Evaluation of CSC’s Institutional Chaplaincy Services

Commissioner

Date:

Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning

Date:

Authors: ^{Footnote 1}

Lauren Crossing, Junior Evaluation Analyst

Marjorie Cyr, Junior Evaluation Analyst

Sidikat Fashola, Evaluation Analyst

Ashley McConnell, Evaluation Officer

David Myers, Junior Evaluation Analyst

With contribution from:

Prince Baffoe, Junior Evaluation Analyst

Rebecca Cherner, Evaluation Officer

Adam Crawford, Evaluation Analyst

Esther Frigon, Junior Evaluation Analyst

Sylvie Gaudreault, Senior Evaluation Manager

Sara Johnson, Senior Research Manager

Patrick Savoie, Junior Evaluation Analyst

Anthony Stock, Evaluation Officer

Eliza Von Baeyer, Senior Evaluator

The evaluation team is grateful for the assistance provided by the Correctional Operations and Programs Sector, in particular the Chaplaincy Section for their continued support with various aspects of this project. The evaluation team would like to express sincere appreciation to William Rasmus, Hugh Kirkegaard and Deborah Tanasiecuk for their ongoing efforts throughout the evaluation project. The evaluation team would also like to thank all members of the consultative working group including Chris Molloy (Performance Measurement and Management Reporting), Wagdi Abdelghaffar (Corporate Services), Nathalie Bernard (Corporate Services), Marty Maltby (Aboriginal Initiatives Directorate), Marlene Wells (Women Offender Sector), Leslie Anne Keown (Research Branch) and David Molzahn (Communication and Engagement) for their collaboration and contributions throughout the evaluation.

The evaluation team would like to express its appreciation to all those who participated in the collection of data and contributed valuable information, including Wardens, institutional staff members, chaplaincy volunteers, members of the expert group and provincial correctional stakeholders. We would also like to extend our gratitude to all inmates for sharing their overall experiences regarding institutional chaplaincy services through their participation in the questionnaire and interviews.

We would also like to thank the many branches and sectors of CSC who helped provide data for this evaluation, including the staff in Financial Management Services in the Comptroller’s Branch who provided financial data and staff from Strategies, Planning, Measurement and Reporting who provided human resource data.

Finally, the evaluation team would like to thank everyone else who contributed to this evaluation, whose names do not appear here.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. As such, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is required to provide federal inmates with these rights and freedoms, including the opportunity to express and participate in activities related to their religion or spirituality. In accordance with this, CSC delivers institutional and community chaplaincy services to ensure the diverse and evolving religious and spiritual needs of inmates are met.

The current evaluation focuses on the relevance and performance of CSC’s institutional chaplaincy services.^{Footnote 2} Evaluation questions were developed to concentrate on specific areas of chaplaincy services and provide pertinent information to decision makers in order to make strategic policy, operations and resource allocation decisions. The evaluation is organized into three Findings in Focus for Evaluation (FIFEs), each with its own distinct methodology and data collection process. The following outlines the key findings of each FIFE.

FIFE 1: Continued Relevancy and Need for Chaplaincy Services

This section includes an examination of the extent to which the program addresses and is responsive to inmates’ faith needs as prescribed by CSC’s governing legislative framework. Key findings were as follows:

• There is a continued need to provide chaplaincy services to federal inmates. CSC’s legislative framework facilitates commitments prescribed by international, federal, and provincial/territorial legislation.
• Chaplaincy services are aligned with federal government roles and responsibilities, as it provides inmates with the opportunity to participate in and express their religion or spirituality. There is a need to implement a standardized approach in the collection and recording of religion data to ensure consistent and accurate reporting.

