Evaluation Report:

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

National Victim Services Program

Evaluation Branch
Policy Sector
February 2010

PDF

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Evaluation Branch would like to thank the victims who participated in the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and National Parole Board (NPB) Joint Victim Questionnaire, and shared their experiences as victims of crime.  Becoming a victim of crime has a profound emotional and psychological effect. We sincerely appreciate the contributions of the registered victims who participated in this questionnaire. Although the evaluation team could not report all views on an individual basis, every effort was taken to reflect, in aggregate form, the diversity of views expressed by those who participated in this questionnaire.

The evaluation team would also like to thank members of the CSC staff, Victim Services Officers (VSO) and Regional Victim Services Managers (RVSM) who provided their views on the implementation of the National Victim Services Program (NVSP) in CSC. The assistance provided by Veronique Dagenais, Stacey Feeley, Hassimiou Ly, André Cadorette, Denis Paradis and Christina Montgomery in conducting interviews with respondents across the country during the evaluation contributed to the timely completion of that stage of the evaluation. We are appreciative of their contributions.  Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to the Evaluation Consultative Group members, including David Molzahn, Christina Guest, Adrienne Coutts, and National Parole Board staff members Shelley Trevethan, Suzanne Brisebois, Mario Luce, and Tara Beauchamp for their collaboration during the evaluation.

It is noteworthy to recognize the performance and dedication of the evaluation team, particularly, Marcie McKay, Cara Scarfone, Amanda Nolan and Lindsey Pecaric during several stages of the evaluation. Their diligence and capacity to engage and work with stakeholders and partners were instrumental to the timely completion of this evaluation.

EVALUATION REPORT PREPARED BY:

Michael K. Olotu
Director, Evaluation
Evaluation Branch, Policy Sector
Correctional Service Canada

Martin G. Beaupré Ph. D.
Senior Evaluator
Evaluation Branch, Policy Sector
Correctional Service Canada

Evaluation Team Members:
Cara Scarfone, Junior Evaluation Analyst
Marcie McKay, Junior Evaluation Analyst
Paul Verbrugge, Evaluation Officer
Lindsey Pecaric, Junior Evaluation Analyst
Amanda Nolan, Evaluation Analyst
Christopher Rastin, Evaluation Officer
Vanessa Anastasopoulos, Senior Evaluator

Correctional Service Canada’s National Victim Services Program

SIGNATURES

Originally signed by:

 

 

…………………………………………
Dr. Pamela M. Yates
Director General
Evaluation Branch

 

August 5, 2010
…………………………………………
Date

 

 

 

…………………………………………
Lynn Garrow
Associate Assistant Commissioner
Policy

 

August 5, 2010
…………………………………………
Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACPAPR
ASSISTANT COMISSIONER, PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND PARLIMENTARY RELATIONS
CCRA
CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
CD
COMMISSIONER’S DIRECTIVE
CSC
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
DOJ
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FOVC
FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME
GOC
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
IFRP
INMATE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM
NOV
NATIONAL OFFICE FOR VICTIMS
NPB
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
NVSP
NATIONAL VICTIM SERVICES PROGRAM
OBMS
OFFICE OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES
OMS
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
OVC
OFFICE OF VICTIMS OF CRIME
PAA
PROGRAM ACTIVITY ARCHITECTURE
PCVI
POLICY CENTRE FOR VICTIM ISSUES
RCMP
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
RMAF
RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK
RVSM
REGIONAL VICTIM SERVICES MANAGER
TBS
TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT
VSO
VICTIM SERVICES OFFICER
VSU
VICTIM SERVICES UNIT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction:
This evaluation was conducted in response to the Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS) requirement for an evaluation of the Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) National Victim Services Program (NVSP) during the third year (2009-2010) of implementation of the program. It addressed the continued relevancy, success and cost-effectiveness of the program in the context of its implementation and in advance of a potential request for augmentation of resources.

Prior to 2007, CSC had a process by which information sharing with victims was provided by institutional coordinators of case management and community parole supervisors. Due to the increasing rate of victim registrations and the federal government’s commitment to providing victims a voice in corrections and the criminal justice system, CSC implemented a new National Victim Services Program in September 2007 to better respond to the increasing needs of victims. The implementation of the NVSP consisted of the establishment of a model of service delivery based on regional clusters where dedicated regional positions provide services to victims within their respective regions.

It was expected that the implementation of the NVSP would improve the integration of services within CSC, increase awareness among CSC staff members, victims and other criminal justice partners of services offered to victims by CSC, and improve relationships with victims and victim organizations. It was also intended to enhance relationships with other federal partners, including the National Office for Victims (NOV), the National Parole Board (NPB) and the Policy Centre for Victims Issues (PCVI).

The evaluation examined the extent to which the NVSP attained or demonstrated progress towards the achievement of these key outcomes.

Financial Expenditures:
CSC received $13,649,136 over a four-year period beginning in 2007/08 and ending in 2010/11. The funding was granted as part of the Government of Canada’s Federal Strategy for Victims of Crime for which the Department of Justice ($30,488,784), the National Parole Board ($1,770,000) and the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime ($6,001,690) also received funding as outlined.

Evaluation Strategy:
The current evaluation applied a multi-method approach incorporating qualitative and quantitative methodologies.  A total of 3,221 questionnaires were mailed to randomly selected registered victims and 172 victim agents.  Eight hundred and forty (840) victims, (26%) responded and returned the questionnaire. In addition, interviews were conducted with CSC staff members (n = 239), Victim Services staff members (n= 31) stakeholders (n=21), federal partners (n=4) and the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime (FOVC).

Data from the Offender Management System (OMS) and other databases maintained by the Citizen Engagement Branch at CSC-NHQ were used to examine trends in the number of registrations, notifications, access to the NVSP website and the use of toll-free telephone numbers. The evaluation team also reviewed relevant documents, including the Treasury Board submission, departmental reports (e.g., Report on Plan and Priorities; CSC 2009-2010) and policy documents (e.g., Commissioner Directives). Program documentation and relevant information obtained through CSC Victim Services and Citizen Engagement were also reviewed. Other research literature and documents from international jurisdictions (e.g., New Zealand, United States of America and United Kingdom) relating to victims and victim services, and Juristat articles, Statistics Canada reports, surveys and evaluation reports completed by other federal partners were also reviewed.

LIST OF KEY FINDINGS

The evaluation team found that the majority of the victims who participated in the questionnaire were satisfied with the quality of services, accessibility to services, clarity of information provided and timeliness of sharing information. Similarly, the steady increase in the numbers of registrations, outreach services, notification since 2007 and availability of a toll-free telephone numbers, demonstrate that NVSP is achieving its intended outcomes. It was also found that outreach methods and communication measures to facilitate information sharing needed to be enhanced in order to reach a growing diverse population. The following list of findings underscores key results that have been achieved by the NVSP since its implementation.

CONTINUED RELEVANCY

Finding 1: The National Victim Services Program is consistent with government and departmental priorities and complies with legislative requirements.

Finding 2: The role currently being performed by CSC in the area of victim services is consistent with similar correctional agencies in international jurisdictions.

IMPLEMENTATION

Finding 3: Police services, courts and other agencies providing services to victims across Canada were reported to be performing critical functions as the first line of contact with victims and assisting in creating awareness of CSC programs/services among victims of crime.

Finding 4: Notwithstanding a steady decline in crime rates across Canada during the implementation period, annual NVSP outreach activities increased steadily.  However, outreach activities were not proportional to the distribution of crimes across Canada.

Finding 5: Using other mainstream advertisement and outreach services may enhance the reach of NVSP among victims and the public in general compared to the current Speakers’ Bureau approach currently used by NVSP.

SUCCESS

Finding 6: A small number of victims were able to differentiate between the previous program and the NVSP implemented in September 2007; however, the majority were aware of specific services that CSC provides to victims.

Finding 7: The majority of victim respondents were satisfied with the services provided by CSC, including accessibility to services, the services received from Victim Services Officers, the registration and notification processes, and the quality of information provided.

Finding 8: The level of satisfaction among Aboriginal victims pertaining to accessibility and quality of services, as well as the registration and notification processes, was highly comparable to the level of satisfaction reported by the entire sample of victim respondents, thus suggesting that the NVSP is equally sensitive to the needs of diverse victims.

Finding 9: All respondent groups, including victims, reported improvements in victim services since the implementation of the NVSP in September 2007.

Finding 10: A comparison of the average number of victim registrations before and after implementation of the National Victim Services Program revealed an increase of 12.5% despite a steady decline in the five-year crime rate.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Finding 11: Given the increase in service delivery, all indicators of performance, such as victims’ levels of awareness and satisfaction, the number of victim notifications, the number of outreach activities, victim registrations, and improvement in quality of service delivery, NVSP is satisfactorily meeting its intended outcomes and providing high level of results to Canadians.

Finding 12: The cost of providing services to a registered victim by CSC is 27% lower than a similar program in another jurisdiction.

Finding 13: In the absence of an augmentation of NVSP resources, the steady increase in victim registration with the corresponding demand for services could pose a performance challenge to the NVSP in the future.

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: CSC should implement alternative approaches to outreach activities, including collaboration with private, federal, provincial and territorial partners, in order to enhance victims’ and communities’ level of awareness of the NVSP services.

Recommendation 2: In order to sustain program outcomes, the quality of key services provided to victims, as well as to plan for a potential increase in services, CSC should:

  1. update the analysis of the workload formula of Victim Services resources; and
  2. engage other appropriate partners in order to reduce overlap and/or to develop any potential shared services agreements that will support a continued high level of service delivery to victims of crime.

Recommendation 3: CSC should explore and implement, where appropriate, the use of alternative communication technology in order to facilitate victim registration and the dissemination of information to registered victims.

INTRODUCTION

The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) launched its National Victim Services Program (NVSP) on September 4th, 2007, with the goal of strengthening the existing services provided by CSC to victims of crime.  This evaluation is in response to the Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS) requirement that an evaluation be conducted in the third year (2009-2010) of the implementation of the NVSP. It addressed the continued relevancy, success and cost-effectiveness of NVSP in the context of its implementation in advance of a potential request for augmentation of resources.

Background

Canada spent approximately $178.7 million to provide services to victims, excluding compensation programs, in 2007-20081. These services included dissemination of information, emotional support, liaising with other agencies, and sharing information about the criminal justice system, as well as raising public awareness and crime prevention.   As of May 2008, there were 728 victim services providers across Canada who reported serving 9,808 victims on any given day2.  Statistics Canada (2009b) survey results demonstrated that, of the victim respondents to the survey, 75%, (n=7942) were women and 25% were men. Also, the majority (67%) were victims of crimes against the person, 31% were victims of sexual assault, 5% of criminal harassment, 3% were secondary victims of homicide, and 2% were secondary victims of other offences causing death (Statistics Canada, 2009b).

Historically, there was limited public recognition of the needs of crime victims during the 1970s and 1980s, even though provinces such as Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland had enacted laws granting victim compensation in late 1960s. It was only in the latter part of the 1980s and early 1990s that the Canadian government began enacting legislation in support of victim rights and services (CSC, 2007).  In 1992, the Government of Canada (GoC) enacted the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), which recognised victims of crime as having a legitimate interest in receiving information about the offenders who had harmed them, while allowing victims the opportunity to provide information that could be considered in decisions related to the conditional release of the offender.  The CCRA set out the responsibilities of CSC and the National Parole Board for sharing information with victims. The CCRA also places on both organizations, the responsibility to provide other services such as responding to victim inquiries, providing victims with the opportunity to present their views during conditional release hearings and assisting victims who are attending NPB hearings. Following the promulgation of the CCRA, CSC began disclosing relevant offender information to victims as set out in Section 26 of the CCRA. Over time, the number of registered victims has increased steadily from 1,200 in 1995 to 5,300 in 2006 and over 5,910 in 2009.  This number is expected to continue to increase over the next several years with a projection of 8,5003 by 2011.

