Performance Assurance

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

File #394-2-30

Evaluation Branch
Performance Assurance Sector
October 7, 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS

SIGNATURES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Program Profile and Logic Model
Background
Legislation
Relevancy of the Stan Daniels Healing Centre
Resident Profile
Financial Expenditures
Logic Model
Sample Composition
Key Sources
Automated Data
Document Review
Measures
Reintegration Potential and Static and Dynamic Levels of Intervention
Semi-structured Interviews
Procedures
Analyses
Limitations

KEY FINDINGS

Objective 1: Success:
Efficiency: 23
Effectiveness:
Objective 2: Cost Effectiveness:
Objective 3: Implementation:
Objective 4: Unintended Findings:
Objective 5: Continued Relevancy:

APPENDICES.

Appendix 1: Logic Model
Appendix 2: Performance Measurement Strategy
Appendix 3: Key Source Interviews

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Current Offences
Table 2: Intake Assessment
Table 3: Dynamic Factor Intake Assessment: Identified Factors
Table 4: Static Factor Assessment
Table 5: Expenditure per diems
Table 6: Staff to Inmate/Offender Ratios
Table 7: Cost per Resident
Table 8: Total Cost of Maintaining Residents

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Admissions (Flow) into the Stan Daniels Healing Centre
Figure 2: Average Number of Residents by Status
Figure 3: Proportion of Residents by Status
Figure 4: Average Number of Residents by Ethnicity
Figure 5: Proportion of Residents by Ethnicity
Figure 6: Average Number of Residents
Figure 7: Survival Time to Reconviction: Residents versus Non-residents
Figure 8: Cost Comparison
Figure 9: Average Number of High Risk Residents
Figure 10: Average Number of Low Reintegration Potential Residents
Figure 11: Average Number of Aboriginal Residents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The evaluation team would like to express their appreciation to the staff of the Native Counselling Services of Alberta and the Stan Daniels Healing Centre, for their participation in the working group as well as their valuable assistance during the evaluation, in facilitating the identification of key stakeholders and ensuring timely access to residents, staff members, and relevant documentation.

The evaluation team also wishes to thank all who facilitated the creation of this report. Specifically, Claire Carefoot for her significant contribution to the data collection phase of the evaluation; Mike Hayden for clarifying some of the data intricacies of the Offender Management System and facilitating sound data analyses; Bentley Livingston and Shelli Ball for providing financial information and item definitions; Jean Grenier for clarifying the calculation of the cost of maintaining an offender, and for reviewing the methodology used in this report for a comparative analysis; and Michel Lalande and Robert Hurtubise for taking the time to discuss billing and implementation issues associated with Section 81 Agreements in general.

EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS

Mark Nafekh
Senior Evaluation Manager
Evaluation Branch, Performance Assurance
Correctional Service Canada

Nicole Allegri
Evaluation Officer
Evaluation Branch, Performance Assurance
Correctional Service Canada

Hongping Li
Evaluation Analyst
Evaluation Branch, Performance Assurance
Correctional Service Canada

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

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^[1]. In June 1999, the Native Counselling Services of Alberta (NCSA) signed a Section 81 agreement^[2] with CSC. This agreement was revised in April 2001^[3] and is in effect until April 2006. The agreement enables the NCSA to be fully involved in the delivery of correctional services to federal Aboriginal offenders transferred to, or given residency at, Stan Daniels Healing Centre. 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 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.^[4]

This report provides findings concerning the evaluation of the Stan Daniels Healing Centre in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, 2001). The report measures achievements and outcomes based on issues mutually agreed upon by Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) and the Native Counselling Services of Alberta (NCSA)^[5], as outlined in the Evaluation Framework (2004).

Evaluation Strategy

The evaluation was conducted collaboratively between the NCSA, and the Evaluation Branch, CSC. Aspects of both the formative and summative approaches^[6] were combined to facilitate the assessment of the evaluation objectives. The evaluation objectives encompassed success, cost-effectiveness, implementation, unintended effects and continued relevancy associated with the implementation of the Agreement^[7].

The evaluation used both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Information was collected through:

• interviews with key sources;
• data collection (e.g., queries of CSC's automated data base, the Offender Management System, data retrieved from the Centre's bed utilization reports); and
• a review of relevant documentation (e.g., the original and revised MOUs, 1999 and 2001; CSC's Research Report examining healing lodges for federal offenders in Canada^[8]; incident and investigation reports; financial documentation and correspondence).

