Evaluation Report:

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Evaluation Report: LifeLine Program

Evaluation Branch
Policy Sector
December 2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The evaluation team would like to thank all the offenders, in-reach workers, representatives from the contracted agencies, and CSC staff members who took time to share their thoughts on the LifeLine Program by completing a survey or agreeing to participate in an interview.

We would like to thank staff members who provided information and documentation utilized in this evaluation. In particular, we would like to express our appreciation to the Evaluation Consultative Group Members, including Sophie Lemire, Josee Tremblay (Citizen Engagement), Michèle Chouinard (Financial Operations), Suzanne Cuff (Women Offenders Sector), Michel Gagnon (Directeur general, Maison Cross Roads), Margaret Roy (Aboriginal Initiatives), Mary Ann Kane (National Parole Board), Sylvie Madore (Institutional Reintegration Operations), Ian McIntyre (Regional Coordinator, Atlantic Region), Rick Sauvé (In-reach worker, Ontario Region), Michel Savard (Security Branch), and Krista Tebbutt (Regional Headquarters, Pacific Region).

We are also grateful for the assistance provided by in-reach workers and CSC staff members at the institutions and at headquarters in facilitating and coordinating the institutional site visits across the regions.

We would also like to thank CSC staff members outside of the Evaluation Branch who provided assistance with reviewing interview and survey protocols (Philippe Bensimon) and in conducting interviews (Emily Hamilton of the Values and Ethics Branch and Kim Patterson, Manager, Correctional Interventions, at Stony Mountain Institution in Winnipeg).

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS

EVALUATION PREPARED BY:

Micheal Olotu
Director, Evaluation

Duyen Luong
Senior Evaluator

Albert Brews
Evaluation Analyst

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS:

Cara Scarfone
Evaluation Analyst

Amanda Nolan
Evaluation Analyst

Lindsey Pecaric
Evaluation Analyst

Brittany MacDonald
Evaluation Analyst

Michael Henighan
Evaluation Analyst

SIGNATURES

LIFELINE PROGRAM

Original signed by

_______________________
Dr. Pamela M. Yates
Director General
Evaluation Branch

February 11, 2010
_______________
Date

Original signed by

_________________________
Lynn Garrow
Associate Assistant Commissioner
Policy Sector

February 11, 2010
_______________
Date

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

This evaluation followed Treasury Board standards for conducting evaluations highlighting the continued relevancy, implementation, and success and cost-effectiveness of the LifeLine Program.

 In 1976, Canada removed the death sentence from its Criminal Code and replaced it with a life sentence disposition. There was a need to tailor the approach to target this group of offenders who are incarcerated for lengthy periods. In 1991, the LifeLine Program was implemented in collaboration with a community-based agency in the Ontario Region. The LifeLine Program is a voluntary program designed to provide support to offenders who are serving life or indeterminate sentences. Support is provided through in-reach workers who themselves are lifers or long-term offenders who are on parole and who have been living in the community without incident for at least five years. Their unique understanding and experience of serving a life or long-term sentence enables them to provide other lifers and offenders with indeterminate sentences with support based on those direct experiences.

Currently, the LifeLine Program is a national program that involves three components: in-reach services, community support, and public awareness. The LifeLine mission statement is “to provide, through the in-reach and community components, an opportunity to motivate inmates and to marshal resources to achieve successful, supervised, gradual integration into the community”.1 The goal of the program is for the in-reach workers to meet with lifers and offenders with indeterminate sentences early in their sentence and assist in their adaptation and eventual integration into the correctional environment.

Program delivery is managed through contractual service agreements with community agencies that are responsible for the three elements of the delivery model. A steering committee is responsible for providing leadership and direction to the LifeLine Program. The regional coordinators are responsible for managing the contracts with the respective community agencies in their region. The agencies hire, train and supervise the in-reach workers. Administrative and operational leadership is provided by the Assistant Commissioner, Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations.

LifeLine Budget
Since 2006/07, an annual budget of $1,709,000 has been allocated to procure contracts to deliver LifeLine services. In addition to the cost of procuring contracts, dedicated CSC National Headquarters (NHQ) and regional coordinator salary expenditures amounted to $106,000 in each of 2006/07 and 2007/08 and $139,500 in 2008/09. CSC dispensed $1,709,500 in 2006/2007, $1,709,000 in 2007/08 and $1,709,000 in 2008/09 fiscal years for a total of $5,127,500.2

Evaluation Strategy
An evaluation strategy was developed by the Evaluation Branch in consultation with a consultative group, comprised of stakeholders from Citizen Engagement, Aboriginal Initiatives, Financial Operations, Women Offenders Sector, Security Branch, Institutional Reintegration Operations, Regional Coordinator (Atlantic Region), Regional Headquarters (Pacific Region), National Parole Board, an in-reach worker (Ontario Region), and Maison Cross Roads (contracted agency).

Qualitative and quantitative methodologies were utilized to conduct the evaluation. Information was collected through:

  • Surveys of CSC staff members who had experience and knowledge in the areas of lifers and long-term offenders;
  • Interviews with offenders who were receiving LifeLine services in the institutions;
  • Surveys of LifeLine in-reach workers and agency representatives who are contracted to provide LifeLine services;
  • Automated data collection, including queries of CSC’s Offender Management System (OMS);
  • Review of datasets provided by Citizen Engagement Branch on the contacts made by in-reach workers;
  • Review of relevant documentation (e.g., Statement of Work and LifeLine annual reports), operational documents, and relevant CSC policies and procedures; and
  • Review of relevant literature, including government and non-government publications. reports from international jurisdictions, and academic and professional publications.

LIST OF FINDINGS

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

FINDING 2: The three elements of the LifeLine Program were each rated by CSC staff as critical to the successful reintegration of lifers into the community and staff members interviewed agreed that the LifeLine Program assists with the adaptation, integration, preparation for release, and reintegration of lifers into the community.

FINDING 3: More than half of offenders who received LifeLine services had at least some need for improvement in the seven dynamic need domains. The majority of the key stakeholders indicated that the LifeLine Program meets the correctional needs of offenders, often citing the support, encouragement, and motivation as well as the information delivery that LifeLine provides.

FINDING 4: Offenders with life or indeterminate sentences represent a substantial proportion of all federal offenders and have considerable needs in all seven need domains, supporting the continued need for services specific to lifers. The rate of admission of lifers continues to be stable over the past three years.

FINDING 5: LifeLine is currently providing services to offenders who are not in the target population. While most offenders who received LifeLine services were serving a life or indeterminate sentence (73%) and were, therefore, part of the target group, the remaining offenders were serving a determinate sentence (23%).

FINDING 6: The delivery of LifeLine services by paroled lifers or long-term offenders presented unique challenges in implementation, including security screening of in-reach workers, in-reach worker access to institutions and offender information, and perceptions of risks to security.

FINDING 7: There are no established minimum standards for meetings between in-reach workers, lifers, and case management staff. There was significant variability in the frequency of meetings between in-reach workers and program participants across the regions.

FINDING 8: The majority of program participants interviewed indicated that the in-reach workers coordinate with CSC institutional and community staff to ensure that lifers’ correctional and reintegration needs are met.

FINDING 9: There are fewer in-reach workers than would be prescribed based on the in-reach worker to offender ratio recommended by the Task Force on Long Term Offenders. Further, the majority of stakeholders indicated that in-reach workers do not have the appropriate resources to deliver the three components of the LifeLine Program.

FINDING 10: Results from surveys with key stakeholders and interviews with program participants suggest the LifeLine Program increased lifers’ ability to cope with their sentence, adapt to the institutional environment, and participate actively in the institutional environment.

FINDING 11: Quantitative data on correctional results were not available to ascertain the impact of LifeLine on participation in institutional programs, correctional plans, pre-release planning, and rates of conditional release. However, key stakeholders consistently indicated that the LifeLine Program contributed to improvements in these areas.

FINDING 12: The LifeLine Program has increased program participation in the community as it has made community-based programs, trainings, supports and personal growth opportunities available and accessible to lifers.

FINDING 13: LifeLine service providers provided some public awareness about the program and the needs of lifers. However these public engagement activities were not systematically recorded or assessed for further impact.

FINDING 14: The LifeLine program could yield cost-savings if positive institutional and community outcomes occurred as a result of the program.

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 1: In light of the continued relevance of the LifeLine Program, CSC should maximize the level of staff awareness of LifeLine Program services in order maximize the benefits to program participants.

RECOMMENDATION 2: CSC should explore and develop strategies to ensure that LifeLine services are responsive to the correctional, spiritual, and cultural needs of Aboriginal lifers.

RECOMMENDATION 3: CSC should examine the needs of program participants to determine whether the scope of the Lifeline Program should be broadened to  include other long-term offenders.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Procedures or processes to screen offenders who meet inclusion criteria should be developed in order to ensure that LifeLine services are delivered to the intended offender population. Furthermore, data pertaining to in-reach worker contacts and activities must be recorded and monitored for quality assurance and performance measurement purposes.

RECOMMENDATION 5: CSC should establish national screening criteria and processes to ensure that in-reach workers selected to facilitate LifeLine Program possess the requisite skills.

RECOMMENDATION 6: CSC should define and communicate the roles and responsibilities of in-reach workers to ensure clarity and consistency.

RECOMMENDATION 7: CSC should establish a policy framework that provides direction on operational expectations and responsibilities, and to ensure the program operates as intended considering appropriate resources.

RECOMMENDATION 8: A communication strategy should be developed to address the perception of risk posed by in-reach workers and increase support for the LifeLine Program from staff and offenders.

RECOMMENDATION 9: CSC should analyse the ratio of in-reach workers to offenders and refine the scope of work of in-reach workers accordingly, taking into consideration all three components of the LifeLine Program. In the process, CSC should consider regional factors such as travel distances and lifer characteristics such as gender and ethnicity in the allocation of its in-reach worker resources.

RECOMMENDATION 10: The role of in-reach workers should be better defined in order to continue to complement the case management process and encourage formal participation in offenders’ case conferences. These contacts should be recorded in OMS in order to support results and performance reporting.

RECOMMENDATION 11: CSC should develop a performance measurement strategy and record essential performance information in OMS to capture correctional results of LifeLine participants and record public awareness exercises in order to examine their impact.

RECOMMENDATION 12: CSC should broaden LifeLine out-reach services to include presentations to key criminal justice partners such as police and other law enforcement agencies.

RECOMMENDATION 13: CSC should ensure that in-reach and out-reach services are appropriately monitored such that the LifeLine Program may be assessed for cost-effectiveness.

TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

ACRONYMS

CCC
CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
CCRA
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
CD
COMMISSIONER’S DIRECTIVE
CSC
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
DPR
DEPARTMENTAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
IPO
INSTITUTIONAL PAROLE OFFICER
ETA
ESCORTED TEMPORARY ABSENCE
IRW
IN-REACH WORKER
LTO
LONG TERM OFFENDER
MAF
MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK
NPB
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
NHQ
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
OMS
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
PO
PAROLE OFFICER
RHQ
REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RPP
REPORT ON PLANS AND PRIORITIES
UTA
UNESCORTED TEMPORARY ABSENCE

INTRODUCTION

The present evaluation was completed in accordance with the elements outlined in the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s Management Accountability Framework (MAF) in order to collect and use relevant results and performance information in decision-making. This evaluation followed Treasury Board of Canada standards for evaluating government programs and services, highlighting the continued relevance, implementation, success (efficiency/effectiveness) and cost-effectiveness of the LifeLine Program.

The LifeLine Program is a social program designed to assist lifers3 to adapt to their sentences, integrate into the institution, prepare for release, and reintegrate into the community as law- abiding citizens. The heterogeneity of long-term offenders4  in Canada and their correctional program needs vis-à-vis their regional, racial and gender differences as reported by Young, Broom, and Ruddell (2009)5 serves as the impetus for some analyses in this evaluation report. It should be noted that, although the LifeLine Program was designed to provide services to lifers and offenders serving indeterminate sentences, those serving determinate sentences have also participated in the program. Although these offenders are not part of the target population, results are presented for all offenders who received LifeLine services (referred to throughout the report as “program participants”6) in order to provide an accurate description of the services being provided as part of the program.

Life Sentences in Canada

The rationale for imposing a prison sentence involves several aspects of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC). First, the fundamental purpose of sentencing according to the CCCis to “contribute… to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing sanctions” that serve to accomplish several objectives, one of which is to “separate offenders from society, where necessary” (s. 718). The CCCalso states that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that it “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender”(s. 718.01). In Canada, a life sentence may be rendered for 29 offences. The term of imprisonment varies according to the offence. While some offences (e.g., first degree murder) carry a life sentence with no eligibility for parole for 25 years, others (e.g., second degree murder) carry a life sentence with parole eligibility to be determined by a judge and set between a period of 10 to 25 years. It should be noted that, if and when offenders with a life sentence are released to the community, they remain under Correctional Service Canada (CSC) jurisdiction for life.

As of March 31, 2009, approximately 22% of the federal inmate population was serving a life or indeterminate sentence and the majority of these offenders (69%) have been convicted of murder, manslaughter or infanticide (Young et al., 2009). Approximately 36% of offenders serving a life or indeterminate sentence had been conditionally released into the community. When released, these offenders experience unique challenges as a result of their long imprisonment. In addition to adjusting to a society that has changed significantly in their absence, they also frequently lack basic documentation (e.g., driver’s licence, social insurance number) that would aid in their reintegration. These are some of the challenges that the LifeLine Program seeks to ameliorate.

CSC Policy and Legislation

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992) mandates CSC to manage offender sentences with due regard to rehabilitation and to ensure that public protection is paramount in all its decisions. In fulfilling its mission of “…encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control”, CSC assesses each offender and assigns appropriate research-based programs to address the seven criminogenic need domains. Consistent with the departmental mission statement, the LifeLine Program, as described in its mission statement, aims to: 
…provide, through the in-reach and the community component, an opportunity to motivate inmates and to marshal resources to achieve successful, supervised, gradual integration into the community7.

This mission is consistent with three of CSC’s five strategic priorities (CSC, 2008). The broad population served by this program suggests that the LifeLine Program has the potential to make a positive contribution to other offenders in relation to their adaptation and reintegration into the community.

The Federal Perspective: Profile of Long-Term Offenders in Canada

A recent examination by Young and colleagues (2009) provided a profile of long-term offenders within CSC as of March 31, 2009. This report described the profile of lifers, offenders with indeterminate sentences, and offenders with determinate sentences of 10 years or more. Some data and findings presented in this report are relevant to understanding the needs of lifers in CSC facilities.

As of March 31, 2009, there were 6,634 long-term offenders under CSC jurisdiction, representing 30% of all federal offenders (Young et al., 2009). Within this population, the majority (65%; n = 4,345) were serving life sentences, 28% (n = 1,860) were serving a determinate sentence of 10 years or more, and 6% (n = 429) were serving an indeterminate sentence. Two-thirds (64%; n = 4,263) of all long-term offenders were incarcerated while one-third (36%; n = 2,371) were on some form of conditional release in the community. The highest proportions of long-term offenders were found in the Ontario and Quebec Regions (29% and 28%, respectively), while the lowest proportion was found in the Atlantic Region (7%)8.

Young and colleagues (2009) also examined the change in the long-term offender profile between 1998 and 2008. They found that the proportion of offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences within the total federal offender population increased from 18% in 1998 to 23% in 2008. There was no significant change in the proportion of women offenders serving life sentences during this period (3.2% in 1998 and 3.5% in 2008) but there was a significant change in the ethnic composition of long-term offenders. Specifically, the proportion of Caucasian long-term offenders decreased by 5% while and the proportions of Aboriginal, Black, and Asian long-term offenders have increased by 2.1% and 2.2%, and 0.6%, respectively. There was also a small but significant increase of 3% in the proportion of lifers and offenders with indeterminate sentences convicted of murder, manslaughter, and infanticide9 from 71.9% in 1998 to 74.8% in 2008.

With respect to needs identified at intake, the proportion of offenders with at least some need for improvement in each of the seven need domains was significantly lower in 2008 than 1998 for all of the need domains except attitude, with no significant change. The largest reductions were found for the community functioning and employment domains, where the proportion of offenders with at least some need for improvement decreased by 14.4% and 6.8%, respectively. Nonetheless, in both 1998 and 2008, more than half of lifers and offenders serving indeterminate sentences demonstrated some need for improvement in all seven need domains.

The LifeLine Program

In the words of Mr. John Braithwaite, a pioneer of the LifeLine Program, “Lifeline is a line to which a person clings for safety” (personal communication, May 25, 2009). In a practical sense, LifeLine is a unique opportunity to provide offenders serving life sentences with the support and interaction of an informed, knowledgeable and involved community. It is a national program delivered by in-reach workers hired by community agencies contracted to provide LifeLine services. In accordance with the recommendations put forth by the Task Force Report on Long- Term Offenders (1998), in-reach workers are paroled lifers or long-term offenders who have successfully reintegrated into the community, and who have lived a crime-free life in the community for a minimum of five years. In-reach workers provide motivation and support to the program participants throughout their incarceration and through gradual reintegration to the community (Correctional Service Canada, 2007).

According to the Task Force Report on Long-Term Sentences (1991), offenders transition through four theoretical stages (adaptation, integration into prison, preparation for release, and reintegration into the community) over the course of a life or long-term sentence. At each stage, offenders have a different set of specific needs that require different responses. These stages provide the foundation for LifeLine service delivery.

Governance Structure

The LifeLine Program currently operates under the joint direction of CSC’s Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations Sector, and CSC’s Correctional Operations and Program Sector (CSC, 2007). The steering and working committees are co-chaired by representatives of these sectors. The steering committee is responsible for providing leadership and direction to the LifeLine Program and for responding to the recommendations of the working committee on the development of the LifeLine Program. CSC regional coordinators are responsible for managing the contracts for LifeLine services in all regions except the Prairie Region, where there is a separate project authority in each of the four provinces. Sponsoring agencies hire, train, and supervise in-reach workers as part of their LifeLine service delivery. In-reach workers also work with many groups (e.g., CSC institutional and community staff, NPB staff, families of offenders, and the broader community as a whole) who assist and support LifeLine participants in the community.

LifeLine Financial Budget and Expenditures

Table 1 outlines the funds allocated to each region to procure contracts from community agencies to deliver LifeLine services for the three-year period from 2006/07 through 2008/09.

Table 1: Contract Procurement for LifeLine Services
Region 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total

Atlantic

171,500

182,000

182,000

535,500

Quebec

407,000

407,000

407,000

1,221,000

Ontario

392,000

392,000

392,000

1,176,000

Prairie

263,000

263,000

263,000

789,000

Pacific

308,000

308,000

308,000

924,000

NHQ

168,000

157,000

157,000

482,000

Total

1,709,500

1,709,000

1,709,000

5,127,500

Note: These figures represent financial resources dedicated to the program during fiscal years 2006/07, 2007/08, and 2008/09 (IFMMS, 2009).