Following the implementation of the CCRA and until 2007, coordinators of case management in the institutions and/or community parole supervisors were responsible for providing information services to victims in addition to their regular responsibilities.  However, as the number of victims increased over time (i.e., 1,200 in 1995 versus 5,300 in 2006), CSC identified a need for a new approach to service delivery.  Furthermore, consultations with victims of crime had also underlined certain shortcomings in the victim service delivery approach in place since 1992.  For instance, during the national consultation with victims of crime led by the then Solicitor General of Canada (now Public Safety Canada) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2001, victims underscored the importance of having certain CSC positions exclusively dedicated to the provision of services to victims.

As indicated above, prior to 2007, victim services were essentially provided by case management coordinators (CCM). Victims felt that it was inappropriate for these staff members to work with them while at the same time managing offenders’ case management processes.  They wanted to receive offender information in a timely manner and be provided to them by an individual dedicated to the victim service positions (CSC Results-Based Management Framework (RMAF), 2007 and TB submission 2006).  In response to victim requests for an enhanced service delivery, CSC implemented NVSP in 2007.

The National Victim Services Program (NVSP)

Given the need for compliance with legislative requirements and the growing number of registered victims requesting services, CSC implemented its new National Victim Services Program in September 2007. The program was established to respond to the increasing victim registrations and their need for timely information in CSC’s five regions4. The program was also intended to promote awareness among CSC staff members of the concerns and needs of victims.  The implementation of NVSP consisted of the establishment of a model of service delivery based on regional clusters. This strategy was aimed at strengthening the victim services infrastructure at the regional and national levels, fostering the development of stronger partnerships with government and non-government agencies, and supporting the establishment of a risk management process relating to accountability and program integrity. In the process of the program’s implementation, it was expected to ensure the establishment of an effective evaluation structure that would address the continued relevancy, success and cost-effectiveness of the program while monitoring current and future trends in order to support effective strategic planning.

The NVSP services to victims include victim registration and notification.  Upon initial contact with CSC, Victim Services Officers (VSOs) determine whether the individual meets the CCRA (1992) definition of a victim and contacts the National Parole Board to communicate CSC’s decision to register the victim and to solicit approval for registration on the NPB section of the Offender Management System (OMS).  Subsequently, the Victim Services Officers then contacts the victim to confirm their registration for ongoing notification.  Once registered, victims are notified of offender-related events and decisions on regular basis.  Figure 1 highlights the main components of the registration and notification processes.

Figure 1: Victim registration and notification processes flow chart

[D]

A Description of Victim Services Provided in Canada

In 2007-2008, 739 service providers who participated in Statistics Canada’s Victim Services Survey reported employing the equivalent of 3,233 full-time staff member as well as receiving assistance from 8,684 volunteers (Statistics Canada, 2009a).  The cost (excluding compensation programs) of providing formal services to victims of crime in Canada was $178.7 million during this timeframe (Statistics Canada, 2009b). Services provided to victims of crime in Canada mainly fall under the following categories5 :

  • System-based Victim Services: These services are independent from the police, courts and crown attorney, and are mainly offered by the provincial or territorial Ministry of the Attorney General or Solicitor General.  The majority of the provinces and territories rely on system-based services, where victim services units deliver services to victims of crime from the beginning of their contact with the criminal justice system until when the offender is admitted into a correctional institution. Some typical services include information sharing, support and referral, short-term counselling, court preparation and participation, and liaising with victim stakeholders (e.g., police, courts, Crown and corrections).  This approach to service delivery allows for communication between all types of victim services and has been characterised as “one-stop service delivery”;
  • Police-based Victim Services: These services typically rely on volunteer service providers and are offered through local police departments following a victim’s first contact with the police.  Services provided include dissemination of information, support, referral assistance and victim court orientation;
  • Court-based Victim Services: These services provide support to victims or witnesses on first contact with the criminal court process and assist them in dealing with the criminal justice process. These services involve orientation to the criminal justice process (e.g., court orientation and accompaniment, testifying, case updates); and
  • Community-based Victim Services: These are typically non-governmental organizations that provide direct services to either all victims of crime to specific groups of victims or witnesses (e.g., victims of sexual abuse/assault).  Services include emotional support, assistance, information dissemination, court orientation and referrals.

While a combination of these four types of services is found across the majority of provinces, their proportional representation varies.  For instance, the evaluation team observed that system-based services are the most prevalent type of service in the Atlantic provinces, while the majority of victim services provided are community-based in Quebec and police-based in Alberta and British Columbia. However, the four types of victim service providers described above are not responsible for the notification process. Rather, they refer victims to either provincial correctional services or CSC, depending on the jurisdiction where the offender is incarcerated.  In addition, victims often provide CSC with important and relevant information about an offender as well as any of their safety concerns.  This information assists CSC when assessing the offender for temporary absences or work releases, programming needs, risk and security level (Correctional Service Canada, 2009d).  Thus, in comparison to police, court, community and provincial system based services, CSC plays a distinct role in services provided to victims.

Characteristics of Offenders with Victim Notification

In examining the extent to which offenders who have a victim notification differ from the entire population of CSC offenders, statistical analyses6 revealed that this group of offenders (n=3499) and the entire population of offenders (n = 22 435) differed significantly on a series of variables relating to demographic characteristics, correctional plan information, institutional behaviour before release, and success of conditional release.  Statistical comparisons in this section involve the use of the Chi-square statistic7 (for a categorical variable like ethnic group) as well as the t-test8 for continuous variables such as age.

Demographics:

As outlined in Table 1, offenders with victim notification were more likely than the general offender population to be Caucasian males who are approximately 43 years of age. They were also more likely to be serving their sentence in the Ontario or Atlantic Regions and to have committed a Schedule I and/or sexual offences. With respect to age, offenders who had a victim notification were, on average, three years older than the population.

Table 1: Offender demographic characteristics
  Victim Notification
n=3,499
Offender Population
N=22,435
Gender    
Male 96% 95%
Female 4% 5%
Age (Mean) 43.11 40.11
Ethnicity:

In terms of ethnic composition, it was found that the group of offenders who had a victim notification on file differed significantly from the population.  More specifically, as reflected in Table 2, offenders who had a victim notification were more likely to be Caucasian and less likely to be of other ethnic backgrounds.

Table 2: Ethnicity
  n / N Aboriginal Caucasian Other χ2
Victim notification 3,477 17% 72% 10% 61.91*
Population 22,152 18% 67% 15%  

* df=2; p < .001.

Region:

Regional differences were observed in terms of region of incarceration or community supervision. Table 3 demonstrates that, in contrast to the population of offenders, a higher proportion of offenders with victim notification resided in the Atlantic, Ontario and Pacific Regions while a lower proportion resided in the Prairie and Quebec Regions.  Overall, the largest numbers of offenders with victim notification are incarcerated or under supervision in the Ontario Region.

Table 3: Region
  n / N Atlantic Ontario Pacific Prairies Quebec χ2
Victim notification 3,499 15% 33% 19% 19% 15% 303.81*
Population 22,435 10% 27% 15% 25% 24%  

* df=1; p < .001.

Offence Type:

Table 4 highlights the differences in offence types between offenders with victim notification and the population of offenders.   Overall, statistical analyses revealed that offenders who had victim notification were more likely to be serving a sentence for a Schedule I offence and/or sexual offences and were less likely to be serving a sentence for a Schedule II offence.

Table 4: Offence Type
  n / N No Yes χ2
Schedule I        
Victim notification 3,499 32% 68% 246.94*
Population 22,435 46% 54%  
Schedule II        
Victim notification 3,499 96% 4% 640.74*
Population 22,435 79% 21%  
Sexual Offence        
Victim notification 3,499 74% 26% 498.08*
Population 22,435 86% 14%  

* df=1; p < .001
note: Schedule I:    ; Schedule II:

Sentence Type and length:

Differences between groups also emerged with regard to sentence type.  Particularly, offenders who had a victim notification were more likely to be serving an indeterminate sentence and less likely to be serving a determinate sentence than the population of offenders (See Table 5). However, when serving a determinate sentence, they were more likely to stay longer in the institution prior to a positive parole decision in comparison to the offender population (see Table 6).

Table 5: Offender characteristics - Sentence Type
  n / N Determinate Indeterminate χ2
Victim notification 3,499 59% 41% 764.16*
Population 22,435 78% 22%  

* df=1; p < .001.

Table 6: Offender characteristics - Sentence Length
  n / N Mean SD Median t
Victim notification 2,062 6.19 5.06 4.91 12.96*
Population 17,553 5.20 5.16 3.50  

* p < .001.

Time Incarcerated before First Release in Years and supervision status:

As displayed in Table 7, offenders who had a victim notification on file have spent more time incarcerated compared to the offender population. Overall, incarceration lasted on average 2.3 years (59%) longer for offenders with victim notification than for the entire population of offenders. In terms of supervision status, differences were noted between offenders who have a victim notification and the offender population.  More specifically, as illustrated in Table 8, offenders with victim notification were more likely to be incarcerated and less likely to be under community supervision than the population of offenders.

Table 7: Time Incarcerated before First Release in Years
  n / N Mean SD Median t1
Victim notification 3,495 6.21 6.56 3.47 32.54*
Population 22,405 3.90 5.44 1.67  

* p < .001. 1 : Based on one-way t-test performed on the log transformation of time incarcerated

Table 8: Supervision Status
  n / N Incarcerated Community Supervision χ2
Victim notification 3,488 68% 32% 131.14*
Population 22,353 58% 42%  

* df=1; p < .001.

Institutional charges and parole application outcome:

The extent to which offenders with victim notification differed from the population of offenders in terms of institutional charges was also assessed.  As displayed in Table 9, offenders with victim notifications were more likely to have institutional charges of all types (i.e., minor and major) in comparison to the population. Table 10 also displays decisions relative to parole applications.  The results are stratified by parole application type; thus, an offender could have a day parole application or a full parole application, but not both. With respect to the application for day parole, offenders with a victim notification were less likely to be granted day parole and equally less likely to be granted full parole, although this finding was not statistically significant.

Table 9: Institutional Charges
  n / N None One or more χ2
Minor Charge       103.77
Victim notification 3,499 45% 55%  
Population 22,435 54% 46%  
Major Charge       99.98
Victim notification 3,499 63% 37%  
Population 22,435 71% 29%  
Any Charge       119.78
Victim notification 3,499 40% 60%  
Population 22,435 49% 51%  

* df=1; p < .001

Table 10: Parole Application Outcome
  n / N Denied Granted χ2
Day Parole        
Victim notification 877 50% 50% 18.00*
Population 4,470 43% 57%  
Full Parole        
Victim notification 569 90% 10% 8.77**
Population 3876 86% 14%  

* df=1; p < .001; **df=1; p < .01.

First Release Type:

Percentages of first release types for offenders with victim notification and the offender population are presented in Table 11.  Offenders who had a victim notification were more likely to be released on Statutory Release versus other forms of conditional release.  Although statistically significant, the actual differences between groups are rather small, ranging between 1% for day parole to 3% for statutory release.

Table 11: Offender characteristics - First Release Type
  n / N Day Parole Full Parole Stat Release χ2
Victim notification 1,379 59% 5% 36% 17.90*
Population 11,232 60% 7% 33%  

* df=2; p < .001.

Success upon Conditional Release:

Survival analyses9 (see Appendix 1 for a description) were also conducted in order to examine whether offenders with victim notification differed from the rest of the population of offenders in terms of conditional release failure throughout a five year follow up period. The analyses revealed that the group of offenders with victim notification differed from the population of offenders, X­2 (df = 1) = 19.29, p < .001. This difference was largely attributed to the lower probability of failing while on conditional release during the first year for offenders with victim notification (23% versus 31%) (See Figure 2).  At the end of the 5-year time frame, 49% of offenders with victim notification were unsuccessful while on conditional release in contrast to 54% for the population of offenders.  Although offenders with victim notification took longer to return to the community on conditional release, they are more likely to be successful in the community following release.  It is however noteworthy that this difference diminished incrementally over the 5-year period.

Figure 2: Success upon Conditional Release during five-year follow-up

[D]

In summary, important differences emerged between offenders with victim notification and the entire population of offenders.  Offenders with victim notification were more likely to be convicted for Schedule I and/or sexual offences than the population of offenders and were more likely to engage in inappropriate conduct while in the institution, thereby resulting in more institutional charges. They were also more likely to be denied day parole at their first attempt.  Nevertheless, when these offenders are finally granted conditional release, they are less likely to fail than the population of offenders, when examined using survival analysis particularly following the first year of conditional release.

