically addressed on a national basis.

An important aspect of the relevance issue is whether finding employment contributes to enhanced community-based outcomes for offenders. To this end, an analysis was conducted, using the Offender Management System (OMS) database to compare correctional results (e.g., time in the community, return to institution) for a group of offenders who found work while on conditional release, to a matched comparison group of offenders who did not find work.

The median18 time to outcome was used as a measure of central tendency for the survival data. An examination of the release cohort revealed that the survival curves for employment were significantly different for men and women [ c 2 (1, N=24,061)=19.40, p.001). The median time to find employment was 6 months for men and 10 months for women. However, as illustrated in Figure 1, both survival curves eventually converge, indicating that over time, there are fewer differences in employment rates by gender.

Figure 1.

Survival Curves - Time of Employment : There are fewer differences in employment rates by gender, over time.

Figure 2.

Survival Curves Males - Months Out - Any return : The median time to return to the institution is much later for the employed group.

When compared to their matched counterparts, employed men were more likely to remain on conditional release until the end of their sentence [ c 2 (1, N=4,653)=357.40, p.001)]. The median time to return to the institution was also much later for the employed group (11 months versus 37 months respectively). Employed men were also less likely to return to federal custody with a new offence [ c 2 (1, N=4,653)=86.71, p.001)] or technical revocation [ c 2 (1, N=4,653)=128.62, p.001)] (see Figures 2, 3, and 4).

Figure 3.

Survival Curves Males - Months Out - Return New Offence : Employed men are less likely to return to federal custody with a new offence.

Figure 4.

Survival Curves Males - Months Out - Technical Revocation : Employed men are less likely to return to federal custody with a technical revocation.

For women offenders, the employed group was more likely to remain on conditional release until the end of their sentence [ c 2 (1, N=156)=9.09, p.01)]. An examination of the survival curves (see Figure 5) reveals that at the end of the study period, approximately 70% of the employed group remained on conditional release compared to approximately 55% of the unemployed group. Low base rates for returns with a new offence precluded any estimation of the median time in the community. However, the employed group was less likely to return with a new offence than their matched counterparts [ c 2 (1, N=156)=8.54, p.05)]. There were no significant between-group differences for technical revocations.

Figure 5.

Survival Curves Women - Months Out - Any Return : The employed group is more likely to remain on conditional release until the end of their sentence

The basic premise of the CSC Mission and Mandate is to protect society through the rehabilitation of offenders. The provision of programs to offenders is one of the primary mechanisms to address offenders' criminogenic needs (i.e., the factors that contribute to offenders' criminality). Corcan's Mandate is to aid in the safe reintegration of offenders into Canadian society by providing employment and training opportunities to offenders. Research has demonstrated the reintegrative effect of skilled employment, or a history of employment prior to incarceration, for offenders released to the community (Enocksson, 1981; Glaser, 1964; Markley, Flynn, & Bercaw-Dooen, 1983); the data presented in this evaluation comparing the impact of employment on correctional outcomes for offenders on conditional release provides further support for the reintegrative effect of employment.

Community employment centres address a programmatic need area that, prior to the Effective Corrections Initiative, was not systematically addressed on a national basis. The profile data on the sample of 2017 offenders using the centres over the past five years shows that the centres are addressing an important need. The "right" clients are using the centres, as measured by the risk and need principles19 (i.e., clients with identified employment needs - 60.2% of men and 58.0% of women - are using the services offered by the centres). Research shows that adherence to the risk and need principles in providing programming to offenders results in a decrease in recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 1998).

16The Correctional Service of Canada's Mission Statement, Core Values and Corporate Objectives can be referenced at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca.

17A total 20 centres exist in the Quebec region. Eight 8 were supported by Corcan using Effective Corrections funds, and the remaining 12 centres, are supported by CSC. Only the Corcan-operated centres report on results, so the percentage distribution of clients does not reflect all offenders using employment centres in the Quebec region.

18The median is a measure of central tendency (where a single score represents an entire distribution), used like a mean, or average, score. The median is the score that divides a distribution exactly in half, with one-half of the scores less than or equal to the median, and one-half greater or equal to the median.

19The risk principle guides practitioners in how much treatment should be allocated to individual offenders to optimally address the level of risk she or he presents for re-offending, with intervention most effective when intensive services are directed toward individuals who present a high risk for recidivism. The need principle refers to criminogenic needs as factors that, when altered, increase or decrease the likelihood that an individual will become involved in future criminal behaviour. The need principle states that effective treatment of criminogenic needs contributes to a decrease in the likelihood of future involvement in crime (Andrews, Bonta & Hoge, 1990; Andrews & Bonta, 1998).

Objective 2: Success:

Efficiency:

  • The Effective Corrections funds were spent as planned, directed toward introducing new centres, and enhancing existing employment centres.

A total of five million dollars was allocated over five years for Community Employment Centres under the Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure portion of Effective Corrections funding, to introduce services and programs targeted at increasing offender employment in the community. In 2000/2001, it was planned that the Effective Corrections money would be distributed in the following manner:

2000 / 2001 ($0.5 M):

  • Employment Coordinator functions established in selected regions
  • Expand services in the Toronto and Halifax Employment Centres
  • Enhance the Montreal site
  • Introduce the New Direction program in the Fraser Valley (Abbotsford) site

2001 / 2002 ($1.5 M):

  • Employment coordinator functions and networking
  • Ongoing operation of four previous sites (Toronto, Halifax, Montreal, Abbotsford)
  • Eight new sites in operation, including start-up costs

2002 / 2003, 2003 / 2004 and 2004 / 2005 ($1 M per year):

  • Employment coordinator functions and networking
  • Full operation of employment centres through contract services and/or staff involvement.

Whereas only 8 employment centres existed at the onset of the Effective Corrections Initiative (7 in Quebec, and one in Toronto), a total of 25 centres are operating at the close of the initiative (8 in Quebec, 6 in Atlantic, 2 in Ontario, 4 in the Prairies, and 5 in the Pacific).

Questionnaire/survey responses are presented in the following sections, addressing manager, employment counsellor, and parole officer perceptions of strengths of the centres, as well as suggestions for improved functioning of the centres (see Tables 1 through 5 in Appendix D).

  • Interview/survey data obtained from employment counsellors, managers, and parole officers indicate that the perceived primary role of employment centres is to support offenders in their attempts to find and keep work, as part of the reintegration process. Strengths of the centres identified by managers, employment counsellors and parole officers included offenders' access to resources for employment, including the many community-based partnerships formed by employment counsellors. They also identified the expertise of employment counsellors and the non-threatening environment as areas of strength.

When asked about the primary role of community employment centres (Table 1), employment counsellors listed job preparation/maintenance (14 of 24), followed by facilitating reintegration (10 of 24) and coordinating offenders' employment in the community (5 of 24). Managers indicated the primary role to be job preparation/maintenance (16 of 26), followed by job readiness assessment/identifying offenders' employment strengths and areas to improve (8 of 26), followed by assisting offenders to establish employment goals and develop career plans (6 of 26). Community parole officers identified coordinating offenders' employment in the community (45 of 58) as the primary role, followed by job preparation/maintenance (21 of 58) and assisting offenders with upgrading/programming/training (19 of 58). Institutional parole officers felt the primary role to be helping offenders in their job preparation/maintenance (75 of 84) and assisting offenders with upgrading/programming/training (27 of 84).

Strengths of the centres were also identified by managers, counsellors and parole officers (Table 2). Three-quarters of the employment counsellors (18 of 24) mentioned the client-focused services/commitment and 8 of 24 indicated that the resources available to offenders (i.e., access to information and employment counsellors) were a strength. Likewise, 9 of 21 managers mentioned resources as a strength, in addition to the partnerships/network system created (9 of 21), and acceptance of offenders/provision of a non-threatening environment for offenders (8 of 21). Nearly one-half (12 of 26) of the community parole officers said the partnerships/network system was a strength, as well as job-readiness activities (8 of 26). Institutional parole officers felt that employment counsellors' knowledge-base and expertise in job-search and job preparation were a strength (8 of 30), as well as connections to employers (23%).

  • Funding, in-reach to staff and offenders and access/outreach to community employers were the primary mechanisms suggested by managers, employment counsellors and parole officers to improve the effectiveness and functioning of employment centres. Offenders suggested maintaining a list of full-time employment opportunities/paid work placements and more training.

In addition to identifying strengths of the employment centers, key respondents were asked about potential opportunities for improvement. Employment counsellors, managers and parole officers were asked if they felt anything could be done to improve the operation of the centres (Table 3). Both employment counsellors (12 of 20) and managers (12 of 23) identified additional resources (e.g., funding, staff, materials, transportation for offenders) and better linkages with communities (4 of 20 counsellors and 10 of 23 managers) as factors that could improve the operation of employment centres. Community parole officers had few suggestions, other than committing additional resources to the centres (7 of 30). One-half (19 of 40) of the institutional parole officers advocated more in-reach to increase the awareness and visibility of the employment centres, for both staff and offenders. A small number (8 of 40) suggested right type of placement (i.e., taking into account factors such as an offender's employment history, criminal record, skills, and interests) as an area of improvement.

All groups were asked what could be done, if anything to improve the effectiveness of services offered to offenders (Table 4). Employment counsellors (14 of 20) and managers (8 of 19) both listed more resources. Counsellors also mentioned third party certification/training opportunities (5 of 20) as an area that would improve services, and managers (6 of 19) felt access to community employers was important. No major themes emerged for the 25 community parole officers who responded; 18 of the 50 institutional parole officers who replied to this question felt that increasing offenders' awareness could improve the effectiveness. The only other primary suggestion offered (12 of 50) was to link the institution with the community (i.e., start the process before release). As shown in Table 5, offenders felt that more training (e.g., computer, upgrading) was an area that could be addressed by the centres to better assist them in their attempts to find work (8 of 21), as well as maintaining a list of full-time employment opportunities and paid work placements (6 of 21).

Effectiveness:

  • The employment centres are showing a positive impact, with an average of over 1000 offenders finding employment after using the services of the centres each year. The effectiveness of the referral, assessment, services and support processes were explored, indicating the following: 1) the majority of referrals come from the community, and most often, from parole officers; 2) assessments are conducted at virtually all employment centres and address relevant employment need areas; 3) offenders felt that using the services of employment centres increased their confidence to find/keep a job, and employment counsellors, managers, and parole officers felt the services contribute to positive outcomes for offenders; and 4) numerous community partnership exist to provide support to employment centres, and offenders, themselves, felt they received good support from the employment centres.

A multi-method approach to the exploration of the effectiveness of the centres was used, including the following: statistics on the use of the centres; community-based results for the sample of 2017 offenders in the Corcan database; and key informant perceptions of the strengths of the centres, and of the four activity areas of the centres (i.e., referral, assessment, services and support).

  • Since the inception of the employment centres, a yearly average of approximately 1000 offenders have found work or pursued training after using the services of the employment centres. In fiscal years 2001 and 2002 over 3000 employment services were provided and these numbers increased to 8304 in fiscal year 2003, and 11,269 in fiscal year 2004.

In the Effective Corrections Treasury Board submission letter, it was stated that as a function of the inception of community employment centres, approximately 750 offenders should receive employment services on an annual basis. Data rolled up from Corcan, presented in Table C, show that 2641 offenders received services in fiscal year 2004. Prior to fiscal year 2004, employment counsellors tracked only numbers of employment services received and number of offenders who found employment after using the services of the centres. As shown in Table C, an average of more than 1000 offenders found employment after using the services of the centres each year. Of the 2641 offenders who used the services of the centres from April 1, 2004 to December 2004, 986 (37.3%) found employment.

Table C: Statistics on the use of employment centres

2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-200520

# of referrals

N/A

N/A

N/A

Inst
190

Comm 1680

# of offenders receiving services

N/A

N/A

N/A

2362

# of employment services received

3024

3289

8304

10,132

# of offenders who found employment21

1036

1194

1263

986

# of jobs obtained

N/A

N/A

N/A

1237

Note: N/A indicates that statistics on this variable were not collected during that fiscal year.

Total # of offenders who found employment after using the services of the centres is reconciled with FPS numbers at the end of March.

Offenders may have more than one job after using the services of the centre, so the number of offenders who found employment and the number of job placements may differ.

Services include: 1) individual confidential employment counseling, 2) resume writing, 3) job search, 4) interview preparation, 4) office resources (computers, internet job search, fax, phone), 5) educational upgrading, 6) Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), and 7) aptitude and assessment testing.

 

An additional analysis22 was performed on the Corcan database to compare length of time in the community for a sample of offenders who had a release period in the community prior to the current period when they used the employment centres. Pre-post analyses revealed offenders receiving employment after using the services of an employment center remained longer in the community when compared to their earlier release period (453 days versus 259 days, p=.001). It is important to note that factors relating to tendency and opportunity were not controlled for in the research design, including age, changes in static and dynamic factors (e.g., a reduction in needs following participation in programs during incarceration), and releasing community. However, findings are consistent with a previous study in which these factors were statistically controlled (see Gillis and Nafekh, in press).

20As of January 31, 2005

21Includes offenders participating in training

22The two sample t-test was used to determine if two population means are equal. In this instance, the data are paired such that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the values in the pre-post samples (i.e., before and after using the employment centres). That is, time in the community is measured at different times for the same offender.

Referral

  • Awareness of the Case Management Bulletin is not very high but most community parole officers said there is a referral process in place. Few institutional parole officers said such a process was in place in the institution. Offenders said they hear about the centres primarily through the community (i.e., parole officers, CCCs/CRFs) and offenders are most often referred to the centres by community parole officers.

Case Management Bulletin

This section of the questionnaire deals primarily with the referral process (i.e., how offenders come to use the centres) and various stakeholders' awareness of the centres. Respondents were asked whether they believed there had been an increase in referrals to employment centres since the release of the revised Case Management Bulletin on the Employment and Employability Program (EEP) in March 2004 (Table 6). Managers and employment counsellors provided the same average score (2.4), indicating they felt the bulletin had led to "little increase" in referrals. As shown in Table 7, institutional and community parole officers rated the overall knowledge of parole officers of the bulletin low (an average of 2.8 and 2.5, respectively). A total of 44 of 122 institutional parole officers indicated they were "somewhat aware" and 37 of 122, "not at all aware/little awareness". The highest percentage of community parole officers (31 of 70) felt that parole officers were "not at all aware/little awareness" of the centres, whereas 24 of 70 indicated parole officers are "somewhat aware" of the Case Management Bulletin.

Referral

Employment counsellors were asked how offenders typically hear about the employment centres, and the majority indicated that they hear about them in the community through CRFs/CCCs, community parole officers, NGOs, word of mouth, or brochures (Table 8). However, many employment counsellors also indicated that offenders hear about the centres in the institution, through parole officers, employment advisors, and job fairs. Nearly one-half of the offenders (17 of 40) indicated that they heard about the centres through their community parole officer, and about one-fifth indicated they heard at a CRF/CCC (9 of 40) or institutional parole officer (8 of 40).

Parole officers were asked if there is a referral process in place at the institution or in the parole office. The majority (71%) of community parole officers (50 of 70) indicated there is a process in place, whereas only 31 of 122 institutional parole officers (25%) said there is a process in place. When asked about the specific process by which offenders are referred to the centres, both management and employment counsellors indicated that the majority of the referrals came from the community (Table 9). Parole officers (community and institution) were listed most frequently by management (10 of 22) and employment counsellors (15 of 19) as the source of a referral, consistent with the information reported by offenders and by parole officers regarding referral processes. Employment counsellors also listed institutions as referral sources (8 of 19 respondents). Other sources were the centres themselves, and through formal assessment processes (e.g., CP/CPPR/OIA) and program board. Both management and employment counsellors agreed that the referral process (Tables 10 and 11) had contributed to an increase in use of the centres (with an average score of 4 on the 5-point scale ranging from "Not at all" [1] to "Very much" [5]), whereas nearly one-half of community parole officers (32 of 70) felt there had been "Some" impact of the referral process on offenders' use of the centres (i.e., a score of 3).

  • Community parole officers rated themselves as more aware of employment centres than did institutional parole officers. Proposed strategies to improve awareness of institutional parole officers and offenders included increased in-reach and communication.

Awareness

Employment counsellors and managers were asked to rate the level of awareness of specific groups of the centres, on a 5-point scale ranging from "Not at all aware" to "Extremely aware" (Table 12). This scale was collapsed into a 3-point scale "Not at all aware/little awareness" (1 and 2), "Somewhat aware" (3), and "Aware/extremely aware" (4 and 5). District directors were rated as displaying the highest level of awareness, with average scores of 4.2 and 4.4 from management and counsellors, respectively, followed by parole officers, with average ratings of 4.1 and 4.4. Both management and employment counsellors felt that offenders were "aware" (management, 3.6 and counsellors, 3.8), with the majority of answers in the "Aware/extremely aware" category.

Since April 2003, Corcan indicated that a total of 900 institutional parole officers received training on the Employment and Employability Program (EEP), which includes attention to the Case Management Bulletin and employment services in the community. Despite this, as shown below, the evaluation team found a low level of awareness.

Parole officers were asked to rate what they perceived to be the overall level of awareness of parole officers of the centres. Nearly two-thirds of community parole officers (43 of 70) indicated that parole officers are "extremely aware" whereas about one-third of institutional parole officers felt parole officers are "not at all aware" (43 of 122) or "somewhat aware" (48 of 122). The average score on the 5-point scale was lower for institutional parole officers than community parole officers (2.6 versus 3.6).