An average of $117,167 is spent annually on salaries dedicated to provide administrative services for the LifeLine Program. This also includes administrative functions at CSC National Headquarters in Ottawa.

EVALUATION STRATEGY

Evaluation Goals

Two essential elements of the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) are particularly applicable to the practice of evaluation. First, a department is to develop analytical capacity to assure high quality policy options, program design and advice to ministers. Second, the department is required to collect relevant information on results and the performance of its programs to inform departmental decisions. As such, the Correctional Service of Canada has undertaken this evaluation to provide essential information regarding the LifeLine Program and its impact on public safety through provision of support to lifers. The continued relevance, success, cost-effectiveness, unintended outcomes, and implementation challenges associated with the program were assessed. The comprehensive evaluation matrix identifying the LifeLine evaluation questions, performance indicators, and data sources is shown in Appendix C.

Logic Model

The logic model for the LifeLine Program is presented in Figure 1. As described earlier, the LifeLine Program is comprised of three main activities; in-reach services; community resources, and public awareness.

Figure 1: LifeLine Program Logic Model
A logic model illustrates the program theory and explains the relationships between program activities, outputs, and outcomes.

[D]

The immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes of the LifeLine Program are outlined in the logic model. The extent to which these outcomes have been achieved are explored in the evaluation results.

METHODOLOGY

In accordance with the Task Force on Long-Term Offenders report (1998), the target population of the LifeLine Program is offenders serving a life or indeterminate sentence. However, results are presented for all program participants to provide an accurate description of the services that are provided as part of the program and to highlight the discrepancy between the target population (as designed) and the offenders who received program services.

Measures and Procedure

A multi-method approach incorporating qualitative and quantitative methodology was utilized to address the evaluation objectives. This included a review of program documentation and reports (e.g., LifeLine Statement of Work and Services, LifeLine Guidelines, and the Task Force on Long-Term Offenders). LifeLine financial data were also reviewed. Questionnaires were developed and interviews conducted with key informants. Offender data were extracted from CSC’s Offender Management System (OMS) and LifeLine Program specific databases maintained by the contracted community organizations.  

Regional and Annual LifeLine Reports

The frequency and nature of LifeLine services reported in the present evaluation report were derived from the 2006/07 regional reports submitted by the contracted agencies and the National LifeLine Annual Report 2007/08 (Correctional Service of Canada, 2009b)1-. Regional reports 2007/08 were reviewed to provide supplementary information. The frequencies presented in this evaluation report represent contacts per in-reach worker within each region. The National Annual Report for 2003/04 was also available. However, because reporting practices have changed considerably since 2005, comparisons of data reported in 2003/04 with those found in 2006/07 and 2007/08 reports were not appropriate (personal communication, S. Lemire, June 15, 2009).

Challenges in data collection and reporting by contracted agencies were identified. For example, while four of the five regions provided information pertaining to case conferences with lifers, one region (Pacific Region) did not report this type of contact. In April 2009, a memorandum was distributed from the Assistant Commissioner, Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations, to Regional Deputy Commissioners to reinforce the support and collaboration required in implementing standardized reporting practices. As a result of the lack of uniform reporting of contacts between program participants and the service providers, these data could not be reliably used and interpreted for this evaluation.

Key Interviews and Surveys

Feedback regarding the relevance, implementation, and success of the LifeLine Program was obtained from four different key groups: 1) in-reach workers; 2) LifeLine Program participants, community-based agencies contracted to provide LifeLine services; and 4) CSC staff.

Automated Data Sources

Offender information (e.g., offender risk, need, demographic characteristics, correctional outcomes, and other pertinent information) was extracted from the Offender Management System (OMS; automated database maintained by CSC) and other databases created and maintained by Citizen Engagement Branch at National Headquarters.

Analyses

Survey and Interview Data

Themes were generated from open-ended survey and interview questions, and were compared across multiple evaluation team members to ensure agreement. Themes are presented in the appropriate Key Findings sections below and are detailed in Appendix D.  Key informant interviews/survey questions were often asked on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = agree; and 5 = strongly agree).  In general, interview/survey results were collapsed across the “agree” and “strongly agree” categories to create an “agree” category and the “disagree” and “strongly disagree” categories were combined to create a “disagree” category. 

Limitations

Data Limitations

LifeLine Program participation is currently not captured in OMS and the only source of data with respect to program participation are databases maintained by the in-reach workers and community-based agencies. Offenders are identified in these databases by their names and FPS numbers, which may be used to link to OMS data. However, while the FPS number is unique to each offender, an offender may have multiple federal sentences. In OMS, separate federal sentences are identified with unique sentence identifiers (i.e., sentence ID). The databases maintained by the contracted agencies do not include data (e.g., sentence ID or term ID) that would enable identification of the sentence the offender was serving when he/she received LifeLine services, as well as whether the offender had received services prior to a particular release to the community. Furthermore, it was not possible to examine the impact of participation in the program before and after program participation because the program start dates for individuals were not available. The data sets provided information since August 200711, but offenders may have been in receipt of LifeLine services prior to that date. As such, there are a number of limitations that must be considered. As a result of some key challenges in gathering sufficient and reliable data to aid in some essential analyses of the impacts of the LifeLine Program on offender adaptation and reintegration, the evaluation relied heavily on qualitative data. In the absence of key quantitative data, some of the findings should be interpreted with caution.

Sample

LifeLine Program Participants

Based on the datasets from Citizen Engagement and the dataset of offenders who were interviewed for the present evaluation, there was a total of 2,145 program participants.  Detailed profiles of the program participants and the interviewed program participants are found in Appendix A.

Two hundred and seven program participants12 were interviewed for this evaluation, of which 20% (n=42) self-reported to be Aboriginal persons. Program participants were interviewed in prairie (31%; n=64), Ontario (24%; n=49), Atlantic (19%; n=40), Quebec (16%; n=32) and Pacific (10%; n=21) Regions. Results of these analyses are included in Appendix A. Overall, it appears that the program participants interviewed were comparable to the program participants who were not interviewed on many of the risk-related variables (risk, need, and reintegration potential), as well as ethnicity and current age.

Staff Survey Respondents

A total of 251 CSC staff members completed the staff survey, of which 79%; (n=198) were completed in English and 21% (n=53) were completed in French. Of all respondents, 53% (n=132) indicated that they were at least moderately familiar with the goals and objectives of the LifeLine Program; 46% of staff respondents (n=115) indicated that they had no or limited familiarity while 2% (n=4) of respondents indicated “don’t know”13. Results are presented only for staff members who had at least moderate familiarity with the program, the majority of whom worked in institutions (58%; n=76), followed by the community (27%; n=35); 8% (n=11) indicated that they work at headquarters and 8% (n=10) did not reply to this question. The position titles of the staff participants are included in Appendix A.

LifeLine In-reach workers

Surveys were distributed to LifeLine in-reach workers14 during the LifeLine national meeting held in Ottawa in February, 2009. A total of 23 in-reach workers completed the survey. Most in-reach workers were from the Quebec (35%; n=8 of 23) and Ontario (30%; n=7) Regions; 17% (n=4) and 13% (n=3) were from the Prairie and Pacific Regions, respectively; one in-reach worker (4%) was from the Atlantic Region.

Contracted Agencies

A total of six representatives for the contracted agencies [i.e., L.I.N.C. (Long-term Inmates Now in the Community) & Associates, St. Leonard’s Society of Canada, Elizabeth Fry Society of Kingston, St. Leonard’s House (Windsor), Maison Cross Roads, John Howard Society of Moncton) completed the community service provider survey. Of the six respondents, two were from the Ontario Region, and one was from each of the remaining regions. All respondents indicated that they had considerable to complete familiarity with the goals and objectives of the LifeLine Program. Only one respondent indicated moderate familiarity, while the remaining five indicated considerable to complete familiarity.  In addition, all respondents indicated that they had considerable to complete familiarity with the service contract that is held between CSC and their agency.

KEY FINDINGS

EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 1: CONTINUED RELEVANCE

Evaluation Objective: Does the initiative remain consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities, and does it realistically address an actual need?

Government and Departmental Priorities

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

Government of Canada
In 2005, the Government of Canada renewed its management framework with particular emphasis on results for Canadians. On April 11, 2008, the Government introduced the Federal Accountability Act, with measures to strengthen accountability and increase transparency and oversight in government operations. The management and accountability framework recognizes that the government exists to serve Canadians and that a citizen focus must be built into government programs and services. It sets the expectation for managers to seek out partnerships across departmental boundaries and private sectors (including not-for-profit organizations) to deliver services to meet needs. In partnering with non-governmental agencies to hire offenders as in-reach workers and deliver services to offenders in institutions, CSC has sought to encourage a citizen-focused service with the involvement of the community.

According to CSC’s 2007-2008 Departmental Performance Report (CSC, 2008), CSC contributes directly to safe and secure communities in a number of ways. Of particular relevance to the LifeLine Program is the delivery “of programs and services to reduce recidivism” and the enhancement of “community capacity to deliver programs and services that meet the needs of at-risk populations, through partnerships and formal arrangements with the voluntary sector” (p. 27).

In addition, the mission and goals of the LifeLine Program are consistent with three of CSC’s five strategic priorities. First, the safety and security of staff and offenders in the institution is addressed through LifeLine via its objective to assist lifers to adapt to the realities of their sentences as well as to integrate into the prison environment. Second, eligible offenders are assisted to safely transition to the community through the development of community contacts, arrangements for community programming, and strengthening offenders’ relationships with community case management staff. Third, CSC’s capacity to provide effective interventions to First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders is supported because the LifeLine Program seeks to provide services to all offenders who are serving life or indeterminate sentences.

The overwhelming majority of in-reach workers (96%; n=22) agreed that the goals and objectives of the LifeLine Program are consistent with CSC’s mission to safely reintegrate offenders into the community. Similarly, the majority of CSC staff members (80%; n=97) and all of the contracted agencies (100%; n=6) indicated that the goals and objectives of the LifeLine Program are considerably or completely consistent with CSC’s mission and strategic priorities. 16% (n=21) indicated that they were moderately consistent, while 3% (n=4) indicated “not at all” or “a little”. In support of these findings, 45% (n=59) of staff indicated that the LifeLine Program assists with the safe reintegration of offenders into the community (i.e., as law abiding citizens), 9% (n=12) indicated that the program helps to motivate offenders to work on their correctional plans or to change or rehabilitate, and 6% (n=8) indicated that the program contributes to safety and security within institutions (e.g., by supporting the offenders to adapt to the institution).

Once released into the community, many offenders serving a life sentence have been able to successfully reintegrate. For example, offenders serving a life sentence for murder are as likely as, or more likely to, successfully complete day parole than offenders serving a determinate sentence for a violent crime other than murder or for a non-violent offence (NPB, 2002). When released on full parole, long-term follow-up indicated that 7% of these offenders had their parole revoked for a new offence (4% for a non-violent offence and 3% for a violent offence). A further 11% had their parole revoked for a breach of conditions (NPB, 2002).

RECOMMENDATION 1: In light of the continued relevance of the LifeLine Program, CSC should maximize the level of staff awareness of LifeLine Program services in order maximize the benefits to program participants.

LifeLine Program Service Delivery Method

FINDING 2: The three elements of the LifeLine Program were each rated by CSC staff as critical to the successful reintegration of lifers into the community and staff members interviewed agreed that the LifeLine Program assists with the adaptation, integration, preparation for release, and reintegration of lifers into the community.

The services provided by LifeLine in-reach workers are pursued through three key elements15: in-reach services; community resources; and, public awareness. Results regarding perceptions of the importance of these services are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Staff Rating of the Importance of the LifeLine Service Elements to the Successful Reintegration of Lifers
The extent to which these areas are important to the successful return of lifers to the community? Frequency % (n)
Not at all/ Limited Moderate Considerably/ Extremely

In-reach services (n=130)

9% (13)

8% (11)

82% (107)

Coordinating community resources (n=125)

5% (6)

8% (10)

87% (109)

Increasing public awareness of the needs of lifers (n=129)

12% (16)

22% (28)

66% (85)

Outreach services a (n=131)

6% (8)

6% (8)

88% (115)

Note. a Outreach service was not one of the main components of the LifeLine Program. Pilot outreach services were implemented in Ontario and Quebec in 2007 with one outreach worker in each of these two regions. Currently, there are two outreach workers in Quebec and one in Ontario.

The majority of CSC staff members rated the three components of the LifeLine Program as being considerably to extremely important in the successful reintegration of lifers into community. Twenty-two percent (n=28) of staff members rated increasing public awareness of the needs of lifers as moderately important. Coordination of community resources and outreach services was also rated to be considerably to extremely important to the successful return of offenders to the community by a large proportion of staff members (88%; n=115). Although the outreach pilot program was implemented in 2007 and was not part of the original design of the LifeLine Program, respondents recognized the significant role such service plays in the LifeLine delivery model.

Table 3 summarizes staff responses regarding the extent to which the four key elements of LifeLine services are achieved.

Table 3: Extent to which Staff Members Agreed or Disagreed that the LifeLine Program Achieves Intended Outcomes
To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the LifeLine Program? Frequency % (n)
Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree

LifeLine assists lifers to adapt to a life or long-term sentence (n=127)

9% (11)

3% (4)

88% (112)

LifeLine assists lifers to adapt to/integrate into the institutional environment (n=126)

10% (13)

7% (9)

83% (104)

LifeLine helps to prepare lifers for release (n=131)

8% (10)

6% (8)

86% (113)

LifeLine helps offenders to reintegrate into the community (n=131)

7% (9)

7% (9)

86% (113)

The majority of staff members (83% to 88%) agreed that LifeLine assists program participants to adapt to a life or long-term sentence, adapt to and integrate into the institutional environment, prepare for release, and reintegrate into the community.

LifeLine Program and the Overall Needs of Lifers

FINDING 3: More than half of offenders who received LifeLine services had at least some need for improvement in the seven dynamic need domains. The majority of the key stakeholders indicated that the LifeLine Program meets the correctional needs of offenders, often citing the support, encouragement, and motivation as well as the information delivery that LifeLine provides.

Figure 2 summarizes the proportion of LifeLine participants who had some or considerable need for improvement on each of seven assessed need domains (Young et al, 2009)

Figure 2: Need Domains - Proportions of LifeLine Program Participants and Interviewed Program Participants with Some or Considerable Need for Improvement
This bar chart displays a comparative representation of the LifeLine program participants and interviewed program participants with some or considerable need for improvement in the various need domains.

[D]

Similar to the overall profile of needs of all offenders with life or indeterminate sentences (refer to Appendix A), more than half of the offenders who received LifeLine services as well as the sub-sample of offenders who were interviewed as part of this evaluation had some or substantial needs in the seven need domains, with more than 90% of the offenders having at least some need in the personal/emotional domain.

The majority of program participants interviewed indicated that their needs as lifers were being met through the LifeLine Program (74%; n=143). When asked to explain their responses, 31% (n=59) of program participants interviewed indicated that the program provided support, direction, insight, advice, motivation and encouragement to them, and 10% (n=20) indicated that the program provided needed information such as the opportunities that are available to lifers, the correctional planning process, and community resources. The responses provided by 21% (n=40) and 12% (n=22) of this group indicated that there is an insufficient number of in-reach workers and resources to meet the needs of lifers and that the in-reach workers are limited in what they can do. Similar responses were provided when program participants interviewed were asked for any additional comments pertaining to the program. Specifically, 19% of the offenders (n=39) provided general comments that the program was important, needed, or beneficial to lifers, and 16% (n=33) indicated that the in-reach workers provided support, were able to understand and relate to the offenders, and that they helped to prepare them for the next steps.

As indicated earlier, research shows that lifers often face significant challenges adapting to long periods of incarceration and, once released, a critical determinant of success in the community is their level of access to resources and support in the community. All but one of the in-reach workers (95%; n=21) indicated that the LifeLine Program provides considerable to complete support and assistance to lifers. When asked to explain, 57% (n=13) indicated that the in-reach workers provide support, guidance, or hope to offenders based on life experiences and 26% (n=6) indicated that the program encourages offenders to participate in their correctional plans or to address problems, needs, or risk areas.

Similarly, the majority of CSC staff members (86%; n=111) indicated that the LifeLine Program moderately to considerably meets the correctional needs of lifers. In explaining their responses, half of the staff members (50%; n=66) indicated that the program helps with areas such as encouraging offenders to participate in their correctional plans/programs or case management, providing information, advice, and guidance to offenders, and assisting offenders to plan for their release (e.g., hearings). Fifteen percent (n=20) of staff members also noted that the program provides a unique opportunity for in-reach workers and lifers to share their experiences and provide mutual support. However, 8% (n=10) of staff members also noted that additional resources are needed.

LifeLine Program and Aboriginal Offenders

CSC is part of the federal government’s horizontal initiative to bring coherence to federal planning and accountability for programs and services directed specifically to Aboriginal peoples in Canada.  In 2004/05, 34 federal departments and agencies worked together under the guidance of Treasury Board to develop the Aboriginal Horizontal Framework to help achieve better socio-economic outcomes for Aboriginal peoples. It is evident within the criminal justice domain that Aboriginal offenders are over-represented in the federal correctional system and this trend has been increasing.  Specifically, although Aboriginal peoples constitute 4% of the Canadian adult population (Statistics Canada, 2008), Aboriginal offenders represented 17% of the total federal offender population in 2007/08, a 20% increase from 1998/99 to 2007/08 (Public Safety Canada, 2008). CSC’s approach to Aboriginal corrections is based on a continuum of care model.  This model was developed in 2003 based on consultation with Aboriginal advisory groups, knowledge gained through research undertaken with the Aboriginal community, and a review of current and developing Aboriginal-specific initiatives within CSC.  The continuum begins at intake assessment, is followed by institutional paths of healing and ends with the safe and successful reintegration of Aboriginal offenders into the community.

Aboriginal program participants who were interviewed were asked the extent to which the LifeLine Program met their needs as an Aboriginal person. Thirty-five percent of these program participants (n=13) indicated not at all or a little, 24% (n=9) indicated moderately, and 41% indicated completely.  When asked to explain, 35% (n=13) noted that their needs were addressed or they were connected to Aboriginal resources or communities; however, 11% (n=4) of offenders also indicated that the LifeLine Program should have provided them with more contact with Aboriginal communities or exposure to Aboriginal spirituality. Further, 11% (n=4) indicated that, although their in-reach worker was not Aboriginal, he/she had made efforts to better understand the needs of Aboriginals. Another 11% (n=4) of offenders indicated that they were not using LifeLine to meet their needs as an Aboriginal person or that they accessed Aboriginal programs outside of LifeLine.

