Performance Assurance

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

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

File #394-2-30

Evaluation Branch
Performance Assurance Sector
October 7, 2005

INTRODUCTION

Program Profile and Logic Model

Background

Prior to 1992, the Correctional Service of Canada's (CSC) approach towards Aboriginal corrections focussed on institutional service delivery, which predominantly addressed culture, spirituality and traditions. This approach was adopted primarily in response to The Task Force on Aboriginal People in Federal Corrections (1988), the Daubney Report (1988) and The Correctional Law Review's Report on Correctional Issues Affecting Native Peoples (1988) (Working Paper # 7). Collectively, the reports identified a need for CSC to more closely examine correctional processes, particularly Aboriginal programming, as they relate to Aboriginal offenders and the larger Aboriginal community. As such, recommendations were made for the recruitment of Aboriginal staff members and the provision of cultural sensitivity training sessions to existing staff members to ensure effective programming for Aboriginal offenders. Since then, CSC's approach towards Aboriginal corrections has evolved through the introduction of a legislative framework in 1992, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Legislation

Section 81 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA, 1992) provides the legislative framework within which the Correctional Service of Canada and the Aboriginal communities have the opportunity to work toward two key objectives: alternatives to incarceration, and more effective and culturally appropriate community corrections for Aboriginal offenders[11]:

81. (1) The Minister, or a person authorized by the Minister, may enter into an agreement with an Aboriginal community for the provision of correctional services to Aboriginal offenders and for payment by the Minister, or by a person authorized by the Minister, in respect of the provision of those services.

Scope of agreement:

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an agreement entered into under that subsection may provide for the provision of correctional services to a non-Aboriginal offender.

Placement of offender:

(3) In accordance with any agreement entered into under subsection (1), the Commissioner may transfer an offender to the care and custody of an Aboriginal community, with the consent of the offender and of the Aboriginal community.

The Agreement

In June 1999, the Native Counselling Services of Alberta (NCSA) signed the first Section 81 agreement with CSC. This agreement was revised in April 2001[12] and is in effect until April 2006. In accordance with the Agreement, Aboriginal offenders are transferred or released to the Centre and are managed by NCSA staff members. At the Centre, offenders are provided with comprehensive programs and services developed using a combination of proven correctional methods and traditional Aboriginal healing approaches. Services may also be offered to non-Aboriginal offenders and inmates who meet transfer eligibility and suitability criteria established through protocols agreed upon by both parties[13].

The parties agreed that the goals and objectives[14] of the correctional services offered at the Stan Daniels Healing Centre are:

  1. To provide a safe, supportive and holistic residential environment for male Aboriginal offenders;
  2. To provide opportunities for the personal growth and development of offenders, that will facilitate their successful reintegration into society;
  3. To provide a high quality of care, custody and supervision of offenders, thereby contributing to the safety of the community.
The Stan Daniels Healing Centre

Prior to 1999, the Stan Daniels Healing Centre was a CSC run correctional centre for male offenders. The Centre is located downtown Edmonton, Alberta, on the same site as the Grierson Centre, a minimum security CSC facility for male offenders. The Centre has space allocated to residents (73 beds), as well as administrative offices, program rooms, a cultural activity room, a weight room, a dining hall, a games room, and a room designated for those requiring medical attention. Staff members working at the Centre are comprised of the Executive Director, an Assistant Executive Director, six parole officers, one Elder, two program facilitators, nine living unit staff members, two administrative staff members and one office manager. All staff members at the Centre are employees of the Native Counselling Services of Alberta.

The Stan Daniels Healing Centre offers programs to residents to address their needs in the areas of spirituality and culture, employment, education, family relationships, and personal and emotional orientation. The Centre offers education and employment upgrading programs to prepare residents for career development. The Centre also offers programs such as the Loss and Recovery and Relationships programs, to address residents' emotional needs. The Elders Healing Circle and ceremonies targets spiritual needs while several other Aboriginal-specific programs combat criminogenic needs such as In Search of Your Warrior, a violence prevention program, and Family Life Improvement Program, an educational, historical and life skills program. Finally, the Centre maintains a zero tolerance policy regarding substance abuse monitored through its Urinalysis Program. This program requires residents with abstinence conditions set by the National Parole Board to be tested in accordance with policy[15]. The substance abuse needs of residents are also targeted through programs such as the Substance Abuse Relapse Prevention Program and the 28-Day Substance Abuse Treatment Program.