Both groups were asked for suggestions on how CSC can better inform institutional and staff members about the centres, and similarly, how to improve offenders' use of the centres (Tables 13 and 14). Responses from both management and counsellors for both sets of questions were very similar, with the majority of respondents promoting in-reach to institutional staff and offenders (18 of 23 counsellors and 13 of 22 managers), including training/education/providing resource material to promote awareness (5 of 23 counsellors and 8 of 22 managers). More promotion of, and communication about, the centres was advocated by both groups. The response most often provided by community parole officers (8 of 42) was that nothing was required (as they are already aware). The only other primary suggestion was to include employment counsellors in staff meetings or have counsellors do a presentation to staff (12 of 42). Likewise, institutional parole officers advocated including employment counsellors in staff meetings (20 of 81), in addition to providing training for staff to increase their awareness of the centres (32 of 81) and increasing information on the centres (31 of 81). Offenders felt the best ways to inform offenders about the centres (Tables 15) were to supply additional information to institutions (e.g., information packages, bulletin boards), with 8 of 25 advocating this approach; and to inform offenders through inmate committees (5 of 25). When asked if anything could be done to increase offenders' use of community employment centres, 6 of 18 replied it is "good as is" (Table 14).

Assessment

  • Assessment processes have been established at the employment centres, and address relevant employment need areas. Most counsellors indicated the processes are good as they currently exist. Managers advocated use of a standardized assessment to ensure consistency and to facilitate results-based reporting and feedback.

As depicted in the logic model in Appendix A, once offenders have been referred to a centre, they typically undergo an assessment process to ascertain their employment readiness, including their employment-based strengths and areas for improvement (e.g., training required).

Assessment Techniques and Tools

The next stage in the process at the centres is assessment of offenders' employment-based needs, particularly as they relate to community functioning and reintegration (see Tables 16 through 36 in Appendix D). With the exception of one respondent, all counsellors indicated that there is an assessment process in place at their employment centre, used primarily to gather background information, explore employment issues, and the future employment-related goals of offenders (Table 16). Employment counsellors indicated they "usually/always" assess each of the areas listed in Table 17 (e.g., employment history, institutional employment training, and barriers to employment). When asked about main areas that should be explored in an employment assessment, counsellors indicated that past employment history (14 of 23) and job readiness (13 of 23) were most important, followed by attitudes toward work, future goals and crime history/release conditions (Table 18).

Nearly one-half of the counsellors (11 of 23) reported having encountered difficulties in conducting assessments (Table 19), most often citing a lack of interest from offenders (Table 20). When asked what could be done to improve the assessment process, one-third of the respondents to this question (5 of 16) indicated it is good as it currently exists (Table 21). One quarter (4 of 16) suggested conducting the employment assessment before release and a similar percentage advocated standardizing assessment tools. Similarly, 4 of 13 management respondents promoted use of a standardized assessment tool. Most management respondents (19 of 22) indicated they would recommend the use of a standardized assessment tool (Table 22), primarily to ensure consistency and flexibility, with a smaller number advocating its utility for results reporting/providing feedback for improvement (4 of 19) (Table 23). When asked if they would use such a tool, 12 of 23 counsellors indicated "yes", whereas 8 indicated it was currently "good as is" (Table 24). About one-third (5 of 18) of counsellors indicated, like management, that a standardized tool was good for ensuring consistency and flexibility.

An important potential tool for referral and assessment is the Offender Management System (OMS); nearly one-half (11 of 24) of the counsellors indicated they do not have access to OMS, and that access would help them in their job, particularly to provide information on the offender's profile/history and to validate information provided by offenders (Table 25). Nearly all (23 of 24) counsellors indicated that they are typically aware of the offence history of their clients, based on offender disclosure.

  • Community parole officers were viewed as having higher levels of communication and collaboration with employment centres, by management and employment counsellors. Approximately one-third of the community parole officers surveyed said they were usually/always consulted by employment counsellors, most often regarding offenders' current employment status, job readiness, attitudes toward work, and barriers to employment. Respondents felt more communication with counsellors would be beneficial.

Communication and Collaboration

The extent to which employment counsellors communicate and collaborate with staff at other CSC sites may influence the number of referrals to the centres. To this end, management and employment counsellors were asked to rate, on a 5-point scale, the level of communication and collaboration between the centres and parole offices (Tables 27 and 28) and institutions (Tables 29 and 30). Managers rated both communication and collaboration as higher with the community than with institutions, with average scores of 3.7 and 3.6, respectively (between "some" and "good"). Average ratings of 2.5 were obtained for communication and collaboration between employment centres and institutions. This pattern was also evident in the ratings on the collapsed 3-point scale, with most management respondents indicating there was "good communication/a lot of communication" between the centres and parole offices. The most frequently endorsed management response for institutions was "none/little" communication and collaboration with employment centres. The same pattern of responses was noted with employment counsellors (i.e., higher ratings on communication and collaboration with the community); however, overall, employment counsellors provided higher ratings for both institution and community than managers.

Community parole officers were asked several questions related to communication with employment counsellors. First, they were asked if they are typically consulted by the employment counsellor regarding employment assessment and/or services for offenders (Table 31). The average score, on the 5-point scale was 2.5 (between "Not often/not at all" and "sometimes"), with the highest percentage of parole officers (56%) indicating "Not often/not at all", on the 3-point collapsed scale. However, nearly one-third (20 of 70) indicated that they were "often/always" consulted. Community parole officers indicated they were most often consulted about offenders' current employment status, job readiness, attitudes toward work, and barriers to employment. More than one-third (28 of 70) of parole officers said they felt their input was "often/always" used by employment counsellors, whereas about one-fifth (15 of 70) indicated they felt their input was "rarely to never" used (Table 32). The average response was "sometimes" (i.e., 3.2 on the 5-point scale). With respect to the level of communication and consultation between themselves and the community employment centre, community parole officers provided average responses of 2.8 for each area (Tables 33 and 34), indicating that there was "some" communication/collaboration. It is noteworthy that the majority of community parole officers endorsed the "little to no communication/collaboration" most often (28 of 70 and 26 of 70, respectively).

To promote better communication and collaboration, both management and counsellors most often advocated in-reach (18 of 22 management respondents, and 16 of 24 counsellors), and staff training/education/awareness sessions (Table 35). A total of 6 (of 24) counsellors reported that their current level of communication and collaboration was "good as is", and did not require enhancement. Likewise, 9 of 35 community parole officers felt the level of communication and collaboration was "good as is". The only recurrent suggestion was in-reach (e.g., attendance at staff meetings, more contacts, staff awareness sessions, and case conferences) as a means of improving communication and collaboration between parole offices and employment centres.

Finally, counsellors were asked to rate the level of follow-up with parole offices about offenders' assessment and services (Table 36). Most (22 of 24) indicated that they followed up regularly, with average ratings of 4.7 on the 5-point scale ranging from "Never" (1) to "Always" (5). Nearly one-half (9 of 19) of the counsellors felt there was no need for improvement in their level of follow-up with parole offices.

Services

  • Offenders rated resume writing, job search and individual confidential employment counselling as services they have used, and would use, most often. They identified job preparation and certification/on-the-job training as areas that would best meet their employment needs. Nearly three-quarters of offenders felt that using the services of employment centres would increase their confidence to find/keep a job, as they provide good support/encouragement and good job preparation. Employment counsellors, managers and parole officers, likewise, felt that the services contribute to positive outcomes for offenders.

Once undergoing an employment assessment, offenders are directed to or provided with appropriate services to address their employment needs. Employment counsellors, managers, parole officers and offenders were asked various questions regarding services offered at employment centres.

Offenders' Use of Services

Offenders, when asked about the services they have used at employment centres (Table 37), most often indicated resume writing (22 of 38), job search (22 of 38) and individual confidential employment counselling (20 of 38). Approximately one-quarter said they had used office resources (e.g., computers, internet job search, fax, or phone), educational upgrading or Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS). When asked which of the services they would use (Table 38), the majority of offenders (from 44% to 71%) indicated they would use all of the services. The only exception was aptitude and assessment testing, which was endorsed by only 12 of the 41 (29%) respondents.

These findings were consistent with employment counsellors' ratings of the extent to which various employment services are used at the centre (Table 39). Individual confidential employment counselling, resume writing, job search, interview preparation and use of office resources were rated highest (with average ratings of approximately 5 - i.e., "always"). As shown in Table 40, offenders felt that job preparation, including resume writing, job search, interview skills, and certification (e.g., in WHMIS, computers) and/or on-the-job training would best meet their employment needs (7 of 31 mentioned these areas), followed by additional information on educational upgrading/training opportunities (6 of 31). Employment counsellors indicated that offenders are most like to express interest in pursuing training in labour, trades, and apprenticeship (Table 41).

Staff Awareness of Services

Employment counsellors were asked to rate what they perceived to be parole officers' level of awareness of the specific types of services offered at the centres. Community parole officers were rated as more aware (Table 42), with average ratings of 4.6 (between "aware" and "extremely aware"), whereas institutional parole officers (Table 43) were rated as "somewhat" aware (with an average rating of 3.0). When asked, both groups of parole officers rated themselves lower than the employment counsellor ratings; community parole officers (Table 42) rated themselves as "somewhat" aware (with an average score of 3.0) and institutional parole officers (Table 43), "not very" aware, with an average score of 2.3. Notably, more than one-half (53%) of institutional parole officers indicated they were "not at all/not very" aware. When asked to describe the services offered at the centres (Table 44), both community and institutional parole officers listed job placement/job search as the primary service (at 79% and 77%, respectively), followed by job readiness/preparation (77% and 66%) and training/educational upgrading as the third area most often listed (49% and 38%).

Impact of Services

Employment counsellors, managers and parole officers were asked to rate the extent to which they think employment centres contribute to various outcomes for offenders, including: preparing offenders to find work; preparing offenders to keep work; increasing offenders' confidence to find work; increasing offenders' confidence to keep work; increasing offenders' awareness of job search techniques; increasing offenders' job placements; increasing offenders' job readiness; and increasing access to support resources (Table 45). Generally, the average ratings from employment counsellors were highest (ranging from 4.4 to 4.9, in the "contribute" to "very much" contribute range), followed by managers (with average scores of 3.2 "somewhat" to 4.4 "contribute"), with institutional and community parole officers providing lower average ratings than the first two groups (with average scores ranging from 2.3 "little contribution" to 3.7 "somewhat" to "contribute"). The majority of the employment counsellor and manager responses fell in to the "contribute/very much" on the 3-point scale ranging from "not at all/not much" to "contribute/very much". Nearly one-half of the community and institutional parole officers responded "don't know" or "no comment" for the individual areas. The responses that are presented should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.

Nearly three-quarters (29 of 41) of offenders felt that using the services of employment centres would increase their confidence to find/keep a job (Table 46), as they provide good support/encouragement (8 of 24) and good job preparation, with tools and resources in one location (5 of 24). Over one-half (22 of 41) felt that using the services would increase their awareness of job search techniques (Table 47), as they are a good sources of information (6 of 22) and provide networking leads and job contacts (5 of 22). Some offenders (5 of 22) felt that they are capable of doing it on their own, as job search in and of itself is not the problem.

When asked if they believe current services adequately address offenders' employment needs (Table 48), the vast majority of employment counsellors (87%) said "yes/very much", and over one-half (53%) of managers said the same. Nearly one-third of managers indicated the services "somewhat" address offenders' employment needs. In explaining their choice, nearly one-half (10 of 22) of employment counsellors and one-quarter (4 of 19) of managers said the services are "good as is". One-third (7 of 22) of the counsellors and over one-half (10 of 19) of managers felt resources (e.g., funding, staff, transportation) should be increased. Over 40% of community parole officers said "yes", 24% said "no" and 33% indicated they "didn't know". Because nearly two-thirds (60%) of institutional parole officers said they "didn't know", their "yes" and "no" results should be interpreted with caution.

Community parole officers, when asked if they follow up with offenders regarding the services they were offered at the community employment centre, most often (41 of 70) replied "usually/always" (Table 49). However, they indicated they were less inclined to follow up with employment counsellors regarding services provided to offenders, with about one-third saying "never/rarely" and "sometimes" and about one-quarter (27%) saying "usually/always" (Table 50).

Support

  • Employment counsellors indicated they know of, and have access to, community-based agencies that can facilitate their work with offenders. To reach out to community partners, and to expand offenders' employment support network, managers, employment counsellors and parole officers suggested increased liaison with potential employers in the community, and increased communication with CSC staff. Offenders felt the support of the employment centres was good, and could only be improved by providing financial assistance for work gear, transportation, and training.

Virtually all employment counsellors and managers were aware of community-based agencies or groups that could support employment counsellors in their work with offenders (Table 51), and numerous partners were listed by both groups (see Appendix G). Most (90%) of employment counsellors said they refer offenders to these agencies for areas other than employment (for training, education and other need areas, such as mental health) (Table 52). Most employment counsellors (15 of 23) and managers (11 of 23) said there had been "no difficulties at all/few difficulties" in partnering with local employment agencies (Table 53). The majority of employment counsellors (19 of 24) were aware of other local agencies that offer similar employment services and 20 of 23 said they had worked with them (Table 54).

Nearly three-quarters of employment counsellors and managers said "yes" when asked if they knew of other partnerships that would facilitate the work of community employment centres (Table 55). To better reach out to community partners (Table 56), employment counsellors suggested community engagement/communication/awareness (11 of 19), as did managers (9 of 20). Both groups advocated more funding (6 of 19 counsellors, and 7 of 20 managers). Employment counsellors also proposed the establishment/maintenance of community and provincial partnerships (6 of 19), and managers advocated for furthering community partnerships (8 of 20). Outreach, communication and increased resources were also proposed by counsellors and managers as methods to expand offenders' employment support networks in the community (Table 57).

Community parole officers were also asked what they felt could be done by CSC to help employment centres reach out to community partners (Table 56). Their answers focused on community awareness through meetings and sessions (6 of 26) and increased communication (4 of 26). To expand offenders' employment support network (Table 57), both community (4 of 18) and institutional (9 of 32) parole officers suggested developing partnerships with potential employers, and community parole officers (4 of 18) also mentioned liaising with community partners/providing public education. Institutional parole officers (14 of 32) also advocated an increase in communication and awareness in institutions and in the community (i.e., in-reach with staff and offenders).

Offenders indicated, when asked about the types of employment supports (e.g., resources, programs, etc.) that would help them most in the community (Table 58), that it was "good as is" (5 of 27). Others mentioned financial assistance (e.g., work gear, transportation, student loans, training with wages) as an area that would be beneficial to them (7 of 27).

Objective 3: Cost Effectiveness/Value-for-Money:

  • Some additional costs have been associated with the operation of the employment centres. Given that employed offenders are more likely to remain in the community than unemployed offenders, the potential cost-savings of a program designed to place offenders in jobs is significant.

Cost-effectiveness explores the following issue: "Are the most appropriate and efficient means being used to achieve objectives, relative to alternative design and delivery approaches?" Encompassed within cost-effectiveness are the ERC questions 5 through 7 (i.e., value-for-money, efficiency, and affordability).

Table D displays the resource allocation for each year of the initiative, from 2000-2001 through 2004-2005. As shown in Table D, Corcan spent more than the one million per year allocated by Treasury Board. Part of the expenditures ($700,000) was for employment and employability managers in each region, beginning in 2002-2003.

Table D: Fiscal allocations for the Enhancing Community Corrections Infrastructure Community Employment Centres Initiative

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 Total
Fiscal Allocations

 

 

 

 

 

 

TB Allocation

500

1,500

1,000

1,000

1,000

5,000

Adjustments

-

200

440

414

-

1,054

Actuals

434

1,691

1,440

1,414

1,000

5,979

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pacific

66

304

182

175

147

874

Prairies

95

433

413

353

354

1,648

Quebec

93

215

202

325

195

1,030

Ontario

100

587

433

350

201

1,671

Atlantic

80

152

210

211

103

756

NHQ

-

-

-

-

-

-

Variance

(66)

(9)

-

-

-

(75)

Fiscal 2000-01: Approximately $66,000 was lapsed

Fiscal 2002-02: $200,000 was reprofiled from the Community Halfway House Development component of Effective Corrections and $9,000 was lapsed

Fiscal 2002-03: $168,000 was reprofiled from the Aboriginal Community Reintegration component of Effective Corrections. In addition to the allocation of resources provided through Effective Corrections, CORCAN expended $272,000 of its base resources in support of associated initiatives including the work of EEP Coordinators in each of CSC's five regions and associated service delivery activities

Fiscal 2003-04: (These are approved, planned expenditures for this fiscal year). The dedication of associated support and delivery activities amounted to $414,000.

Fiscal 2004-05: These are planned allocations of resources from Effective Corrections only

 

Ideally, cost-effectiveness would be evaluated by comparing the CSC-operated and partner-operated centres with respect to actual costs and effectiveness, as measured by correctional results for offenders. Additionally, we would assess the current location of services in relation to clients (e.g., release type, level of employment need, etc.) to establish the best delivery deployment. Although the current database does not allow for these comparisons, it does enable us to calculate the average cost per centre each year (except for the Quebec region), the average regional cost, the average cost per service at each of the sites, as well as average regional costs per offender and by employment services (Table E).23

As shown in Table E, the cost per site varies considerably within and between regions, as does the average cost per service by site. Some sites seem to offer higher value for money than others. Several reasons could explain higher costs, such as location, extent of use of the centres, or the provision of specific services (or lack thereof). Alternatively, it may be that different sites are defining and counting services in different ways. Not all centres will, or should necessarily, cost the same amount. For example, higher costs for isolated locations are to be expected as they cannot benefit from the economy of scale. It is premature to make judgements in this evaluation, as a full analysis of outcomes is not possible without a comprehensive results database.

It is not possible to calculate the cost per centre in Quebec. Their flexible approach of sharing resources (e.g., employment counsellors) provides services to sites where it is not possible or reasonable to assign full-time resources at a specific site. This approach will need to be explored in subsequent evaluations of the effectiveness and efficiency of the centres, when more detailed information on expenditure is available.