FIFE 2: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services and Initiatives

This section presents the evaluation findings on the performance and effectiveness of chaplaincy services, examining areas such as the introduction of chaplaincy services to inmates, awareness and accessibility, and religious accommodations. Key findings consist of the following:

• CSC inmates have access to chaplaincy services during the intake period, which assists in responding to the diverse religious and spiritual needs of the inmate population. As just over half of inmates reported being satisfied or very satisfied with chaplaincy services during intake, opportunities exist to further optimize service delivery. Specifically, increasing the visible presence of institutional chaplains^{Footnote 3} at intake, as well as improving inmates’ awareness of chaplaincy services along with inmates’ accessibility to chaplaincy services and chaplaincy stakeholders (i.e., chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers);
• Awareness of the availability of chaplaincy’s core services is higher when compared to the awareness of chaplaincy’s availability to provide support services to inmates (e.g., one-on-one spiritual care in response to a personal crisis, case management meetings). However, chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers did not have formal strategies in place for introducing themselves or their services to new inmates. Perceptions of heavy workloads and resource shortages are reasons provided by chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff as to why chaplains may not be able to provide timely information on chaplaincy services to inmates. The needs of inmates could better be met with greater information and access to faith-specific services, programs, and religious leaders;
• Institutional chaplains, for the most part, did not have formal strategies for introducing themselves or the breadth of services to new inmates. Furthermore, Chaplaincy volunteers were not easily recognizable in institutions;
• Chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers have a positive impact on the institutional environment. The presence of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers within the institutions creates a comfortable atmosphere where inmates are provided with the tools to manage their emotions, engage in communal activities and deepen their understanding of their specific spirituality and faith traditions;
• There are effective communication and information-sharing practices established among Chaplaincy as well as the Interfaith Committee on Chaplaincy (IFC). Specific areas where there were opportunities for improvement included the documentation of chaplaincy related information and sharing timely and relevant information, particularly for faith community reintegration projects;
• CSC inmates were generally satisfied with the religious accommodation process at their current institution. Many indicated that chaplains provided them with anticipated timeframes for their religious accommodation request and that most of these timeframes were met. There is however a need to enhance CSC’s ability to track and monitor religious and spiritual complaints and grievances;
• Challenges were reported with the availability of chaplains prior to release. Improvements can be achieved by building community relations earlier in the release process and better information-sharing practices between institutional chaplains and community resources;
• The lack of specialized knowledge on managing inmates with mental health needs and the growing diversity of the inmate population highlight the major challenges for delivering religious and/or spiritual services to CSC’s diverse inmate population, particularly those with mental health needs, ethnocultural, and LGBTQ2 inmates;
• There is a lack of familiarity among chaplaincy volunteers and general staff with the current management structure for delivering chaplaincy services. Chaplaincy stakeholders reported challenges with the availability of professional development opportunities, recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, supervision and oversight, as well as communication and information-sharing practices.

FIFE 3: Standards for Excellence in Chaplaincy Service Provision Models

An examination of the current Chaplaincy service provision model was undertaken along with an exploration of other service provision models to identify best practices that can strategically inform the future provision of chaplaincy services.

There are opportunities to deliver chaplaincy services in a manner that maximizes resources and and addresses gaps and weaknesses by implementing standards for excellence in relation to retention and recruitment, service delivery, and information-sharing practices. It should be noted that within the current service provision model, CSC has no authority over the chaplain recruitment decision process and community and collegial engagement.

There are three plausible models for service provision identified by the expert group that CSC can consider to improve on its delivery of core chaplaincy services – a government employee model, a region-based multiple supplier model, or maintenance of the current national single supplier model with the adoption of the standards for excellence identified in this evaluation. Chaplaincy Services may also wish to consider the use of a hybrid model, one that would combine aspects of various models into one.

Recommendations

Based on these findings, recommendations and management action plans (MAPs) were put forward to address the key issues identified, such as implementing measures to enhance service standard objectives, developing formal strategies for institutional chaplains to introduce themselves and their services to new inmates, maintaining productive relationships with faith-based communities, enhancing information management practices related to religious and spiritual complaints and grievance data, adopting measures to better orient chaplains to deliver religious and/or spiritual services to CSC’s diverse inmate population, and identifying the most efficient and effective service provision model and best practices to meet the Program’s intended outcomes.

Finding 1: Need for Chaplaincy Services

There is a continued need to provide chaplaincy services to federal inmates. CSC’s legislative framework facilitates commitments prescribed by international, federal, and provincial/territorial legislation.

Finding 2: Alignment with Priorities and Federal Roles and Responsibilities

Chaplaincy services are aligned with federal government roles and responsibilities, as it provides inmates with the opportunity to participate in and express their religion or spirituality. There is a need to implement a standardized approach in the collection and recording of religion data to ensure consistent and accurate reporting.