One of CSC’s five strategic priorities is to enhance capacities to provide effective interventions for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit offenders. This is an area where CSC could enhance the representation of in-reach workers to better meet the correctional and spiritual needs of Aboriginal lifers. When in-reach workers were surveyed, two self-identified as Aboriginal persons. As of March 31, 2009, 17% of offenders with life or indeterminate sentences were Aboriginal persons (Young et al., 2009). Thus, there may be a need to increase the number of in-reach workers who are Aboriginal or to develop strategies to provide responsive services to Aboriginal program participants in order to enhance their reintegration potential and success once released into the community.

RECOMMENDATION 2: CSC should explore and develop strategies to ensure that LifeLine services are responsive to the correctional, spiritual, and cultural needs of Aboriginal lifers.

Continued Need for the LifeLine Program

FINDING 4: Offenders with life or indeterminate sentences represent a substantial proportion of all federal offenders and have considerable needs in all seven need domains, supporting the continued need for services specific to lifers. The rate of admission of lifers continues to be stable over the past three years.

Figure 3 presents the annual number of offenders admitted with a life or indeterminate sentence since 1998/09.

Figure 3: Offender Admissions with a Life or Indeterminate Sentence from 1998/99 through 2007/08.
This line graph represents the number of offender admissions with a life or indeterminate sentence from 1998/99 through to 2007/08. From year 2005/06 through to 2007/08, the number of offenders remained relatively stable with around 175 offenders admitted. The most offenders were admitted in 2007/08 having 175 admissions. 2003/04 was the year with the least admissions for life or indeterminate sentences having 141 admissions.      The numbers of offenders admitted each year for the 10 year span are as follows:  1998/99 – 169     1999/00 – 163  2000/01 – 164  2001/02 – 158  2002/03 – 149  2003/04 – 141   2004/05 – 146  2005/06 – 174  2006/07 – 173  2007/08 – 175
Note. Data reported in Public Safety Canada’s (2008) Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview: Annual Report 2008. Offenders who were sentenced to determinate sentences of 10 years or more are not represented here. A snapshot of long-term offender admissions for 1998 and 2008 is found in the report by Young and colleagues (2009).

[D]

These data show that the number of offenders admitted with a life or indeterminate sentence has remained relatively stable over the last three years (Public Safety Canada, 2008). As of March 31, 2009, offenders with life or indeterminate sentences represented 22% of all offenders under federal jurisdiction (Young et al., 2009).

With respect to continued need, all of the in-reach workers (n=23), all of the contracted agencies (n=6), and a majority of CSC staff (87%; n=104) indicated that there is a continued need for the services provided through the LifeLine Program16. When staff members were asked to explain their responses, 11% (n=14) indicated that LifeLine provides support that is otherwise not available to lifers or that the program assists offenders to adjust to the institutional environment, 9% (n=12) indicated that LifeLine assists offenders to face the challenges associated with returning to the community, and 6% (n=8) indicated that in-reach workers can provide information based on their own experiences. However, a few (2%; n=3) suggested that in-reach workers should be trained professionals rather than former offenders.

EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 2: IMPLEMENTATION

Evaluation Objective: The degree to which the LifeLine Program is organized and delivered in a manner that responds to the needs of the target population and that maximizes the achievement of program results.

Target Offender Population

FINDING 5: LifeLine is currently providing services to offenders who are not in the target population. While most offenders who received LifeLine services were serving a life or indeterminate sentence (73%) and were, therefore, part of the target group, the remaining offenders were serving a determinate sentence (23%).

In accordance with a recommendation by the Task Force on Long-Term Offenders (1998), the target population for the LifeLine Program is offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences. However, noting that the needs of offenders in the target population may be similar to those serving determinate sentences, the task force also recommended that the target population could be expanded over time following a review of the program:

It is recommended that, once in-reach services have been extended to this target group and some time has passed to gain experience and analyze the impact as well as complete the research recommended in this report, this target group could be reviewed to consider adding offenders serving ten years or more.” (p. 25)

To date, there has been no formal review of the target population as recommended in the task force report. Formal program documents have also not been revised to include offenders serving a determinate sentence in the target population. The majority of CSC staff members surveyed agreed that the LifeLine inclusion criteria were clear (65%; n=58) and appropriate (67%; n=58) and that the offenders were being referred to the appropriate services (63%; n=65)17. However, in practice, LifeLine is currently being delivered to offenders who are not serving a life or indeterminate sentence. Although the majority of program participants were serving life or indeterminate sentences (73%), offenders with determinate sentences constituted a substantial proportion of program participants (27%). Furthermore, only 7% of program participants were serving determinate sentences of at least 10 years [median = 1,776 days (4.7 years)18; range from 730 days to 14,852 days], while 20% of program participants were serving determinate sentences of less than 10 years. Table 4 presents the distribution of offenders by sentence type for all long-term offenders under federal jurisdiction, all program participants, and interviewed program participants.

Table 4: Long-Term Offenders, LineLine Program Participants, and Interviewed Program Participants by Sentence Type
Sentence Type Frequency n (%)
Long-Term Offenders a LifeLine Program Participants Interviewed Program Participants

Life

4345 (65%)

1469 (68%)

187 (94%)

Indeterminate

429 (6%)

102 (5%)

10 (5%)

Determinate (10 years or more)

1860 (28%)

143 (7%)

1 (0.5%)

Determinate (Less than 10 years)

--

421 (20%)

1 (0.5%)

Total

6634 (99%b)

2145 (100%)

199 (100%)

Note. a Data extracted from Young et al. (2009).  Long-term offenders refer to offender with life and indeterminate sentences as well as offenders with determinate sentences of 10 years or longer. b Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding

While 67% of the target population (i.e., offenders with life or indeterminate sentences) had not received LifeLine services, more than one-quarter (27%) of offenders who received LifeLine services were not part of the target population. Providing services to offenders outside of the target population could result in a gap in services provided to the target group. Since the LifeLine Program assists offenders to adapt and reintegrate into the community, CSC should assess whether expanding the scope of LifeLine Program to include offenders serving determinate sentences will better position the program within the rehabilitative commitment of CSC.

One factor that may contribute to LifeLine services being offered to offenders outside of the target population is that the in-reach worker Statement of Work (SOW) is ambiguous in relation to the extent of in-reach workers’ duties. In the specific roles and responsibilities listed in the SOW, it states that in-reach workers are to work with lifers19. This point, however, conflicts with background information also provided in the SOW which indicates that in-reach workers should also be working with long-term offenders:

LifeLine is a voluntary CSC Social Program geared specifically towards enabling lifers and long-term offenders to successfully reintegrate into society through the intervention of ‘in-reach workers’ (p.1).

In addition, in-reach workers are to “liaise with the local, regional and national CSC staff to contribute to program development for lifers and long-term offenders, where possible” (p. 3). Similarly, there is the absence of a screening process in place to determine which offenders should receive services. This, in conjunction with a desire of in-reach workers to provide services to all offenders who request their services, may have contributed to the delivery of services to offenders outside the target population. The majority (91%; n=21) of in-reach workers indicated that there is not a need for a screening process and more than half (61%) of these in-reach workers indicated that all lifers who want or need the service should have the opportunity to access them. Although the in-reach workers indicated that all lifers should have the opportunity to participate in LifeLife services, in practice, offenders who are not part of the target population were not being screened out, which may impact on the services available to the target population.

Given these findings, it is suggested that research recommended by the Task Force recommended be completed and that decision based on this research consider expansion of the program to offenders serving determinate sentences of 10 years or more.

Since the criterion for accessing LifeLine services is a life or indeterminate sentence, a screening or intake process could be implemented to ensure adherence to criteria. The community-based agencies contracted to provide LifeLine services have access to OMS and can verify that offenders who request the services are eligible to receive these services. In addition, contacts completed by in-reach workers have been recorded since August 2007. However, quality assurance checks completed by the evaluation analysts for this evaluation found that over 300 FPS numbers were problematic. This situation could be resolved by the contracted agencies and CSC on a regular basis, monitoring the entry of data in OMS and verifying the quality of data that are submitted for reporting purposes.

RECOMMENDATION 3: CSC should examine the needs of program participants to determine whether the scope of the Lifeline Program should be broadened to include other long-term offenders.


RECOMMENDATION 4: Procedures or processes to screen offenders who meet inclusion criteria should be developed in order to ensure that LifeLine services are delivered to the intended offender population. Furthermore, data pertaining to in-reach worker contacts and activities must be recorded and monitored for quality assurance and performance measurement purposes.

Challenges Associated with the Delivery of LifeLine Services by Paroled Men and Women

FINDING 6: The delivery of LifeLine services by paroled lifers or long-term offenders presented unique challenges in implementation, including security screening of in-reach workers, in-reach worker access to institutions and offender information, and perceptions of risks to security.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Task Force on Long-Term Offenders (1998), in-reach workers are lifers or long-term offenders who have been released to the community and have lived successfully without breaching their parole conditions for a period of at least five years. The five-year benchmark was a date set to ensure that these offenders have demonstrated sustained respect for their parole conditions and the law in the community. We found that some of the in-reach workers surveyed had not remained in the community prior to their employment as an in-reach worker. Three in-reach workers self-reported that they had been in the community for three years when they were hired as LifeLine in-reach workers and two in-reach workers self-reported having been in the community for 4 and 4.5 years. Thus, it may be necessary to examine the five-year requirement and, if necessary, adapt this criterion or put a process in place to ensure it is met.

Offenders are used as primary service providers in LifeLine as  “the unique understanding and relationships of an in-reach worker should assist him/her in preparing lifers to understand the realities and positive potentials of their sentences” (Task Force on Long-Term Offenders, 1998, p. 28). This practice of hiring paroled offenders to deliver services has presented unique implementation challenges (e.g., screening of candidates for the in-reach worker position, access to offender information and institutions, potential security risks).

The first challenge of hiring offenders as in-reach workers relates to the screening necessary to access institutions. The majority of CSC staff members (70%; n=46) and contracted agencies (83%; n=5) indicated that this is one of their challenges. However, approximately one-third of CSC staff and contracted agencies (37% and 33%, respectively) indicated that the challenge had been resolved. Candidates for the in-reach worker position must have a Government of Canada Enhanced Security Clearance. One component of the security clearance process includes a review by the RCMP to determine whether or not the individual has a criminal record.  This review process can be time consuming and can introduce significant delays to hiring in-reach workers. When survey respondents were asked whether there were any difficulties with respect to the length of time required to screen in-reach worker candidates, the majority of CSC staff members and contracted agencies (71% and 67%, respectively) indicated that this was a problem and amongst these respondents, only one-quarter (24% and 25%, respectively) indicated that the difficulty had been resolved.

In-reach workers’ limited access to the institutions and to offender information is one of the challenges that impact the delivery of the LifeLine Program. Although only 33% (n=2) of the contracted agencies indicated that they encountered difficulties obtaining access to institutions for in-reach workers, when interviewed program participants provided suggestions to improve LifeLine services, 43% (n=77) reported the need to increase institutional cooperation, access, and privacy. Specifically, one-third (34%; n=26) of these offenders indicated that improvements are needed with respect to in-reach workers’ access to the institutions to meet with offenders and 14% (n=11) indicated that in-reach workers should be given more input into lifers’ case management, access to information, and fewer restrictions. More than half (64%; n=47) of CSC staff members indicated that in-reach workers’ access to offender information was a challenge that was encountered in the implementation of the program.

RECOMMENDATION 5: CSC should establish national screening criteria and processes to ensure that in-reach workers selected to facilitate LifeLine Program possess the requisite skills.  


RECOMMENDATION 6: CSC should define and communicate the roles and responsibilities of in-reach workers to ensure clarity and consistency.


RECOMMENDATION 7: CSC should establish a policy framework that provides direction on operational expectations and responsibilities, and to ensure the program operates as intended considering appropriate resources.

Parallel to the issue of access within the institution is the perception of risk to institutional security by in-reach workers. The program manager reported that, within the last five years, there were only two occasions, on which two in-reach workers were re-incarcerated and their employment as in-reach workers terminated by the community-based agencies. Other instances in which in-reach workers were diverted from particular institutions (e.g., in-reach workers returning to institutions where they were incarcerated in the past) were managed by the agencies that hired the in-reach workers. However, one-third (36%; n=35) of staff members suggested that having former lifers return to the institutions to deliver LifeLine services had posed a security risk. When staff members were asked to list the actions taken to resolve the security risks, the most frequently cited actions were re-arrest or reincarceration (17%; n=6) and termination of the in-reach worker’s employment (17%; n=6). A few staff members indicated that in-reach workers were provided with further clarification regarding the rules (9%; n=3). In the absence of supporting data regarding the incidence of security concerns posed by in-reach workers to the institution, this perception of risk should be addressed through an effective communication strategy. If this perception is not mitigated, it may impact on the level of trust, respect, and credibility of the in-reach workers and the services they provide to LifeLine Program participants. Indeed, as will be discussed later in this report, trust, respect, and credibility of in-reach workers were frequently identified by interviewed program participants as areas that require improvement.

Notwithstanding the challenges that have been outlined above, the majority of CSC staff members (75%; n=97) and contracted agencies (83%; n=5) indicated that paroled lifers were the most appropriate individuals to provide in-reach services. When asked to explain their responses, 42% (n=56) of the staff members indicated that paroled lifers can relate to the offenders because they have direct experience with the institution, adaptation, preparation for release, and generally as a lifer.

RECOMMENDATION 8: A communication strategy should be developed to address the perception of risk posed by in-reach workers and increase support for the LifeLine Program from staff and offenders.

Coordination of LifeLine Services with CSC Staff Members

FINDING 7: There are no established minimum standards for meetings between in-reach workers, lifers, and case management staff. There was significant variability in the frequency of meetings between in-reach workers and program participants across the regions.

One of the in-reach workers’ tasks as indicated in the Statement of Work is to “maintain ongoing liaison with case management staff via cases conferences and, on an ad-hoc basis, assist in the co-ordination of the lifer’s correctional plan, productive use of institutional time, preparation for release and reintegration into the community” (p. 3). In-reach workers submit records of contacts to contracted agencies, which, in turn, summarize the data in annual reports submitted to the Regional Deputy Commissioner and subsequently to the Assistant Commissioner,  Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations. As discussed in the limitations section, reporting practices vary across these reports. In addition, although standardized annual reporting practices were implemented in 2007, lack of uniform reporting persisted into 2009. The data inconsistencies precluded empirical comparisons across regions. As such, information on contacts completed by in-reach workers derived from the annual reports are provided in the Appendix A for information purposes only.

FINDING 8: The majority of program participants interviewed indicated that the in-reach workers coordinate with CSC institutional and community staff to ensure that lifers’ correctional and reintegration needs are met.

Coordination with Institutional Staff Members

As discussed earlier, one of the responsibilities of in-reach workers is to liaise with case management staff, assist in coordinating program participants’ progress towards their correctional plan and to encourage and foster productive use of their time in the institution. All of the in-reach workers indicated that they coordinate with institutional case management staff to ensure that lifers’ correctional and reintegration needs are met in a balanced way. The majority of interviewed program participants indicated that in-reach workers coordinated with institutional correctional staff to ensure that their correctional program and institutional adjustment needs were met in a balanced way [75% (n=121) and 78% (n=108), respectively].

One-half (51%; n=73) of program participants interviewed indicated that communication between their in-reach workers and institutional case management staff was effective and required no improvement, while one-third (33%; n=47) indicated that it was fair and almost one-fifth (17%; n=24) indicated that it was poor and that substantial improvements were required. The most commonly identified area of concern reported by interviewed program participants was resistance from CSC staff members to collaborate with in-reach workers (12%; n=23). Many CSC staff members also reported that there were difficulties encountered in communication or collaboration between in-reach workers and institutional case management staff, (63%, n=53), between in-reach workers and institutional correctional staff (71%, n=62) and between in-reach workers and institutional management staff (53%;n=39). A small proportion of CSC staff members who reported difficulties also reported that these difficulties had been resolved [institutional case management staff (21%; n=11), institutional correctional staff (21%; n=13) and institutional management staff (21%; n=8)]. Similarly, three-quarters (75%; n=12) of in-reach workers indicated that difficulties in communication or collaboration between in-reach workers and institutional correctional staff were encountered, although the majority indicated that the difficulties had been resolved.

Coordination with Community Case Management Staff

A similar trend was observed in relation to coordination with case management staff, both in the institution and the community. The majority of in-reach workers (77%; n=46) indicated that they worked with community case management staff to ensure that lifers’ correctional and reintegration needs were met in the community. Similar to results for communication with institutional staff,  one half (49%; n=23) of interviewed program participants rated communication between their in-reach workers and community case management staff as effective and requiring no improvement, while one-third (34%; n=16) indicated that it was fair and approximately one-fifth (17%; n=8) indicated that it was poor and required substantial improvement.

One-half of in-reach workers (50%; n=6) reported experiencing difficulties coordinating with community case management teams, although all reported that the difficulties had been resolved. Similarly, one-half of CSC staff members indicated that had been difficulties with respect to communication or coordination between in-reach workers and community case management staff (51%; n=27) and between in-reach workers and community management staff (49%; n=23). Few staff members indicated that the difficulties had been resolved [7% (n=2). None of the contracted agencies reported encountering difficulties with respect to communication with CSC community case management staff. It is unclear why there is such a discrepancy in these results.

Coordination with Community Service Providers

More than one-half of CSC staff members (56%; n=27) indicated that there were no difficulties in communication or collaboration between in-reach workers and community service providers. In limited cases (9%) where in-reach workers reported a past case of difficulty, such difficulties had reportedly been addressed.

Adequacy of Resources to Meet the Needs of Lifers
FINDING 9: There are fewer in-reach workers than would be prescribed based on the in-reach worker to offender ratio recommended by the Task Force on Long Term Offenders. Further, the majority of stakeholders indicated that in-reach workers do not have the appropriate resources to deliver the three components of the LifeLine Program.

Currently, the LifeLine Program is operating with an annual budget of just over $1.8 million.  The funds are used to procure contracts with community sponsoring agencies for the provision of LifeLine services and dedicated CSC staff salaries.  Sponsoring agencies then utilize these funds to pay the salaries of in-reach workers and costs related to the operation or maintenance of the program (e.g., travel, office, and administration expenses).

