Correctional Service Canada
www.csc-scc.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Research Reports
This Web page has been archived on the Web.
Community Residential Facilities in Canada: A Descriptive Profile of Residents and Facilities
2004 N° R-157
Amey Bell
&
Shelley Trevethan
Research Branch
Correctional Service of Canada
June 2004
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As of April 1 st , 2003 , federal offenders supervised in the community represent approximately 40% of all federal offenders in Canada (Correctional Service of Canada, CSC, 2003). Part of this supervision process has been the important role of community-based residential facilities (CRFs). Very little research has been conducted on halfway houses in over 20 years. This project examined the structure and operations of CRFs in Canada through 79 interviews conducted with representatives from CRFs. In addition, CRF residents were profiled over a six-year period (April 1 st 1997 to March 31 st 2003), and were compared to residents in Community Correctional Centres (CCCs) and other offenders supervised in the community. This work was completed in partnership with St. Leonard 's Societyof Canada (SLSC), and in collaboration with the Advisory Committee on the Effectiveness of Halfway Houses.
Profile of Residents
Offenders released to CRFs represent the highest proportion of those released to the community. In 2002/03, more than one-half (56%) of all offenders released were released to CRFs or independent agencies. An additional 5% were released to CCCs, and 39% were released to the community without any residency. In general, the proportion of offenders released into CRFs has increased over the last fewyears.
In 2002/03, similar proportions of CRF residents were released to the Ontario , Quebec , Prairie, and Pacific regions. Over the years, the proportion of CRF residents released to the Quebec region have decreased, and the proportion released to the Pacific regionhas increased. This has implications in terms of vacancy and overcrowding, and can impact on resources for CRFs.
In 2002/03, two-thirds of CRF residents (67%) were released on day parole. The type of release among CRF residents has changed over the years, with larger proportions on statutory release (from 22% to 30%). These changes may present difficulties for CRFs in terms of the management and supervision of its residents given the higher risk of this release type. Higher proportions of CRF residentswere released on day parole compared to CCC residents and other offenders in the community.
In 2002/03, about one-half (54%) of CRF residents entered the CRF on the same day as they were released from federal custody. However, 46% resided in the community prior to entering the CRF, although typically not for long periods of time (median = 6 months). Once they entered the CRF, on average, residents spent slightly less than three months (83 days), and the amount of time in residence has been decreasing. Compared to CCC residents, CRF residents spend more time in the community prior to entering the residence and more time in the respective facility. The relatively short period of residency in CRFs indicates a need for programs and services to be offered immediately upon entry.
Similar to the general offender population serving time in the community, CRF residents can be characterized as male, Caucasian, single, and in their mid-30's. The profile of CRF residents has changed somewhat over the years, with increases in the proportions of women, single residents, age, and educational attainment. CRF residents were similar to CCC residents overall, except that CRFs had more female and Asian residents, and residents had higher levels of education. Larger differences were found between CRF residents and offenders supervised in the community. CRFs had more women and Caucasian residents, and residents were more likely to be single, younger, and with higher levels of education and more often employed than other offenders supervised in the community. Overall, there appears to be a slight changing of the demographic profile of CRF residents whereby the needs of older residents and perhaps a moreracially-diversion population require consideration.
In 2002/03, CRF residents were largely incarcerated for robbery, property and drug-related offences. Furthermore, they had fairly extensive past involvement in the criminal justice system, but a minimal extent of failures within the system. They tend to be rated as medium need for programming intervention, medium risk to re-offend, medium reintegration potential, and having medium or highmotivation for intervention.
Over the six-year period, the offence profile of CRF residents has changed somewhat. There has been an increase in the proportion of residents incarcerated for homicide/attempted murder and a decrease in those incarcerated for sexual assault. Furthermore, the proportions of residents with failures and experience with incarceration has increased and the need profile of residents has changed (e.g., higher need on substance abuse, personal/emotional issues, attitudes; but lower need on employment, marital/family issues, community functioning). However, the risk, motivation and reintegration profiles have improved. This may indicate that risk and reintegration issues are being successfully targeted inside the institution and preparing the offender for release. These findings indicate that,due to the changing needs of the population, it may be necessary to target specific needs through specialized programs and services.
In general, it appears that CRF residents represent a lower need and risk population, with higher levels of reintegration potential and motivation, than CCC residents and other offenders supervised in the community. This has implications for successful reintegration, supervision by parole offices, and the operation of CRFs and CCCs.
Due to their unique composition, Aboriginal and women CRF residents were examined in more detail. In general, differences found between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal CRF residents are reflective of differences found in previous research between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders in general (Motiuk & Nafekh, 2000; Trevethan, Moore & Rastin, 2002). Although there are very few Aboriginal-specific CRFs in Canada , Aboriginal offenders continue to represent a diverse population with unique needs. Accordingly, the elements of this specific environment require further exploration in terms of programs, services, and outcome. Similarly, the differences found between women and men CRF residents are reflective of the differences found in previous research found betweenwomen and men offenders in general (Trevethan & Rastin, 2002; Trevethan, 1999).
Structure and Operation of CRFs
Telephone interviews were conducted with 79 CRF executive directors and directors across Canada , consisting of male, female, co-ed, and Aboriginal CRFs. Almost one-half of the CRFs have in operation for more than 20 years, and typically opened in order to address the needs of offenders and the community. Respondents emphasized the importance of community safety and protection, as well as transition and reintegration. Respondents openly described the mandate of their facility as providing programs, services, and shelter. The philosophical approach for many of the CRFs was based upon a client-centreed or humanistic approach.
The majority of CRFs were located in large cities, in low- to middle-income residential areas. The physical structure varied among the facilities with many of the CRFs located in one or more storey houses with resident bedrooms, staff and program offices, and kitchen and laundry facilities. Some provided recreational areas, spiritual grounds, and visitor rooms. The bed capacity and occupancy also varied among CRFs, ranging from 4 to 82 beds. The majority of CRFs had federal offenders residing in their facility as November 1 st , 2002 , primarily consisting of federal day parolees. Forty-two percent also had provincial offender residents, and one-third had residents from the general community.
Almost all CRFs had a contract with CSC and received a per diem rate, which was variable among the CRFs – ranging from $4 to $210 per bed. The annual operating budget also varied considerably. Many of the CRFs receive funding from alternative sources such as charitable donations and the provincial government. CRFs were largely described as charitable and/or not for profit organizations. The majority had a board of directors. Although the organizational structure of CRFs can be described as hierarchical, a team-effort was clearly evident. Further staff characteristics such as education, experience, and training were examined. Staff turn-over was not a problem for most CRFs.
Referrals to CRFs were largely made by CSC. Many CRFs had an admissions committee to assist in the referral and intake processes. An institutional visitation process was also common for CRFs. Admission criteria was primarily based on age, gender, and motivation level. Most CRFs excluded some offenders from their facility such as young offenders or those with a mental illness or developmentaldelay.
All CRFs provided programs to their clients. The most commonly offered programs were substance abuse and cognitive/living skills, while sex offender programs were the least offered. The location of program delivery and the type of program deliverer varied among CRFs. The largest proportion of CRFs offered various counselling services. Respondents described various ways staff linked clients to the community, and the activities used to educate the public about their CRF.
Some respondents described current issues facing their CRF. Funding was a primary concern for the majority of the CRFs, while clientflow and staffing issues were slightly less prevalent.
Based on the results of this research, it is clear that the CRF population has changed over the six-year time frame. There are also considerable differences between CRF residents and CCC residents, as well as other offenders supervised in the community. As a result, there are potential implications for the operation of CRFs including program and service provisions. The description of the structure and operation of CRFs began to reveal how these client needs and service provisions can be met. Further research including an evaluation of program and service provisions, and various outcome measures for CRF clientele, can demonstrate best practices for CRFs in Canada.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this report would like to thank St. Leonard 's Society of Canada (SLSC) for initiating this project, as well as for their great enthusiasm and dedication to this project. This includes Elizabeth White (Executive Director) and Cathy Ann Kelly (Research Assistant). We would also like to express our sincere thanks to John Sawdon, Morry Ulrich, and Don Evans of the Canadian Training Institute (CTI) for compiling an extensive literature review of halfway houses in Canada .
A special thanks to fellow Correctional of Service Canada (CSC) staff who contributed to this project, including: Mark Nafekh, Ben Vuong, Colette Cousineau, Michael Jeffery, Nicole Crutcher, Kelly Taylor, Antonia Sly, Annie Yessine, Michael Swait, Nicole Mulligan, Reagan Letourneau, David Pennington, Andrew Bisback and Justin Gileno.
Thank you to the advisory committee for their continued support and feedback. This includes Elizabeth White, Cathy Ann Kelly, Peter Aharan, Michel Gagnon, and Wilma Douglas Dungey (SLSC); Robert Cormier, Lynn Cuddington, Daryl Churney, and Jennifer Walker (Solicitor General Canada); Don Tully, Suzanne Guay, and Monique Godin (National Parole Board); Lucie Léonard, Jharna Chatterjee, Patricia Begin, Catherine Latimer, Roberta Russell, and Eleanor King (Department of Justice Canada); Kim Pate, Trish Crawford and Ruth Gagnon (Elizabeth Fry Society); Stan Cudek (Waseskun Healing Lodge); Jim Johnson (Salvation Army); Graham Stewart and Kim Capri (John Howard Society); Larry Cook (Ontario Halfway House Association); Johanne Vallée (Association des services de rehabilitation sociale du Québec); Andrew Boyd (BC Halfway House Association); Marcel Veilleux (Société Emmanuel Grégoire); John Rives and Michel Dunn (Lifeline); Allen Benson (Native Counselling Services of Alberta); Jocelyne Greene (SBC); Alfred Guay (National Association of Friendship Centres); Glen Thompson (CCJA); John Sawdon and Morry Ulrich (CTI); Shelley Trevethan, Amey Bell, Jim Murphy, Rosemary O'Brien, Marie-Andrée Cyrenne, Janis Russell, Bob Thompson, Denis Méthé, Ron Lawlor, Craig Townsend, Brian Lang, Elizabeth Van Allen, Dave Mills, Terry Hatcher, and Jake McCullough (CSC).
We would also like to thank the CSC District Directors for their help: Clara Rendell, Ron Lawlor, Dave Cail, Don Leblanc, Rob Brooks, Normand Granger, Gilles Thibault, Mark Malette, Ana Paquete, Pat Quinn, Derek Orr, Marg Harlang, Craig Townson, Jim Johnston, Lynn McMurtry, Bernard Pitre, Jan Fox, Brian Lang, Mark Otto, Bob Smith, and Monty Bourke.
Finally, the authors would like to thank the house directors and all other staff for their co-operation and support of this project. This project would not have been successful without their support and participation. We'd like to thank all staff who shared their perspectives and knowledge in interviews across Canada .
Table of Contents
- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- METHODOLOGY
- RESULTS
- CONCLUSION
- REFERENCES
- APPENDICES
INTRODUCTION
This project examined Community Residential Facilities (CRFs), also referred to as halfway houses, in order to discuss "what works" in community-based residential services and programs for federally sentenced offenders in Canada. This research report includes a profile of CRF residents for a six-year period, and interviews with directors from a sample of halfway houses across Canada. This work was completed in close partnership with St. Leonard 's Society of Canada (SLSC) and in collaboration with the Advisory Committee on the Effectiveness of Halfway Houses.
Offenders in the Community
According to a recently-released one-day snapshot of federal offenders in the community, there are approximately 9,200 federal offenders being supervised in the community (Trevethan & Rastin, 2003). The majority of offenders serving time in the community are on full parole (51%), followed by statutory release (36%). Furthermore, the largest proportion of offenders in the community are Caucasian (71%), male (95%), single (42%), and currently older than 35 years of age (66%). The largest proportions are serving sentences for homicide (21%), drug-related offences (19%), and robbery (19%). The mean aggregate sentence length is 5.9 years, with 17% serving a life or indeterminate sentence.
The success of community reintegration may partly depend upon the amount of time spent on conditional release in the community. A profile of offenders on community release in 1997 found that the largest proportion of federal offenders under community supervision had been in the community for 12 months or longer (Motiuk, 1998). The findings indicated that, with the exception of accommodation and health needs, offenders in the community for more than 12 months had lower needs in all domain areas than those in the community for less than six months. As noted in the report, the initial six months of community release can be the most challenging for an offender and, therefore, the type and intensity of intervention and supervision must be adjusted based upon the phase of release and the level of need. For some, community-based residential centres may provide a positive and supportive environment for adjustment and integration into the community during this most difficult time.
Community Corrections
The commitment of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to reintegrate offenders into the community is emphasized in its legislative framework, correctional policies and programs, and community integration initiatives. As outlined in the Standard Operating Practice of community supervision:
The purpose of conditional release supervision is to protect society by helping offenders become law-abiding citizens by providing them with assistance, programs and control as necessary, in order to minimize the risk of their committing new offences (CSC, 1999).
Further to this:
A release that is gradual, structured, supervised and fully supported by the community is the safest correctional strategy forthe protection of society (CSC, 1999).
To aid in achieving this principle, the community corrections approach interconnects three primary activities: supervision, programming, and community involvement. Community-based residential facilities play a strong, contributing role in this process through the provision of programs, services, accommodation, and supervision.
The concern for the safe return of offenders to the community through the provision of community residential centres has been echoed in past CSC initiatives such as the Report of the Study Group Reviewing the Role of Community Correctional Centres (CSC, 2002) and the Task Force on Community-based Residential Centres (Outerbridge, 1973). This has also involved investigation into the role of the voluntary sector in this transitional process as demonstrated in the Task Force on Community Corrections (Stewart, Reynolds & Graham, 2000) and the Task Force on the Role of the Private Sector in Criminal Justice (Sauvé, 1977).
Community-based Residential Facilities1
Canada has a strong history of involvement by the voluntary sector in the provision of transitional residential services to federally-sentenced persons on conditional release. Since the opening of the first halfway houses in the late 1940's and early 1950's 2, there have been a growing number of organizations in Canada that provide accommodation, food, services and programs to ex-offenders. Many of the houses were developed by organizations such as the Salvation Army, St. Leonard 's Society of Canada, Anglican Houses, John Howard Society, and Elizabeth Fry Societies.
Halfway houses were initially designed to help offenders negotiate the critical transition from confinement to the community. They were also used to aid offenders in need of short-term supervision in a community residential setting. It was felt that the provision of a supportive environment, the basic necessities of food and shelter, and assistance in securing employment, education and counselling services would facilitate adjustment to the community and thus contribute to the correctional goal of reintegration. Community-based residential programs were gradually introduced to further contribute to this goal.
There are currently two types of community-based residential facilities for federal offenders in Canada . Firstly, there are Community Correctional Centres (CCCs) which are government-run facilities. CCCs are minimum-security facilities that serve the primary roles as transition, program delivery, and intervention centres. There are 17 CCCs 3 run by CSC (see Figure 1).
1 Parts of this literature review were drawn from a report prepared under contract for Correctional Service of Canada by the Canadian Training Institute (2001).
2 Ingles House for girls was founded in 1947 to serve women released from Mercer Reformatory; Beverly Lodge in Toronto for male ex-offenders opened in 1954.
3 Sumas Community Correctional Centre in Abbotsford , British Columbia closed in December 2002.
Secondly, there are non-governmental, privately owned facilities, identified as Community Residential Facilities (CRFs). CRFs are funded through fee-for-service agreements with CSC, to provide a variety of services including accommodation, counselling, programming, and supervision of offenders. There are approximately 151 non-governmental CRFs that provide services to federally-released male and female offenders 4 (see Figure 2).
4 This does not include facilities for young offenders, victims of neglect or family violence, those serving the mentally ill, or centres for substance abuse.
According to a study in the United States , there were 839 Residential Community Corrections Facilities for adults in the United States in the early 1990's (Knapp, Burke, & Carter, 1992). In Britain , there were 100 hostels for adult offenders serving probation orders, released on mandatory supervision, and granted bail in the mid 1990's (Home Office Inspectorate of Probation, HMIP, 1998).
Research on Halfway Houses 5
There is currently little research available on halfway houses. With a few exceptions, the main body of research on the halfway house concept was conducted between the 1960's and 1980's (Beha, 1975; Latessa & Allen, 1982; Sullivan, Siegel & Clear, 1974). These studies tended to conclude that, in terms of effectiveness, halfway houses were neutral at best. However, these results reflect an era of correctional programming that preceded the "what works" literature (see Andrews & Bonta, 2003; Andrews, Bonta, Gendreau & Cullen, 1998). Principles of effective correctional programming, effective correctional treatment and evaluations of their outcome largely emerged in the early 1990's. These results currently inform both the design and operation of many correctional programs today. The late 1990's also witnessed advances in the determination of critical process variables in positive community-based residential program outcomes.
5Parts of this literature review were drawn from a report prepared under contract for Correctional Service of Canada by the Canadian Training Institute (2001).
Models of Halfway Houses
During the 1970's and 1980's, there was some research conducted on the types or models of halfway houses (Beha, 1975; Latessa & Allen, 1982; Outerbridge, 1973).
In the early 1970s, the Task Force on Community-based Residential Centres conducted an extensive review of 156 community residential centres in Canada (Outerbridge, 1973). The diverse range of programs and services were divided into four categories: 52 traditional halfway houses, 43 alcohol and drug treatment centres, 33 transient centres, and 28 miscellaneous houses. Traditional halfway houses were further divided into 42 post-release centres and 10 pre-release centres. These categories may be viewed as types or models of community residential centres, based upon the kind of programs and/or services offered to their client population. More specifically, alcohol and drug treatment centres were for individuals with drug and/or alcohol addictions. The treatment programs were characterized as "intense", which was evident by the lengthy residence and total involvement in the program. A wide range of treatment techniques were utilized such as individual and group counselling.
Many of the houses identified as transient centres were hostels, missions, and youth facilities. Generally, these houses provided short term accommodation and meals. There were some services provided such as individual counselling, religious services, emergency clothing, welfare referrals, and sheltered workshops. Miscellaneous houses offered long-term residency for "people in need". Typically, these houses provided basic accommodation, food, and clothing. The services made available were similar to those offered in transient centres.
The primary target group of traditional halfway houses were identified as offenders and ex-offenders. Alternatively known as Community Correctional Centres (CCCs), pre-release centres had a multitude of responsibilities. Some may have housed offenders prior to sentence expiration, suspended parolees, offenders undergoing psychiatric testing, or offenders participating in vocational or academic programs. Conversely, post-release centres were operated by the private sector. The selection criteria normally varied from house to house, and with the exception of sex offenders and drug addicts, most applicants were accepted. Programs were fairly informal, required minimal participation, and had fewer demands than the treatment centres.
Many researchers have agreed that the rationale or purpose of a halfway house is to provide a transitional support system in order to facilitate readjustment and avoid recidivism (Allen, Carlson, Parks, & Seiter, 1978; Pearce, 1970; Sullivan et al., 1974). For instance, Allen et al. (1978) determined that the goal of halfway houses is to assist in offender reintegration, in addition to providing programs and treatment, a secure and safe environment, and the necessary supports to operate the facility. Furthermore, Pearce (1970) stated that the provisions of a halfway house included providing a home, assistance, financial support, educational/recreational opportunities, support/counselling, and a supportive environment. Seiter (1978) surveyed a sample of halfway house directors and staff, parole officers, and probation officers in Ohio . The respondents perceived the primary goals of halfway houses as the following: to provide basic needs such as food and shelter in a therapeutic environment, to facilitate offender reintegration, to provide employment counselling and services, and to develop an individualized program to meet the residents' needs.
Latessa and Allen (1982) make reference to three models to illustrate the different points in which halfway houses are utilized in the criminal justice system depending on the referral service. However, the authors note that the type of diversion may change depending on the client population. The first model is the typical or standard process of referral to a halfway house. An offender is granted some form of conditional release and resides in a halfway house during his/her initial parole period. This model intends to provide assistance and support to parolees during the beginning phase of release. In most cases, the length of residency is collaboratively decided upon by the parole officer, house staff, and parolee, or alternatively, is specified prior to the referral to the halfway house. The release date from the house is based upon the resident's readiness to leave, and generally, a place of employment and an outside residence is required. Upon discharge from the house, the offender is usually placed on continued supervision.
In the second model, an offender is also released to a halfway house as the initial phase of the release process. The period of residency precedes the formal granting of parole and subsequent release to the community. Serving a sentence in a halfway house not only provides a test of the readiness for parole but for the ultimate release into the community. As part of the prison-community transition, important services are provided.
In the last model, offenders are granted parole and placed in the community without initial residence at a halfway house. If the parolee begins to display problems adjusting in the community, returns to previous criminal behaviour patterns, or any other unforeseen problems occur, he/she can be placed in a residential setting for a short period of time. Once the parolee has been stabilized by a period of residency, he/she can be returned to direct parole supervision.
Characteristics of Halfway House Residents
Beha (1975) identified three different types of client populations in halfway houses: the pre-release resident, conditional parolee, and released offender. According to this source, each client type arrives at the house with a different set of motivations and constraints, skills and characteristics, and varying levels of community ties. The pre-release resident is most likely to represent the institutional population with regard to personal skills and community involvement. This resident is placed under special constraints such as their return to the institution without the formalities involved in parole revocation. The conditional parolee has very few links to the community and has applied to the halfway house on the basis of his/her need to "make parole". The main constraint on this resident is the close scrutiny and surveillance of staff members. The released offender typically seeks assistance and frequently requires crisis intervention. His/her primary need is shelter, and as a group, they lack community ties, are somewhat older, have substance abuse problems, and may be more eager to change their lives.
Latessa & Allen (1982) suggest that differences exist among client socio-demographics and criminal history in the halfway house models described earlier, and advise that further research on the types of clientele, including profiles or risk and need, must be conducted. Differences in needs, risk, motivation, and treatment amenability have been noted in other research (Seiter, 1978; Pearce, 1970; Ryan, 1978). For instance, Seiter (1978) compared a sample of Ohio halfway house residents to non-residential parolees. In this study, a significantly higher proportion of halfway house residents had a history of juvenile delinquency, were younger at time of offence, and had more prior offences, adult offences, and felony offences than non-residents. Halfway house residents were also more likely to be multiple time offenders, victimless crime offenders, and have drug problems than the comparison group. Ryan (1978) found that Missouri halfway house residents were more often younger, single, uneducated, unemployed, had unstable family relationships, and had more legal problems than non-resident parolees.
Present Study
As a result of the dearth of recent research relating to halfway houses, it is important to conduct a more current examination of CRFs in Canada . First of all, this would include an in-depth profile of offenders residing in CRFs, as well as a more thorough description of the structure and operation of CRFs. Following this, other important research would include evaluations of these operations, including program and service provisions. This approach will allow the field to witness how the characteristics of CRFs and their residents have changed and how CRF practices have evolved over time.
As mentioned, large-scale evaluations and research of CRFs have not been conducted in Canada for close to 20 years. It is clear that much has changed in correctional planning and technology since the last era of research on halfway houses. There have been many changes in CSC initiatives and priorities in recent years. Effective correctional treatment principles, risk/need assessment instruments, and research technology make it necessary to re-evaluate the design, impact, and effectiveness of community-based residential facilities.
In addition to new correctional assessments and technology, we have seen a changing profile of those serving time in the community, especially those offenders released to CRFs (Boe, Sinclair, Vuong, 2002). Therefore, this research may act as a reference point for CRFs to adjust and respond to the diverse and shifting needs of this population. We also see an increasing need for specialized services for lifers, sex offenders, substance abusers, and those serving long-term supervision orders.
This research project will provide an avenue to identify best practices in order for CRFs to expand and improve upon successful client services and positive program characteristics. With this in hand, community-based residential centres can have a better understanding of "what works" and operate in the framework of an evidenced-based practice. This is also the opportunity to identify gaps in services which can be further addressed with governmental and voluntary sector consultation. Finally, this provides a forum to share information and awareness within sectors, as well as to increase community education and involvement.
It is important to identify the population of offenders residing in halfway houses and the types of facilities in practice. The two major research questions for this study included:
- What are the characteristics of offenders residing in CRFs in Canada?
- What is the structure and operation of CRFs that are currently being utilized in Canada?
METHODOLOGY
Several data sources were utilized in order to address the research questions for this study. A review of offender files was conducted in order to profile residents in halfway houses. In addition, interviews were conducted with directors to describe the types of halfway houses in place. Program documentation assisted in the process of developing interview questions.
Offender Files
Data Source
A review of offender case files was conducted in order to create a profile of adult federal offenders residing in CRFs for a six-year period. All offenders released to a CRF from April 1 st 1997 to March 31 st 2003 were extracted from the Offender Management System (OMS) of the Correctional Service of Canada. The OMS is a computer-based application that records and stores case files on all federal offenders in Canada . This automated database contains information on offender penitentiary placement, intake assessment, case management, security classification, and community supervision.
Several variables were extracted from the offender case files, including socio-demographic characteristics, current offences, criminal history, static and dynamic risk factors, institutional and community incidents, and program participation. This information was primarily gathered through the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process. The OIA process collects information on each federal offender's criminal and mental health background, social situation and education, factors relevant to determining criminal risk (such as number, variety of convictions and previous exposure, response to youth and adult corrections), and factors relevant to identifying offender dynamic needs (such as employment history, family background, criminal associations, addictions, attitudes).
The accuracy of the data extracted from OMS was cross-referenced with data obtained from four CRFs. These included:
- St. Leonard 's House Peel - Brampton , Ontario
- The Salvation Army Bunton Lodge - Toronto , Ontario
- St. Leonard 's Society of London Cody Centre - London , Ontario
- Résidence Emmanuel-Grégoire - Montréal, Québec
These facilities were able to provide us with the names, Finger Print Service (FPS) numbers, and admission dates for offenders residing in their facility from March 31 st 2000 to April 1 st 2001 . These data were matched with data extracted from OMS for the same time period. The outcome of this comparison demonstrated that the OMS data matched that found in the data provided by the CRFs. With very few discrepancies between the two data sources, it was decided to proceed with the use of OMS data.
The reliability of the OMS data was verified a second time. In this instance, the CRFs identified in a draft CRF directory developed for this project were cross-referenced with CRFs identified in the OMS database. This comparison revealed that four CRFs identified in the draft directory were not indicated in the OMS database. However, these four CRFs provided residence to only six offenders at some point in the six-year timeframe of the study. Therefore, it was felt that the OMS data provided a good indication of offenders residing in CRFs across Canada .
A number of treatment-based facilities were also identified in the OMS database and included in the analysis despite their exclusion from the director interviews. These were included in the profile database because according to CSC it was evident that federal offenders have been released to these facilities.
Subjects
The primary subjects in this study were federal offenders released to CRFs. For this purpose, all offenders recorded with a residency start date were extracted. A residency start date simply refers to offenders who, in the past or present, have a period of residency in a community-based residential facility. This includes offenders released to Community Residential Facilities (CRFs), Community Correctional Centres (CCCs), Independent Agencies (IAs), federal institutions, provincial/territorial institutions, parole offices, probation offices, and district offices.