Finding 3: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Intake Period

CSC inmates have access to chaplaincy services during the intake period, which assists in responding to the diverse religious and spiritual needs of the inmate population. As just over half of inmates reported being satisfied or very satisfied with chaplaincy services during intake, opportunities exist to further optimize service delivery. Specifically, increasing the visible presence of chaplains at intake, as well as improving inmates’ awareness and accessibility to chaplaincy services and chaplaincy stakeholders (i.e., chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers).

Finding 4: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Incarceration – Awareness and Accessibility of Chaplaincy Services

Awareness of the availability of chaplaincy’s core services is higher when compared to the awareness of chaplaincy’s availability to provide support services to inmates (e.g., one-on-one spiritual care). However, chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers did not have formal strategies in place for introducing themselves or their services to new inmates. Perceptions of heavy workloads and resource shortages are reasons provided by chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff as to why chaplains may not be able to provide timely information on chaplaincy services to inmates. The needs of inmates could better be met with greater information and access to faith-specific services, programs, and religious leaders.

Finding 5: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Visibility and Recognizability

Institutional chaplains, for the most part, did not have formal strategies for introducing themselves or the breadth of services to new inmates. Furthermore, Chaplaincy volunteers were not easily recognizable in institutions.

Finding 6: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Institutional Environment

Chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers have a positive impact on the institutional environment. The presence of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers within the institutions creates a comfortable atmosphere where inmates are provided with the tools to manage their emotions, engage in communal activities and deepen their understanding of their specific spirituality and faith traditions.

Finding 7: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Communication and Information-Sharing Practices

There are effective communication and information-sharing practices established among Chaplaincy as well as the Interfaith Committee on Chaplaincy (IFC). Specific areas where there were opportunities for improvement included the documentation of chaplaincy related information and sharing timely and relevant information, particularly for faith community reintegration projects.

Finding 8: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Religious Accommodation Process and Religious/Spiritual Complaints and Grievances

CSC inmates were generally satisfied with the religious accommodation process at their current institution. Many inmates indicated that chaplains provided them with anticipated timeframes for their religious accommodation request and that most of these timeframes were met. There is however a need to enhance CSC’s ability to track and monitor religious and spiritual complaints and grievances.

Finding 9: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Prior to Release

Challenges were reported with the availability of chaplains prior to release. Improvements can be achieved by building community relations earlier in the release process and better information-sharing practices between institutional chaplains and community resources.

Finding 10: Gender-based Analysis Plus

The lack of specialized knowledge on managing inmates with mental health needs and the growing diversity of the inmate population highlight the major challenges for delivering religious and/or spiritual services to CSC’s diverse inmate population, particularly those with mental health needs, ethnocultural, and LGBTQ2 inmates.

Finding 11: Management of Chaplaincy Services

There is a lack of familiarity among chaplaincy volunteers and general staff with the current management structure for delivering chaplaincy services. Chaplaincy stakeholders reported challenges with the availability of professional development opportunities, recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, supervision and oversight, as well as communication and information-sharing practices.

Finding 12: Standards for Excellence

There are opportunities to deliver chaplaincy services in a manner that maximizes resources and addresses gaps and weaknesses by implementing standards for excellence related to retention and recruitment, effective service delivery, and collaboration/information-sharing practices. It should be noted that within the current service provision model, CSC has no authority over the chaplain recruitment decision process and community and collegial engagement.

Finding 13: Chaplaincy Service Provision Model

There are three plausible models for service provision identified by the expert group that CSC can consider to improve on its delivery of core chaplaincy services – a government employee model, a region-based multiple supplier model, or maintenance of the current national single supplier model with adoption of the standards for excellence identified in this evaluation. Chaplaincy Services may also wish to consider the use of a hybrid model, one that would combine aspects of various models into one.

Recommendation and Management Action Plan 1: Information Management Practices and the Quality of Religion Data

It is recommended that Chaplaincy fosters partnerships with relevant offices of primary interest (OPIs) to effectively facilitate the following:

• Review and update policies and procedures as needed related to religion and spirituality to ensure that mandatory information management practices are established;
• Establish national standardized definitions and/or criteria related to religious affiliation; and,
• Identify any additional religious information that should be collected and recorded in the Offender Management System (OMS).