The Task Force on Long-Term Offenders (1998) recommended that the ratio of in-reach workers to lifers be 1:125 and that the ratio be reviewed every three years to ensure it remains realistic and feasible. This ratio was recommended after consultation with in-reach workers who were providing services at that time and based on a total of 2600 offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences in institutions as of December 1997. This ratio accounts for the in-reach services only and also acknowledged that not all of the target population would participate in LifeLine services. When the ratio was recommended by the Task Force in 1998, the two other elements of LifeLine (i.e., building community resources and increasing public awareness) were not considered. Therefore, these services have demonstrably increased the workload of in-reach workers.

As of March 31, 2009, there was a total of 3,052 incarcerated offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences. According to the recommended ratio, there should be 25 in-reach workers to provide in-reach services. As of June 2009, there were 23.3 IRWs providing LifeLine services, two of whom were out-reach workers. Table 5 provides a distribution of offenders serving life or indeterminate sentences by region and sentence, the recommended number of in-reach workers and the actual number of in-reach workers.

Table 5: Distribution of Offenders Serving Life or Indeterminate Sentences by Region and Sentence
Region Lifers in institutions In-reach workers based on 1:125 ratio Actual as of June 2009
Life Sentence Indeterminate

Atlantic

204 (8%)

26 (7%)

2

3

Quebec

665 (25%)

61 (16%)

6

7.3 a, b

Ontario

830 (31%)

139 (35%)

8

6 a

Prairie

436 (16%)

70 (19%)

4

4

Pacific

525 (20%)

96 (24%)

5

3

Total

2660 (100%)

392 (100%)

25

23.3

Note. Adapted from Young et al. (2009). Percentages are column percentages within the institutional and community populations. For instance, 8% of incarcerated offenders with a life sentence are found in the Atlantic Region. a These values include one outreach worker in each of the Quebec and Ontario Regions. b There were 10 in-reach workers and 1 outreach worker in the Quebec Region provided 7.3 FTEs (personal communication, M. Gagnon, July 10, 2009).

There are fewer in-reach workers in the Ontario and Pacific Regions than would be prescribed by the task force ratio while the opposite was found for the Atlantic and Quebec Regions. In addition, less than half of key stakeholders agreed that in-reach workers have sufficient resources to meet the needs of lifers.  There was a slight difference in the responses of in-reach workers and those of contracted agencies regarding the appropriate resources necessary to achieve the mandate of their contract. Sixty percent (60%; n=3) of contracted agencies reported that their agencies had the resources to meet the housing and transportation needs, employment need (80%; n=4), and peer support needs (100%) of program participants. However, less than one-half of in-reach workers (48%; n=11) agreed that the appropriate resources were allocated for them to complete their job, and all contracted agencies indicated that contracted funds were not sufficient for their purposes. However, 83% of contracted agencies (n=5) also reported that the expected outcomes of LifeLine have been achieved with the designated funding. However, this cannot be verified as quantitative data on the effectiveness of the program in achieving the intended outcomes were not available.

Less than half of CSC staff surveyed (47%, n=51) agreed that in-reach workers spent sufficient time with lifers. When asked to expand upon their responses in this area, 14% of staff members (n=18) indicated that more in-reach workers are needed, and 4% (n=5) noted a need for more outreach workers. Similarly, as presented in Table 6 below, 45% (n=47) of staff agreed that in-reach workers were able to provide and coordinate services in institutions and community. Thirty-eight percent (n=39) agreed that they coordinated community resources in the institutions, and 40% (n=36) agreed they coordinated community resources.

Table 6: Staff Perceptions of Ability of In-reach workers to Provide Services
  Agree Neither agree or disagree Disagree

Provide / coordinate services in institutions and community

45% (n=47)

17% (n=18)

38% (n=40)

Coordinate community resources in institutions

38% (n=39)

15% (n=15)

47% (n=48)

Coordinate community resources for lifers in the community

40% (n=36)

17% (n=15

43% (n=38)

Increase public awareness about lifers

36% (n=34)

23% (n=22

41% (n=39)


RECOMMENDATION 9: CSC should analyse the ratio of in-reach workers to offenders and refine the scope of work of in-reach workers accordingly, taking into consideration all three components of the LifeLine Program. In the process, CSC should consider regional factors such as travel distances and lifer characteristics such as gender and ethnicity in the allocation of its in-reach worker resources.

EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 3: SUCCESS

Evaluation Objective: The extent to which the LifeLine program is producing its planned outputs in relation to expenditure of resources, and meeting its planned results.

A number of methodological limitations precluded examination of the effectiveness of the LifeLine Program in achieving its planned outcomes. First, information on program participants’ start dates had not been collected. In the absence of a program start date, it was not possible to compare behavioral indicators (e.g., institutional charges, involuntary segregation) prior to and after program participation. Second, data on program participation had not been reliably collected over the years. Nonetheless, a standardized measurement framework was implemented in 2007 and records of offender participation for the period between August 2007 and November 2008 for male LifeLine participants and from October 2007 to January 2009 for women LifeLine participants were available. The number of offenders who were identified as receiving LifeLine services within these timeframes may be an underestimate of the total number of offenders who had received services since data were collected for such a short period of time relative to the number of years the LifeLine Program has been in effect. Given the above, the evaluation relied on qualitative data from interviews and survey responses.

Adaptation and Integration into the Institutional Environment

FINDING 10: Results from surveys with key stakeholders and interviews with program participants suggest the LifeLine Program increased lifers’ ability to cope with their sentence, adapt to the institutional environment, and participate actively in the institutional environment.

One of the goals of the Lifeline Program is to assist offenders to adapt to their sentence and to increase their ability to cope effectively in the institutional environment. Adaptation and integration are not only important for the individual offender’s well-being, but may also contribute to the safety of institutional staff and inmates, which is one of the foci of CSC’s Transformation Agenda (CSC, 2008) and one of CSC’s corporate priorities (CSC 2009c).

While being sentenced to any term in a federal facility requires significant adjustment, the imposition of a life sentence is a potentially overwhelming experience for an offender. Two indicators of lifers’ ability to cope with their sentence and life in the institution are charges of institutional misconduct and involuntary segregation admission. Figures 4 and 5 present the rates of institutional charges and involuntary segregation admissions for offenders convicted of murder and offenders not convicted of murder.

Figure 4: Average Monthly Institutional Charges for Offenders Convicted of Murder and Offenders not Convicted of Murder.
This line graph displays a comparative representation of the monthly institutional charges for offenders convicted of murder to those offenders not convicted of murder from 2001 through to 2008.
Note. Data extracted from the Corporate Reporting System, maintained by the Performance Management Branch (CSC). Rates computed out of the total number of incarcerated offenders in each of the two groups.

[D]

Figure 5: Average Monthly Involuntary Segregation Admissions for Offenders Convicted of Murder and Offenders not Convicted of Murder.
This line graph displays a comparative representation of the average monthly involuntary segregation admissions for offenders convicted of murder to those offenders not convicted of murder from 2001 through to 2008.
Note. Data extracted from the Corporate Reporting System, maintained by the Performance Assurance Branch (CSC). Rates computed out of the total number of incarcerated offenders in each of the two groups.

[D]

During the time period examined, offenders convicted of murder had lower rates of institutional charges and involuntary segregation admission than offenders not convicted of murder. What is not clear, however, is whether participation in LifeLine affected the rate of institutional misconduct or involuntary segregation admissions, as the data presented in the figures represent charges and admissions for offenders who have been convicted of murder (and not offenders with life or indeterminate offences specifically). As indicated previously, since issues with data retention and records precluded analysis of LifeLine participants specifically, key stakeholders were asked to rate the extent to which the LifeLine Program has impacted lifers’ ability to cope with their sentence and adapt to life in the institutions. All of the contracted agencies and the majority of in-reach workers, CSC staff, and interviewed program participants indicated that the LifeLine Program contributed to an increase in lifers’ ability to cope with their sentence (100%, 95%, 85%, and 71%, respectively).

Conversely, results from interviews with offenders who received LifeLine services were inconsistent with results from surveys completed by in-reach workers, contracted agencies and CSC staff with respect to the extent to which LifeLine contributed to lifers’ ability to adapt to the institutional environment. Specifically, whereas the large majority of in-reach workers and CSC staff members and all of the contracted agencies indicated that LifeLine increased lifers’ ability to adapt to the institutional environment (95%, 100%, and 86%, respectively), only 56% (n=103) of the interviewed program participants indicated an increase. Over one-third (37%) of LifeLine participants who were interviewed were admitted prior to 1991 (when the first in-reach worker was hired) and two-thirds (66%) were admitted prior to 1998 (at which time there were eight in-reach workers in place). Therefore, the majority of the interviewed program participants had been incarcerated prior to 1998 and may not have had the opportunity to receive services from in-reach workers early in their sentence to assist them to adapt.

In-reach workers are also responsible for providing information to offenders. This includes informing newly admitted offenders about LifeLine services and activities, providing information regarding changes to policy, parole application processes, transfers and ETA processes, as well as other pertinent information. They are expected to maintain regular contact with offenders to keep them up-to-date with information relevant to their individual situations.  In-reach workers consistently indicated that, over a one-month period, they always contacted newly admitted lifers. In the process, they determined their readiness to participate in the program (58%; n=11), provided information about the LifeLine Program (74%; n=14) and other programs, the case management process, and other services available in the institutions (67%; n=12).

The majority of program participants interviewed (62%: n=115) agreed that in-reach workers provided information regarding changes to relevant legislation or policy and about the case management process. However, only one-half (48%; n=90) reported assistance in accessing programs, training and other personal growth opportunities in the institution.

While some of these functions are traditionally that of a parole officer, the in-reach worker’s support in this area serves to complement the work of the parole officers. The complementary role of the in-reach workers is evident in their responses that they work with institutional case management staff to ensure that program participants’ correctional and reintegration needs are being met (53%; n=10) and that they always encourage lifers to participate actively in their correctional plans. The majority of program participants interviewed (85%; n=169) agreed that their in-reach workers encouraged them to participate actively in their correctional plans.

RECOMMENDATION 10: The role of in-reach workers should be better defined in order to continue to complement the case management process and encourage formal participation in offenders’ case conferences. These contacts should be recorded in OMS in order to support results and performance reporting.


FINDING 11: Quantitative data on correctional results were not available to ascertain the impact of LifeLine on participation in institutional programs, correctional plans, pre-release planning, and rates of conditional release. However, key stakeholders consistently indicated that the LifeLine Program contributed to improvements in these areas.

Access and Availability of Institutional Programs/Supports

The majority of CSC staff members (72%; n= 68) and lifers (53%; n=92) indicated that the LifeLine Program increased the access and availability of programs in the institutions for lifers, although almost half of program participants interviewed indicated that there had been no change in this area. The issue of access and availability of programs within the institutions may depend on a number of factors that are unrelated to LifeLine services. In-reach workers may help play a role in providing information to lifers about these programs and motivating them to access these programs. Indeed, the majority of lifers who were interviewed, as well as CSC staff members, and all of the in-reach workers and contracted agencies indicated that there had been an increase in support for lifers’ motivation to participate in their correctional plans, programs, and institutional activities.

Pre-Release Planning

One of the intended outcomes of the LifeLine Program is to increase lifers’ involvement in pre-release planning to better prepare them for release. This corresponds to the third theoretical phase through which long-term offenders transition (Task Force on Long-Term Offenders, 1998). Some of the activities that contribute to this outcome include providing support for release activities such as Escorted Temporary Absences (ETA) and Unescorted Temporary Absences (UTA) and assistance at judicial reviews or NPB hearings. Due to lack of quantitative data, it was not possible to determine whether LifeLine had contributed to an increased number of NPB hearings, ETAs, or UTAs for lifers. Nevertheless, the majority (65%; n=11) of in-reach workers indicated that they always provide lifers with support for their hearings and the majority of program participants interviewed (72%; n=110) indicated that they received support from in-reach workers regarding NPB hearings and judicial reviews. In addition, in-reach workers, program participants interviewed, and CSC staff generally indicated that the LifeLine Program had resulted in increase in offender participation in pre-release planning and activities and lifers’ preparedness at release. The majority of program participants interviewed reported that in-reach workers supported their long-term occupational plans (e.g., providing advice in developing a plan or encouraging the offender to develop a plan) (67%; n=120) and assisted in obtaining documents that they would need upon release to the community (53%; n=87).

Transfers and Conditional Release

Two anticipated long-term outcomes of the LifeLine Program are the successful transfer of lifers to lower security facilities and the successful return of lifers into the community. The majority of in-reach workers indicated that they always encourage lifers to participate in conditional release programs (95%; n=17) and assist lifers to prepare for transfers and conditional release (73%; n=11). Consistent with in-reach workers’ responses, the majority of program participants interviewed (70%; n=118) indicated that their in-reach workers assisted them in preparing for transfers and various forms of conditional release.

RECOMMENDATION 11: CSC should develop a performance measurement strategy and record essential performance information in OMS to capture correctional results of LifeLine participants and record public awareness exercises in order to examine their impact.

Reintegration into the Community

FINDING 12: The LifeLine Program has increased program participation in the community as it has made community-based programs, trainings, supports and personal growth opportunities available and accessible to lifers.

In the final stage of an offender’s sentence, the LifeLine Program seeks to help offenders re-enter the community in a productive and safe manner. An offender’s smooth transition from an institution to the community is facilitated by in-reach workers’ coordination of supports for the program participant (e.g., community organization and family members, liaising with case management staff, and arranging for community programs and activities). According to a large majority of in-reach workers, (92%; n=21), the LifeLine Program is able to provide support to lifers to adjust after release into the community. Similarly, most of the program participants interviewed (71%; n=30) indicated that the LifeLine Program had contributed to a strong community support system. Survey and interview respondents consistently reported that LifeLine was able to increase an offender’s access to supports in the community (program participants interviewed: 78%; n=35; in-reach workers, 90%; n=18; CSC staff, 80%; n=59). Specifically, community support services for offenders were reported to have been always arranged by most contracted agencies (80%; n=4) and just less than half of in-reach workers (45%, n=9).

Relationship between Lifers and Community Case Management Staff

The LifeLine Program seeks to help offenders develop and maintain a strong working relationship with community case management staff (e.g., community parole officers, program personnel) who work with the offender. Overall, most in-reach workers (84%, n=16) and program participants interviewed (81%; n=58) reported that LifeLine contributed positively to this relationship. All in-reach workers reported that they would encourage lifers to participate actively in the management of their sentence and contribute to the community. It should be noted, however, that 4% (n=3) of offenders reported that participation in LifeLine contributed negatively to their relationship with the community case management staff. Unfortunately, the reasons for this were not elaborated upon.

Access to and Involvement in Community Programs and Activities

Offender access to, and involvement in, community programs was reported to have increased as a result of participation in LifeLine. Overall, 61% (n=85) of all groups surveyed and interviewed reported that LifeLine increased offenders’ access to programs in the community. Most in-reach workers (74%; n=14) reported increased access, while a smaller proportion of CSC staff (69%; n=47) reported such an increase. Just over half of interviewed program participants (57%; n=24) indicated that LifeLine increased their access to community programs and respondents more frequently reported that offenders were more involved with programs and activities as a result of the LifeLine Program. Over 77% of all groups surveyed and interviewed reported that LifeLine had increased program participants’ involvement in programs and activities (offenders, 78%; IRWs, 85%; contracted agencies, 83%; CSC staff, 74%). However, no quantitative data were available to support these positions.

Community Awareness and Public Support

FINDING 13: LifeLine service providers provided some public awareness about the program and the needs of lifers. However these public engagement activities were not systematically recorded or assessed for further impact.

The goal of the public awareness component of the LifeLine Program is to raise awareness about the LifeLine Program and lifers. This includes the realities of a life sentence and incarceration and effective correctional practices. In-reach workers and contracted agencies were involved in providing information concerning LifeLine to National Parole Board staff, and to CSC staff in the community, national headquarters and regional headquarters.  At least half of contracted agencies and one-quarter of in-reach workers reported often or always providing information to CSC staff in the community, NPB staff, and CSC staff at National Headquarters (NHQ) and Regional Headquarters (RHQ).

In-reach workers, contracted agencies, interviewed program participants, and CSC staff, (72% of all respondents) indicated that there was an increase in public awareness of the LifeLine Program and lifers in general. More specifically, increases were noted by 89% (n=17) of in-reach workers, 80% (n=4) of contracted agencies, 79% (n=103) of interviewed program participants, and 56% (n=44) of CSC staff. The LifeLine Program was also reported to have contributed positively to public awareness of the needs of lifers. Most in-reach workers (78%; n=14) reported that the LifeLine Program had an impact on public understanding and the majority of program participants interviewed reported that the public had an increased awareness of their needs (70%; n=85). The majority of all interview and survey respondents reported that the LifeLine Program has increased public support of CSC’s reintegration efforts. All contracted agencies (100%; n=6), 74% (n=14) of in-reach workers, 62% (n=75) of interviewed program participants, and 52% (n=40) of CSC staff indicated an increase in public support. However, systematic data to determine the impact of the public awareness activities have not been collected20.

The LifeLine Program also contributes to public awareness by providing presentations to community and youth groups, participating in media engagements, and contributing to community service activities and groups (CSC, 2007). Presentations are directed to a variety of groups such as CSC staff, victims, NPB staff, Citizen’s Advisory Committees, school groups, the general public, non-governmental organizations, police, politicians and the media. Some of the topics include the LifeLine Program, issues faced by lifers and the repercussions of crime.  According to survey responses, the frequency of presentations varied according to the target audience. Presentations were directed primarily towards CSC staff, the general public, non-government organizations, and the media. Both the contract agencies and in-reach workers reported frequent presentations to CSC staff and the general public; however, groups such as police, law enforcement agencies and others should be included.

RECOMMENDATION 12: CSC should broaden LifeLine out-reach services to include presentations to key criminal justice partners such as police and other law enforcement agencies

EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 4 - COST EFFECTIVENESS

FINDING 14: The LifeLine program could yield cost-savings if positive institutional and community outcomes occurred as a result of the program.

Cost-effectiveness analyses revealed that, for the LifeLine Program to be cost-effective, in-reach services would have to result in offenders spending fewer days per year in maximum security level institutions, and outreach services would have to result in offenders spending more time in the community. Specific calculations are presented in the following outcome scenarios:

In-reach services

CSC spends an average of 1.8M per year providing in-reach and outreach services to offenders through the LifeLine Program21. In 2007-08, CSC spent $135,870 to incarcerate an offender in a maximum security institution and $87,498 at a medium security institution22. As such, in-reach services resulting in an offender being transferred from a maximum to a medium security level institution would yield a cost-savings of $48,372 per offender per year. Thus, LifeLine in-reach services would have to result in at least 40 offenders being transferred from maximum to medium-security institutions and remaining there for one year.