Information on the number of offenders using the services by region was available in 2004-2005, enabling the calculation of the average cost per offender, in addition to the average cost per service (see Table F). As shown in Table F, the average costs per region also varied significantly, ranging from $20.16 per offender in the Atlantic region to $438.15 per offender in the Ontario region. A similar pattern was noted for the average cost per service, with the lowest costs in the Atlantic region ($6.58) and highest costs in the Ontario region ($85.01). Although costs vary, it is premature to make a judgement regarding the overall cost-effectiveness, without corresponding correctional results for offenders who used the centres.

23It is not possible to attribute accurate costs per centre in Quebec, as they have two employment counsellors who provide services to all of the employment centres in the region. Without a breakdown of time spent per centre, it is not possible to accurately ascertain costs. Therefore, only regional averages are presented.

 

Table E: Average cost per service per site and average regional costs per offender and by employment service

Site 2003-2004 2004-2005*
ATLANTIC
JHS Moncton, NB

$27,083

$18,746

# of services

360

379

Average cost per service

$75.23

$49.46

Judy Palmer (Halifax, NS)

$38,068

$26,844

# of services

512

860

Average cost per service

$74.35

$31.21

JHS St-John's, Nfld

$17,625

$14,063

# of services

73

126

Average cost per service

$241.44

$111.61

JHS, Saint John, NB

$18,000

$10,563

# of services

298

714

Average cost per service

$60.40

$14.79

Theresa Zaichkowski (Kentville, NS)

$17,129

$5,475

# of services

83

222

Average cost per service

$206.37

$24.66

Atlantic total cost

$117,905

$75,691

Atlantic total # offenders who received services

N/A

751

Atlantic total # services

1326

2301

Average cost per site

$23,581

$15,138

Average cost per offender

N/A

$20.16

Average cost per service

$17.78

$6.58

 
Site 2003-2004 2004-2005*
QUEBEC**

Opex Advisor - Regional Reception Centre

 

 

# of services

347

N/A

Opex Via Travail - Laurentides

 

 

# of services

321

419

Opex Via Travail - Lanaudière

 

 

# of services

350

97

Opex Via Travail - Montréal

 

 

# of services

36

78

Maison Radisson - Trois-Rivières

 

 

# of services

55

25

Maison La Jonction - Québec

 

 

# of services

25

34

Opex Via Travail - Sherbrooke

 

 

# of services

196

61

L'Escale du Lac - Alma

 

 

# of services

25

20

Service d'aide à l'emploi de l'est - Montréal

 

 

# of services

20

9

Quebec total cost

$268,786

$166,800

Quebec total # offenders

N/A

97

Quebec total # services

1375

743

Average cost per site***

$29,865

$20,850

Average cost per offender

N/A

$214.95

Average cost per service

$21.72

$28.06

 
Site 2003-2004 2004-2005*
ONTARIO

Hamilton Employment Services (H.E.S.) Greenbyte

110,097

90,878

# of services

1,025

840

Average cost per service

$107.41

$108.19

Toronto

$156,546

$108,040

# of services

1,964

1,500

Average cost per service

$79.71

$72.03

Ontario total cost

$266,643

$198,918

Ontario total # offenders

N/A

227

Ontario total # services

2989

2340

Average cost per site

$133,322

$99,459

Average cost per offender

N/A

$438.15

Average cost per service

$89.21

$85.01

Site 2003-2004 2004-2005*
PRAIRIES

SK District (Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Regina)

$43,534

$45,985

# of services

310

350

Average cost per service

$140.43

$131.39

MB/NW ONT District (Winnipeg)

$41,072

$45,985

# of services

317

706

Average cost per service

$129.56

$65.13

SAB District (Calgary)

$49,793

$45,985

# of services

121

281

Average cost per service

$411.51

$163.65

NAB/NWT District (Edmonton)

$120,762

$45,985

# of services

833

1,291

Average cost per service

$144.97

$35.62

Prairies total cost

$255,161

$183,940

Prairies total # offenders

N/A

963

Prairies total # services

1581

2628

Average cost per site

$63,790

$45,985

Average cost per offender

N/A

$47.75

Average cost per service

$40.35

$17.50

 

Site 2003-2004 2004-2005*
PACIFIC

BC Borstal

$59,000

$52,425

# of services

343

865

Average cost per service

$172.01

$60.61

John Howard Society

$30,000

$22,503

# of services

85

225

Average cost per service

$352.94

$100.01

Prince George Activators

$25,000

$17,802

# of services

258

328

Average cost per service

$96.90

$54.27

Okanagan Halfway House

$28,360

$18,082

# of services

151

702

Average cost per service

$187.81

$25.76

Pacific total cost

$142,360

$110,812

Pacific total # offenders

N/A

324

Pacific total # services

837

2120

Average cost per site

$35,590

$27,703

Average cost per offender

N/A

$85.50

Average cost per service

$42.52

$13.07

 

* Numbers and figures for fiscal year 2004-2005 to December 31st, 2004

**Costs per centre are cannot be accurately reflected as two employment counsellors divide delivery of services among all centres, in addition to the costs associated with the centres.

*** Dollar amounts include salary for two employment advisors providing services to several employment centres and parolee wages

 

Table F: Regional roll-up of average costs per site, per offender and per service

Region Average cost per site Average cost per offender Average cost per service

Atlantic

$15,138

$20.16

$6.58

Quebec

$20,850

$214.95

$28.06

Ontario

$99,459

$438.15

$85.01

Prairies

$45,985

$47.75

$17.50

Pacific

$27,703

$85.50

$13.07

Overall average

$41,827

$161.30

$30.04

  • Some managers indicated there were additional costs associated with the employment centres, related primarily to transportation and work equipment for offenders.

As part of the interview/survey, managers were asked if there were any additional costs associated with the implementation of operation of the centres. Approximately two-fifths (10 of 24) said "no", and 5 said they didn't know. Of the 9 (of 24) who said "yes", most (7) indicated that redirect budget for transportation, work equipment, bus passes, etc. Three indicated that they provide funding for a full-time person as they feel it is not possible to operate the program on a part-time basis.

  • Given that employed offenders are more likely to remain in the community than unemployed offenders, the potential cost-savings of a program designed to place offenders in jobs is significant.

As shown in an earlier analysis, a sample of offenders from CSC who found employment remained in the community an average of 37 months, compared to 11 months for offenders who did not find employment. Given that the federal average daily inmate cost was $222.48 in 2002-2003, or $81,206 per year (men) or $169,399 per year for women (PSEPC 2004) and that it costs substantially less to maintain an offender in the community than in a penitentiary ($20,478 per year versus $81,206 per year), it can be extrapolated that there are potentially significant cost savings associated with the provision of services designed to facilitate job acquisition and retention. However, the extrapolation of costs cannot be completed for the current evaluation due to the limitations identified in the current Corcan database.

Finally, during the course of the evaluation, it was discovered that employment services were being supported by CSC outside of the Effective Corrections Initiative in other regions (one centre in the Pacific region and 12 in Quebec). Given such local initiatives, we cannot ascertain, as an organization, how much we are spending on employment services.

Objective 4: Implementation

  • Prior to the Effective Corrections Initiative, only 8 employment centres existed (7 in Quebec, and one in Toronto). Treasury Board funding was used to create the capacity to establish an additional 17 centres, and to implement referral and assessment processes, as well as services and supports for offenders.

Objective 5: Unintended Findings

  • Two issues related to results-reporting were revealed throughout the course of the evaluation. The Corcan database only contains information on offenders who used the centres, and who subsequently found employment. Additionally, a total of 20 employment centres exist in the Quebec region, with 8 supported through funding provided by the Effective Corrections Initiative; the remaining 12 are supported internally by CSC. Outcome results are reported only by the 8 centres supported through the Initiative, but not by the 12 centres supported internally by CSC, which does not allow for evaluation of the overall effectiveness, or impact, of the deployment of employment services in the community.

 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Prior to the Effective Corrections initiative, only 8 employment centres existed, whereas there are currently 25 in operation, funded through the initiative (with at least 12 funded internally by CSC). Evaluation findings demonstrate that community employment centres meet an essential need and are therefore consistent with department and government wide priorities (i.e., relevance), namely, contributing to offender rehabilitation efforts to facilitate community reintegration. Furthermore, the centres are successful in contributing to the objective of finding work for offenders, with over 1000 offenders finding employment after using the services of the centres each year. The implementation of the centres was efficient, in terms of spending the money as planned, to develop new employment centres and enhance existing centres, per the Treasury Board decision letter.

The following key conclusions, organized by relevance, success, and cost-effectiveness, were derived from the database analysis, as well as interviews and surveys with key informants, and are presented for consideration.

Relevance

Evaluation results show that offenders rated with employment needs (i.e., 60.2% of men, and 58.0% of women) are using the centres, consistent with CSC's risk- and need-based approach to program participation. Furthermore, the centres are focused on providing appropriate employment services, and preparing offenders to find work, as an important contribution to their community reintegration. To best demonstrate the relevance and impact of the centres, it is advocated that Corcan continue with their current data collection strategy (i.e., number of referrals [from institution and community], number of offenders receiving services, number of employment services received, number of offenders who found employment after using the services of the centres, and number of jobs obtained) and that they expand their data collection to include the names and Fingerprint Service (FPS) numbers of all offenders who use the services of the centres (whether they find employment or not), as well as their release dates and the date they used the services of the centres.

  • Recommendation #1: Maintain records of all offenders who use the centres (including employment centres supported internally by CSC), so the progress of all may be tracked, to allow for research/evaluation that can ascertain the relationship between employment centre services and community outcome (e.g., status and time in community) and determine the most effective and efficient model for the delivery of employment services. Explore the option of entering the information into the Offender Management System (OMS) for consistency across sites and to facilitate access for results reporting.

Success

Employment centres provide an important service, addressing an essential need area with a demonstrable link to offender reintegration. Prior to the Effective Corrections initiative, only 8 centres existed; since 2000, a further 17 centres have been established through the Initiative. In the Treasury Board decision letter, it was estimated that 750 offenders should receive employment services on an annual basis. The data produced by Corcan show that 2641 offenders received services in fiscal 2004 (as of December 31, 2004). Furthermore, more than 1000 offenders found employment after using the services of the centres annually since fiscal year 2001.

The centres were noted as providing important rehabilitative services to offenders, and several strengths were described, including access to employment resources, and community-based partnerships, all within a supportive and non-threatening environment. Most suggestions for improved operation of the centres focused on the provision of sufficient funding to ensure continuity in the services offered at the centres. Managers and parole officers advocated more communication with stakeholders, primarily in the institution, as a means of promoting and enhancing awareness of the centres.

A synthesis of the findings for each of the activity areas, namely, referral, assessment, services and support, is presented below, along with the corresponding recommendations.

Referral

Not all groups of CSC staff were fully aware of the Case Management Bulletin on Employment and Employability, which contains information on referral to employment centres. There was a difference noted in community versus institutional awareness of the employment centres, reiterating the need to promote continuity in programming from the institution to the community and to enhance the communication (e.g., share statistics) and bridging processes (e.g., through in-reach via job fairs, etc). The findings also demonstrated the necessity for increased promotion of the employment centres, and for easier access to the Bulletin, especially for institutional parole officers.

  • Recommendation #2: Automatic referral in OMS when employment is identified as a need (some, considerable) in offenders' Community Strategy.

  • Recommendation #3: Expand/enhance communication about the centres to institutions, and particularly to institutional parole officers (i.e., regarding the location of employment centres, referral process, and services offered). Also include sharing of results with key stakeholders (within CSC and partners), to increase "buy in" and further promote the utility of the centres.

Assessment

Assessments are being conducted by virtually all employment counsellors who participated in the evaluation, and the assessments incorporate relevant areas linked theoretically and practically to employment status. There was agreement among management and employment counsellors that some standardizing of assessments could be good, but there was also agreement of the need to remain flexible. Respondents do not want counsellors to be inundated with paperwork, at the expense of the client.

  • Recommendation #4: For continuity and a standardized approach, review existing assessments used by employment counsellors, amalgamate and develop a streamlined "friendly" but comprehensive tool to be piloted with employment counsellors. Once in place, obtain feedback regarding the utility of the assessment tool and conduct research/evaluation to link it to correctional results for offenders.

Services

The services provided by the centres were rated well by employment counsellors, managers and parole officers for their contributions to positive employment-based outcomes for offenders. Moreover, offenders indicated they felt more confident in their ability to find/keep a job, after using the employment centre services.

Numerous partnerships with local community-based employment agencies exist (see Appendix F for a listing of various partners). An expansion of outreach efforts to identify, recruit, and maintain community-based employers/worksites, would be useful to explore additional ways (e.g., providing incentives, partnering with unions, etc.) to facilitate job placements for offenders.

Employment counsellors in some regions described factors holding offenders back from job seeking, including a lack of documentation (i.e., on institutional training, certification, and education) and identification (e.g., Social Insurance Number, birth certificate, etc.) and indicated that they spend a significant amount of time in some regions collecting information that should be in place when the offender is released. Another factor inhibiting immediate job-placement for offenders who are job-ready includes a lack of basic required work gear, such as boots, hats and gloves, as many offenders do not have the money required for their immediate purchase (approximately $120-$150).

  • Recommendation #5: Ensure offenders leave the institution with all relevant documentation (such as birth certificate, social insurance number, certificates demonstrating educational attainment) and the proper tools (e.g., clothing, footwear, bus pass) when needed for employment.

  • Recommendation #6: Enhance outreach endeavors, including exploring other jurisdictions with successful partnerships.

Support

The centres provide social support for employment (i.e., resources for finding work and affective/emotional ties to employment), which is demonstrably linked to job acquisition, retention and community reintegration ( Azrin & Besalel, 1980 [as cited in Cellini & Lorenz, 1983]; Gillis, 2002; Gillis & Andrews, 2005; Soothill, Francis, & Ackerley, 1997; Soothill, Francis, & Escarela, 1999; Soothill & Holmes, 1981).

As illustrated in Appendix F and in other questionnaire results, many partnerships with other community agencies exist and are beneficial. Moreover, the premise behind many of the centres was to operate through partnerships with criminal justice agencies (e.g., St. Leonard Society, John Howard Society) who are familiar with corrections and CSC, and who have experience in dealing with offenders and their specific needs. During the interviews, one of the issues that emerged was that of resources/continued funding and the need to facilitate the contracting process, which was noted as problematic. This, in their view, would allow for continuity in the provision of services to offenders and provide the agency with some security which would enable them to retain the employment counsellor under their employment.

Cost-effectiveness

Research, including the current evaluation, indicates that offenders with jobs are more likely to remain in the community than offenders who are unemployed. There are potentially big cost savings associated with the provision of services designed to facilitate job acquisition and retention, as the average cost to maintain an offender in the community under supervision is $56.10 per day ($20,478 per year), relative to the average institutional cost for men of $222.48 per day ($81,206 per year), and for women, $464.10 ($169,399 per year).

Furthermore, the evaluation team found widely differing costs for different centres, and across regions. Although costs vary significantly within and between regions, it is premature to make a judgement regarding the overall cost-effectiveness of specific centres, without corresponding correctional results for offenders. Additionally, in the Quebec region, it is difficult to attribute specific costs to each employment centre, as their model involves counsellors rotating among different centres in the region. To assess the deployment (location) of employment services and to calculate efficiency, the Quebec region needs to be more specific about where money was spent (e.g., track the percentage of time that employment counsellors spend at each site). Likewise, it is difficult to attribute expenditures across regions for the purposes of cost-effectiveness analysis, due to the lack of a standardized reporting system on detailed information. Any future evaluation should further explore the cost-effectiveness of the deployment (location) of employment services in the community, including comparisons of CSC-operated and partner-operated, centres. This analysis will be possible with the implementation of the database described in Recommendation #1.

During the evaluation, it was discovered that employment services were being supported by CSC outside of the Effective Corrections Initiative in at least two regions (one centre in the Pacific region and 12 in Quebec). Given such local initiatives, we cannot ascertain, as an organization, how much we are spending on employment services. Information on all employment initiatives should, currently and in the future, be reported to Corcan, as the coordinator of offender employment for the Service.

  • Recommendation #7: Review the different delivery models and deployment of services, once Recommendation #1 is implemented long enough to be able to track more detailed results.

  • Recommendation #8: Implement a more detailed and consistent tracking system for employment centre expenditures to facilitate future evaluation (i.e., for more in-depth assessment of the efficiency, value-for-money, and cost-effectiveness of the centres).

  • Recommendation #9: Ensure that all information on current and future employment initiatives and services are reported to Corcan, as coordinator of offender employment for the Service.

 

BEST PRACTICES 

Best practices were associated primarily with providing continuity from the institution to the community, and several regions had enacted procedures (formal and informal) to facilitate this process.

The employment counsellor from BC Borstal in Vancouver spends most of her time travelling between remand centres, community residential facilities/community correctional centres, and institutions as a means of publicizing the employment centre services and connecting with offenders prior to their community release (or early in their release, for those in CRFs).

Similarly, in the Prairie region, employment counsellors and institutional staff have enacted a bridging process to provide continuity in programming and to enhance communication and collaboration between institutional and the centres. The bridging process, which occurs six months before an offender's release date, involves the employment counsellor sitting on the offender management review board. The offender's employment need profile, developed by employment counsellors in the region, explores educational attainment, status of identification (e.g., does offender have a driver's license and required identification to apply for work), relevant courses, employment history, barriers, action plans and supports. This profile serves to facilitate a discussion regarding the type of job that is appropriate for the offender, as well as providing information from which to build a resume for the offender. Six months provides enough time, typically, to collect identification when necessary, and other information to facilitate job preparation/job search in the community upon release.

Likewise, Opex, which operates in the Quebec region, provides coordination and continuity from the institution to the community. With employment counsellors located in institutions as well as the community, and employment counsellors have ready access to offenders and can familiarize them with employment centre services prior to their release. Many managers and staff mentioned that Opex works well, due to their strong linkages to the institution. Moreover, given the duration of time they have been in operation (i.e., since the 1980s), they have established credibility with staff and offenders and viewed as good at what they do. Finally, and importantly, Opex ensures that all identification is obtained by the time offenders leave the institution.