Recommendation and Management Action Plan 2: Planning and Monitoring/Service Delivery

It is recommended that Chaplaincy implements measures to enhance service standard objectives with a view to improve the religious and spiritual services provided to inmates. Chaplaincy should consider strategies to effectively facilitate the following:

• Develop a standardized approach to planning and service delivery that takes into consideration the uniqueness of each institutional context;
• Closely monitor inmate religious affiliation and institutional information to adjust services as necessary to better meet the evolving needs of inmates. This will include the continuous monitoring of the hours-based service provision model within each institution in order to address local needs and expressed concerns with accessibility/availability of chaplains and resource shortages;
• Ensure that mechanisms are in place to better target chaplaincy services to meet the diverse needs of the inmate population and reflect what is available in the community;
• Develop an institutional service delivery plan specific for the intake period to ensure coverage and access to chaplains and services;
• Facilitate a process that will ensure that chapels/sacred spaces are accommodating of all religious groups;
• Develop and implement measures necessary to enhance the awareness of support services offered by chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers among inmates; and,
• Continue to remain in regular dialogue with key stakeholders to ensure that effective and appropriate service level standards are delivered.

Recommendation and Management Action Plan 3: Visibility and Recognizability

It is recommended that Chaplaincy develops formal strategies for institutional chaplains to introduce themselves and their services to new inmates, particularly at intake, and to make their presence more visible in all areas of the institution. Strategies should also be developed to increase the recognizability of chaplaincy volunteers. This can be achieved by:

• Developing and implementing a standardized approach that will ensure that all inmates are introduced to the breadth of chaplaincy services both at intake and within the institution;
• Strengthening guidelines and clarifying intended outcomes for increasing visibility;
• Establishing a planned visitation pattern for institutional chaplains; and
• Consulting with relevant stakeholders on the development of a process whereby chaplaincy volunteers can more easily be recognized by inmates and staff throughout the institution.

Recommendation and Management Action Plan 4: Faith-based Community Reintegration

It is recommended that Chaplaincy maintains productive relationships with faith-based communities and examines the feasibility of increasing the use of practices that will ensure continuity of care and linkages between chaplains and faith-based resources in the community. This can be achieved by:

• Sharing of timely and relevant information with faith community reintegration projects (FCRPs);
• Building faith community relationships earlier in the release process;
• Improving procedures for planning and preparing for an inmate’s release, including faith-based support; and,
• Expanding the breadth of faith community engagement to support offender reintegration.

Recommendation and Management Action Plan 5: Religious/Spiritual Complaints and Grievances

It is recommended that Chaplaincy Services enhance their information management practices related to religious/spiritual complaints and grievance data. This can be achieved by:

• Establishing a systematic approach to better capture religious and spiritual complaints and grievances data.

Recommendation and Management Action Plan 6: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Inmate Populations

It is recommended that Chaplaincy adopts measures to better orient institutional chaplains to deliver religious and/or spiritual services to CSC’s diverse inmate population, particularly inmates with mental health needs, LGBTQ2 inmates and ethnocultural inmates. This can be achieved in the following ways:

• By providing ongoing information and a dedicated orientation on mental health and diversity to chaplains; and,
• By determining the feasibility under the current contractual arrangements to recruit institutional chaplains with experience in delivering religious and/or spiritual services that respond to the needs of CSC’s diverse inmate population.

Recommendation and Management Action Plan 7: Standards for Excellence

It is recommended that Chaplaincy incorporates the standards for excellence identified by the expert group and program beneficiaries, as part of its review in identifying the most efficient and effective practices to meet the Program’s intended outcomes. This can be achieved by:

• Ensuring that all inmates have access to chaplaincy services, chaplains, and chaplaincy volunteers regardless of faith tradition;
• Identifying and removing unnecessary barriers that prevent inmates from accessing religious accommodations;
• Providing (where feasible) enhanced orientation and ongoing development to chaplains and, if deemed feasible, developing an approach for the creation of a learning and development plan for chaplains;
• Ensuring that service provision standards meet the needs of inmates;
• Identifying and implementing mechanisms to ensure sufficient collaboration/information-sharing practices between Chaplaincy and community stakeholders.