Outreach services

In 2007-08, CSC spent $81,932 to supervise an offender in the community, and $101,664 to incarcerate an offender in a federal institution23. As such, outreach services resulting in an offender remaining in the community longer would result in a cost-savings of $19,732 per offender per year. Thus, LifeLine outreach services would have to result in at least 96 offenders remaining in the community for one year.

RECOMMENDATION 13: CSC should ensure that in-reach and out-reach services are appropriately monitored such that the LifeLine Program may be assessed for cost-effectiveness.

REFERENCES

Braithwaite, J. (2006). LifeLine for Lifers. In An Overview of Community Corrections in China and Canada. International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy. Retrieved from http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Site%20Map/Publications%20Page/Corrections.htm

Correctional Investigator Canada (2004). Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 2003-2004. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/pdf/annrpt/annrpt20032004-eng.pdf

Correctional Service of Canada (1998). Implementing the LifeLine Concept: Task Force on Long Term Offenders. Ottawa, ON: Author. Retrieved on May 8, 2009, from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/lt/01-eng.shtml

Correctional Service of Canada (2001). Security Classification of Offenders Serving a Minimum Life Sentence for First or Second Degree Murder (Policy Bulletin 107). Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada (2007). Results-based Management Accountability Framework for the Evaluation of the LifeLine Program (394-2-60). Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada (2008). Correctional Service Canada 2007-2008 Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada (2009a). Lifeline In-reach workers. Ottawa, ON: CSC. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/lifeline/2-eng.shtml

Correctional Service of Canada (2009b). National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-08. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada (2009c). Correctional Service Canada: Reports on Plans and Priorities 2009-2010. Ottawa, ON: CSC. Retreived from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2009-2010/inst/pen/pen-eng.pdf

Correctional Service of Canada (2009d). The Lifeline Services. Ottawa, ON: CSC. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/lifeline/1-eng.shtml

Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel. (2007). A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety (Cat. No. PS84-14/2007E). Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

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

Criminal Code of Canada, R. S., 1985, c. C-46.

L.I.N.C. and Associates (BC) Ltd. (2008). Annual Report. BC: Author.

National Parole Board (2002). Offenders Serving a Life Sentence for Murder: A Statistical Overview.

Public Safety Canada. (2008). Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview: 2008 (Cat. No. PS1-2008E-PDF). Ottawa, ON: Author.

Statistics Canada (2008). Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census (Cat. No. 97-558-XIE). Ottawa, ON: Minister of Industry.

Task Force Report on Long-Term Sentences (1991). Correctional Service of Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Task Force on Long Term Offenders. (1998). Implementing the Life-Line Concept: Task Force on Long Term Offenders. Ottawa, ON: Supply and Services Canada.

Trevethan, S., Crutcher, N., & Moore, J. (2002). A profile of federal offenders designates as dangerous offenders or serving long-term supervision orders (No. R-125). Ottawa, ON: CSC.

Young, M., Broom, I., & Ruddell, R. (2009; draft). Offenders Serving Life and Indeterminate Sentences: Snapshot (2009) and Changing Profile (1998 to 2008). Ottawa, ON: CSC.

APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTARY TEXT

Evaluation Strategy

Data Limitations
Frequency and nature of contacts between in-reach workers and program participants, case management staff, and other partners were collected by the in-reach workers and submitted to the contracted agency. In turn, the contracted agencies prepared and submitted regional annual reports of LifeLine activities to the regional coordinator or project authority. The regional coordinator or project authority submits the regional annual report to the Regional Deputy Commissioner for approval and subsequently to Assistant Commissioner of Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations. In August 2007, a national performance measurement strategy was developed, including standardized annual reporting methods. It was reported, however, that discrepancies in regional annual reporting persisted. In April 2009, a memorandum was distributed from the Assistant Commissioner of Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations to the Regional Deputy Commissioners to reinforce the support and collaboration required in implementing the standardized reporting practices. As a result of varying reporting practices across the regions, it was not possible to reliably compare contacts across regions. Therefore, information on contacts extracted from the regional and annual reports are provided in this appendix for information purposes only.

The database of all offenders who received LifeLine services was generated from the datasets maintained by the community-based agencies and provided to the Evaluation Branch by the Citizen Engagement Branch. The datasets for male offenders consisted of information regarding in-reach worker contacts as of August 2007 and were updated as of November 2008. The datasets for women offenders consisted of contacts from October 2007 and were updated as of January 2009. Within these datasets, over 300 FPS numbers were either missing or incorrectly entered. Manual verification with OMS was completed by analysts from the Citizen Engagement Branch as well as the Evaluation Branch. Manual verification was able to correct a majority of the cases, although 68 cases remained problematic. The majority of these cases (75%; n=51) were from the Pacific Region, while 16% (n=11) were from the Quebec Region, 4% (n=3) were from the Atlantic Region, 3% (n=2) were from the Prairie Region, and 1% (n=1) was from the Ontario Region.

The high proportion of cases in the Pacific Region suggests a systematic challenge that must be addressed. Discussions were held with senior staff members from the Citizen Engagement Branch who reported that reporting of activities has been an ongoing concern within the Pacific Region. The agency that held the LifeLine contract in the Pacific Region also held service contracts that were unrelated to LifeLine and some of those services may have been reported together with LifeLine services. Representatives from the Citizen Engagement Branch indicated that the remaining problematic cases are likely to be non-LifeLine participants. As such, these cases were removed from the analyses.  

Based on the datasets from Citizen Engagement and the dataset of offenders who were interviewed for the present evaluation, there was a total of 2,145 program participants. As part of the evaluation, interviews with program participants were completed in March and April, 2009. The datasets from the Citizen Engagement Branch were updated as of November 2008 (men offenders) and February 2009 (women offenders). As some offenders may have started receiving LifeLine services after these dates, it was necessary to ensure that all of the offenders who were interviewed were captured in the LifeLine population. Data were extracted from OMS by querying offender FPS numbers for the all offenders who received LifeLine services from August 2007 and all offenders who were interviewed.

Offender information, such as demographic information, sentencing information, risk and needs derived from the OIA indicators, current institution, and region, was extracted for the current sentence for the LifeLine population. Since the LifeLine Program was designed to provide services to offenders with life or indeterminate sentences, extracting data for the current sentence should capture relevant information for the evaluation.

LifeLine Program Participant Profile
Tables A1 and A2 summaries demographic, criminal history, and risk-information for offenders with life or indeterminate sentences, LifeLine Program participants, and interviewed program participants.

Table A 1: Demographic Characteristics of LifeLine Program Participants and Interviewed Program Participants
  LifeLine Population a Offenders who were interviewed
Non-Aboriginal (n=1751) Aboriginal (n=394) Total (n=2,145) Non-Aboriginal (n=165) Aboriginal (n=34) Total (n=199)
Mean in years (SD)

Age at Admission

33.00 (10.71)***

29.98 (8.98)***

32.44 (10.47)

30.43 (10.05)*

26.58 (6.74)*

29.77 (9.66)

Current Age

47.66 (11.46)***

42.76 (10.64)***

46.76 (11.47)

47.33 (10.59)***

40.12 (9.22)***

46.09 (10.70)

  Frequency n (%)
Sex χ 2(1) = 9.38, p = .002   χ 2(1) = 8.30, p = .004  

Male

1717 (98%)

376 (95%)

2093 (98%)

158 (96%)

28 (82%)

186 (93%)

Female

34 (2%)

18 (5%)

52 (2%)

7 (4%)

6 (18%)

13 (7%)

Ethnicity            

Caucasian

-

-

1538 (72%)

-

-

144 (72%)

Aboriginal

-

-

394 (18%)

-

-

34 (17%)

Black

-

-

90 (4%)

-

-

11 (6%)

Asian

-

-

56 (3%)

-

-

5 (3%)

Other/Unknown

-

-

67 (3%)

-

-

5 (3%)

Current Region b      

(n=164)

(n=42)

(n=206)

  χ2(4) = 99.14, p < .001   χ 2(4) = 9.941, p = .041  

Atlantic

124 (7%)

58 (15%)

182 (8%)

35 (21%)

5 (12%)

40 (19%)

Québec

280 (16%)

85 (22%)

365 (17%)

29 (18%)

3 (7%)

32 (16%)

Ontario

261 (15%)

103 (26%)

364 (17%)

41 (25%)

8 (19%)

49 (24%)

Prairies

208 (12%)

19 (5%)

227 (11%)

44 (27%)

20 (48%)

64 (31%)

Pacific

394 (23%)

31 (8%)

425 (20%)

15 (9%)

6 (14%)

21 (10%)

Missing

484 (28%)

98 (25%)

582 (27%)

     

Notes. * p< .05. *** p< .001 Percentages presented in this table are column percentages. For example, 98% of non-Aboriginal LifeLine participants are male. a LifeLine Program participants includes all the offenders who received LifeLine services since August 2007 and the interviewed program participants. b For the interviewed program participants, region represents the region where they were incarcerated when they were interviewed as they may have been transferred to different region in the time between the interviews and the time the data were extracted from OMS.

Table A 2: Criminal History and Risk Profile of LifeLine Program Participants and Interviewed Program Participants
  LifeLine Program Participants a Interviewed Program Participants
Non-Aboriginal (n=1751) Aboriginal (n=394) Total (n=2,145) Non-Aboriginal (n=165) Aboriginal (n=34) Total (n=199)
Frequency n (%)
Prior Conviction            

As a Youth

367 (37%)***

158 (65%)***

523 (43%)

24 (31%)*

12 (57%)*

36 (37%)

As an Adult

736 (74%)***

214 (88%)***

950 (77%)

45 (58%)

15 (71%)

60 (61%)

Sentence Type χ2(3) = 17.67, p < .001   χ2(3) = 2.63, p = .45, ns  

Life

1232 (71%)

237 (60%)

1469 (69%)

153 (93%)

34 (100%)

1 (0.5%)

Indeterminate

79 (5%)

23 (6%)

102 (5%)

10 (6%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.5%)

Determinate (10 years or more)

114 (7%)

29 (7%)

143 (7%)

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

10 (5%)

Determinate (less than 10 years)

317 (18%)

104 (26%)

421 (20%)

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

187 (94%)

Overall Static Risk χ2(2) = 8.03, p = .02   χ2(2) = 2.18, p = .336, ns  

Low

111 (6%)

15 (4%)

126 (6%)

9 (5%)

0 (0%)

117 (6%)

Med

439 (25%)

83 (21%)

522 (25%)

31 (19%)

8 (24%)

483 (25%)

High

1180 (68%)

294 (75%)

1474 (69%)

125 (76%)

26 (77%)

1323 (69%)

Overall Dynamic Risk χ2(2) = 30.78, p < .001   χ2(2) = 3.38, p = .185, ns  

Low

116 (7%)

11 (3%)

127 (6%)

15 (9%)

0 (0%)

15 (8%)

Med

541 (31%)

81 (21%)

622 (29%)

51 (31%)

11 (32%)

62 (31%)

High

1073 (62%)

300 (77%)

1373 (65%)

99 (60%)

23 (68%)

122 (61%)

Reintegration Potential χ2(2) = 43.75, p < .001   χ2(2) = 9.%)37, p = .009  

Low

744 (43%)

237 (60%)

981 (46%)

63 (38%)

22 (65%)

85 (43%)

Medium

696 (40%)

124 (32%)

820 (39%)

75 (45%)

11 (32%)

86 (43%)

High

296 (17%)

32 (8%)

328 (15%)

27 (16%)

1 (3%)

28 (14%)

Need Domains b            

Employment

914 (57%)***

289 (79%)***

1203 (61%)

87 (56%)

21 (64%)

108 (57%)

Marital/ Family

942 (58%)***

261 (71%)***

1203 (61%)

100 (65%)

24 (73%)

124 (66%)

Associates

1038 (64%)***

298 (81%)***

1336 (68%)

100 (65%)

22 (67%)

122 (65%)

Substance Abuse

1065 (66%)***

333 (90%)***

1398 (71%)

98 (63%)**

31 (94%)**

129 (69%)

Community Functioning

779 (48%)***

229 (62%)***

1008 (51%)

82 (53%)

13 (40%)

95 (51%)

Personal/ Emotional

1497 (93%)**

357 (97%)**

1854 (94%)

145 (94%)

32 (97%)

177 (94%)

Attitude

1116 (69%)*

277 (75%)*

1393 (70%)

103 (66%)

17 (52%)

120 (64%)

Notes. * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .001 Percentages presented in this table are column percentages. For example, 65% of -Aboriginal LifeLine participants have a prior conviction as a youth. a LifeLine population includes all the offenders who received LifeLine services since August 2007 and the LifeLine offenders who were interviewed. b Frequencies presented refer to the number of lifers who have at least some need in each of the domains

Aboriginal vs. Non-Aboriginal Offenders
Independent sample t-tests24 were conducted to compare the mean age at admission and current age for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal LifeLine Program participants. Compared to non-Aboriginal offenders, Aboriginal LifeLine Program participants were significantly younger at admission and at the time of the evaluation than non-Aboriginal offenders for both the full LifeLine population as well as the sample of LifeLine offenders who were interviewed.

A series of Chi-square analyses25 were conducted to compare proportions of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal LifeLine Program participants on the various demographic, criminal history, and risk variables. There was a higher proportion of women Aboriginal offenders than expected compared to non-Aboriginal women among all LifeLine participants as well as the interviewed sample. There was a significant difference in the proportion of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal LifeLine Program participants across the regions, with higher proportions of Aboriginal offenders than non-Aboriginal offenders who participated in LifeLine in the Atlantic and Ontario Regions and lower proportions of Aboriginal LifeLine participants in the Prairie and Pacific Regions, despite a higher proportion of Aboriginal offenders in these latter two regions overall.

For LifeLine Program participants, there was a significant difference in the proportion of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal LifeLine offenders (population) by sentence type, with a significantly higher proportion of Aboriginal offenders serving determinate sentences of less than 10 years and lower proportion of Aboriginal offenders serving life sentences. This difference was not evident among interviewed program participants. There were also higher proportions of Aboriginal LifeLine Program participants who were rated as high on static and dynamic risk, and low reintegration potential than non-Aboriginal offenders. Among those LifeLine  program participants interviewed, there was a higher proportion of Aboriginal offenders with a low reintegration potential rating than non-Aboriginal offenders.

Among all program participants, significantly higher proportions of Aboriginal offenders had at least some need for improvement on each of the need domains than non-Aboriginal offenders. However, among the LifeLine offenders who were interviewed, there were no differences in the proportion of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders with at least some need for improvement on six of the seven domains. The only significant difference was found in the area of substance abuse, where the proportion of Aboriginal offenders who did not have a need for improvement was significantly lower than expected.

Full Samples
The LifeLine Program participants who were interviewed were significantly younger at admission than LifeLine offenders who were not interviewed [t(2122) = 3.79, p < .001] but there was no significant difference in their age as of April 1, 2009 [t(2143) = 0.86, ns]. A series of Chi-square analyses were completed to examine whether there were differences in proportions between the interviewed and non-interviewed LifeLine Program participants with respect to demographic, criminal history, and risk variables. There were significant differences with respect to sex, ethnicity, and region. There was a significantly higher proportion of women in the interviewed sample than would be expected (7% of all offenders who were interviewed compared to 2% of the LifeLine offenders who were not interviewed) [χ2(1) = 15.65, p< .001].

There were no significant differences between the two groups on prior convictions as a youth, overall risk, need, and reintegration potential but there was a significant difference in the proportion of offenders who had a prior adult conviction [χ2(1) = 15.68, p< .001]. There was a higher proportion of interviewed program participants who did not have a previous adult conviction than expected.

Overall, it appears that the interviewed program participants were comparable to the program participants who were not interviewed on many of the risk-related variables (risk, need, and reintegration potential) as well as ethnicity and current age.

CSC Staff Survey Respondents
Respondents who had no or limited familiarity with the LifeLine Program were asked the extent to which information about the LifeLine Program would be beneficial to their work capacity. The majority of this group (64%; n=58) indicated that the information would be moderately to completely beneficial while 36% (n=32) indicated not at all or minimally. In addition, 64% (n=71) of the staff members who had no or limited familiarity with the LifeLine Program indicated that they would like to learn more about the program; 28% (n=31) indicated that they may want to learn more about the LifeLine Program while 8% (n=9) indicated that they would not. When asked the best method to deliver the information about the LifeLine Program, workshop or information sessions was the most frequently selected response (39%) followed by email and information posted on Regional Infonet (32% and 17%, respectively). Small proportions selected information posted on National Infonet (7%) and newsletter/Let’s Talk magazine (4%) as the best methods to deliver information on the LifeLine Program.

As the survey was designed for staff members who have at least moderate familiarity with the goals/objectives of LifeLine, only results from staff respondents who met this criterion are reported in the remainder of the report. A total of 132 staff members met this criterion.  Staff position titles are described in Table A3.

Table A 3: Staff Respondent Position Titles
Position Title Staff
(n =132)
(n) (%)

Community parole officer

22

17%

Institutional program staff/social program officer

18

14%

Correctional officer/manager

17

13%

Institutional parole officer

15

11%

Program coordinator/manager

7

5%

Area/District/Associate District director

6

5%

Manager of Assessment and Intervention

4

3%

Parole supervisor

4

3%

Social worker/clinical social worker/community mental health specialist

4

3%

Psychologist

4

3%

Warden/Assistant warden

3

2%

Employment/CORCAN/institutional shop/work instructor/supervisor

2

2%

Analyst/Research

2

2%

Chaplain

2

2%

LifeLine regional coordinator

2

2%

Community program delivery staff

2

2%

Other

12

9%

LifeLine In-reach Workers
Table A4 presents the descriptive statistics for the in-reach workers who completed a survey for the present evaluation.

Table A 4: In-reach Worker Demographic Statistics
  Frequency % (n)
Gender  

Male

91% (21)

Female

9% (2)

Ethnicity (self- report)  

Aboriginal

9% (2)

Non-Aboriginal

30% (7)

Missing

61% (14)

Received LifeLine services prior to being hired as an In-reach worker  

No

74% (17)

Yes

26% (6)

  Mean (SD)

Age

55.0 years (6.62)

Number of years as a LifeLine In-Reach/Outreach Worker

years (3.89)
(range: 0 to 10 years)

Number of years in the community (after most recent release) prior to being hired as an In-Reach/Outreach Worker

12.5 years (9.08)
(range: 3 to 32 years)

Implementation
The frequency of meetings with institutional staff and case conferences with offenders with life or indeterminate sentences per in-reach worker is presented in Figures A1 and A226, respectively. As noted in the limitations section, variable reporting practices preclude examination of differences across and (in some instances) within regions (for example, Prairie Region, discussed below). The frequencies presented in Figures A1 and A2 were created from the LifeLine annual reports that were submitted by the contracted agencies, hence these data are deemed as self-report and the reader should consider this as for information purposes only. Please refer to the limitations section of this appendix for a detailed account of the reliability of these data.