Number of Releases and Offenders
Type of Facility |
Number of Releases |
Number of Offenders |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | % | # | % | |
Community Residential Facilities |
18, 545 |
78% |
17, 122 |
77% |
Independent Agencies |
3, 101 |
13% |
3, 000 |
14% |
Community Correctional Centres |
1, 840 |
8% |
1, 760 |
8% |
Federal Institutions |
191 |
1% |
183 |
1% |
Provincial Institutions |
88 |
0% |
83 |
0% |
Parole/Probation Offices |
56 |
0% |
55 |
0% |
Other |
2 |
0% |
2 |
0% |
Several reasons may be offered to explain why, upon release, federal offenders who were recorded as having a residency start date were released to federal institutions, provincial/territorial institutions, or parole/probation offices. For example, it is possible for offenders to be released to a provincial or territorial institution6 for a period of residency. It is also possible that offenders are released to parole or probation offices for the purpose of supervision and later reside in CRFs or CCCs. More realistically, the reporting officer may not have known the facility the offender was being released to, or the data may have been entered incorrectly. These cases, however, represent only a small percentage of the total offenders released (1.4%). However, due to the uncertainty of these types of releases, they were excluded from the CRF profile.
6 For example, Dalhousie Provincial Jail in New Brunswick provides residence to federal offenders on conditional release.
For the profile, offenders who were released to CRFs and IAs are combined together. For the most part, IAs are considered very similar to CRFs. There is no clear distinction made between the two types of facilities according to the OMS. In addition, CRFs listed in the directory are coded as both CRFs and IAs in the OMS. Most importantly, all offenders have a residency start date thereby indicating some period of residency while on conditional release in the community.
The analysis for the profile includes both the number of releases and the number of offenders released. Offenders who were released more than once, were counted for each fiscal year in which they were released. However, offenders who were released more than once in the same fiscal year were counted only once in this year. For static and dynamic risk factors, data were extracted for an offender's most recent release in the case of multiple releases.
The two comparison groups in this study are offenders released to CCCs and all other offenders released to the community in general. As mentioned, offenders released to CCCs have a residency start date. All other releases include offenders who have been released and supervised in the community and who have never resided in a CRF or CCC (or any of the other above-mentioned facilities) as defined by the OMS. That is, there is no residency start date recorded for these offenders in the specified time frame. In this group, individuals released on warrant of expiry or expiration of sentence were excluded as they are not technically supervised in the community by CSC. The following released offenders were also excluded from this comparison group: court orders, transfers to foreign countries, and lieutenant governor orders. Deceased offenders were also omitted.
It is also important to note that CRF residents may have been released under regular supervision in the community at some point in the study period, namely with no period of residency, but are included as part of the CRF group because they have at least one residency start date reported in their sentence. Therefore, offenders released to CRFs or CCCs are not duplicated in the other release group. In addition, an offender may have been released to both a CRF and CCC and therefore may be counted in both the CRF and CCC group7.
7 18 releases were not included due to missing information such as offender identification number (OID), FPS number, and sentence identification number (SENID).
Directory of Community-based Residential Facilities
The initial phase of this project involved compiling an updated directory of CRFs and CCCs in Canada . This directory was revised according to the Directory of Community Based Residential Centres 2001 and a 1996 version of the same document compiled by CSC. The houses that were not duplicated in either of the lists were contacted by research staff of CSC and SLSC to confirm their present status as a CRF or CCC and to verify some basic information regarding house operations including contacts, client fees, bed capacity, referral sources, and admission criteria.
The houses that were included in the CRF directory were owned and operated by non-governmental agencies and who may or may not have contract provisions with CSC. The CCC directory included centres that were owned and operated by CSC with all funding allotted by CSC. In addition to the CRF and CCC directories, two other lists were formed. A treatment facility list that contained treatment based houses with a CSC contract, no CSC contract, and those specifically designated for community clients was developed. These facilities were specifically mandated to provide a treatment program and/or residence to adults with drug and alcohol addictions. A listing of private home placements was also created. Typically, these are houses owned and operated by one individual who provides residence to one or two federal offenders while receiving a per diem rate from CSC.
Draft versions of the directories (i.e., CRFs, CCCs, treatment facilities, and private home placements) were distributed to CSC district directors, provincial halfway house associations8, and advisory group members for their review and comments. The CRF directory was also distributed to each individual halfway house for feedback. This distribution served as an opportunity for directors of halfway houses to provide input regarding any discrepancies or mistakes in the information provided, including halfway houses that had not been identified in the draft list. As a result of this external feedback, the appropriate changes were made and final versions of the documents were completed. A final directory of CCCs and CRFs was forwarded to Community Reintegration Operations of CSC for publication and distribution.
8 This includes Ontario Halfway House Association (OHHA), Association des Services de Rehabilitation Sociale du Québec Inc. (ASRSQ), BC Halfway House Association (BCHHA).
The final directory identified 151 CRFs and 17 CCCs that are currently operating in Canada . In addition, there were 64 treatment facilities and 94 private home placements identified.
List of Directories
| Directory | Total |
|---|---|
Community Residential Facilities (CRFs) |
151 |
Community Correctional Centres (CCCs) |
17 |
| Treatment Facilities: | 64 |
| CSC contract | 18 |
| No CSC contract | 21 |
Community clients |
25 |
Private Home Placements |
94 |
Program Documentation
A review of documentation regarding CRFs was conducted. This included training manuals, policy directives, standard operating practices, task force reports, and other available documents. This examination was necessary in order to identify the goals and objectives, services and programs, house operations, and potential issues facing halfway houses. An overview of these factors helped to structure questions for the director interviews. This review also assisted in providing a historical background to the development of halfway houses, as well as, the current legislative position of community residential facilities in Canada .
Director Interviews
A semi-structured interview was developed which asked questions about the history, mandate, goals, philosophy, physical description, and organizational structure of CRFs. Questions were also directed toward the intake and referral process, program and service delivery, and problems and issues currently facing the facility (see Appendix B).
A draft version of the interview was distributed to representatives of governmental and non-governmental organizations to ensure that appropriate questions were asked for special client groups such as women and Aboriginal offenders, and to ensure that the multiple dynamics of halfway houses would be captured through this forum of investigation.
Telephone interviews were conducted with 79 CRF representatives to examine the various halfway house models utilized in community corrections. All Aboriginal (n=9) and female (n=20) CRFs were chosen for interviews. In addition, a random sample of 50 male and co-ed CRFs was drawn from the CRF directory. Interviews were completed from November, 2002 to February, 2003.
Sample by Region and Client Group
| Region | Male | Co-ed | Aboriginal | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pacific |
7 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
13 |
Prairies |
5 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
20 |
Ontario |
10 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
16 |
Quebec |
11 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
18 |
Atlantic |
6 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
12 |
Total |
39 |
11 |
9 9 |
20 10 |
79 |
Treatment facilities were not included in the sample because they indicated that they were not halfway houses per se. In addition, they emphasized that the primary mandate of their facilities was to rehabilitate persons from addictions rather than to reintegrate federal offenders into the community. Some of these facilities were also unable to identify which residents were federal offenders since this information was not required as part of their admission criteria or intake process.
Once the interview sample was selected, the director was contacted by phone by one of the interviewers. They were informed of the research and interview process, and asked to participate in the study. To help facilitate this process, a director information sheet was faxed or emailed to each participant. This document outlined the interview schedule and provided a list of information to gather prior to the interview being conducted (i.e., budget, bed capacity, etc.). An interview date and time was scheduled at the participants' convenience. Directors, or an equivalent representative, were selected as the interview respondents because it was presumed that they would have the best knowledge of the operations, programs, and clientele in the facility.
Upon contacting the facilities sampled from the draft CRF directory, it was discovered that six CRFs did not meet the interview criteria, namely, they did not provide residence to federal offenders. As a result, they were excluded from the study. Nine CRFs refused to participate in an interview. The primary reason given by the representative was that the interview would greatly consume staff time.
Two CRFs had the same executive director. We were informed by the participant that both of the facilities were very similar in structure and operation; therefore we were able to interview this respondent with regard to both houses simultaneously. There were two cases where an executive director was sampled to participate twice because he/she had responsibility for more than one CRF in the sample. Since they had already participated in one interview, they were not interviewed a second time due to the issue of respondent burden. This was not regarded as a refusal to participate.
Four interviews were conducted with two representatives for each house: Genesis House, Sombe Ke' Healing Lodge, Ellen House, and Detweiler House. Interviews with Stan Daniels Healing Centre ( Alberta ) and Howard House ( Newfoundland ) were conducted in person.
9One Aboriginal CRF was a female-only facility.
10A total of 22 female CRFs were invited to participate but two CRFs declined to participate in the study.
RESULTS
Profile of CRF Residents
This section profiles the characteristics of offenders released to Community Residential Facilities (CRFs) between April 1, 1997 and March 31, 2003 . More specifically, the characteristics of CRF residents are described for the last fiscal year in the study (i.e., 2002/03) and compared to CRF residents from 1997/98 to 2001/02 to determine any trends or changes in this population. Based on the last fiscal year, CRF residents are compared to CCC residents and all other offenders supervised in the community. Finally, comparisons are made between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal CRF residents, as well as, female and male CRF residents in the last fiscal year. See Appendix A for the statistical tables.
In fiscal year 2002/03, there were 6,776 releases from federal institutions11. After removing duplicate releases in each year, there were 6,542 offenders released from federal custody. This includes 3,150 offenders released to CRFs (48%), 2,547 offenders released to the community in general (39%), 545 offenders released to independent agencies (8%), and 300 offenders released to CCCs (5%) (see Figure 3).
11 Releases to federal, provincial/territorial, or parole area offices are excluded from subsequent analysis of the CRF resident profile. Offenders released to CRFs and IAs are also combined.
Figure 4 demonstrates the proportion of offenders released from 1997/98 to 2002/03 (also see Table 1). Offenders released to CRFs represent the highest proportion of those released to the community in each fiscal year. All other offenders released to the community represent a slightly smaller proportion of the total number of offenders released. Over the six years, the proportion of offenders released to CRFs appears to have increased. For example, 51% of offenders were released to CRFs in 1997/98 compared to 58% in 2001/02 and 56% in 2002/03. Alternatively, the proportion of all other offenders released to the community for general supervision declined from 1997/98 to 1998/99 and remained stable afterwards. The number of offenders released to CCCs has remained consistent throughout the years, consisting of approximately 5% of the total released population in each year.
Region12
During 2002/03, very similar proportions of offenders were released to CRFs in the Ontario (24%), Quebec (23%), Prairie (21%), and Pacific (21%) regions (Table 2). A smaller proportion was released to CRFs in the Atlantic region (11%). The smaller proportion released in the Atlantic region is not particularly surprising given the smaller population in Atlantic Canada.
From 1997/98 to 2002/03, there have been significant changes in the proportion of offenders released to the Quebec , Prairie, and Pacific regions. The proportion of CRF residents in the Quebec region have decreased from 27% in 1997/98 to 23% in 2002/03. The Prairie region has witnessed fluctuations in the proportion of the CRF population with the highest proportion reported in 2000/01 (26%). The Pacific region has experienced a substantial increase in the proportion of CRF residents rising from 15% in 1997/98 to 21% in 2002/03. These trends may be representative of practices by the National Parole Board within each province, and an increase in the number of specialized houses especially in British Columbia .
During 2002/03, there were notable significant differences between CRF residents, compared to CCC residents and all other offenders released to the community with regard to regional placement (Table 2a). In comparison to CCC residents, CRF residents were more likely to be released to the Quebec (23% versus 9%) and Pacific (21% versus 3%) regions and less likely to be released to the Atlantic region (11% versus 41%). Similarly, in comparison to all other offenders released to the community, larger proportions of CRF residents were released to the Pacific region (21% versus 7%). However, smaller proportions were released to the Quebec and Prairie regions (23% versus 27%; 21% versus 33%, respectively).
12 This represents the region where offenders were released to, not where they were released from.
Release Status13
In 2002/03, approximately two-thirds of CRF residents were released on day parole (67%). A further one-third (30%) are on statutory release and 3% are on full parole (Table 3). There has been a significant increase in the proportion of CRF residents released on statutory release from 1997/98 to 2002/03 (22% to 30%). Although the largest proportion of CRF residents were released on day parole in 2002/03 (67%), this proportion has decreased from 1998/99 through 2000/01 where day parolees represented approximately three-quarters of the total CRF population (76%, 76% and 74%, respectively). The last two fiscal years also witnessed the release of offenders with long-term supervision orders (LTSOs) to CRFs. For example, no offenders with LTSOs were present in CRFs in 1997/98 through 2000/01, whereas six LTSOs were released to CRFs in 2001/02 and four in 2002/03. Since the LTSO designation was implemented in August 1997, it is not surprising that it would take some time for offenders with LTSO designations to be released from custody (Trevethan, Crutcher, & Moore, 2002).
Significantly larger proportions of CRF than CCC residents were released on day parole (67% versus 42%) (Table 3a) and significantly fewer CRF residents were released on statutory release (30% versus 55%). These results indicate that residents of CCCs may represent a slightly higher risk given their release type. CRF residents are more likely to be released on day parole (67% versus 12%), and less likely on statutory release than offenders under general supervision in the community (30% versus 79%). These results may indicate that CRF residents may be posing less risk to the community upon release.
13 These figures represent the type of release into the community upon leaving federal custody.
Entry into CRF / Time in CRF
As illustrated in Table 4, some offenders were supervised in the community prior to entering the CRF. During 2002/03, about one-half (54%) of CRF residents entered the CRF on the same day as they were released from the correctional facility. However, an additional one-half (46%) lived in the community prior to entering the CRF (5% spent up to a month, 25% between one and six months, 6% between six and 12 months, 11% more than one year). Of those who spent some time in the community prior to entering the CRF, the median amount of time they spent was 182 days (approximately six months). In some of these cases, an offender supervised in the community may have breached a parole condition and, rather than receiving a parole suspension, enter a CRF for a designated period of time. Alternatively, an offender may be encountering difficulties in the community and the supervising parole officer may anticipate a re-offence. In this case, the offender is placed in a CRF for increased stability and supervision.
As for the amount of time spent in a CRF, slightly over one-half (52%) of CRF residents in 2002/03 spent less than two months in a CRF14 (Table 4a). In addition, 46% of CRF residents stayed from two to 12 months. Only 2% resided in a CRF for one year or longer. CRF residents spent anywhere from one day to more than four years in the facility, with an average of 83 days (less than three months). This relatively short period of residency may indicate that program and service provisions will need to be tailored for short-term residents.
14 The amount of time spent in a CRF was calculated using known residency start and end dates. Data were missing for 1,594 offenders in 2002/03. Some residency end dates are "expected" end dates and therefore may exceed the study period of March 31, 2003.
Significant differences were found between the release status of CRF residents and the amount of time spent in CRFs. For example, on average, those on statutory release spent less time in a CRF than those on day parole and full parole (2½ months versus 3 months). Furthermore, those incarcerated for sexual offences and homicide/attempted murder spent, on average, longer periods of time in CRFs (4½ and 3½ months, respectively) than those incarcerated for other offences.
In examining changes over time, it appears the amount of time that CRF residents spend in CRFs has been decreasing (Table 4a). For example, the proportion of CRF residents who spent less than two months in CRFs increased from 32% in 1997/98 to 52% in 2002/03. Similarly, the mean number of months of residency in a CRF has decreased from slightly over four months in 1997/98 to less than three months in 2002/03. This may indicate that, over time, CRFs have been increasing offenders' preparedness for independent living in the community, or offenders are less likely to rely on a place of residence for continued support. Alternatively, fewer offenders may have a residency condition imposed upon parole, or may be returning to custody at a faster rate.
In 2002/03, CRF residents spent more time in the community before entering residence than CCC residents (Table 4). While 83% of CCC residents entered the CCC on the same day as they were released from federal custody, this was the case for about one-half (54%) of CRF residents. This finding may be indicative of a greater level of risk posed by CCC residents and therefore a greater need for immediate supervision.
Also in the last fiscal year, CRF residents spent more time in residence than CCC residents (Table 4a). For instance, a larger proportion of CRF residents spent more than two months in residence than CCC residents (48% versus 35%). Similarly, on average, CRF residents spent almost three months at the CRF, compared to about two and one-half months for CCC residents. The finding may indicate that CRF residents require greater support and supervision as provided in a place of residence, CRF residents are more likely to have a residency condition imposed, or CCC residents are returning to custody at a greater rate than CRF residents.
Socio-Demographic Profile
In 2002/03, CRF residents were primarily characterized as male, Caucasian, single, and on average 36 years of age15. In addition, fairly large proportions had less than a grade 10 education (44%), and were unemployed at the time of arrest (64%) (Table 5).
The profile of CRF residents has changed over the years with regard to gender, marital status, education, and age. For instance, the proportion of women in CRFs has increased (5% in 1997/98 to 7% in later years). Furthermore, the proportion of residents who are single has increased (from 46% in 1997/98 to 50% in 2002/03). The proportion of CRF residents with less than a grade 10 education has decreased (from 52% in 1997/98 to 44% in 2002/03), signifying a rise in educational levels within this group. Significant differences were found between the mean ages at residency in a CRF (average age of 35 in 1997/98 and 36 in 2002/03), indicating a slight aging of the CRF population.
As illustrated in Figure 5, in 2002/03, very few significant differences were found between the socio-demographic characteristics of offenders released to CRFs, as compared to those released to CCCs (also see Table 5a). One difference that did emerge was that 7% of CRF residents were women, while no women offenders resided in CCCs in 2002/0316. Although representing small proportions overall, a significantly larger proportion of CRF residents were Asian compared to CCC residents (3% versus 1%). Finally, CRF residents had more education than CCC residents (56% of CRF residents had grade 10 or more, compared to 47% of CCC residents).
More substantial differences were found between CRF residents and those supervised in the community. For instance, significantly larger proportions of women were released to CRFs than directly to the community (7% versus 3%). Furthermore, larger proportions of CRF residents were Caucasian (73% versus 70%), and smaller proportions were Black (5% versus 8%). CRF residents were also more likely to be single compared to offenders released to the community (50% versus 47%). CRF residents had more education (56% had grade 10 or more, compared to 50%), and were less often unemployed at arrest (64% versus 68%) compared to community-supervised offenders. At admission to federal custody, CRF residents were significantly younger than offenders supervised in the community (33 years versus 35 years).
15 Age at residency start date.
16 In previous years, a small number women offenders have been released to CCCs (i.e., Osborne CCC, Oskana CCC, Carlton Centre Annex, and Martineau CCC).
Current Offence Characteristics
In 2002/03, the current most serious offence for which CRF residents were incarcerated tended to be property and drug-related offences (Table 6). For example, 23% of CRF residents were currently incarcerated for robbery, 21% for property offences, and 16% for drug-related offences. Relative to these offences, the majority of CRF residents were currently serving sentences from 2 years to less than 5 years (63%). Seven percent were serving life or indeterminate sentences. The mean sentence length was 4.5 years (median = 3.0 years).
There have been substantial changes across the years with regard to the offences for which CRF residents are incarcerated. For instance, there has been a consistent increase in the proportion of CRF residents incarcerated for homicide/attempted murder (9% to 13%). In contrast, the proportion of CRF residents incarcerated for sexual assault has fluctuated across the years, but has generally decreased (11% in 1997/98 to 9% in 2002/03). The proportion of those incarcerated for drug-related offences increased in 1999/2000 and 2000/01, but decreased again in 2001/02. The proportion of CRF residents with robbery offences has fluctuated over the years with the highest proportion reported in 1998/99 (25%) and the lowest proportion in 2000/01 (20%). CRF residents serving life or indeterminate sentences have steadily increased since 1997/98 (4% to 7%). There were no significant differences between the mean sentence length across the years.
In 2002/03, some significant differences were found between CRF and CCC residents with regard to offence characteristics (Table 6a). For example, as illustrated in Figure 6, significantly smaller proportions of CRF residents had a most serious offence of an assault (10% versus 16%), sexual assault (9% versus 17%), and other violent offence (2% versus 4%) compared to CCC residents. In contrast, CRF residents were more likely to be incarcerated for drug-related offences (16% versus 7%) and other Criminal Code offences (6% versus 3%) than CCC residents. These differences suggest that offenders residing in CCCs have more extensive violent offence backgrounds. This may present CCCs with more difficult challenges in terms of successful reintegration, and emphasizes the need for programs that specifically target these offence areas.
The offence characteristics of CRF residents was also significantly different from other offenders released to the community in 2002/03. For example, higher proportions of CRF residents were incarcerated for homicide/attempted murder (13% versus 6%), drug-related offences (16% versus 11%), and other Criminal Code offences (6% versus 5%) compared to other offenders in the community. Alternatively, CRF residents were less likely to incarcerated for robbery (23% versus 28%), assault (10% versus 16%), sexual assault (9% versus 12%), and other violent offences (2% versus 3%) than other offenders supervised in the community. Furthermore, there were significantly larger proportions of lifers residing in CRFs than under supervision in the community (7% versus 1%). No significant differences were found between the groups with regard to mean sentence length. Similar to the differences found between CRF and CCC residents, offenders released to the community appear to have more serious, violent offence profiles than offenders released to CRFs.
Criminal History
CRF residents appear to have somewhat extensive past involvement in the criminal justice system but a minimal extent of failures. For instance, in 2002/03, the majority of CRF residents had previous convictions in adult court (83%), have been placed on community supervision (72%), and have served terms in provincial institutions (68%) (Table 7). However, very few have served a previous federal term (22%). While over one-half of CRF residents have previously failed on community-based sanctions (55%), a relatively smaller proportion have failed on conditional release (36%) (Table 8).
Significant differences across the years were found for CRF residents in terms of previous federal terms and youth court convictions. For example, the proportion of CRF residents who have served a previous term in federal custody has increased steadily from 18% in 1997/98 to 22% in 2001/02 and 2002/03. Similarly, there has been an increase in the proportion of CRF residents who have convictions in youth court (36% in 1997/98 to 42% in 2002/03). In addition, there have been significant changes over time with regard to failures in federal custody. The most notable differences are increases from 1997/98 to 2002/03 in the proportion of CRF residents who have previously failed community-based sanctions (46% to 55%) and conditional release (29% to 36%). The number of CRF residents with extensive failures and experience with incarceration appears to be increasing, which may indicate the need for an increased focus on the offence cycle in program delivery during the initial months of release.
CRF and CCC residents were slightly different in terms of criminal history (Table 7a). As illustrated in Figure 7, significantly lower proportions of CRF than CCC residents had a previous federal term (22% versus 30%) and have been convicted in youth court (42% versus 53%). Although CCC residents have more extensive involvement in the federal system, the differences between the two groups are not as dramatic as expected given the offence profile of CCC residents compared to CRF residents. With the exception of previous attempted or successful escapes, CRF residents had significantly fewer failures than their CCC counterparts (Table 8a). For example, smaller proportions of CRF than CCC residents had previously failed on community-based sanctions (55% versus 68%) and conditional release (36% versus 45%).
The criminal history of CRF residents and offenders under general supervision in the community also differed significantly. Similar to the comparison of CCC residents, significantly smaller proportions of CRF residents had previous provincial terms (68% versus 74%), previous federal terms (22% versus 28%), and youth court convictions (42% versus 51%) than offenders in the community generally. In addition, CRF residents had consistently and significantly fewer failures in the system than other community-supervised offenders. For example, smaller proportions of CRF residents were previously segregated for disciplinary infractions (23% versus 32%), attempted or successfully attempted escape (23% versus 29%), and failed a community-based sanction (55% versus 61%).
Static and Dynamic Risk Factors
Data were extracted on static and dynamic risk factors which includes risk to re-offend, need for program intervention, reintegration potential, and motivation for intervention. This information is based on assessments at release into the community. If offenders were released to a CRF more than once during the study period, the information for their most recent release was used.
In 2002/03, about one-third (36%) of CRF residents were assessed as high need for correctional programming at the time of release into the community (Table 9). This was particularly evident for those assessed as having "some or considerable" need for the personal/emotional (84%), substance abuse (66%), and associates/social interaction (59%) domains. In terms of risk, the majority of CRF residents were assessed as medium risk to re-offend at the time of release into the community (52%) (Table 10). Further, the majority of residents were assessed as having medium reintegration potential (45%) and similar proportions were assessed as having medium (45%) and high (44%) motivation for intervention.
From 1997/98 to 2002/03, the needs for correctional programming of CRF residents have changed significantly. For example, the proportion of residents assessed as having "some or considerable" need in the areas of employment, marital/family, and community functioning have decreased over the years. In contrast, the proportion of residents assessed as having "some or considerable" need in the areas of substance abuse, personal/emotional issues, and attitude have increased. No significant differences across years were found for the associates/social interaction domain. These findings indicate the areas that may present reintegration obstacles and thus require specialized intervention efforts.
The risk and reintegration levels of CRF residents have also changed significantly across years. The proportion of CRF residents assessed as high risk to re-offend has decreased significantly, from 38% in 1997/98 to 28% in 2002/03. The proportion of residents with low reintegration potential has decreased (from 44% in 1997/98 to 12% in 1999/2000 and 16% in 2002/03). Similarly, the proportion of residents with low motivation for intervention has decreased, from 35% in 1997/98 to 10% in 2002/03. Across the years, it appears that the profile of CRF residents may be those who present less risk, reintegration, and motivation challenges at release into the community.
Significant differences were found between CRF and CCC residents with regard to some need domains, as well as risk and reintegration (Tables 9a and 10a). Smaller proportions of CRF than CCC residents were assessed as high need overall (36% versus 56%). As illustrated in Figure 8, when examining individual need domains, smaller proportions of CRF than CCC residents were assessed as having "some or considerable" need in the domains of marital/family (41% versus 53%), community functioning (38% versus 45%), and attitude (43% versus 54%). No significant differences were found in other need domains. Furthermore, significantly smaller proportions of CRF than CCC residents were assessed as high risk to re-offend (28% versus 53%). Likewise, smaller proportions of CRF than CCC residents were assessed as having low reintegration potential (16% versus 44%) and low motivation for intervention (10% versus 23%). The CCC population had a greater number of problems associated with motivation and reintegration compared to the CRF population.
In comparing CRF residents to offenders released to the community for a period of supervision, there are also some notable differences in their assessed need, risk, and reintegration levels. At release, a smaller proportion of CRF residents were considered high need overall (36% versus 48%). In particular, smaller proportions of CRF residents than other supervised offenders were assessed as having "some or considerable" need in the area of employment (48% versus 52%) and attitude (43% versus 50%). However, larger proportions of CRF residents were assessed as having "some or considerable" need in the area of community functioning (38% versus 34%). These findings may indicate that CRF residents are being appropriately targeted for a period of residency due to their higher need in adjustment and adaptation to the community. Lower proportions of CRF residents were assessed as high risk to re-offend (28% versus 42%), low reintegration potential (16% versus 31%), and low motivation for intervention (10% versus 22%) compared to offenders under general community supervision. Similar to the above findings, the CRF population appears to represent a lower risk and a higher motivated group of individuals than offenders supervised in the community in general.