Recommendation and Management Action Plan 8: Chaplaincy Service Provision Model

It is recommended that Chaplaincy considers the standards for excellence identified in this evaluation to make a determination as to the most efficient and effective service provision model that will contribute to the Program’s short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes. Chaplaincy should:

• Assess the feasibility of adopting a new service provision model (e.g., a government employee model, a region-based multiple supplier model, an improved national single supplier model, or a hybrid model) by conducting a more in-depth analysis of the intricacies involved in each model and engaging in a consultation process; and,
• Explore the feasibility of establishing key competencies for chaplains and a certification process for the delivery of multi-faith services within its model and, if deemed feasible, implement key competencies and certification process.

• Signatures
• Contributions
• Acknowledgments
• Executive Summary
• Summary of Findings
• Summary of Recommendations and Management Action Plans
• Table of Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• List of Acronyms
• 1.0 Introduction
• 1.1 Purpose
• 1.2 Background
• 1.3 Policy and Legislation
• 1.4 Program Description
• 1.5 Logic Model
• 1.6 Governance Structure
• 2.0 Evaluation Approach and Design
• 2.1 Scope of the Evaluation
• 2.2 Evaluation Questions
• 2.3 Approach
• 2.4 Document Review
• 2.5 Methodology and Data Collection
• 2.6 Measures
• 2.7 Limitations and Mitigation Strategies
• 3.0 Expenditures
• 4.0 Findings
• 4.1 FIFE 1: Relevance of Evaluation of CSC’s Institutional Chaplaincy Services
• 4.1.1 Need for Chaplaincy Services
• 4.2 FIFE 2: Effectiveness and Efficiency of Evaluation of CSC’s Institutional Chaplaincy Services
• 4.2.1 Intake
• 4.2.2 Incarceration
• 4.2.3 Prior to Release
• 4.2.4 Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+)
• 4.2.5 Management of Chaplaincy Services
• 4.3. FIFE 3: Standards for Excellence in the Chaplaincy Service Provision Model
• 4.3.1 Overview of the Chaplaincy Service Provision Model
• 4.3.2 Key Findings
• 4.3.3 Discussion: Chaplaincy Service Provision Model and Standards for Excellence
• 4.3.4 Way Forward
• 5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
• 5.1 Conclusion
• 5.2 Recommendations
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Appendix C
• Appendix D

• Table 1: Site Selection for Inmate Interviews
• Table 2: Limitations and Associated Impacts of the Evaluation of Chaplaincy Services
• Table 3: Institutional Chaplaincy Services Expenditures
• Table 4: Religious Affiliation among the Federal Offender Population
• Table 5: Religious Affiliation among the Canadian Population
• Table 6: Elements of CSC’s Current Chaplaincy Services Governance Structure
• Table 7: CSC’s Current Chaplaincy Services Provision Model
• Table 8: What is Working Well in the Current Chaplaincy Service Provision Model
• Table 9: Challenges with the Current Chaplaincy Service Provision Model
• Table 10: Areas for Improvement within the Current Chaplaincy Service Provision Model
• Table 11: Best Practices from Alternative Models for Application to the Current Chaplaincy Service Provision Model
• Table 12: Chaplaincy Service Provision Model Counterfactuals