Figure A 1: Frequency of Meetings between the In-reach Workers and Institutional Staff Members
This bar chart displays the frequency of meetings between the in-reach workers and institutional staff members by region for the years 2006/07 and 2007/08.
Note. The data presented in this figure were extracted from the regional and annual reports provided by the Citizen Engagement Branch. The data include case management meetings to review files/exchange information and meetings to facilitate acceptance of the in-reach services.

[D]

Figure A 2: Frequency of Case Conferences with Lifers
This bar chart exhibits the frequency of case conferences with lifers by region.
Notes. Case conferences include case management meetings to review files, meetings with institutional staff, and meetings to facilitate acceptance of in-reach role. The Pacific Region did not report on this type of activity but did provide statistics for meetings with institutional staff; it is unclear whether the category included case conferences with lifers.

[D]

In the Quebec Region, there were more meetings with institutional staff and case conferences with lifers in 2007/08 than in 2006/07 [percentage increase of 526% (from 19 to 119 contacts/IRW) and 14%, respectively]. In the Prairie Region, there were substantially fewer meetings with institutional staff (96% reduction) and case conferences with lifers (81%) from 2006/07 to 2007/08. The Prairie Region started the 2007/08 fiscal year with a third in-reach workers who provided services to southern Alberta but that position was vacated in November 2007. In addition, there was also a vacant in-reach worker position in Manitoba in both years. As such, only two in-reach workers were available to provide services to 11 facilities across the geographically large Prairie Region. It should be noted that whereas the data for 2007/08 were obtained from the National Annual Report, the data for 2006/07 were obtained from individual reports submitted by the in-reach workers, which had different categories of contacts than the National Report.

In the Pacific Region, 58% fewer meetings with institutional staff were reported in 2007/08 when compared to the previous year. As will be discussed in the Success section of the evaluation report, there was also a substantial decrease in number of NPB hearings at which in-reach workers assisted or attended. In the same period, there was an increase in the number of escorted temporary absences (ETAs) and unescorted temporary absences (UTAs) and the number of public awareness presentations more than doubled. It is suggested that the contracted agency in the Pacific Region may have shifted their focus to community-based services; however, examination of the Pacific Regional Annual Reports did not provide any information to explain the variations in services between the two years.

Success
Figure A3 presents the number of meetings between in-reach workers and lifer groups and other institutional staff members in the institutions across the five regions during 2006/07 and 2007/08  27.

Figure A 3: Frequency of In-reach Worker Contacts with Lifer Groups/Other Institutional Staff
This bar chart presents the frequency of in-reach worker contacts with lifer groups/other institutional staff by region.
Note. Data extracted from the annual regional reports (2006/07) and National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-08, and supplemented with data from the 2007/08 regional reports where necessary. 2006/07 data were not reported for the Prairie Region and 2007-2008 data were not available for the Quebec region.

[D]

The data reported in Figure A3 were derived from the 2006/07 annual regional reports submitted by the contracted agencies and the National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-08 (Correctional Service of Canada, 2009b)28. Please refer to the limitations section of this appendix for a detailed account of the reliability of these data.

From Figure A3, frequencies were fairly consistent across the regions during 2006/07, ranging from 10-14 meetings per in-reach worker. However, the rate of contacts decreased in 2007/08 compared to the preceding year in the Atlantic, Ontario, and Pacific Regions, with reductions in the range of 30% to 57%. One potential reason for the decrease in contacts in the institutions is a shift in focus of LifeLine services from contacts within the institutions to other activities that facilitate reintegration into the community. However, no reference was made to such a shift in the annual report. Thus, the reasons for the decrease in contacts are unknown.

Figure A4 presents the frequencies of ETA and UTAs that in-reach workers completed with lifers by region for 2006/07 and 2007/08.

Figure A 4: Frequency of ETAs and UTAs completed with Lifers
This bar chart displays the frequencies of ETAs and UTAs that in-reach workers completed with lifers by region for 2006/07 and 2007/08.
Notes. Data extracted from the annual regional reports (2006/07) and National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-08, and supplemented with data from the 2007/08 regional reports where necessary. The 2006/07 datum for the Prairie Region was aggregated from the Manitoba and Northern Alberta reports. Alberta had 4 ETAs based on the number of individuals who attended public awareness events with their in-reach worker. Otherwise no additional information was available for Alberta.

[D]

In 2006/07, the highest rate of NPB hearing attendance by in-reach workers was found in the Pacific Region29; however, this rate was reduced by 50% in the subsequent year. Reductions in rates of NPB hearing attendance in 2007/08 in comparison to the previous year were also observed in the Atlantic (7% reduction) and Pacific (58% reduction) Regions. The Quebec Region was the only region that reported an increase in frequency of NPB hearing attendance (increase of 50% in 2007/08 from the previous year). As noted previously, it is unclear what factors led to the changes in frequency of these activities. Figure A5 presents the frequency of NPB hearings attended by in-reach workers by region for 2006/07 and 2007/08.

Figure A 5: Frequency of NPB Meetings that Involved In-reach Workers
This bar chart presents the frequency of NPB meetings that involved in-reach workers for 2006/07 and 2007/08.
Note. Data extracted from the annual regional reports (2006/07) and National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-08, and supplemented with data from the 2007/08 regional reports where necessary.

[D]

The highest number of ETAs and UTAs with lifers by in-reach workers for both 2006/07 and 2007/08 was reported in the Pacific Region, but it is not clear whether or not the activities reported in the Pacific Region were specific to services covered by the LifeLine contract or other services that are provided by that contracted agency to CSC offenders30.

Community Supports
Data aggregated from annual regional reports (2006/07) and National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-08  show the frequency of contact between in-reach workers and community service providers in preparing for an offender’s release varies considerable across regions. The following information is provided for information purposes only. Comparisons should not be made between regions nor should they be made between years.  Figure A6 displays the average number of times an in-reach worker contacts community service providers/resources to prepare for an offender’s release.

Figure A 6: Frequency of Contacts with Community Service Providers/Resources in Preparation for an Offender's Release
This bar chart displays the average frequency of contacts with community service providers/resources in preparation for an offender’s release by region for 2006/07 to 2007/08.
Notes. Data extracted from the annual regional reports (2006/07) and National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-08, and supplemented with data from the 2007/08 regional reports where necessary. Data for the Prairie Region include contacts with community support groups. Data for the Pacific Region include meetings at different support groups held at half way houses and parole offices (i.e., Belkin House, Manchester House, and Abbotsford Parole). For the Pacific Region, the data include community out-reach and community follow-up.  Datum for the Atlantic Region in 2006/07 represents frequency of “community relation” contacts.

[D]

Family Supports Services

In-reach workers are also tasked with liaising between the offender and their family. Services provided to the family include: answering questions and discussing concerns, sharing information about the correctional system, re-establishing or strengthening family ties with the offender, providing information about how the NPB process works, assisting with emergency transportation, providing advice or referrals to related community support services, and helping arrange for accommodations while visiting the offender. Figure A7 displays the average number of face-to-face contacts between in-reach workers and family members prior to an program participants’ release as reported in LifeLine Program annual regional reports (2006/07) and National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-08.

Figure A 7: Frequency of Contacts with Offenders’ Families
This bar chart displays the average number of face-to-face contacts between in-reach workers and family members prior to a program participant’s release in 2006/07 and 2007/08.
Note. Data extracted from the annual regional reports (2006/07) and National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-08, and supplemented with data from the 2007/08 regional reports where necessary. 2006/07 data were not available for the Pacific Region.

[D]

Public Awareness Efforts
Figure A8 displays the average number of public awareness presentations delivered by in-reach workers by region reported in the LifeLine Program annual regional (2006/07) and National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-2008 (CSC, 2009b).

Figure A 8: Frequency of Public Awareness Presentations
This bar chart presents the average number of public awareness presentation delivered by in-reach workers by region for fiscal years 2006/07 and 2007/08.
Note. Data extracted from the annual regional reports (2006/07) and National LifeLine Annual Report 2007-08, and supplemented with data from the 2007/08 regional reports where necessary. The data presented in this figure include presentations to the general public, local schools, universities, colleges, church groups, and radio and television interviews.

[D]

APPENDIX B: PROFILE OF LONG-TERM OFFENDERS

As of March 31, 2009, there were 6,634 LTOs under CSC jurisdiction, representing 30% of all federal offenders (Young et al., 2009). Within this population, the majority (65%; n = 4,345) were serving life sentences; 28% (n = 1,860) were serving a determinate sentence of 10 years or more; and 6% (n = 429) were serving an indeterminate sentence. Two-thirds (64%; n = 4,263) of all LTOs were incarcerated while one-third (36%; n = 2,371) were on one form of conditional release. The highest proportions of LTOs are found in the Ontario and Quebec Regions (29% and 28%, respectively) while the lowest proportion is found in the Atlantic Region (7%). Table B1 presents a breakdown of LTOs across CSC’s five regions31.

Table B 1: Long-term Offenders by Release Type and Region
Region Frequency n (%)
Incarcerated a Conditional Release a Total b

Atlantic

327 (8%)

149 (6%)

476 (7%)

Quebec

1143 (27%)

703 (30%)

1846 (28%)

Ontario

1280 (30%)

617 (26%)

1897 (29%)

Prairie

707 (17%)

392 (17%)

1099 (17%)

Pacific

806 (19%)

510 (22%)

1316 (20%)

Total (N=6,634) b

4263 (64%)

2371 (36%)

6634 (100%)

Notes. Data extracted from Table 2 of Young and colleagues (2009) Total percentage may not equal to 100 due to rounding. a Percentages represent the proportion of incarcerated offenders and of those on conditional release in each region (i.e., column percentages). b Percentages represent the proportion of offenders of the total population of LTOs

Demographic information on LTOs was also reported in Young and colleagues’ (2009) report entitled Offenders Serving Life and Indeterminate Sentences: Snapshot (2009) and Changing Profile (1998 to 2008). Most (97%) of LTOs are male. With respect to ethnicity, the most frequent category was Caucasian (71%) followed by Aboriginal (16%). Other racial categories noted were Black (6%), Asian (2%) and “other” (4%). Table B2 presents lifers and offenders with indeterminate sentences by offence type.

Table B 2: Distribution of Federal Lifers by Offence
Offence Frequency a n (%)
Life
Sentence (n=4345)
Indeterminate
Sentence (n =429)
Total
(n =4774)

Homicide

3284 (76%)

10 (3%)

3294 (69%)

Sexual offence

153 (4%)

303 (71%)

456 (10%)

Robbery

283 (7%)

44 (10%)

327 (7%)

Assault or other violent offence

555 (13%)

199 (46%)

754 (16%)

Drug offence

184 (4%)

6 (1%)

190 (4%)

Organized crime

8 (0.002%)

0 (0%)

8 (0.002%)

Other offence

950 (22%)

132 (31%)

1082 (23%)

Notes. Data extracted from Table 9 of Young et al. (2009). Offenders convicted for more than one category of offence are counted in each category. Therefore, the percentages should not be summed across categories. Percentages are out of the N within the sentence type. For example, 76% of all offenders with a life sentence have been convicted of homicide.

The majority of the offenders with life sentence have been convicted on homicide (76%) while the majority of offenders with indeterminate sentences have been convicted of a sexual offence (71%).

Upon admission to CSC, all offenders are assessed at for security risk (custody rating score). The assessment of security risk is based on the offender’s institutional adjustment, escape risk and risk to public safety32. Among the LTOs, over half (54%) of them were scored at the maximum risk level. Although very frequently used for classification purposes, offenders may be placed in an institution with a different security rating, or in a multilevel institution. The proportions of LTOs admissions by institutional security level and initial custody rating are presented in Table B3.

Table B 3: Security Level of Admitting Institution by Initial Custody Rating Score for Offenders with Life or Indeterminate Sentence
Security Level of Admitting Institution Initial Custody Rating Score b
Minimum Medium Maximum

Minimum

0 (0%)

73 (7%)

80 (4%)

Medium

4 (50%)

251 (26%)

526 (24%)

Maximum

4 (50%)

530 (54%)

1223 (56%)

Multilevel

0 (0%)

129 (13%)

347 (16%)

Total a

8

983

2176

Notes. Table adapted from Table 8 of Young et al. (2009). a Totals differ from that noted elsewhere in the report due to missing data. a Percentages reported in this table are column percentages.

During intake assessment, offenders are assessed on seven (7) domains of dynamic needs factors including: employment, marital/family, associates, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional and attitude33. An assessment is conducted on each of these domain levels to determine which areas need improvement and should be targeted for treatment to ensure better community functioning upon release. The proportion of offenders with life and indeterminate sentence who have at least some need for improvement in each of the seven need domains is presented in Figure B1.

Figure B 1: Proportion of Institutional (N=2,917) and Conditionally Released (N=953) Lifers Indicating Some or Considerable Need for Improvement Upon Admission
This bar graph displays the percentage of offenders with life and indeterminate sentences who have at least some need for improvement in each of the seven needs domains. The need domains include employment, family, associates, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional, and attitude. Overall, more than half of both institutional and conditionally released offenders have some or considerable need for improvement in each of the need domains with the exception of community functioning.  These needs were identified at the time of admission into the institutions.
Note. Reproduced from Figure 5 in Young et al. (2009).

[D]

As seen in Figure B1, with one exception, more than half of offenders serving a life or indeterminate sentence, both incarcerated and conditionally released, have some or considerable need for improvement in the seven domains. In addition, approximately 52% (n = 478) of offenders with life or indeterminate sentences have been identified as having current or past diagnosed mental health issues (Young et al., 2009). Among all offenders admitted to federal custody in 2007/08, 11% had a mental health diagnosis, 31% had been prescribed psychiatric medication, 15.5% had a past psychiatric hospitalization, and 6% had utilized psychiatric outpatient services (Public Safety Canada, 2008). Together, these statistics suggest that substantial proportions of offenders with life or indeterminate sentences have some or considerable need that need to be taken into consideration.

APPENDIX C: LIFELINE PROGRAM EVALUATION MATRIX

Evaluation Objective 1: Continued Relevance: Does the LifeLine program continue to be consistent with departmental priorities and does it realistically address an actual need?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Specific Data Collected/Analysis Frequency of Collection Information Source Responsibility Centre
i) The LifeLine program is consistent with correctional priorities

Documentation substantiates the relevancy of the LifeLine program

Review of Literature/documents against relevant Expenditure Review Committee Policy Test Questions

Stakeholders confirm the LifeLine Programs’ relevancy

Evaluation Phase

Literature Review

Document Reviews (e.g., CSC Business Plan, Report on Plans and Priorities)

Key Stakeholder Interviews

TBD
ii) The program is linked to achieving results in a valid and logical way

Clarity of links between activities and impacts

Clarity of guidelines and roles and responsibilities

Interviews with key stakeholders to determine if the link between activities and impacts is understood

Review of key documents

Evaluation Phase

Evaluation  Phase

Key Stakeholder Interviews

Key Documents (e.g., “Implementing the LifeLine Concept: Report of the Task Force on Long Term Offenders”, “LifeLine Public Awareness Strategy”; LifeLine Annual Reports; etc.)

TBD

TBD

iii) There is a high level of participation in LifeLine program activities/services by the targeted group.

Percentage of long-term offenders who participate in LifeLine program activities in the institution and community (e.g., case conferences, assistance with NPB hearings)

Number of long-term offenders who participate in various LifeLine program activities compared to total long-term offenders eligible for activities/services.

Monthly reports from In-reach workers to Regions

Rolled up semi-annually at CCE/NHQ

In-reach worker Forms

OMS

OPI34

TBD

iv) The LifeLine program is meeting the overall correctional needs of its clients.

Link between needs of long-term offenders and services offered

Review of presenting needs/profile of  long-term offenders (e.g. needs, motivation level, risk, etc.) against LifeLine program activities

Offender and Staff appraisals of the suitability of LifeLine activities for meeting the clients’ needs

Evaluation  Phase

In-reach worker Forms

OMS

Key Stakeholder Interviews

OPI

TBD

Evaluation Objective 2: Success (Efficiency) Is the LifeLine program producing its planned outputs in related to expenditure of resources, and meeting its planned results?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Specific Data Collected/Analysis Frequency of Collection Information Source Responsibility Centre
i) The expected outputs are being produced as a result of the initiative

Number of outputs produced (e.g. programs/tools developed; interviews with offenders; community contacts established; presentations to community groups)

Review of records kept by in-reach workers

Monthly reports (in-reach workers to Regions)

Rolled-up semi-annually at NHQ

In-reach worker Forms

OPI
Evaluation Objective 2: Success (Effectiveness) Is the LifeLine program producing its planned outputs in related to expenditure of resources, and meeting its planned results?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Specific Data Collected/Analysis Frequency of Collection Information Source Responsibility Centre
i) Participation in LifeLine activities/ services assists long term offenders to begin to adapt to the institutional environment and learn to cope with the length of their sentences.

# of Institutional incidents

# of days spent in segregation

Compare admissions cohort of long-term offenders who participated in relevant LifeLine activities/services to matched group of non-participants

Staff and offender perceptions of the impact of the LifeLine program activities to adaptation

Ongoing

Evaluation Phase

In-reach worker Forms

OMS

Key Stakeholder Interviews/ Surveys

OPI

TBD

ii) Participation in LifeLine program activities/ services assists long term offenders to integrate and become involved in the prison community.

Program completion

Employment/pay level

Motivation level

Movement to lower security level/facility

Compare admissions cohort of long-term offenders who participated in relevant LifeLine activities/ services (e.g., “contribution to correctional plan” “general support”) to matched group of non-participants.

Staff and offender perceptions of impact of LifeLine program activities on offender integration, progress, contribution to prison community

Ongoing

Evaluation Phase

In-reach worker Forms

OMS

Key Stakeholder Interviews/ Surveys

OPI

TBD

iii) LifeLine program activities/ services contribute to the timely/safe release of long-term offenders to the community.

# of ETAs/UTAs granted

Timely/safe release to the community

Reintegration (e.g., comparison of “returns to custody” and re-offence rates for LifeLine participants vs. non-participants)

Compare long-term offenders who participated in relevant LifeLine program activities to control group (e.g., assistance preparing for NPB hearings; providing referrals to  community contacts)

Staff, offender, and community partners’ perceptions of impact of LifeLine program activities (e.g., activities/ services most beneficial to reintegration)

Ongoing

Evaluation Phase

In-reach worker Form

OMS

Key Stakeholder Interviews/ Surveys

OPI

TBD

iv) LifeLine program activities/ services contribute to increased community awareness and support for CSC’s safe reintegration efforts.

