Evaluation Report:

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Evaluation of CSC’s Community Corrections: Phase 1 –Report of the Focus Group Sessions with Community Partners and Stakeholders

August 2010

PDF

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Evaluation Team would like to express appreciation to the community partners and stakeholders who participated in the focus group sessions across the country. Your passion and commitment to community corrections were evident throughout the focus group discussions and the experience, and knowledge that you shared were invaluable to this evaluation. The Evaluation Team would also like to thank the CSC staff members who assisted in the coordination of the focus group sessions, including providing logistical support and participant recruitment. Special thanks to the staff members from the Aboriginal Initiatives Directorate who provided consultation on the group facilitator guide and from the Women Offender Sector who provided information on issues related to women offenders.

 

Prepared By:

Colleen MacDonald
Evaluation Analyst

Duyen Luong
Senior Evaluator

Michael Olotu
Director, Evaluation

Evaluation Team:
Michael K. Olotu, Director, Evaluation
Duyen Luong, Senior Evaluator
Marcie McKay, Evaluation Analyst
Colleen MacDonald, Evaluation Analyst
Eugenia Didenko, A/Senior Evaluator
Cara Dowden, Evaluation Analyst
Brittany MacDonald, Evaluation Analyst

 

SIGNATURES
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS OPERATIONS

Original signed by

___________________________________________

Pamela M. Yates
Director General
Evaluation Branch

 

August 5, 2010
--------------------------------------
Date

 

Original signed by

______________________________________________

Lynn Garrow
Associate Assistant Commissioner
Policy Sector

 

August 5, 2010
--------------------------------------
Date

Executive Summary

The following report summarizes the findings from focus group sessions with community partners and stakeholders which constituted the first phase of the multi-year evaluation of Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC’s) Community Corrections. The evaluation examines the three interrelated community corrections’ activities: correctional interventions; community supervision; and community engagement, and is structured along five key themes: 1) continuum of care; 2) risk assessment and case preparation; 3) supervision of offenders in the community; 4) community staff safety; and 5) community engagement and collaboration. Successful reintegration requires the support of citizens and communities. Section 4 (f) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992) mandates “that the Service facilitate the involvement of members of the public in matters relating to the operations of the Service”. Although the role of community partners/stakeholders is most directly relevant to the theme of collaboration and engagement, they also play important roles in each of the other themes.

Eleven focus group sessions were conducted with a total of 79 participants from community corrections partner organizations and stakeholders. These participants represent program activities such as employment, community residential services, mental health services, Aboriginal programs and healing centres. Also, national policy organizations, Citizen’s Advisory Committees, addictions treatment centres, organizations supporting women and families, educational institutions, and faith-based organizations also participated. The contributions made by community partners through the focus groups sessions will be used to inform subsequent phases of the evaluation of community corrections.

List of Findings

FINDING 1: Collaboration between CSC and community partners/stakeholders in pre-release planning contributes to the effective transition of offenders into the community and the development of a responsive plan that enhances conditional release successes in the community.     11

FINDING 2: Participants deemed information sharing between CSC and community partners/stakeholders as important to ensure timely access to required services in the community.            12

FINDING 3: CSC is facing numerous challenges in addressing the needs of offenders in the community particularly those with special needs.           12

FINDING 4: Statutory release of offenders to the community pose challenges to CSC in regard to the time available to address their needs and manage their risk level.        12

FINDING 5: In-reach activities help build strong relationships between community partners/stakeholders and offenders, and facilitate offenders’ transition to the community.    13

FINDING 6: Strong relationships between community corrections stakeholders and offenders facilitate timely interventions with offenders whose risk to violate parole conditions escalate.      14

FINDING 7: Suspension of an offender’s release is influenced by multiple factors; alternatives to suspension are being used when risk is deemed manageable through interventions.   14

FINDING 8: Participants reported that staff safety concerns are mitigated by providing training to staff members, implementing security protocols, utilizing technological devices, and employing necessary infrastructural changes.         16

FINDING 9: Stigma and labelling of offenders pose challenges to offenders, and to community partners who assist offenders, to access community services and establish pro-social behaviours.       16

FINDING 10: Community partners who work with women offenders manage specific safety concerns unique to women offenders in the community.  17