Summary
Offenders released to CRFs present the largest proportion of those released to the community. Over the years, the proportion of offenders released into CRFs has increased. Of those entering CRFs during 2002/03, about two-thirds were released on day parole. The proportion of residents on day parole has declined over the years, while the proportion on statutory release has increased (to about 30% currently). About one-half of CRF residents enter a CRF on the same day in which they are released from a federal institution. However, some are spending time in the community prior to entering a CRF. Once entering the CRF, on average, CRF residents spend less than three months in a CRF and, over the last few years, CRF residents have been spending less time in CRFs. However, CRF residents spend more time in the community prior to entering the residence and more time in the respective facility, as compared to CCC residents.
Similar to the general offender population serving time in the community, CRF residents can generally be described as male, Caucasian, and single, and in their mid-30's. They are largely incarcerated for robbery, property and drug-related offences, have fairly extensive criminal histories, but a minimal extent of failures within the system. At the time of release into the community, the largest proportion have been assessed as medium need for overall program intervention, medium risk to re-offend, medium reintegration potential and medium or high motivation for intervention.
The profile of CRF residents has changed somewhat over the years. For instance, there has been an increase in the proportion of CRF residents who are women, single, older, and with greater than a grade 10 education. There has also been an increase in the proportion of residents incarcerated for homicide/attempted murder, but a decrease in the proportion incarcerated for sexual assault. In terms of need for programs, there has been a reduction in need relating to employment, marital/family, and community functioning. However, there has been an increase in the need for substance abuse, personal/emotional issues, and attitude. The proportions assessed as high risk to re-offend, low reintegration potential, and low motivation for intervention has also decreased over the years.
This research identified some differences in the profiles of CRF residents, CCC residents, and other offenders supervised in the community. In general, the socio-demographic characteristics of CRF residents was similar to those of CCC residents, except that CRFs had more female and Asian residents, and residents had higher levels of education. More distinct differences were found between CRF residents and other offenders supervised in the community. For example, CRFs had more women and Caucasian residents, and residents were more likely to be single, younger, and with higher levels of education and more often employed than other community-supervised offenders.
In general, it appears that residents in CCCs and other offenders supervised in the community have more serious, violent offence profiles than offenders residing in CRFs, and more extensive criminal histories and failures in the system. Residents of CCCs and offenders being supervised in the community also appear to represent higher need and risk groups, with more problems in terms of reintegration and motivation than CRF residents.
Profile of Aboriginal CRF Residents
A total of 613 Aboriginal offenders were released to CRFs in 2002/03. This is comprised of 393 First Nation offenders, 196 Métis offenders, 23 Inuit offenders, and one Innu offender. Aboriginal CRF residents comprised 17% of CRF residents in 2002/03. Aboriginal offenders are slightly over-represented in CRFs compared to Aboriginal offenders supervised in the community (12%) (Trevethan, Moore & Rastin, 2002).
Significant differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal CRF residents were revealed for the region in which offenders were released (Table 11). Aboriginal CRF residents were more likely to be released to the Prairie (52% versus 14%) and Pacific (30% versus 20%) regions than non-Aboriginal residents. With regard to release status, while significantly fewer Aboriginal CRF residents were released on day parole, a larger proportion of Aboriginal residents were released on statutory release than non-Aboriginal residents (37% versus 29%) (Table 12). This is consistent with past research which shows that larger proportions of Aboriginal offenders receive statutory releases from prison (Motiuk & Nafekh, 2000).
The socio-demographic profile of Aboriginal CRF residents was also examined (Table 13). There were significantly larger proportions of Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal women residents (9% versus 6%). Significant differences were also found between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal residents in terms of marital status, education, employment, and age. For instance, smaller proportions of Aboriginal residents were divorced/separated compared to their non-Aboriginal counterparts (7% versus 10%). In addition, significantly larger proportions of Aboriginal residents had less than a grade 10 education (56% versus 41%) and were unemployed at arrest (73% versus 62%) compared to non-Aboriginal residents. Comparatively, Aboriginal residents were also significantly younger at the time they entered the CRF (34 years versus 37 years).
As found in other profiles of Aboriginal offenders (Trevethan, Moore & Rastin, 2002), Aboriginal CRF residents represent a serious, violent offender group (Table 14). More specifically, larger proportions of Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal residents were incarcerated for homicide/attempted murder (17% versus 12%), assault (16% versus 8%), and sexual assault (13% versus 8%). They were less likely to be serving sentences for robbery, drugs, and property offences compared to their non-Aboriginal counterparts. There were no significant differences for mean sentence length between the two groups.
With the exception of previous federal terms, Aboriginal residents have more extensive criminal histories than non-Aboriginal CRF residents (Table 15). For example, significantly larger proportions of Aboriginal residents have past youth and adult court convictions, and have served previous provincial terms, compared to their non-Aboriginal counterparts. For the most part, Aboriginal residents also have more failures in the correctional system than non-Aboriginal residents (see Table 16). For instance, significantly more Aboriginal offenders in CRFs have previously failed on community-based sanctions (64% versus 53%) and attempted or successfully escaped (31% versus 21%) than non-Aboriginal offenders.
At the time of release into the community, significant differences were found between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal CRF residents with regard to need for program intervention, risk to re-offend and reintegration potential (Tables 17 and 18). Significantly larger proportions of Aboriginal residents were assessed as high need overall compared to non-Aboriginal residents (47% versus 24%). With the exception of the attitude domain, Aboriginal offenders were assessed as higher need across all need domains. Similarly, larger proportions of Aboriginal residents were assessed as high risk to re-offend (47% versus 24%) and smaller proportions were assessed as having high reintegration potential (25% versus 41%). No significant differences were found regarding motivation for intervention.
Generally, differences found between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal CRF residents are reflective of the differences found in previous research between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders in general (Motiuk & Nafekh, 2000; Trevethan, Moore & Rastin., 2002).
Profile of Women CRF Residents
In 2002/03, 250 females were released to CRFs, representing 7% of the total number of offenders released to CRFs.
Women and men CRF residents were significantly different in terms of region of release and release status during 2002/03 (Tables 19 and 20). For instance, significantly larger proportions of women than men residents were released to the Atlantic , Ontario , and Prairie regions. Additionally, a larger proportion of women residents were released on day parole (80% versus 66%). However, women residents were less likely to be released on statutory release than men (16% versus 31%).
Differences in the socio-demographic profile between women and men CRF residents were also examined (Table 21). In terms of race, significantly larger proportions of women in CRFs were Aboriginal (23% versus 16%) and Black (12% versus 5%) than their male CRF counterparts. Slightly higher proportions of women than men in CRFs were widowed (3% versus 0%). No significant differences were found between gender for education levels or employment status at arrest. The mean age at entrance to the CRF was significantly younger for women than men residents (34 years versus 36 years).
Significantly smaller proportions of women residents were incarcerated for robbery, sexual assault, and other Criminal Code offences than their male counterparts (Table 22). Women residents were more likely to be incarcerated for drugs (37% versus 14%) and impaired driving (3% versus 1%) than male CRF residents. Compared to men, substance abuse appears to be a pressing problem for women in CRFs as indicated in their offence profile. Accordingly, CRFs for women offenders may need to incorporate treatment-based modules in program delivery, as well as address the impact of substance abuse on their crime cycle. Additionally, women residents had significantly shorter sentence lengths than males in CRFs (3.3 years versus 4.6 years).
Women CRF residents consistently had less extensive criminal histories and previous failures compared to men CRF residents (Tables 23 and 24). For example, significantly smaller proportions of women residents had previous youth and adult court convictions, as well as previous federal and provincial terms. Furthermore, women residents had significantly fewer failures on community-based sanctions (36% versus 56%) and conditional release (22% versus 37%) than male residents.
At release into the community, significant differences were found between men and women CRF residents on static and dynamic factors (Tables 25 and 26). A smaller proportion of women residents were assessed as high need for programming overall compared to the male residents (30% versus 37%). Assessments indicated that women residents continued to be assessed as having significantly higher need in the martial/family domain (55% versus 40%), but significantly lower need in the attitude domain (28% versus 44%) compared to men. Larger proportions of women than men were rated as low risk to re-offend (40% versus 18%), as having high reintegration potential (53% versus 38%) and high motivation for intervention (59% versus 44%).
As was found with Aboriginal offenders, the differences found between women and men CRF residents are reflective of the differences found in previous research between women and men offenders in general (Trevethan & Rastin, 2003; Trevethan, 1999).
Description of Community Residential Facilities
A total of 79 phone interviews were conducted with CRF representatives. Of these, the majority of the respondents were executive directors (48%) and directors (30%). Other respondents included house managers, program managers, coordinators, and superintendents. The sample was evenly divided with 40 female and 39 male respondents. All of the regions were adequately represented with the largest proportion of interviews conducted in the Prairie (25%), Quebec (23%), and Ontario (20%) regions. The sample largely consisted of male CRFs (49%, n=39). However, female (25%, n=20), co-ed (14%, n=11), and Aboriginal (11%, n=9) CRFs were also represented17.
17 As mentioned in the methodology, all Aboriginal and female CRFs were sampled.
The following provides a description of CRFs in Canada , based upon the interviews conducted with the sample of 79 CRFs.
History and Philosophy
Halfway houses have been part of our communities for a long time. The timeframe when the CRF opened ranged from 1954 to 2001. Almost one-half (49%) of the CRFs have been in operation for more than 20 years, with an average of almost 21 years in operation (Table 27). While in operation, the respondents noted some physical and operational changes to the houses. For example, 29% of the CRFs have physically re-located their facility and 22% have re-named their facility during the course of their operations. A smaller proportion (14%) closed their facility at one time and re-opened it at a later date.
According to the respondents, their halfway house initially opened for a number of reasons. The majority (51%) indicated that their facility opened to better respond to the needs of offenders, which included programming, accommodation, and service needs. Other reasons included the goal of better meeting the needs of the community (16%), to provide substance abuse treatment (14%), and in response to a request by CSC (14%).
Respondents described the current mandate of their facility. They were able to provide more than one mandate, and the description was based on their perceptions and as indicated in official documents. The largest proportion, about one-half (49%) of the respondents, said the mandate of their CRF was to provide programs, services, and shelter in order to contribute to the well-being and growth of individuals. Over one-third (37%) also indicated that their mandate was to assist offenders in their reintegration process. Other stated mandates were: to assist offenders in the rehabilitation process (e.g., recovery from addictions) (23%); to provide a safe, secure, and supportive environment (16%); and to ensure the security and protection of the community (4%). After describing the mandate of their facility, respondents were asked to rank order a list of seven mandates from the most to least reflective of their own mandate(s). The list was provided by the interviewer and the respondent was given the opportunity to include additional mandates if necessary to further describe their own facility. The results indicated that the largest proportion of respondents rank-ordered community safety and protection (30%) as the first and most reflective mandate. One-quarter each rank-ordered transition and reintegration (25%), and treatment and rehabilitation (24%) as the most reflective mandates. Smaller proportions of respondents said that a humane approach to care (11%), a social welfare approach (4%), a focus on changing behaviour and attitudes (4%) and a focus on life and living skills (1%) were the most reflective mandates.
In addition to describing the mandate of the facility, respondents were also asked to describe the current goals of the CRF. Most respondents said that transition/reintegration (92%), support/assistance for residents (92%), accommodation (91%), and program/service delivery (91%) were their major goals. Additionally, large proportions said that supervision (82%), community safety (78%), and treatment (77%) were important goals. About two-thirds said that providing education (69%) and employment (68%) were important goals. Finally, 44% said that providing religion/spiritual services was an important goal.
As with the mandate, respondents were asked to rank-order the importance of various goals in their facility. Similar to the mandate, the largest proportion of respondents (30%) stated that community safety was their first and most important goal. Once again, this was closely followed by transition and reintegration (27%). However, in contrast to the mandates, the goal of accommodation was rank ordered by 14% of the CRFs as the first and most important goal of their facility. These results are consistent with the findings of Seiter (Seiter, Carlson, Bowman, Grandfield & Beran, 1977; Seiter, 1978) who surveyed house directors and staff to determine the goals of the halfway house.
Although many respondents ranked-ordered community safety and protection as a top goal or mandate, very few openly described it as part of their mandate or mission. An important consideration when reviewing these results is that some respondents were reluctant to rank-order the mandates and goals. For many of the houses, equal emphasis could be placed on all of the mandates and goals. It is possible that some of the houses may have ranked the mandates or goals in a sequential order (in which activities occur or needs are addressed).
Respondents were also asked if the mandate and goals have changed during their period of operation. The majority of the CRFs indicated that the mandate and goals have not changed over time (71% and 61%, respectively). However, it is important to consider those facilities that have experienced changes in their operational priorities. Of the 23 respondents who said that their mandate has changed, one-third (35%) said that they now have a greater emphasis on reintegration and rehabilitation, one-fifth (22%) said that they have expanded their services to accommodate a broader clientele base , 17% said that they now have a greater emphasis on security, and 17% said that they now have less emphasis on social welfare and housing. Of the 31 respondents who indicated that the goals have changed, one-half (48%) said that the priorities of the goals have changed and shifted overall. A further one-quarter (26%) said that there is now greater emphasis on programs to meet client needs; 19% said that the goals are now more precise and structured ; 16% said that they now place greater emphasis on specific types of clientele; and, 16% said that they now place a greater emphasis on the community.
In addition to the mandate and goals of the facility, respondents described their philosophical approach. This was defined as the theoretical underpinnings or the rationale for the existence of the facility. Almost one-half of the respondents (49%) said that their philosophical underpinning was based on a client-centered or humanistic approach which concentrates on individual development, empowerment, and self-sufficiency. About one-fifth (22%) indicated a social welfare approach which focuses on providing a safe, secure, and supportive environment. Other philosophies included: a holistic or multi-modal approach (14%); a religious and spiritual approach (13%); a reintegration and transition focus (10%); a cognitive-behavioural or social learning approach (6%); and an emphasis on community protection (3%).
Physical Description
The majority of CRFs (66%) in the sample were located in large cities (i.e., 100,000 or more population). Another one-quarter (24%) were in small cities. Less than 10% were located in rural communities and one was on a reserve (Table 28). When further describing the type of community surrounding their facility, the majority placed the CRF in a low to middle income area (76%). The largest proportion of CRFs were located in a residential area (55%).
The physical structure and layout varied among the facilities, however, many of the CRFs were one or more storey houses (82%). In terms of the physical layout, all CRFs (100%) had resident bedrooms, but only 10% had staff bedrooms. The majority had staff (97%) and program (80%) offices, while fewer had private visitor rooms (44%). Some of the facilities provided recreational areas (44%) however, only one-quarter (25%) of houses had spiritual grounds. All of the CRFs provided laundry facilities to their residents. Similar proportions of the CRFs provided kitchen facilities to the residents (68%) and had staff provide the meals (68%), while some also provided a meal allowance to the residents (9%)18. Smoking was allowed in 65% of the facilities. Less than one-half of the CRFs (43%) were accessible for the disabled.
18 CRFs may have used one or more of these food provisions.
About one-quarter (28%) of CRFs allowed children to be accommodated with their parent at the facility. The circumstances in which children are permitted to reside with their parent varied. Assessment for this special circumstance was primarily based on a defined set of criteria according to the house. For those who allowed children, facilities said that they based their decision on the child's age (78%), gender (39%), and the desired length of stay (50%).
Respondents were asked to provide the total bed capacity and the number of beds occupied for all clients and specifically for CSC clients. The total bed capacity ranged from 4 to 82 beds, with an average of 24 beds. The CSC bed capacity ranged from 0 to 73 beds, with an average of 14 beds19. As of November 1 st , 2002 , the number of beds occupied ranged from 2 to 84 beds 20, with an average of 18 beds. The number of CSC beds occupied ranged from 0 to 54 beds, with an average of 12 beds occupied 21. Nine CRFs did not have beds specifically allotted for CSC clients22 and 10 CRFs did not have beds occupied by CSC clients as of November 1 st , 2002 . Therefore, 89% of CRFs had federal offenders residing in their facility as of November 1 st , 2002 . The largest proportion of CRFs (91%) had federal day parolees, while a lesser proportion had offenders on statutory release with residency (56%) and federal day parolees on accelerated parole release (APR) (41%).
19 CRFs with zero beds were excluded from the average.
20 This number exceeded the maximum bed capacity of 82 but was the result of an overflow population within one particular facility.
21 CRFs with zero beds were excluded from the average.
22 All facilities in the sample were included on the basis of their acceptance of federal offenders, and regardless of contract provisions with CSC.
As for the composition of the remaining resident population, 42% of the CRFs had provincial offender residents and 34% had non-offender residents (i.e., clients from the general community).
Respondents were asked to specify the number of beds available for male and female federal offenders. Almost three-quarters of CRFs (71%) had beds available for male federal clients, while 38% had beds for female federal clients. There was an average of 16 female beds and 21 male beds.
Respondents were asked to indicate the length of stay permitted for federal clients. About one-half (54%) of the CRFs indicated that the length of residency was unlimited for their federal clients. A smaller proportion (28%) indicated that federal clients were expected to leave the facility at the Warrant Expiry Date (WED). The remaining CRFs (18%) indicated they had a maximum length of stay for federal clients ("cut-off period"), which may occur before or after an offender's WED. This maximum length of residency ranged from 21 days to 3 years, with a mean length of stay of almost one year (330 days).
In addition, respondents were asked to estimate the shortest, longest, and average period of residency at their CRF. The shortest period of residency ranged from one day to eight months, with the majority of CRFs (54%) specifying one day as the shortest time. Alternatively, the longest period of residency ranged from 21 days to 12 years. The average residency period ranged from 21 days to slightly over one year. The 21-day interval may be the result of a treatment program for drugs or alcohol which typically lasts 3 to 4 weeks for most addiction facilities.
Organizational Structure
Almost all respondents (96%) said that their CRF had a contract with CSC at the time of the interview (Table 29). CRFs that had contract provisions with CSC were asked to provide the per diem rate(s) for their facility. A per diem rate is the daily rate given to the facility given the number of beds occupied. Per diem rates ranged from $4 to $210 per bed with an average of $9623. In addition, 28 CRFs said that they had a secondary per diem rate, which they received once a specified number of beds were occupied. The secondary per diem rate ranged from $16 to $115 per bed, with an average of $49. These large differences in per diem rates may be attributed to the sources of funding. Some CRFs receive larger amounts of funding from federal sources such as CSC, while others may receive very little funding from charitable organizations.
Respondents were asked to provide the annual operating budget for 2002/03. This was divided into the staffing budget and the operational/management budget. The staffing budget ranged from $90,000 to $1,133,333, with an average of $378,00024. The operational/management budget ranged from $8,000 to $2,000,000, with an average of $227,000. Again, these large differences may be attributed to the type of funding source.
23 Two CRFs were unable to provide a per diem rate.
24 Average staff budget excluded one CRF with no staff budget.
About three-quarters (77%) of the CRFs said that they had at least one other source of funding than CSC. Other sources of funding included charitable donations and/or fund raising (65%), provincial corrections (50%), and provincial social services (42%).
In terms of the type of organization, the respondents indicated that the CRFs were largely charitable and/or not for profit organizations (87%). Most had membership with other organizations, such as a Halfway House Association (63%), Salvation Army (15%), St. Leonard 's Society (14%), Elizabeth Fry Society (14%), and John Howard Society (12%).
The majority of houses had a board of directors (91%). About one-half of the respondents (51%) said that the role of the board of directors consisted of governance and policy-making (i.e., hands-off, passive participation). One-quarter (25%) said that their role consisted of governance and operational procedures (i.e., hands-on, active participation). Nineteen percent said their role consisted of organizational and operational procedures (i.e., overall management).
The organizational structure of the facilities interviewed can best be described as hierarchical in nature in terms of general management and supervision. However, in most cases, it was clear that everyone worked together as a team. The position titles and roles of staff members were described by the respondent in order to gauge the overall framework for the management and operation of the facility. In general, the organizational structure consists of the following roles and responsibilities:
- Management and Operations staff (i.e., executive director, director, house leader, superintendent, board of directors) (92%)
- Offender Case Management staff (i.e., case managers, case workers, team leaders, guards) (78%)
- Program and Service staff (i.e., program facilitators, animators) (65%)
- Clinical staff (i.e., psychologists, nurses, counsellors) (48%)
- Clerical and Administrative staff (i.e., secretary, administrative assistant, accountant) (43%)
- Service Work staff (i.e., janitors, cooks) (41%)
- Support and Relief staff (i.e., volunteers, students, casuals) (37%)
The role of the executive director, or other representative, was further examined. Clearly, the executive directors of CRFs have many different roles and responsibilities. For example, almost three-quarters (73%) viewed themselves as a manager of staff in terms of overseeing the hiring, terminating, training, supervision, and communication with staff members. Another role of the executive director was of a financial and administrative function (57%). About one-third said that the executive directors were responsible for the administration of programs, services, and counselling (37%) and to ensure the respect of the mission and compliance with the standards of the house (32%). Other roles included: screening and admittance of clients (22%); community liaisons (22%); institutional liaisons (18%); security (6%); and overseeing the physical layout (5%).
Respondents were asked to describe their staff's philosophical approach to working in the facility. This was defined as the approach they used to perform their daily tasks or the most important focus of their daily work. About one-third (35%) indicated that their staff philosophical approach focused on support, respect and encouragement, and one-third (32%) said that their staff focused on a client-centered or humanistic approach. Twenty-one percent said that the philosophic approach was holistic, 17% focused on empowerment and responsibility, 12% on community reintegration, and 9% safety and security.
In addition to information obtained on the organizational structure of the facilities, respondents were asked to indicate the number of male and female staff who are full-time, part-time, volunteers, and students. It appears that CRFs are more likely to employ female than male workers. For example, a high proportion of CRFs employed full-time females (95%) and part-time females (79%), while a slightly lower proportion of full-time males (74%), and part-time males (65%) were employed. Also, to a lesser degree, halfway houses utilized the help of volunteers and students, where again, females were more likely to be involved.
Information on the educational background and professional experience of the paid employed staff at each of the facilities was also examined. The majority of CRFs employed staff with an educational background in criminology (35%) or social work (27%). This is not surprising given the type of clientele and the role of staff in halfway houses. For the most part, respondents had previous professional experience in the areas of criminal justice (30%) and social work (23%).
Staff training was also another area of inquiry. Training in this respect referred to training received by staff for their own personal and career development or for the purpose of fulfilling their job requirements. Most of the respondents said that their CRFs provided training in the areas of safety and security (95%), individual assessment (74%), mediation and conflict resolution (73%), counselling and therapy (71%), and program facilitation (70%). About one-half said that their CRF provided training in program development (55%) and education or vocational skills (53%). The extent and content of these training was not further detailed. For those houses that provided training to their staff, training was most often mandatory for security and safety, individual assessment, and mediation and conflict resolution. Staff participation in educational and vocational training was more likely to be optional.
The overwhelming majority of CRFs (82%) indicated that there was not high staff turn-over at their facility. The main reason given as to why staff continued working at the CRF was due to job satisfaction (52%). For example, it was described as challenging, rewarding, and enjoyable. Some of the other reasons given by the respondents included commitment and loyalty to their job (28%), good salary and working conditions (17%), management who cared about the recruitment and retention process (17%), and a lack of employment opportunities elsewhere (7%). For those respondents who indicated that their facility had a high staff turn-over, the reasons tended to be because of low wages and lack of benefits (57%), the high stress environment (21%), a lack of stability (14%), and leaving to work for the government (14%).
In terms of staff interaction with individuals and organizations, when asked to describe the interactions between staff and residents, 80% of the respondents said that they had daily interaction with residents. Furthermore, 43% said that they had ongoing scheduled meetings, most often weekly. Smaller proportions said that they were involved in social activities with residents (13%), including activities such as going to movies or other outside activities. Thirteen percent said that they undertook administrative duties with residents (such as intake assessment), and 11% said that they had informal and unscheduled meetings with residents.
CRFs varied in the extent to which they had contact with various groups. The largest proportion of respondents (83%) said that their CRF "always" or "often" had contact with CSC parole offices. A smaller proportion (48%) stated that they "always" or "often" had contact with CSC institutions. This is not particularly surprising because, once an offender is released from prison, the main contact would be a parole office. More than one-half of the respondents (57%) said that they "always" or "often" had contact with community members. However, smaller proportions said that they had contact with other CRFs/CCCs and families of offenders. For example, only one-third (38%) indicated that they “always” or “often” had contact with other CRFs or CCCs. Further, about one-third (36%) said that they “always” or “often” had contact with families of the offenders.
Referral and Intake Process
Respondents were also asked a number of questions about process for referring offenders to CRFs and the intake process utilized. Although the CRFs tended to vary in the type and number of referral sources, referrals were largely made by CSC. More specifically, 85% of the respondents said that they received referrals from CSC community parole officers and 65% said that they received referrals from CSC institutional parole officers. Smaller proportions said that they received referrals from offenders (44%), non-governmental organizations (28%), and from the National Parole Board (24%) (see Table 30).
The respondents described the process in place for referring offenders to their CRF. Typically, this process involved the CRF receiving a request from the parole officer about a placement for a particular offender, reviewing the request to see if there was a fit, contacting the offender, and in some in cases, interviewing the offender. Consultation with a parole officer, community assessment team, and/or a case worker sometimes occurred to help facilitate this process. This may also include an assessment of risk and needs by the CRF. Finally, a decision to accept or reject the offender is made. From this point, potential clients are notified of the decision by the CRF and some may visit the facility.
It was fairly common among the houses interviewed to have an institutional visitation process in place in order to identify potential clients prior to their acceptance and arrival to the facility (62%). This process most often involved institutional visits (84%). In some instances, it also included interviews with offenders (41%), information fairs or presentations (37%), and discussions with parole officers (8%).
The intake process at each CRF typically involved a number of steps or elements. The majority of CRFs discussed an orientation process for incoming residents consisting of administrative work, outlining the rules and expectations, introducing residents to staff, touring the facility, and assigning a room. Some CRFs indicated that a re-assessment of the resident file and/or the development an intervention plan occurred as part of intake. Some noted that the local police authorities and parole office are notified of the offender's presence. Orientation to the community also occurred in some cases.
As part of the intake process, slightly over one-half (54%) of the respondents said that they had an admissions committee. The function of the committee is largely to review applications for residency in terms of evaluating risk and needs, and the resources necessary to respond to those issues (84%). Some respondents also referred to the admissions committee as a decision-making (33%) or a consultative (7%) body. According to the respondents, a decision-making body basically rejected or accepted an applicant, while a consultative body made recommendations for treatment and intervention. The members of this committee typically consisted of house staff (88%), community members (63%), and parole officers (47%).