Relevancy of the Stan Daniels Healing Centre

The government of Canada, in partnership with CSC, has listed “reducing the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal offenders in correctional facilities” as a key challenge[16]. Creating centers to better suit the spiritual and cultural needs of Aboriginal offenders is an approach designed to assist in achieving this goal. In fact, incorporated into the Correctional Law Review is a recommendation that “Aboriginal-specific programming is needed if CSC is to meet its corporate objective of successfully reintegrating Aboriginal inmates”[17]. It is suggested that these programs be created through the correctional facilities but under specialized Aboriginal orientation units such as healing centers. Thus, the Stan Daniels Healing Center Section 81 Agreement is consistent with strategic governmental direction geared towards the reintegration of Aboriginal peoples in the community.

The Stan Daniels Healing Centre Section 81 Agreement is consistent with CSC departmental and government priorities. Specifically, the Agreement aligns with the principles of safe and effective accommodation and reintegration of Healing Centre residents. As such, there is a legitimate role for government in pursuing Agreements of this nature, as the Agreement is consistent with CSC's Mission Statement, Core Values and Corporate Objectives[18].

Resident Profile
Resident Status

For the purposes of the evaluation, residents are classified into the following groups:

  1. Offenders on discretionary release. This group consists of those offenders on day or full parole. “Day Parole” means the authority granted to an offender by the National Parole Board[19](NPB) to be at large during the offender's sentence in order to prepare the offender for full parole or statutory release, the conditions of which require the offender to return to a penitentiary, a community-based residential facility or a provincial correctional facility each night, unless otherwise authorized. “Full parole” means the authority granted to an offender by the National Parole Board to be at large during the offender's sentence. Note that both day and full parole releases are not automatic.
  2. Offenders on statutory release with a residency condition. Statutory release residents are those released from imprisonment and subject to supervision before the expiration of their sentence[20]. The residency condition is imposed on this group of offenders by the National Parole Board when the Board considers it reasonable and necessary, in order to protect society and to facilitate the successful reintegration into society of the offender[21].
  3. Inmates. This group is comprised of residents at the Centre who are incarcerated.
Selection Criteria

Federal offenders and inmates (Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) must meet the following criteria before being transferred to the Stan Daniels Healing Centre:

  1. Inmates shall meet the following criteria:
  • A low probability of escape;
  • A low risk to the safety of the public in the event of escape;
  • A requirement for a low degree of supervision and control of the inmate's activities within the institution; and
  • A plan which can reasonably be expected to lead to a conditional release within 4-6 months.
  1. Inmates and conditionally released offenders must meet the following criteria for transfer to the Stan Daniels Healing Centre (SDHC):
  • Have demonstrated a willingness to address criminogenic needs;
  • Have a structured plan for their stay in the Healing Centre and a commitment to fully participate in SDHC programming;
  • Have demonstrated an interest in or acceptance of spiritual healing at the Centre; and
  • Have demonstrated that they are sincere in their efforts to overcome their problems and begin the healing process.
  1. In addition, the Stan Daniels Healing Centre will review offenders and inmates[22] who do not meet the above conditions to see if they meet the criteria as follows:
  • Expressed an interest in staying at the Centre;
  • Have a structured plan for staying at the Centre;
  • Have a reasonable probability of being successful at the Centre; and
  • Have respect for the cultural and spiritual aspect of the programming and healing process at the Centre;
  • Have demonstrated an interest in addressing the issues identified in their Correctional Plan.
Demographic Profile:

Between May 1999 and June 2005, 1,155 federal offenders and inmates resided at the Centre for varying lengths of time. The median[23] length of stay for those on a discretionary release was 39 days, while, for both those on statutory release with residency and inmates, the median length of stay was 28 days. Over three-quarters of the residents were transferred from Drumheller, Bowden, Grand Cache or Pe Sâkâstêw Institutions. Within the inmate population, most were minimum security (89%) followed by medium security (11%). The majority of residents were Aboriginal (62%, n=718) while the remainder were mostly Caucasian (33%, n =380). Aboriginal residents were younger than non-Aboriginal residents upon entry to the Centre [t(1,150)=3.29, p<.001]. In sum, individual offenders and inmates represented a total of 2,424 admissions to the Centre[24]; of which 806 (33%) were inmate status, 866 (36%) were discretionary release and 752 (31%) were statutory release cases with a residency condition.

Current Offence

An examination of current federal offences data show that one quarter of residents at the Centre were serving a sentence that included an aggravated assault conviction, and approximately one fifth a robbery conviction. Statistical analyses revealed differences across resident status. Statutory release residents were more likely to have been convicted of robbery, aggravated assault and sexual assault; inmate residents were more likely to be convicted of homicide offences while residents on discretionary release were more likely to have drug possession and trafficking convictions (see Table 1).

Table 1: Current Offences

Resident Status

Current Offence

X2

N

Discretionary Release
(%)

Inmate
(%)

Statutory Release With Residency
(%)

Total
(%)

Homicide***

33.34

1154

4.32

9.13

0.28

4.85

Robbery**

9.96

1154

15.95

22.48

25.21

21.23

Sexual Assault**

11.13

1154

9.46

11.48

17.37

12.65

Aggravated Assault***

36.75

1154

18.65

20.84

36.41

24.96

Drug Trafficking***

20.85

1154

18.38

11.71

7.28

12.48

Drug Possession*

4.91

1154

12.16

10.30

1.28

9.97

Note: *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Assessment at Intake

Close to half of the Centre's residents were rated as having high static risk at intake, and over half were rated as having a high dynamic risk ratings. An examination of ratings across resident groupings revealed more statutory release residents were rated as having high static risk, high dynamic risk, low reintegration potential, low motivation level and maximum security rating designation (per the Custody Rating Scale-CRS), followed by inmate residents, then discretionary release residents (see Table 2).

Table 2: Intake Assessment

Resident Status

Factor

X2

N

Discretionary
Release
(%)

Inmate
(%)

Statutory Release With Residency (%)

Total
(%)

High Static Risk***

116.51

1148

33.97

40.94

69.01

47.39

High Dynamic Risk***

84.08

1148

45.38

46.35

74.08

54.62

Low Reintegration Potential***

64.39

658

13.54

18.66

50.2

29.42

Low Motivation Level***

59.73

658

4.69

6.70

28.24

14.48

CRS Maximum Security Rating***

65.6

1060

5.47

7.20

9.54

7.45

Note: ***p<.001

Dynamic Factor Identification and Analysis

Overall, a high proportion of residents at the Centre were rated as having personal/emotional orientation, substance abuse, associate and employment needs at intake[25] (see Table 3). An examination of dynamic needs across resident groupings revealed no significant differences in the employment or associate needs across resident status. However, a higher percentage of statutory release residents had identified needs in the family/marital, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation and attitude need domains, followed by inmates, and then discretionary release residents (p<.001).

Table 3: Dynamic Factor Intake Assessment: Identified Factors

Resident Status

Factor

X2

N

Discretionary Release
%

Inmate %

Statutory Release With Residency
%

Total

Employment

5.98

973

69.31

68.46

76.31

71.33

Family/Marital***

25.66

973

51.62

61.73

71.69

62.18

Associates

0.23

973

74.37

73.05

74.46

73.90

Substance Abuse**

11.88

973

86.64

85.18

93.23

88.28

Community Functioning***

17.25

973

37.55

43.94

54.15

45.53

Personal/Emotional***

16.82

973

88.81

92.99

97.23

93.22

Attitude***

29.3

973

41.88

49.33

63.38

51.90

Note: **p<.01, ***p<.001

Static Factor Assessment

The Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) process collects extensive information on each offender's criminal history record (youth and adult court involvement) and violent offence history. Generally, over half of the residents at the Centre had a previous youth court involvement and over 90% had previous adult court involvements. Overall, approximately one third of the residents have a history of violence and over two thirds have used a weapon during the commission of their offence (see Table 4). A comparison across resident status revealed that a higher percentage of statutory release residents had a young offender history, a previous federal term and a violent offence history, followed by inmates, and then discretionary release residents (see Table 4).