FINDING 11: Collaboration, consistency, and development of mutually beneficial objectives were identified as necessary in the process of fostering and sustaining relationships between CSC and its community partners.  17

FINDING 12: Participants reported that community correctional results are not given higher profile in the public domain and suggested an increase in public awareness of corrections success stories.   18

FINDING 13: Strong relationships among partners, communities, and with offenders contribute to the acceptance of offenders in Aboriginal communities and facilitate the cultural competency required to provide programs and services to address the needs of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples. 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures

PURPOSE

This document summarizes findings from focus group sessions with community partners and stakeholders which constituted the first phase of the multi-year evaluation of Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC’s) Community Corrections. This report is a summary of one of the data sources that will be used as part of the evaluation methodology. It will provide a qualitative overview of stakeholders’ and community partners’ views in regards to community corrections. The scope and goals of the evaluation as well as the methodology, and responsibilities of key stakeholders are described in the Evaluation of CSC ’s Community Corrections: Terms of Reference (Olotu & Luong, 2010). The evaluation is intended to examine the relevance and performance (effectiveness, efficiency and economy) of CSC’s Community Corrections, and to provide CSC’s Executive Committee (EXCOM) with information to make strategic policy, operations, and investment decisions in the area of community corrections.

The evaluation examines the three interrelated community corrections’ activities: correctional interventions; community supervision; and, community engagement. These three activities are designed to contribute to the final outcome of safe and effective reintegration of offenders into society, with due regard for public safety. The evaluation will assess the extent to which CSC’s approach to the transition of offenders into the community supports the principle of correctional continuum of care and contributes to public safety.

The evaluation is structured along five key themes and integrated into the three activities of community corrections operations. The five key themes of continuum of care, risk assessment and case preparation, supervision of offenders in the community, community staff safety, and, community engagement and collaboration represent community corrections activities. This report focuses on the community partner perspectives on community corrections as they relate to the five themes.

BACKGROUND

Successful reintegration requires the support of citizens and communities. Section 4 (f) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992) mandates “that the Service facilitate the involvement of members of the public in matters relating to the operations of the Service”. Community staff members, partners, and stakeholders work with offenders and their families while the offender is in the institution, and in the community to ensure effective supervision while on conditional release. Programs and services may be provided directly by CSC staff members or by community partners through formal agreements with CSC (e.g., St. Leonard’s Society of Canada, John Howard Society of Canada, and Native Counselling Services of Alberta). In order to provide rehabilitative programs and prepare offenders for reintegration back into the community, CSC utilizes successful relationships and, in some cases, shared services with community partners and agencies.

METHODOLOGY

A multi-method approach, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative data, is being used for the evaluation of community corrections. Focus group discussion with community partners was selected in order to provide partners with the opportunity to share and discuss their experiences. In addition, it allowed the evaluation team to obtain contextual information that could be used: 1) to describe the current state of community engagement and participation in community corrections; 2) provide appropriate recommendations in respect to the collaboration between CSC and community stakeholders/partners; and, 3) to inform the development of questionnaire and interview schedules for subsequent phases of the evaluation.

Focus Group Participants

Seventy-nine (79) individuals from community corrections partner organizations and stakeholders representing several CSC program activities such as employment, community residential services, mental health services, Aboriginal programs and healing centres etc., participated in the 11 focus group sessions held across Canada. One of the sessions was with stakeholders who specialize in delivering programs and services to Aboriginal offenders, and another with stakeholders who represented national organizations and/or worked specifically with women offenders. Each focus group was comprised of 5 to 11 participants (refer to Figure 1 for a proportional representation of participants in the focus group sessions). Refer to Table A1 in Appendix A for a breakdown of focus group participation by region and city.

Figure 1: Focus Group Participation

[D]

 

The majority of the participants (83%; n = 63) indicated that they had a formal contract, memorandum of understanding, or memorandum of agreement with CSC. Most of the partners indicated that they provided services in English (95%; n = 74), while one-third (35%; n = 25) did so in French and 14%; (n = 11) reported other languages. Eighty percent (n = 63) of participants identified themselves as community-based service providers, 3% (n = 2) as citizen advisory committee members, 4% (n = 3) as representatives from national chapters of community-based organizations and 14% (n = 11) as other. Over half 54% (n = 43) of participants were male and 46% (n = 36) were female. Additional information about the participants can be found in Appendix A.