In terms of criteria for admission to the CRF, respondents generally said they were largely based on age, gender, and the motivation level of the client. For example, the gender of the potential client was part of the admission criteria for 85% of the houses. This is not surprising as most of the CRFs were strictly male or female houses as directed by their mandate. A slightly lower proportion (81%) indicated age as a factor in admissions. Based on the CRF directory, most of the houses provided residence to clients who are 18 years of age and older. The motivation level of the client was an important admission criteria for 60% of the CRFs. The content or degree of this motivation was not further investigated, but may include motivation to abide by house rules, participate in programs, and to follow a correctional plan. Other admission criteria were based on the presence or absence of mental illness (40%), addiction problems (37%), and physical disability (33%). History or personal background, family or personal crisis, homelessness, and employability also influenced admission for a small proportion of the CRFs (35%, 27%, 22% and 21%, respectively).
Most CRFs (86%) said that they excluded specific types of offenders from their facility. However, the number and type of offender excluded varied widely from house to house, and it was not possible in the interviews to further examine the circumstances under which these exclusions are made. The largest proportion of CRFs (67%) said that they excluded young offenders from becoming residents of the CRF. This is not surprising because it would be difficult to accommodate young offenders with older offenders Furthermore, 43% said that they excluded offenders with a mental illness or who were developmentally delayed, and 42% said that they excluded offenders with a physical disability. These exclusions are most likely because the facility cannot meet their physical and mental needs of offenders in terms of programming, supervision, medication, or building access. Furthermore, one-quarter of the facilities (25%) said that they excluded sex offenders, 23% co-accused or criminal associates, and 19% violent offenders. Other types of exclusions included: arsonists, gang members, and addicts25.
25 Some CRFs may be legally mandated to exclude specific types of offenders such as co-accused persons or criminal associates.
The respondents provided information on the rules applied to residents in the CRFs. As expected, there were many rules that may be applicable to the residents. The following are the most common rules noted:
- No alcohol and/or drugs (79%)
- Comply with curfew (78%)
- Visitors allowed only under certain conditions (58%)
- No violence or threats of violence (45%)
- Must indicate whereabouts (33%)
- Mandatory participation in meetings or activities (28%)
- Comply with chores (28%)
Although each rule was not mentioned by each respondent, some rules obviously apply to CRFs with federal offenders as clients, such as indicating their whereabouts and complying with their parole conditions.
Program and Service Delivery
All respondents said that their CRF offered programs to their clients. However, the type of program, location of delivery, and program deliverer ranged among the houses (Table 31). As shown in Figure 9, at least 60% of the respondents said that their CRF provided each of the programs listed in the interview. The most commonly offered programs were substance abuse (92%) and cognitive/living skills (89%). The smallest proportion of respondents indicated that they offered sex offender programs (59%).
The location of program delivery partly depended on the type of program being offered. Overall, programs tended to be offered more often off-site than at the CRF. The largest proportion of respondents said that they provided the following programs more often off-site than on-site: vocational training (91% versus 29%), sex offender programs (85% versus 23%), employment (80% versus 43%), parenting skills (79% versus 36%), education (73% versus 39%), culture/spirituality (71% versus 54%), and anger management (69% versus 54%). Substance abuse programs were offered both on- and off-site (62% and 59%, respectively). Cognitive/living skills programs were most often offered on-site at the CRF (67%) rather than off-site (51%).
Not surprisingly, the location of program delivery tended to determine the type of program deliverer. Similar to above, higher proportions of CRFs had vocational training, sex offender, parenting skills, employment, education, culture/spirituality, and anger management programs delivered by external individuals or organizations. As before, the exceptions were substance abuse programs where similar proportions of CRFs had programs delivered by internal and external staff, and cognitive/living skills programs where a higher proportion of CRFs had internal program staff deliverers.
The majority of programs (89%) were offered in English. However, 37% of respondents said that their CRF delivered programs in French and 13% provided programs in various Aboriginal dialects.
In addition to programs, CRFs provide a wide range of services to clients. This refers to services provided to clients on a regular basis and for which a formal process had been established. Figure 10 provides a list of services provided by CRFs. The largest proportion of CRFs said that they provided counselling services. For instance, almost all respondents (99%) said that they provided individual counselling. Large proportions also said that they provided group counselling (89%), employment counselling (89%), and family counselling (84%) services. Large proportions also provided psychological and psychiatric services (89% each).
With the exception of individual and group counselling and family visits, most services are provided in the community. This is the case for family counselling, psychological/psychiatric services, medical and legal services, services for the physically disabled and developmentally delayed, and religious/spiritual services. These results are not surprising since many practitioners such as priests, doctors, lawyers, psychologists and psychiatrists are located within the community. Services such as housing referral, employment counselling, financial assistance, and recreation are largely offered in residence and in the community. This pattern is the most feasible because the house staff can work with the residents to develop housing, financial, and employment plans as part of their transitional and reintegration process.
Respondents suggested some programs and/or services that would be helpful for their residents but which are not currently offered in the facility. Some suggestions included CSC core programs (25%), education and employment programs (17%), life skills programs (14%), mental health services (13%), and after-care services (11%).
Respondents were asked to describe the activities that their facility initiates or participates in to provide education to the public regarding its programs, services, and clients. The large majority of respondents said that they facilitated some form of community outreach including presentations to community groups (82%), arranging tours of halfway houses (71%), hosting or participating in public forums (63%), presentations to universities and colleges (59%), and interviews with the media (53%).
Respondents were also asked to describe the ways in which staff link clients to the community. The largest proportion of respondents (38%) said that staff refer clients to organizations in the community by making the initial contact. About one-quarter (25%) said that staff hold meetings with the clients' family and case management team, and a further one-quarter (24%) said that staff accompany clients into the community to make contacts. Smaller proportions said that staff provide clients with information about community resources and that staff encourage clients to be involved in the community (15% each).
Problems and Issues
Finally, respondents were asked about some of the problems or issues that may presently be facing the CRFs (Table 32). Many of the issues identified were inter-related.
Funding was the primary concern for the majority of respondents (73%). More specifically, the most commonly mentioned problem regarding funding was the uncertainty in funding levels. CRFs were also concerned about a lack of funds to adequately operate their facilities in terms of program and service delivery, and to maintain the physical conditions of the house. A lack of stability in the occupancy rate also affected funding for some CRFs.
The flow of clients in and out of the CRF was an issue for two-thirds (67%) of the respondents. For example, they noted issues with vacancies, a lack of stability in the client flow, and overcrowding.
About one-half (48%) of respondents noted issues regarding staff. Some of the specific issues related to low salary and wages, being under staffed, a lack of stability and security, a lack of training and staff development opportunities, and lack of qualified and specialized staff.
Other issues noted by some respondents related to program and service delivery (41%) or client issues (39%). For example, it was noted that there was a lack of specialized services. About one-third (38%) noted issues with contracts, such as a lack of agreement or stability in the content of contracts. Finally, 29% noted issues relating to community acceptance and involvement.
Community Residential Facilities for Aboriginals
This section examines differences between Aboriginal CRFs and all other CRFs in the sample (i.e., male, co-ed, and female CRFs).
As mentioned previously, there were nine Aboriginal CRFs included in the study. A larger proportion of Aboriginal CRFs were located in the Prairie region compared to other CRFs (56% versus 21%). Aboriginal CRFs were also more likely to be located in the Pacific region, and less likely to be located in the Quebec region than other CRFs. No Aboriginal CRFs were located in the Atlantic or Ontario regions. Proportionally fewer Aboriginal CRFs were located in large cities than other CRFs (44% versus 69%).
Larger proportions of Aboriginal CRFs rank-ordered community safety and protection, and transition and reintegration as the most reflective mandates compared to other CRFs. In turn, a smaller proportion rank-ordered treatment and rehabilitation as the most reflective mandate. With regard to goals, similar proportions of Aboriginal CRFs and other CRFs rank-ordered transition and reintegration, and accommodation as the first and most important goals. However, a larger proportion of Aboriginal CRFs rank-ordered community safety as the most important goal. From the total number of CRFs, two Aboriginal houses were the only facilities to rank-order religion and spirituality as their first and most important goal.
Overall, the physical description of Aboriginal CRFs and the other CRFs are fairly similar in structure with the distinction of Aboriginal CRFs more often providing spiritual grounds, visitor rooms, staff bedrooms, and accessibility for the disabled than other CRFs. In addition, Aboriginal CRFs were less likely to be located in a house than other CRFs. Aboriginal CRFs are more likely than other CRFs to have been operating in the last 15 years (78% versus 31%).
In general, the averages for total bed capacity, CSC allotted beds, occupied beds, and CSC occupied beds were higher for Aboriginal CRFs than other CRFs. All Aboriginal CRFs had federal offenders occupying their beds as of November 1 st , 2002 compared to 87% of other CRFs. Of those CRFs with federal offenders, Aboriginal CRFs were more likely to have offenders supervised on statutory release with residency than other CRFs (88% and 52%, respectively). While no Aboriginal CRFs had offenders supervised on federal day parole on accelerated release, almost one-half of other CRFs (46%) had these specific cases. In addition, Aboriginal CRFs were less likely to have federal beds available for females than other CRFs (14% versus 41%).
The average budget and per diem rates were slighter higher for Aboriginal CRFs than other CRFs. For example, Aboriginal CRFs had an average primary per diem rate of $112 compared to $94 for other CRFs. Fairly similar proportions of Aboriginal and other CRFs had alternative sources of funding. However, Aboriginal CRFs were less likely to receive funding from provincial/territorial corrections and charitable donations. Both Aboriginal and other CRFs were considered charitable or not-for-profit organizations, and had a board of directors.
Higher proportions of Aboriginal CRFs than other CRFs reported that their facility “always” or "often" had contact with CSC institutions, CSC parole offices, and community members. Similar proportions of Aboriginal and other CRFs "always" or "often" had contact with the family of offenders, and other CRFs and/or CCCs.
The referral sources for Aboriginal and other CRFs was fairly similar with the exception of Aboriginal CRFs who received a larger proportion of referrals from institutional parole officers (89% versus 61%). In addition, a larger proportion of Aboriginal CRFs had an institutional visitation process in place to identify clients (89% versus 59%).
Fairly similar proportions of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal CRFs had an admissions committee as part of their referral and intake process (67% and 53%, respectively). Not surprisingly, Aboriginal CRFs were more likely to have Aboriginal representatives as part of their admissions committee members (33% versus 3%). In contrast, larger proportions of non-Aboriginal CRFs had community members (68% versus 33%) and police officers (41% versus 17%). No Aboriginal CRFs had a board of directors as part of their admissions committee.
The admission criteria for Aboriginal CRFs and other CRFs was similar with the exception of four areas. A greater proportion of Aboriginal CRFs had admission into their facility on the basis of age (100% versus 78%), mental illness (56% versus 38%), homelessness (44% versus 19%), and employment (44% versus 17%) compared to the other CRFs. The majority of Aboriginal and other CRFs excluded certain types of offenders from their facility. The main differences with regard to exclusions was that Aboriginal CRFs were more likely to exclude sex offenders and offenders with alcohol and/or drug addictions, whereas other CRFs were more likely to exclude offenders with physical disabilities and co-accused persons.
For the majority of program provisions, Aboriginal and other CRFs were similar. However, a larger proportion of Aboriginal CRFs than other CRFs provided culture and/or spiritual programs (100% versus 71%), sex offender programs (78% versus 57%), and educational programs (100% versus 79%). Most of the Aboriginal and other CRFs were similar with regard to service provisions; however, a greater proportion of Aboriginal CRFs provided access to services for the developmentally delayed, physically disabled, and religious/spiritual persons compared to other CRFs.
Community outreach efforts were similar among Aboriginal and other CRFs. However, a larger proportion of Aboriginal CRFs hosted or participated in public forums (78% versus 61%) compared to other CRFs, while a larger proportion of other CRFs than Aboriginal CRFs provided education to the public through media interviews (58% versus 11%).
A smaller proportion of Aboriginal CRFs had current issues with regard to program and service delivery (22% versus 43%), clients (22% versus 41%), and contracts (22% versus 40%) compared to other CRFs. However, Aboriginal CRFs were more likely to raise the issue of funding (89% versus 71%).
Community Residential Facilities for Women
This section compares differences between female CRFs and all other CRFs in the sample (i.e., male, co-ed, and Aboriginal CRFs).
As previously noted, all female CRFs were invited to participate in this study. A total of 20 female CRFs were interviewed26. A larger proportion of female CRFs were located in the Ontario region than other CRFs (30% versus 17%). However, a smaller proportion were found in the Pacific and Quebec regions. Additionally, female CRFs were more likely to be located in large cities than other CRFs (75% versus 63%).
26 There was one facility that specifically focused on Aboriginal females, however, this was included in the Aboriginal sample.
Upon examining the mandate of each group, a larger proportion of female CRFs rank-ordered a humane approach to care as the first and most reflective mandate than other CRFs, whereas a smaller proportion rank-ordered community safety and protection.
In addition, female CRF were more likely to rank order accommodation, and support and assistance as the most important goals of their facility than other CRFs. Again, less emphasis was placed on community safety for the female houses.
Overall, female and other CRFs had similar physical amenities. However, a lower proportion of female CRFs had visitor rooms available and provisions to accommodate the disabled than other CRFs. Female CRFs have been in operation for fewer years than other CRFs. For instance, 55% of CRFs have been open for less than 15 years compared to 31% of all other CRFs. All female CRFs were located in a house setting compared to 76% of all other CRFs.
Not surprisingly, a much larger proportion of female CRFs accommodated the children of the clients at the facility compared to the other CRFs (70% versus 14%).
Overall, female CRFs had a lower capacity and occupancy than other CRFs. For example, the averages for total bed capacity, CSC allotted beds, occupied beds, and CSC occupied beds were lower for female CRFs than other CRFs. Female CRFs were less likely to have beds occupied by federal offenders than other CRFs, but more likely to have beds occupied by provincial/territorial offenders. For those CRFs with federal offenders, a lower proportion of female CRFs had beds occupied by federal offenders on statutory release with residency than other CRFs (31% versus 63%).
The average staff and operational budget for female CRFs was lower compared to the budget for all other CRFs. However, the average per diem rates were fairly similar for female and other CRFs. A slightly larger proportion of female CRFs received alternative sources of funding than other CRFs (85% versus 74%). For example, higher proportions of female CRFs received funding from provincial/territorial corrections, provincial social services, and charitable donations. Female and other CRFs can be equally characterized as charitable or not-for-profit organizations under the direction of a board of directors. Not surprisingly, female CRFs are more likely to be associated with the Elizabeth Fry Society compared to other CRFs.
Female CRFs are less likely to “always” to "often" maintain contact with CSC institutions, CSC parole offices, and families of offenders when compared to other CRFs.
With the exception of referrals from offenders, female CRFs proportionally receive fewer referrals from community parole officers, institutional parole officers, non-governmental organizations, and the National Parole Board. Additionally, a smaller proportion of female CRFs also have an institutional visitation process in place compared to other CRFs (45% versus 68%).
A smaller proportion of female CRFs had an admissions committee as part of their referral and intake process compared to other CRFs (30% versus 63%). With regard to committee members, the admissions committee was more diversified for female CRFs. For instance, a larger proportion of female CRFs had police officers (83% versus 30%), parole officers (67% versus 43%), and community members (83% versus 59%).
It is not surprising that gender was an admission criteria for all the female CRFs.
However, mental illness, homelessness, and employment status was not part of the admission criteria for any of the female CRFs. In addition, smaller proportions of female CRFs than other CRFs admitted clients on the basis of physical disabilities (10% versus 41%), addiction problems (15% versus 45%), personal/family crisis (5% versus 34%), motivation to change (30% versus 71%), and history/background (5% versus 45%).
Similar proportions of female and other CRFs excluded specific types of offenders from their facility. The female and other CRFs were very similar in the type of offender excluded. However, a greater proportion of female CRFs excluded offenders with physical disabilities (59% versus 37%) and young offenders (94% versus 58%). No female CRFs reported that they excluded sex offenders.
Female CRFs were less likely to offer employment (65% versus 81%) and vocational (55% versus 76%) programs compared to other CRFs. Furthermore, a significantly lower proportion of female houses provided sex offender programs (20% versus 73%). This is not surprisingly given only 19 federal women offenders were identified as sex offenders in 1995 (CSC, unknown date). Compared to other CRFs, a lower proportion of female CRFs provided services in the areas of the developmentally delayed, physically disabled, legal, medical, financial, religious/spiritual, psychological, psychiatric, and family counselling.
Female and other CRFs were very similar with regard to their participation in community outreach initiatives.
There were three main areas of difference between female and other CRFs when exploring current issues facing the facility. A larger proportion of female CRFs reported problems with staff (80% versus 37%) and clients (55% versus 34%) compared to other CRFs. However, a larger proportion of other CRFs reported issues with community acceptance or involvement (34% versus 15%).
CONCLUSION
This report signifies a long-awaited need to profile community-based residential facilities and their residents. The characteristics of federal offenders who have resided in CRFs from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 2003 are detailed alongside a description of a sample of CRFs in Canada (n=79). This profile provides preliminary information that can allow us to identify some reintegration, programming, and policy strategies with regard to residence for offenders under supervision in the community. It is anticipated that such an investigation could lead to a second phase in this research process, one that explores the best practices of CRFs and, more specifically, ways to improve and share current operational and management approaches. The following briefly summarizes the results of the research including links to past research and address implications for programs and policy.
Profile of CRF Residents
Offenders released to CRFs present the highest proportion of those released to the community. In 2002/03, more than one-half (56%) of all offenders released were released to CRFs or independent agencies. An additional 5% were released to CCCs, and 39% were released to the community without any residency. In general, the proportion of offenders released into CRFs has increased over the last few years, while the proportion of offenders released to CCCs or into the community has remained stable.
In 2002/03, similar proportions of CRF residents were released to the Ontario, Quebec, Prairie, and Pacific regions. Over the years, the proportion of CRF residents released to the Quebec region have decreased, the proportion released to the Pacific region has increased, while the proportion released to the Prairie region has fluctuated. Any changes in the place of offender supervision over the years has implications for CRFs in each region both in terms of vacancy and overcrowding. This has the potential to impact resources for CRFs including staffing, funding, programs, and services. In addition, CRF residents were more likely to be released to the Quebec and Pacific regions than CCC residents. Further, residents in CRFs were more likely to be released to the Pacific region than other offenders supervised in the community. These findings may be the result of the number of CRFs and CCCs available in each region, or the decision-making trends of the National Parole Board.
In 2002/03, two-thirds of CRF residents (67%) were released on day parole. The type of release among CRF residents has changed over the years, with larger proportions of CRF residents on statutory release (from 22% to 30%). These changes may present difficulties for CRFs in terms of the management and supervision of its residents given the higher risk of this release type. Compared to CCC residents and other offenders serving time in the community, CRF residents were more likely to be released on day parole and less likely to be released on statutory release. Although CRFs may be encountering a slightly higher risk population to supervise, it appears that this problem may be more prevalent in CCCs and in the community generally.
Prior to entering a CRF, some offenders resided in the community, although typically not for long periods of time. For example, in 2002/03, 54% of CRF residents entered the CRF on the same day as they were released from federal custody. About one-third (36%) spent between one day and one year in the community, and 11% spent more than one year in the community prior to entering the CRF. Once entering the CRF, on average, residents spent slightly less than three months (83 days) in a CRF. This confirms the findings of other research (e.g., Allen et al., 1978) that has indicated that few halfway house clients remain in residence longer than three months. Over the last few years, CRF residents have been spending less time in CRFs (on average - from more than four months in 1997/98 to less than three months in 2002/03). Compared to CCC residents, CRF residents spend more time in the community prior to entering the residence and more time in the respective facility.
The relatively short period of residency in CRFs indicates a need for programs and services to be offered immediately upon entry to the CRF. This has been emphasized in previous research (Allen et al., 1978). This is especially pertinent with regard to employment and accommodation needs in order to secure a job and home. Research has shown that the first six months of conditional release is characteristic of high needs compared to needs after one year (Motiuk, 1998). However, addressing client needs within this short time is a difficult challenge due to resource constraints. For example, a program may be in progress when an offender enters a CRF, and therefore he/she may not be able to participate until a later date. Alternatively, there may not be enough clients suited to participate in a program at one time in order for it to occur. In addition, the motivation of new residents may be low during the initial period of residency, and it may be require time to attain their trust and willingness to participate in programming. Despite these obstacles, the first few months appear to represent a critical period for programming .
Similar to the general offender population serving time in the community, CRF residents can be characterized as male, Caucasian, single, and in their mid-30's. The profile of CRF residents has changed somewhat over the years, with increases in the proportions of women, single residents, age, and educational attainment. CRF residents in general were similar to CCC residents, except that CRFs had more female and Asian residents, and residents had higher levels of education. Larger differences were found between CRF residents and offenders supervised in the community. CRFs had more women and Caucasian residents, and residents were more likely to be single, younger, and with higher levels of education and more often employed than other offenders supervised in the community. In contrast to previous research (Seiter, 1978; Ryan, 1978), this current research indicates that halfway house residents are less likely to have poor education and employment backgrounds than other offenders serving time in the community.
Overall, there appears to be a slight changing of the demographic profile of CRF residents whereby the needs of older residents and perhaps a more racially diverse population require consideration. This may present challenges for both programs and services as there continues to be increasing emphasis on culturally sensitive elements for both the institutional and community offender populations. The use of CRFs for women offenders also represent an area to direct attention for gender specific needs. Furthermore, the provision of educational and employment opportunities in CRFs certainly demonstrate the potential for numerous client benefits.
In 2002/03, the largest proportions of CRF residents were incarcerated for robbery, property and drug-related offences. On average, they were serving sentences for about 4½ years. The offence characteristics of CRF residents has changed across the years, with an increase in the proportion of residents incarcerated for homicide/attempted murder and a decrease in those incarcerated for sexual assault. The increase of CRF residents incarcerated for homicide/attempted murder is consistent with an increase in the population of lifers residing in CRFs. In general, it appears that residents in CCCs and other offenders supervised in the community have more serious, violent offence profiles than offenders residing in CRFs.
CRF residents have fairly extensive past involvement in the criminal justice system, in particular relating to previous adult court convictions, previous community supervision, and previous provincial terms of incarceration. However, they have a minimal extent of failures. Over the years, the proportions of CRF residents with failures and experience with incarceration appears to be increasing, which may indicate the need for an increased focus on the offence cycle in program delivery during the initial months of release. In general, CRF residents had less extensive involvement in the federal system and fewer past failures than CCC residents and other offenders serving time in the community.
In 2002/03, about one-third (36%) of CRF residents were assessed as high need at the time of release, particularly in the areas of personal/emotional issues, substance abuse, and associates/social interaction. Furthermore, the majority of CRF residents were assessed as medium risk to re-offend, medium reintegration potential, and having medium or high motivation for intervention. This substantiates what was mentioned previously about CRFs encountering problems in programming and supervision due to the motivation of the residents and their potential to reintegrate. Clearly, some residents present more challenges and thus may require more intensive intervention.
Over the years, the need, risk, and reintegration levels of CRF residents have changed. For instance, larger proportions of CRF residents currently have substantial need at release relating to substance abuse, personal/emotional issues, and attitudes. In contrast, smaller proportions have substantial need in the areas of employment, marital/family issues, and community functioning. Furthermore, the proportion of CRF residents assessed as high risk to re-offend, low reintegration potential, and low motivation for intervention has decreased over the years. This may indicate that risk and reintegration issues are being successfully targeted inside the institution and preparing the offender for release.
However, these findings also indicate that due to the changing needs of the population, it may be essential to target these specific needs through specialized programs and services. As evidenced, there is clearly a need for treatment programs for substance abuse, programs that focus on the personal/emotional indicators such as self-esteem, responsibility, coping and problem solving skills, and programs targeting attitude-related needs such as positive supportive relationships and pro-social role models . There has also been demonstrated lower needs in the areas of family/marital issues and community functioning. This may be the result of increased programs surrounding family violence and parenting, family visits, and bridging the gap between families and the community. High need with regard to employment has decreased which may indicate a growing emphasis on institutional employment opportunities, work release programs, vocational training, and facilitating relationships between CRFs and businesses in the community.
In general, CRF residents appear to represent a lower need and risk population, with higher levels of reintegration potential and motivation, than CCC residents and other offenders supervised in the community. This has implications for successful reintegration, supervision by parole offices, and the operation of CRFs and CCCs. For instance, CRF residents may have more success by nature of their lower risk and need, and also due to their increased support and supervision in CRFs. Community parole officers and CCCs may have more difficulties managing and supervising CCC residents and other offenders supervised in the community due to their more serious offence profiles, extensive criminal histories, and higher needs and risk. The functioning of each CRF may attempt to adapt their programs and services to the CRF population and such adaptation may be based on this lower risk and need group. However, as a group in themselves, CRF residents will continue to present unique programming and management obstacles for CRFs, but the differences present within this group may articulate the specific areas in which intervention must concentrate.
Aboriginal CRF residents were examined in more detail. In general, differences found between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal CRF residents are reflective of differences found in previous research between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders in general (Motiuk & Nafekh, 2000; Trevethan et al., 2002). It appears that Aboriginal CRF residents may be facing a more difficult challenge than non-Aboriginal CRF residents with regard to successfully reintegrating into the community via residence in a CRF. The importance of reintegration strategies for Aboriginal offenders cannot be understated. One of the corporate objectives for CSC is to reduce the incarceration rate of Aboriginal offenders. The provision of programs and services in a place of residence can be objectively viewed as a positive and healthy option for Aboriginal offenders returning to the community. The combination of supervision, support, and accommodation may facilitate successful reintegration especially during their initial phase of release. Although, there are very few Aboriginal specific CRFs in Canada, Aboriginal offenders continue to represent a diverse population with unique needs. Accordingly, the elements of this specific environment require further exploration in terms of programs, services, and outcome to various degrees. The placement of Aboriginal offenders in non-Aboriginal CRFs also requires attention, especially with regard to the extent to which their cultural and spiritual needs are facilitated.
Similarly, women CRF residents were examined in more detail in order to determine whether differences existed. As with Aboriginal offenders, differences found between women and men CRF residents are reflective of the differences found in previous research between women and men offenders in general (Trevethan & Rastin, 2003; Trevethan, 1999). It appears that women in CRFs may represent a more culturally diverse population, but at the same time, represent a minimal risk group with higher levels of reintegration and motivation compared to males in CRFs. At release, female CRF residents demonstrate a higher need with marital/family issues, while male CRF residents encounter greater need with the attitude domain. Currently, there are more women under supervision in the community than incarcerated in federal institutions (Trevethan & Rastin, 2003). This population requires special attention to their gender-specific needs including the areas of employment, accommodation, and family responsibilities. Many women offenders may be returning to their families to resume child care responsibilities while having to maintain stable employment. For example, their criminogenic needs and offence profiles indicate specialized intervention focusing on drug abuse, as well as marital and family issues. The transition from the institution into the community may be appropriately facilitated by a halfway house to stabilize their adjustment to the new environment. Women may require additional or unique support systems, and a continuous, comprehensive plan of reintegration compared to men. Further research is required about the benefits of women-specific CRFs as a service in themselves, and in relation to co-ed facilities.