Table 4: Static Factor Assessment

Resident Status

Factor

X2

N

Discretionary Release
%

Inmate
%

Statutory Release With Residency
%

Total

Young Offender History

Youth Court***

19.57

886

55.64

43.83

61.15

53.16

Community Supervision**

12.82

874

49.24

38.20

51.72

46.00

Open Custody***

15.15

880

31.32

24.46

39.04

31.36

Secure Custody***

34.04

881

29.81

21.98

43.69

31.56

Discip. Transfer Open to Secure**

9.27

857

4.62

2.82

8.27

5.13

Transfer from Secure to Adult**

13.47

876

0.76

0.31

3.79

1.60

Adult Offender History

Adult Court

0.66

889

91.73

90.80

92.59

91.68

Provincial Term

8.72

889

78.95

77.30

86.20

80.76

Federal Term**

12.29

889

17.67

26.07

30.30

24.97

Segregation for Discip. Infraction***

18.06

864

26.44

23.34

38.46

29.28

Attempt Escape/UAL/Escapes

3.06

887

28.30

29.14

34.46

30.67

Failure on Conditional Release

9.23

881

34.47

43.93

46.92

42.00

Crime Free Period of One Year***

27.74

889

17.29

12.58

28.96

19.46

Violent Offence History

Previous/current violent offence(s)***

28.87

886

22.93

30.15

43.73

32.51

Previous/current weapons offence(s)***

46.26

889

54.51

65.34

81.14

67.38

Note: **p<.01, ***p<.001

Average Admissions into the Centre (Flow)

The Centre experienced a high level of admissions in the first year, commensurate with its opening. In 2002 admissions to the Centre stabilized to an average of 38 admissions per month and steadily declined to 31 admissions per month to 2005. Notably, over the same time period, the trend in parole admissions (day, full and statutory release with residency conditions) is offset with the trend in inmate admissions. That is, the admissions trend lines for statutory release and parolees are parallel (see Figure 1). However, the trend line for inmate admissions rises when the other two aforementioned trend lines fall, particularly after January 2001.

Figure 1: Admissions (Flow) into the Stan Daniels Healing Centre

Note: Admissions begin at peak levels commensurate with the opening of the Centre.

Average Number of Residents on Any Given Day (Stock)

The average number of residents on any given day fluctuated between 55 and 70 residents each fiscal quarter. Trend analyses revealed that peaks in the resident population typically occurred within the first and second fiscal quarter. The representation of inmate residents has been increasing over time, while the number of discretionary release residents has been decreasing. The highest proportion of discretionary release residents coincides with the opening of the Centre, suggesting that the facility retained offenders from when it was a Community Correctional Centre and, as these offenders left the Centre over time, they were replaced by inmates and statutory released offenders (see Figures 2 and 3).

Figure 2: Average Number of Residents by Status

Figure 3: Proportion of Residents by Status


Interestingly, the average number of Aboriginal residents on any given day has been declining between 2000 and 2005. A review of Figure 4 and 5 (below) shows that within the first year of opening, the proportion of Aboriginal residents increased. This suggests that, as the facility began to operate as a Healing Centre, the Aboriginal offender population grew as there was attrition in what was previously a CCC population. However, this trend peaks in the second quarter of 2002 and generally declines up until to the last year of analyses, to a level commensurate with the opening of the Centre (see Figure 5).