Ninety percent (90%; n = 60) reported providing services to Aboriginal offenders, 90% (n = 60) to offenders over the age of 50, 87% (n = 58) to offenders with mental health disorders, 84% (n = 56) to offenders from visible minorities groups, 84% (n = 56) to violent offenders and 72% (n = 48) to women offenders. Twelve percent (12%; n = 8) of participants indicated that they provided services to sexual offenders (refer to Figure 2 below).

Figure 2: Offender Groups for Whom Community Partners Provide Services

[D]

 

The type of correctional programs and services provided by partners varied (refer to Figure 3 for the types of services and programs provide to offenders) based on offender criminogenic needs and risk factors. Over seventy percent of community partners reported providing counselling services to offenders (71%; n = 47), delivering programs (62%; n = 41), providing accommodations (58%; n =38) and providing support to families of offenders (47%; n = 31). Thirty-six percent (36%; n = 24) reported providing other services to offenders which included: Aboriginal cultural and/or cultural/spiritual support; reintegration support; and employment services.

Figure 3: Nature of Services Provided to Offenders

[D]

 

Procedures

Initial site selections were made by reviewing a list of community partners who were invited to CSC’s Executive Development Symposium held in Cornwall in the fall of 2009; cities with high concentrations of partners were identified. Once sites were selected, searches for other partners in the local community were conducted which included obtaining referrals from CSC staff members who customarily work with community partners. Site visits were conducted across the country in May and June, 2010. Each group was audio-recorded in order to ensure accuracy of the notes from each session. The field notes were then summarized into key findings described in this report. The recordings were destroyed after the notes were verified.

KEY FINDINGS

Community partners/stakeholders have an important role throughout community corrections operations. While their work is most directly related to the theme of Collaboration and Community Engagement, it became apparent throughout the focus group sessions that effective collaboration and engagement contributes to correctional results in all areas of community corrections operations. For example, the importance of early release planning, timely information sharing, community staff safety, and appropriate program and service delivery emerged as key activities where collaboration with stakeholders has and will continue to improve CSC’s correctional results.

THEME 1: CONTINUUM OF CARE

Result Statement: CSC provides appropriate programs and services to assist in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into the community with due regard to the safety of Canadians.

Partners identified a number of effective strategies and barriers to engaging offenders in programs and services in the community. Effective strategies included the development of strong relationships with offenders, early collaboration with partners in the release planning process, and provision of additional support to offenders immediately following release.

FINDING 1: Collaboration between CSC and community partners/stakeholders in pre-release planning contributes to the effective transition of offenders into the community and the development of a responsive plan that enhances conditional release successes in the community.

The transition period from the institution to the community is a critical period and some offenders may require more support than others. Partners noted that both Aboriginal offenders and women offenders benefit from having transitional workers to support them through their initial period in the community and to connect them to community resources such as mental health service, circles of support, community health providers, and family and legal services. Community partners also reported that timely referrals to, and collaboration with, community partners is essential in building strong, respectful working relationships  with the offender and case management team members in the institution and community. As part of pre-release planning, these relationships assist the transition process by ensuring that supports are available to offenders upon release to the community. In addition, these relationships provide a basis from which community partners can provide structure and motivation to better involve offenders in their correctional plan. Release planning is further discussed in Theme 2.

Partners reported that early collaboration also provided them with the opportunity to adapt their approach in working with offenders to respond to the needs of individual offenders. When required, they utilized motivational interviewing to encourage program participation; short counselling sessions were used with offenders with limited attention spans in place of formal, long appointments, and culturally-responsive approaches were integrated into release plans and case management strategies. For Aboriginal offenders, involvement of elders may be appropriate, as are other culture-specific programs and services such as sweats, sun dances, and healing circles.

Community partners identified a number of challenges and barriers to engage offenders in programs and services in the community. These included: 1) CSC’s operational practices with respect to early release planning, release coordination, and funding priorities; 2) the capacity to address the needs of offenders and specific groups of offenders; 3) availability and access to programs; 4) stigma; and, 5) a lack of understanding of differences among Aboriginal peoples.