Description of CRFs
In addition to providing a profile of CRF residents, this project also provided a description of CRFs across Canada. Of the 151 CRFs in operation in Canada in 2002/03, a stratified random sample of about one-half of the CRFs (n=79) were chosen for further examination. This included 39 male CRFs, 20 female CRFs, 11 co-ed CRFs, and nine Aboriginal CRFs. Phone interviews were conducted with representatives from the selected CRFs, such as executive directors and directors.
About one-half (49%) of the CRFs have been open for more than 20 years, and typically they said that they opened for reasons relating to responding to the needs of offenders and the community.
About one-half of the respondents said that their mandate was to provide programs, services, and shelter to individuals. Other mandates included assisting offenders in their reintegration and rehabilitation process. When asked to rank order the most reflective mandate, most CRFs ranked ordered community protection, followed by transition/reintegration and treatment/rehabilitation, as the most reflective of their facility. Community protection or safety, and transition or reintegration were also the top ranked goals according to the respondents. These findings have been echoed in previous research (Allen et al., 1978; Seiter, 1978). When asked to describe their philosophical approach, about one-half of the respondents said that it was based on a client-centered or humanistic approach.
CRFs can typically be characterized as being located in urban areas. Two-thirds of the CRFs were located in large cities and about one-quarter in small cities. When further describing the type of community, most said that they were located in low to middle income areas, and typically in residential areas of the city. The physical structure and layout varied among CRFs. However, many were one or more storey houses, with resident bedrooms, program and staff offices, and kitchen and laundry facilities. These findings replicate the results of Seiter (Seiter, 1978; Seiter et al., 1977) with regard to the presence of halfway houses in urban, low socio-economic areas. Overall bed capacity ranged from 4 to 82 beds.
CSC bed capacity ranged from 0 to 73 beds with an average of 14 beds allotted for federal offenders. As of November 1 st , 2002, the number of CSC beds occupied ranged from 0 to 54 beds with an average of 12 beds occupied. Only nine CRFs interviewed did not have beds specifically allotted for CSC clients, and only 10 did not have beds occupied by federal offenders as of November 1 st , 2002. Some CRFs also had provincial offender residents (42%) and residents from the general community (34%).
Almost all of the CRFs (96%) currently had a contract in place with CSC. For those with contract provisions with CSC, the primary per diem rate ranged from $4 to $210 per bed. In 2002/03, although the operating budget varied greatly among CRFs, the average annual budget for staffing was $378,000, and the operational/management budget was $227,000. About three-quarters of CRFs had alternative sources of funding, such as charitable donations/fundraising, provincial corrections, and provincial social services.
CRFs were described as largely charitable and/or not-for-profit organizations (87%). They were also associated with Halfway House Associations, Salvation Army, St. Leonard's Society, Elizabeth Fry Society, and John Howard Society. Almost all had a board of directors, whose functions ranged from governance and policy-making to organization and operations.
The organizational structure can be described as hierarchical with a number of different roles and responsibilities. The role of the executive director included managing staff, finances and administration, administrating programs and services, and ensuring compliance with house standards. It appears that CRFs were more likely to employ females than males. The educational background of CRF staff was primarily criminology and social work. Training was provided to CRF staff in a number of areas, such as safety and security, individual assessment, mediation and conflict resolution, counselling, program facilitation, program development, and education or vocation. The importance of staff and training has been stated elsewhere (Allen et al., 1978). In contrast to findings from other research (e.g., Allen et al., 1978), most respondents indicated that their CRF did not have a high turn-over rate.
CRFs varied in the extent to which they said they had contact with various organizations and individuals. For example, more than 80% of respondents said that their CRF “always” or “often” contact with CSC parole offices. About one-half said that they had a great deal of contact with CSC institutions. This is to be expected because, once an offender is released from prison, the main contact would be a parole office. In addition, more than one-half of the respondents said that they had a great deal of contact with community members. Only about one-third said that they had contact with other CRFs/CCCs and families of offenders.
In describing the referral process, it was evident that CRFs varied in the type and number of referral sources. However, referrals were primarily made by CSC - either community parole officers or institutional parole officers. The referral process typically involved the CRF receiving a request from the parole officer about a placement for a particular offender, reviewing the request to see if there was a fit, contacting the offender, and in some cases, interviewing the offender. Consultation with a parole officer, community assessment team and/or case worker sometimes occurred. Furthermore, some CRFs had an institutional visitation process in place to identify potential residents for the facility. About one-half of the CRFs had an admissions committee ho were responsible for reviewing applications for residency in terms of evaluating risk and needs.
Respondents generally said that admission criteria was largely based on age, gender, and motivation level of the client. Most CRFs said that they excluded specific types of offenders from their facility. Two-thirds said that they excluded young offenders, 43% excluded those with mental illness or who were developmentally delayed, and one-quarter excluded sex offenders, and co-accused/criminal associates.
All CRFs interviewed offered programs. However, the type of program, location of delivery, and program deliverer varied from facility to facility. Substance abuse and cognitive/living skills programs were the most commonly offered programs. Programs focusing on vocation, sex offenders, parenting, employment, education, culture/spirituality, and anger were most likely to be offered at off-site locations. A range of services were also provided, primarily focusing on counselling (i.e., individual, group, family, psychological, psychiatric). With the exception of individual and group counselling, and family visits, most services were provided in the community.
Residents were linked to the community through staff referrals to community organizations, staff-offender meetings, staff visits to the community with the residents, staff providing residents with information, and overall staff encouragement. CRFs also participated in activities to provide education to the public about its facility. This included presentations to the community, tours of halfway houses, public forums, presentations to universities and colleges, and media interviews.
Respondents also identified some current issues facing their facility. Funding was the primary concern for three-quarters of the respondents. Previous research (Allen et al., 1978) has prioritized funding as the greatest challenge for halfway houses. Client flow was another concern for two-thirds of CRFs. Smaller proportions were concerned with staffing, program and service delivery, contract source, clients overall, and community acceptance. Many of the issues identified were related to each other in that funding problems often created further problems for client flow, staffing, and program and service delivery. These issues demonstrate the need to further examine these types of problems in future research, while indicating some areas for improvement among halfway houses. This may include improving communication between contract providers and CRFs, more training for staff, increasing resources for programs and services, and presenting CRFs with confidence about their future stability.
As a final point of comparison, the nine Aboriginal CRFs and 20 female CRFs were examined in more detail. This allowed for some key differences to be highlighted in the purpose, operations, and program/service delivery for Aboriginal and female-specific CRFs. These differences are important to acknowledge since these types of houses may be offering distinct provisions to a specific population with unique needs. At the same time, some areas of similarities were noted in order to emphasize the issues that are common among all CRFs regardless of a targeted clientele group.
In general, Aboriginal CRFs are similar to other CRFs with regard to physical structure, type of organization, presence of a board of directors, and sources of funding. However, Aboriginal CRFs are more recent entities, had more contact with other organizations, had slightly higher average budgets and per diem rates, and were more likely to visit institutions as part of their referral process than other CRFs. In addition, Aboriginal CRFs were more likely to place emphasis on community protection and safety as part of their mandate and goals than other CRFs. Aboriginal CRFs were more likely to have beds allotted and occupied by federal offenders, especially offenders supervised on statutory release with a residency condition. There were some differences in the referral sources, admissions criteria, and type of exclusions for Aboriginal and other CRFs. As expected, Aboriginal CRFs had greater access to religious and spiritual programs and services than other CRFs. Aboriginal CRFs identified fewer issues with regard to clients, and program and service delivery than other CRFs.
Female CRFs were similar to other CRFs with regard to physical structure, and similar proportions were charitable or not-for-profit organizations and had a board of directors. However, female CRFs have been in operation for a shorter period of time than other CRFs. Compared to other CRFs, female CRFs are more likely to accommodate the children of their residents, are more likely to be associated with Elizabeth Fry Society, but less likely to receive referrals from a variety of sources, and are less likely to maintain contact with other organizations. In addition, female CRFs were less likely to emphasize community safety and protection as part of their mandate and goals than other CRFs. Overall, females had fewer beds allotted and occupied by federal offenders, but a larger proportion of female CRFs had beds occupied by provincial/territorial offenders than other CRFs. Female CRFs had less stringent admission criteria for their potential clients than other CRFs, but similar proportions excluded certain types of offenders. Compared to other CRFs, lower proportions of female CRFs offered educational and vocational programs, and generally, were less likely to offer most of the services. Staffing was a more frequent issue among female CRFs than other CRFs.
Although the CRFs in this study are quite similar with regard to the ranked importance of specific mandates and goals (i.e., community protection/safety, transition/reintegration), the overall mandate and philosophy further emphasized program and service delivery and a client-centred, humanistic approach. As indicated in their philosophical approach, the focus for many halfway houses was enhancing individual development and providing a supportive environment. In addition, the strongest focus in CRF program delivery was cognitive and living skills, and substance abuse needs. Service provisions also strongly focused on counselling. As a collective, the operations of CRFs were similar with regard to having a CSC contract, the presence of a board of directors, referral sources, admission criteria, and the overall organizational structure.
Despite some of these similarities, it has been difficult to conceptually form models or types of CRFs. The models described by Latessa & Allen (1982) do not provide a framework to develop current models or types of halfway houses since the past findings use the offender's point of entry into the halfway house to form the models. As such, all three models can be applied to different circumstances in which an offender comes to reside in a halfway house but ultimately do not form comprehensive models of the structure and operations of halfway houses. Most of the CRFs described in this study are similar to "traditional halfway houses" as described in the Task Force on Community-based Residential Centres (Outerbridge, 1973). For example, "pre-release" centres modeled CCCs, while "post-release" were similar to CRFs. Some CRFs could also be identified as "treatment centres" where the primary focus is drug and alcohol addictions. Similar to the conclusions of the Task Force, CRFs in this study also provided a number of different programs and services, while providing residence to different clientele groups including federal and provincial offenders, and individuals from the community in general.
Despite the inability to form models of CRFs, a better understanding of the structural and operational framework of CRFs has been revealed. In themselves, each CRF can be viewed as a fairly diversified and unique social environment. Further, it is important to note that the interview could not possibly grasp the entire nature of each CRF including all its intricacies and nuances. As noted in past research:
Halfway houses are therefore diverse, differentially operated and funded, and administratively heterogeneous. No adequate existing typology was found which allow generalizations across types, or provide an adequate data base with which to assess differential impacts by types of houses or types of offenders (Latessa & Allen, 1982: 158).
This research provides a recent and fairly comprehensive picture of CRFs and their residents in Canada. As indicated in the profile, the challenge for CRFs in the coming years is to meet the changing and diverse needs of its clientele, while potentially altering or expanding programs and services in accordance with these needs. This obstacle may be increasingly difficult to overcome given some of the issues identified in the director interviews. There were also distinct differences between CRF residents, CCC residents, and other community-supervised offenders. These results signify the need for different intervention and management approaches.
Despite the findings presented in this study, further investigation into the design and operations of CRFs may be necessary. Furthermore, a large scale evaluation of CRFs in Canada is an appropriate next step for future research in this area. An examination of the effectiveness of CRFs will aid in determining the impact of CRFs on its residents, staff, CSC, and the community. The use of various outcome measures to indicate treatment success and clientele characteristics associated with program success will assist in determining the purpose and benefits of CRFs for federal offenders in Canada.
REFERENCES
Allen, H.E., Carlson, E.W., Parks, E.C., & Seiter, R.P. (1978). Halfway Houses . Rockville, Maryland: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct . Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1998). Does correctional treatment work (in) pubic protection through offender risk management: Putting research into practice . Longmont, Colorado: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.
Beha, J.A. (1975). Halfway houses in adult corrections: The law, practice and results. Criminal Law Bulletin, 11 , 435-477.
Boe, R., Sinclair, R., & Vuong, B. (2002). Profiles of the federal offender population by security level, 1997 and 2001 . Draft report prepared for the Correctional Service of Canada.
Canadian Training Institute (2001). Toward an evaluation of Community-based Residential Facilities (CRFs) in Canada: A review of the literature . Toronto, ON: Canadian Training Institute. Prepared for the Correctional Service of Canada.
Correctional Service of Canada (2003). Offender profile . Ottawa, ON: Corporate Reporting System, Performance Management.
Correctional Service of Canada (2002). Report of the study group reviewing the role of Community Correctional Centres . Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.
Correctional Service of Canada (1999, February). Community supervision: Standard Operating Practices 700-06 . Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.
Correctional Service of Canada (unknown date). Case studies of female sex offenders in the Correctional Service of Canada . Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada. Available at: www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/sexoffender/female/toc_e.shtml
Home Office Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) (1998). Delivery on enhanced level of community supervision: Report of a thematic inspection of the work of approved probation and bail hostels. London, England: HM Inspectorate of Probation.
Knapp, K., Burke, P., & Carter, M. (1992). Residential Community Correctional Facilities: Current practices and policy. United States: National Institute of Corrections.
Latessa, E., & Allen, H.E. (1982). Halfway houses and parole: A national assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10 , 153-163.
Motiuk, L. (1998). Profiling federal offenders on conditional release. Forum on Corrections Research, 10(2) , 11-14.
Motiuk, L., & Nafekh, M. (2000). Aboriginal offenders in federal corrections: A profile. Forum on Corrections Research, 12(1) , 10-15.
Outerbridge, W.R. (1973). Report of the task force on Community-based Residential Centres ., Ottawa, ON: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
Pearce, W.H. (1970). Reintegration of the offender into the community: New resources and perspectives. Canadian Journal of Corrections, 12 , 446-481.
Ryan, S. (1978). Are halfway house clients different? Jefferson City, Missouri: Division of Research, Missouri Board of Probation and Parole.
Sauvé, R. (1977). Community involvement in criminal justice: Report of the task force on the role of the private sector in criminal justice . Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.
Seiter, R. (1978). Evaluation research as a feedback mechanism for criminal justice policy making: A critical analysis . San Francisco, California: R and E Research Associates, Inc.
Seiter, R.P., Carlson, E.W., Bowman, H.H., Grandfield, J.J., & Beran, N.J. (1977). Halfway houses: National evaluation program, Phase 1, Summary Report . Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice.
Stewart, G., Reynolds, B., & Graham, E. (2000). Report of the task force on community corrections: Towards a principles-based relationship, Draft Report . Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.
Sullivan, D.C., Siegel, L.J., & Clear, T.R. (1974). The halfway house 10 years later: Reappraisal of correctional innovation. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, 16, 188-197.
Trevethan, S. (1999). Women in federal and provinical-territorial correctional facilities. Forum on Corrections Research, 11(3) , 9-12.
Trevethan, S., Crutcher, N., & Moore, J.P. (2002). A profile of federal offenders designated as dangerous offenders or serving long-term supervision orders . Research Report R-125. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.
Trevethan, S., Moore, J.P., & Rastin, C. (2002). A profile of Aboriginal offenders in federal facilities and serving time in the community. Forum on Corrections Research, 14(3) , 17-19.
Trevethan, S., & Rastin, C. (2003). A profile of offenders in the community. Forum on Corrections Research, 15(1), 12-15.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: TABLES
| Table 1 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Releases from Federal Custody | |||||||
| 1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-00 | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | Total | |
Total Releases |
6815 |
6588 |
5987 |
5688 |
6432 |
6776 |
38286 |
Releases to CRFs (1) |
3638 |
3814 |
3407 |
3226 |
3796 |
3765 |
21646 |
Releases to CCCs |
417 |
301 |
274 |
238 |
305 |
305 |
1840 |
All other releases (2) |
2760 |
2473 |
2306 |
2224 |
2331 |
2706 |
14800 |
|
|||||||
Total Individuals Released |
6377 |
6130 |
5631 |
5350 |
5986 |
6542 |
36016 |
Individuals released to CRFs (1) |
3256 |
3461 |
3167 |
3038 |
3505 |
3695 |
20122 |
Individuals released to CCCs |
395 |
284 |
265 |
227 |
289 |
300 |
1760 |
All other individuals released (2) |
2726 |
2385 |
2199 |
2085 |
2192 |
2547 |
14134 |
(1) Includes releases to independent agencies.
(2) Excludes releases on warrant of expiry, expiration of sentence, court orders, transfers to foreign countries, lieutenant governor orders, and the deceased.
| Table 2 | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | |||||||||||||||
| CRFs |
|
||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Region |
3256 |
100% |
3461 |
100% |
3167 |
100% |
3038 |
100% |
3505 |
100% |
3695 |
100% |
20122 |
100% |
|
Atlantic |
358 |
11% |
439 |
13% |
391 |
12% |
378 |
12% |
392 |
11% |
390 |
11% |
2348 |
12% |
* |
Quebec |
875 |
27% |
872 |
25% |
751 |
24% |
647 |
21% |
821 |
23% |
851 |
23% |
4817 |
24% |
*** |
Ontario |
819 |
25% |
834 |
24% |
729 |
23% |
726 |
24% |
823 |
23% |
901 |
24% |
4832 |
24% |
NS |
Prairie |
719 |
22% |
793 |
23% |
799 |
25% |
789 |
26% |
780 |
22% |
770 |
21% |
4650 |
23% |
*** |
Pacific |
485 |
15% |
523 |
15% |
497 |
16% |
498 |
16% |
689 |
20% |
783 |
21% |
3475 |
17% |
*** |
CCCs |
|||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Region |
395 |
100% |
284 |
100% |
265 |
100% |
227 |
100% |
289 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
1760 |
100% |
|
Atlantic |
120 |
30% |
105 |
37% |
105 |
40% |
94 |
41% |
108 |
37% |
124 |
41% |
656 |
37% |
* |
Quebec |
127 |
32% |
41 |
14% |
35 |
13% |
14 |
6% |
15 |
5% |
28 |
9% |
260 |
15% |
*** |
Ontario |
41 |
10% |
43 |
15% |
55 |
21% |
60 |
26% |
89 |
31% |
76 |
25% |
364 |
21% |
*** |
Prairie |
45 |
11% |
49 |
17% |
47 |
18% |
42 |
19% |
60 |
21% |
62 |
21% |
305 |
17% |
** |
Pacific |
62 |
16% |
46 |
16% |
23 |
9% |
17 |
7% |
17 |
6% |
10 |
3% |
175 |
10% |
*** |
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 2a |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Region |
||||||
|
2002-03 |
|||||
|
CRFs |
CCCs |
Other Releases |
|||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
Region |
3695 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
2547 |
100% |
Atlantic |
390 |
11% |
124 |
41% |
258 |
10% |
Quebec |
851 |
23% |
28 |
9% |
696 |
27% |
Ontario |
901 |
24% |
76 |
25% |
574 |
23% |
Prairie |
770 |
21% |
62 |
21% |
832 |
33% |
Pacific |
783 |
21% |
10 |
3% |
187 |
7% |
Table 3 |
||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Release Type |
||||||||||||||||
CRFs |
||||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
||||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
||
Type of Release |
3256 |
100% |
3461 |
100% |
3166 |
100% |
3037 |
100% |
3505 |
100% |
3695 |
100% |
20120 |
100% |
||
Day parole |
2313 |
71% |
2621 |
76% |
2400 |
76% |
2254 |
74% |
2471 |
70% |
2471 |
67% |
14530 |
72% |
*** |
|
Full parole |
237 |
7% |
136 |
4% |
111 |
4% |
105 |
3% |
101 |
3% |
103 |
3% |
793 |
4% |
*** |
|
Statutory release |
706 |
22% |
704 |
20% |
655 |
21% |
678 |
22% |
927 |
26% |
1117 |
30% |
4787 |
24% |
*** |
|
Long term supervision order |
0 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
6 |
0% |
4 |
0% |
10 |
0% |
** |
|
CCCs |
||||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
||||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
||
Type of Release |
395 |
100% |
284 |
100% |
265 |
100% |
227 |
100% |
289 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
1760 |
100% |
||
Day parole |
168 |
43% |
148 |
52% |
136 |
51% |
106 |
47% |
128 |
44% |
127 |
42% |
813 |
46% |
* |
|
Full parole |
16 |
4% |
8 |
3% |
5 |
2% |
7 |
3% |
8 |
3% |
9 |
3% |
53 |
3% |
NS |
|
Statutory release |
211 |
53% |
128 |
45% |
124 |
47% |
114 |
50% |
152 |
53% |
164 |
55% |
893 |
51% |
NS |
|
Long term supervision order |
0 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
1 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
1 |
0% |
NS |
|
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 3a |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Release Type |
||||||
|
2002-03 |
|||||
|
CRFs |
CCCs |
Other Releases |
|||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
Type of Release |
3695 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
2547 |
100% |
Day parole |
2471 |
67% |
127 |
42% |
297 |
12% |
Full parole |
103 |
3% |
9 |
3% |
232 |
9% |
Statutory release |
1117 |
30% |
164 |
55% |
2009 |
79% |
Long term supervision order |
4 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
9 |
0% |
| Table 4 | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time in Community Prior to Entering CRF | |||||||||||||||
| CRFs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1997-98 | 1998-99 | 1999-00 | 2000-01 | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | Total | p | |||||||
|
# | % | # |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Time in Community |
3256 |
100% |
3461 |
100% |
3166 |
100% |
3038 |
100% |
3505 |
100% |
3695 |
100% |
20121 |
100% |
*** |
Same day |
2012 |
62% |
2145 |
62% |
1959 |
62% |
1803 |
59% |
1977 |
56% |
1998 |
54% |
11894 |
59% |
|
1-30 days |
181 |
6% |
148 |
4% |
137 |
4% |
111 |
4% |
140 |
4% |
178 |
5% |
895 |
4% |
|
1 to 3 months |
227 |
7% |
267 |
8% |
250 |
8% |
230 |
8% |
373 |
11% |
427 |
12% |
1774 |
9% |
|
4 to 6 months |
368 |
11% |
372 |
11% |
331 |
10% |
407 |
13% |
463 |
13% |
483 |
13% |
2424 |
12% |
|
7 to 12 months |
127 |
4% |
165 |
5% |
146 |
5% |
139 |
5% |
180 |
5% |
221 |
6% |
978 |
5% |
|
More than 1 year |
341 |
10% |
364 |
11% |
343 |
11% |
348 |
11% |
372 |
11% |
388 |
11% |
2156 |
11% |
|
Mean (months) (1) |
|
14.4 |
|
16.8 |
> |
15.7 |
|
14.6 |
|
10.2 |
|
9.6 |
|
13.3 |
|
Median (months) |
|
6.1 |
|
6.1 |
|
6.1 |
|
6.1 |
|
6.1 |
|
6.1 |
|
6.1 |
|
CCCs |
|||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Time in Community |
395 |
100% |
284 |
100% |
265 |
100% |
227 |
100% |
289 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
1760 |
100% |
NS |
Same day |
334 |
85% |
216 |
76% |
212 |
80% |
182 |
80% |
232 |
80% |
250 |
83% |
1426 |
81% |
|
1-30 days |
9 |
2% |
4 |
1% |
10 |
4% |
5 |
2% |
4 |
1% |
2 |
1% |
34 |
2% |
|
1 to 3 months |
7 |
2% |
11 |
4% |
14 |
5% |
11 |
5% |
12 |
4% |
15 |
5% |
70 |
4% |
|
4 to 6 months |
11 |
3% |
17 |
6% |
16 |
6% |
11 |
5% |
17 |
6% |
11 |
4% |
83 |
5% |
|
7 to 12 months |
9 |
2% |
8 |
3% |
4 |
2% |
5 |
2% |
6 |
2% |
8 |
3% |
40 |
2% |
|
More than 1 year |
25 |
6% |
28 |
10% |
9 |
3% |
13 |
6% |
18 |
6% |
14 |
5% |
107 |
6% |
|
Mean (months) (1) |
|
24.0 |
|
21.4 |
|
11.6 |
|
15.5 |
|
21.0 |
|
14.4 |
|
18.4 |
|
Median (months) |
|
8.1 |
|
7.5 |
|
4.9 |
|
6.1 |
|
6.0 |
|
6.1 |
|
6.1 |
|
(1) Mean excludes those who entered the CRF on same day as they left the correctional facility.