 

REFERENCES

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

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2 nd ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson.

Boe, R., Nafehk, M., Vuong, B., Sinclair, R., & Cousineau, C. (2003). The changing profile of the federal profile of the federal inmate population: 1997 and 2002 (R-132). Research report, Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada, Ottawa , Ontario .

Cellini, H. R., & Lorenz, J. R. (1983). Job club training with unemployed offenders. Federal Probation, 47(3), 46-49.

Dowden, C. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of the risk, need and responsivity principles and their importance within the rehabilitation debate . Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Psychology, Carleton University , Ottawa .

Enocksson, (1981). Correctional programs: A review of the value of education and training in penal institutions. Journal of Offender Counselling, Services and Rehabilitation, 5(1), 5-18.

Finn, P. (1998). Job placement for offenders in relation to recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 28(1/2) , 89-106.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Gray, G. (1998). Case need domain: "Employment." Forum on Corrections Research, 10(3) , 16-19.

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.

Gillis, C. A. (2002). Understanding employment: A prospective exploration of factors linked to community-based employment among federal offenders . Unpublished doctoral thesis, Carleton University , Ottawa , Ontario .

Gillis, C. A., & Andrews, D. A. (2005). Predicting community employment for federal offenders on conditional release (R-159). Research report, Research Branch, Correctional Service Canada, Ottawa , Ontario .

Gillis , C.A. , & Crutcher, N. (in press). A preliminary exploration of community employment centres. Forum on Corrections Research, 16(2) .

Gillis, C. A., & Nafekh, M. (in press). The impact of community-based employment on offender reintegration. Forum on Corrections Research, 16(2) .

Glaser, D. (1964). The effectiveness of a prison and parole system . Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill.

Hodanish, M. J. (1976). Rehabilitation through employment: Proceed with caution. Offender Rehabilitation, 1, 147-161.

McDonald, D. C. (1998). Employment and training programs: A review of the research. In B. J. Auerbach and T. C. Castellano (Eds.), Successful community sanctions and services for special offenders (pp. 233-250). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Markley, H., Flynn, K., & Bercaw-Dooen, S. (1983). Offender skills training and employment success: An evaluation of outcomes. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy, 29 , 1-11.

Motiuk, L. (1996). Targeting employment patterns to reduce offender risk and need. Forum on Corrections Research, 8(1) , 22-24.

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

Ryan, T. A. (1998). Job retention of offenders and ex-offenders: Review and synthesis of the literature. Unpublished manuscript, College of Criminal Justice , University of South Carolina , Columbia , South Carolina .

Soothill, K., & Holmes, J. (1981). Finding employment for ex-prisoners: A ten-year follow-up study. The Howard Journal, 20, 29-36.

Soothill, K., Francis, B., & Ackerley, E. (1997). The value of finding employment for white-collar ex-offenders: A 20-year criminological follow-up. British Journal of Criminology, 37(4), 581-591.

Soothill, K., Francis, B., & Escarela, G. (1999). White-collars and black sheep: A twenty-year criminological follow-up of white-collar ex-offenders. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32(3), 303-314.

 

APPENDICES

 

Appendix A: Logic Model


Activities and Outputs

The activities illustrated in the logic model represent what the program does in order to achieve its goals. Four distinct activities are identified in the logic model, and are essential to community employment centres in meeting their objectives.

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

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

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

Support. The community employment centre offers employment support to individuals, both at the actual centres, and often, through partnerships with other agencies. The output of this activity is type of community-based employment networks available to offenders.

Impacts

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

Immediate Impacts

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

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

Increased offender job readiness. By providing the appropriate employment and placement services, community employment centres should increase offenders' job readiness.

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

Intermediate Impacts

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

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

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

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

Job placements. Finally, enhanced awareness and use of community employment centres and the provision of adequate placement services will increase the level of offenders' job placements.

Ultimate Goals

The role and objectives of community employment centres and the delivery of employment and placement services combined with the immediate and intermediate impacts eventually lead to two common/shared ultimate goals:

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

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

 

Appendix B: Questionnaires and Surveys

 

COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT CENTRES INTERVIEW MANAGEMENT

ID: ______________________________

Interview Date:___________________________

Interviewer: _____________________________

Name: ______________________________

Position: ______________________________

Province/Territory: _________________________

Site: ______________________________

Region: ______________________________

This study of Community Employment Centres is being conducted as part of the Effective Corrections Initiative evaluation. We are interested in obtaining information about offenders' use of CECs, types of services offered, etc. As part of this evaluation, we are interested in exploring areas functioning well, and those that if addressed, would contribute to a more effective functioning of the CECs.

We are requesting your participation in this survey, which includes questions about your awareness of community employment centres, your opinion on the effectiveness of the centres, your level of communication and collaboration with employment counsellors, and other questions. Your input is valuable in contributing to a better understanding of the functioning of the employment centres. This information will be considered, along with other participants (e.g., parole officers, offenders, and employment counsellors), in identifying factors to be improved and best practices that may be shared with Corcan and other employment centres.

This interview will take about one hour to complete. 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. Individual responses will be grouped to provide overall impressions for different issues.

Please contact Christa Gillis, Evaluation Manager in the Evaluation Branch, CSC at 613-995-9901 or by email at gillisca@csc-scc.gc.ca if you have any questions or comments about the survey or the procedure.

We would like to thank you in advance for participating in this important study. Your time and contributions are greatly appreciated.

SECTION A: REFERRAL

1. In your opinion, has there been an increase in referrals since the release of the revised Case Management Bulletin on CECs on Employment and Employability Program (EEP) issued on March 03, 2004?

1 2 3 4 5

No increase at all

 

Some increase

 

Significant increase


2. Describe the process by which offenders are referred to Community Employment Centres?

__________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. How would you rate the effect of the referral process on offenders' use of the community employment centre?

1 2 3 4 5

Decrease in use

 

Neither decrease nor increase

 

Increase in use


4. How would you rate the awareness of the following groups, generally, of community employment centres?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all aware   Somewhat aware   Extremely aware

[1] Offenders

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[2] Parole officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[3] Corcan supervisors

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[4] Programs staff

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[5] Reintegration officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[6] Social Program Officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[7] Management Services

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[8] District Directors

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[9] Other (please specify):

______________

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

5. How would you rate the awareness of the following groups of the Case Management Bulletin on Employment and Employability Program (EPP) issued on March 03, 2004?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all aware   Somewhat aware   Extremely aware

[1] Offenders

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[2] Parole officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[3] Corcan supervisors

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[4] Programs staff

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[5] Reintegration officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[6] Social Program Officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[7] Management Services

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[8] District Directors

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[9] Other (please specify): ________

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

6. Do you have any suggestions about how CSC can better inform institutional and community staff members about community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

7. What could be done, if anything, to improve offenders' use of community employment centres? ______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

SECTION B: ASSESSMENT

1. Is there an assessment process in place at your community employment centre?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Please describe/explain (applies to both responses):

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

2. In your opinion, to what extent are the following areas addressed in the assessment process?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all   Somewhat   Very often

[1] Employment history

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[2] Institutional employment training

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[3] Other training

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[4] Education

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[5] Certification attained to date

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[6] Current employment status

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[7] Job readiness

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[8] Supports/resources for employment

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[9] Vocational interest

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[10] Areas for improvement

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[11] Attitudes toward work

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[12] Certification

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[13] Generic skills

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[14] Barriers to employment

(e.g., childcare, transportation, disability)

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[15] Other (please specify): ________

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. What could be done, if anything, to improve the assessment process?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. Would you recommend the use of a standard assessment tool for intake if it were available?

[0] No
[1] Yes

A. Why or why not?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

5. How would you rate the level of communication between CECs and parole offices?

1 2 3 4 5

No communication

 

Some communication

 

A lot of communication


6. How would you rate the level of collaboration between CECs and parole offices?

1 2 3 4 5

No collaboration

 

Some collaboration

 

A lot of collaboration


7. How would you rate the level of communication between CECs and institutions?

1 2 3 4 5

No communication

 

Some communication

 

A lot of communication


8. How would you rate the level of collaboration between CECs and institutions?

1 2 3 4 5

No collaboration

 

Some collaboration

 

A lot of collaboration


9. What do you think could be done, if anything, to improve the level of communication and collaboration between staff at institutions/parole offices and the CECs?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

SECTION C: EMPLOYMENT & PLACEMENT SERVICES

1. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you think employment centres contribute to the following areas:

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all   Somewhat   Very much

[1] Preparing offenders to find work

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[2] Preparing offenders to keep work

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[3] Increasing offenders' confidence to find work

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[4] Increasing offenders' confidence to keep work

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[5] Increasing offenders' awareness of job search techniques

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[6] Increasing offenders' job placements

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[7] Increasing offenders' job readiness

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[8] Increasing access to support resources

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

[9] Other (please specify): __________________

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

2. Do you think current services adequately address offenders' employment needs?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all

 

Somewhat

 

Very much


A. Why or why not? ______________________________________________

[30] No comment

3. What types of services would be most useful to meet offenders' needs?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. What could be done, if anything, to improve the effectiveness of services offered to offenders?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

SECTION D: SUPPORT

1. Are you aware of community-based agencies or groups that could support employment counsellors' work with offenders in their attempts to find/keep work or pursue training?

[0] No
[1] Yes

A. If so, which one(s)? (check all that apply)

[1] Elizabeth Fry Society
[2] St. Leonard's Society
[3] John Howard Society
[4] HRSDC (former HRDC)
[5] Other (please specify): ____________________
[30] No comment

2. Have any difficulties been encountered in partnering with local employment agencies?

1 2 3 4 5

None

 

Some

 

Many


A. Please explain:

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

3. Are you aware of other local agencies that offer similar employment services?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Please describe:

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

B. Do offenders use any of these services?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

C. Please describe the services used:

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. Can you think of any other partnerships that would facilitate the work of community employment counsellors?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Please describe:

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

5. What do you think can be done by CSC to help CECs better reach out to community partners?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

6. Do you have any suggestions on how to expand offenders' employment support network in the community?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

7. Do employment centres use the services of volunteers?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. If yes, in what capacity? If no, why not?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

SECTION E: SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED FUNCTIONING OF CECs

1. What do you see as the primary role of community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

2. What do you think should be the main tasks of an employment counsellor?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. If CECs had more time and/or resources, what other areas would you like them to address that would better assist offenders in their attempts to find work? (check all that apply)

[1] Develop a database of employers
[2] Job readiness programming
[3] Peer support employment counselling
[4] Better linkage with community resources and agencies
[5] Other (please specify): ________________________________
[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

4. What do you think are the strengths of community employment centres (i.e., what works well)?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

5. What do you think could be done, if anything, to improve the operation of community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

6. Can you think of other areas that could be addressed by CECs to better assist offenders in their attempts to find work?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. If yes, what are they? ________________________________________________

[30] No comment

7. Have you noted any effects of employment centres that you didn't expect (either negative or positive)?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Please describe:

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

8. What results did you expect at the beginning of the initiative?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

A. To what extent do you believe these results have been attained?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all

 

Somewhat

 

Very much


B. Please describe:

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

9. Has CORCAN experienced any difficulties in establishing community employment centres?

1 2 3 4 5

None

 

Some

 

Many

[20] Don't know

A. Please describe:

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

10. Has CORCAN experienced any difficulties in maintaining community employment centres?

1 2 3 4 5

None

 

Some

 

Many

[20] Don't know

A. Please describe:

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

11. Has there been any additional cost associated with the implementation or operation of community employment centres?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Please describe:

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

12. Do you have anything you would like to add?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

 

Thank you for your participation in this evaluation.

 

COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT CENTRES INTERVIEW EMPLOYMENT COUNSELLOR QUESTIONNAIRE

ID: ______________________________

Interview Date:____________________________

Interviewer: ______________________________

Name: ______________________________

Position: ______________________________

Province/Territory: _________________________

Site: ______________________________

Region: ______________________________

Is the site run by:

[1] CSC
[2] CSC Partner (e.g., John Howard, St. Leonard's, etc)

This study of Community Employment Centres is being conducted as part of the Effective Corrections Initiative evaluation. We are interested in obtaining information about offenders' use of CECs, types of services offered, etc. As part of this evaluation, we are interested in exploring areas functioning well, and those that if addressed, would contribute to a more effective functioning of the CECs.

We are requesting your participation in this survey, which includes questions about your awareness of community employment centres, your opinion on the effectiveness of the centres, your level of communication and collaboration with employment counsellors, and other questions. Your input is valuable in contributing to a better understanding of the functioning of the employment centres. This information will be considered, along with other participants (e.g., management, offenders, and parole officers), in identifying factors to be improved and best practices that may be shared with Corcan and other employment centres.

This on-line survey will take about one hour to complete. 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. Individual responses will be grouped to provide overall impressions for different issues.

Please contact Christa Gillis, Evaluation Manager in the Evaluation Branch, CSC at 613-995-9901 or by email at gillisca@csc-scc.gc.ca if you have any questions or comments about the survey or the procedure.

We would like to thank you in advance for participating in this important study. Your time and contributions are greatly appreciated.


SECTION A: REFERRAL

1. In your opinion, has there been an increase in referrals since the release of the revised Case Management Bulletin on Employment and Employability Program (EEP) issued on March 03, 2004?

1 2 3 4 5

No increase at all

 

Some increase

 

Significant increase

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

2. Describe the process by which offenders are referred to Community Employment Centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. How would you rate the effect of the referral process on offenders' use of the community employment centre?

1 2 3 4 5

Decrease in use

 

Neither decrease nor increase

 

Increase in use

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. How do offenders typically hear about the community employment centre? (check all apply)

[1] Institutional parole officer
[2] Community Residential Facility/Community Correctional Centre (CRF/CCC)
[3] Community parole officer
[4] Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO)
[5] Friend / acquaintance
[6] Another program
[7] Walk in
[8] Brochure
[9] Institutional Employment Advisor
[10] Volunteer(s)
[11] Job fair in the institution
[12] Other (specify): ______________________
[30] No comment

5. How would you rate the awareness of the following groups, generally, of community employment centres?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all aware   Somewhat aware   Extremely aware

[1] Offenders

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[2] Parole officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[3] Corcan supervisors

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[4] Programs staff

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[5] Reintegration officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[6] Social Program Officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[7] Management Services

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[8] District Directors

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[9] Other (please specify):___

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

6. How would you rate the awareness of the following groups of the Case Management Bulletin on Employment and Employability Program (EEP) issued on March 03, 2004?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all aware   Somewhat aware   Extremely aware

[1] Offenders

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[2] Parole officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[3] Corcan supervisors

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[4] Programs staff

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[5] Reintegration officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[6] Social Program Officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[7] Management Services

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[8] District Directors

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[9] Other (please specify): ___

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

7. Do you have any suggestions about how CSC can better inform institutional and community staff members about community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

8. What could be done, if anything, to improve offenders' use of employment centres? ____________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

SECTION B: ASSESSMENT

1. Is there an assessment process in place at your community employment centre?

[0] No
[1] Yes

A. Please describe/explain (applies to both responses):

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

2. To what extent are the following areas addressed in the assessment process?

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all   Somewhat   Very often

[1] Employment history

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[2] Institutional employment training

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[3] Other training

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[4] Education

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[5] Certification attained to date

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[6] Current employment status

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[7] Job readiness

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[8] Supports/resources for employment

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[9] Vocational interest

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[10] Areas for improvement

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[11] Attitudes toward work

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[12] Certification

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[13] Generic skills

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[14] Barriers to employment
(e.g., childcare, transportation, disability)

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[15] Other (please specify): ________

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. In your opinion, what are the main areas that should be explored in an employment assessment for offenders?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. Have you encountered any difficulties in conducting assessments?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[40] Not applicable - I do not conduct assessments

5. What types of difficulties have you encountered in doing assessments? (check all apply)

[1] Too time consuming
[2] Offenders are not interested
[3] Availability of assessment tools
[4] Frustration at lack of availability to follow up if needs are identified
[5] No difficulties
[6] Other (please specify): ________________________
[20] Don't know
[30] No comment
[40] Not applicable - I do not conduct assessments

6. What could be done, if anything, to improve the assessment process?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

7. Would you use a standard assessment tool for intake if it were available?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Why or why not?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

8. Do you have access to the Offender Management System (OMS)?

[0] No
[1] Yes

A. If no, would access to OMS help you in your job?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

B. Please explain:

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment 

9. Are you typically aware of the offence history of your clients?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[2] Only if the offender chooses to disclose

10. What types of strategies have you suggested to offenders for dealing with their incarceration record, time-lapses, etc. in a résumé and/or job interview?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

11. How would you rate the level of communication between yourself and the following groups, using the scale below?

1 2 3 4 5
No communication   Some communication   A lot of communication

[1] Institutional parole officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[2] Community parole officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[3] Reintegration officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[4] Institutional social program officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

12. How would you rate the level of collaboration between yourself and the following groups, using the scale below?

1 2 3 4 5
No collaboration   Some collaboration   A lot of collaboration

[1] Institutional parole officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[2] Community parole officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[3] Reintegration officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[4] Institutional social program officers

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

13. What do you think could be done, if anything, to improve the level of communication and collaboration between staff at institutions/parole offices and the CECs?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

14. Do you follow up with the parole offices about the offenders' assessments and services they used at the community employment centre?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all

 

Sometimes

 

Always

[30] No comment

15. What could be done, if anything, to facilitate follow-up between the parole office and CEC?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

SECTION C: EMPLOYMENT & PLACEMENT SERVICES

1. How would you rate the level of awareness of institutional parole officers of the specific types of services offered to offenders by the community employment centre?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all aware

 

Somewhat aware

 

Very aware

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

2. How would you rate the level of awareness of community parole officers of the specific types of services offered to offenders by the community employment centre?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all aware

 

Somewhat aware

 

Very aware

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. Do you think the current services adequately address offenders' employment needs?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all

 

Somewhat

 

Very much

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

A. Why or why not? _________________________________________________

[30] No comment

4. To what extent are the following employment services used at your employment centre? Please rate using the scale below:

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all   Somewhat   Very often

[1] Individual confidential employment counselling

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[2] Résumé writing

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[3] Job search

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[4] Interview preparation

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[5] Office resources (computers, internet job search, fax, phone)

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[6] Educational upgrading

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[7] Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS)

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[8] Aptitude and assessment testing

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[9] Counselling

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[10] Other (please specify): _____

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

5. What types of services would be most useful to meet offenders' needs?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

6. What could be done, if anything, to improve the effectiveness of services offered to offenders?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

7. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you think employment centres contribute to the following areas:

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all   Somewhat   Very much

[1] Preparing offenders to find work

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[2] Preparing offenders to keep work

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[3] Increasing offenders' confidence to find work

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[4] Increasing offenders' confidence to keep work

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[5] Increasing offenders' awareness of job search techniques

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[6] Increasing offenders' job placements

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[7] Increasing offenders' job readiness

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[8] Increasing access to support resources

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

[9] Other (please specify): ____________

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

8. What is the main type of training that offenders express interest in pursuing? ________________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

SECTION D: SUPPORT

1. Are you aware of community-based agencies or groups that could support your work with offenders in their attempts to find/keep work or pursue training?