FINDING 2: Participants deemed information sharing between CSC and community partners/stakeholders as important to ensure offender’s timely access to required services in the community.

According to partners, early involvement of community partners in offender release planning is important to ensure that services and supports are in place upon release. However, barriers in information sharing between the institution and community partners, particularly information regarding institutional employability assessments, mental health records, and other treatment records (e.g., addictions) often result in slower response in addressing some the these needs. Participants reported that timely access to required services is also hindered by lack of coordination among government departments, specifically with regard to federal and provincial services (e.g., to obtain personal identification and health insurance).

FINDING 3: CSC is facing numerous challenges in addressing the needs of offenders in the community particularly those with special needs.

Offenders have a multitude of criminogenic needs and responsivity factors that need to be taken into account in ensuring a successful transition. For example, the high proportion of offenders with mental health needs poses challenges for CSC’s capacity to assess, diagnose, and provide treatment and services. Addictions, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), and other special needs such as cognitive delays are also common among offenders and need to be addressed in release plans. Partners reported that treating offenders with addictions is particularly challenging. According to participants, treatment models acknowledge that individuals may lapse; however, in the correctional system, a lapse (e.g., violating a substance use condition) could result in a parole suspension. Community partners also noted that the lack of specialized programs, such as mental health and addictions, in some jurisdictions create significant challenges to offender case management. Partners emphasized the importance of developing integrated correctional plans that address offenders’ needs both in the institution and the community.

FINDING 4: Statutory release of offenders to the community pose challenges to CSC in regard to the time available to address their needs and manage their risk level.

In addition to delays experienced because of challenges around information sharing, in general, community partners are faced with time pressure to provide necessary rehabilitation and reintegration services to offenders. Waitlists for programs and services were identified as a barrier to working with offenders. According to the partners/stakeholders, in cases where offender is waitlisted for too long, it may impact their motivation levels to participate in programs.

The increasing proportion of offenders who are released at their statutory release date was also identified as a challenge. An offender on statutory release has served approximately 2/3 of their sentence incarcerated. In contrast, offenders released on day parole serve an average of 32% of their sentence incarcerated and those on full parole serve approximately 38% in custody (Public Safety Canada, 2009). Offenders released on statutory release are supervised in the community for shorter periods and, in some cases, may not show interest in participating in correctional programs. In those cases, the focus of community partners for offenders released on statutory release becomes more of securing employment. Although employment is one of the key reintegration activities that contribute to offenders’ sense of autonomy and stability, and success, rehabilitative programs will assist in sustaining their success while on release.

THEME 2: RISK ASSESSMENT AND CASE PREPARATION

Result statement: CSC conducts risk assessment of offenders and effectively prepares offenders’ conditional release applications and statutory reviews in a timely manner and manages and supports offenders released to the community.

FINDING 5: In-reach activities help build strong relationships between community partners/stakeholders and offenders, and facilitate offenders’ transition to the community.

The majority of community partners reported having involvement, to varying degrees, in release planning (through in-reach activities) with offenders prior to their discharge to the community. The partners stressed the importance of early release planning in contributing to offenders’ successful transition to the community. According to the partners, the keys to comprehensive pre-release planning are strong relationships between community partners, CSC staff members (including institutional staff members, and institutional and community parole officers), and offenders, and their families. Partners reported that high levels of staff attrition and movement within CSC and community partner organizations, affects release planning and hinders relationship building among stakeholders, particularly in cases where effective communication was lacking. Partners also noted that they require appropriate funding to perform in-reach services, including case management and release planning. Given the level of efforts required, partners reported that they may have to limit other services in order to provide in-reach services to offenders.

The following strategies were highlighted as being important in contributing to a smooth, successful transition to the community:

  • Use of multi-disciplinary teams to meet the needs of the individual offenders and involving the families and the communities of offenders;
  • Utilization of Aboriginal liaison officers (ALOs) to assist in familiarizing offenders with the communities to which they will be released by escorting offenders in the community prior to their release;
  • Utilization of Section 84 releases: engage Aboriginal communities to participate in release and reintegration planning;
  • Utilization of temporary absences to help the offender establish connections to the community before he/she is released.