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 4a |
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Time in CRF |
|||||||||||||||
CRFs |
|
||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Time in CRF |
2579 |
100% |
2794 |
100% |
2542 |
100% |
2438 |
100% |
2769 |
100% |
2101 |
100% |
15223 |
100% |
*** |
Less than 2 months |
819 |
32% |
870 |
31% |
884 |
35% |
900 |
37% |
1034 |
37% |
1095 |
52% |
5602 |
37% |
|
2 to 3 months |
518 |
20% |
627 |
22% |
561 |
22% |
567 |
23% |
613 |
22% |
478 |
23% |
3364 |
22% |
|
4 to 5 months |
439 |
17% |
462 |
17% |
389 |
15% |
357 |
15% |
446 |
16% |
241 |
11% |
2334 |
15% |
|
6 to 7 months |
551 |
21% |
613 |
22% |
517 |
20% |
425 |
17% |
544 |
20% |
199 |
9% |
2849 |
19% |
|
8 to 9 months |
99 |
4% |
72 |
3% |
71 |
3% |
72 |
3% |
67 |
2% |
34 |
2% |
415 |
3% |
|
10 to 11 months |
48 |
2% |
43 |
2% |
32 |
1% |
43 |
2% |
20 |
1% |
12 |
1% |
198 |
1% |
|
12 months or more |
105 |
4% |
107 |
4% |
88 |
3% |
74 |
3% |
45 |
2% |
42 |
2% |
461 |
3% |
|
Mean (months) |
|
4.2 |
|
4.1 |
|
3.9 |
|
3.7 |
|
3.5 |
|
2.8 |
|
3.8 |
|
Median (months) |
|
4.0 |
|
3.8 |
|
3.3 |
|
3.1 |
|
3.0 |
|
2.0 |
|
3.1 |
|
CCCs |
|||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Time in CCC |
275 |
100% |
216 |
100% |
220 |
100% |
183 |
100% |
236 |
100% |
219 |
100% |
1349 |
100% |
NS |
Less than 2 months |
169 |
61% |
124 |
57% |
134 |
61% |
117 |
64% |
157 |
67% |
142 |
65% |
843 |
62% |
|
2 to 3 months |
27 |
10% |
31 |
14% |
19 |
9% |
18 |
10% |
26 |
11% |
16 |
7% |
137 |
10% |
|
4 to 5 months |
25 |
9% |
21 |
10% |
24 |
11% |
17 |
9% |
19 |
8% |
18 |
8% |
124 |
9% |
|
6 to 7 months |
29 |
11% |
25 |
12% |
26 |
12% |
17 |
9% |
23 |
10% |
22 |
10% |
142 |
11% |
|
8 to 9 months |
2 |
1% |
6 |
3% |
4 |
2% |
5 |
3% |
5 |
2% |
11 |
5% |
33 |
2% |
|
10 to 11 months |
3 |
1% |
3 |
1% |
3 |
1% |
4 |
2% |
0 |
0% |
3 |
1% |
16 |
1% |
|
12 months or more |
20 |
7% |
6 |
3% |
10 |
5% |
5 |
3% |
6 |
3% |
7 |
3% |
54 |
4% |
|
Mean (months) |
|
3.1 |
|
2.5 |
|
3.2 |
|
2.6 |
|
2.5 |
|
2.4 |
|
2.8 |
|
Median (months) |
|
3.8 |
|
3.6 |
|
2.8 |
|
3.2 |
|
3.1 |
|
4.1 |
|
3.5 |
|
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 5 |
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||||||||||||||
CRFs |
|
||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Gender |
3256 |
100% |
3461 |
100% |
3167 |
100% |
3038 |
100% |
3505 |
100% |
3695 |
100% |
20122 |
100% |
** |
Male |
3087 |
95% |
3262 |
94% |
2943 |
93% |
2825 |
93% |
3284 |
94% |
3445 |
93% |
18846 |
94% |
|
Female |
169 |
5% |
199 |
6% |
224 |
7% |
213 |
7% |
221 |
6% |
250 |
7% |
1276 |
6% |
|
Race |
3205 |
100% |
3384 |
100% |
3100 |
100% |
2999 |
100% |
3473 |
100% |
3631 |
100% |
19792 |
100% |
|
Caucasian |
2390 |
75% |
2460 |
73% |
2267 |
73% |
2195 |
73% |
2530 |
73% |
2649 |
73% |
14491 |
73% |
NS |
Aboriginal |
477 |
15% |
526 |
16% |
476 |
15% |
490 |
16% |
573 |
16% |
613 |
17% |
3155 |
16% |
NS |
Black |
146 |
5% |
187 |
6% |
161 |
5% |
139 |
5% |
147 |
4% |
181 |
5% |
961 |
5% |
NS |
Asian |
109 |
3% |
106 |
3% |
111 |
4% |
95 |
3% |
122 |
4% |
96 |
3% |
639 |
3% |
NS |
Other |
83 |
3% |
105 |
3% |
85 |
3% |
80 |
3% |
101 |
3% |
92 |
3% |
546 |
3% |
NS |
Marital Status |
2664 |
100% |
2942 |
100% |
2967 |
100% |
2847 |
100% |
3454 |
100% |
3667 |
100% |
18541 |
100% |
|
Married/ Common Law |
1126 |
42% |
1216 |
41% |
1260 |
42% |
1159 |
41% |
1383 |
40% |
1454 |
40% |
7598 |
41% |
NS |
Divorced/ Separated |
296 |
11% |
344 |
12% |
309 |
10% |
299 |
11% |
363 |
11% |
346 |
9% |
1957 |
11% |
NS |
Single |
1230 |
46% |
1355 |
46% |
1380 |
47% |
1367 |
48% |
1677 |
49% |
1842 |
50% |
8851 |
48% |
** |
Widow |
12 |
0% |
27 |
1% |
18 |
1% |
22 |
1% |
31 |
1% |
25 |
1% |
135 |
1% |
NS |
Education |
2174 |
100% |
2495 |
100% |
2319 |
100% |
2329 |
100% |
2827 |
100% |
3010 |
100% |
15154 |
100% |
*** |
< Grade 10 |
1133 |
52% |
1314 |
53% |
1125 |
49% |
1070 |
46% |
1246 |
44% |
1314 |
44% |
7202 |
48% |
|
Grade 10 or more |
1041 |
48% |
1181 |
47% |
1194 |
51% |
1259 |
54% |
1581 |
56% |
1696 |
56% |
7952 |
52% |
|
Employment at Arrest |
2172 |
100% |
2498 |
100% |
2319 |
100% |
2330 |
100% |
2829 |
100% |
3019 |
100% |
15167 |
100% |
NS |
Employed |
771 |
35% |
850 |
34% |
871 |
38% |
847 |
36% |
1025 |
36% |
1096 |
36% |
5460 |
36% |
|
Unemployed |
1401 |
65% |
1648 |
66% |
1448 |
62% |
1483 |
64% |
1804 |
64% |
1923 |
64% |
9707 |
64% |
|
Mean Age at Admission to Federal Facility |
33.0 yrs |
33.0 yrs |
33.2 yrs |
33.5 yrs |
34.2 yrs |
33.5 yrs |
33.4 yrs |
*** |
|||||||
Mean Age at Residency |
35.0 yrs |
35.1 yrs |
35.3 yrs |
35.7 yrs |
36.3 yrs |
36.1 yrs |
35.6 yrs |
*** |
|||||||
Demographics |
|||||||||||||||
CCCs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Gender |
395 |
100% |
284 |
100% |
265 |
100% |
227 |
100% |
289 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
1760 |
100% |
NS |
Male |
392 |
99% |
281 |
99% |
264 |
100% |
226 |
100% |
287 |
99% |
300 |
100% |
1750 |
99% |
|
Female |
3 |
1% |
3 |
1% |
1 |
0% |
1 |
0% |
2 |
1% |
0 |
0% |
10 |
1% |
|
Race |
394 |
100% |
283 |
100% |
264 |
100% |
227 |
100% |
289 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
1757 |
100% |
|
Caucasian |
308 |
78% |
215 |
76% |
180 |
68% |
171 |
75% |
207 |
72% |
222 |
74% |
1303 |
74% |
NS |
Aboriginal |
53 |
13% |
49 |
17% |
52 |
20% |
37 |
16% |
53 |
18% |
51 |
17% |
295 |
17% |
NS |
Black |
23 |
6% |
12 |
4% |
25 |
9% |
13 |
6% |
17 |
6% |
17 |
6% |
107 |
6% |
NS |
Asian |
4 |
1% |
3 |
1% |
1 |
0% |
1 |
0% |
4 |
1% |
2 |
1% |
15 |
1% |
NS |
Other |
6 |
2% |
4 |
1% |
6 |
2% |
5 |
2% |
8 |
3% |
8 |
3% |
37 |
2% |
NS |
Marital Status |
338 |
100% |
243 |
100% |
246 |
100% |
214 |
100% |
288 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
1629 |
100% |
|
Married/ Common Law |
154 |
46% |
96 |
40% |
114 |
46% |
77 |
36% |
117 |
41% |
110 |
37% |
668 |
41% |
NS |
Divorced/ Separated |
28 |
8% |
32 |
13% |
19 |
8% |
23 |
11% |
20 |
7% |
30 |
10% |
152 |
9% |
NS |
Single |
153 |
45% |
115 |
47% |
110 |
45% |
111 |
52% |
151 |
52% |
157 |
52% |
797 |
49% |
NS |
Widow |
3 |
1% |
0 |
0% |
3 |
1% |
3 |
1% |
0 |
0% |
3 |
1% |
12 |
1% |
NS |
Education |
250 |
100% |
202 |
100% |
196 |
100% |
177 |
100% |
230 |
100% |
251 |
100% |
1306 |
100% |
* |
< Grade 10 |
168 |
67% |
116 |
57% |
112 |
57% |
101 |
57% |
133 |
58% |
132 |
53% |
762 |
58% |
|
Grade 10 or more |
82 |
33% |
86 |
43% |
84 |
43% |
76 |
43% |
97 |
42% |
119 |
47% |
544 |
42% |
|
Employment at Arrest |
249 |
100% |
203 |
100% |
197 |
100% |
177 |
100% |
230 |
100% |
249 |
100% |
1305 |
100% |
NS |
Employed |
61 |
24% |
67 |
33% |
47 |
24% |
51 |
29% |
68 |
30% |
79 |
32% |
373 |
29% |
|
Unemployed |
188 |
76% |
136 |
67% |
150 |
76% |
126 |
71% |
162 |
70% |
170 |
68% |
932 |
71% |
|
Mean Age at Admission to Federal Facility |
33.3 |
31.9 |
33.3 |
35.8 |
33.5 |
34.0 |
33.6 yrs |
** |
|||||||
Mean Age at Residency |
35.4 |
34.3 |
35.3 |
37.8 |
35.9 |
36.4 |
35.7 yrs |
** |
|||||||
NS= Not Significant; * p< = .05; **p< = .01, ***p< = .001
Table 5a |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Demographics |
||||||
| 2002-03 | ||||||
|
CRFs |
CCCs |
Other Releases |
|||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
Gender |
3695 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
2547 |
100% |
Male |
3445 |
93% |
300 |
100% |
2467 |
97% |
Female |
250 |
7% |
0 |
0% |
80 |
3% |
Race |
3631 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
2489 |
100% |
Caucasian |
2649 |
73% |
222 |
74% |
1744 |
70% |
Aboriginal |
613 |
17% |
51 |
17% |
424 |
17% |
Black |
181 |
5% |
17 |
6% |
189 |
8% |
Asian |
96 |
3% |
2 |
1% |
54 |
2% |
Other |
92 |
3% |
8 |
3% |
78 |
3% |
Marital Status |
3667 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
2518 |
100% |
Married/Common Law |
1454 |
40% |
110 |
37% |
1107 |
44% |
Divorced/Separated |
346 |
9% |
30 |
10% |
213 |
8% |
Single |
1842 |
50% |
157 |
52% |
1181 |
47% |
Widow |
25 |
1% |
3 |
1% |
17 |
1% |
Education |
3010 |
100% |
251 |
100% |
2009 |
100% |
< Grade 10 |
1314 |
44% |
132 |
53% |
998 |
50% |
Grade 10 or more |
1696 |
56% |
119 |
47% |
1011 |
50% |
Employment at Arrest |
3019 |
100% |
249 |
100% |
2008 |
100% |
Employed |
1096 |
36% |
79 |
32% |
652 |
32% |
Unemployed |
1923 |
64% |
170 |
68% |
1356 |
68% |
Mean Age at Admission to Federal Facility |
33.5 yrs |
34.0 yrs |
35.2 yrs |
|||
Mean Age at Residency |
36.1 yrs |
36.4 yrs |
34.2 yrs |
|||
Table 6 |
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Most Serious Current Offence |
|||||||||||||||
CRFs |
|
||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Total |
3255 |
100% |
3458 |
100% |
3167 |
100% |
3035 |
100% |
3504 |
100% |
3694 |
100% |
20113 |
100% |
|
Homicide/ Attempted Murder |
306 |
9% |
331 |
10% |
322 |
10% |
350 |
12% |
408 |
12% |
462 |
13% |
2179 |
11% |
*** |
Robbery |
789 |
24% |
867 |
25% |
734 |
23% |
617 |
20% |
791 |
23% |
868 |
23% |
4666 |
23% |
*** |
Assault |
305 |
9% |
349 |
10% |
334 |
11% |
295 |
10% |
343 |
10% |
361 |
10% |
1987 |
10% |
NS |
Sexual Assault |
359 |
11% |
352 |
10% |
297 |
9% |
304 |
10% |
347 |
10% |
322 |
9% |
1981 |
10% |
* |
Other Violent |
67 |
2% |
89 |
3% |
78 |
2% |
69 |
2% |
90 |
3% |
77 |
2% |
470 |
2% |
NS |
Property |
681 |
21% |
699 |
20% |
604 |
19% |
676 |
22% |
721 |
21% |
768 |
21% |
4149 |
21% |
NS |
Drug Offences |
519 |
16% |
569 |
16% |
603 |
19% |
540 |
18% |
556 |
16% |
577 |
16% |
3364 |
17% |
*** |
Impaired Driving |
38 |
1% |
44 |
1% |
26 |
1% |
27 |
1% |
37 |
1% |
35 |
1% |
207 |
1% |
NS |
Other Criminal Code Offences |
191 |
6% |
158 |
5% |
169 |
5% |
157 |
5% |
211 |
6% |
224 |
6% |
1110 |
6% |
* |
|
|||||||||||||||
Aggregate Sentence |
3254 |
100% |
3461 |
100% |
3166 |
100% |
3037 |
100% |
3504 |
100% |
3694 |
100% |
20116 |
100% |
*** |
0 to <2 Years |
174 |
5% |
248 |
7% |
270 |
9% |
237 |
8% |
199 |
6% |
222 |
6% |
1350 |
7% |
|
2 to <5 Years |
1982 |
61% |
2099 |
61% |
1938 |
61% |
1835 |
60% |
2213 |
63% |
2340 |
63% |
12407 |
62% |
|
5 to <10 Years |
690 |
21% |
666 |
19% |
504 |
16% |
536 |
18% |
589 |
17% |
597 |
16% |
3582 |
18% |
|
10 to <15 Years |
155 |
5% |
155 |
4% |
149 |
5% |
130 |
4% |
133 |
4% |
132 |
4% |
854 |
4% |
|
15+ Years |
112 |
3% |
122 |
4% |
129 |
4% |
108 |
4% |
128 |
4% |
132 |
4% |
731 |
4% |
|
Life |
141 |
4% |
171 |
5% |
176 |
6% |
191 |
6% |
242 |
7% |
271 |
7% |
1192 |
6% |
*** |
|
|||||||||||||||
Mean |
4.8 yrs |
4.7 yrs |
4.7 yrs |
4.5 yrs |
4.6 yrs |
4.5 yrs |
4.6 yrs |
NS |
|||||||
Median |
3.4 yrs |
3.1 yrs |
3.0 yrs |
3.0 yrs |
3.0 yrs |
3.0 yrs |
3.0 yrs |
||||||||
Most Serious Current Offence |
|||||||||||||||
| CCCs | |||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 | 1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# | % |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Total |
395 | 100% |
284 |
100% |
264 |
100% |
227 |
100% |
289 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
1848 |
100% |
|
Homicide/ Attempted Murder |
23 | 6% |
30 |
11% |
30 |
11% |
20 |
9% |
36 |
12% |
32 |
11% |
171 |
9% |
* |
Robbery |
119 | 30% |
77 |
27% |
58 |
22% |
63 |
28% |
81 |
28% |
71 |
24% |
469 |
25% |
NS |
Assault |
59 | 15% |
44 |
15% |
44 |
17% |
43 |
19% |
47 |
16% |
47 |
16% |
284 |
15% |
NS |
Sexual Assault |
59 | 15% |
51 |
18% |
41 |
16% |
39 |
17% |
46 |
16% |
50 |
17% |
286 |
15% |
NS |
Other Violent |
9 | 2% |
4 |
1% |
7 |
3% |
3 |
1% |
5 |
2% |
13 |
4% |
41 |
2% |
NS |
Property |
62 | 16% |
47 |
17% |
47 |
18% |
34 |
15% |
45 |
16% |
56 |
19% |
380 |
21% |
NS |
Drug Offences |
47 | 12% |
21 |
7% |
26 |
10% |
16 |
7% |
23 |
8% |
20 |
7% |
153 |
8% |
NS |
Impaired Driving |
4 | 1% |
1 |
0% |
2 |
1% |
2 |
1% |
0 |
0% |
1 |
0% |
10 |
1% |
NS |
Other Criminal Code Offences |
13 | 3% |
9 |
3% |
9 |
3% |
7 |
3% |
6 |
2% |
10 |
3% |
54 |
3% |
NS |
|
|||||||||||||||
Aggregate Sentence |
395 |
100% |
283 |
100% |
265 |
100% |
227 |
100% |
289 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
1759 |
100% |
** |
0 to <2 Years |
0 |
0% |
2 |
1% |
9 |
3% |
4 |
2% |
3 |
1% |
10 |
3% |
28 |
2% |
|
2 to <5 Years |
238 |
60% |
170 |
60% |
152 |
57% |
125 |
55% |
159 |
55% |
181 |
60% |
1025 |
58% |
|
5 to <10 Years |
100 |
25% |
74 |
26% |
71 |
27% |
59 |
26% |
81 |
28% |
75 |
25% |
460 |
26% |
|
10 to <15 Years |
32 |
8% |
14 |
5% |
9 |
3% |
18 |
8% |
13 |
4% |
9 |
3% |
95 |
5% |
|
15+ Years |
16 |
4% |
9 |
3% |
13 |
5% |
10 |
4% |
11 |
4% |
10 |
3% |
69 |
4% |
|
Life |
9 |
2% |
14 |
5% |
11 |
4% |
11 |
5% |
22 |
8% |
15 |
5% |
82 |
5% |
* |
|
|||||||||||||||
Mean |
5.4 yrs |
5.0 yrs |
5.3 yrs |
5.3 yrs |
5.3 yrs |
4.7 yrs |
5.2 yrs |
NS |
|||||||
Median |
4.0 yrs |
4.0 yrs |
4.0 yrs |
3.8 yrs |
4.0 yrs |
3.5 yrs |
4.0 yrs |
||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 6a |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Most Serious Current Offence |
||||||||
|
2002-03 |
|||||||
|
CRFs |
CCCs |
Other Releases |
|||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
||
Total |
3694 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
2544 |
100% |
||
Homicide/Attempted Murder |
462 |
13% |
32 |
11% |
144 |
6% |
||
Robbery |
868 |
23% |
71 |
24% |
717 |
28% |
||
Assault |
361 |
10% |
47 |
16% |
396 |
16% |
||
Sexual Assault |
322 |
9% |
50 |
17% |
303 |
12% |
||
Other Violent |
77 |
2% |
13 |
4% |
76 |
3% |
||
Property |
768 |
21% |
56 |
19% |
485 |
19% |
||
Drug Offences |
577 |
16% |
20 |
7% |
286 |
11% |
||
Impaired Driving |
35 |
1% |
1 |
0% |
19 |
1% |
||
Other Criminal Code Offences |
224 |
6% |
10 |
3% |
118 |
5% |
||
|
||||||||
Aggregate Sentence |
3694 |
100% |
300 |
100% |
2546 |
100% |
||
0 to <2 Years |
222 |
6% |
10 |
3% |
130 |
5% |
||
2 to <5 Years |
2340 |
63% |
181 |
60% |
1767 |
69% |
||
5 to <10 Years |
597 |
16% |
75 |
25% |
463 |
18% |
||
10 to <15 Years |
132 |
4% |
9 |
3% |
90 |
4% |
||
15+ Years |
132 |
4% |
10 |
3% |
65 |
3% |
||
Life |
271 |
7% |
15 |
5% |
31 |
1% |
||
|
||||||||
Mean |
4.5 yrs |
4.7 yrs |
4.2 yrs |
|||||
Median |
3.0 yrs |
3.5 yrs |
3.0 yrs |
|||||
Table 7 |
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Previous Convictions |
|||||||||||||||
CRFs |
|
||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Youth Court |
2117 |
100% |
2385 |
100% |
2192 |
100% |
2189 |
100% |
2672 |
100% |
2835 |
100% |
14390 |
100% |
*** |
No |
1359 |
64% |
1473 |
62% |
1391 |
63% |
1355 |
62% |
1608 |
60% |
1637 |
58% |
8823 |
61% |
|
Yes |
758 |
36% |
912 |
38% |
801 |
37% |
834 |
38% |
1064 |
40% |
1198 |
42% |
5567 |
39% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Adult Court Convictions |
2124 |
100% |
2412 |
100% |
2222 |
100% |
2213 |
100% |
2699 |
100% |
2852 |
100% |
14522 |
100% |
NS |
No |
392 |
18% |
449 |
19% |
456 |
21% |
420 |
19% |
482 |
18% |
499 |
17% |
2698 |
19% |
|
Yes |
1732 |
82% |
1963 |
81% |
1766 |
79% |
1793 |
81% |
2217 |
82% |
2353 |
83% |
11824 |
81% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previous Provincial Term |
2124 |
100% |
2410 |
100% |
2220 |
100% |
2211 |
100% |
2698 |
100% |
2851 |
100% |
14514 |
100% |
NS |
No |
736 |
35% |
823 |
34% |
786 |
35% |
774 |
35% |
894 |
33% |
909 |
32% |
4922 |
34% |
|
Yes |
1388 |
65% |
1587 |
66% |
1434 |
65% |
1437 |
65% |
1804 |
67% |
1942 |
68% |
9592 |
66% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previous Federal Term |
2123 |
100% |
2409 |
100% |
2219 |
100% |
2212 |
100% |
2699 |
100% |
2852 |
100% |
14514 |
100% |
*** |
No |
1747 |
82% |
1953 |
81% |
1817 |
82% |
1796 |
81% |
2103 |
78% |
2221 |
78% |
11637 |
80% |
|
Yes |
376 |
18% |
456 |
19% |
402 |
18% |
416 |
19% |
596 |
22% |
631 |
22% |
2877 |
20% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previous Community Supervision |
2120 |
100% |
2407 |
100% |
2215 |
100% |
2211 |
100% |
2698 |
100% |
2851 |
100% |
14502 |
100% |
*** |
No |
723 |
34% |
817 |
34% |
742 |
33% |
717 |
32% |
797 |
30% |
799 |
28% |
4595 |
32% |
|
Yes |
1397 |
66% |
1590 |
66% |
1473 |
67% |
1494 |
68% |
1901 |
70% |
2052 |
72% |
9907 |
68% |
|
Previous Convictions |
|||||||||||||||
| CCCs | |||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 | 1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# | % |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Youth Court |
239 | 100% |
197 |
100% |
180 |
100% |
167 |
100% |
216 |
100% |
234 |
100% |
1233 |
100% |
NS |
No |
121 | 51% |
91 |
46% |
87 |
48% |
88 |
53% |
107 |
50% |
110 |
47% |
604 |
49% |
|
Yes |
118 | 49% |
106 |
54% |
93 |
52% |
79 |
47% |
109 |
50% |
124 |
53% |
629 |
51% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Adult Court Convictions |
243 | 100% |
196 |
100% |
182 |
100% |
169 |
100% |
221 |
100% |
238 |
100% |
1249 |
100% |
** |
No |
43 | 18% |
45 |
23% |
14 |
8% |
29 |
17% |
34 |
15% |
38 |
16% |
203 |
16% |
|
Yes |
200 | 82% |
151 |
77% |
168 |
92% |
140 |
83% |
187 |
85% |
200 |
84% |
1046 |
84% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previous Provincial Term |
243 |
100% |
195 |
100% |
182 |
100% |
169 |
100% |
221 |
100% |
238 |
100% |
1248 |
100% |
** |
No |
74 |
30% |
71 |
36% |
36 |
20% |
48 |
28% |
55 |
25% |
67 |
28% |
351 |
28% |
|
Yes |
169 |
70% |
124 |
64% |
146 |
80% |
121 |
72% |
166 |
75% |
171 |
72% |
897 |
72% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previous Federal Term |
243 |
100% |
196 |
100% |
182 |
100% |
169 |
100% |
221 |
100% |
238 |
100% |
1249 |
100% |
* |
No |
185 |
76% |
153 |
78% |
124 |
68% |
116 |
69% |
145 |
66% |
166 |
70% |
889 |
71% |
|
Yes |
58 |
24% |
43 |
22% |
58 |
32% |
53 |
31% |
76 |
34% |
72 |
30% |
360 |
29% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previous Community Supervision |
242 |
100% |
196 |
100% |
182 |
100% |
169 |
100% |
221 |
100% |
237 |
100% |
1247 |
100% |
NS |
No |
72 |
30% |
60 |
31% |
39 |
21% |
46 |
27% |
64 |
29% |
52 |
22% |
333 |
27% |
|
Yes |
170 |
70% |
136 |
69% |
143 |
79% |
123 |
73% |
157 |
71% |
185 |
78% |
914 |
73% |
|
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 7a |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Previous Convictions |
|
|||||
| 2002-03 | ||||||
|
CRFs |
CCCs |
Other Releases |
|||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
Youth Court |
2835 |
100% |
234 |
100% |
1899 |
100% |
No |
1637 |
58% |
110 |
47% |
935 |
49% |
Yes |
1198 |
42% |
124 |
53% |
964 |
51% |
|
||||||
Adult Court Convictions |
2852 |
100% |
238 |
100% |
1917 |
100% |
No |
499 |
17% |
38 |
16% |
319 |
17% |
Yes |
2353 |
83% |
200 |
84% |
1598 |
83% |
|
||||||
Previous Provincial Term |
2851 |
100% |
238 |
100% |
1915 |
100% |
No |
909 |
32% |
67 |
28% |
507 |
26% |
Yes |
1942 |
68% |
171 |
72% |
1408 |
74% |
|
||||||
Previous Federal Term |
2852 |
100% |
238 |
100% |
1916 |
100% |
No |
2221 |
78% |
166 |
70% |
1370 |
72% |
Yes |
631 |
22% |
72 |
30% |
546 |
28% |
|
||||||
Previous Community Supervision |
2851 |
100% |
237 |
100% |
1916 |
100% |
No |
799 |
28% |
52 |
22% |
503 |
26% |
Yes |
2052 |
72% |
185 |
78% |
1413 |
74% |
Table 8 |
|||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Failures |
|||||||||||||||
CRFs |
|
||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Previously failed on community- based sanction |
2107 |
100% |
2384 |
100% |
2202 |
100% |
2202 |
100% |
2678 |
100% |
2836 |
100% |
14409 |
100% |
*** |
No |
1140 |
54% |
1273 |
53% |
1184 |
54% |
1101 |
50% |
1256 |
47% |
1281 |
45% |
7235 |
50% |
|
Yes |
967 |
46% |
1111 |
47% |
1018 |
46% |
1101 |
50% |
1422 |
53% |
1555 |
55% |
7174 |
50% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previously failed on conditional release |
2097 |
100% |
2383 |
100% |
2191 |
100% |
2190 |
100% |
2675 |
100% |
2832 |
100% |
14368 |
100% |
*** |
No |
1485 |
71% |
1659 |
70% |
1557 |
71% |
1497 |
68% |
1735 |
65% |
1810 |
64% |
9743 |
68% |
|
Yes |
612 |
29% |
724 |
30% |
634 |
29% |
693 |
32% |
940 |
35% |
1022 |
36% |
4625 |
32% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
6 months or more since last incarceration |
2120 |
100% |
2408 |
100% |
2218 |
100% |
2210 |
100% |
2697 |
100% |
2851 |
100% |
14504 |
100% |
** |
No |
405 |
19% |
477 |
20% |
437 |
20% |
444 |
20% |
567 |
21% |
660 |
23% |
2990 |
21% |
|
Yes |
1715 |
81% |
1931 |
80% |
1781 |
80% |
1766 |
80% |
2130 |
79% |
2191 |
77% |
11514 |
79% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Crime free period of 1 year |
2119 |
100% |
2408 |
100% |
2210 |
100% |
2207 |
100% |
2695 |
100% |
2849 |
100% |
14488 |
100% |
*** |
No |
278 |
13% |
297 |
12% |
271 |
12% |
306 |
14% |
386 |
14% |
470 |
16% |
2008 |
14% |
|
Yes |
1841 |
87% |
2111 |
88% |
1939 |
88% |
1901 |
86% |
2309 |
86% |
2379 |
84% |
12480 |
86% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previously reclassified to higher custody |
2053 |
100% |
2369 |
100% |
2173 |
100% |
2167 |
100% |
2649 |
100% |
2808 |
100% |
14219 |
100% |
*** |
No |
1866 |
91% |
2137 |
90% |
1926 |
89% |
1905 |
88% |
2324 |
88% |
2437 |
87% |
12595 |
89% |
|
Yes |
187 |
9% |
232 |
10% |
247 |
11% |
262 |
12% |
325 |
12% |
371 |
13% |
1624 |
11% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previously segregated for disciplinary infraction |
1997 |
100% |
2305 |
100% |
2118 |
100% |
2120 |
100% |
2573 |
100% |
2741 |
100% |
13854 |
100% |
*** |
No |
1664 |
83% |
1867 |
81% |
1729 |
82% |
1673 |
79% |
2009 |
78% |
2101 |
77% |
11043 |
80% |
|
Yes |
333 |
17% |
438 |
19% |
389 |
18% |
447 |
21% |
564 |
22% |
640 |
23% |
2811 |
20% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previous attempted/ successful escape/UAL |
2119 |
100% |
2394 |
100% |
2203 |
100% |
2197 |
100% |
2687 |
100% |
2846 |
100% |
14446 |
100% |
** |
No |
1722 |
81% |
1933 |
81% |
1768 |
80% |
1737 |
79% |
2099 |
78% |
2198 |
77% |
11457 |
79% |
|
Yes |
397 |
19% |
461 |
19% |
435 |
20% |
460 |
21% |
588 |
22% |
648 |
23% |
2989 |
21% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Failures |
|||||||||||||||
CCCs |
|||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
|||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Previously failed on community-based sanction |
237 |
100% |
195 |
100% |
179 |
100% |
169 |
100% |
221 |
100% |
237 |
100% |
1238 |
100% |
** |
No |
111 |
47% |
95 |
49% |
68 |
38% |
75 |
44% |
87 |
39% |
75 |
32% |
511 |
41% |
|
Yes |
126 |
53% |
100 |
51% |
111 |
62% |
94 |
56% |
134 |
61% |
162 |
68% |
727 |
59% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previously failed on conditional release |
240 |
100% |
192 |
100% |
178 |
100% |
168 |
100% |
221 |
100% |
234 |
100% |
1233 |
100% |
*** |
No |