Implication for the NVSP:

These statistical findings highlight several issues that are relevant to the provision of the NVSP. Most importantly, victims of Schedule I or sexual offences, whose offenders subsequently received indeterminate sentences, are more likely to register with the NVSP thereby potentially increasing the demand for NVSP services. If Bill C-43 becomes law, Victim Services Officers will be required to perform additional duties, for example to share information about offender institutional behaviour including incidents and charges with the victims. This requirement may lead to an increase in Victim Services Officers workload over-time.

Governance structure

The Assistant Commissioner, Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations Sector (ACPAPR) is ultimately responsible and accountable for the CSC National Victim Services Program. At the national level, the Victim Services division is led by the National Director, Victim Services, who reports to the Director General, Citizen Engagement Branch. At the regional level, Victim Services Officers provide information and services to registered victims of federal offenders. The Victim Services Officers report to the Regional Victims Services Manager (RVSM), who reports directly to the Regional Administrator, Reintegration. The National Director of Victims Services also provides functional supervision to the Regional Victims Services Managers. Other Victim Services staff members at National Headquarters are responsible for the development of policy, facilitate consultation with internal and external partners, and address ongoing victim-related concerns.

Planned results

Based on the 2007 National Victim Services Program’s Results-Based Management Accountability Framework (RMAF), it was expected that the implementation of the NVSP would produce the following results:

  • Improved victim satisfaction through improved services and the provision of timely information;
  • Integrated service delivery function within CSC;
  • Heightened awareness among CSC staff members of victim issues;
  • Increased awareness among victims and criminal justice partners about the services available to victims of federally sentenced offenders;
  • Improved relationships with victims and victim organizations; and
  • Maintenance of professional relationships with government partners including the National Office for Victims, the National Parole Board and the Policy Centre for Victims Issues.

The current evaluation thus examined the extent to which the program attained or demonstrated progress towards the achievement of these key outcomes.

Financial and Resource Information

Table 12 outlines funds allocated to CSC’s National Victim Services Program for the four-year period beginning in 2007/08 and ending in 2010/11.  CSC received $13,649,136 over four years. This funding was granted as part of the Federal Strategy for Victims of Crime for which the Department of Justice ($30,488,784), the National Parole Board ($1,770,000) and the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime ($6,001,690) also received funding.

Table 12: Funding allocated to CSC’s National Victim Services Program (2007-2011)
  2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Total
TOTAL FTE's 25 30 30 30 30
Salary 1,798,708 2,141,618 2,141,618 2,141,618 8,223,562
EBP (20%) 359,742 428,324 428,324 428,324 1,644,712
O&M / F&E 1,020,002 563,932 563,932 563,932 2,711,799
TOTAL 3,178,452 3,133,874 3,133,874 3,133,874 12,580,073
PWGSC (13%) 233,832 278,410 278,410 278,410 1,069,063
GRAND TOTAL 3,412,284 3,412,284 3,412,284 3,412,284 13,649,136

Source: RMAF- 2007 National Victim Services Program.

With respect to human resources, NVSP Full-Time Equivalent (FTEs) positions are distributed according to a regional cluster model (see Table 13).  Each region includes one Regional Victim Services Manager and a number of Victim Services Officers that varies regionally, based on the distribution of registered victims.  The Director of Victim Services is located in NHQ.  As of January 2010, the NVSP is composed of 31 FTEs10

Table 13: Regional Distribution of National Victim Services Full Time Equivalent Positions
  Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairie Pacific NHQ Total
Victim Services Officers 4 4 7 5 5   25
Regional Victim Services Managers 1 1 1 1 1  
Director, Victim Services           1 1
Total FTEs 5 5 8 6 6 1 31

Source: National Victim Services Program RMAF (2007).

Figure 3 presents both the regional distributions of NVSP FTEs and victims who registered with CSC from February 2002 to September 2009. Overall, except in Ontario and Atlantic Regions, the figure demonstrates that resources have been allocated in accordance with the distribution of registered victims across Canada.

Figure 3: Regional distribution of FTEs compared to the distribution of registered victims

Source: Data on registrations were provided by Victim Services, Citizen Engagement.
Note:  percentage of registered victims corresponds to the victim registrations from February 2000 to September 2009.

[D]

As of October 2009, 6,091 victims were registered with CSC.  Based on the 2009 average of 104 monthly victim registrations, totalling 1,248 registered victims per year, and the historically steady increase of registration since 2006, it is projected that the number of registered victims will increase to approximately 8,500 by September 2011.  This suggest that if the past rate of increase in each of these regions continues, the projected regional distribution of registered victims by September 2011 will indicate that the Ontario Region will likely have the highest representation of registered victims at 2,635, followed by the Pacific and Prairie Regions at 1,615, Atlantic at 1,530 and Quebec Region at 1,105.

EVALUATION STRATEGY

Evaluation objectives

The evaluation was conducted by CSC’s Evaluation Branch to inform decision-making pertaining to the National Victim Services Program.  The evaluation focused on the program’s continued relevance, implementation, success, cost-effectiveness, as well as unintended/other outcomes. The following expected results were identified under each evaluation objective:

Objective #1: Continued Relevancy

  1. The program is consistent with the mandate of CSC and Government of Canada priorities, as well as programs, policy and legislation at the international level.
  2. There is a legitimate role for CSC in the provision of victim services.

Objective #2: Program Implementation

  1. Appropriate outreach activities are undertaken to inform victims and key stakeholders about the program.
  2. Technology adequately supports CSC’s outreach to victims.

Objective #3: Success (Effectiveness & Efficiency)

  1. Victims and victims groups are informed and aware of the program and its objectives.
  2. Registered victims are satisfied with the quality of the services provided.
  3. There is a higher level of dedicated service delivery (increase in registrations, use of toll-free telephone, web site access, and notifications).  
  4. There is an increased participation and attendance at NPB hearings.

Objective #4: Cost-effectiveness

  1. CSC is using the available technologies to reach the goals of the program (technology offers cost-benefit advantages in terms of outreach).
  2. The level of service requires the resources invested in the program.
  3. The NVSP cost per registered victim is comparable to those of similar programs.

Objective #5: Unintended and Other findings

Other outcomes and findings that may impact on NVSP performance.

Logic Model

The logic model for the NVSP, presented in Figure 4, summarizes the key elements of the program and outlines the rationale behind the approach, articulates the intended outcomes, and identifies the cause-and-effect relationships between the program and its intended outcomes. The NVSP is comprised of five main activities, including: outreach for victims and the general public, communication/liaison with other victim service agencies, creation of VSO positions and training, in-reach for CSC staff and stakeholders, and victim assistance and provision of relevant information to victims. The immediate, intermediate and long-term outcomes of the NVSP program are outlined in the logic model. The extent to which these outcomes have been achieved is explored in the evaluation results section.

Figure 4: NVSP Logic Model 11

[D]

Evaluation Methodology

The current evaluation applied a multi-method approach incorporating qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address the aforementioned evaluation objectives.  A questionnaire for victims was developed in April 2009 in collaboration with NPB. CSC’s portion of the questionnaire focused on awareness, quality of services and access to information. A total of 3,221 questionnaires were mailed to randomly selected registered victims and 172 agents. Eight hundred and forty victims (26%) responded and returned the questionnaire. In addition, interviews were conducted with CSC staff members (n = 239), Victim Services staff members (n= 31), stakeholders (n=21), federal partners (n=4) and the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Several CSC and government documents were reviewed and a review of program data/documentation and documents from other correctional jurisdictions/countries was conducted.  A detailed description of the evaluation methodology is provided in Appendix 2.

Given the emotional impact of crime on victims, the evaluation differentiated level of victim dissatisfaction with the overall criminal justice system from the services provided by the NVSP. Appropriate clarifying questions were, therefore, asked in order to identify respondents who demonstrated such a bias and this impact was noted, where appropriate.

The Offender Management System (OMS; automated database maintained by CSC) as well as other databases created and maintained by the Citizen Engagement Branch at CSC National Headquarters were used to examine trends of the number of registrations, notifications, access to the NVSP website and the use of toll-free telephone numbers.  Offender demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age, sentence type) were extracted from the OMS.  Given that OMS did not capture demographic information such as victims’ gender, ethnicity or preferred official language prior to September 2009, it was not possible to compare the selected sample of registered victims with other sample frames12.

Limitations

There were two key limitations associated with the methodology of the current evaluation. The first limitation was related to the constraints associated with the version of OMS in place prior to September 2009, which did not capture relevant demographic information, such as age, gender, ethnicity, preferred official language of registered victims.  It was therefore not possible to compare the sample of registered victim respondents who were surveyed in the current evaluation with the entire population of registered victims.  It should, however, be noted that the impending enhancement to OMS will capture appropriate registered victims demographic data with due regard to the Privacy Act requirements.  Changes to the module will also facilitate the recording of activities such as unsuccessful disclosures (i.e., when the Victim Services Officers decides not to disclose information to the victim due to unforeseen circumstances), victim impact statements, other correspondence with victims as well as staff members, agents, police and so forth (CSC Victim Services, 2009).

Second, the evaluation team experienced difficulty recruiting partners respondents despite flexibility in scheduling interviews.  Only four partners were interviewed and consequently, the views expressed by these participants are only presented in a qualitative fashion in the report.

KEY FINDINGS

Results are presented under their respective Evaluation Objectives, namely: 1) Continued Relevancy, 2) Implementation, 3) Success, 4) Cost Effectiveness, and 5) Unintended/other Outcomes.

EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 1: CONTINUED RELEVANCY

Evaluation Questions:

(1) Does the NVSP remain and continue to be consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities and does it comply with legislative requirements?

(2) Is there a legitimate role for CSC in the provision of victim services?

NVSP is consistent with the Government of Canada’s Priorities

Finding 1: The National Victim Services Program is consistent with government and departmental priorities and complies with legislative requirements.

During the last 30 years, there has been an increasing recognition of the rights and needs of victims in the area of justice (Statistics Canada, 2009).  In his speech during the launch of the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week in 2007, the Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada stated:

“… Victims have long felt that they don't have a voice, and cannot be heard, in our criminal justice system. They don't believe they have the necessary support and assistance as they follow their journey for justice. Our government believes too that it is time to listen. We have heard our victims, we have seen our victims, and we know it's time to respect our victims. And that is why we have made some proud steps forward in recent months”… “by listening to victims, we learn more about the often devastating impacts of crime. It also enables us to provide them with the support they need. Victims and victims' families are often devastated by the criminal acts they have experienced. Yet they can feel further victimized by elements of a justice system which seems to focus almost entirely on the criminal.”

At the same time, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety established the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, an independent resource for victims of crime in Canada created to ensure that the needs of victims were properly addressed. The Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has the responsibility of federal victims of crime complaints.  Victims can contact the Office to learn more about their rights under federal law and the services available to them, or to make a complaint about any federal agency or federal legislation dealing with victims of crime. This office is also responsible for maintaining a relationship with policy makers and criminal justice personnel to keep them apprised of the needs, issues and concerns of victims of crime. The FOVC’s responsibilities are set out in the CCRA and the Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime. In October 2003, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice endorsed a new Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime.  In light of the United Nation’s Declaration of Basic Principles for Victims of Crime and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ministers of Justice set out a series of principles intended to promote the fair treatment of victims that should be reflected in federal/provincial/territorial laws, policies and procedures (Department of Justice, 2009).

CSC is mandated by law to provide services to victims of crime (CCRA, 1992, s. 26). As discussed previously, section 26 of the CCRA outlines CSC’s responsibility to disclose, upon request by a victim, specific information about the offender (i.e., the offender’s name, the offence for which the offender was convicted and the court that convicted the offender, the date of commencement and length of the sentence that the offender is serving, and eligibility and review dates with respect to temporary absences or parole).  In cases where an offender has been transferred to a provincial correctional facility, the Commissioner may also, upon request of the victim, disclose the name of the provincial correctional facility where the offender is housed, if such disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of the offender’s privacy (CCRA, 1992).