THEME 3: SUPERVISION OF OFFENDERS IN THE COMMUNITY

Result statement: Offender transition into the community, post-release assessment, and supervision measures are responsive to offenders’ risk and needs, and enforced to ensure public safety. Timely and appropriate interventions are utilized to manage offenders who demonstrate increased risk to violate parole conditions or to re-offend.

FINDING 6: Strong relationships between community corrections stakeholders and offenders facilitate timely interventions with offenders whose risk to violate parole conditions escalate.

Some community partners, most notably community-based residential facilities (CBRFs), monitor offender compliance with release conditions as part of their contracts. By nature of their relationships with offenders, community partners are well positioned to manage and supervise individuals in the community and intervene in situations before violations occur. For examples, identifying signs of depression, knowing the offender’s associates, and monitoring treatment progress in programs and therapy (including medication) may all contribute to detection of elevated risk. Given the nature of family relationships and their accessibility to the offender, incorporating offender families as part of the risk identification process is a strategy used by partners, particularly when working with women offenders. When an increase in risk is observed, it is reported through the appropriate channels.

FINDING 7: Suspension of an offender’s release is influenced by multiple factors; alternatives to suspension are being used when risk is deemed manageable through interventions.

The use of alternatives to suspension depends on a number of factors among which is the availability of community supports. A broad range of services affords opportunities to address their needs and risk. In communities where resources are limited, few alternatives to suspension may be available. Also, the willingness of the parole officers to share information and collaborate with partners to manage elevated risk may be dependent on the existing relationships between parole officers and partners. The level of experience of the parole officers and their capacity to use gender and culturally-sensitive approaches is important in creating and using effective alternatives to suspension.

Community partners noted that when breaches were reported to CSC after office hours, there was a higher probability that a warrant for a suspension will be issued compared to breaches reported during business hours where the assigned parole office could be notified and alternative interventions could be explored. Community partners expressed the need for flexibility and discretion in determining whether or not to suspend an offender based on the information gathered and indicated that the response should be commensurate to the risk level.

Partners reported the use of the following alternatives to suspension:

  • Conduct case conferences including the parole officers and community service providers involved in the offender’s management to: 1) determine why risk was elevated; and 2) formulate next steps to address the elevated risk by utilizing, for example, individualized interventions and cross referrals among available community supports;
  • Implement additional structure, such as temporary residency requirements (e.g., CBRF) or transfer to a residential treatment facility. In order to exercise these options, however, additional transitional housing and other residency options are needed, such as apartment-type facilities or home placements; and,
  • Partners may encourage the offender to take accountability for reporting breaches to the parole officer (with follow-up between the partners and parole officers).

Systemically, partners noted a need to reconcile CSC and the National Parole Board (NPB) approach to dealing with breaches with the treatment models used by partners that recognize that lapses may occur and therefore are not always considered a failure (e.g., harm-reduction and evidence-based treatment models).

THEME 4: COMMUNITY STAFF SAFETY

Result statement: The safety of community staff members is of paramount importance and is addressed through the provision, use, and effectiveness of appropriate tools and safety measures.

Responses pertaining to community staff safety focussed on two key areas: the safety of community staff members; and the safety of offenders once released to the community.

Safety of Community Staff Members

FINDING 8: Participants reported that staff safety concerns are mitigated by providing training to staff members, implementing security protocols, utilizing technological devices, and employing necessary infrastructural changes.

According to the partners, inexperienced and part-time staff members are more vulnerable in regard to safety concerns. In order to address these concerns, partners suggested the importance of providing staff training and building strong relationships with offenders earlier in the release process. Staff safety training includes de-escalation and diffusion tactics, crisis management, and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). When possible, partners reported, training should also be extended to volunteers.

In addition to staff training, some partners have modified their schedules to ensure appropriate coverage taking into account level of expertise and experience of the employees. For example, some CRFs have mandated tandem coverage at all times to ensure that no staff member works alone. Other security protocols such as check-in and check-out procedures and tactics such as avoiding certain geographical areas of town, drive/check-ins, doorstep interviews, and conducting home and off-site visits in conjunction with a buddy system or volunteer escorts have also been utilized by some partners. Others have opted to meet with offenders in public areas such as restaurants. Technological devices including cellular phones, security cameras, locks, and panic buttons and glass enclosed interview rooms are commonly used by community partners to manage safety concerns.

