Performance Assurance

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Evaluation Report: The Section 81 Agreement between the Native Counselling Services of Alberta and the Correctional Services of Canada; The Stan Daniels Healing Centre

File #394-2-30

Evaluation Branch
Performance Assurance Sector
October 7, 2005

Objective 2: Cost Effectiveness:

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

FINDING 4: The Stan Daniels Healing Centre is cost-effective, as the same level of correctional results is achieved at a lower cost.

From 1999/2000 to 2003/2004, the Stan Daniels Healing Centre has provided residency services at a significant cost savings when compared to other similar CSC facilities[56] in the Prairie region. Further, results suggest few discernable differences in effectiveness levels between residents at the Centre and their matched counterparts across various outcome measures (see Objective 2: Effectiveness). Thus, the Section 81 Agreement between CSC and the Native Counselling Service of Alberta results in value for money. Although lower staff-to-resident ratios may contribute to the level of cost savings (see Objective 2: Efficiency), the Centre remains cost-effective under scenarios in which the staff-to-inmate ratio is adjusted to reflect those of CRFs, CCCs and minimum security institutions.

The average cost of maintaining a resident at the Centre was compared to the average cost of maintaining those residents at other facilities in the Prairie region. As the Stan Daniels Healing Centre supervises offenders who were transferred from local minimum security institutions, Community Correctional Centres (CCC) and parole offices, CSC's Cost of Maintaining Offenders (COMO) data base was used in those locations for comparative purposes[57].

Results revealed differences in cost savings across resident-type. Specifically, while it cost less to maintain inmates and offenders on day-parole at the Centre, it cost more for full parole cases. However, the overall cost-savings associated to maintaining inmates and day parolees at the Centre outweighed those cost savings associated to full-parolees under CSC's supervision (see Table 7). Finally, analyses suggest no differences across outcome measures (successful completion of sentence without reconviction) between the Centre's residents and their matched counterparts. It is more cost-effective if one process yields the same level of effectiveness as another for lower cost, thus the Centre is cost-effective.

Table 7: Cost[58] per Resident

Fiscal Year

Resident Type

Average # of Residents

Avg Cost Per Resident in the Centre

Avg Cost Per Resident in the Region

Cost Difference per Resident

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1999/2000

Minimum

14

$ 22,364.84

$ 61,361.55

$ 38,996.71

CCC

50

$ 22,364.84

$ 17,315.35

-$ 5,049.49

Parole Offices

4

$ 22,364.84

$ 17,009.77

-$ 5,355.07

2000/2001

Minimum

19

$ 22,020.42

$ 58,650.08

$ 36,629.66

CCC

41

$ 21,020.42

$ 23,628.16

$ 2,607.74

Parole Offices

6

$ 21,020.42

$ 17,491.31

-$ 3,529.11

2001/2002

Minimum

19

$ 30,938.58

$ 75,882.60

$ 44,944.02

CCC

41

$ 30,938.58

$ 40,837.57

$ 9,898.99

Parole Offices

8

$ 30,939.00

$ 18,570.63

-$ 12,368.37

2002/2003

Minimum

30

$ 34,226.18

$ 72,270.49

$ 38,044.31

CCC

29

$ 34,226.18

$ 36,574.71

$ 2,348.53

Parole Offices

6

$ 34,226.18

$ 20,052.20

-$ 14,173.98

2003/2004

Minimum

22

$ 30,941.20

$ 78,138.05

$ 47,196.84

CCC

34

$ 30,941.20

$ 38,896.63

$ 7,955.42

Libération totale

4

$ 30,941.20

$ 19,189.77

-$ 11,751.43

2004/2005

Minimum

24

$ 29,400.30

$ 94,959.13

$ 65,558.82

CCC

34

$ 29,400.30

$ 40,353.38

$ 10,953.08

Parole Offices

5

$ 29,400.30

$ 19,113.37

-$ 10,286.94

The total average cost associated with maintaining offenders at the Centre and at other CSC facilities was derived from Table 7 above. Specifically, the total cost of maintaining residents at the Centre (column 6, Table 8) is calculated by multiplying the average cost per resident at the Centre (column 3) by the average number of residents residing at the Centre (column 2) for the each resident-type (column 1). Similarly, the average total cost of maintaining the same number of residents at other CSC facilities is calculated by multiplying the average number of residents for each resident-type by the associated average cost per resident in the region (column 4).

Results show a cost savings associated to the Centre that has been increasing between 1999/2000 and 2003/2004 (see Table 8). Note that high cost savings can be primarily attributed to the combination of the high cost of maintaining an inmate, and the proportion of minimum security inmates residing at the Centre.