The NVSP was implemented as a means of addressing the policy framework outlined in Commissioner’s Directive [CD] 784: Information Sharing Between Victims and the Correctional Service of Canada, which delegates responsibility for liaising with victims in order to ensure they are properly served in regard to their requests for information concerning offenders and that the information disclosed to them meets legislative requirements. As indicated in CSC’s Review Panel Report (2007), the number of registered victims of crime has grown by more than 400% since 1995, from 1,200 to more than 5,000 prior to the implementation of the NVSP, and is expected to reach 8,500 by 2011.  As of October 2009, the evaluation team noted that a total of 6,091 victims were registered, therefore suggesting that following the fourth year of implementation (i.e., September 2011), the number of registered victims should reach approximately 8,50013.

One of the ultimate outcomes of the National Victim Services Program is to provide victims with a greater voice in the federal correctional system.  Among victim respondents who indicated being aware of the implementation of the NVSP, 56% (n= 76/137) agreed that the NVSP was providing them with a greater voice in the correctional system.  Similarly, the majority of both CSC staff members (83%; n=144) and stakeholders (65%; n=11) agreed that the NVSP was providing victims with a greater voice in the correctional system.  A strong majority of respondents agreed (CSC staff: 82%, n=112 and VS staff members: 81%; n=25) that NVSP has been successful in addressing the specific needs of victims.

Is there a legitimate role for CSC in the provision of victim services?

Finding 2: The role currently being performed by CSC in the area of victim services is consistent with similar correctional agencies in international jurisdictions.

The provision of victim services, particularly notification and support by a federal correctional department, is not unique to Canada. Correctional services around the world are responsible for providing some types of service to victims of offenders. There are some variations in the level of services provided by government organizations, as some organizations provide offender information to victims, while others hold offenders accountable through an inmate financial responsibility program. For instance, the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) was implemented to ensure that sentenced inmates develop a financial plan for meeting court-ordered and other legitimate financial obligations, including payments to victims. The Bureau also ensures, through its Victim/Witness Notification Program, that crime victims and witnesses who are enrolled in the program are notified, within specific timeframes, of an inmate's admission to, or release from, an institution, escape, parole hearing or death.

Canada spent approximately $178.7 million to provide services to victims, excluding compensation programs, in 2007-2008. Similarly, the United States Congress, for fiscal year (FY) 2008, authorized the Office of Victims of Crime (OVC) to spend $590 million for programs. Of the $590M allocated for victim services, $171M was designated for victim compensation and the remainder was used to provide assistance to victims through costs associated with victim specialist personnel in U.S. attorneys' offices, victim specialists at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and support for the Victim Notification System. It also included discretionary activities such as training, technical assistance, program evaluation and compliance, and other assistance to improve and expand the delivery of services to federal crime victims (US Office of Justice Programs-Budget and Management Service, 2009).14

Also consistent with the Canadian victim service model are victim notification services in the United Kingdom, which are provided by various prison agencies. For instance, the Irish Prison Service provides services to victims through its victim liaison service. The Northern Ireland Prison Service also offers a prisoner release victim information service and the Scottish Prison Service provides statutory notification to victims in its jurisdiction.

New Zealand’s commitment to victim programs dates to 1963 when it enacted the first victim compensation program (Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, 2006). The New Zealand Department of Corrections, under the Victims’ Right Act and the Parole Act of 2002, is required to notify registered victims of specific activities related to offenders including escapes, release dates, temporary and work releases, and death. Victims’ notifications are also common throughout Australian Departments of Corrections, particularly in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia.

According to Statistics Canada’s 2009 Victim Service Survey, there are 728 victim service providers in Canada, with the categories of services ranging from support and counselling to assistance during various criminal justice processes. The role performed by CSC is uniquely appropriate for a federal government department, given Privacy Act requirements and the need for extensive training and orientation relating to the management of government, offender and victim information. For private agencies to be able to provide these services within applicable legislative requirements, the Government of Canada would be required to provide training and establish information sharing infrastructure capable of sharing information between government and the private agencies.

Finally, the provision of services to victims through state, provincial, territorial and local prisons/correctional agencies is prevalent in all the above-listed countries. For example, in Canada, provincial and territorial governments adopted the Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime in 1988. Given the prevalence of victim services in these national and international jurisdictions, the steady increase in responsibility, accountability and resources over time, and the Government of Canada’s commitment to foster an effective federal strategy for victims of crime, it is suggested CSC has a legitimate role in performing victim services as a key government priority.

This commitment to government priority was underscored during the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week in 2009 by Commissioner Don Head:
“Although CSC continues to work with offenders to help them with their rehabilitation and reintegration efforts, the culture at CSC is increasingly changing to reflect the needs of victims… CSC recognizes that victims of crime come from various backgrounds and have diverse needs, so the Victim Services Branch is currently collaborating with the National Office for Victims, the National Parole Board and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to facilitate services for all Canadians”.

In its latest Report on Plans and Priorities (2009-2010), CSC committed to increasing the quality of victim services by providing them with better support and information in order that they understand and contribute to the correctional decisions around the person who victimized them. The NVSP is an important and, currently, the only vehicle for facilitating this commitment.

EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 2: IMPLEMENTATION

Evaluation Question: Is the National Victim Services Program organized in such a way that goals and objectives can be achieved?

Sources through which victims became aware of CSC services

Finding 3: Police services, courts and other agencies providing services to victims across Canada were reported to be performing critical functions as the first line of contact with victims and assisting in creating awareness of CSC programs/services among victims of crime.

In 2005, the Department of Justice, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, conducted a Multi-Site Survey of Victims of Crime and Criminal Justice Professionals, which examined sources of referral to different types of victim services (i.e., police-based, court-based, system-based and community-based).  The most prevalent sources of referral identified were police services, crown attorneys (i.e., court-based system), other victim services (i.e. agencies) and community organisations. The findings of this multi-site survey were similar to respondents’ views in CSC’s questionnaire. As presented in Figure 5, the most common sources by which victims became aware of CSC services were police services, agencies providing services to victims, the courts and CSC and NPB representatives. Similarly, respondents perceived the police and victim service providers to be the best sources through which to find the assistance they needed.

Figure 5: Distribution of sources by which victims became aware that they could contact CSC for victims' services and information

[D]

Source: CSC Victim questionnaire. The sum of % is more than 100% as respondents could select more than one source.

CSC Victim services’ website

CSC currently has a comprehensive internet site at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/victims-victimes/index-eng.shtml that provides information on the role of victims of crime in the correctional process, the history of victim services, an overview of legislation guiding the work of CSC in the area of victim services, and applicable resources for victims of crime. The internet site also provides a toll-free number (1-866-806-2275) through which victims can initiate a registration process and/or request a specific service in relation to the victim notification process. Notwithstanding that a small percentage 13 %; (n=104/795) of respondents became aware of CSC victim services through the CSC website, the majority (78.5%; n = 591) of respondents stated that they might be interested in accessing victim information through a secure internet site.

The proportion of the respondents interested in accessing information on a secured website increased among ages 25 to 44 (as outlined in Table 14 below). The 35-44 age group demonstrated the highest interest in the victim services website access and potential future use for essential victim notification. The majority of respondents rated the user friendliness as either excellent or good (51%; n=58), and approximately half, (49%, n=53) rated the information as adequate.  Only 3.5%; (n=4) and 6 %; (n=6) rated it as poor among both sample groups. The stakeholder respondents shared similar views. Sixty-percent (n=9) indicated that the website was user friendly and 73%; (n=11) expressed that the information contained on the site was adequate to guide website visitors. This suggests that the website is perceived, among those that have accessed it, as having positive characteristics and as being useful for both victims and stakeholders.

Table 14: Access to CSC victim service website- Age group differences
  Age groups    
  18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Average χ2
Respondents who have accessed the CSC Victim Services website
n = 204
31% 18% 13% 14% 12% 7% 13.1% 9.98 *
Respondents interested in accessing victim services through a secure internet site
n = 609
63% 62% 69% 53% 49% 30% 49.4% 55.76**

Note: * p < 0.1;  ** p < 0.001;

Source: CSC Victim questionnaire 2009.

NVSP outreach activities

Finding 4: Notwithstanding a steady decline in crime rates across Canada during the implementation period, annual NVSP outreach activities increased steadily. However, outreach activities were  not proportional to the distribution of crimes across Canada .

Since the implementation of the NVSP, outreach activities have been undertaken in order to inform the public and stakeholders of victim services provided by CSC.  Such activities mainly consisted of Victim Services Unit awareness sessions, discussions regarding the implementation of NVSP, information/education sessions and presentations, and information kiosks that were primarily offered to police services, community services, provincial departments, colleges, and provincial victim services. Overall, a total of 141 outreach activities were undertaken since the implementation of the NVSP in 2007 and in addition, there has been a yearly increase in the number of outreach activities delivered since 2007 - 4 outreach activities in 2007, 64 in 2008 and 54 in 200915.  Correspondingly, the majority (58%; n=69) of registered CSC victim respondents noted improvement in outreach services since the implementation of CSC’s National Victim Services Program.  Given the distribution pattern of crime across Canada (as reflected in Figure 6)16, which was consequently a proxy of the actual proportion of victims across regions, it would have been more advantageous to synchronize the level of outreach activities in accordance with crime distribution in order to maximize the reach of the outreach services.  A considerably higher number of outreach activities took place in British Columbia and Saskatchewan in comparison to the other provinces where the number of outreach activities was lower relative to the proportion of crimes observed in those areas.

Figure 6: Provincial distribution of NVSP outreach activities since implementation as a comparison to the estimated percentage of crimes - September 2007 to May 2009*


Source for percentage of outreach activities: Victim Services, Citizen Engagement.  Percentages of crimes occurring in each region is based on the crime rate per 100,000 residents (Statistics Canada, 2008) for each region and as a function of the total population within each region (Statistics Canada, 2006)
* The city in which 4 outreach activities occurred had not been coded and therefore the province could not be inferred.  These 4 outreach activities took place in the Pacific region.

For instance, in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Yukon or Nunavut, where much higher crime rates are found (i.e., 47,561 per 100,000; 23,971 per 100,000; and 36,807 per 100,000 respectively) in comparison to the Canadian average (7424 per 100,000) (Statistics Canada, 2008), there were no victim outreach service in those regions.  Similarly, the 2006 Census outlined that Aboriginal people constitute an important proportion of the population in the territories (85% in Nunavut; 50% in NWT; 25% in Yukon), and Aboriginal people were three times more likely than non-Aboriginals to experience a form of violent victimization (319 versus 101 incidents per 1000 population). These crimes were more likely to be committed against younger Aboriginal population (ages 15 to 34 years) and that they were 2.5 times more likely to experience violent victimization (Brzozowki, Taylor-Butts & Johnson, 2006).

Moreover, based on data collected since 1999, 21% of Aboriginals had experienced some form of physical or sexual violence by a spouse and Aboriginals were seven times more likely to be a victim of homicide than non-Aboriginals (8.8 per 1000 population vs. 1.3 per 1000 population) (Brzozowki, Taylor-Butts & Johnson, 2006).  In light of this critical statistical representation and given the higher level of victimisation among Aboriginal peoples, an increase in outreach activities in the locations where Aboriginal peoples are represented in high numbers will potentially enhance their level of awareness of CSC victim services and their accessibility. In November 2009, the National Victim Services Program managers indicated that they would be undertaking several new initiatives to reach out to Aboriginal victims (CSC, 2009c).  Given NVSP yearly progression and performance in relation to outreach services, the commitment to extend its reach to Aboriginal communities is considered a timely priority moving forward.

In light of the importance of police officers as the first line of contact to victims, the extent to which NVSP delivered outreach activities among the police community and other victim service providers was examined.  Figure 7 shows the distribution of outreach activities for the different types of groups of stakeholders involved in the provision of services to victims of crime.  Of all outreach activities undertaken by CSC, 38% were delivered to community-based service providers and 21% to police organizations, thus suggesting that CSC is delivering its outreach activities in a targeted manner with high possibility of enhancing the organizational level of awareness and thereby increasing accessibility to victims.

Figure 7: Distribution of outreach activities among service providers - Sept 2007 to May 2009

[D]

Alternative approaches to providing services

Finding 5: Using other mainstream advertisement and outreach services may enhance the reach of NVSP among victims and the public in general compared to the current Speakers’ Bureau approach currently used by NVSP.