Positive/neutral media coverage of LifeLine program activities including presentations to community groups

# and type of presentations/group awareness sessions

Impact of in-reach worker community presentations (e.g., increased awareness; support for CSC’s safe reintegration efforts)

Media scan of coverage of positive/neutral media in major national print media

Review of audience feedback form completed by community members/stakeholders following in-reach worker presentations

Annually

Monthly reports (In-reach worker to Regions)

Rolled-up Annually at CCE/NHQ

Media Scan

In-reach worker Forms

Key Stakeholder Interviews/ Surveys

CCE

OPI

Evaluation Objective 3: Cost-effectiveness
Are the most appropriate and efficient means used to achieve objectives, relative to alternative design and delivery approaches?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Specific Data Collected/Analysis Frequency of Collection Information Source Responsibility Centre
i) The expected outputs/outcomes of the LifeLine program have been effectively achieved with designated funding.

Outputs/ outcomes have been effectively achieved within budget

The LifeLine program has achieved results that could not likely have been achieved by other approaches/programs targeting long-term offenders for the same/lesser cost

Have Outputs/ outcomes been successfully achieved

Compare overall cost to overall success of program in achieving expected Outputs/ outcomes

Ongoing

Evaluation Phase

In-reach worker Forms

Corporate Services  Financial Records

OPI

TBD

Evaluation Objective 4: Unintended Findings – Has the LifeLine program encountered any positive or negative unintended effects?
  Key Results Performance Indicators Specific Data Collected/Analysis Frequency of Collection Information Source Responsibility Centre
  Have there been any unanticipated outcomes?

TBD

TBD

Evaluation Phase

Interviews with Key Stakeholders

TBD

APPENDIX D: THEMES FROM OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS

General Notes:

  • This Appendix provides information regarding themes from open-ended survey questions. Responses to dichotomous (yes-no) and rating scale questions are reported in the text of the document.
  • Percentages were calculated using total number of respondents who had the opportunity to respond to the question.
  • Note that total percentages may not sum to 100% since multiple themes were noted by individual respondents.
  • Note that only responses to questions where clear themes emerged relevant to the evaluation questions are listed here. In some cases, few responses were generated by interviewees or survey respondents, or no clear themes emerged based on the responses that were generated. Thus, some questions may not be shown here due to lack of clear emerging themes.

Themes from CSC Staff Surveys – Summary of Themes

3.5b – To what extent are the goals/objectives of the LifeLine Program consistent with CSC’s mission and strategic priorities? Please explain your response.
Question Theme Staff (n = 132)

1

Focuses on assisting offenders reintegrate safely into the community/as law abiding citizens

59 (45%)

2

Helps to motivate offenders to work on correctional plan or to change/rehabilitation

12 (9%)

4

Contributes to safety and security within the institutions/ provides support to offenders in the institution

8 (6%)

3.8b – To what extent do you feel that the LifeLine Program meets the correctional needs of lifers? Please explain.
Question Theme Staff (n = 132)

1

Overall program success

  • It helps, but it is only one part of the overall picture (n=2)
  • Optional program, but has limitations on what it can do (n=4)
  • A supportive program rather than correctional (n=2)

8 (6%)

2

Program helps with:

  • Preparing and/or succeeding in the community (n=2)
  • Transportation (n=2)
  • Assist in understanding what is expected of them (n=3)
  • Helps with ETAs (n=5)
  • Helps understand the process and cope (i.e., each of the 4 steps) (n=6)
  • Managing and/or mitigating issues before they are issues/risk factors (n=4)
  • Brings lifers together (n=5)
  • Promotes pro-social behaviour/attitudes (n=3)
  • Provides lifers with information, advice and guidance (n=13)
  • Encourage offenders to participate in correctional plan, programs, etc. (i.e., case management) (n=11)
  • Transition planning/pre-release planning (i.e., hearings) (n=9)
  • Keeps lifers connected to the community (n=3)

66 (50%)

3

Need more resources
a) more in-reach workers (institutional and community based; n=3)
b) more funds/ more resources (non-specific; n=3)
c) More effective/ more focused in community and pre-release (n=3)

10 (8%)

4

Success is subject to individual (either offender or in-reach worker)

7 (5%)

5

A unique experience/program for in-reach workers and lifers (i.e., exchange experience, share, support, motivate)

20 (15%)

6

Complaints about the program
c) The support in the community is insufficient/need to provide additional support to offenders released to the community (n=3)
d) Lack of education/training for in-reach workers (n=2)

7 (5%)

Question Theme Staff (n = 132)
4.1b – To what extent do you agree that paroled lifers are the most appropriate individuals to provide in-reach services to lifers? Please explain.

1

No, they are not the most appropriate

  • Not the best individuals, but they do have something unique to offer (n=3)
  • Ex-offenders should not work in the institutions (n=1)
  • Still too close to “offender” status (e.g., conflict of interest) (n=2)
  • Too concerned about themselves / bitter about the system (n=2)
  • Not qualified to do some of the work that they do, lack training and skills (n=2)
  • May easily be corrupted to go back into crime / Security issue for the institution (n=5)

15 (11%)

2

Yes, they are appropriate when:

  • They are a good source of support/motivation (n=7)
  • They have the experience of the institution, adaptation, preparing for release and the general sense of being a lifer / can therefore relate (n=56)
  • They are now leading a pro-social life and are therefore a good example/role model (n=4)
  • But work best under the supervision and support of an institutional or community based staff member (i.e., as part of the correctional team) (n=4)
  • But with limits in place (n=1)

72 (55%)

3

New Criteria

  • Minimum 10 years in community and employed / Successful in community (n=4)
  • Pardoned (n=1)
  • Not necessary to be an ex-lifer (n=4)
  • Not the only group that should be selected – but should be part of the eligible pool (n=3)

12 (9%)

4.2k – To your knowledge, were difficulties in the following areas encountered in the implementation of the LifeLine Program? If other, please specify.
Question Theme Staff (n = 33)

1

Trust issues of staff (e.g., credibility of in-reach workers)

10 (30%)

4.12a-t – Please list the steps taken to resolve the difficulty:
Question Theme Staff
 

A – screening lifers as potential in-reach workers

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships

2/17 (12%)

 

B – length of time for security screening of potential in-reach workers

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships

1/9 (11%)

 

C – in-reach worker access to relevant offender information

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships

1/14 (7%)

 

D – Communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and CSC institutional correctional staff

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships
Buy-in/Education and promotion of program

3/13 (23%)
1/13 (8%)

 

E - Communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and CSC institutional case management staff

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships
Buy-in/Education and promotion of program

2/11 (18%)
1/11 (9%)

 

F - Communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and CSC community management staff

Buy-in/Education and promotion of program

2/8 (25%)

 

G - Communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and CSC community case management staff

 
 

H - Communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and CSC community management staff

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships
Buy-in/Education and promotion of program

1/23 (4%)
1/23 (4%)

 

I - Communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and community service providers

 
 

K - Please list any suggestions to resolve the difficulty: screening lifers as potential in-reach workers

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships

1/7 (14%)

 

L - Please list any suggestions to resolve the difficulty: length of time for security screening of potential in-reach workers

 
 

M - Please list any suggestions to resolve the difficulty: in-reach worker access to relevant offender information

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships
Buy-in/Education and promotion of program

3/8 (38%)
2/8 (25%)

 

N - Please list any suggestions to resolve the difficulty: communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and CSC institutional correctional staff

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships
Buy-in/Education and promotion of program

2/19 (11%)
4/19 (21%)

 

O - Please list any suggestions to resolve the difficulty: communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and CSC institutional case management staff

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships
Buy-in/Education and promotion of program

2/16 (13%)
1/16 (6%)

 

P - Please list any suggestions to resolve the difficulty: communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and CSC institutional management staff

Buy-in/Education and promotion of program

1/7 (14%)

 

Q - Please list any suggestions to resolve the difficulty: communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and CSC community case management staff

Communication/Collaboration/Relationships

2/7 (29%)

 

R - Please list any suggestions to resolve the difficulty: communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and CSC community management staff

Buy-in/Education and promotion of program

1/3 (33%)

 

S - Please list any suggestions to resolve the difficulty: communication/coordination between in-reach workers/outreach workers and community service providers

 
 

T - Please list any suggestions to resolve any other difficulties listed:

Buy-in/Education and promotion of program

1/1 (100%)

4.13a - Please describe how this has posed a security risk
Question Theme Staff (n = 35)

1

Yes – They do pose a security risk

  • Re-offended in the community (had to be let go) (n=2)
  • Committed an offence in the institution (e.g., brought in illegal items) (n=17)
  • Undermines authority in the institution (n=1)
  • Does things that are out of their authority range in the institution (n=1)
  • Meeting with non-lifers which has seen to be suspicious (e.g., gang members) (n=3)
  • Causes issues during counts (n=2)
  • Inappropriate actions (e.g., withholding information/ exposing information, problems on ETAs, (n=7)

33 (94%)

4.13b – Please list steps taken to resolve the security risk
Question Theme Staff (n = 35)

1

Re-arrest/ Re-incarceration

6 (17%)

2

Worker was “let go” – removed privileges, restricted access / Banned from institution

6 (17%)

3

Tightened supervision/ Held more accountable for actions

2 (6%)

4

“Spoken to” / rules were clarified

3 (9%)

5

Put them through staff training/ education / security clearance

2 (6%)

4.14e – To what extent do you agree that there are sufficient LifeLine workers to:
(a) provide in-reach services to offenders in the institution
(b) to coordinate community resources for lifers in the institution
(c) to coordinate community resources for lifers in the community
(d) to increase public awareness about lifers and other inmates
Please explain your responses.
Question Theme Staff (n = 132)

1

Insufficient resource allocation / spread too thin (n=5)

  • More in-reach workers needed (n=18)
  • More travel mileage and money needed (n=1)
  • More outreach workers needed (n=5)
  • More workable hours needed (n=1)
  • More administrative support services needed (n=1)
  • More resources needed (non-specific) (n=3)

34 (26%)

Question Theme Staff (n = 132)
4.16 - If you have encountered any obstacles regarding the implementation of the LifeLine initiative, please list them.

1

Not all offenders are getting this program / It should be made available to more than just lifers

2 (2%)

2

Lack of/ Need more:

  • Need more resources in the community (e.g., outreach workers, support) (n=4)
  • Lack of privacy for in-reach workers/Offender (need an office, a phone) (n=2)
  • Lack of in-reach workers (includes no in-reach worker at present time) (n=13)
  • Lack of mileage for ETAs/UTAs (n=4)
  • Need non-biased workers (willing to work with anyone, regardless of offence) (n=1)
  • Lack of workable hours (n=2) 

26 (20%)

2c

Lack of respect from staff members toward in-reach workers

4 (3%)

4

Difficulties contacting in-reach workers (either offender or CSC staff)

3 (2%)

6

Lifers make CSC staff’s job more difficult/challenging

2 (2%)

6.1a – Has LifeLine impacted case management practices in the institution? Please explain.
Question Theme Staff (n = 132)

1

Has had a positive impact

  • created open discussion regarding release planning, preparing for release, etc. (n=4)
  • positive in getting offender involved in their case management process (n=3)
  • an additional tool for the case management process (e.g. provide information, support, etc.) (n=15)
  • helps with ETAs and UTAs (n=2)
  • helps improve attitudes (n=3)
  • having an in-reach worker present at the meetings has changed case management meetings (e.g., offenders are now more honest, open and receptive) (n=3)
  • Has been vital in assisting offenders prepare for release or  going to a lower security level institution and making the transition (n=7)

35 (27%)

2

The structure of the case management process does not allow for the influence of LifeLine worker

6 (5%)

6.2b – In your opinion, to what extent do LifeLine workers participate in/contribute to parole officers’ decisions? Please explain.
Question Theme Staff (n = 132)
 

May have an influence, but parole officer makes evidence-based decisions (n=1)

  • one more voice among many (n=2)
  • very limited (n=2)
  • equal input as with any other staff member (n=4)
  • can provide supportive evidence that may assist in making decisions (n=15)

24 (18%)

 

Not at all/little (n=4)

  • not competent or objective (n=1)
  • Relationship between staff and in-reach workers not good enough (n=3)
  • Not enough credibility (n=1)
  • POs take part in an independent process using an evidence base (n=2)
  • in-reach workers and POs have different foci (n=2)

13 (10%)

 

They help with the offender
a) receptiveness to case management (n=2)
b) attitude (n=4)
c) as a liaison between themselves and CSC staff (PO) (n=4)
d) supports offender (n=2)

12 (9)%

 

Very case-specific

4 (3%)

6.3a – Has LifeLine impacted case management practices in the community? Please explain.
Question Theme Staff

No

 

N=14

 

Don’t usually have contact with community PO / poor relationship with staff

2 (14%)

Yes

 

N=33

 

Provides staff with information about lifers that they may otherwise not have, provided assistance to community staff.

6 (18%)

 

Provide assistance to build connections with the community

2 (6%)

 

An additional tool or support mechanism

2 (6%)

 

Has increased the number of offenders under supervision

2 (6%)

 

In-reach workers are consulted about re: ETAs, UTAs, etc.

2 (6%)

6.5a – Is there anything about LifeLine that you feel could be changed to improve the correctional outcomes for offenders participating in the program?
Question Theme Staff (n = 56)
 

More workers/time/resources needed

16 (29%)

 

Information sessions for staff/inmates/community

8 (14%)

 

Better screening of potential in-reach workers

5 (9%)

6.6a – In your opinion, is there a continued need for the services provided through LifeLine? Why or why not?
Question Theme Staff (n = 132)

Why not?

In-reach workers should be trained professionals/not ex-offenders

3 (2%)

Why?

Assist offenders to face challenges of returning to the community

12 (9%)

LifeLine in-reach workers provides lifers with hope/encouragement through sentence/encourage participation in case management

5 (4%)

LifeLine provides support that is otherwise not available to Lifers/ The program assists offenders to adjust to the institutional environment

14 (11%)

LifeLine in-reach workers can provide information based on own experience/role model/realistic

8 (6%)

6.7a – In your opinion, do you think LifeLine should be included in correctional plans of offenders who are serving life sentences? Why or why not?
Question Theme Staff (n = 132)
 

LifeLine should be voluntary

26 (20%)

 

Not all offenders who qualify would want/need LifeLine services

6 (5%)

 

LifeLine is supportive only, no risk management

5 (4%)

 

Support is helpful for all offenders

5 (4%)

6.8 – Is there anything else you would like to add?
Question Theme Staff (n = 132)
 

LifeLine positive/helpful/important for offenders

9 (7%)

 

In-reach worker is not trustworthy/not helping inmates

4 (3%)

 

Need to lessen staff resistance

3 (2%)

Themes from Offender Interviews – Summary of Open-Ended Themes

B16 - With respect to in-reach services, please specify “other” services provided
Question Theme Offender (n=68)

3

Provide support/direction to offenders

22 (32%)

11

Has not helped, has not requested help, don’t know what they can do for lifers

12 (18%)

6

Helped with pre-release or release activities/ETAs

11 (16%)

4

Helped with case management, correctional plan and POs

10 (15%)

3a

Provide information to offenders

5 (7%)

B19 – Please explain why you indicated that the LifeLine Program meets/does not meet your needs as a lifer
Question Theme Yes
(n=143)
No
(n=49)
Missing
(n=15)
Total (yes &no)
(n=192)

1

Provides Information (e.g., program, opportunities available to them, the processes, about the community, information to the community, etc…)

20 (14%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

20 (10%)

3

Provides support (including psychological support), direction, insight, advice, motivation, encouragement, improved communication, helps when no one else can, helps with family etc…

56 (39%)

3 (6%)

0 (0%)

59 (31%)

4

Helps establish connections and access to things lifers normally wouldn’t have access to (e.g., with other offenders, in the community, with other opportunities, meetings, appointments, etc…)

12 (8%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

12 (6%)

5

Limits on what in-reach workers can do (their hands are tied)

19 (13%)

3 (6%)

2 (13%)

22 (12%)

6

Helps with the case management process and PO

8 (6%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

9 (5%)

7

Should provide lifers with more information and guidance (e.g., about LifeLine, about resources, about the parole process, etc…)

2 (1%)

5 (10%)

0 (0%)

7 (4%)

8

Not enough in-reach workers, Not enough resources (limited in terms of workers and resources), No in-reach workers in the institution or lack of access.

19 (13%)

21 (43%)

0 (0%)

40 (21%)

9

More support needed from CSC and institutional staff for in-reach workers and LifeLine

6 (4%)

5 (10%)

0 (0%)

11 (6%)

10

Assists with release related activities and information (e.g., passes, NPB meetings, re-integration, etc.)