• Figure 1: Chaplaincy Services
• Figure 2: Chaplaincy Services Logic Model
• Figure 3: Religious Affiliation among the Federal Inmate Population
• Figure 4: Religious Affiliation among Canadian Population
• Figure 5: Chaplaincy Services Information Provided to Inmates, According to Chaplaincy Stakeholders
• Figure 6: Chaplaincy Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Availability of Chaplaincy Services and Activities
• Figure 7: Percentage of Inmate Awareness of Chaplaincy Services
• Figure 8: Percentage of Inmate Use of Chaplaincy Services
• Figure 9: Percentage of Inmate Use of Chaplaincy Related Support Services
• Figure 10: Percentage of Chaplaincy Stakeholders and General Staff Perceived Challenges in Increasing Awareness of Chaplaincy Services
• Figure 11: Chaplaincy Stakeholders, General Staff and Inmate Perceptions of Chaplain and Chaplaincy Volunteer Visible Presence Throughout the Institution
• Figure 12: Inmate Descriptions of the Value in Having Chaplains at CSC Institutions
• Figure 13: General Staff Descriptions of the Value in Having Chaplains at CSC Institutions
• Figure 14: Chaplaincy Stakeholders’ Description of the Qualities of Chaplains that Contribute to a Comfortable Environment at CSC Institutions
• Figure 15: Information-Sharing Practices
• Figure 16: Effective Communication Mechanisms According to Chaplaincy Stakeholders and General Staff
• Figure 17: Effective Communication Mechanisms According to IFC
• Figure 18: Common Types of Religious Accommodations
• Figure 19: Percentage of Chaplaincy Stakeholders in Agreement that the Current Institutional Chaplaincy Management Structure is Functioning Well
• Figure 20 Percentage of Services Provided by the National Contractor for Fiscal Year 2018-2019

In accordance with the Departmental Evaluation Plan, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) conducted an evaluation of institutional chaplaincy services^{Footnote 4} covering the period from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2018.^{Footnote 5} The purpose of the evaluation was to provide CSC with relevant and timely information to make strategic policy, operations, and resource allocation decisions in the area of chaplaincy services. In accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada (TB) Policy on Results (2016), the evaluation focused on three core areas:

• Continued relevancy and need for chaplaincy services, such as alignment with government priorities and consistency with federal roles and responsibilities;
• Effectiveness of chaplaincy services and initiatives; and,
• Efficiency of chaplaincy service delivery.

The current evaluation examines institutional chaplaincy services which includes intake, incarceration (following penitentiary placement) and prior to release into the community. By delivering efficient and effective chaplaincy services, CSC encourages inmates to examine their behaviours and decisions and discover new ways of living.^{Endnote i} This in turn can help inmates find greater wholeness and accept responsibility for their actions, and subsequently contribute to their safe reintegration into Canadian communities.^{Endnote ii} These objectives are aligned with CSC corporate priorities:^{Endnote iii}

• Safe management of eligible offenders during their transition from the institution to the community, and while on supervision;
• Safety and security of members of the public, victims, staff, and offenders in our institutions and in the community; and,
• Productive relationships with diverse partners, stakeholders, victims’ groups, and others in support of public safety.

The results and recommendations included in this evaluation will guide CSC’s senior management with respect to future strategic policy and decision making regarding chaplaincy services. A prior evaluation of chaplaincy services was conducted in 2004 and its recommendations can be found in Appendix A.^{Endnote iv}

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees rights and freedoms to all Canadians. Similar to the Canadian population, federal inmates have the right to express and participate in activities related to their religion or spirituality. Since 1835, CSC’s institutional chaplaincy services have primarily been provided to two faith groups: Roman Catholics and Protestants.^{Endnote vi} However, the religious diversity seen now goes well beyond these two faith groups. As such, given that approximately 70% of the federal inmate population identifies with a religious affiliation and could require chaplaincy services at any time during their incarceration, the role of institutional chaplains and of religious and spiritual services has evolved to reflect this religious diversity.^{Footnote 6} This diversity also extends to inmates who may not identify with a religious affiliation but may still participate in chaplaincy services (e.g., attend religious rituals).

There is a continued need to provide chaplaincy services within Canadian federal institutions. Studies have shown that chaplaincy services in institutions have a positive impact on inmates’ behaviour. For example, one study showed that the more often an inmate attended religious programming, the greater the impact on their rehabilitative success, as measured by the number of infractions while incarcerated (O’Connor & Perreyclear, as cited in Power, Ritchie, & Madill, 2014).^{Endnote vii} As such, chaplaincy services within CSC may effectively contribute to an inmate’s successful reintegration in the community.