(a) Proactive advertisements

CSC continues to make progress in its outreach activities using the traditional Speakers Bureau approach, where a member of the NVSP attends a gathering of stakeholders and community members to present information about its services. A key recommendation emerged from the Department of Justice (DOJ) 2005 survey that could significantly enhance CSC’s outreach service and diversify its reach. The placement of advertisement on public transportation and in places targeted to reach (and detect) domestic violence, such as doctors’ offices, other medical facilities and social services centres was considered as a new approach that could achieve multiple objectives –educating the public about CSC services and empowering victims to participate in the criminal justice process.

It should be noted that physicians and other health professionals (e.g., psychologists and social workers) are required by their professional code of ethics (e.g. Ordre des psychologues du Québec, R.S.Q., c. C-26, s. 87) to take appropriate action when their clients’ safety is jeopardised, and may, therefore, constitute an important victim referral source towards which outreach should be directed especially in remote areas where community based victim services are rare or dispersed. Neither CSC nor the National Office for Victims (NOV) in Public Safety Canada has disseminated advertisements of this kind (November 17th 2009, Victim Services Division, personal communication). However, the NOV is currently in the process of creating a media announcement specifically targeted to Aboriginal communities.  This outreach strategy would reach wider audiences, particularly given that the role of the NOV is to disseminate publications aimed at increasing awareness among victims, providing general information to the public and victims as well as making appropriate client referrals to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the National Parole Board (NPB) for specific enquiries (Public Safety Canada, 2009).

(b) Proactive registration

 Proactive victim registration is a process instituted by the Province of Quebec through which victims of sexual abuse, domestic violence and child abuse are automatically registered as victims within the Quebec Ministry of Public Safety and simultaneously offered victim services. Although not prevalent across Canada, the system was considered a good practice by victim respondents in the DOJ survey, as half of the respondents indicated that they would prefer that the NVSP take the initiative and contact them directly, stating that victims are often too traumatised or embarrassed to call and, therefore, may not receive help unless victim services contact them.  CSC may therefore wish to explore the possibility of offering this additional service to victims within its jurisdiction.

It is also noteworthy that during the 2009 National Victims of Crime Awareness week in April 2009, the Policy Centre for Victim Issues of the Department of Justice Canada launched the Victim Services Directory (DOJ, 2009).This new online directory establishes a link between victims and the services that are available in their communities with the aim of helping service providers and victims locate appropriate services, allowing victims to determine which services they may require, linking organisations and victims and increasing access to victim services.  Individuals can perform a search of available services in regard to the type of victimisation and the type of service provided.  Currently, the directory only includes information on community service providers and does not refer to the services provided by federal departments with the victim service mandate.  Appropriate information about CSC victim services could be included in this inventory as another opportunity to enhance outreach thereby increasing victim’s level of awareness.

Recommendation 1: CSC should implement alternative approaches to outreach activities, including collaboration with private, federal, provincial and territorial partners in order to enhance victims and communities’ level of awareness of the NVSP services.

Areas requiring improvement

Training:

Some areas requiring improvement were identified by Victims and Victim Services Officers which could enhance the operation and performance of the program. First, respondents were asked to identify perceived challenges associated with the implementation of the NVSP.  Given that Victim Services Officers were expected to participate in a training session targeted at enhancing their competencies to effectively interact with victims, training was identified as an area that required improvement. For instance, 62% (n=13/21) of Victim Services Officers reported that they did not participate in the online Victim Services Officers training module and 52 % (n=11/21) did not participate in the one-week classroom training session. Additionally, 29% (n=5/21) reported that the Victim Services Officers online training module and 47% (n=8/21) indicated that the one week classroom session were not timely.  Finally, a small number (n=6), indicated that they did not have sufficient training and other resources in dealing with distressed victims

Sixty-three percent (n=10/16) of Victim Services staff suggested improving the delivery of training by increasing its timeliness as well as expanding its scope to include courses on counselling.  Others (38%; n=6/16) suggested the need for additional administrative support, the creation of additional positions dedicated to outreach, especially for Aboriginal communities, and 19% (n=3/16) suggested the need to share additional information with victims such as offender progress in programs. Lastly, given the similarity in services provided by CSC and NPB, a small proportion of victims (3%; n=23/840) indicated they were confused in relation to the differences in roles and responsibilities of CSC and NPB.

Retention of Victim Services Officers

The majority of Victim Services Officers (71%; n=15) reported that the volume of their work had increased since the implementation of the program in 2007. Given the steady increase in the number of victim registrations and notifications (as discussed in greater detail below), as well as the increase in outreach activities across regions, this finding is not unexpected.  The Regional Victim Services Managers are directly responsible for the recruitment and supervision of Victim Services Officers.  All Regional Victim Services Managers (n= 4/4) indicated having encountered problems with the retention of Victim Services Officers. This reported difficulty appears to be supported by the Workload Analysis for Victim Services Officers performed by CSC (2009), which concluded that of the 25 Victim Services Officer positions, only six were occupied by the same officer for more than a 1.5-year timeframe.  Overall, there were 25 occurrences of staff changes during an 18 month timeframe, an estimated annual turnover rate of 66.4%. Retention challenge is not unique to CSC or the Victim Services Unit. For instance, comparable turnover rates were found for other Public Service occupational categories such as the Personnel Administration Group (PE = 74%) and the Economics, Sociology and Statistics Group (ES = 71%) (Public Service Commission, 200817). Given the emotional component and the necessary continuous human relationships that are required between service providers and victims, sustainability of relationships between Victim Services Officers and victims is a priority.  Nevertheless, Victim Services staff respondents indicated that appropriate measures are taken in order to ensure the quality of services provided to victims of crime.   More specifically, 96% (n=27) of Victim Service staff members agreed that the NVSP staff members maintained quality assurance for victim services and 100% (n=29) reported that NVSP staff members maintained up-to-date information regarding actions and decisions for victim services to ensure continuity of services.

EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 3: SUCCESS

Evaluation Question: Is the National Victim Services Program producing its planned outputs in relation to expenditure of resources, and meeting its planned results?

Finding 6: A small number of victims were able to differentiate between the previous program and the NVSP implemented in September 2007; however, the majority were aware of specific services that CSC provides to victims.

Increased awareness

One of the main objectives of the National Victim Services Program was to increase awareness among victims and criminal justice partners about the services available to victims of federally sentenced offenders.  In order to examine this issue, the Evaluation Branch assessed the victim and external stakeholders’ level of awareness of the NVSP.  It was noted that only 24% (n=192) of victim respondents were able to differentiate between the past and current programs.  However, at the beginning of the NVSP in 2007, CSC Victim Services sent a letter to all registered victims, highlighting key aspects of the new program (e.g., positions solely focused on the needs of victims) as well as the link to the new website and the new toll-free telephone numbers.  The level of awareness pertaining to the NVSP among stakeholders was greater than that of victims specifically, 62% (n=13) indicated that they were aware and 95% were able to differentiate between the past and current programs in relation to their scope and the responsibility of managing the provision of information and services to victims of federal offenders.

The frequency of visits (monthly average “access”) to CSC web pages was also examined in order to determine its relevance and utilisation. Although the distribution of the web users by region could not be gathered because of the analytic software used, the frequency of access demonstrated the level of interest and awareness among the public at large.  As illustrated in Figure 8, there was a significant increase in website access from 2006 to 2009.  In fact, the monthly average of access was nearly seven times (i.e., 678%) higher in 2009 than during 2006-2007 prior to the program implementation in August 2007.  This suggests that there was increased accessibility, which may have subsequently translated to an increase in public awareness and interest in CSC victim services since the implementation of the NVSP.

Figure 8: Monthly average of hits to CSC Victim Services Website 2006-2009


Source: Victim Services, Citizen Engagement18

[D]

Victim Satisfaction

Finding 7: The majority of victim respondents were satisfied with the services provided by CSC, including accessibility to services, the services received from Victim Services Officers, the registration and notification processes, and the quality of information provided. 

Finding 8: The level of satisfaction among Aboriginal victims pertaining to accessibility and quality of services as well as the registration and notification processes was highly comparable to the level of satisfaction reported by the entire sample of victim respondents, thus suggesting that the NVSP is equally sensitive to the needs of diverse victims. 

According to the National Victim Services Program RMAF (CSC, 2007), it was expected that the implementation of the program would lead to an increased satisfaction with victim services provided by CSC.  More specifically, the evaluation examined the extent to which victims were satisfied with accessibility to services, the quality of services and the information provided by Victim Services Officers, the registration process as well as the notification process.  Additionally, in order to determine whether the NVSP is sensitive to the needs of Aboriginal victims, satisfaction levels were examined separately for the sub-sample of Aboriginal victim respondents.

Satisfaction with quality and access to Victim Services Officer services

An analysis of the questionnaire responses revealed that the majority of victim respondents were satisfied with regard to the accessibility of services (see Figure 9).  More specifically, this trend was found for both the overall sample of victim respondents (67%, n=372), as well as for the sub-sample of Aboriginal respondents (64%; n=21)19.  Also, an analysis of the victim questionnaire responses revealed that nearly two thirds of all victim respondents (65%; n=437) and Aboriginal respondents (67%; n=24) were satisfied with the services received from their Victim Services Officer (See Figure 10)20.  Among a very small number of victims who expressed opposing views, 3%; (n=23) further indicated that there should be a consistent Victim Services Officer specific to their respective cases. They reported frustration relating to having to repeatedly explain their case details to different Victim Services Officers.  For instance, in an opinion of one respondent:

 “I would have a certain support person and then it would change to someone else – usually not familiar with my case” and the need for a “person [who] knows me all the way through.”

This concern, as outlined earlier in the report is not unique to CSC and the recently completed Victim Services Officer Workload Analysis accentuated the challenges associated with this issue and the need to establish an appropriate course of action to address the high staff turn-over rate.

Figure 9: Satisfaction with access to Victim Services Officers

Figure 10: Satisfaction with Victim Services Officers

Satisfaction with registration process

The victim questionnaire also examined the extent to which victims were satisfied with regards to the victim registration process.  As illustrated in Figure 11, a high proportion of all victim respondents (67%, n=440), as well as the subset of Aboriginal respondents (69%; n=25) expressed satisfaction with the registration process which included verification of information provided by victims during their first contact, reconciliation of the crime details with an offender, provision of information about the process and inclusion of victims in the registration databases21.

Figure 11: Satisfaction with the registration process

Satisfaction with relevance, timeliness and clarity of information

Eighty-two percent, (n=445) of victims reported that their information needs were met either “moderately” or “a lot” by CSC staff members.  More specifically, as illustrated in Table 15, the majority of victim respondents were satisfied with regards to key aspects of the information provided, such as the timeliness of responses, the relevance and clarity of information provided, and Victim Services Officer’s ability to clarify responses, when necessary.  Similarly, consistent with previous findings, the level of satisfaction among Aboriginal victims was highly comparable to the level of satisfaction found for the sample of respondents22, thus suggesting that the NVSP is equally sensitive to the needs of Aboriginal victims.

Table 15: Satisfaction ratings with relevance, timeliness and clarity of information provided
Victim Sample Aspect of Service n Unsatisfied % Neutral % Satisfied %
All victims Timeliness of responses 584 11 13 76
Relevance of information provided 597 17 12 72
Clarity of information provided 600 14 13 74
Ability to clarify responses when necessary 564 16 13 71
Aboriginal  victims Timeliness of responses 34 18 15 68
Relevance of information provided 33 18 9 73
Clarity of information provided 34 12 12 76
Ability to clarify responses when necessary 31 16 13 71
Satisfaction with notification process

Table 16 demonstrates satisfaction levels of the entire sample of victim respondents as well as for the sub-sample of Aboriginal victim respondents regarding the notification process.  Overall, although not statistically significant23, there was a tendency for Aboriginal respondents’ satisfaction levels to be slightly higher than those of the entire sample of victim respondents.  More specifically, whereas the percentages of satisfied Aboriginal respondents varied between 57% and 74%, those of the entire sample ranged between 43% and 65%.