9 (6%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

10 (5%)

11

Needs to be program consistency, structure and concrete planning

1 (1%)

4 (8%)

0 (0%)

5 (3%)

C2 – Please explain your response to C1 (does your in-reach worker work with institutional correctional staff to ensure that all of your correctional program needs are met in a balanced way)
Question Theme Yes
(n=143)
No
(n=49)
Missing
(n=15)
Total (yes & no)
(n=192)

3

In-reach workers assist in getting access to programs/progress towards correctional plan/ETAs

18 (13%)

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

19 (10%)

4

Offender reports difficulties contacting in-reach workers (e.g., currently no in-reach worker, new in-reach worker)

0 (0%)

5 (10%)

0 (0%)

5 (3%)

6

Helps to explain information about case, application process, and decisions

4 (3%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

4 (2%)

7

There is resistance from CSC staff members to collaborate with in-reach workers

15 (11%)

8 (16%)

2 (13%)

23 (12%)

9

There is no communication between in-reach workers and case management

0 (0%)

4 (8%)

0 (0%)

4 (2%)

13

In-reach worker works with case management staff (e.g., POs) and other institutional staff members

49 (34%)

0 (0%)

2 (13%)

49 (26%)

C4 – Please explain your response to C3 (does your in-reach worker work with institutional correctional staff to ensure that all of your institutional needs are met in a balanced way)
Question Theme Yes
(n=108)
No
(n=31)
Don’t Know/ N/A
(n=68)
Total (yes & no)
(n=139)

1

Helps prepare us for release

12 (11%)

2 (7%)

1 (2%)

14 (10%)

2

In-reach workers provide support to lifers based on their experience

11 (10%)

0 (0%)

3 (4%)

11 (8%)

3

In-reach workers work with CSC staff such as case management and institutional staff members

23 (21%)

0 (0%)

2 (3%)

23 (17%)

4

In-reach workers help me stay in the loop by providing information about process and sentencing

12 (11%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

12 (9%)

12

Lack of respect from CSC staff and administration towards in-reach workers

4 (4%)

2 (7%)

0 (0%)

6 (4%)

C6 – If you rated communication between your institutional case management staff and your in-reach worker as fair or bad/substantial improvement required, please explain
Question Theme Offender (n=71)

8

There is resistance/lack of recognition from CSC staff members with respect to the in-reach workers and the work they do

21 (30%)

4

There is insufficient/no communication

17 (24%)

3

There is open communication between in-reach workers and CSC staff members

10 (14%)

5

More communication needed/ need improvement

3 (4%)

C8 – If you have any suggestions for improving communication between your IRW and CSC institutional staff, please explain
Question Theme Offender (n=93)

7

Create more meetings between offenders, in-reach workers and CSC staff (case management meetings) / emphasize the need for in-reach workers and staff to communicate and work together

27 (29%)

2

CSC staff need to be more supportive/respectful/open to the role of in-reach workers

25 (27%)

11

In-reach workers need more access to institutional resources/ in-reach workers need more access to financial resources (e.g., travel allowances)/ Need more in-reach workers

13 (14%)

5

Educate CSC staff members about LifeLine and what it offers

5 (5%)

C10 – If you indicated no or yes to C9, Please explain.
Question Theme Offender
Yes
(n=46)
No
(n=14)
Total
(n=60)

11

There has been no contact between in-reach workers and community case management team

0 (0%)

3 (21%)

3 (5%)

2

In-reach workers act as a bridge between offender and community/ Provides information to offender

3 (7%)

0 (0%)

3 (5%)

3

In-reach workers help establish contacts/ support circle in the community

5 (11%)

0 (0%)

5 (8%)

5

In-reach workers maintain contact with offender after release in the community

8 (17%)

0 (0%)

8 (13%)

6

In-reach workers works with half way houses/ community staff/ community services providers to prepare me for my release or follow up with my release

21 (46%)

0 (0%)

21 (35%)

9

Helps with employment, transportation, life skills, community programs, etc…

3 (7%)

0 (0%)

3 (5%)

C12 – If you indicated that communication between community case management staff and your in-reach workers was fair or bad, please explain
Question Theme Offender (n=24)

1

Did not have contact with in-reach worker in the community

3 (13%)

2

Community staff were reluctant to meet with/collaborate with in-reach workers

3 (13%)

3

in-reach worker has limited resources/time to meet with community case management staff

3 (13%)

4

Community case management staff did not have time to meet

2 (8%)

C14 – If you indicated that you have suggestions to improve the communication between your in-reach workers and your community correctional staff, please explain.
Question Theme Offender (n=27)

9

Have in-reach workers available in the community/available to offenders who have been released (i.e., outreach)

5 (19%)

2

Increase information sharing

5 (19%)

1

Regular meetings with in-reach workers / community staff/ lifers

4 (15%)

7

Education and training for staff and community

4 (15%)

6

Build trust, respect, and credibility between in-reach workers and CSC staff

3 (11%)

C21 – Please explain your responses to question C16 to C20 on support services in the community.
Question Theme Offender (n=207)

6

In-reach workers have helped me make appointments, make contacts, find employment, gain access to programs and community resources, etc…

7 (3%)

5

In-reach workers have been of help / support

4 (2%)

2

Limited resources available in the community to meet specific needs

4 (2%)

9

Did not utilize LifeLine in the community/Have only been involved since re-admission

4 (2%)

3

A good release plan was in place when I was released/completed ETAs to prepare for release

3 (1%)

1

No contact with in-reach workers in community/ no support/ not available/ would have liked to have support from an in-reach worker

3 (1%)

4

Helped to deal with issues/challenges with community staff

2 (1%)

D15 – Please describe other areas of success impacted by LifeLine.
Question Theme Offender (n=44)

1

Public appears to be misinformed about lifers/need more work to increase public awareness

15 (34%)

7

Support and motivation (e.g., emotional support, letters of support, support for passes for release, etc.)

11 (25%)

6

Assisted with programming and making connections

5 11%)

3

Provided information to lifers about relevant processes (e.g., about process, system, programming, living a normal life, reintegration, legal information, etc)

4 (9%)

5

Maintained communication/provide follow up

3 (7%)

D21 – Please explain your responses to question D16 to D19 on support services in the community.
Relationship between lifers and institutional case management staff
Question Theme Offender (n=207)

2

Improved communication due to LifeLine

14 (7%)

4

In-reach worker is a liaison or mediator or advocate between offender and staff

11 (5%)

5

Provides support/ information/ motivation/ credibility/ fills the gap and/or offers a different point of view

9 (4%)

6

Limits of in-reach workers / LifeLine in max/med- need more access / credibility/ respect

8 (4%)

1

Lack of communication and information sharing – improvement needed / lack of respect

5 (2%)

D21 – Please explain your responses to question D16 to D19 on support services in the community.
Relationship between lifers and community case management staff
Question Theme Offender (n=207)

11

Assisted in preparing for reintegration/release

7 (3%)

D21 – Please explain your responses to question D16 to D19 on support services in the community.
Public and community understanding and awareness of the needs of lifers
Question Theme Offender (n=207)

14

In-reach workers help clarify lifers, their situation in the community/ educate public/ liaise between community people and lifers , bring offenders into community to speak

13 (6%)

15

Community is negative towards lifers/ lack of understanding and knowledge/ bias/ don’t know lifers needs

8 (4%)

D23 – Please explain your response to C22 (To what extent has LifeLine met your needs as an Aboriginal person?)
Question Theme Offender
Not at all/A little
(n=13)
Moderate or higher
(n=24)
Total
(n=37)

1

Addresses my needs/ Connected me with aboriginal resources/ aboriginal community, etc…

2 (15%)

11 (46%)

13 (35%)

2

Should provide me with more contact to aboriginal communities, spirituality, etc…

2 (15%)

2 (8%)

4 (11%)

4

In-reach worker is not aboriginal but is making an effort to better understand the needs of aboriginal lifers and their culture

1 (8%)

3 (13%)

4 (11%)

5

Not using LifeLine for this purpose/ have accessed Aboriginal programs outside of LifeLine

4 (31%)

0 (0%)

4 (11%)

7

LifeLine is not Aboriginal specific / has not addressed my Aboriginal needs

5 (38%)

0 (0%)

5 (14%)

D25 – Overall do you have any suggestions for improving LifeLine Services? Please explain
Question Theme Offender (n=181)

1

Increase number of ETAs to offenders/allow in-reach workers to escort offenders on ETAs

18 (10%)

2

More of a focus on adjusting to the community/ developing community based relationships

14 (8%)

3

More Resources:

  • more in-reach workers / more time with in-reach workers (n=49)
  • More funds to facilitate travel / release (n=8)
  • Non-specific increase in resources (n=7)
  • Better pay for in-reach workers (n=3)
  • More volunteers / more support groups (n=2)
  • Expand program to more communities (more outreach workers in more communities) (n=4)

73 (40%)

4

Provide additional information

  • Information to lifers (e.g., manual/guide book for lifers, information about “what’s new” to deal with institutionalization, about the 4 stages of the sentence, about LifeLine program) (n=19)
  • Information to CSC and NPB staff (n=5)
  • Information to community / public awareness (n=7)
  • Information to the family of lifers (n=3)
  • Bring in more guest speakers from the community to provide lifers with information (n=4)

38 (21%)

5

Increase Institutional cooperation, access, privacy

  • Better access to enter the institution more frequently to visit offenders (more time) (n=26)
  • Better communication or cooperation (respect/ trust) between CSC staff and in-reach workers (n=18)
  • More ability to get offenders into programs (n=2)
  • Institutional based LifeLine office, phone and administrative secretary (to help with paper work) (n=12)
  • In-reach workers should have access to the case management process (i.e. assisting in the creation of a release plan, correctional plan, etc…) (n=8)
  • In-reach workers should have more power, access to information and less limitations – they are staff, not offenders (n=11)

77 (43%)

6

In-reach worker-related improvements

  • In-reach workers able to respond to unique needs of diverse offender groups (n=4)
  • Provide training/education to in-reach workers on their duties and responsibilities (n=2)

6 (3%)

D26 – Do you have anything else to add?
Institutional
Question Theme Offender (n=207)

1

Provide additional information to lifers about integration in institution, correctional process, etc

6 (3%)

2

General comments indicating that the program is important program, need, or beneficial to lifers

39 (19%)

3

Increase in-reach worker roles, responsibilities, and access:

  • Allow in-reach workers to advocate for programming and other case management issues (n=4)
  • Better access to in-reach workers needed (n=4)
  • In-reach workers need a stronger presence/ power in the institution (n=6)

14 (7%)

5

CSC staff and in-reach workers need to work on their relationship – needs to be more respectful and professional / more credibility

10 (5%)

6

Increase resources:

  1. more in-reach workers (n=16)
  2. more funding (non-specific) (n=6)
  3. travel miles/resources for ETAs (n=5)
  4. better pay, a pension for in-reach workers (n=2)

29 (14%)

D26 – Do you have anything else to add?
Community
Question Theme Offender (n=207)

8

Assist with ETAs

6 (3%)

9

Would like more assistance with community release

  • community support/ support groups (n=10)
  • Teaching life skills (e.g., making important purchases, bank accounts, etc.) (n=5)

15 (7%)

D26 – Do you have anything else to add?
Other
Question Theme Offender (n=207)

15

In-reach worker-related improvements

  • need a stable in-reach worker (n=4)
  • Criteria specific in-reach worker (n=2)
  • More education/ information (n=2)

8 (4%)

16

In-reach workers are good because:
A) they provide support (ex: emotional) (n=15)
C) they can relate to me (better than CSC) / they understand (n=9)
E - they help us prepare for the next steps (n=7)

  • they help me change my attitudes/ emotions towards my victims/ my actions – acceptance (n=2)

33 (16%)

Themes from In-Reach/Outreach Worker Surveys

RELEVANCE

Q17 – Over the course of one month, how often do you carry out “other” activities in CSC institutions in your role as an in-reach worker? If “other”, please specify.
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =8)
 

Provide information/assistance to help with release and parole

4 (50%)

 

Case Conferences with offenders, in-reach worker, and case management officers/Encourage participation in case planning and management

2 (25%)

 

Provide support to offenders (e.g., letters of support, make calls, set up meetings, contacts with community supports, etc.)

3 (38%)

Q20 – Over the course of one month, how often to carry out “other” activities in the community as your role as an in-reach worker? If “other”, please specify.
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =4)
 

Assist in transition/reintegration/trouble shooting

3 (75%)

Q23 – Overall, to what extent do you feel the LifeLine Program meets the correctional needs of lifers? Please explain.
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =23)
 

Provides support/guidance/hope to offenders based on lived experience

13 (57%)

 

Encourage participation in correctional plan or address problem areas/in addressing needs/risk

6 (26%)

Q25 – Are you aware of lifers who know about the program but choose not to participate? If yes, why do you think this is so?
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =20)
 

Do not want to be more involved with CSC/system

3 (15%)

 

Offender does not feel they need service/offender does not want service/prefer to be on their own

10 (50%)

 

Unique population (e.g., gangs, sex offenders, mental illness)

3 (15%)

 

Are not ready to change/do not feel much can be done at particular point in sentence

6 (30%)

Q26 – Please describe ways in which the LifeLine Program can be improved to better meet the correctional needs of lifers
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =23)
 

Adequate staffing – more in-reach workers

8 (35%)

 

More funding/allowances/resources

3 (13%)

 

More staff co-operation/provide information about LifeLine program to line staff/management staff (CSC, NPB, etc.), (better relationships with other staff)

10 (43%)

 

Continuity of care into community

3 (13%)

 

More training provided to in-reach workers (e.g., on NPB policies)

2 (9%)

IMPLEMENTATION

Q28 – Do you feel that there is a need for a screening process to determine which offenders should receive the services available through the LifeLine Program? Please explain your response.
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =23)

1

All lifers who want/need the services should have the opportunity

14 (61%)

2

Should remain voluntary for those that need it

3 (13%)

3

In-reach workers do screening

3 (13%)

Q32 – For difficulties that have been resolved, please describe how they were resolved/overcome
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =13)

1

Communication/collaboration/follow-up with CSC staff

9 (69%)

2

Demonstrate positive impact of LifeLine service to staff/Support from CSC staff

5 (38%)

Q33 – For difficulties that have not been resolved, please describe how they were resolved/overcome
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =9)

1

Lack of communication/co-operation with some staff members

6 (67%)

2

Don’t see value of LifeLine involvement/lack of support from CSC staff

2 (22%)

Q34 – Please describe ways in which the program can be improved to help you carry out your job as an in-reach worker
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =23)

1

More LifeLine staff/ in-reach workers

6 (26%)

2

Communication between in-reach workers and CSC staff/POs/community

6 (26%)

3

Office space/resources

6 (26%)

4

Information to CSC staff to increase buy-in/more support from staff

10 (43%)

UNINTENDED OUTCOMES

Q44 – Please describe any lessons learned and best practices in the delivery of the in-reach workers component of the LifeLine Program
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =23)

1

Honesty and trust

4 (17%)

2

Listen carefully

2 (9%)

3

Provide support or sense of hope/Share from experience

6 (26%)

Q46 – If you have personally received LifeLine services, do you feel that you benefited from the program? If yes, how do you feel you benefited? If no, what could have been done to better benefit you?
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =10)

1

Provide support/encouragement/hope

5 (50%)

2

Help to transition into community

2 (20%)

Q49 – Is there anything else you would like to add about your experience as an in-reach worker or the LifeLine Program in general?
Question Theme In-reach workers
(n =23)

1

Stressful job/ challenging/ requires real commitment

3 (13%)

2

Rewarding or great experience/ gratifying/

6 (26%)

3

Very good program/service

3 (13%)

1 LifeLine Mission available at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/lifeline/1-eng.shtml

2 Source: Integrated Financial and Material Management System (IFMMS), 2009

3 The term “lifers” is used in this report to refer to offenders serving a life and/or indeterminate sentence. Offenders who received LifeLine services are referred to as program participants.

4 Long-term offenders refer to offenders who are serving a life sentence, indeterminate sentence, or determinate sentence of at least 10 years (Trevethan, Crutcher, & Morre, 2002).

5 At the time of writing, this report had not been finalized. As such, references to the report are preliminary and may change prior to publication.

6 Program participants who were interviewed as part of the evaluation are referred to as interviewed program participants.

7 LifeLine Mission available at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/LifeLine/1+e/shtml

8 Additional information on the profile of long-term offenders in Canada can be found in Appendix A.

9 Collectively referred to in Young and colleagues’ (2009) report as homicide.

10 At the time of writing, the 2008/09 annual report and regional reports were not available.

11 The dataset from the Atlantic Region included one contact with a lifer in January 2007 and one contact with staff members in March 2007, but these were the only two recorded contacts prior to August 2007.

12 Data on age, criminal history, criminogenic needs, and risk information were extracted from OMS for 199 of the 207 participants. Problems with the self-reported FPS numbers for the remaining eight interviewed program participants precluded extraction of data for these offenders from OMS. The data for the 199 interviewed program participants were analyzed and compared to the program participants who were not interviewed as well as the complete sample of program participants. Results are presented in Appendix A.

13 The majority of staff who reported no or little familiarity with the program indicated interest in receiving additional information to enhance their awareness of the program.

14Two outreach workers also completed the survey but their responses were aggregated with the in-reach workers because they would be easily identified if their responses were presented separately.

15 Outreach service was not one of the main components of the LifeLine Program. Pilot outreach services were implemented in Ontario and Quebec in 2007, with one outreach worker in each of these two regions.

16 13% (n=16) of CSC staff respondents disagreed.

17 More than one-fifth of the staff members neither agreed nor disagreed with each of these statements [25% (n=22]), 21% (n=18), and 22% (n=23), respectively].

18 The mean is heavily influenced by extreme values and is particularly misleading when the distribution is skewed. The mean sentence length for all offenders with determinate sentences who received LifeLine services was 2541 days (SD=2109), or approximately 7 years. The median, that is, the halfway point of the distribution, is often reported when the mean is misleading. In this sample, the median was 1,776 days. Sentences that were 10 years or longer were in the upper quartile of the distribution, indicating that 25% of the sentences were 10 years or longer.

19 The Statement of Work defines lifers as all offenders whose sentences do not include a warrant expiry date.

20 Audience feedback was available from 77 individuals following a presentation offered by one in-reach worker regarding the LifeLine Program. Although feedback from the audience indicated the presentation was delivered well, the material was relevant, resulted in increased familiarity with the program and lifers, and positive attitude towards the reintegration of offenders into the community, the data were limited to presentations completed by one in-reach worker and cannot therefore be generalized. Further, it is unclear how many presentations were offered by the in-reach worker for which audience feedback was obtained.

21 CSC’s Integrated Financial and Materiel Management System (IFMMS).

22 CSC’s Cost of Maintaining an Offender (COMO), 2009. Figures represent men’s institutions only.

23 Ibid

25 A t-test tests a statistical hypothesis. If the null hypothesis is true, the test statistic follows a Student's t distribution.

25 The chi-squared statistical test technique for independence is used to determine whether a distribution of observed frequencies differs from expected frequencies (McGibbon, 2006).

26 Differences in reporting practices make it difficult to compare the frequency of contacts across regions. Pacific Region did not report the frequency of case conferences with lifers (Figure A2) but may have included those contacts in the frequency of meetings with institutional staff members (Figure A1). As such, comparisons are made only within each region.

27 All figures derived from annual report data reported in this section of the appendix are provided for information purposes as result of reporting variations across regions. Please refer to the limitations section of this appendix for a detailed account of the reliability of these data.

28 Please refer to the limitations section of this appendix for a detailed account of the reliability of these data.

29 The agency contracted to provide LifeLine services in the Pacific Region also deliver services to CSC offenders under other contracts than LifeLine. Earlier in this report, it was noted that the agency may have submitted data for offenders who have received services unrelated to LifeLine. It is possible that some of the data on frequency of contacts may include contacts with offenders who did not participate in LifeLine.

30 Please refer to previous footnote.

32 Commissioners’ Directives – Security Classification and Penitentiary Placement (705-7), 2009-02-27.

33 Commissioners Directives – Offender Intake Assessment and Correctional Planning – Standard Operating Practices (700-04e), 2003-08-29

34 OPI (Office of Primary Interest): The LifeLine program currently falls under the joint responsibility/direction of the Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations and the Correctional Operations & Programs Sector.