[0] No
[1] Yes

A. If yes, which one(s)? (check all that apply)

[1] Elizabeth Fry Society
[2] St. Leonard's Society
[3] John Howard Society
[4] HRSDC (former HRDC)
[5] Other (please specify): ____________________
[30] No comment

2. Do you refer the offenders to these agencies for areas other than employment?

[0] No
[1] Yes

A. If so, when would you typically refer them and for what reasons? If not, why not?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. Have any difficulties been encountered in partnering with local employment agencies?

1 2 3 4 5

None

 

Some

 

Many

[20] Don't know

A. Please explain: ___________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. Are you aware of other local agencies that offer similar employment services?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Please describe:

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

B. Have you worked with them?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

C. In what capacity?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

D. Do offenders use any of these services?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

E. Please describe the services used?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

5. What have been your most useful partnerships to date, and how are they useful?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment [40] Not applicable - no partnerships developed

6. Can you think of any other partnerships that would facilitate your work as a community employment counsellor?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Please describe:

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

7. What do you think can be done by CSC to help you better reach out to community partners? ____________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

8. Do you have any suggestions on how to expand offenders' employment support network in the community?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

9. Do you use the services of volunteers?

[0] No
[1] Yes

A. If so, in what capacity? If not, why not?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

SECTION E: SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED FUNCTIONING OF CECs

1. What do you see as the primary role of community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

2. What do you think should be the main tasks of an employment counsellor?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

A. Does this list differ from your current tasks?

[0] No
[1] Yes

B. If yes, how? _________________________________________________

[30] No comment

3. If you had more time and/or resources, what other areas would you like to address that would better assist offenders in their attempts to find work? (check all that apply)

[1] Develop a database of employers
[2] Job readiness programming
[3] Peer support employment counselling
[4] Better linkage with community resources and agencies
[5] Other (please specify): ________________________________
[20] Don't know
[30] No comment

4. What do you think are the strengths of community employment centres (i.e., what works well)?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

5. What do you think could be done, if anything, to improve the operation of community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

6. Can you think of other areas that could be addressed by CECs to better assist offenders in their attempts to find work?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. If yes, what are they?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

7. Have you noted any effects of employment centres that you didn't expect (either negative or positive)?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Please describe:

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

8. Do you have anything you would like to add?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

 

Thank you for your participation in this evaluation.

 

COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT CENTRES INTERVIEW INSTITUTIONAL PAROLE OFFICERS

SECTION A: REFERRAL

1. Is there a referral process for employment centres in place at the institution?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

2. Describe the process by which offenders are referred to Community Employment Centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. In your opinion, how could the referral process be improved?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. How would you rate the awareness of Parole Officers, generally, of community employment centres?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all aware

 

Somewhat aware

 

Extremely aware

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

5. How would you rate the awareness of Parole Officers, generally, of the Case Management Bulletin on Employment and Employability Program (EPP) issued on March 03, 2004?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all aware

 

Somewhat aware

 

Extremely aware

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

6. Do you have any suggestions about how CSC can better inform parole officers about community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

7. What could be done, if anything, to improve offenders' use of employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

8. Do you encourage offenders to use community employment centres?

[0] No
[1] Yes

A. Why or why not? ________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

SECTION B: ASSESSMENT

Not applicable for this survey

 

SECTION C: EMPLOYMENT & PLACEMENT SERVICES

1. How would you rate your level of awareness of the specific types of services offered to offenders by the community employment centre?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all aware

 

Somewhat aware

 

Very aware

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

2. What are the services offered at community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. In your opinion, do the current services adequately address offenders' employment needs?

[1] Yes
[2] No
[20] Don't know

A. Why or why not?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

4. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you think employment centres contribute to the following areas:

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all   Somewhat   Very much

[1] Preparing offenders to find work

1 2 3 4 5

[2] Preparing offenders to keep work

1 2 3 4 5

[3] Increasing offenders' confidence to find work

1 2 3 4 5

[4] Increasing offenders' confidence to keep work

1 2 3 4 5

[5] Increasing offenders' awareness of job search techniques

1 2 3 4 5

[6] Increasing offenders' job placements

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Increasing offenders' job readiness

1 2 3 4 5

[8] Increasing access to support resources

1 2 3 4 5

[9] Other (please specify): ________________________

1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

5. What could be done, if anything, to improve the effectiveness of services offered to offenders?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

SECTION D: SUPPORT

1. Do you have any suggestions on how to expand offenders' employment support network in the community?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

SECTION E: SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED FUNCTIONING OF CECs

1. What do you see as the primary role of community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

2. In your opinion, what should be the main tasks of an employment counsellor?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. In your opinion, what are the strengths of community employment centre (i.e., what works well)?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. In your opinion, what could be done to improve the operation of community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

5. In your opinion, are there other areas that could be addressed by CECs to better assist offenders in their attempts to find and keep work?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. If yes, what are they?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

6. Do you have anything you would like to add?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

 

Thank you for your participation in this evaluation.

 

COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT CENTRES INTERVIEW COMMUNITY PAROLE OFFICERS

 

SECTION A: REFERRAL

1. Is there a referral process for employment centres in place at the parole office?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

2. Describe the process by which offenders are referred to Community Employment Centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. In your opinion, how could the referral process be improved?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. How would you rate the impact of the referral process on offenders' use of the community employment centre?

1 2 3 4 5

No impact at all

 

Some impact

 

Significant impact

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

5. How would you rate the awareness of Parole Officers, generally, of community employment centres?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all aware

 

Somewhat aware

 

Extremely aware

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

6. How would you rate the awareness of Parole Officers, generally, of the Case Management Bulletin on Employment and Employability Program (EPP) issued on March 03, 2004?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all aware

 

Somewhat aware

 

Extremely aware

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

7. Do you have any suggestions about how CSC can better inform parole officers about community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

8. What could be done, if anything, to improve offenders' use of employment centres? _______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

9. Do you encourage offenders to use community employment centres?

[0] No
[1] Yes

A. Why or why not? __________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

SECTION B: ASSESSMENT

1. Are you typically consulted by the community employment counsellor regarding employment assessment and/or services for offenders?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all

 

Sometimes

 

Always

A. Please indicate which areas of assessment you are typically consulted for:

[1] Employment history

1 2 3 4 5

[2] Institutional employment training

1 2 3 4 5

[3] Other training

1 2 3 4 5

[4] Education

1 2 3 4 5

[5] Certification attained to date

1 2 3 4 5

[6] Current employment status

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Job readiness

1 2 3 4 5

[8] Supports/resources for employment

1 2 3 4 5

[9] Vocational interest

1 2 3 4 5

[10] Areas for improvement

1 2 3 4 5

[11] Attitudes toward work

1 2 3 4 5

[12] Certification

1 2 3 4 5

[13] Generic skills

1 2 3 4 5

[14] Barriers to employment (e.g., childcare, transportation, disability)

1 2 3 4 5

[15] Other (please specify): ______________

1 2 3 4 5

[30] No comment

2. Do you feel that your input is used by the employment counsellor?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all

 

Sometimes

 

Always

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. How would you rate the level of communication between yourself and the community employment centre counsellor?

1 2 3 4 5

No Communication

 

Some Communication

 

Excellent Communication

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. How would you rate the level of collaboration between yourself and the community employment centre counsellor?

1 2 3 4 5

No Collaboration

 

Some Collaboration

 

Excellent Collaboration

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

5. In your opinion, what could be done, if anything, to improve the level of communication and collaboration between parole officers and CECs?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

SECTION C: EMPLOYMENT & PLACEMENT SERVICES

1. How would you rate your level of awareness of the specific types of services offered to offenders by the community employment centre?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all aware

 

Somewhat aware

 

Very aware

[30] No comment

2. What are the services offered at community employment centres? _____________________________________________________

3. In your opinion, do the current services adequately address offenders' employment needs?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Why or why not? ___________________________________________________

[30] No comment

4. Do you follow up with offenders regarding the services they were offered at the community employment centre?

1 2 3 4 5

Never

 

Sometimes

 

Always

[30] No comment

5. Do you follow up with the employment counsellor about the services they provide to offenders at the community employment centre?

1 2 3 4 5

Never

 

Sometimes

 

Always

[30] No comment

6. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you think employment centres contribute to the following areas:

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all   Somewhat   Very much

[1] Preparing offenders to find work

1 2 3 4 5

[2] Preparing offenders to keep work

1 2 3 4 5

[3] Increasing offenders' confidence to find work

1 2 3 4 5

[4] Increasing offenders' confidence to keep work

1 2 3 4 5

[5] Increasing offenders' awareness of job search techniques

1 2 3 4 5

[6] Increasing offenders' job placements

1 2 3 4 5

[7] Increasing offenders' job readiness

1 2 3 4 5

[8] Increasing access to support resources

1 2 3 4 5

[9] Other (please specify): ________________________
1 2 3 4 5

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

7. What could be done, if anything, to improve the effectiveness of services offered to offenders?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

SECTION D: SUPPORT

1. Are you aware of community-based agencies or groups that support employment counsellors' work with offenders in their attempts to find/keep work or pursue training?

[0] No
[1] Yes

A. If yes, which one(s)?

[1] Elizabeth Fry Society
[2] St. Leonard's Society
[3] John Howard Society
[4] Other (please specify): _______________
[30] No comment

2. In your opinion, what can be done by CSC to help employment centres better reach out to community partners?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. Do you have any suggestions on how to expand offenders' employment support network in the community?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

SECTION E: SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED FUNCTIONING OF CECs

1. What do you see as the primary role of community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

2. In your opinion, what should be the main tasks of an employment counsellor? _____________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. In your opinion, what are the strengths of community employment centre (i.e., what works well)?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

4. In your opinion, what could be done to improve the operation of community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

5. In your opinion, are there other areas that could be addressed by CECs to better assist offenders in their attempts to find work?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. If yes, what are they?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

6. Do you have anything you would like to add?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

 

Thank you for your participation in this evaluation.

 

COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT CENTRES INTERVIEW OFFENDERS - administered by Employment Counsellors  

 

Instructions for Administration of Survey to Offenders

Instructions to Employment Counsellors and Institutional Staff:

This study of Community Employment Centres is being conducted as part of the Effective Corrections Initiative evaluation. We are interested in obtaining information about offenders' use of CECs, types of services offered, etc. As part of this evaluation, we are interested in exploring areas functioning well, and those that if addressed, would contribute to a more effective functioning of the CECs.

The following questionnaire addresses offenders' awareness and use of CECs, and their community employment needs. We are requesting your assistance in completing this on-line survey with offenders, which will take about 20 minutes. In the community, we would like you to administer the survey to all offenders who use the employment centres over a one month period (from mid-to end of November through mid-to end of December).

Instructions to Offenders:

We are requesting your participation in this survey, which explores your community employment needs and your awareness and use of community employment centres. The information you provide will be used to provide feedback to Corcan to gain a better understanding of what would help offenders find and keep work in the community.

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. Individual responses will be grouped to provide overall impressions for different issues.

Please contact Christa Gillis, Evaluation Manager in the Evaluation Branch, CSC at 613-995-9901 or by email at gillisca@csc-scc.gc.ca if you have any questions or comments about the survey or the procedure.

We would like to thank you in advance for participating in this important study. Your time and contributions are greatly appreciated.


SECTION A: REFERRAL

1. How did you hear about the community employment centres?

[1] Institutional parole officer
[2] Community Residential Facility/Community Correctional Centre (CRF/CCC)
[3] Community parole officer
[4] Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO)
[5] Friend / acquaintance
[6] Another program
[7] Walk in
[8] Brochure
[9] Institutional Employment Advisor
[10] Volunteer(s)
[11] Job fair in the institution
[12] Other (specify): ______________________

2. Do you have any suggestions about how CSC can better inform offenders about community employment centres? _____________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

3. What could be done, if anything, to improve offenders' use of community employment centres?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

SECTION B: ASSESSMENT

Not applicable for your survey

SECTION C: EMPLOYMENT & PLACEMENT SERVICES

1. Which of the following services, offered at CECs, have you used?

[1] Individual confidential employment counselling
[2] Résumé writing
[3] Job search
[4] Interview preparation
[5] Office resources (computers, internet job search, fax, phone)
[6] Educational upgrading
[7] Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS)
[8] Aptitude and assessment testing
[9] Counselling
[10] Other (please specify): __________________________
[11] I have never used CEC services

2. Which of the following services, offered at CECs, would you use?

[1] Individual confidential employment counselling
[2] Résumé writing
[3] Job search
[4] Interview preparation
[5] Office resources (computers, internet job search, fax, phone)
[6] Educational upgrading
[7] Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS)
[8] Aptitude and assessment testing
[9] Counselling
[10] Other (please specify): __________________________

3. What types of services would best address your employment needs?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

 

SECTION D: SUPPORT

1. What kind of employment supports (e.g., resources, programs, support group, etc.) would help you most in the community?

______________________________________________________

[20] Don't know [30] No comment

SECTION E: SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED FUNCTIONING OF CECs

1. In your opinion, are there other areas that could be addressed by CECs to better assist offenders in their attempts to find work?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. If yes, what are they?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

2. Do you think that using CEC services will increase your confidence to find a job (or keep a job)?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Please describe/explain (applies to all responses):

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

3. Do you think that using CEC services will increase your awareness of job search technique?

[0] No
[1] Yes
[20] Don't know

A. Please describe/explain (applies to all responses):

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

4. Do you have anything you would like to add?

______________________________________________________

[30] No comment

 

Thank you for your participation in this evaluation.

 

Appendix C: Site Selection

 

A convenience sample will be selected for the evaluation component of the study, focusing primarily on community employment centres in urban areas, for ease of travel, access to Regional Headquarters, and cost-effectiveness.

Community Employment Centres

Moncton
Halifax
Laval
Montreal
Toronto
Saskatoon
Calgary
Vancouver

Regional Headquarters

RHQ Atlantic (Moncton)
RHQ Quebec (Laval)
RHQ Ontario (Kingston)
RHQ Prairies (Saskatoon)
RHQ Pacific (Abbotsford)

Parole Offices

Moncton
Halifax
Laval
Montreal
Kingston
Saskatoon
Vancouver

 

Appendix D: Data Tables

 

Table 1 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
What do you see as the primary role of community employment centres?

24

 

26

 

58

 

84

 

Coordinator of offenders' employment

5

21%

5

19%

45

78%

0

0%

Help develop career plans/employment goals

4

17%

6

23%

2

3%

0

0%

Assist offenders with upgrading/ programming/ training

1

4%

2

8%

19

33%

27

32%

Employment readiness assessment/help with identifying strengths and weakness

3

13%

8

31%

11

19%

1

1%

Referrals to employment-based programs

0

0%

4

15%

4

7%

0

0%

Employability training

4

17%

4

15%

3

5%

0

0%

Job preparation/ maintenance (resume writing, job search, interview skills & etc.)

14

58%

16

62%

21

36%

75

89%

Community outreach with potential employers

2

8%

3

12%

7

12%

7

8%

Facilitate reintegration

10

42%

3

12%

1

2%

0

0%

Develop positive relationships with offenders

4

17%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Provide support/ follow-up/ motivation/ counseling/ information

3

13%

0

0%

7

12%

13

15%

Don't use CECs / Not a necessity

0

0%

0

0%

2

3%

1

1%

 

Table 2 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers

What do you think are the strengths of community employment centres?

24

 

22

 

26

 

30

 

Help establish priorities with offenders

2

8%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

Will sometimes provide financial support to offenders

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

Knowledge base / expertise

3

13%

3

14%

5

19%

8

27%

Client-focused services/ commitment

18

75%

6

27%

3

12%

0

0%

Partnerships/ network system

4

17%

9

41%

12

46%

7

23%

Resources available/ accessibility to information & counsellors

8

33%

9

41%

3

12%

6

20%

Acceptance of and provides a non-threaten environment for offenders / Non-CSC

5

21%

8

36%

0

0%

1

3%

Job preparation

0

0%

3

14%

8

31%

0

0%

Support/ assistance / counsel / encouragement/ one-on-one/ follow-up

0

0%

3

14%

2

8%

5

17%

Good communication

2

8%

0

0%

4

15%

0

0%

Training opportunities/ resources (e.g. safety training) / identify skills

0

0%

0

0%

3

12%

3

10%

Community partnerships/ linkages & contact with community for offenders

0

0%

0

0%

4

15%

2

7%

Assessment & referrals capabilities as required

0

0%

0

0%

2

8%

0

0%

Hands-on approach

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

Their success / All good

0

0%

2

9%

0

0%

1

3%

 

Table 3 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
What do you think could be done, if anything, to improve the operation of community employment centres?