The above statistical information also suggests that a slightly lower percentage of victim respondents were satisfied with CSC’s notification process in comparison to the other key aspects of victim services described above (e.g., services received from Victim Service Officer, CSC registration process, etc.). As demonstrated in some qualitative responses, this was due in part to victims’ expectations that CSC should share more information regarding offender activities. Also, the fact that offenders have access to conditional releases was of concern to victims, rather than the notification process itself. For instance, a higher proportion of respondents were satisfied with the notification of temporary absences and transfers between institutions, but satisfaction levels decreased as offenders were given releases and were closer to the end of their sentences. When asked to qualify their dissatisfaction with respect to the notification process for transfers, releases, escapes, or warrant expiry of an offender’s sentence, 43 respondents noted that their dissatisfaction stemmed from the offender’s release or transfer itself, rather than the notification process. These respondents indicated that the offenders should “have, without exception, no access to release until the end of their sentence[s]” and noted that “as victims, we would like best for him to always stay in [prison]”. Therefore, responses of dissatisfaction for a portion of the unsatisfied victims’ appeared to be based on the offender’s release rather than the notification process itself.

Table 16: Satisfaction with notification process of key offender activities
Victim Sample Aspect of Service n Unsatisfied % Neutral % Satisfied %
All victims Temporary absences from the institution 581 25 12 63
Transfers between institutions 614 24 11 65
Release to community on day parole 429 31 14 56
Release to community on full parole 360 32 14 54
Release to community on statutory release 336 31 16 53
Location of offender while on release in the community 420 35 15 51
Travel permits for offenders on conditional release in the community 370 33 17 50
End of the offender’s sentence 327 33 18 50
Possible escape and/or Unlawfully At Large 260 34 23 43
Aboriginal Victims Temporary absences from the institution 29 24 14 62
Transfers between institutions 31 23 3 74
Release to community on day parole 27 30 11 59
Release to community on full parole 26 27 8 65
Release to community on statutory release 25 28 8 64
Location of offender while on release in the community 22 32 5 64
Travel permits for offenders on conditional release in the community 25 28 4 68
End of the offender’s sentence 25 32 4 64
Possible escape and/or Unlawfully At Large 21 38 5 57

Some victims reported they would be interested in receiving more detailed information about offenders (15.8%; n =133) and, specifically, information regarding their behaviour within the institution (e.g., program participation, incidents, etc.), reasons for transfers or absences, and the locations within the communities to which they are to be released. It should be noted that victims are currently unable to obtain this information, as the majority of these details are protected under the Privacy Act.  Bill C-43, which is currently at Second Reading in Parliament, contains proposed amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would “permit the disclosure to a victim, the name and location of the institution to which the offender is transferred, the reason for a transfer, information about the offender’s participation in programs, convictions for serious disciplinary offences and the reason for a temporary absence or a hearing waiver”.24

A proportion of respondents’ qualitative responses also highlighted efficiencies in relation to NVSP services.  For instance, 26% (n=218) of respondents stated in their narratives that the notifications and communications they received were consistent or timely.  Among explanations provided, some victims stated that they received information on offender movement (e.g., institutional transfer, temporary absences, parole, release) within a reasonable timeframe.  Examples of statements included: “I feel that the info provided gives me a clear picture of what’s going on with the offender’s sentence, where he is and when he may be released”, “We have always been kept informed”, and “very timely response with information I required or an explanation of…info that could not be provided.”  In addition, 15% (n=124) of victims described having positive interactions with CSC staff, noting that:

“they were compassionate, professional, and empathetic and …the nicest government workers I have ever dealt with.”

These victims felt that they were confident that an avenue of contact was available when necessary, which resulted in feelings of relief, comfort, and safety.

Victim Services Officers, as well as CSC staff members, equally expressed satisfaction in regards to the quality of services. For instance, of Victim Services staff and CSC staff members respondents (84%; n=26 and 63%; n=50, respectively) reported that victims registered with the NVSP were satisfied with the program and 81%; (n=25) of Victim Services staff and 82%; (n=112) of CSC staff members reported that the NVSP was successful in addressing the specific needs of victims.  Similarly, 53% (n=8) of VS staff respondents indicated a decrease in the number of complaints by victims since the implementation of the NVSP.  In terms of information sharing, 71% (n=22) of Victim Services staff respondents reported that processes were in place to respond and provide all relevant offender information to registered victims in accordance with the law.

Observed Improvements in Victim services

Finding 9: All respondent groups, including victims, reported improvements in victim services since the implementation of the NVSP in September 2007. 

Based on the NVSP RMAF (2007), it was expected that the implementation of the program would lead to improved services. As demonstrated in Table 17, the majority of respondents in each group (i.e., victims, stakeholders, CSC staff members and Victim Services Officers) observed improvements in victim services overall, specifically in terms of outreach services and the notification processes.  Of note, some differences among groups emerged, such that the level of perceived improvement was higher for CSC staff members and VS staff in comparison to victims and stakeholders.  Nevertheless, these findings support the notion that there has been an enhancement of the quality of services provided by CSC to victims of crime since September 2007.

Table 17: Perception of improvements since the implementation of NVSP
  Respondents n Decline (%) No Change (%) Improvement (%)
Overall victim services
χ2 (6, N = 397) = 87.18, p < .0001
Victims 154 6 32 62
Stakeholder 14 0 29 71
CSC Staff 128 4 14 82
VS staff 25 0 4 96
Outreach services
χ2 (6, N = 310) = 14.61, p < .02
Victims 120 7 36 58
Stakeholder 13 0 38 62
CSC Staff 88 6 22 73
VS staff 25 4 12 84
Notification processes
χ2 (6, N = 312) = 14.46, p < .02
Victims 153 7 30 63
Stakeholder 10 0 30 70
CSC Staff 124 7 19 74
VS staff 25 0 4 96

Source: National Victim Services questionnaire, VSO, CSC staff and Stakeholder interviews.

Pre/Post implementation comparison of registrations

Finding 10: A comparison of the average number of victim registrations before and after implementation of the National Victim Services Program revealed an increase of 12.5% despite a steady decline in the five-year crime rate.

Although there were fluctuations in the average of monthly victim registrations which was attributable to a 33% increase in registrations between 2004 and 2006 (from 70 to 93 monthly registrations) and a smaller 11% increase between 2007 and 2008 (from 94 to 104 monthly registrations), the monthly average of victim registration continues to increase steadily. In order to examine the direction of monthly registration associated with the implementation of the NVSP, a comparative pre/post analysis was conducted comparing the January 2004 to August 2007 timeframe with the September 2007 to September 2009 timeframe.  This analysis revealed an overall increase of 12.5% in victim registrations.  More specifically, the monthly average of victim registrations increased from 88 to 99 during these timeframes and the increase suggests that the NVSP contributed to an increase in victim registrations which implied a steady increase in services delivery by NVSP staff members.  Although the crime rate was steadily decreasing, as demonstrated in crime rate data of 2004 to 2008 (2009 data were not available) outlined in Figure 12, the average number of victim registrations increased.

Figure 12: Monthly average of victim registrations: January 2004-September 2009 as compared to the crime rate*

Source: Data on registrations were provided by Victim Services, Citizen Engagement.  Data on crime rate was retrieved from the Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2008.  Note: 2009 Registration data in this Figure is reflective only for the first eight months of 2009. *: Crime rate for 2009 was not available.

Regional Distribution of victim registration and outreach activities

Figure 13 shows the regional distribution of victim registrations prior to and following the implementation of the NVSP.  Although there was a 12.5% pre- versus post-implementation increase in terms of the overall number of registered victims, this increase was mainly observed in the Pacific (38%) and Prairie (19%) Regions, whereas a small increase, (6%) occurred in the Ontario Region.  Conversely, in the Quebec and Atlantic Regions, the number of registrations was stable over the pre- and post- implementation periods.  Figure 13 also displays the percentage of outreach activities that occurred in each region following the implementation of the NVSP.  The highest increase in registrations occurred in regions in which more outreach activities took place (Pacific and Prairies compare to Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Regions)25.  This finding highlights the importance of a balanced approach to the deployment of outreach resources in future years in order to further align victim services with recommendation 86 of CSC’s Review Panel “that CSC heighten the awareness of available victim services by working with its provincial and territorial counterparts in order to allow for an improved exchange of information about victim services”.

Figure 13: Regional distribution of registrations and outreach activities: A pre- and post- 2007 comparison

Source: Victim Services, Citizen Engagement.

Pre/Post implementation comparison of notifications

A comparison of number of notifications was conducted in order to examine the direction of change in notifications post implementation of the NVSP.  As outlined in Figure 14, the number of notifications was relatively stable prior to implementation (between 15,363 and 16,818 notifications from 2004 to 2006). However, following the implementation of the NVSP between 2006 and 2008, there was a 220% increase in the number of notifications. Furthermore, this increase is projected to reach 352% at the end of the 2009-2010 fiscal year.   This increase in notifications further underscores the important work that CSC is providing and the volume of victim services since the implementation of the NVSP.

Figure 14: Annual number of victim notifications January 2004 – August 2009*

Source: OMS.  * Note: Data for 2009 are projected estimates based on the number of notifications occurring from April to August 2009 (n=29,377), as OMS returned no data for the January-March 2009 period.

[D]

The Use of 1-800 Victim Service Telephone Lines

Available on CSC external websites are national and regional toll-free telephone numbers 1-866-806-2275 intended to connect victims and potential registrants with CSC victim service providers.  Figure 15 displays the distribution of the monthly average number of calls to the national toll-free number, analysed based on the distribution of the region from which the calls originated.  It should be noted that this frequency does not include calls made directly to regional victim service toll-free lines because the evaluators did not have access to these data.  Nonetheless, as seen in Figure 15, the monthly frequency of calls increased in all regions since the implementation of the NVSP in 2007, with the exception of the calls originating from the United States, which decreased slightly.  The largest increases were found in Quebec and Pacific Regions.  With the total national monthly average of calls (i.e., all regions combined), there was a 329% increase in the use of the toll-free line from a monthly average of 72 calls in 2007 to an average of  309 calls in 2009.

Figure 15: Regional distribution of use of National Victim Services 1-866 Toll-free line

Source: Victim Services, Citizen Engagement.
Note 1: The table refers to calls to the Victim Services National Headquarters’ toll-free line (1-866-806-2275) and not regional services lines.
Note 2: 2009 data in this figure are reflective only for the first six months of 2009.

EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 4: COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Evaluation Question: Have the most appropriate and efficient means, been used to achieve outcomes?

Stewardship and achievement of desired outcomes

Finding 11: Given the increase in service delivery, all indicators of performance such as victims’ levels of awareness and satisfaction, the number of victim notifications, the number of outreach activities, victim registrations, and improvement in quality of service delivery, NVSP is satisfactorily meeting its intended outcomes and providing high level of results to Canadians.

The National Victim Services Program, with its funding of $3.4M per year, was intended to improve victim services through the provision of timely information as well as increased awareness with regard to the services available to victims of federally sentenced offenders.  Overall, several evaluation findings highlighted previously in the report suggest that, following the first two years of implementation, the NVSP is successfully achieving its intended outcomes within allocated resources.  For example, the majority of victim respondents stated that, overall, they observed improvements in CSC victim services and were satisfied with the timeliness of responses obtained through the victim services program.

Victim respondents were also satisfied with the registration and notification processes, as well as the services received directly from their CSC Victim Services Officers.  Similarly, the majority of victims, CSC staff members and Victim Services staff respondents indicated that they had observed improvements in terms of victim services, outreach services, notification processes and overall victim services, thus suggesting that the transition to a clustered service model26 enhanced the provision of effective and efficient services to victims.  With regard to awareness, although only 13% of respondents were specifically able to distinguish between the previous and current programs, the majority of victim respondents were aware of core services offered by CSC, such as the provision of notifications regarding offender events (85%; n=714).  Important increases in terms of access to the Victim Services website (i.e., 678 %) and calls to the National Victim Services toll-free telephone number (i.e., 329%) also suggest that the level of awareness with regard to CSC victim services was augmented as a result of the NVSP.  Finally, the majority of victim respondents indicated that it was easy to access available victim services. Thus, overall, the main evaluation findings suggest that the funding provided by the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada was used effectively as it has allowed the NVSP, in the first two years of implementation, to meet its objectives and establish a foundation to build future victim services at CSC.