Interviews were conducted by the evaluation team in person and by telephone during the months of July, August and September, 2004. Interviews were conducted with the following key sources:

• the Native Counselling Services of Alberta
• the Stan Daniels Healing Centre
• former residents residing in the community at the time of the interviews
• residents at the Centre at the time of the interviews
• sources from CSC and the National Parole Board
• Community Stakeholders

The interview process included a site visit to the Stan Daniels Healing Centre from September 20^th to the 24^th, 2004. Quantitative analyses were conducted on automated data on identified residents at the Centre between May 1, 1999 and June 1, 2005.

Financial Expenditures:

In November 1998, the NCSA and CSC developed an expenditure plan that outlined the costs of supervising residents at the Stan Daniels Healing Centre. The expenditure plan is comprised of several components:

1. Personnel cost, 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^[9] 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 the 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 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 Alberta Consumer Price Index^[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

KEY FINDINGS:

The findings are presented under their respective Evaluation Objectives.

Objective 1: Success:

Efficiency:

Finding 1: The Stan Daniels Healing Centre generally operates below optimum capacity despite a good pool of potential candidates.

Finding 2: The funding formula for the Centre was agreed upon at a point in time where the resident profile was comprised of approximately 50% discretionary release residents, 20% statutory release residents and 30% inmates. However, there has been an increasing proportion of residents with higher supervision needs (inmate and statutory release residents). This trend is not factored in to the funding formula. This situation may impact the Centre's capacity to meet the needs of this changed profile of residents.

Effectiveness:

Finding 3: The Centre successfully provides alternatives to incarceration, particularly for the Aboriginal demographic of the resident population, while maintaining levels of reintegration commensurate with other similar correctional facilities.

Objective 2: Cost Effectiveness:

Finding 4: The Stan Daniels Healing Centre is cost-effective, as the same level of correctional results is achieved at a lower cost.

Objective 3: Implementation:

Finding 5: Efforts to identify and resolve financial administration issues by both parties to the Agreement have been met with some degree of success. However, there remains a need to formalize roles and responsibilities per the Agreement.

Finding 6: Joint reviews have been conducted retrospective to incidents and identified issues, rather than annually as suggested by the Agreement.

Finding 7: There are gaps in CSC's Offender Management System (OMS) regarding the historical movement of inmates and offenders to and from the Stan Daniels Healing Centre.

Objective 4: Unintended Findings:

Finding 8: The changing nature of the resident profile at the Centre raises concerns regarding the appropriateness of the level of supervision available for the higher risk cases. However, an examination of data for the most recent years suggests a reverse in this trend.

Finding 9: The transfer of medium security inmates to the Centre is not consistent with the selection criteria per the Agreement.

Objective 5: Continued Relevancy:

Finding 10: The decreasing proportion of Aboriginal residents at the Centre over time has resulted in a divergence from the underpinnings of Section 81 of the CCRA.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Recommendation 1: To ensure the Agreement operates more efficiently, CSC and the NCSA should enhance the current identification and recruitment processes through a formal review mechanism of all cases and a formal referral protocol.

Recommendation 2: CSC and the NCSA should review the current per diem to ascertain its precision and explore the option of a specific per diem for each status type (i.e. inmate and offender) for candidates housed at the Centre.

Recommendation 3: The Section 81 Agreement between CSC and the NCSA should be amended to further clarify roles, responsibility and accountability with regards to reporting procedures and the financial administration of the Agreement.

Recommendation 4: A standard annual joint review report should be produced by CSC and NCSA in order to facilitate the early identification of issues regarding the Agreement.

Recommendation 5: CSC and the NCSA should ensure Standard Operating Practices are met regarding the completion and entry of resident transfer and release information into the Offender Management System. Both parties should also update the current information with the Centre's Bed Utilization Reports such that OMS exhibits an accurate historical representation of residency.

Recommendation 6: CSC and the NCSA should review the selection criteria in the Agreement to further clarify the level of risk and need deemed appropriate for transfer of inmates to the Centre.

---

^[1] "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.

^[2] See Section 81 Agreement between the NCSA as represented by the Executive Director, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Solicitor General of Canada.

^[3] 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.

^[4] See Selection Criteria in this report.

^[5] The NCSA is a non-profit agency duly incorporated under the laws of the province of Alberta dedicated to the holistic development and wellness of the Aboriginal individual, family and community.

^[6] 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.

^[7] 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. Implementation ascertains whether the program 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

^[8] Trevethan, S Crutcher, N and Rastin, C.."An Examination of Healing Lodges for Federal Offenders in Canada". CSC Research Branch, 2002.

^[9] Sundry includes items such as tobacco and personal hygiene products, which are at street costs.

^[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.

TABLE of CONTENTS

NEXT