Federal legislation and corporate requirements require CSC to provide chaplaincy services to all federal inmates. Section 75 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) states that “an inmate is entitled to reasonable opportunities to freely and openly participate in, and express, religion or spirituality, subject to such reasonable limits as are prescribed for protecting the security of the penitentiary or the safety of persons.”^{Endnote viii} In conjunction with Section 75 of the CCRA, Section 100 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR) further states that all inmates are entitled to express their religion or spirituality. Section 101 of the CCRR requires CSC to make the following requirements available for an inmate’s religion or spirituality, including:

• Interfaith chaplaincy services;
• Facilities to express one’s religion or spirituality;
• A special diet as required by religious or spiritual tenets; and,
• Necessities related to the inmate’s special religious or ritual rites.^{Endnote xi}

In addition to the CCRA and CCRR, CSC is guided by a series of internal Commissioner’s Directives (CDs) that support legislative obligations. CDs specific to chaplaincy services include the following:

CD 750 – Chaplaincy Services: focuses on the provision of religious and/or spiritual services to inmates of all backgrounds or beliefs by representatives from Canadian faith communities and their volunteers. The provision of these services are to affirm and support the role of spirituality in inmate’s rehabilitation and reintegration.^{Endnote x}

Guidelines (GL) accompany CD 750 - Chaplaincy Services and further clarify the responsibilities of chaplains in cases of religious accommodations for inmates:

GL 750-1 – Inmate Religious Accommodations: outlines the approval process of inmates’ religious accommodation requests.^{Endnote xi} Approval of such accommodation requests (i.e., religious items, clothing and diet) reflect what is reasonably accessible to adherents in the community considering legislation and policy and the safety and security of the institution.^{Endnote xii}

Chaplaincy is comprised of three program areas: chaplaincy services, the sacred space, and chaplaincy services partners. Chaplaincy services focus on the delivery of chaplaincy services within CSC institutions across Canada, while the sacred space is a neutral meeting ground provided by CSC where inmates of all faiths can gather in order to practice their religious and/or spiritual beliefs. Chaplaincy services partners include national and regional headquarter staff members, a team of institutional chaplains, chaplaincy volunteers, contracted community organizations, and community stakeholders who assist inmates in exploring their religion and/or spirituality, while simultaneously preparing for reintegration into the community. These areas work in conjunction to ensure that inmates across Canada are allowed to practice their faith without hindrance, and are further explained below.

Chaplaincy Services

Key activities of chaplaincy services consist of the development, implementation, delivery, and management of religious and spiritual activities, which include volunteer and other community resources.^{Endnote xiii} According to CD 750 - Chaplaincy Services, chaplaincy services are the “activities provided and facilitated by chaplains in response to the religious and spiritual needs of inmates regardless of their beliefs.”^{Endnote xiv}

As shown in Figure 1, there are five core chaplaincy services:

• Religious and spiritual rites, rituals, worship and observances;
• Religious and spiritual education activities;
• Community involvement;
• Activities that constitute visible presence; and,
• Integration of chaplaincy services.^{Endnote xv}

In addition, support services such as one-on-one spiritual care are provided to inmates in response to an institutional crisis (e.g., lockdowns, death in custody), a personal crisis (e.g., grief due to death or loss), a case management meeting, a community hospital visit, or a parole board hearing.

The Sacred Space

Furthermore, CSC is responsible for providing a sacred space within each institution.^{Endnote xvi} The sacred space is a place for inmates to worship, celebrate, meditate, pray, reflect, study, and have communal and individual spiritual observances.^{Endnote xvii} According to CD 750 - Chaplaincy Services, the Institutional Head is to “identify, maintain, and provide inmates access to the sacred space which is exclusively reserved for religious and spiritual activities.”^{Endnote xviii} The sacred space is to be functional, hospitable, and adaptable to ensure it is inclusive to inmates of all faith traditions, as well as to those with no religious or spiritual affiliation.^{Endnote xix},^{Footnote 7}

Chaplaincy Services Partners

Chaplaincy Services, as a Program, is managed by its National Headquarters (NHQ) and Regional Headquarters (RHQ) staff. NHQ staff oversees the overall planning and policy development for the Program, while RHQ staff (i.e., Regional Chaplains, Project Officers, and administrative staff), are responsible for the implementation of program activities within the regions. There are two types of chaplains who contribute to the delivery of chaplaincy services, namely:

• Site-based chaplains: responsible for ensuring that religious and spiritual services are available to all inmates at the site; and,
• Tradition-specific chaplains: responsible for providing specific services to a religious or spiritual group of inmates.^{Endnote xx}