Recommendation 2: In order to sustain program outcomes, the quality of key services provided to victims, as well as to plan for a potential increase in services, CSC should:

  1. update the analysis of the workload formula of Victim Services resources; and
  2. engage other appropriate partners in order to reduce overlap and/or to develop any potential shared services agreements that will support a continued high level of service delivery to victims of crime.
Alternative technologies to victim notification

Notwithstanding the high level of satisfaction expressed by victims in most of the program areas, the evaluation examined potential alternative service delivery models to victim services. For instance, victims cited issues with receiving notifications by mail after the event had occurred, learning about some events (e.g., transfers) and not others (e.g., temporary absences) as well as instances of telephone calls not being returned.  Given the potential benefits (timeliness, reliability and wider reach) of communication technology, the delivery of victim services with technology and multimedia (graphics and sound) such as secured internet network, internet chat and blogs, an automated pre-recorded message dissemination system may enhance what is already an effective service delivery by CSC.  For example, a strong majority of victim respondents (78%; n=591) reported that they either would or may be interested in accessing offender information through a secured internet site. Also, the Ontario Victim Services Unit currently uses a pre-recorded message dissemination system to notify its registered victims when necessary.

Moreover, the average time required to complete the victim notification process was examined in the context of the Victim Services Officer Workload Analysis completed by CSC in 2009. The Workload Analysis found that the time required for victim notification ranged between 29 minutes when the notification was completed by telephone in combination with a letter, to 10 minutes when the notification was performed by letter and/or by fax.  Without any empirical test, one may conclude that the average time to complete the notification through a secured web site may be comparable or less than by letter or fax. This would enhance the sharing of information with the victims.  According to the Victim Services Officer Workload Analysis, a total of 906 hours was spent by 25 Victim Services Officers attempting to notify victims (based on an average of 10 minutes per notification attempt multiplied by 5,430 occurrences).  This constitutes 3.6% of the total time invested in high level of performing victim registration, notification, management of information from the victims, liaison and disclosure.  This percentage of time represents $77,098 in terms of salaries27. Consequently, the implementation of a secure website may potentially reduce Victim Services Officer workload associated with the simultaneous use of combined notification tools (e.g., combination of letter and telephone) and the potential for multiple notification attempts, thus consequently enhancing the efficiency of the notification process.

Recommendation 3: CSC should explore and implement, where appropriate, the use of alternative communication technology in order to facilitate victim registration and the dissemination of appropriate offender information to registered victims.

NVSP comparison with other similar programs

Finding 12: The cost of providing services to a registered victim by CSC is 27% lower than a similar program in another jurisdiction.

In order to measure CSC’s relative cost of providing services to victims, the NVSP was compared with a similar program in another jurisdiction. First, the NVSP was compared with the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General’s Victim Services Unit (VSU). The Ontario VSU operates a 24-hour notification system that provides information to registered victims on offenders incarcerated in its provincial jails.  The types of information disclosed by the Ontario VSU are similar to those provided by CSC, such as information on offenders’ conditional releases, the status of parole decisions, transfers to other jurisdictions, and escapes or failures to return from temporary absences (Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2009).  The cost per registered victim within both programs (NVSP and VSU) was calculated by dividing the number of registered victims by the total annual budget.  As outlined in Table 18, the cost for providing services to CSC registered victim was 27% lower than for the Ontario VSU, suggesting that the NVSP may be a cost-efficient program when compared to the Ontario VSU.

Table 18: NVSP – Comparison with Ontario Victim Services Unit
  Victim Services Program
  CSC Victim Services Unit Ontario Victim Services Unit
Annual budget ($) 3,412,284 1,500,000*
Number of registered victims 5,874** 1894***
Cost per registered victim ($) $580.91 $791.97

*Ontario VSU budget includes 1M$ for the Victim Notification System and 500,000 for the ongoing operation of the phone line (NVSP Manager). ** Number of registered victims provided in June 2009 by CSC victim services *** Number of registered victims as of December 2008.

Increasing demand for victim services and the need for additional resources

Finding 13: In the absence of an augmentation of NVSP resources, the steady increase in victim registration with the corresponding demand for services could pose a performance challenge to the NVSP in the future.

As of October 2009, a total of 6,091 victims were registered with CSC victim services28.  Based on the 2009 average of 104 new monthly victim registrations, totalling 1,248 registered victims per year and given the historical steady increase in registration since 2006, it is projected that the number of registered victims will increase to approximately 8,500 by September 2011. The projected number was derived using the historical average yearly increase of 22% in registration between 2007 and 2009 and benchmark data of 5,000 registered victims prior to the implementation of the NVSP in 2007 (Program Data provided by Citizens Engagement).

Given an increase of approximately 70% between 2007 and 2009 in notification activities, the growth of the registered victim population and corresponding requirements may necessitate an increase in resources in order to sustain NVSP’s level of performance.  The detailed description of the essential work required to provide services to victims outlined in the Workload Analysis conclude that a ratio of 1 Victim Services Officer for 228 registered victims should be used as a standard to adequately maintain its level of efficiency. Given the suggested ratio, the Victim Service Officer capacity would increase from its current level to 37 Victim Services Officers by 2011 in order to provide adequate services to the projected 8,500 registered victims.

EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 5: UNINTENDED OUTCOMES

Evaluation Question: Has the National Victim Services Program created or encountered any unintended positive or negative outcomes?

Bill C-43: An Act to Amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code, which is currently at Second Reading in Parliament, proposes amendments to the CCRA that would enhance the sharing of information with victims.  Among the changes proposed to the CCRA, CSC would be authorized to provide victims with the reasons for an offender’s transfer to a minimum security institution and to disclose information on program participation and convictions for serious institutional disciplinary offences, resulting in an increase in information-sharing requirements with registered victims. Should this occur, this may necessitate an increase in resources in order to sustain current level of performance. CSC is presently working closely with Public Safety Canada and the National Parole Board officials on policy and regulatory consultation to support proposed legislative amendments (CSC Report on Transformation Priorities, September 29, 2009).

References

Australian Capital Territory. (2009). Victims’ Services. Retrieved November 16, 2009,
from http://www.cs.act.gov.au/home/SAS/VictimsServices.

Brzozowski, J., A. Taylor-Butts and S. Johnson. 2006. “Victimization and offending among the Aboriginal population in Canada.” Juristat. Vol. 26, no. 3. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-XIE. Ottawa.

Commissioner for Victims’ Rights South Australia. (2007). Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.voc.sa.gov.au/Publications/Victims_Register/register.asp.

Correctional Service of Canada (2006).Commissioner’s Directive 784:  Information Sharing Between Victims and the Correctional Service of Canada.

Correctional Service Canada (2007). Report of the Correctional Service of Canada. Review Panel: A roadmap to strengthening public safety. Ottawa, ON: Public Works and Government Services Canada (Cat. No. PS84-14/2007E).

Correctional Service Canada (2007). Results-Based Management Accountability Framework. Ottawa, ON.

Correctional Service Canada (2008). The National Victims Services Program : Report on the First Year of Implementation. Internal Document Retrieved September 23, 2009 from http://infonet/Sectors/Communications/VictimServices/?lang=en

Correctional Service Canada (2009a). Report on Transformation Priorities, As at September 29, 2009. Internal Document Retrieved from http://infonet/NR/rdonlyres/38B6F60A-04CC-4AEE-970F-9675CC96C79C/0/CSCreportontransformationprioritiessept29.pdf on October 8th 2009.

Correctional Service Canada, Victim Services (2009b) Outline of Enhancements to Victim Module in Release 1.05.

Correctional Service Canada (2009c). From the beginning : Victim Services at CSC. Let’s talk, Vol. 34, no 1, p. 11.

Correctional Service Canada (2009d). Victim Services at CSC. Retrieved from : http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/victims-victimes/victims-eng.shtml#q02 on December 17th 2009.

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

Correctional Service Canada (1992). Corrections and Conditional Release Act

Department of Justice (2002). Multi-Site Survey of Victims of Crime and Criminal Justice Professionals.

Department of Justice (2009). Canadian Statement of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime, 2003. Retrived from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi-cpcv/pub/03/princ.html on October 27, 2009.

Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime (2007). A time to listen, a time to act: Notes for an address by The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada during the launch of National Victims of Crime Awareness Week 2007. Retrieved from (http://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/news-nouv/sp-dis/doc_4.html ) on November 18th 2009.

Government of Canada (2006).   Canada's Performance 2006: The Government of Canada's Contribution  retrieved from http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/govrev/06/cp-rc-eng.asp.

New South Wales Department of Corrective Services Restorative Justice Unit. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.dcs.nsw.gov.au/offender_management/Restorative Justice/index.asp.

New Zealand Department of Corrections. (2009). Victims Notification Register. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.corrections.govt.nz/community-assistance/victims-notification-register.html.

Northern Ireland Prison Service. (2009). Prisoner Release Victim Information Scheme. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.niprvis.gov.uk/.

Northern Territory Department of Justice. (2009). Victims of Crime. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/victimcrime.shtml.

Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General (2009).   Victim Support line.  Retrieved from http://kingston.cioc.ca/record/KGN2200 on November 19th 2009.

Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime (2009). Federal Partners.  Retrieved from  http://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/ul-lu/fed.html on November 4th 2009.

Public Safety Canada (2009) National Office for Victims. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/cor/nov/nov-bnv-en.asp on November 27, 2009.

Public Service Commission (2008).  Study on mobility of public servants.  Retrieved form http://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/adt-vrf/rprt/2008/mob/index-eng.htm on November 17th 2009.

Queensland Corrective Services. (2007, December). Queensland Corrective Services: An Overview. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/files/AboutUs/Queensland_ Corrective_Services_an_overview.pdf.

Safe Canada (2009). Victims of Crime.  Retrieved from http://www.safecanada.ca/victims_of_crime_e.asp on November 4th 2009

Scottish Prison Service. (n.d.). Victim Notification Scheme. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.sps.gov.uk/Default.aspx?DocumentID=d1598481-ba5c-4a84-b797-c32fe1e6b921.

Statistics Canada (2006). Population and dwelling counts, for Canada, provinces and territories, 2006 and 2001 censuses - 100% data retrieved from : http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/dp-pd/hlt/97-550/Index.cfm?TPL=P1C&Page=RETR&LANG=Eng&T=101 on November 3rd 2009

Statistics Canada (2008). Crimes by offences, by province and territory ;retrieved from  http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal04d-eng.htm on November 3rd 2009.

Statistics Canada (2009a). Victim services in Canada: National Provincial and Territorial Fact Sheets. Catalogue no. 85-003-X.

Statistics Canada (2009b). Victim services in Canada. Juristat article. Vol. 29, no 4.

Tasmania Department of Justice (2009). Victim Support Services. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/victims/about.

Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada (2006). Treasury Board submission.  RD: 5-0284-20006-CR ratified at the Priorities and Planning Retreat on January 16, 2007.

United Nations Department of Public Information ( 2000).   Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the treatment of offenders.   Retrieved from http://www.un.org/events/10thcongress/2088a.htm on November 20th 2009.

United Nations  (1985). Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r034.htm on November 20th 2009.

United States Department of Justice. (2009.). Victim Notification System. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from https://www.notify.usdoj.gov/index.jsp.

Victim Support Australasia (2007). Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.victimsupport.org.au/.

Victim Support England & Wales. (2009). Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/.

Victim Support Europe. (2009). Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.victimsupporteurope.eu/.

Victim Support Northern Ireland. (2009.). Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.victimsupportni.co.uk/.

Victim Support Scotland. (2006). Retrieved November 16, 2009, from http://www.victimsupportsco.org.uk/page/index.cfm.

Victoria Department of Justice. (2009). Victims of Crime. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/DOJ+Internet/Home/Victims/.

Western Australia Department of Corrective Services. (2009). Support for Victims. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.correctiveservices.wa.gov.au/S/support_for_victims.aspx?uid=9328-2881-1054-1012.

Appendix 1: Conditional Release Outcomes

Survival Analysis, using the Life-Table method, was used to describe the probability of failure on conditional release, at one-year time intervals, following an offender's first conditional release on their current sentence.  Conditional release failure was defined as any conditional release failure.