Figure 4: Average Number of Residents by Ethnicity

Figure 5: Proportion of Residents by Ethnicity


Financial Expenditures

In November 1998, the Native Counselling Services of Alberta and CSC developed an expenditure plan that outlined the costs of supervising residents at the Stan Daniels Healing Centre[26]. The expenditure plan is comprised of several components:

  1. Personnel costs, which includes the salary and benefits for staff and replacement staff;
  2. Space costs, which is actually the cost to repair and maintain buildings;
  3. Operating costs, which covers advertising & promotion of Stan Daniels Healing Centre, bank charges, office and rental equipments, postage, liability insurance, office supplies, printing & copying, subscriptions, telephone, training and travel of employees;
  4. Resident costs, which include food, clothing, household supplies, laundry, medical, personal sundry and transportation of offenders;
  5. Program costs, which include all the cost to provide elder services and aboriginal programs;
  6. Administration costs; and
  7. Community services costs, such as community assessments and parole supervision.

Since number of offenders varies over time, an annual cost per-diem rate was calculated as total cost divided by the number of bed days occupied by residents in a given fiscal year. CSC pays the Stan Daniels Healing Centre the cost per-diem rate for the number of residents at the Centre. The budget increases every fiscal year according to the Consumer Price Index of Alberta[10].

Actual expenditures for the Section 81 Agreement, as described above and outlined in Appendix B of the Agreement, were as in the table below:

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

Actual Bed Day Usage

1,419,012

1,274,978

1,686,309

1,770,893

1,584,224

1,623,082

Residential Services Daily Allowance

45,376

69,550

57,520

90,666

66,424

60,919

Residential Services Advances

Total Residential Services

1,464,389

1,344,528

1,743,829

1,861,559

1,650,648

1,684,000

Special Community Projects

21,357

41,370

126,063

175,813

52,080

29,120

Parole Supervision

214,688

130,046

115,943

93,380

Community Assessment

42,148

26,913

20,172

11,644

Total Community Services

21,357

41,370

382,899

332,772

188,195

134,144

Other

0

0

2,930

20,336

22,448

19,375

Total

1,485,746

1,385,898

2,129,658

2,214,667

1,861,291

1,837,519

Actual bed day usage is calculated as the total number of beds occupied by inmates and offenders at Stan Daniels each day multiplied by a daily rate. The daily rate is decided according to the Agreement and subsequent amendments. The special community projects cost represents the cost CSC incurred in order to support Stan Daniels in providing different programs to offenders, such as Substance Abuse Program, Elders Healing Circle and cultural activities. CSC also pays Stan Daniels' for their work in supervising parolees and providing offenders' assessments in the communities.

Logic Model

The activities in which the Centre was to engage to achieve the goals of the Agreement are represented in the logic model (see Appendix 1). Five activities were identified as being essential to meeting the requirements of the Agreement:

  1. The transfer of inmates to the Stan Daniels Healing Centre for the purpose of Supervision, care and custody;
  2. The exchange of information on inmates and offenders;
  3. The provision of training to staff members and access to CSC policy and procedures;
  4. The development and provision of Aboriginal centered programming;
  5. The supervision of parolees, including supervision of work plans (for employment purposes) and escorted temporary absences.

These activities have a common output: the creation and implementation of a cadre of tools, methods, programs, community resources and partnerships developed to aid in the offender reintegration process.

The expected results of the activities carried out were grouped into immediate, intermediate and long-term impacts. The four immediate impacts were:

  1. an enhanced support structure for offenders;
  2. an improved secure and supportive environment;
  3. high usage of the Stan Daniels Healing Centre by the targeted group; and
  4. increased inmate participation in programs offered, and successful program completion.

Intermediate impacts were listed as:

  1. addressing offenders'/inmates' criminogenic needs and healing requirements; and
  2. the safe and timely release of good potential candidates into the community.

Ultimately the expected long-term impact of the Stan Daniels Healing Centre, as illustrated in the logic model, was the enhancement of public safety through the successful reintegration of Stan Daniels offenders into the community.

EVALUATION CONTEXT

The purpose of the evaluation is to measure the results achieved per the Section 81 Agreement between the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Native Counselling Services of Alberta (NCSA). The evaluation also aims to provide the information needed to assess the viability of continuing the Agreement based on ongoing activities and future plans for development and enhancement of services as included in the Agreement.