20

 

23

 

30

 

40

 

Communication (all parties)

1

5%

5

22%

4

13%

0

0%

Consistency/ staff stability to ensure continuity/ dedicated liaison staff

0

0%

2

9%

4

13%

0

0%

Better linkages with communities/ outreach with potential employers

4

20%

10

43%

3

10%

6

15%

Additional resources

12

60%

12

52%

7

23%

5

13%

Research on outcome/ results - accountability

1

5%

5

22%

0

0%

0

0%

Long-term commitment from CSC

0

0%

3

13%

0

0%

0

0%

Access to assessment tools / OMS

1

5%

2

9%

0

0%

0

0%

More in-reach/ increase awareness & visibility (both with staff & offenders)

0

0%

3

13%

3

10%

19

48%

More programming/ specific training

3

15%

0

0%

3

10%

0

0%

Additional employment services/ location (e.g. for women offenders, geographic area)

0

0%

1

4%

2

7%

4

10%

Job bank/ database of potential employers

0

0%

0

0%

3

10%

0

0%

More job preparation (e.g. personal skills building, etc.)

0

0%

0

0%

2

7%

0

0%

More specialized & diverse counsellors/ staff

0

0%

0

0%

2

7%

5

13%

Job training pool

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

0

0%

Increase funding access (e.g. loans, grants, etc.)

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

0

0%

Better collaboration between all parties (CEC, CSC, local agencies, etc.)

0

0%

3

13%

2

7%

1

3%

Increase importance of employment (vs. correctional programming)

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

2

5%

Pay bonus to employee for each successful placement

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

Right type of placement

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

8

20%

Better staff attitude

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

Make it mandatory for parolee to attend

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

Provide additional information about resources available (e.g. education, etc.)

0

0%

0

0%

3

10%

1

3%

Support/ follow-up/ motivation/ one-on-one

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

5

13%

Good as is

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

0

0%

 

Table 4 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
What could be done, if anything, to improve the effectiveness of services offered to offenders?

20

 

19

 

25

 

50

 

Better job preparation/ assessments/ hands-on approach

1

5%

4

21%

1

4%

0

0%

Better job maintenance and follow-up

0

0%

6

32%

3

12%

5

10%

Ensure that referral is recorded in OMS

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

More resources (money, staff, materials, transportation)

14

70%

8

42%

3

12%

4

8%

Access to potential employers/job database

2

10%

6

32%

8

32%

0

0%

Third party certifications/ training opportunities

5

25%

2

11%

4

16%

0

0%

Adjust program requirements/ expectations

1

5%

1

5%

1

4%

0

0%

Increase offenders' awareness

1

5%

3

16%

1

4%

18

36%

Good as is

1

5%

0

0%

1

4%

1

2%

Treat them like regular community members

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

2

4%

Avoid duplication of services

0

0%

0

0%

2

8%

0

0%

Wage subsidy for difficult workers

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

0

0%

Collaboration between CSC, CEC & employers

0

0%

0

0%

2

8%

0

0%

Increase communication (CEC, parole office, CRF, CMT)

0

0%

0

0%

3

12%

1

2%

Improve CEC staff attitude

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

0

0%

Focus on skills/experiences, not criminal history

0

0%

0

0%

2

8%

0

0%

Simplify process/less bureaucracy

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

2

4%

Upon release, put offender in direct contact with OPEX, CEC

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

2%

Additional and more accessible services (in all cities, for aboriginal, adult upgrading, etc.)

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

5

10%

On site employment counsellor/ liaison officer/have a presence in institution

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

5

10%

Link between community & institution (start process before release)

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

12

24%

Offender needs to be responsible and involved

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

3

6%

 

Table 5 Offenders
In your opinion, are there other areas that could be addressed by CECs to better assist offenders in their attempts to find work?

41

100%

No

6

15%

Yes

21

51%

Don't know

14

34%

If yes, what are they?

21

 

Have list of employment opportunities (full-time)/paid work placements

6

29%

Institutional preparation (work on resume before release)

1

5%

More training (e.g. computer, upgrading, job development, drivers' ed, etc.)

8

38%

List of offender-friendly employers/outreach to potential employers

3

14%

Access to internet

1

5%

Transportation

1

5%

Additional funding (for education & training)

1

5%

Liaison person between offenders & employers

2

10%

Build on skills/confidence

1

5%

More job search tools

1

5%

Tailor services according to employment records

1

5%

Increase offender awareness

1

5%

 

Table 6 Employment Counsellors Management
In your opinion, has there been an increase in referrals since the release of the revised Case Management Bulletin on Employment and Employability Program (EEP) issued on March 03, 2004?

24

100%

25

100%

No/Little

8

33%

10

40%

Somewhat

6

25%

7

28%

Significant

3

13%

3

12%

Don't know

7

29%

5

20%

No comment

0

0%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

Mean

2.4

  2.4  

 

Table 7 Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
How would you rate the awareness of Parole Officers, generally, of the Case Management Bulletin on Employment and Employability Program (EPP) issued on March 03, 2004?

70

100%

85

100%

Not at all aware

31

44%

44

52%

Somewhat aware

24

34%

25

29%

Extremely aware

7

10%

11

13%

Don't know

7

10%

5

6%

No comment

1

1%

0

0%

Mean

2.5

  2.8  

 

Table 8 Employment Counsellors Offenders
How do offenders typically hear about the community employment centre?

24

 

40

 

Institutional parole officer

17

71%

8

20%

Institutional staff

0

0%

1

3%

Community Residential Facility/Community Correctional Centre (CRF/CCC)

22

92%

9

23%

Community parole officer

20

83%

17

43%

Nongovernmental Organizations (NGO)

11

46%

0

0%

Friend / acquaintance

18

75%

2

5%

Another program

12

50%

0

0%

Walk in

12

50%

1

3%

Brochure

15

63%

0

0%

Institutional Employment Advisor

15

63%

4

10%

Volunteer(s)

7

29%

0

0%

Job fair in the institution

16

67%

1

3%

Other

3

13%

13

33%

 

Table 9 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
Describe the process by which offenders are referred to Community Employment Centres?

19

 

22

 

48

 

25

 

Institutions (e.g. AWCP)

8

42%

4

18%

0

0%

1

4%

Halfway houses

8

42%

1

5%

2

4%

0

0%

CP/CPPR/CS/ OIAEP

2

11%

5

23%

5

10%

5

20%

Parole officers (institution & community)

15

79%

10

45%

20

42%

9

36%

Program board

4

21%

3

14%

5

10%

0

0%

Employment centres- Employment Coordinator/ Counsellor (in institutions/in-reach)

4

21%

7

32%

16

33%

11

44%

Social services

2

11%

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

Outreach activities

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Elders

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

EEP referral form

1

5%

0

0%

2

4%

2

8%

National Parole Board (NPB)

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

OMRB

0

0%

0

0%

5

10%

0

0%

Community agencies (e.g. JHS, St. Leonards)

0

0%

0

0%

6

13%

2

8%

OMS Referrals

0

0%

0

0%

4

8%

1

4%

Other

7

37%

3

14%

0

0%

0

0%

 

Table 10 Employment Counsellors Management
How would you rate the effect of the referral process on offenders' use of the community employment centre?

23

100%

21

100%

Decrease

1

4%

2

10%

Neither

2

9%

4

19%

Increase

17

74%

12

57%

Don't know

3

13%

3

14%

No comment

0

0%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

Mean

4.1

  3.9  

 

Table 11 Community Parole Officers
How would you rate the impact of the referral process on offenders' use of the community employment centre?

70

100%

No impact at all

13

19%

Some Impact

32

46%

Significant Impact

12

17%

Don't know

9

13%

No comment

4

6%

Mean

2.9

 

 

Table 12 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
How would you rate the awareness of the following groups, generally, of community employment centres?

 

 

 

 

       
Offenders

24

100%

24

100%

 
Not at all

1

4%

3

13%

Somewhat

6

25%

6

25%

Extremely

17

71%

13

54%

Don't know

0

0%

2

8%

No comment

0

0%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

Mean

3.8

  3.6  
 
Parole Officers 24 100% 24 100% 70 100% 122 100%
Not at all 1 4% 1 4% 9 13% 43 35%
Somewhat 1 4% 3 13% 17 24% 48 39%
Extremely 22 92% 20 83% 43 61% 16 13%
Don't know 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% 13 11%
No comment 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 2%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 4.4   4.1   3.6   2.6  
 
Corcan Supervisors 24 100% 23 100%  
Not at all 2 8% 1 4%
Somewhat 5 21% 5 22%
Extremely 11 46% 10 43%
Don't know 6 25% 5 22%
No comment 0 0% 2 9%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 3.8   3.8  
 
Programs Staff 24 100% 24 100%  
Not at all 3 13% 4 17%
Somewhat 5 21% 5 21%
Extremely 13 54% 12 50%
Don't know 3 13% 2 8%
No comment 0 0% 1 4%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 3.8   3.7  
 
Reintegration Officers 22 100% 20 100%  
Not at all 2 9% 0 0%
Somewhat 3 14% 3 15%
Extremely 9 41% 6 30%
Don't know 7 32% 5 25%
No comment 1 5% 4 20%
Not applicable 0 0% 2 10%
Mean 3.7   3.7  
 
Social Program Officers 23 100% 22 100%  
Not at all 2 9% 3 14%
Somewhat 4 17% 4 18%
Extremely 7 30% 4 18%
Don't know 9 39% 6 27%
No comment 1 4% 5 23%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 3.5   3.2  
 
Management Services 24 100% 23 100%  
Not at all 7 29% 6 26%
Somewhat 4 17% 7 30%
Extremely 9 38% 5 22%
Don't know 4 17% 2 9%
No comment 0 0% 3 13%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 3.4   2.9  
 
District Directors 24 100% 23 100%  
Not at all 1 4% 1 4%
Somewhat 1 4% 3 13%
Extremely 20 83% 15 65%
Don't know 2 8% 2 9%
No comment 0 0% 1 4%
Not applicable 0 0% 1 4%
Mean 4.4   4.2  
 
Other (Provincial government & Non-government organization, CRF /CX Staff, Parole supervisors & etc.) 22 100% 20 100%  
Not at all 0 0% 2 10%
Somewhat 1 5% 1 5%
Extremely 5 23% 3 15%
Don't know 0 0% 0 0%
No comment 0 0% 1 15%
Not applicable 16 73% 13 65%
Mean 4.3   3.3  

 

Table 13 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
Do you have any suggestions about how CSC can better inform institutional and community staff members about community employment centres?

23

 

22

 

42

 

81

 

Training/ education/ resources material/ awareness

5

22%

8

36%

7

17%

32

40%

In-reach / tour of/visit at the local centres

18

78%

13

59%

0

0%

7

9%

Communication

5

22%

3

14%

0

0%

0

0%

Contact information/ resource list/liaison person/CEC representative

2

9%

3

14%

0

0%

2

2%

Increase information on CECs (e.g. package, website, etc.)

1

4%

1

5%

7

17%

31

38%

Consistency in staff/ designated contact at parole office (e.g. PO, CMS, EC)

1

4%

0

0%

5

12%

4

5%

Integrate Corcan in official programming

1

4%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Formal objective

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

Increase budget

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

Promotion through OMS

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

2

2%

Nothing required/are aware

0

0%

0

0%

8

19%

0

0%

CEC/Agencies Directory - Reference guide

0

0%

0

0%

6

14%

14

17%

Include in staff meetings/CEC person to present

0

0%

0

0%

12

29%

20

25%

Simplify process (e.g. no formal referral)

0

0%

0

0%

1

2%

0

0%

Should be handled in community, not institution

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

2

2%

 

Table 14 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers Offenders
What could be done, if anything, to improve offenders' use of employment centres?

20

 

21

 

36

 

67

 

18

 

Increase awareness/ additional information about CECs

12

60%

4

19%

7

19%

34

51%

3

17%

Increase resources/ additional staff

4

20%

6

29%

1

3%

0

0%

0

0%

Education for institutional staff

5

25%

4

19%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Automatic referral if offender is unemployed/ follow-up

1

5%

3

14%

4

11%

0

0%

0

0%

Increase institutional services

3

15%

4

19%

0

0%

0

0%

1

6%

Adjust program requirements/ expectations

0

0%

2

10%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Perception of CECs

2

10%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Expand geographical reach

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Sustainability/ continuity

1

5%

0

0%

1

3%

0

0%

0

0%

Computer kiosk/ telephone at sites for offenders' use

0

0%

0

0%

2

6%

4

6%

0

0%

Develop network of potential employers / outreach

2

10%

0

0%

1

3%

1

1%

0

0%

Improve referral process/ speed up the process

1

5%

2

10%

4

11%

0

0%

0

0%

Create incentive for offenders

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

0

0%

1

6%

Include in CPPR/ CS

0

0%

0

0%

2

6%

9

13%

0

0%

Improve services of CECs (e.g. training, employment, staff attitude)

0

0%

0

0%

2

6%

0

0%

2

11%

Accessibility/ provide transportation for offenders

0

0%

0

0%

3

8%

1

1%

0

0%

Involve halfway houses

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

0

0%

1

6%

Contact/ liaison person from CEC at each site

0

0%

0

0%

2

6%

16

24%

0

0%

Additional training for offenders (e.g. life skills)

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

0

0%

2

11%

Mandatory pre-release & post release programming with info on CEC

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

2

3%

0

0%

CEC/ OPEX representative at each site

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

3

4%

0

0%

Have people at CEC to guide offenders/ more user-friendly

0

0%

0

0%

2

6%

3

4%

0

0%

Encourage discussion with CPO at release /mandatory information session

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

3

4%

0

0%

ETAs to visit centres before release/ start process in institutions

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

2

3%

2

11%

Good as is

0

0%

0

0%

5

14%

4

6%

6

33%

It is the offender's responsibility

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

3

17%

 

Table 15 Offenders
Do you have any suggestions about how CSC can better inform offenders about community employment centres?

25

 

Through IPO before release

3

12%

Receive brochures/pamphlets of local CEC before release

1

4%

Include information in halfway houses' information packages

1

4%

Additional information in institution (e.g. info packages, bulletin boards, more eye-catching designs, etc.)

8

32%

Make CEC contact info available to inmates & IPOs

2

8%

Set up a mock CEC in institution

1

4%

Inform offenders / through Inmate Committees

5

20%

No suggestions

3

12%

Up to CPO to inform offenders at release

1

4%

Institutional visits

2

8%

Increase collaboration between IPO & CEC prior to release

1

4%

 

Table 16 Employment Counsellors Management
Is there an assessment process in place at your community employment centre?

24

100%

21

100%

No

1

4%

2

10%

Yes

23

96%

15

71%

Don't know

0

0%

4

19%

No comment

0

0%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

Please describe/explain (applies to both responses):

24

 

12

 

Gather background info/issues/future goals of offenders

14

58%

2

17%

Access to employment readiness grid/assessment tools

2

8%

1

8%

Use of Offender Intake Assessment Employment Profile (OIAEP)

4

17%

2

17%

Structured process

1

4%

3

25%

Results-reporting/back-end evaluation

6

25%

0

0%

Assessed as part of Correctional Treatment Plan/CS

0

0%

2

17%

Use of monthly reports

0

0%

1

8%

Assessments conducted by non-CSC staff

0

0%

2

17%

 

Table 17 Employment Counsellors Management
In your opinion, to what extent are the following areas addressed in the assessment process?

 

 

 

 

Employment History

24

100%

16

100%

Not at all

0

0%

0

0%

Somewhat

0

0%

0

0%

Very

23

96%

10

63%

Don't know

0

0%

1

6%

No comment

1

4%

4

25%

Not applicable

0

0%

1

6%

Mean

5.0

  4.8  
 
Institutional Employment Training 23 100% 16 100%
Not at all 0 0% 0 0%
Somewhat 1 4% 2 13%
Very 21 91% 8 50%
Don't know 0 0% 1 6%
No comment 1 4% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 1 6%
Mean 4.8   4.4  
 
Other Training 24 100% 16 100%
Not at all 0 0% 0 0%
Somewhat 0 0% 2 13%
Very 23 96% 7 44%
Don't know 1 4% 2 13%
No comment 0 0% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 1 6%
Mean 4.9   4.3  
 
Education 24 100% 16 100%
Not at all 0 0% 0 0%
Somewhat 0 0% 2 13%
Very 23 96% 8 50%
Don't know 1 4% 1 6%
No comment 0 0% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 1 6%
Mean 4.9   4.5  
 
Certification Attained to Date 24 100% 16 100%
Not at all 0 0% 0 0%
Somewhat 0 0% 2 13%
Very 22 92% 8 50%
Don't know 1 4% 1 6%
No comment 1 4% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 1 6%
Mean 4.9   4.5  
 
Current Employment Status 24 100% 15 100%
Not at all 0 0% 0 0%
Somewhat 0 0% 1 7%
Very 22 92% 8 53%
Don't know 1 4% 1 7%
No comment 1 4% 4 27%
Not applicable 0 0% 1 7%
Mean 5.0   4.7  
 
Job readiness 24 100% 16 100%
Not at all 0 0% 1 6%
Somewhat 1 4% 1 6%
Very 22 92% 8 50%
Don't know 0 0% 1 6%
No comment 1 4% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 1 6%
Mean 4.8   4.3  
 
Supports/Resources for Employment 24 100% 16 100%
Not at all 0 0% 1 6%
Somewhat 2 8% 1 6%
Very 21 88% 8 50%
Don't know 0 0% 1 6%
No comment 1 4% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 1 6%
Mean 4.7   4.4  
 
Vocational Interest 23 100% 16 100%
Not at all 0 0% 1 6%
Somewhat 0 0% 0 0%
Very 22 96% 7 44%
Don't know 0 0% 2 13%
No comment 1 4% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 2 13%
Mean 4.9   4.5  
 
Areas for Improvement 23 100% 16 100%
Not at all 2 9% 2 13%
Somewhat 2 9% 2 13%
Very 18 78% 5 31%
Don't know 0 0% 1 6%
No comment 1 4% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 2 13%
Mean 4.3   3.9  
 
Attitudes Toward Work 23 100% 16 100%
Not at all 0 0% 1 6%
Somewhat 1 4% 1 6%
Very 21 91% 7 44%
Don't know 0 0% 1 6%
No comment 1 4% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 2 13%
Mean 4.8   4.3  
 
Certification 23 100% 15 100%
Not at all 0 0% 0 0%
Somewhat 0 0% 2 13%
Very 19 83% 5 33%
Don't know 1 4% 1 7%
No comment 2 9% 5 33%
Not applicable 1 4% 2 13%
Mean 4.8   4.3  
 
Generic skills 24 100% 16 100%
Not at all 0 0% 0 0%
Somewhat 2 8% 2 13%
Very 21 88% 7 44%
Don't know 0 0% 1 6%
No comment 1 4% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 2 13%
Mean 4.7   4.3  
 
Barriers to employment 23 100% 16 100%
Not at all 1 4% 1 6%
Somewhat 0 0% 1 6%
Very 21 91% 7 44%
Don't know 0 0% 1 6%
No comment 1 4% 4 25%
Not applicable 0 0% 2 13%
Mean 4.7   4.4  
 
Other 23 100% 15 100%
Not at all 1 4% 0 0%
Somewhat 0 0% 0 0%
Very 10 43% 5 33%
Don't know 0 0% 1 7%
No comment 1 4% 4 27%
Not applicable 11 48% 5 33%
Mean 4.6   4.8  

 

Table 18 Employment Counsellors
In your opinion, what are the main areas that should be explored in an employment assessment for offenders?