The Life-Table method is used to group follow-up time into intervals for ease of presentation. In the present analyses, one-year time intervals were used.  The sample size represents the number of cases that were used to calculate the survival estimate. The conditional probability of failure represents the probability that an offender will fail during the year, provided that they made it to the start of the year. The survival estimate represents the probability that an offender will fail at a time greater than or equal to the start of the year (Allison, 1995)29. Estimates for only the first five years are presented.

The Wilcoxon test was used to test whether the survival estimates for the victim notification group were different than the general sample of offenders over the course of the follow-up period. The test indicated that the groups differed on their survival estimates over time, χ2 (df = 1) = 19.29, p < .001.

The survival estimates and survival curve are presented below.

Table 19: Survival estimates, first conditional release, first five years for offenders with and without victim notification on file
Year Group Effective Sample Size Conditional Probability of Failure Survival
0 Victim Notif 1240 .23 1.00
NoVictim Notif 8674 .31 1.00
1 Victim Notif 655.5 .16 .77
NoVictim Notif 3621.5 .17 .69
2 Victim Notif 417.5 .10 .65
NoVictim Notif 2115 .08 .57
3 Victim Notif 308 .07 .58
NoVictim Notif 1580.5 .06 .52
4 Victim Notif 249 .06 .54
NoVictim Notif 1323.5 .06 .49
5 Victim Notif 210 .03 .51
NoVictim Notif 1139.5 .04 .46

Figure 16: Survival Curves, first conditional release, first five years, conditional release by offenders with and without victim notification

Appendix 2: Evaluation Methodology

Measures and Procedures

The current evaluation applies a multi-method approach incorporating qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address the outlined evaluation objectives. This approach included:

  • Interviews with key informants;
  • A review of CSC and governmental documentation;
  • A review of program data/documentation; and
  • A review of documentation from other correctional jurisdictions/countries.

Interviews with Key Informants

Feedback regarding the relevance, implementation and success of the NVSP was obtained from five different key groups:

  • Registered victims and agencies,
  • CSC staff members,
  • Victim Services Officers,
  • Stakeholders; and
  • Partners.

SNAP surveying software was used to create questionnaires for each group of respondents. Each questionnaire included a combination of open-ended and closed-ended questions. The closed-ended questions included 5-point Likert scale questions, dichotomous (yes/no) questions, and categorical items. Once data collection was complete, the questionnaire responses were entered into the SNAP survey software. The quantitative data were then exported to and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) as well as the Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) and the qualitative data were transferred to Microsoft Word, where relevant themes were generated across all questions.

When considering the quantitative data, all the “don’t know” and all unanswered responses were excluded when calculating frequencies. Furthermore, the 5-point Likert scale responses were often aggregated into three categories, meaning that the lower two points were aggregated, the mid-point remained and the higher two points were aggregated. For example, a scale ranging from substantial deterioration to substantial improvement (1= substantial deterioration, 2= deterioration, 3= no change, 4= improvement, 5= substantial improvement), once aggregated, became a 3-point scale ranging from deterioration to improvement.

Victims and Agencies

The victims’ questionnaire was created in collaboration with NPB in April 2009, with CSC’s portion of the questionnaire focusing on awareness, quality of services and access to information. The questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 3,221 registered victims, along with 172 agents. As a result, 840 questionnaires (26%) were completed and returned before August 30th, 2009.

The majority (37%, n= 292) of victim respondents were from the province of Ontario, followed by British Columbia (18%, n=146), and Quebec (15%, n=119). Seventy-five percent (n=606) of victim participants were women, between the ages of 45-54 (30%, n=240). In addition, 5% of victim respondents (n=40) identified themselves as Aboriginal and 6% were from a visible minority (n=44). Sixteen-percent, (n=124) were registered on behalf of a child victim.

CSC Staff members

The CSC staff members interview guide was developed with the intention of incorporating the views of individuals who were at least somewhat familiar with the NVSP. A total of 239 individuals were interviewed, 200 of which were at least somewhat familiar with the NVSP program and therefore completed the interview. Responses of those who were not familiar with the NVSP (n=39) were excluded from the analyses.

CSC staff members interviews were principally conducted with Institutional Parole Officers, Community Parole Officers, Parole Officer Supervisors, Correctional Managers, Managers of Assessment and Intervention (MAI), Security Intelligence Officers, Assistant Wardens of Intervention, Deputy Wardens and Wardens from several institutions and parole offices across the country. Overall, respondents had worked for CSC for an average of 12.5 years.

Victim Services Staff

The sample of victim services staff was composed as follows : 21 Victim Services Officers, 4 Regional Victim Services Managers, 3 Regional communication and executive service directors, 2 administrative assistants and 1 individual whose position was not specified. Interviews conducted with Victim Services Staff (n=31) were also distributed across the country with the majority of interview respondents from the Ontario and Pacific Regions (29%; n=9, respectively), followed by the Quebec and Prairie Region (16%; n=5, respectively), and the Atlantic Regions (10%; n=3). On average, Victim Services staff interview respondents had worked in the area of victim services for 3.1 years.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder respondents (n=21) included individuals from numerous victim organizations, including but not limited to: the Association des Familles de Personnes Assassinees ou Disparues; Women’s Resources Society of the Fraser Valley; Manitoba Justice Victim Services; Victim Services and Crime Prevention Division (British Columbia); and Ontario Victim Services. The majority of stakeholder respondents (33%; n=7) were from the Pacific Region, followed by the Prairies (29%; n=6), Atlantic and Quebec (14%; n=3, respectively) and Ontario (10%; n= 2) Regions. Stakeholder respondents had worked in the area of victim services for an average of 8.2 years.

Partners

Partner interviews included four unstructured interviews/discussions with the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, along with Directors and Managers from the DOJ, NPB and the National Office for Victims (NOV). Given that small sample size for this group, no statistical analyses were conducted.  Nonetheless, although the size of this group was small, views and opinions from these interviews are not systematically presented throughout the report.  Instead, these are reported in certain instances in a qualitative fashion.

Automated data

The Offender Management System (OMS; automated database maintained by CSC) as well as other databases created and maintained by Citizen Engagement Branch at CSC-NHQ were used to examine trends in terms of the number of registrations, notifications, access to website and use of toll-free line.  Offender demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age, sentence type) were extracted from the Offender Management System (OMS).  As the version of OMS that was used prior to September 2009 did not capture demographic information such as gender, Aboriginal or ethno-cultural status, or preferred official language, it was not possible to compare the selected sample of registered victims with their respective population.

Document Review

Documents reviewed for various components of the evaluation included:

  • Treasury Board Submission (Treasury Board Submission RD:5-0284-20006-CR);
  • Departmental reports (e.g., Report on Plan and Priorities; CSC 2009) and policy documents (e.g., Commissioner Directives);
  • Program documentation/data obtained through CSC Victim Services and Citizen Engagement ;
  • Governmental literature pertaining to victims and victim service providers (e.g., Juristat articles, surveys and evaluations conducted by other federal partners, Statistics Canada reports, etc); and
  • Documentation from other correctional jurisdictions/countries (e.g., Canadian provincial systems, United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom).

Cost-effectiveness

In order to assess the cost effectiveness of the NVSP, a review of relevant documentation pertaining to similar provincial victim service programs was conducted.  Cost-efficiency was addressed by referring to the workloads analysis for Victim Services Officers produced by Victim Services (Citizen Engagement, 2009).

Analyses

For each closed-ended question, frequencies were calculated as part of the quantitative analysis. Furthermore, chi-square analyses were subsequently conducted to establish a statistical relationship between the variables, hence, determining statistical significance based on the observed and expected frequencies. In addition, relevant themes were generated from the open-ended responses from each questionnaire as part of a qualitative analysis. These qualitative themes enhance and provide context for the quantitative data throughout the evaluation report.

1 Statistics Canada, 2009a: Victim Services Survey

2 Ibid.

3 The projected calculation is based on the rate of increase since 2004 and the monthly rate of registration.

4 Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairie and Pacific Regions. CSC administrative national headquarters is located in Ottawa, Ontario.

5 Based on descriptions by Federal Ombudsman for Victim of Crime.  Retrieved from http://www.victimsfirst.gc.ca/serv/typ.html February 08, 2010.

6 Chi Square, T-test and survival analysis

7 The Chi Square statistic compares the tallies or counts of categorical responses between two (or more) independent groups.

8 The t-test assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other.

9Survival analysis is a method that involves the modeling of time to event data (Allison, 1995) – the ability to estimate the likelihood that an event will happen at points in time over the course of a follow-up period.

10 Allocated funding covers 24 VSO positions.  One position is funded internally by Quebec Region (Victim Services, personal communication, January 12th 2010).

11 The logic model included in the RMAF has been modified by the Evaluation Branch in order to more accurately reflect the main activities of the NVSP.

12 The listing of the accessible population from which we had drawn our sample, in this case the entire registered victim population.

13 Based on a monthly average of 104 victim registrations per month in 2009 totalling 1144 new registrations from October 2009 to September 2010.

14 Office of Budget and Management Services (OBMS):  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/victims.html  Retrieved on January 15, 2010 and verified via personal communication

15 The date for 19 outreach activities was not coded and thus the sum does not add to 141.

16 Based on the crime rate per 100,000 habitants (Statistics Canada, 2008)

17 Turnover rates for the WP group (the public service classification for Victim Services Officers) was not reported in this study.

18 As the weblink to the main Victim services page has changed throughout the specified time frame, the following website pages were used for the comparison : “/text/prgrm/victim_e.shtml”  and “/text/prgrm/victim_f.shtml” (January 2006 – August 2007); “/text/prgrm/victim2_e.shtml” and “/text/prgrm/victim2_f.shtml” (January 2007- August 2007); “/victims-victimes/index_e.shtml” and “/victims-victimes/index_f.shtml” (September 2007- December 2007); “/victims-victimes/index-eng.shtml” and “/victims-victimes/index-fra.shtml” (January 2008 – September 2009). Note : PWGSC informed CSC that log files for January-February 2009 were corrupt and hence could not be imported.

19 The difference between aboriginal and non-aboriginal respondents was not significant : em>χ2 (2, N = 529) = 3.43, p = .180

20 The difference between aboriginal and non-aboriginal respondents was not significant : em>χ2 (2, N = 642) = .94, p = .624

21 The difference between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal respondents was not significant : em>χ2 (2, N = 629) = 1.3, p = .521

22 Differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal respondents were not significant on all variables outlined in Table 6 : timeliness of responses em>χ2 (2, N = 556) = 1.98, p = .371; Relevance of information provided em>χ2 (2, N = 570) = .23, p = .893; clarity of information provided em>χ2 (2, N = 574) = .147, p = .929; ability to clarify responses when necessary em>χ2 (2, N = 538) = .003, p = .999.

23 Differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal respondents were not significant for any of the variables outlined in Table 7 : Temporary absences from the institution em>χ2 (2, N = 538) = .003, p = .999; Transfers between institutions em>χ2 (2, N = 591) = 2.08, p = .354; Release to community on day parole em>χ2 (2, N = 413) = .212, p = .899; Release to community on full parole em>χ2 (2, N = 345) = 1.51, p = .469; Release to community on statutory release em>χ2 (2, N = 323) = 1.51, p = .470; Location of offender while on release in the community em>χ2 (2, N = 404) = 2.21, p = .329; Travel permits for offenders on conditional release in the community em>χ2 (2, N = 357) = 4.40, p = .110; End of the offender’s sentence em>χ2 (2, N = 313) = 3.94, p = .139; Possible escape and/or Unlawfully At Large em>χ2 (2, N = 248) = 4.36, p = .113.

24 Strengthening Canada’s Corrections System Act, Bill C-43, First Reading, June 16, 2009 (40th Parliament, 2nd sess.)

25 It should however be noted that victims are registered in the region in which the offender is incarcerated and therefore, in these cases, victim registrations may be attributed to outreach activities conducted in the region where the victim resides and not the region where the offender is incarcerated.

26 Based on the establishment of dedicated positions within the five regions with the responsibility of providing information and services to victims of federal offenders.

27 Based on annual total of $2,141,618 in salaries.

28 Source of data: NVSP project data supplied by NHQ NVSP data project officer

29 Allison, P. (1995). Survival Analysis Using the SAS System: A Practical Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.