The evaluation was conducted, in consultation with the NCSA, by the Evaluation Branch, CSC. Aspects of both formative and summative approaches were included to allow for the assessment of the evaluation objectives[27]. The evaluation objectives focused on relevancy, success, cost-effectiveness and implementation issues associated with the Agreement[28]. The evaluation approach was also attentive to capture any relevant information to establish if the Agreement had any unintended effects.

The evaluation used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the analyses of data. Information was collected through interviews with key stakeholders, automated data, and a review of relevant documentation. Interviews were conducted by the evaluation team in person and by telephone during the months of July, August and September, 2004. The interview process included a site visit to the Stan Daniels Healing Centre from September 20th to the 24th, 2004. Automated data was created using information retrieved from the Centre's bed utilization reports. These data identified residents at the Centre between May 1st, 1999 and June 1st, 2005. Records created through data entry were then electronically tagged to information in CSC's automated data base, the Offender Management System (OMS). Data relations accessed in OMS were the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA), release and admission summary data, and offense history data. Documentation reviewed was incident and investigation reports, financial audits and reviews, and CSC and NCSA correspondence and reviews.


[10] The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a widely used indicator of inflation (or deflation) and indicates the changing purchasing power of money in Canada. It is obtained by calculating, on a monthly basis, the cost of a fixed “basket” of commodities purchased by a typical Canadian consumer during a given month.

[11] “Enhancing the Role of Aboriginal Communities: Aboriginal Alternatives to Incarceration and Aboriginal Parole Supervision; Sections 81 and 84 of the CCRA.” Aboriginal Initiatives Branch, CSC. May 2003.

[12] The Agreement was amended such that the daily rate payable for accommodation measures could be adjusted at the end of each fiscal year for inflationary cost increases, not to exceed the Alberta Consumer Price Index prepared by Statistics Canada for the corresponding year.

[13] See Selection Criteria in this report.

[14] See An Agreement for the Provision of Correctional Services and for the Transfer of Aboriginal Offenders to the Care and Custody of the Native Counselling Services of Aberta, 2001 Item H.

[15] See section 54 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

[16] See the January 2001 Speech from the Throne.

[17] The Correctional Law Review's Report on Correctional Issues Affecting Native Peoples (1988) (Working Paper # 7)

[18] The Correctional Service of Canada's Mission Statement, Core Values and Corporate Objectives can be referenced at http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca.

[19] The National Parole Board is an independent administrative tribunal that has exclusive authority under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to grant, deny, cancel, terminate or revoke day parole and full parole. The NPB may also order certain offenders to be held in prison until the end of their sentence. The Board is also responsible for making decisions to grant, deny and revoke pardons under the Criminal Records Act and the Criminal Code of Canada.

[20] Corrections and Conditional Release Act ( 1992, c. 20 ), Part II CONDITIONAL RELEASE, DETENTION AND LONG-TERM SUPERVISION.

[21] Corrections and Conditional Release Act ( 1992, c. 20 ), Section 133(3).

[22] Referred to as 'difficult cases' in the Protocols and Procedures document developed by CSC and the NCSA.

[23] The median length of stay, calculated via survival analyses, is the time at which half the residents have reached their full length of stay at the Centre.

[24] Offenders could be admitted more than once. For example, cases where an offender admitted on day parole status and successively granted full parole were considered as two separate admissions.

[25] Ibid

[26] See Annex B of the Agreement

[27] A formative evaluation occurs at the mid-point of implementation of a policy, program or initiative, and typically focuses on implementation issues. A summative evaluation incorporates formative evaluation information close to the completion of implementation, and encompasses a broader range of evaluation objectives; namely success, cost-effectiveness, unintended effects and continued relevancy.

[28] Success is the extent to which a policy, program, or initiative is producing its planned outputs as a result of the initiative and in relation to resources used. Cost-effectiveness determines the relationship between the amount spent and the results achieved relative to alternative design and delivery approaches. Impelementation ascertains whether the policy, program, or initiative is organized or delivered in such a way that goals and objectives can be achieved. Lastly, continued relevancy is the extent to which a policy, program or initiative remains consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities, and realistically addresses an actual need.

TABLE of CONTENTSNEXT