23

 

Past history

14

61%

Future goals

8

35%

Job readiness

13

57%

Paperwork in order

5

22%

Vocational interests

5

22%

Barriers to employment

5

22%

Other need areas

6

26%

Attitudes toward work

9

39%

Crime history/release conditions

7

30%

 

Table 19 Employment Counsellors
Have you encountered any difficulties in conducting assessments?

24

100%

No

11

46%

Yes

11

46%

Don't know

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

Not applicable

2

8%

 

Table 20 Employment Counsellors
What types of difficulties have you encountered in doing assessments?

18

 

Too time consuming

4

22%

Offenders are not interested

7

39%

Availability of assessment tools

1

6%

Frustration at lack of availability to follow up if needs are identified

4

22%

No difficulties

4

22%

Release of information/confidentiality

3

17%

Information retrieving

1

6%

Lack of training tools

1

6%

Offenders' needs

1

6%

 

Table 21 Employment Counsellors Management
What could be done, if anything, to improve the assessment process?

16

 

13

 

Standardise assessment tools

4

25%

4

31%

Employment assessment should be done before release

4

25%

3

23%

Increase resources

2

13%

0

0%

Make assessment more flexible

2

13%

0

0%

Improve documentation gathering

0

0%

2

15%

Strengthen bridge between institution/community

0

0%

2

15%

More information sharing

0

0%

3

23%

Address barriers to employment

0

0%

2

15%

Good as is

5

31%

0

0%

 

Table 22 Employment Counsellors Management
Would you recommend the use of a standard assessment tool for intake if it were available?

24

100%

22

100%

No

5

21%

2

9%

Yes

13

54%

19

86%

Don't know

6

25%

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

1

5%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

 

Table 23 Employment Counsellors Management
Why or why not?

18

 

19

 

Ensure consistency and flexibility

5

28%

11

58%

Recognition of unique groups

2

11%

2

11%

Allow for results reporting/provide feedback for improvement

0

0%

4

21%

Have to keep focus of assessment tool on individual

3

17%

1

5%

More formal

1

6%

1

5%

More geared towards needs

0

0%

2

11%

Too many dimensions to be assessed for only one tool

1

6%

1

5%

Would be too structured

1

6%

0

0%

Open to it

4

22%

0

0%

Good as is

8

44%

0

0%

 

Table 24 Employment Counsellors
Would you use a standard assessment tool for intake if it were available?

23

100%

No

5

22%

Yes

12

52%

Don't know

6

26%

No comment

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

Why or why not? 18  

Ensure consistency and flexibility

5 28%

Recognition of unique groups (women, visible minority & etc.) - difficult to place in a standardise assessment

2 11%

Have to keep focus of assessment tool on individual

3 17%

Too many dimensions to be assessed for only one tool

1 6%

More formal

1 6%

Good as is

8 44%

Open to it

4 22%

Would be too structured

1 6%

 

Table 25 Employment Counsellors
Do you have access to the Offender Management System (OMS)?

24

100%

No

11

46%

Yes

13

54%

Don't know

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

If no, would access to OMS help you in your job? 17 100%

No

1 6%

Yes

12 71%

Don't know

3 18%

No comment

0 0%

Not applicable

1 6%
Please explain: 12  
Offender profile/history 7 58%
Offenders substance abuse history 1 8%
Follow-up on progress 2 17%
Recording of information 1 8%
Validate information given by offenders 4 33%
Access to release conditions 1 8%
Information would be available so more time with offenders 1 8%

 

Table 26 Employment Counsellors
Are you typically aware of the offence history of your clients?

24

100%

No

0

0%

Yes

23

96%

Only if the offender chooses to disclose

1

4%

 

Table 27 Employment Counsellors Management
How would you rate the level of communication between CECs and parole offices?

24

100%

23

100%

No

0

0%

3

13%

Some

0

0%

5

22%

A lot

23

96%

14

61%

Don't know

0

0%

1

4%

No comment

1

4%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

Mean 4.8   3.7  

 

Table 28 Employment Counsellors Management
How would you rate the level of collaboration between CECs and parole offices?

24

100%

23

100%

No

1

4%

4

17%

Some

0

0%

3

13%

A lot

22

92%

16

70%

Don't know

0

0%

0

0%

No comment

1

4%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

Mean 4.8   3.6  

 

Table 29 Employment Counsellors Management
How would you rate the level of communication between CECs and institutions?

24

100%

23

100%

No

6

25%

7

30%

Some

6

25%

6

26%

A lot

9

38%

1

4%

Don't know

1

4%

6

26%

No comment

2

8%

2

9%

Not applicable

0

0%

1

4%

Mean 3.3   2.5  

 

Table 30 Employment Counsellors Management
How would you rate the level of collaboration between CECs and institutions?

24

100%

23

100%

No

5

21%

8

35%

Some

7

29%

4

17%

A lot

10

42%

3

13%

Don't know

2

8%

6

26%

No comment

0

0%

1

4%

Not applicable

0

0%

1

4%

Mean 3.5   2.5  

 

Table 31 Community Parole Officers
Are you typically consulted by the community employment counsellor regarding employment assessment and/or services for offenders?

70

100%

Not at all

39

56%

Somewhat

11

16%

Extremely

20

29%

Means 2.5  
Please indicate which areas of assessment you are typically consulted for: 38  

Employment history

13 34%

Institutional employment training

8 21%

Other training

7 18%

Education

12 32%

Certification attained to date

3 8%

Current employment status

22 58%

Job readiness

22 58%

Supports/resources for employment

11 29%

Vocational interest

14 37%

Areas for improvement

11 29%

Attitudes toward work

22 58%

Certification

6 16%

Generic skills

10 26%

Barriers to employment (e.g., childcare, transportation, disability)

21 55%

ECRO List

1 3%

 

Table 32 Community Parole Officers
Do you feel that your input is used by the employment counsellor?

70

100%

Not at all

15

21%

Sometimes

10

14%

Always

28

40%

Don't Know

8

11%

No Comment

9

13%

Means 3.2  

 

Table 33 Community Parole Officers
How would you rate the level of communication between yourself and the community employment centre counsellor?

70

100%

No Communication

28

40%

Some Communication

13

19%

Excellent Communication

24

34%

Don't Know

2

3%

No Comment

3

4%

Means 2.8  

 

Table 34 Community Parole Officers
How would you rate the level of collaboration between yourself and the community employment centre counsellor?

70

100%

No Collaboration

26

37%

Some Collaboration

16

23%

Excellent Collaboration

22

31%

Don't Know

2

3%

No Comment

4

6%

Means 2.8  

 

Table 35 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers
What do you think could be done, if anything, to improve the level of communication and collaboration between staff at institutions/parole offices and the CECs?

24

 

22

 

35

 

Staff training/education/awareness sessions

5

21%

7

32%

0

0%

In-reach

16

67%

18

82%

12

34%

Attendance at meetings/conference calls/committees

4

17%

2

9%

1

3%

Increase community outreach

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

Communication of progress report/objectives/challenges

3

13%

4

18%

0

0%

Good as is

6

25%

2

9%

9

26%

Clarifications/information on role & services offered by CECs

0

0%

0

0%

6

17%

Contact person (real person, not automated)

0

0%

0

0%

4

11%

Simplify process (cut down paperwork, numerous reviews by "boards")

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

Formal liaison work/collaboration/information sharing

2

8%

0

0%

3

9%

Appropriate staffing level at both (PO & CEC)/more time

0

0%

0

0%

3

9%

Additional funding

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

Ensure continuity of services

0

0%

6

27%

1

3%

 

Table 36 Employment Counsellors
Do you follow up with the parole offices about the offenders' assessments and services they used at the community employment centre?

24

100%

Not at all

0

0%

Sometimes

2

8%

Always

22

92%

Don't know

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

Mean 4.7  
What could be done, if anything, to facilitate follow-up between the parole office and CEC? 19  

Have cell phone numbers of Parole office staff

1 5%

Good as is

9 47%

Access to Offender Management System (OMS)

3 16%

Update Reports of Automated Data Applied to Reintegration (RADAR) more regularly

1 5%

More in-reach

5 26%

Continuity of follow-up

3 16%

Take employment as seriously as other programs

1 5%

 

Table 37 Offenders
Which of the following services, offered at CECs, have you used?

38

 

Individual confidential employment counselling

20

53%

Résumé writing

22

58%

Job search

22

58%

Interview preparation

7

18%

Office resources (computers, internet job search, fax, phone)

11

29%

Educational upgrading

9

24%

Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS)

9

24%

Aptitude and assessment testing

4

11%

Counselling

7

18%

First aid/CPR/Safety training

4

11%

Assistance with work gear (e.g. work boots)

1

3%

I have never used CEC services

4

11%

 

Table 38 Offenders
Which of the following services, offered at CECs, would you use?

41

 

Individual confidential employment counselling

25

61%

Résumé writing

29

71%

Job search

30

73%

Interview preparation

23

56%

Office resources (computers, internet job search, fax, phone)

26

63%

Educational upgrading

21

51%

Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS)

17

41%

Aptitude and assessment testing

12

29%

Counselling

18

44%

All services available

2

5%

Training opportunities (e.g. employment, safety, etc.)

4

10%

None

1

2%

 

Table 39 Employment Counsellors
To what extent are the following employment services used at your employment centre? Please rate using the scale below:

 

 

Individual Confidential Employment Counselling

24

100%

Not at all

0

0%

Somewhat

0

0%

Very

24

100%

Don't know

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

Mean

5.0

 
 
Résumé Writing

24

100%

Not at all

1

4%

Somewhat

0

0%

Very

23

96%

Don't know

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

Mean 4.8  
 
Job Search

24

100%

Not at all

0

0%

Somewhat

0

0%

Very

24

100%

Don't know

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

Mean 4.9  
 
Interview Preparation

24

100%

Not at all

1

4%

Somewhat

5

21%

Very

18

75%

Don't know

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

Mean 4.3  
 
Office resources 24 100%
Not at all 0 0%
Somewhat 1 4%
Very 23 96%
Don't know 0 0%
No comment 0 0%
Not applicable 0 0%
Mean 4.9  
 
Educational Upgrading 21 100%
Not at all 4 19%
Somewhat 2 10%
Very 14 67%
Don't know 0 0%
No comment 1 5%
Not applicable 0 0%
Mean 3.7  
 
Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) 23 100%
Not at all 13 57%
Somewhat 2 9%
Very 7 30%
Don't know 0 0%
No comment 0 0%
Not applicable 1 4%
Mean 2.4  
 
Aptitude and Assessment Testing 23 100%
Not at all 9 39%
Somewhat 5 22%
Very 8 35%
Don't know 0 0%
No comment 1 4%
Not applicable 0 0%
Mean 2.9  
 
Counselling 23 100%
Not at all 0 0%
Somewhat 0 0%
Very 22 96%
Don't know 0 0%
No comment 0 0%
Not applicable 1 4%
Mean 5.0  
 
Other (Help with ID/Materials, transportation, certification/training & referral) 20 100%
Not at all 0 0%
Somewhat 1 5%
Very 8 40%
Don't know 0 0%
No comment 0 0%
Not applicable 11 55%
Mean 4.7  

 

Table 40 Offenders
What types of services would best address your employment needs?

31

 

CSC having connections with potential employers/ability to make recommendations

2

6%

Additional information (e.g. on CECs, about educational upgrading/training opportunities, etc.)

6

19%

Job preparation (e.g. resume writing, job search, interview skills, etc.)

7

23%

Availability of office resrouces (e.g. fax, phone, internet, etc.)

4

13%

Aptitude and assessment testing

1

3%

Assistance with transportation/getting work supplies (e.g. work boots, etc.)

4

13%

Motivation

1

3%

Certificates (e.g. WHMIS)/computer and on-the-job training

7

23%

Job bank/database

4

13%

Good as is

2

6%

 

Table 41 Employment Counsellors
What is the main type of training that offenders express interest in pursuing?

23

 

Construction

6

26%

Labour

11

48%

Food services industry

1

4%

Apprenticeship

6

26%

Computer skills

4

17%

Safety training

5

22%

Education upgrading

6

26%

Trades

9

39%

Job readiness/preparation

1

4%

Administrative jobs

1

4%

 

Table 42 Employment Counsellors Community Parole Officers
How would you rate the level of awareness of community parole officers of the specific types of services offered to offenders by the community employment centre?

24

100%

70

100%

Not at all

0

0%

20

29%

Somewhat

1

4%

26

37%

Very

23

96%

24

34%

Don't know

0

0%

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

Mean 4.6   3.0  

 

Table 43 Employment Counsellors Institutional Parole Officers
How would you rate the level of awareness of institutional parole officers of the specific types of services offered to offenders by the community employment centre?

24

100%

122

100%

Not at all

7

29%

65

53%

Somewhat

12

50%

35

29%

Very

5

21%

13

11%

Don't know

0

0%

4

3%

No comment

0

0%

5

4%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

Mean 3.0   2.3  

 

Table 44 Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
What are the services offered at community employment centres?

43

 

56

 

Job readiness programs/job preparation assistance

33

77%

37

66%

Training/certification/educational upgrading

21

49%

21

38%

Job opportunities/placement/job search

34

79%

43

77%

Identification of strengths & weaknesses

1

2%

0

0%

Follow-up

2

5%

1

2%

Assessment of need areas/skills/aptitude testing

6

14%

8

14%

Computer & internet access/training

11

26%

7

13%

Partnerships with community agencies/job subsidy for employers

6

14%

6

11%

Employment & vocational counselling

6

14%

13

23%

Referrals to other community agencies

3

7%

2

4%

Funding (e.g. for work boots, etc.)

2

5%

3

5%

 

Table 45 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you think employment centres contribute to the following areas:

 

 

 

 

       
Preparing offenders to find work

24

100%

24

100%

70 100% 122 100%
Not at all

0

0%

2

8%

13 19% 5 4%
Somewhat

1

4%

2

8%

8 11% 24 20%
Very

23

96%

19

79%

17 24% 20 16%
Don't know

0

0%

1

4%

16 23% 38 31%
No comment

0

0%

0

0%

16 23% 35 29%
Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

0 0% 0 0%
Mean

4.8

  4.1   3.1   3.4  
 
Preparing offenders to keep work 24 100% 24 100% 70 100% 122 100%
Not at all 1 4% 3 13% 22 31% 22 18%
Somewhat 5 21% 10 42% 13 19% 20 16%
Very 18 75% 8 33% 3 4% 7 6%
Don't know 0 0% 3 13% 16 23% 38 31%
No comment 0 0% 0 0% 16 23% 35 29%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 4.4   3.2   2.3   2.5  
 
Increasing offenders' confidence to find work 24 100% 24 100% 70 100% 122 100%
Not at all 0 0% 2 4% 14 20% 12 10%
Somewhat 0 0% 1 22% 12 17% 21 17%
Very 24 100% 20 43% 12 17% 16 13%
Don't know 0 0% 1 22% 16 23% 38 31%
No comment 0 0% 0 9% 16 23% 35 29%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 4.8   4.1   2.8   3.1  
 
Increasing offenders' confidence to keep work 24 100% 23 100% 70 100% 122 100%
Not at all 0 0% 2 9% 18 26% 22 18%
Somewhat 4 17% 9 39% 13 19% 20 16%
Very 20 83% 10 43% 7 10% 7 6%
Don't know 0 0% 2 9% 16 23% 38 31%
No comment 0 0% 0 0% 16 23% 35 29%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 4.5   3.4   2.6   2.6  
 
Increasing offenders' awareness of job search techniques 24 100% 24 100% 70 100% 122 100%
Not at all 0 0% 2 8% 5 7% 3 2%
Somewhat 0 0% 1 4% 14 20% 17 14%
Very 24 100% 20 83% 19 27% 29 24%
Don't know 0 0% 1 4% 16 23% 38 31%
No comment 0 0% 0 0% 16 23% 35 29%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 4.9   4.4   3.4   3.7  
 
Increasing offenders' job placements 24 100% 24 100% 70 100% 122 100%
Not at all 0 0% 2 8% 11 16% 9 7%
Somewhat 2 8% 3 13% 19 27% 21 17%
Very 21 88% 18 75% 8 11% 19 16%
Don't know 0 0% 1 4% 16 23% 38 31%
No comment 1 4% 0 0% 16 23% 35 29%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 4.7   3.9   2.9   3.3  
 
Increasing offenders' job readiness 24 100% 23 100% 70 100% 122 100%
Not at all 0 0% 3 13% 15 21% 12 10%
Somewhat 2 8% 4 17% 13 19% 18 15%
Very 22 92% 14 61% 10 14% 19 16%
Don't know 0 0% 2 9% 16 23% 38 31%
No comment 0 0% 0 0% 16 23% 35 29%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 4.8   3.8   2.8   3.2  
 
Increasing access to support resources 24 100% 23 100% 70 100% 122 100%
Not at all 0 0% 1 4% 8 11% 7 6%
Somewhat 1 4% 3 13% 16 23% 17 14%
Very 23 96% 16 70% 14 20% 25 20%
Don't know 0 0% 3 13% 16 23% 38 31%
No comment 0 0% 0 0% 16 23% 35 29%
Not applicable 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Mean 4.7   4.0   3.2   3.5  

 

Table 46 Offenders
Do you think that using CEC services will increase your confidence to find a job (or keep a job)?

