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Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.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

Measures

Reintegration Potential and Static and Dynamic Levels of Intervention

One way in which an offender's progress against the Correctional Plan is measured is through a reassessment of key measures for reintegration. The reassessment is conducted by a Case Management Team member and requires the re-examination of key measures for reintegration. This process results in an overview of the offender's progress. Key measures reviewed are those which assess the static and dynamic levels of intervention, motivation levels, and reintegration potential[30]. The review can result in a change in these measures based on the caseworker's judgment, and is recorded in a Correctional Plan Progress Report. The reassessment is completed when there is a perceived change in the above mentioned factors upon completion of correctional programs. It is also conducted upon request for Community Strategy, or Community Assessment related to an upcoming decision.

Progress in the Static Level of Intervention is based on the following:

  • A review of static factors assessed at intake[31], as well as:
  • Significant and sustained changes in the following factors
    1. Time remaining to be served before probable release;
    2. Existence of pro-social contacts that could assist with reintegration;
    3. Significant disciplinary problems, segregation periods or preventive security concerns in the last year;
    4. Performance on unescorted temporary absences (UTAs) and Work Releases (WRs);
    5. Offender's progress/motivation to participate in his Correctional Plan.

Progress in the Dynamic Level of Intervention is based on the reassessment of each of the dynamic factors[32]. This is done by examining the number and seriousness of each factor, while considering the offender's progress related to the correctional plan, and anything affecting the intensity of the dynamic factors such as changes in personal situation, health etc.

Motivation level is re-assessed against the following criteria:

  1. Recognition that a problem exists with lifestyle, behavior and resulting consequences;
  2. Level of comfort with problem and its impact on offender's life;
  3. Level of feeling of personal responsibility for the problem(s);
  4. Willingness to change, i.e. expression of wish to change, or intention to fully participate in Correctional Plan;
  5. Possession of skills, knowledge required to effect change in behavior, i.e. is ready to change;
  6. Level of external support from family, friends or other community members;
  7. The offender's Case Management Strategy Group.

Reintegration Potential is reassessed based on the following criteria:

  1. Score on the Statistical Information on Recidivism — Revised 1 (SIR-R1) scale;
  2. Level of intervention based on static factors;
  3. Level of intervention based on dynamic factors;
  4. Security reclassification scale outcome;
  5. Level of motivation.
Semi-structured Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were used to facilitate the collection of information and to provide stakeholders the opportunity to identify issues that may not have been considered prior to the evaluation. Participation in interviews was solicited by way of a request to contribute information relevant to the evaluation through telephone interview or face-to-face meetings. Unique interview formats were developed for each of the stakeholder groups; CSC staff members, NCSA and SDHC management, SDHC front-line staff members, current and former Healing Centre residents, and community stakeholders. Interviews were structured such that they comprised five sections, with each section addressing an evaluation objective:
i) relevancy, ii) success, iii) cost-effectiveness, iv) implementation and v) unintended effects[33]. Questions were designed such that responses were either open-ended or rated along a five point scale[34].


[30] see CSC Standard Operating Procedure #700-05, “Progress Monitoring - Institution”

[31] Static factors are based on historical information related to risk that is available at the time of the offender's admission to federal custody. Specifcally, the Statistical Information on Recidivism - Revised 1 (SIR-R1) scale; the Criminal History Record, Offence Severity Record, and Sex Offence History domains of the Offender Intake Assessment. For more information on these items, see CSC Standard Operating Practice 700-04, “Offender Intake Assessment and Correctional Planning”.

[32] Dynamic factors are based on information related to need that is available at the time of the offender's admission to federal custody. Specifcally, the Employment, Family/Marital, Associates and Social Interaction, Substance Abuse, Community Funtioning, Personal/Emotional and Attitude domains of the Offender Intake Assessment. For more information on these items, see CSC Standard Operating Practice 700-04, “Offender Intake Assessment and Correctional Planning”.

[33] See Appendix 2 for the Evaluation Matrix.

[34] See Appendix 3 for key informant interview formats

TABLE of CONTENTSNEXT