It was noted that maintaining the safety of community staff members is costly and resource intensive. For example, obtaining adequate liability insurance is cost-prohibitive for many community partners. Partners further indicated that their capacity to provide safety training, skills development, and sufficient staffing coverage is limited by budget constraints and exacerbated by the difficulties community organizations face in retaining experienced staff. Although strong relationships between community partners, offenders, other service providers, the police, RCMP, and CSC may help to prevent and manage safety concerns, partners stressed the need for additional resources in this area.

Safety of the Offenders in the Community

FINDING 9: Stigma and labelling of offenders pose challenges to offenders, and community partners who assist offenders, to access community services and establish pro-social behaviours.

The partners reported that offenders face several concerns as a result of stigma and label in the community. The focus group sessions reported that Aboriginal offenders, mental health offenders, women offenders and sex offenders are particularly vulnerable. The stigmatization may present barriers to the offender’s ability and motivation to engage in pro-social behaviours such as securing employment and maintaining positive social relationships. Community partners emphasized that balancing the need to be supportive to offenders while not appearing to condone their negative behaviour could creates a “perception” challenges in the public domain.

FINDING 10: Community partners who work with women offenders manage specific safety concerns unique to women offenders in the community.

Community partners identified two primary safety considerations for community staff members who work with women offenders: self-harming behaviour (e.g., drug overdose or hanging) and dealing with an abusive partner. Research has found that women offenders experience high levels of abuse. For example, Hoffman, Lavigne, and Dickie (1998) reported that 82% of women convicted of homicide had been victims of abuse, of which 37% experienced abuse by an intimate partner. Participants reported that training in de-escalation and suicide prevention and trauma counselling for staff members are essential in ensuring staff safety.

THEME 5: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION

Result statement: Relationships that have been established between CSC and criminal justice partners, stakeholders, and non-government organizations (NGOs) are instrumental in the safe transition of offenders into society and the successful completion of their sentence in the community.

Strong partnerships with community partners play an important role in the gradual transition and reintegration of offenders to the community. The focus group sessions highlighted the importance of collaboration among community corrections stakeholders with regards to early release planning (as elucidated in the context of the correctional continuum of care in Theme 1), managing and addressing the individual needs of offenders, and facilitating the accpetance of offenders into communities.

FINDING 11: Collaboration, consistency, and development of mutually beneficial objectives were identified as necessary in the process of fostering and sustaining relationships between CSC and its community partners.

Community partners indicated a number of ways that community organizations work with CSC in managing and addressing the individual needs of offenders in the community. In some regions, multi-disciplinary teams collaboratively manage offenders in the community. This approach is used particularly when working with Aboriginal offenders, offenders with mental health needs, and women offenders. Other methods of collaboration include the development of formal associations and informal networks. For example, CSC funds programs and services, which has contributed to increased communications across the regions and facilitated collaborations between CSC and partners. Community partners have also established informal networks to share information and reduce duplication of services.

Partners noted that a number of factors affect the level of collaboration between CSC and community partners. These factors include high staff turnover and consistency of operational policies and practices such as submitting multiple security clearance forms for different institutions.

Partners also reported that they would like to be involved in local, regional, and national community corrections planning and strategy development. Consultation with community partners would help to elevate their role, develop feasible plans and strategies, and incorporate their priorities and challenges into community corrections.

FINDING 12: Participants reported that community correctional results are not given higher profile in the public domain and suggested an increase in public awareness of corrections success stories.

With respect to emphasizing the importance of community corrections to the public, the partners indicated that both CSC and community partners need to raise public awareness on the successes of community corrections and the importance of offender rehabilitation and reintegration. Too often, the public is presented with news of failures and re-offending while the stories of success are not publicized. The disproportionate media coverage contributes to stigmatization of, offenders, which in turn, could hinder reintegration efforts. The partners suggested that CSC and partners collaborate on public education activities. In addition, CSC could set maximum caseloads for parole officers and allot time to maintain a presence in the community through activities such as participating in community association meetings.