41

100%

No

6

15%

Yes

29

71%

Don't know

6

15%

Please describe/explain (applies to all responses):

24

 

This lies with the offender, not with the agencies or programs

3

13%

Giving offender the chance to update skills & be employable

3

13%

Good job preparation/tools/resources all in one location

5

21%

Accessibility of fax/phone

1

4%

More knowledge of work force/work market

4

17%

Provides good support/encouragement

8

33%

Provides training/certification opportunities

2

8%

Availability of list of offender-friendly employers

3

13%

Improves self-confidence & self-esteem

2

8%

No, the same could have been done through newspapers/phone book

1

4%

 

Table 47 Offenders
Do you think that using CEC services will increase your awareness of job search technique?

41

100%

No

12

29%

Yes

22

54%

Don't know

7

17%

Please describe/explain (applies to all responses):

22

 

No, can do it on own - job search is not the problem

5

23%

By networking, providing job contacts/leads

5

23%

Provides good support & encouragement (increases self-esteem)

3

14%

Increased knowledge of employment opportunities

1

5%

Learn different ways to search/apply

2

9%

Any help is good/increases awareness

3

14%

Teaches how to do resumes

2

9%

Availability of fax, phone for job search/application

1

5%

Not only a one-time service, can come back

1

5%

Good source of information

6

27%

 

Table 48 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
Do you think current services adequately address offenders' employment needs?

23

100%

19

100%

 

Not at all

1

4%

3

16%

Somewhat

2

9%

6

32%

Very

20

87%

10

53%

Don't know

0

0%

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

Mean

4.3

 

3.5

 
In your opinion, do the current services adequately address offenders' employment needs?  

70

100%

122

100%

No

17

24%

24

20%

Yes

30

43%

25

20%

Don't know

23

33%

73

60%

Why or why not?

22

 

19

 

31

 

34

 

Community employers database/ support system

3

14%

5

26%

8

26%

0

0%

Increase resources (funding/ staff/ transportation services)

7

32%

10

53%

1

3%

1

3%

Communication/ continuity

1

5%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

Expand in other geographic locations

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

Community outreach

1

5%

3

16%

0

0%

1

3%

Realistic objectives (i.e. taking criminal record into account)

2

9%

2

11%

3

10%

0

0%

Offer more training/ program support

5

23%

0

0%

3

10%

7

21%

Support from government for partnerships

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Time issues

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Earlier release

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Good as is

10

45%

4

21%

6

19%

9

26%

Only if offender is motivated

0

0%

0

0%

6

19%

7

21%

Duplication of services (CEC, CRF, other community agencies, etc.)

0

0%

0

0%

2

6%

0

0%

Services needed not offered (e.g. hands-on, resume, job application ,etc.)

0

0%

0

0%

3

10%

7

21%

Provides options for employment/ education

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

3

9%

Needs vocational/ training/ education/ skills prior to release

0

0%

1

5%

1

3%

4

12%

Program doesn't guarantee work

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

1

3%

 

Table 49 Community Parole Officers
Do you follow up with offenders regarding the services they were offered at the community employment centre?

70

100%

Never

8

11%

Sometimes

15

21%

Always

41

59%

No Comment

6

9%

Means 3.7  

 

Table 50 Community Parole Officers
Do you follow up with the employment counsellor about the services they provide to offenders at the community employment centre?

70

100%

Never

21

30%

Sometimes

21

30%

Always

19

27%

No Comment

9

13%

Means 2.9  

 

Table 51 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers
Are you aware of community-based agencies or groups that could support employment counsellors' work with offenders in their attempts to find/keep work or pursue training?

23

100%

23

100%

70

100%

No

1

4%

0

0%

20

29%

Yes

22

96%

23

100%

50

71%

Don't know

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

 

Table 52 Employment Counsellors
Do you refer the offenders to these agencies for areas other than employment?

22

100%

No

2

9%

Yes

20

91%

Don't know

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

If so, when would you typically refer them and for what reasons?

 

 

If not, why not?

17

 

Mental health

2

12%

Training

6

35%

Education

6

35%

Other need areas

6

35%

 

Table 53 Employment Counsellors Management
Have any difficulties been encountered in partnering with local employment agencies?

23

100%

23

100%

None

15

65%

11

48%

Some

2

9%

5

22%

Many

1

4%

4

17%

Don't know

2

9%

2

9%

No comment

3

13%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

1

4%

Mean 1.7   2.3  

 

Table 54 Employment Counsellors Management
Are you aware of other local agencies that offer similar employment services?

24

100%

21

100%

No

5

21%

5

24%

Yes

19

79%

12

57%

Don't know

0

0%

3

14%

No comment

0

0%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

1

5%

Have you worked with them?

23

100%

 

No

2

9%

Yes

20

87%

Don't know

0

0%

No comment

0

0%

Not applicable

1

4%

 

Table 55 Employment Counsellors Management
Can you think of any other partnerships that would facilitate the work of community employment counsellors?

23

100%

22

100%

No

5

22%

3

14%

Yes

16

70%

16

73%

Don't know

2

9%

3

14%

No comment

0

0%

0

0%

Not applicable

0

0%

0

0%

 

Table 56 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers
What do you think can be done by CSC to help CECs better reach out to community partners?

19

 

20

 

26

 

Community engagement/ communication/ awareness

11

58%

9

45%

6

23%

Maintain contact with employers

1

5%

2

10%

2

8%

Focus on identifying employment needs/issues at release

0

0%

3

15%

0

0%

Facilitate contracts

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

More resources (funding)

6

32%

7

35%

3

12%

Government should provide incentive for businesses

0

0%

1

5%

1

4%

Community/ provincial/ Aboriginal partnership

6

32%

8

40%

1

4%

CSC staff awareness/in reach

3

16%

0

0%

1

4%

NHQ follow-up with issues

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

Increase communication/ information sharing

2

11%

0

0%

4

15%

Presentations to local offices

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

Increase access to CECs (email, phone, etc.)

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

Include employment counsellors in CSC teams (increase sense of belonging)

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

Front line staff should do outreach

0

0%

0

0%

1

4%

Good as is

0

0%

0

0%

3

12%

Don't know what could be done

0

0%

0

0%

3

12%

 

Table 57 Employment Counsellors Management Community Parole Officers Institutional Parole Officers
Do you have any suggestions on how to expand offenders' employment support network in the community?

21

 

19

 

18

 

32

 

Communication/ awareness in institution and in the community/ in-reach

6

29%

3

16%

0

0%

14

44%

Use of volunteers

0

0%

2

11%

0

0%

0

0%

Community outreach - develop partnerships with potential employers

11

52%

8

42%

4

22%

9

28%

Direct appropriate people to job/ employers and involve PO/ follow-up/ job maintenance

1

5%

2

11%

1

6%

5

16%

Retain/ maintain existing programs/ initiatives

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

More resources (e.g. additional programming, apprenticeships)

8

38%

4

21%

5

28%

2

6%

Ethnic representation in staff

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

Accountability

0

0%

2

11%

0

0%

0

0%

Transportation

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

Family support

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

Increase importance of employment/ employability as treatment/ balance between programs and employment

0

0%

1

5%

1

6%

0

0%

Parole officers' focus on reintegration, not on risk

1

5%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Good as is

0

0%

3

16%

1

6%

0

0%

Integrate offenders as community members

0

0%

0

0%

1

6%

0

0%

Liaise with community partners/ public education

0

0%

0

0%

4

22%

0

0%

Improve work release programs to ensure continuity at release/on-the-job training

0

0%

0

0%

1

6%

2

6%

Staff member at every parole office dedicated to employment/ employability

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

3%

 

Table 58 Offenders
What kind of employment supports (e.g., resources, programs, support group, etc.) would help you most in the community?

27

 

None - ok as is

5

19%

"Temp" Services/help in securing employment

2

7%

More information/website

3

11%

Financial assistance (e.g. work gear, transportation, student loans, training with wages, etc.)

7

26%

Community outreach to potential employers

2

7%

Upgrading skills/safety training

2

7%

Job preparation (e.g. resume writing, interview skills, etc.)

1

4%

Access to office resources (e.g. fax, phone, etc.)

1

4%

Culturally-based programs

1

4%

Job bank/board

1

4%

Accessibility

1

4%

Support from community agencies/resources (e.g. JHS, Efry, newspapers, Canada Employment Centres, etc.)

3

11%

Employment Counsellors

1

4%

 

Appendix E: Corcan database variables

 

Variable Name

Admission date
Admitting institution
Admission type
Aggregated sentence
Current institution
Current institution from term
Offender current status
Birthdate
Day parole eligibility date
First name
FPS number
Sex
Preferred official language
Surname
Marital status
Need (overall)
Offender physical location
OID
Race
Religion
Release type
Risk (overall)
Security level
Sentence ID
Sub-sentence number
Sub-sub-sentence number
Term
Term release date
Warrant expiry date
Custody snapshot date 

 

Appendix F: List of Community Employment Centres24

 

Atlantic Region Ontario Region Prairies Region Pacific Region

John Howard Society

141 Weldon Street
Moncton, NB
E1C 8N8
(506) 852-4361

CORCAN Employment Services

Suite 1010, 180 Dundas St. W.
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1Z8
(416) 954-6375

 

Northern Alberta/NWT District

2 nd floor,
9530 - 101 st Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T5H 0B3
(780) 495 8686

B.C. Borstal Association - Job Placement Program

9 West Broadway
Vancouver, BC.
V5Y 1P1
(604) 879-3224

John Howard Society

68 Carleton Street
Saint John, NB
E2L 2Z4
(506) 643-2000

St-Leonard's Society of Hamilton

Suite 204
447 Main St. East
Hamilton, Ontario
L8N 1K1
(905) 526-7614

Southern Alberta District

Suite #311,
510, 12 th Ave. S.W.
Calgary, Alberta
T2R 0H3
(403) 292- 5589

Okanagan Halfway House Society - Project Newstart

1822 Chandler Street
Kelowna, B.C.
V1Y 3Z1
(250) 860-9963

Community Care Network Society

2425 Maynard Street
Halifax, NS
B3K 3V2
(902) 453-2498

 

 

Saskatchewan District

Suite #601
230, 22 nd Street East
Saskatoon, Sask.
S7K 0E9
(306) 975-6604

Prince George Activator Society - Job Placement Program

770 Second Avenue
Prince George, BC. V2L 3A3
(250) 563-5019

Halifax Parole Office

1888 Brunswick Street
7 th floor
Halifax, NS
B3J 3J8
(902) 426-6423

 

Manitoba/NW Ontario Region

102-123 Main Street
Winnipeg, MB.
R3C 1A3
(204) 983-3009

John Howard Society, Manchester House - Job Placement Program

540 Manchester Road
Victoria, BC.
V8T 2N8
(250) 384-1340

John Howard Society

30 Harvey Road
St. John's, NL
A1C 2G1
(709) 739-7953

 

 

Linc Community Employment Services

#302-32463 Simon Avenue
Abbotsford, B.C.
V2T 5E3
(604) 855-0637
Toll free in B.C.: 1-877-424-4242

Shelly Blackman

491 Main Street
Kentville, NS
B4N 1K9
(902) 679-5594 (Parole Office)
(902) 542-5881

 

 

 

24This list is comprehensive, including centres supported through the initiative and internally, through CSC. Centres supported internally are marked with an asterisk (*).

 

Québec Region
Montréal

Via Travail Inc. (Maison ESSOR)

9419 Lajeunesse St.
Montréal, QC
H2M 1S5
(514) 388-4433

Centre de Main d'oeuvre OPEX'82*

9390 Lajeunesse St.
Montréal, QC
H2M 1S4
(514) 381-7276

 

Service d'Aide à l'Emploi de l'Est inc.

8238 de Marseille St.
Montréal, QC
H1L 1P4
(514) 351-5703

Bureau sectoriel des Laurentides*

202 St George St. Saint-Jérôme, QC
J7Z 4Z9
(450) 432-2141
(800) 567-1341

Bureau sectoriel de Lanaudière

1300 Grande Allée Room 310
Lachenaie, QC
J6W 4M4
(450) 961-0200

 

Centre de main d'ouvre Opex '82 - Laval

485 boul. des Laurentides
Suite 102
Laval QC
H7G 2V2
(450) 975-7160

Sherbrooke

Centre de ressources pour délinquant(e)s (OPEX Sherbrooke)

6 Wellington St. S.
Room 300
Sherbrooke QC
J1H 5C7
(819) 565-1866

Point de service Magog*

1700 Sherbrooke St.
Suite 235-A
Magog, QC
J1X 5B4
(819) 843-6588

Point de service Coaticook*

29 rue Main Est
Suite 201
Coaticook, QC
J1A 1N1
(819) 849-7080 poste 232

Point de service Granby*

96 rue Principale
Suite 101
Granby, QC
J2G 2T4
(450) 776-6331

 

Point de service Cowansville*

515 rue Sud
Suite 214
Cowansville, QC
J2K 2X9
(450) 266-1866

Point de service Drummondville*

50 rue Dunkin
Suite 202
Drummondville, QC
J2B 8B1
(819) 474-5381

Trois-Rivières

Maison Radisson Inc.

962 Ste-Geneviève
C.P. 1075
Trois-Rivières, QC
G9A 5K4
(819) 379-3598

Trois-Rivières Area Parole Office*

25 Des  Forges St., Suite 311
Trois-Rivières, QC
G9A 6A7
(819) 371-5201

Saguenay
Lac St Jean

L'Escale et Service Relance

530 Collard St. W.
Suite 1
Alma, QC
G8B 1N3
(418) 668-5243

Suite sectoriel de Chicoutimi*

222 Racine St. E.
Suite 203
Chicoutimi, QC
G7H 1R9
(418) 698-5656

 

Rouyn-Noranda

Vision Travail Abitibi-Témiscamingue*

115 du Terminus W. , Suite 01
Rouyn-Noranada, QC
J9X 2P7
(819) 797-0822

Chaudière-Appalaches

Réhabilitation de Beauce Inc.

294 Bisson St.
C.P. 97
Vallée Jonction
Beauce, QC
G0S 3J0
(418) 253-6764

Accès emploi literale*

Point de service Lévis
13 St-Louis St., Suite 305
Lévis, QC
G6V 4E2
(418) 838-7474

 

 

Québec

Centre d'entraide du bas de la falaise (La Jonction)

265 de la Couronne
Suite 302
Québec, QC
G1K 6E1
(418) 529-5711

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix G: Sample of Community Partners

 

Work Streams
Work Links
Peninsula Community Services
McCooey Consulting Services
Spectrum Job Search Centre
Francophone Centre
Immigrant & Refugee Centre
Disadvantaged people
Head Start Recycle
Elizabeth Fry Society
CANSASK

YMCA / YWCA
Welfare office
Mental Health office
Unions
Cégep Marie-Victorin
HRSDC
BC Corrections
John Howard Society
City of Edmonton
Habitat for Humanity
ART

Citizens' Advisory Committees
Scarborough Support Services
Meals on Wheels
Construction Careers Services (Prince Albert)
Western Region Métis Women's Association
Infinity House for Women
Calgary Drop-In Centre
City Centre Church Corporation
Mothers of the Red Nation
Northern Star Working Co-op Sewing Company
Canadian Mental Health Association
St. Andrew's Anglican Church

MidCanada Productions Inc.
Northwest Company
Maple Leaf Pork
Employment Projects of Winnipeg Inc.
IM Cares
Triumph
HRDA
City of Moncton
Manitoba Métis Association (non-status Métis)
Opportunities for Employment
Métis Nation of Alberta
Youth Employment Centre
Calgary Native Services
Literacy Centre

OPEX
Emploi-Quebec
Ontario Works
St. Leonard's Society
Dartmouth Wade
Regional Employment Development
Quint Employment Development
Career Construction Services
Thunderbird House
Calgary Vocational Services
McBride Career Group
PSDN
NSCA
PATH
Mustard-Seed

Intégration travail Laurentides
Centre Jeunesse d'Emploi
Gîte
Solidarité-Jeunesse
Wade Association - African Nova Scotians
Department of Community Services
Salvation Army
Moncton Head Start
Community Chaplaincy
Native Clan
United Church
Child & Family Services
Aboriginal Future Group
Circles of Work

Alberta Social Services
SAEE
Entreprises d'insertion
Centres locaux d'emploi
Organismes communautaires
Citizens Action
Vocational Resource Centre
Liftow
Safety One
Corcan
Canada Employment Centres

Coverdale
Prairie Employment
Sask Abilities
Learning Disabilities Association
The Gathering Place
Transition Plus
Yes Employment
Sudbury Vocational Resource Centre
Action Sudbury
Community Care Network
Supports for Independent Living
Provincial Job Corps