164 |
68% |
136 |
71% |
103 |
58% |
97 |
58% |
120 |
54% |
129 |
55% |
749 |
61% |
|
Yes |
76 |
32% |
56 |
29% |
75 |
42% |
71 |
42% |
101 |
46% |
105 |
45% |
484 |
39% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
6 months or more since last incarceration |
243 |
100% |
196 |
100% |
182 |
100% |
168 |
100% |
221 |
100% |
238 |
100% |
1248 |
100% |
NS |
No |
57 |
23% |
44 |
22% |
58 |
32% |
51 |
30% |
61 |
28% |
74 |
31% |
345 |
28% |
|
Yes |
186 |
77% |
152 |
78% |
124 |
68% |
117 |
70% |
160 |
72% |
164 |
69% |
903 |
72% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Crime free period of 1 year |
243 |
100% |
196 |
100% |
182 |
100% |
168 |
100% |
221 |
100% |
237 |
100% |
1247 |
100% |
NS |
No |
42 |
17% |
42 |
21% |
47 |
26% |
39 |
23% |
39 |
18% |
52 |
22% |
261 |
21% |
|
Yes |
201 |
83% |
154 |
79% |
135 |
74% |
129 |
77% |
182 |
82% |
185 |
78% |
986 |
79% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previously reclassified to higher custody |
229 |
100% |
190 |
100% |
178 |
100% |
163 |
100% |
215 |
100% |
230 |
100% |
1205 |
100% |
NS |
No |
194 |
85% |
162 |
85% |
132 |
74% |
129 |
79% |
177 |
82% |
184 |
80% |
978 |
81% |
|
Yes |
35 |
15% |
28 |
15% |
46 |
26% |
34 |
21% |
38 |
18% |
46 |
20% |
227 |
19% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previously segregated for disciplinary infraction |
223 |
100% |
185 |
100% |
177 |
100% |
161 |
100% |
210 |
100% |
222 |
100% |
1178 |
100% |
* |
No |
175 |
78% |
143 |
77% |
118 |
67% |
106 |
66% |
148 |
70% |
156 |
70% |
846 |
72% |
|
Yes |
48 |
22% |
42 |
23% |
59 |
33% |
55 |
34% |
62 |
30% |
66 |
30% |
332 |
28% |
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Previous attempted/ successful escape/UAL |
242 |
100% |
194 |
100% |
181 |
100% |
167 |
100% |
217 |
100% |
237 |
100% |
1238 |
100% |
NS |
No |
191 |
79% |
150 |
77% |
138 |
76% |
121 |
72% |
164 |
76% |
177 |
75% |
941 |
76% |
|
Yes |
51 |
21% |
44 |
23% |
43 |
24% |
46 |
28% |
53 |
24% |
60 |
25% |
297 |
24% |
|
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 8a |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Failures |
|||||||
| 2002-03 | |||||||
|
CRFs |
CCCs |
Other Releases |
||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Previously failed on community-based sanction |
2836 |
100% |
237 |
100% |
1901 |
100% |
|
|
No |
1281 |
45% |
75 |
32% |
742 |
39% |
|
Yes |
1555 |
55% |
162 |
68% |
1159 |
61% |
|
|||||||
Previously failed on conditional release |
2832 |
100% |
234 |
100% |
1893 |
100% |
|
|
No |
1810 |
64% |
129 |
55% |
1114 |
59% |
|
Yes |
1022 |
36% |
105 |
45% |
779 |
41% |
|
|||||||
6 months or more since last incarceration |
2851 |
100% |
238 |
100% |
1908 |
100% |
|
|
No |
660 |
23% |
74 |
31% |
497 |
26% |
|
Yes |
2191 |
77% |
164 |
69% |
1411 |
74% |
|
|||||||
Crime free period of 1 year |
2849 |
100% |
237 |
100% |
1913 |
100% |
|
|
No |
470 |
16% |
52 |
22% |
373 |
19% |
|
Yes |
2379 |
84% |
185 |
78% |
1540 |
81% |
|
|||||||
Previously reclassified to higher custody |
2808 |
100% |
230 |
100% |
1861 |
100% |
|
|
No |
2437 |
87% |
184 |
80% |
1533 |
82% |
|
Yes |
371 |
13% |
46 |
20% |
328 |
18% |
|
|||||||
Previously segregated for disciplinary infraction |
2741 |
100% |
222 |
100% |
1817 |
100% |
|
|
No |
2101 |
77% |
156 |
70% |
1234 |
68% |
|
Yes |
640 |
23% |
66 |
30% |
583 |
32% |
|
|||||||
Previous attempted/ successful escape/UAL |
2846 |
100% |
237 |
100% |
1905 |
100% |
|
|
No |
2198 |
77% |
177 |
75% |
1361 |
71% |
|
Yes |
648 |
23% |
60 |
25% |
544 |
29% |
Table 9 |
||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dynamic Needs at Release to the Community |
||||||||||||||||
CRFs |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 | 1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
||||||||
|
# | % |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
||
Overall Need |
3138 | 100% |
3378 |
100% |
3059 |
100% |
2909 |
100% |
3307 |
100% |
2832 |
100% |
18623 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Low |
363 | 12% |
484 |
14% |
569 |
19% |
499 |
17% |
490 |
15% |
359 |
13% |
2764 |
15% |
|
|
Medium |
1559 | 50% |
1710 |
51% |
1585 |
52% |
1522 |
52% |
1662 |
50% |
1441 |
51% |
9479 |
51% |
|
|
High |
1216 | 39% |
1184 |
35% |
905 |
30% |
888 |
31% |
1155 |
35% |
1032 |
36% |
6380 |
34% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Employment |
2748 | 100% |
3023 |
100% |
2998 |
100% |
2868 |
100% |
3272 |
100% |
2784 |
100% |
17693 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Asset/ None |
787 | 29% |
1240 |
41% |
1450 |
48% |
1405 |
49% |
1672 |
51% |
1440 |
52% |
7994 |
45% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
1961 | 71% |
1783 |
59% |
1548 |
52% |
1463 |
51% |
1600 |
49% |
1344 |
48% |
9699 |
55% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Marital/ Family |
2740 | 100% |
3018 |
100% |
2989 |
100% |
2865 |
100% |
3270 |
100% |
2777 |
100% |
17659 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Asset/ None |
1474 | 54% |
1682 |
56% |
1729 |
58% |
1635 |
57% |
1912 |
58% |
1642 |
59% |
10074 |
57% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
1266 | 46% |
1336 |
44% |
1260 |
42% |
1230 |
43% |
1358 |
42% |
1135 |
41% |
7585 |
43% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Associates/ Social Interaction |
2739 |
100% |
3019 |
100% |
2994 |
100% |
2868 |
100% |
3271 |
100% |
2788 |
100% |
17679 |
100% |
NS |
|
|
Asset/ None |
1176 |
43% |
1288 |
43% |
1283 |
43% |
1200 |
42% |
1340 |
41% |
1130 |
41% |
7417 |
42% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
1563 |
57% |
1731 |
57% |
1711 |
57% |
1668 |
58% |
1931 |
59% |
1658 |
59% |
10262 |
58% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Substance Abuse |
2739 |
100% |
3019 |
100% |
3001 |
100% |
2875 |
100% |
3290 |
100% |
2812 |
100% |
17736 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Asset/ None |
1508 |
55% |
1489 |
49% |
1197 |
40% |
1051 |
37% |
1135 |
34% |
950 |
34% |
7330 |
41% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
1231 |
45% |
1530 |
51% |
1804 |
60% |
1824 |
63% |
2155 |
66% |
1862 |
66% |
10406 |
59% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Community Functioning |
2743 |
100% |
3016 |
100% |
2992 |
100% |
2860 |
100% |
3265 |
100% |
2769 |
100% |
17645 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Asset/ None |
1253 |
46% |
1765 |
59% |
1799 |
60% |
1772 |
62% |
2028 |
62% |
1719 |
62% |
10336 |
59% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
1490 |
54% |
1251 |
41% |
1193 |
40% |
1088 |
38% |
1237 |
38% |
1050 |
38% |
7309 |
41% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Personal/ Emotional |
2745 |
100% |
3020 |
100% |
2996 |
100% |
2878 |
100% |
3287 |
100% |
2810 |
100% |
17736 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Asset/ None |
726 |
26% |
794 |
26% |
658 |
22% |
516 |
18% |
551 |
17% |
444 |
16% |
3689 |
21% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
2019 |
74% |
2226 |
74% |
2338 |
78% |
2362 |
82% |
2736 |
83% |
2366 |
84% |
14047 |
79% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Attitude |
2731 |
100% |
3008 |
100% |
2991 |
100% |
2863 |
100% |
3261 |
100% |
2775 |
100% |
17629 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Asset/ None |
2298 |
84% |
2336 |
78% |
2012 |
67% |
1797 |
63% |
1901 |
58% |
1568 |
57% |
11912 |
68% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
433 |
16% |
672 |
22% |
979 |
33% |
1066 |
37% |
1360 |
42% |
1207 |
43% |
5717 |
32% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
| Dynamic Needs at Release | ||||||||||||||||
CCCs |
||||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
||||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
||
Overall Need |
356 |
100% |
264 |
100% |
247 |
100% |
201 |
100% |
264 |
100% |
190 |
100% |
1522 |
100% |
NS |
|
|
Low |
26 |
7% |
31 |
12% |
29 |
12% |
25 |
12% |
22 |
8% |
17 |
9% |
150 |
10% |
|
|
Medium |
143 |
40% |
106 |
40% |
80 |
32% |
73 |
36% |
100 |
38% |
66 |
35% |
568 |
37% |
|
|
High |
187 |
53% |
127 |
48% |
138 |
56% |
103 |
51% |
142 |
54% |
107 |
56% |
804 |
53% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Employment |
294 |
100% |
250 |
100% |
240 |
100% |
198 |
100% |
260 |
100% |
189 |
100% |
1431 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Asset/ None |
69 |
23% |
101 |
40% |
82 |
34% |
81 |
41% |
109 |
41% |
86 |
42% |
528 |
37% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
225 |
77% |
149 |
60% |
158 |
66% |
117 |
59% |
151 |
59% |
103 |
58% |
903 |
63% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Marital/ Family |
294 |
100% |
249 |
100% |
241 |
100% |
197 |
100% |
260 |
100% |
186 |
100% |
1427 |
100% |
NS |
|
|
Asset/ None |
151 |
51% |
127 |
51% |
129 |
54% |
86 |
44% |
134 |
44% |
87 |
52% |
714 |
50% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
143 |
49% |
122 |
49% |
112 |
46% |
111 |
56% |
126 |
56% |
99 |
48% |
713 |
50% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Associates/ Social Interaction |
293 |
100% |
248 |
100% |
240 |
100% |
199 |
100% |
259 |
100% |
188 |
100% |
1427 |
100% |
NS |
|
|
Asset/ None |
103 |
35% |
87 |
35% |
87 |
36% |
81 |
41% |
99 |
38% |
72 |
38% |
529 |
37% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
190 |
65% |
161 |
65% |
153 |
64% |
118 |
59% |
160 |
62% |
116 |
62% |
898 |
63% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Substance Abuse |
294 |
100% |
249 |
100% |
244 |
100% |
199 |
100% |
261 |
100% |
189 |
100% |
1436 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
None |
131 |
45% |
93 |
37% |
80 |
33% |
55 |
28% |
72 |
28% |
57 |
30% |
488 |
34% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
163 |
55% |
156 |
63% |
164 |
67% |
144 |
72% |
189 |
72% |
132 |
70% |
948 |
66% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Community Functioning |
294 |
100% |
249 |
100% |
240 |
100% |
198 |
100% |
259 |
100% |
186 |
100% |
1426 |
100% |
NS |
|
|
Asset/ None |
146 |
50% |
135 |
54% |
131 |
55% |
103 |
52% |
156 |
60% |
102 |
55% |
773 |
54% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
148 |
50% |
114 |
46% |
109 |
45% |
95 |
48% |
103 |
40% |
84 |
45% |
653 |
46% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Personal/ Emotional |
294 |
100% |
250 |
100% |
241 |
100% |
200 |
100% |
261 |
100% |
189 |
100% |
1435 |
100% |
NS |
|
|
None |
49 |
17% |
43 |
17% |
42 |
17% |
27 |
14% |
29 |
11% |
22 |
12% |
212 |
15% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
245 |
83% |
207 |
83% |
199 |
83% |
173 |
87% |
232 |
89% |
167 |
88% |
1223 |
85% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Attitude |
294 |
100% |
250 |
100% |
240 |
100% |
198 |
100% |
259 |
100% |
185 |
100% |
1426 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Asset/ None |
221 |
75% |
181 |
72% |
116 |
48% |
109 |
55% |
130 |
50% |
86 |
46% |
843 |
59% |
|
|
Some/ Considerable |
73 |
25% |
69 |
28% |
124 |
52% |
89 |
45% |
129 |
50% |
99 |
54% |
583 |
41% |
|
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 9a |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic Needs at Release to the Community | |||||||
| 2002-03 | |||||||
|
CRFs |
CCCs |
Other Releases |
||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
Overall Need |
2832 |
100% |
190 |
100% |
1472 |
100% |
|
|
Low |
359 |
13% |
17 |
9% |
147 |
10% |
|
Medium |
1441 |
51% |
66 |
35% |
613 |
42% |
|
High |
1032 |
36% |
107 |
56% |
712 |
48% |
|
|||||||
Employment |
2784 |
100% |
189 |
100% |
1446 |
100% |
|
|
Asset/None |
1440 |
52% |
86 |
46% |
689 |
48% |
|
Some/Considerable |
1344 |
48% |
103 |
54% |
757 |
52% |
|
|||||||
Marital/Family |
2777 |
100% |
186 |
100% |
1441 |
100% |
|
|
Asset/None |
1642 |
59% |
87 |
47% |
846 |
59% |
|
Some/Considerable |
1135 |
41% |
99 |
53% |
595 |
41% |
|
|||||||
Associates/Social Interaction |
2788 |
100% |
188 |
100% |
1447 |
100% |
|
|
Asset/None |
1130 |
41% |
72 |
38% |
571 |
39% |
|
Some/Considerable |
1658 |
59% |
116 |
62% |
876 |
61% |
|
|||||||
Substance Abuse |
2812 |
100% |
189 |
100% |
1450 |
100% |
|
|
Asset/None |
950 |
34% |
57 |
30% |
457 |
32% |
|
Some/Considerable |
1862 |
66% |
132 |
70% |
993 |
68% |
|
|||||||
Community Functioning |
2769 |
100% |
186 |
100% |
1439 |
100% |
|
|
Asset/None |
1719 |
62% |
102 |
55% |
947 |
66% |
|
Some/Considerable |
1050 |
38% |
84 |
45% |
492 |
34% |
|
|||||||
Personal/Emotional |
2810 |
100% |
189 |
100% |
1446 |
100% |
|
|
Asset/None |
444 |
16% |
22 |
12% |
231 |
16% |
|
Some/Considerable |
2366 |
84% |
167 |
88% |
1215 |
84% |
|
|||||||
Attitude |
2775 |
100% |
185 |
100% |
1439 |
100% |
|
|
Asset/None |
1568 |
57% |
86 |
46% |
715 |
50% |
|
Some/Considerable |
1207 |
43% |
99 |
54% |
724 |
50% |
Table 10 |
||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk and Reintegration at Release to the Community | ||||||||||||||||
CRFs |
||||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
||||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
||
Risk of Re-offend |
3138 |
100% |
3378 |
100% |
3059 |
100% |
2909 |
100% |
3307 |
100% |
2832 |
100% |
18623 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Low |
874 |
28% |
751 |
22% |
755 |
25% |
678 |
23% |
673 |
20% |
554 |
20% |
4285 |
23% |
|
|
Medium |
1066 |
34% |
1552 |
46% |
1547 |
51% |
1478 |
51% |
1700 |
51% |
1484 |
52% |
8827 |
47% |
|
|
High |
1198 |
38% |
1075 |
32% |
757 |
25% |
753 |
26% |
934 |
28% |
794 |
28% |
5511 |
30% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Reintegration Potential |
129 |
100% |
878 |
100% |
2782 |
100% |
2826 |
100% |
3262 |
100% |
2780 |
100% |
12657 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Low |
57 |
44% |
172 |
20% |
337 |
12% |
399 |
14% |
498 |
15% |
454 |
16% |
1917 |
15% |
|
|
Medium |
68 |
53% |
448 |
51% |
1331 |
48% |
1309 |
46% |
1453 |
45% |
1257 |
45% |
5866 |
46% |
|
|
High |
4 |
3% |
258 |
29% |
1114 |
40% |
1118 |
40% |
1311 |
40% |
1069 |
38% |
4874 |
39% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Motivation for Intervention |
129 |
100% |
878 |
100% |
2782 |
100% |
2826 |
100% |
3262 |
100% |
2780 |
100% |
12657 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Low |
45 |
35% |
126 |
14% |
251 |
9% |
282 |
10% |
330 |
10% |
280 |
10% |
1314 |
10% |
|
|
Medium |
60 |
47% |
411 |
47% |
1170 |
42% |
1189 |
42% |
1429 |
44% |
1264 |
45% |
5523 |
44% |
|
|
High |
24 |
19% |
341 |
39% |
1361 |
49% |
1355 |
48% |
1503 |
46% |
1236 |
44% |
5820 |
46% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Risk and Reintegration at Release to the Community |
||||||||||||||||
CCCs |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
2002-03 |
Total |
p |
||||||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
||
Risk of Re-offend |
356 |
100% |
264 |
100% |
247 |
100% |
201 |
100% |
264 |
100% |
190 |
100% |
1522 |
100% |
NS |
|
|
Low |
48 |
13% |
37 |
14% |
27 |
11% |
27 |
13% |
30 |
11% |
20 |
11% |
189 |
12% |
|
|
Medium |
137 |
38% |
106 |
40% |
91 |
37% |
78 |
39% |
88 |
33% |
69 |
36% |
569 |
37% |
|
|
High |
171 |
48% |
121 |
46% |
129 |
52% |
96 |
48% |
146 |
55% |
101 |
53% |
764 |
50% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Reintegration Potential |
37 |
100% |
55 |
100% |
229 |
100% |
190 |
100% |
249 |
100% |
186 |
100% |
946 |
100% |
** |
|
|
Low |
24 |
65% |
21 |
38% |
81 |
35% |
64 |
34% |
101 |
41% |
82 |
44% |
373 |
39% |
|
|
Medium |
12 |
32% |
24 |
44% |
97 |
42% |
73 |
38% |
86 |
35% |
67 |
36% |
359 |
38% |
|
|
High |
1 |
3% |
10 |
18% |
51 |
22% |
53 |
28% |
62 |
25% |
37 |
20% |
214 |
23% |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Motivation for Intervention |
37 |
100% |
55 |
100% |
229 |
100% |
190 |
100% |
249 |
100% |
186 |
100% |
946 |
100% |
* |
|
|
Low |
14 |
38% |
13 |
24% |
49 |
21% |
40 |
21% |
59 |
24% |
43 |
23% |
218 |
23% |
|
|
Medium |
21 |
57% |
25 |
45% |
109 |
48% |
79 |
42% |
112 |
45% |
98 |
53% |
444 |
47% |
|
|
High |
2 |
5% |
17 |
31% |
71 |
31% |
71 |
37% |
78 |
31% |
45 |
24% |
284 |
30% |
|
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 10a |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Risk and Reintegration at Release |
||||||
|
2002-03 |
|||||
|
CRFs |
CCCs |
Other Releases |
|||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
| Risk of Re-offend | 2832 |
100% |
190 |
100% |
1472 |
100% |
Low |
554 |
20% |
20 |
11% |
193 |
13% |
Medium |
1484 |
52% |
69 |
36% |
665 |
45% |
High |
794 |
28% |
101 |
53% |
614 |
42% |
|
||||||
| Reintegration Potential | 2780 |
100% |
186 |
100% |
1379 |
100% |
Low |
454 |
16% |
82 |
44% |
427 |
31% |
Medium |
1257 |
45% |
67 |
36% |
644 |
47% |
High |
1069 |
38% |
37 |
20% |
308 |
22% |
|
||||||
| Motivation for Intervention | 2780 | 100% | 186 | 100% | 1379 | 100% |
Low |
280 |
10% |
43 |
23% |
297 |
22% |
Medium |
1264 |
45% |
98 |
53% |
714 |
52% |
High |
1236 |
44% |
45 |
24% |
368 |
27% |
| Table 11 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region: Aboriginal Offenders | |||||||
| 2002-03 | |||||||
|
Non Aboriginal |
Aboriginal |
Total |
p |
|||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% | |
| Region | 3018 |
100% |
613 |
100% |
3631 |
100% |
|
Atlantic |
343 |
11% |
12 |
2% |
355 |
10% |
*** |
Quebec |
818 |
27% |
30 |
5% |
848 |
23% |
*** |
Ontario |
819 |
27% |
70 |
11% |
889 |
24% |
*** |
Prairie |
436 |
14% |
320 |
52% |
756 |
21% |
*** |
Pacific |
602 |
20% |
181 |
30% |
783 |
22% |
*** |
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
| Table 12 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Release Type: Aboriginal Offenders | |||||||
| 2002-03 | |||||||
|
Non Aboriginal |
Aboriginal |
Total |
p |
|||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
| Type of Release | 3018 |
100% |
613 |
100% |
3631 |
100% |
|
Day parole |
2052 |
68% |
372 |
61% |
2424 |
67% |
*** |
Full parole |
77 |
3% |
13 |
2% |
90 |
2% |
NS |
Statutory release |
886 |
29% |
227 |
37% |
1113 |
31% |
*** |
Long term supervision order |
3 |
0% |
1 |
0% |
4 |
0% |
NS |
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 13 |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics: Aboriginal Offenders | ||||||||
| 2002-03 | ||||||||
|
Non Aboriginal |
Aboriginal |
Total |
p |
||||
|
# |
% |
# |
% |
# |
% |
|
|
Gender |
3018 |
100% |
613 |
100% |
3631 |
100% |
** |
|
|
Male |
2834 |
94% |
558 |
91% |
3392 |
93% |
|
|
Female |
184 |
6% |
55 |
9% |
239 |
7% |
|
|
||||||||
Aboriginal |
0 |
0% |
613 |
100% |
613 |
100% |
||
|
Innu |
0 |
0% |
1 |
0% |
1 |
0% |
|
|
Inuit |
0 |
0% |
23 |
4% |
23 |
4% |
|
|
Metis |
0 |
0% |
196 |
32% |
196 |
32% |
|
|
First Nation |
0 |
0% |
393 |
64% |
393 |
64% |
|
|
||||||||
Marital Status |
3001 |
100% |
607 |
100% |
3608 |
100% |
||
|
Married/Common Law |
1182 |
39% |
258 |
43% |
1440 |
40% |
NS |
|
Divorced/Separated |
302 |
10% |
41 |
7% |
343 |
10% |
** |
|
Single |
1497 |
50% |
303 |
50% |
1800 |
50% |
NS |
|
Widow |
20 |
1% |
5 |
1% |
25 |
1% |
NS |
|
||||||||
Education |
2506 |
100% |
485 |
100% |
2991 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
< Grade 10 |
1036 |
41% |
271 |
56% |
1307 |
44% |
|
|
Grade 10 or more |
1470 |
59% |
214 |
44% |
1684 |
56% |
|
|
||||||||
Employment at Arrest |
2513 |
100% |
487 |
100% |
3000 |
100% |
*** |
|
|
Employed |
958 |
38% |
131 |
27% |
1089 |
36% |
|
|
Unemployed |
1555 |
62% |
356 |
73% |
1911 |
64% |
|
|
||||||||
Mean Age at Admission to Federal Facility |
34.1 yrs |
31.0 yrs |
33.6 yrs |
*** |
||||
|
||||||||
Mean Age at Residency |
36.7 yrs |
33.8 yrs |
36.2 yrs |
*** |
||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001
Table 14 |
|||||||||||
Most Serious Current Offence: Aboriginal Offenders |
|||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Non Aboriginal |
|
Aboriginal |
|
Total |
|
p |
|||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
Total |
3017 |
100% |
|
613 |
100% |
|
3630 |
100% |
|
|
|
|
Homicide/Attempted Murder |
355 |
12% |
|
106 |
17% |
|
461 |
13% |
|
*** |
|
Robbery |
742 |
25% |
|
124 |
20% |
|
866 |
24% |
|
* |
|
Assault |
250 |
8% |
|
99 |
16% |
|
349 |
10% |
|
*** |
|
Sexual Assault |
237 |
8% |
|
82 |
13% |
|
319 |
9% |
|
*** |
|
Violent Offence |
59 |
2% |
|
15 |
2% |
|
74 |
2% |
|
NS |
|
Property |
646 |
21% |
|
100 |
16% |
|
746 |
21% |
|
** |
|
Drug Offence |
519 |
17% |
|
49 |
8% |
|
568 |
16% |
|
*** |
|
Impaired Driving |
24 |
1% |
|
9 |
1% |
|
33 |
1% |
|
NS |
|
Other Criminal Code Offences |
185 |
6% |
|
29 |
5% |
|
214 |
6% |
|
NS |
|
|||||||||||
Aggregate Sentence |
3018 |
100% |
|
612 |
100% |
3630 |
100% |
|
*** |
||
|
0 to <2 Years |
126 |
4% |
|
54 |
9% |
|
180 |
5% |
|
|
|
2 to <5 Years |
1961 |
65% |
|
360 |
59% |
|
2321 |
64% |
|
|
|
5 to <10 Years |
484 |
16% |
|
111 |
18% |
|
595 |
16% |
|
|
|
10 to <15 Years |
110 |
4% |
|
22 |
4% |
|
132 |
4% |
|
|
|
15+ Years |
120 |
4% |
|
12 |
2% |
|
132 |
4% |
|
|
|
Life |
217 |
7% |
|
53 |
9% |
|
270 |
7% |
|
NS |
|
|||||||||||
Mean |
4.6 yrs |
|
4.2 yrs |
|
4.5 yrs |
|
NS |
||||
Median |
3.0 yrs |
|
3.0 yrs |
|
3.0 yrs |
|
|
||||
|
|||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
|||||||||||
Table 15 | |||||||||||
Previous Convictions: Aboriginal Offenders |
|||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Non Aboriginal |
|
Aboriginal |
|
Total |
|
p |
|||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
Youth Court |
2362 |
99% |
|
455 |
100% |
|
2817 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
1443 |
61% |
|
182 |
40% |
|
1625 |
58% |
|
|
|
Yes |
919 |
39% |
|
273 |
60% |
|
1192 |
42% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Adult Court Convictions |
2377 |
100% |
|
457 |
100% |
|
2834 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
446 |
19% |
|
48 |
11% |
|
494 |
17% |
|
|
|
Yes |
1931 |
81% |
|
409 |
89% |
|
2340 |
83% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previous Provincial Term |
2376 |
100% |
|
457 |
100% |
|
2833 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
802 |
34% |
|
99 |
22% |
|
901 |
32% |
|
|
|
Yes |
1574 |
66% |
|
358 |
78% |
|
1932 |
68% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previous Federal Term |
2377 |
100% |
|
457 |
100% |
|
2834 |
100% |
|
NS |
|
|
No |
1851 |
78% |
|
352 |
77% |
|
2203 |
78% |
|
|
|
Yes |
526 |
22% |
|
105 |
23% |
|
631 |
22% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previous Community Supervision |
2376 |
100% |
|
457 |
100% |
|
2833 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
704 |
30% |
|
87 |
19% |
|
791 |
28% |
|
|
|
Yes |
1672 |
70% |
|
370 |
81% |
|
2042 |
72% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
|||||||||||
Table 16 | |||||||||||
Failures: Aboriginal Offenders |
|||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Non Aboriginal |
|
Aboriginal |
|
Total |
|
p |
|||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
Previously failed on community-based sanction |
2362 |
100% |
|
456 |
100% |
|
2818 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
1108 |
47% |
|
164 |
36% |
|
1272 |
45% |
|
|
|
Yes |
1254 |
53% |
|
292 |
64% |
|
1546 |
55% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previously failed on conditional release |
2357 |
100% |
|
457 |
100% |
|
2814 |
100% |
|
** |
|
|
No |
1534 |
65% |
|
263 |
58% |
|
1797 |
64% |
|
|
|
Yes |
823 |
35% |
|
194 |
42% |
|
1017 |
36% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
6 months or more since last incarceration |
2377 |
100% |
|
456 |
100% |
|
2833 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
521 |
22% |
|
135 |
30% |
|
656 |
23% |
|
|
|
Yes |
1856 |
78% |
|
321 |
70% |
|
2177 |
77% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Crime free period of 1 year |
2374 |
100% |
|
457 |
100% |
|
2831 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
339 |
14% |
|
128 |
28% |
|
467 |
16% |
|
|
|
Yes |
2035 |
86% |
|
329 |
72% |
|
2364 |
84% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previously reclassified to higher custody |
2344 |
100% |
|
446 |
100% |
|
2790 |
100% |
|
NS |
|
|
No |
2039 |
87% |
|
380 |
85% |
|
2419 |
87% |
|
|
|
Yes |
305 |
13% |
|
66 |
15% |
|
371 |
13% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previously segregated for disciplinary infraction |
2290 |
100% |
|
434 |
100% |
|
2724 |
100% |
|
NS |
|
|
No |
1767 |
77% |
|
320 |
74% |
|
2087 |
77% |
|
|
|
Yes |
523 |
23% |
|
114 |
26% |
|
637 |
23% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previous attempted/successful escape/UAL |
2371 |
100% |
|
457 |
100% |
|
2828 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
1865 |
79% |
|
316 |
69% |
|
2181 |
77% |
|
|
|
Yes |
506 |
21% |
|
141 |
31% |
|
647 |
23% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
|||||||||||
Table 17 |
|||||||||||
Dynamic Needs at Release to the Community: Aboriginal Offenders |
|||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Non Aboriginal |
|
Aboriginal |
|
Total |
p |
||||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
Overall Need |
2317 |
100% |
|
474 |
100% |
|
2791 |
100% |
*** |
||
|
Low |
500 |
22% |
|
45 |
9% |
|
545 |
20% |
|
|
|
Medium |
1250 |
54% |
|
208 |
44% |
|
1458 |
52% |
|
|
|
High |
567 |
24% |
|
221 |
47% |
|
788 |
28% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Employment |
2284 |
100% |
|
463 |
100% |
|
2747 |
100% |
*** |
||
|
Asset/None |
1244 |
54% |
|
175 |
38% |
|
1419 |
52% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
1040 |
46% |
|
288 |
62% |
|
1328 |
48% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Marital/Family |
2278 |
100% |
|
462 |
100% |
|
2740 |
100% |
*** |
||
|
Asset/None |
1428 |
63% |
|
196 |
42% |
|
1624 |
59% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
850 |
37% |
|
266 |
58% |
|
1116 |
41% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Associates/Social Interaction |
2287 |
100% |
|
463 |
100% |
|
2750 |
100% |
*** |
||
|
Asset/None |
972 |
43% |
|
146 |
32% |
|
1118 |
41% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
1315 |
57% |
|
317 |
68% |
|
1632 |
59% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Substance Abuse |
2300 |
100% |
|
473 |
100% |
|
2773 |
100% |
*** |
||
|
Asset/None |
856 |
37% |
|
86 |
18% |
|
942 |
34% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
1444 |
63% |
|
387 |
82% |
|
1831 |
66% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Community Functioning |
2275 |
100% |
|
458 |
100% |
|
2733 |
100% |
* |
||
|
Asset/None |
1430 |
63% |
|
264 |
58% |
|
1694 |
62% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
845 |
37% |
|
194 |
42% |
|
1039 |
38% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Personal/Emotional |
2299 |
100% |
|
473 |
100% |
|
2772 |
100% |
*** |
||
|
Asset/None |
389 |
17% |
|
44 |
9% |
|
433 |
16% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
1910 |
83% |
|
429 |
91% |
|
2339 |
84% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Attitude |
2280 |
100% |
|
458 |
100% |
|
2738 |
100% |
NS |
||
|
Asset/None |
1277 |
56% |
|
270 |
59% |
|
1547 |
57% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
1003 |
44% |
|
188 |
41% |
|
1191 |
43% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
|||||||||||
Table 18 |
||||||||||||
Risk and Reintegration at Release to the Community: Aboriginal Offenders | ||||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Non Aboriginal |
|
Aboriginal |
|
Total |
|
p |
||||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
|
Risk of Re-offend | 2317 |
100% |
|
474 |
100% |
|
2791 |
100% |
|
*** |
||
|
Low | 500 |
22% |
|
45 |
9% |
|
545 |
20% |
|
|
|
|
Medium | 1250 |
54% |
|
208 |
44% |
|
1458 |
52% |
|
|
|
|
High | 567 |
24% |
|
221 |
47% |
|
788 |
28% |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Reintegration Potential | 2273 |
100% |
|
466 |
100% |
|
2739 |
100% |
|
*** |
||
|
Low | 337 |
15% |
|
113 |
24% |
|
450 |
16% |
|
|
|
|
Medium | 1001 |
44% |
|
236 |
51% |
|
1237 |
45% |
|
|
|
|
High | 935 |
41% |
|
117 |
25% |
|
1052 |
38% |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Motivation for Intervention | 2273 |
100% |
|
466 |
100% |
|
2739 |
100% |
|
NS |
||
|
Low | 221 |
10% |
|
57 |
12% |
|
278 |
10% |
|
|
|
|
Medium | 1045 |
46% |
|
199 |
43% |
|
1244 |
45% |
|
|
|
|
High | 1007 |
44% |
|
210 |
45% |
|
1217 |
44% |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 | ||||||||||||
Table 19 | ||||||||||||
Region: Women Offenders |
||||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Men |
|
Women |
|
Total |
|
p |
||||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
|
Region |
3445 |
100% |
|
250 |
100% |
|
3695 |
100% |
|
|
||
|
Atlantic |
352 |
10% |
|
38 |
15% |
|
390 |
11% |
|
** |
|
|
Quebec |
812 |
24% |
|
39 |
16% |
|
851 |
23% |
** |
||
|
Ontario |
816 |
24% |
|
85 |
34% |
|
901 |
24% |
|
*** |
|
|
Prairie |
685 |
20% |
|
85 |
34% |
|
770 |
21% |
|
*** |
|
|
Pacific |
780 |
23% |
|
3 |
1% |
|
783 |
21% |
|
*** |
|
|
||||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
||||||||||||
Table 20 |
|||||||||||
Release Type: Women Offenders |
|||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Men |
|
Women |
|
Total |
|
p |
|||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
Type of Release |
3445 |
100% |
|
250 |
100% |
|
3695 |
100% |
|
|
|
|
Day parole |
2272 |
66% |
|
199 |
80% |
|
2471 |
67% |
|
*** |
|
Full parole |
93 |
3% |
|
10 |
4% |
|
103 |
3% |
|
NS |
|
Statutory release |
1076 |
31% |
|
41 |
16% |
|
1117 |
30% |
|
*** |
|
Long term supervision order |
4 |
0% |
|
0 |
0% |
|
4 |
0% |
|
NS |
|
|||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
|||||||||||
Table 21 |
||||||||||||
Demographics: Women Offenders |
||||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Men |
|
Women |
|
Total |
|
p |
||||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
|
Race |
3392 |
100% |
|
239 |
100% |
|
3631 |
5% |
|
|
||
|
Caucasian |
2507 |
74% |
|
142 |
59% |
|
2649 |
73% |
|
*** |
|
|
Aboriginal |
558 |
16% |
|
55 |
23% |
|
613 |
17% |
|
** |
|
|
Black |
153 |
5% |
|
28 |
12% |
|
181 |
5% |
|
*** |
|
|
Asian |
90 |
3% |
|
6 |
3% |
|
96 |
3% |
|
NS |
|
|
Other |
84 |
2% |
|
8 |
3% |
|
92 |
3% |
|
NS |
|
|
||||||||||||
Marital Status |
3425 |
100% |
|
242 |
100% |
|
3667 |
100% |
|
|
||
|
Married/Common Law |
1360 |
40% |
|
94 |
39% |
|
1454 |
40% |
|
NS |
|
|
Divorced/Separated |
324 |
9% |
|
22 |
9% |
|
346 |
9% |
|
NS |
|
|
Single |
1724 |
50% |
|
118 |
49% |
|
1842 |
50% |
|
NS |
|
|
Widow |
17 |
0% |
|
8 |
3% |
|
25 |
1% |
|
*** |
|
|
||||||||||||
Education |
2795 |
100% |
|
215 |
100% |
|
3010 |
100% |
|
NS |
||
|
< Grade 10 |
1229 |
44% |
|
85 |
40% |
|
1314 |
44% |
|
|
|
|
Grade 10 or more |
1566 |
56% |
|
130 |
60% |
|
1696 |
56% |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Employment at Arrest |
2804 |
100% |
|
215 |
100% |
|
3019 |
100% |
|
NS |
||
|
Employed |
1023 |
36% |
|
73 |
34% |
|
1096 |
36% |
|
|
|
|
Unemployed |
1781 |
64% |
|
142 |
66% |
|
1923 |
64% |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Mean Age at Admission |
33.6 yrs |
|
32.4 yrs |
|
33.5 yrs |
|
NS |
|||||
|
to Federal Facility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Mean Age at Residency |
36.3 yrs |
|
34.2 yrs |
36.1 yrs |
|
** |
||||||
|
||||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
||||||||||||
Table 22 |
|||||||||||
Most Serious Current Offence: Women Offenders |
|||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Men |
|
Women |
|
Total |
|
p |
|||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
Total |
3444 |
100% |
|
250 |
100% |
|
3694 |
100% |
|
|
|
|
Homicide/Attempted Murder |
435 |
13% |
|
27 |
11% |
|
462 |
13% |
|
NS |
|
Robbery |
831 |
24% |
|
37 |
15% |
|
868 |
23% |
|
*** |
|
Assault |
337 |
10% |
|
24 |
10% |
|
361 |
10% |
|
NS |
|
Sexual Assault |
319 |
9% |
|
3 |
1% |
|
322 |
9% |
|
*** |
|
Other Violent |
74 |
2% |
|
3 |
1% |
|
77 |
2% |
|
NS |
|
Property |
720 |
21% |
|
48 |
19% |
|
768 |
21% |
|
NS |
|
Drug Offence |
485 |
14% |
|
92 |
37% |
|
577 |
16% |
|
*** |
|
Impaired Driving |
27 |
1% |
|
8 |
3% |
|
35 |
1% |
|
*** |
|
Other Criminal Code Offences |
216 |
6% |
|
8 |
3% |
|
224 |
6% |
|
* |
|
|||||||||||
Aggregate Sentence |
3444 |
100% |
|
250 |
100% |
|
3694 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
0 to <2 Years |
194 |
6% |
|
28 |
11% |
|
222 |
6% |
|
|
|
2 to <5 Years |
2160 |
63% |
|
180 |
72% |
|
2340 |
63% |
|
|
|
5 to <10 Years |
570 |
17% |
|
27 |
11% |
|
597 |
16% |
|
|
|
10 to <15 Years |
130 |
4% |
|
2 |
1% |
|
132 |
4% |
|
|
|
15+ Years |
130 |
4% |
|
2 |
1% |
|
132 |
4% |
|
|
|
Life |
260 |
8% |
|
11 |
4% |
|
271 |
7% |
|
NS |
|
|||||||||||
Mean |
4.6 yrs |
|
3.3 yrs |
|
4.5 yrs |
|
*** |
||||
Median |
3.0 yrs |
|
2.5 yrs |
|
3.0 yrs |
|
|
||||
|
|||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
|||||||||||
Table 23 |
|||||||||||
Previous Convictions: Women Offenders |
|||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Men |
|
Women |
|
Total |
|
p |
|||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
Youth Court |
2631 |
100% |
|
204 |
100% |
|
2835 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
1485 |
56% |
|
152 |
75% |
|
1637 |
58% |
|
|
|
Yes |
1146 |
44% |
|
52 |
25% |
|
1198 |
42% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Adult Court Convictions |
2648 |
100% |
|
204 |
100% |
|
2852 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
439 |
17% |
|
60 |
29% |
|
499 |
17% |
|
|
|
Yes |
2209 |
83% |
|
144 |
71% |
|
2353 |
83% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previous Provincial Term |
2648 |
100% |
|
203 |
100% |
|
2851 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
808 |
31% |
|
101 |
50% |
|
909 |
32% |
|
|
|
Yes |
1840 |
69% |
|
102 |
50% |
|
1942 |
68% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previous Federal Term |
2648 |
100% |
|
204 |
100% |
|
2852 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
2032 |
77% |
|
189 |
93% |
|
2221 |
78% |
|
|
|
Yes |
616 |
23% |
|
15 |
7% |
|
631 |
22% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previous Community Supervision |
2647 |
100% |
|
204 |
100% |
|
2851 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
707 |
27% |
|
92 |
45% |
|
799 |
28% |
|
|
|
Yes |
1940 |
73% |
|
112 |
55% |
|
2052 |
72% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
|||||||||||
Table 24 |
|||||||||||
Failures: Women Offenders |
|||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Men |
|
Women |
|
Total |
|
p |
|||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
Previously failed on community-based sanction |
2633 |
100% |
|
203 |
100% |
|
2836 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
1152 |
44% |
|
129 |
64% |
|
1281 |
45% |
|
|
|
Yes |
1481 |
56% |
|
74 |
36% |
|
1555 |
55% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previously failed on conditional release |
2629 |
100% |
|
203 |
100% |
|
2832 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
1651 |
63% |
|
159 |
78% |
|
1810 |
64% |
|
|
|
Yes |
978 |
37% |
|
44 |
22% |
|
1022 |
36% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
6 months or more since last incarceration |
2647 |
100% |
|
204 |
100% |
|
2851 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
641 |
24% |
|
19 |
9% |
|
660 |
23% |
|
|
|
Yes |
2006 |
76% |
|
185 |
91% |
|
2191 |
77% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Crime free period of 1 year |
2646 |
100% |
|
203 |
100% |
|
2849 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
454 |
17% |
|
16 |
8% |
|
470 |
16% |
|
|
|
Yes |
2192 |
83% |
|
187 |
92% |
|
2379 |
84% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previously reclassified to higher custody |
2607 |
100% |
|
201 |
100% |
|
2808 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
2242 |
86% |
|
195 |
97% |
|
2437 |
87% |
|
|
|
Yes |
365 |
14% |
|
6 |
3% |
|
371 |
13% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previously segregated for disciplinary infraction |
2540 |
100% |
|
201 |
100% |
|
2741 |
100% |
|
* |
|
|
No |
1933 |
76% |
|
168 |
84% |
|
2101 |
77% |
|
|
|
Yes |
607 |
24% |
|
33 |
16% |
|
640 |
23% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Previous attempted/successful escape/UAL |
2642 |
100% |
|
204 |
100% |
|
2846 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
No |
2012 |
76% |
|
186 |
91% |
|
2198 |
77% |
|
|
|
Yes |
630 |
24% |
|
18 |
9% |
|
648 |
23% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
|||||||||||
Table 25 |
|||||||||||
Dynamic Needs at Release to the Community: Women Offenders |
|||||||||||
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|||||||
|
|
Men |
|
Women |
|
Total |
p |
||||
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
Overall Need |
2668 |
100% |
|
164 |
100% |
|
2832 |
100% |
* |
||
|
Low |
328 |
12% |
|
31 |
19% |
|
359 |
13% |
|
|
|
Medium |
1357 |
51% |
|
84 |
51% |
|
1441 |
51% |
|
|
|
High |
983 |
37% |
|
49 |
30% |
|
1032 |
36% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Employment |
2621 |
100% |
|
163 |
100% |
|
2784 |
100% |
NS |
||
|
Asset/None |
1362 |
52% |
|
78 |
48% |
|
1440 |
52% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
1259 |
48% |
|
85 |
52% |
|
1344 |
48% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Marital/Family |
2614 |
100% |
|
163 |
100% |
|
2777 |
100% |
*** |
||
|
Asset/None |
1568 |
60% |
|
74 |
45% |
|
1642 |
59% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
1046 |
40% |
|
89 |
55% |
|
1135 |
41% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Associates/Social Interaction |
2624 |
100% |
|
164 |
100% |
|
2788 |
100% |
NS |
||
|
Asset/None |
1062 |
40% |
|
68 |
41% |
|
1130 |
41% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
1562 |
60% |
|
96 |
59% |
|
1658 |
59% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Substance Abuse |
2648 |
100% |
|
164 |
100% |
|
2812 |
100% |
NS |
||
|
Asset/None |
890 |
34% |
|
60 |
37% |
|
950 |
34% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
1758 |
66% |
|
104 |
63% |
|
1862 |
66% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Community Functioning |
2607 |
100% |
|
162 |
100% |
|
2769 |
100% |
NS |
||
|
Asset/None |
1614 |
62% |
|
105 |
65% |
|
1719 |
62% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
993 |
38% |
|
57 |
35% |
|
1050 |
38% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Personal/Emotional |
2647 |
100% |
|
163 |
100% |
|
2810 |
100% |
NS |
||
|
Asset/None |
411 |
16% |
|
33 |
20% |
|
444 |
16% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
2236 |
84% |
|
130 |
80% |
|
2366 |
84% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Attitude |
2613 |
100% |
|
162 |
100% |
|
2775 |
100% |
*** |
||
|
Asset/None |
1452 |
56% |
|
116 |
72% |
|
1568 |
57% |
|
|
|
Some/Considerable |
1161 |
44% |
|
46 |
28% |
|
1207 |
43% |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
|||||||||||
Table 26 |
||||||||||||
Risk and Reintegration at Release to the Community: Women Offenders |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
2002-03 |
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
Men |
|
Women |
|
Total |
|
p |
|||
|
|
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
# |
% |
|
|
Risk of Re-offend |
|
2668 |
100% |
|
164 |
100% |
|
2832 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
Low |
|
488 |
18% |
|
66 |
40% |
|
554 |
20% |
|
|
|
Medium |
|
1408 |
53% |
|
76 |
46% |
|
1484 |
52% |
|
|
|
High |
|
772 |
29% |
|
22 |
13% |
|
794 |
28% |
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Reintegration Potential |
|
2615 |
100% |
|
165 |
100% |
|
2780 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
Low |
|
435 |
17% |
|
19 |
12% |
|
454 |
16% |
|
|
|
Medium |
|
1198 |
46% |
|
59 |
36% |
|
1257 |
45% |
|
|
|
High |
|
982 |
38% |
|
87 |
53% |
|
1069 |
38% |
|
|
|
||||||||||||
Motivation for Intervention |
|
2615 |
100% |
|
165 |
100% |
|
2780 |
100% |
|
*** |
|
|
Low |
|
271 |
10% |
|
9 |
5% |
|
280 |
10% |
|
|
|
Medium |
|
1206 |
46% |
|
58 |
35% |
|
1264 |
45% |
|
|
|
High |
|
1138 |
44% |
|
98 |
59% |
|
1236 |
44% |
|
|
|
||||||||||||
NS = Not Significant; *p<=.05; **p<=.01; ***p<=.001 |
||||||||||||
| Table 27 |
||||||||
History and Philosophy |
||||||||
|
|
# |
% |
|
|
|
# |
% |
Number of years in operation |
79 |
100% |
|
Strategic/Operational Plan (SOP) |
78 |
100% |
||
|
5 years or less |
12 |
15% |
|
|
Yes |
61 |
78% |
|
6 to 10 years |
5 |
6% |
|
|
No |
17 |
22% |
|
11 to 15 years |
12 |
15% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 to 20 years |
12 |
15% |
|
Current goals (1) |
77 |
|
|
|
21 to 25 years |
11 |
14% |
|
|
Transition/Reintegration |
71 |
92% |
|
26 to 30 years |
10 |
13% |
|
|
Support/Assistance |
71 |
92% |
|
30 years or more |
17 |
22% |
|
|
Accommodation |
70 |
91% |
Mean # of years |
20.6 yrs |
|
|
Program/Service Delivery |
70 |
91% |
||
Median # of years |
20.0 yrs |
|
|
Supervision |
63 |
82% |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Community Safety |
60 |
78% |
Main reason for opening halfway house (1) |
79 |
|
|
|
Treatment |
59 |
77% |
|
|
To better respond to offender needs |
40 |
51% |
|
|
Education |
53 |
69% |
|
To better respond to community needs |
13 |
16% |
|
|
Employment |
52 |
68% |
|
To provide substance abuse treatment |
11 |
14% |
|
|
Religion/Spiritual |
34 |
44% |
|
To respond to a CSC request |
11 |
14% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
8 |
10% |
|
Most Reflective Goal |
70 |
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Community safety |
21 |
30% |
Current Mandate (1) |
79 |
|
|
|
Transition & reintegration |
19 |
27% |
|
|
Provide programs, services & shelter |
39 |
49% |
|
|
Accommodation |
10 |
14% |
|
Assist offenders in reintegration process |
29 |
37% |
|
|
Treatment |
8 |
11% |
|
Assist offenders in rehabilitation process |
18 |
23% |
|
|
Support/assistance |
5 |
7% |
|
Provide safe, secure & supportive environment |
13 |
16% |
|
|
Program/service delivery |
5 |
7% |
|
Ensure security & protection of community |
3 |
4% |
|
|
Religion/spirituality |
2 |
3% |
|
Other |
4 |
5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have the goals changed? |
79 |
100% |
|
Most Reflective Mandate |
71 |
100% |
|
|
Yes |
31 |
39% |
|
|
Community safety & protection |
21 |
30% |
|
|
No |
48 |
61% |
|
Transition & reintegration |
18 |
25% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treatment & rehabilitation |
17 |
24% |
|
Ways goals have changed (1) |
31 |
|
|
|
Humane approach to care |
8 |
11% |
|
|
Priorities of goals have changed and shifted |
15 |
48% |
|
Social welfare approach |
3 |
4% |
|
|
Greater emphasis on programs to meet needs |
8 |
26% |
|
Change behaviour/attitudes |
3 |
4% |
|
|
More precise and structured goals |
6 |
19% |
|
Life/living skills |
1 |
1% |
|
|
Greater emphasis on specific types of clientele |
5 |
16% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greater emphasis on community |
5 |
16% |
Has the mandate changed? |
78 |
100% |
|
|
Other |
3 |
10% |
|
|
Yes |
23 |
29% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
No |
55 |
71% |
|
Philosophical approach (1) |
79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Client-centered/humanistic approach |
39 |
49% |
Ways mandate have changed (1) |
23 |
|
|
|
Social welfare approach |
17 |
22% |
|
|
Greater emphasis on reintegration & rehabilitation |
8 |
35% |
|
|
Holistic approach |
11 |
14% |
|
Expanded to provide services to broader clientele base |
5 |
22% |
|
|
Religious/spirituality approach |
10 |
13% |
|
Greater emphais on security |
4 |
17% |
|
|
Reintegration/transition emphasis |
8 |
10% |
|
Less emphasis on social welfare and housing |
4 |
17% |
|
|
Cognitive-behavioural/social learning approach |
5 |
6% |
|
Other |
6 |
26% |
|
|
Community protection emphasis |
2 |
3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
5 |
6% |
(1) More than one response was possible. |
||||||||
Table 28 |
||||||||
Physical Description |
||||||||
|
|
# |
% |
|
|
|
# |
% |
Location |
79 |
100% |
|
Gender |
73 |
|
||
|
Large City |
52 |
66% |
|
|
Male federal beds available |
52 |
71% |
|
Small City |
19 |
24% |
|
|
Female federal beds available |
28 |
38% |
|
Rural Community |
7 |
9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve |
1 |
1% |
|
Client Length of Stay |
22 |
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unlimited residency period |
42 |
191% |
Physical Structure |
79 |
100% |
|
|
Leave at warrant expiry date |
22 |
100% |
|
|
Three or more story house |
38 |
48% |
|
|
Maximum # of days allowed |
14 |
64% |
|
One or two story house |
27 |
34% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apartment Building |
4 |
5% |
|
Client Residency (days) |
Mean |
Median |
|
|
Other |
10 |
13% |
|
|
Shortest |
19.7 |
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Longest |
786.1 |
684.5 |
Physical Layout (1) |
79 |
|
|
|
Average |
173.1 |
182.0 |
|
|
Laundry Facilities |
79 |
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resident Bedrooms |
79 |
100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Staff Offices |
77 |
97% |
|
|
|
&n | |