Table 8: Total Cost[59] of Maintaining Residents

Fiscal Year
Total Cost of Maintaining Residents at the Centre
Total Cost of Maintaining those Residents at Other CSC Facilities
Total Cost Difference
(6)
(7)
(7-6)
1999-2000
$ 1,505,833
$ 1,760,403
$ 254,571
2000-2001
$ 1,396,044
$ 2,207,262
$ 811,218
2001-2002
$ 2,092,550
$ 3,250,071
$ 1,157,521
2002-2003
$ 2,199,009
$ 3,312,014
$ 1,113,006
2003-2004
$ 1,861,291
$ 3,117,618
$ 1,256,327
2004-2005
$ 1,837,519
$ 3,628,959
$ 1,791,440

Figure 8: Cost Comparison

The evaluation report established earlier that the Centre had lower staff-to-inmate ratios when compared to CRFs, CCCs and other minimum security institutions (see Evaluation Objective 1: Efficiency). Lower staff-to-resident ratios may contribute to the level of cost savings. Specifically, as the per diem rate reflects the full time equivalent (FTE) employees engaged in delivering services under the Agreement, the fewer employees required, the lower the per diem and thus the less-expensive it is to maintain residents at the Centre. However, analyses suggest the Centre retains cost-effectiveness under the following scenarios in which the staff-to-resident ratio is adjusted to reflect what would be assigned in a CSC facility for 2 different resident profiles: i) all offenders - i.e. those under community supervision, and ii) all inmates.

Scenario I: An All Offender Resident Profile

If the Centre were to house 73 offenders under community supervision, the number of staff members assigned would be 22.5[60]. This staff compliment is based on the staff-to-offender ratios for Oskana and Osbourne Community Correctional Centres (CCCs). Thus, the annual cost of maintaining a resident at the Stan Daniels Healing Centre would be $30,588.00 compared to the average of $38,897.00 at Oskana and Osbourne CCCs.

Scenario II: An All Inmate Resident Profile

If the Centre were to supervise 73 inmates, the number of staff assigned would be 68. This staff compliment is based on the average staff-to-offender ratios for minimum security institutions in the Prairie region: Willow Cree, Riverbend, Rockwood and Pe Sâkâstêw Institutions. Thus, under this scenario, the annual cost of maintaining a resident at the Stan Daniels Healing Centre would be $71,717.00 compared to the average of $78,138.00 at the above minimum security institutions.

Results from interviews with key sources support the above finding, as qualitative analyses revealed that the Stan Daniels Healing Centre is perceived to be a cost-effective alternative to other forms of incarceration and community supervision. Specifically, Stan Daniels staff members were asked whether or not the most appropriate and efficient means had been used to achieve desired outcomes of the Centre. Of those who responded to the question (n=5), most thought Stan Daniels was functioning very efficiently. As one source suggested “compare CSC costs to Stan Daniels [and they are] probably saving 40 cents to every dollar.” Another source rated the Centre as “cheaper and better care than other healing lodges.” The Centre is perceived by the staff to be very cost-effective.

Sources interviewed also indicated that the many collaborative efforts made between Centre and community agencies assisted the Centre in maintaining a low cost of providing community services. The vast majority of Stan Daniels staff (94%; n = 16), CSC staff respondents (88%; n = 7), and community partners (100%; n = 11) indicated that there were partnerships in place between Stan Daniels and other institutional/community-based partners. All community-based partner informants described the relationship between Stan Daniels and themselves as a well functioning relationship (100%; n = 11). Community partners have described the Centre as “very co-operative, accessible, and accommodating.” When asked which community agencies Stan Daniels was in partnership with, an extensive list was generated, including: John Howard Society; Poundmakers Lodge; Alcoholics Anonymous; Narcotics Anonymous; Circle of Work; police services; Aboriginal counselling services and Elder services; Grant McEwan College; Alberta Human Resources and Employment; Powwows; community employment centres; First Nation communities; Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Counsellors; Native Friendship Centres; Lifeline; and other agencies affiliated with Native Counselling Services of Alberta. Thus, community partnerships were perceived as a cost-effective method to provide offenders the opportunity to participate in numerous and varied cultural, educational and supportive activities.


[56] Recall that the Centre provides correctional services to inmates and offenders, thus 'similar' facilities are comprised of minimum security institutions, Community Correctional Centres and Parole Offices in the Prairie region.

[57] Costs included those associated to all minimum security institutions, CCCs and parole offices in the Prairie region were considered, including: Rockwood Institution, Riverbend Institution, Grande Cache Institution, Pe Sâkâstêw, Grierson, Drumheller Institution (Annex), Bowden Institution, Osborne Centre, and Oskana Centre.

[58] Financial figures are based on actual expenditures.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Numbers represent full-time equivalent (FTE) employees.

TABLE of CONTENTSNEXT