FINDING 13: Strong relationships among partners, communities, and with offenders contribute to the acceptance of offenders in Aboriginal communities and facilitate the cultural competency required to provide programs and services to address the needs of First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples.

For Aboriginal offenders, community partners reported that it is important to dedicate resources to develop relationships with Aboriginal communities in order to engage them in the healing and reintegration process. Aboriginal community development officers (ACDOs) and elders are important resources in promoting the acceptance of Aboriginal offenders into Aboriginal communities.

Understanding the differences among Aboriginal peoples in Canada is necessary for the provision of cultural-specific programs and services. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples have distinct cultures; however, partners expressed that the Aboriginal programs and services available through CSC may not respond to the needs of these heterogeneous groups. It was also reported that there is gap between the programs available in the institution and those available in the community, such as Elder services, and that more needs to be done to address the challenges of adapting to the disparities between urban and rural communities.

OVERAL CONCLUSION

Community stakeholders and partners play important roles in the management of offenders, their correctional planning/management processes and transition back into the community as law abiding citizens. Key information has emerged as a result of the consultation with stakeholders/partners across the country. The importance of collaborative planning models, effective and timely reporting of offender progress and/or escalating risk, enhancement of public awareness in regard to CSC’s community correctional results and the availability of both financial and human (specialized) resources were underscored during the focus group sessions. Similarly, participants emphasized the potential impact of stigmatization and challenges inherent in the management of offenders with no interest in participating in correctional intervention processes. These factors will be explored in greater detail through other methodological approaches during the evaluation. Given the lack of quantitative data to support the views and the corresponding findings outlined in this document, it is essential for readers to understand that the primary objective of the document therefore was to provide source data on the views of some of CSC’s partners in regard to community corrections activities.

REFERENCES

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, 1992, c. 20.

Correctional Service Canada (2009a). 2008-2009 Departmental Performance Reports. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2009b). 2009-2010 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Hoffman, L., Lavigne, B., & Dickie, I. (1998). Women Convicted of Homicide Serving a Federal Sentence: An exploratory study. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada. Retrieved on July 12, 2010, from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/fsw/homicide/toc-eng.shtml

Olotu, M., & Luong, D. (2010). Evaluation of CSC ’s Community Corrections: Terms of Reference (File # 394-02-84). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Public Safety Canada. (2009). Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview 2009 (cat no. PS1-3/2009E). Ottawa, ON: Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Appendix A: Focus Group Demographic Summary by Geographical Location

Methodology

In preparation for moderating the groups, evaluation branch staff members completed a two-day training session offered through the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration on April 21 and 22, 2010.

The focus group moderator guide for local partners was developed prior to, and tested at, the moderator training session. Revisions were made based on feedback from the training session and discussions during the first meeting of the executive steering committee that was held on April 26 and 27, 2010. The guide was then adapted to include questions that addressed women-specific and national, policy-level issues. A moderator guide was also prepared for use with partners who specialize in work with Aboriginal offenders. The guide was developed through consultation with representatives from the Aboriginal Initiatives Directorate and the evaluation team involved in the concurrent evaluation of CSC’s Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections.

Participants

Table A1: Focus Group Participation by City

Tableau A1 : Participation aux groupes de discussion, selon la ville
Region City Type Number of Participants (% of total)
Atlantic St. John’s, NF Regional Stakeholders 10 (13%)
Quebec Montreal, QC Regional Stakeholders 6 (8%)
Ontario Toronto, ON Regional Stakeholders 8 (10%)
Ottawa, ON Regional Stakeholders 7 (9%)
Ottawa, ON Women/National Stakeholders 5 (6%)
Prairies Calgary, AB Regional Stakeholders 7 (9%)
Edmonton, AB Regional Stakeholders 7 (9%)
Winnipeg, MB Regional Stakeholders 11 (14%)
Winnipeg, MB Aboriginal Corrections 8 (10%)
Pacific Vancouver, BC Regional Stakeholders 5 (6%)
Victoria, BC Regional Stakeholders 5 (6%)
    Total 79

Note: Although seven participants attended the Montreal session, 6 completed the questionnaire.