At a minimum, each institution is required to have one site-based chaplain, although most institutions have more than one, as determined by the size of the institution and make-up of the inmate population.^{Footnote 8} Additionally, one or more tradition-specific chaplains are engaged to respond to the specific demographic, religious and spiritual needs of the inmate population.^{Endnote xxi} There are other chaplaincy members and organizations that support and contribute to the delivery of chaplaincy services depending on the needs of inmates, which include:

• Chaplaincy volunteers:responsible forproviding a range of services depending on their interest, the inmate population involved and the frequency and duration of visits;
• Faith community reintegration projects (FCRP):contracts with community organizations that provide support for inmates who wish to make or restore connections to faith groups in the community;^{Endnote xxii}
• Interfaith Committee on Chaplaincy (IFC): members of an advisory committee that CSC consults on matters related to spiritual care and religious services provided to inmates;^{Endnote xxiii} and,
• Faith community resources: designated individuals from a faith community who can be available, on a volunteer basis, to assist in the processing of religious accommodation requests by providing tradition-specific support, confirming an inmate’s religious affiliation, and/or having knowledge of the faith community’s practices.^{Endnote xxiv}

Chaplaincy services within institutions are delivered during the following periods:

1. Intake: chaplains are responsible for presenting an overview of chaplaincy services to all inmates, being visibly present in areas other than the chaplain’s office or the sacred space, and providing and facilitating religious and spiritual services to inmates on an as needed and requested basis;^{Endnote xxv}
2. Incarceration: chaplains are responsible for providing chaplaincy services throughout an inmate’s penitentiary placement, including directing, facilitating and coordinating religious services, rites and rituals, and religious/spiritual activities and programs. They are also responsible for integrating chaplaincy services throughout the institution and being visibly present, as well as engaging with members of the community;^{Endnote xxvi}
3. Prior to Release: chaplaincy services can connect inmates to a faith community prior to their release.^{Endnote xxvii} This assists inmates who wish to continue practicing their faith upon release, and promotes community reintegration.

The Chaplaincy logic model, which provides a visual representation of CSC’s inputs, key activities, outputs, immediate/intermediate, and longer-term strategic outcomes, is shown in Figure 2.

These terms can be defined as follows:^{Endnote xxviii}

• Inputs: the resources (financial, material, personnel) used in a program that ensure the delivery of the intended results of a program;
• Key activities:actions associated with achieving program objectives (e.g., conducting religious ceremonies, installing chapels in each of the institutions, collecting data on religious affiliations);
• Outputs: immediate results of implemented program activities (short-term achievements of the program, deliverables) (e.g., the number of one-on-one spiritual guidance sessions a chaplain has conducted with inmates over a given period of time; number of inmates connected to a community faith volunteer; number of religious accommodations rendered; percentage of inmates who have used chaplaincy services);

• Outcome: achievements of program objectives/impact of a program’s outputs (e.g., change in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs or behaviors; the percentage of inmates who feel their religious/spiritual needs have been met);
• Impact (ultimate outcome): long-term achievements of program objectives (e.g., long-term cumulative effect of an intervention, such as successful reintegration in the community). It should be noted that impacts at a population-level can seldom be attributed to a single program, however, a specific program may, together with another program, contribute to impacts on a population.

The current evaluation focused on key activities and links to outputs that lead to immediate/intermediate outcomes.

Chaplaincy services in Canadian correctional institutions have historically been delivered in various ways. Chaplains have throughout the years been engaged as volunteers, employees (i.e., public servants), contractors, or employees of their respective faith communities under contract. Following a review of Chaplaincy Services, CSC began the implementation of a new contracting model in fiscal year (FY) 2013-2014, which would engage one organization capable of providing qualified professional official representatives (i.e., chaplains with a valid mandate from their respective faith authorities) of a variety of faith communities to deliver chaplaincy services at all of CSC’s institutions . In the fall of 2018, the transition to this new model was completed.

Specifically, this means that all of CSC’s chaplaincy services are delivered through a Standing Offer Agreement (SOA) with a national supplier, Bridges of Canada (BoC).^{Footnote 9} The purpose of the SOA is to provide “religious and spiritual services to federal offenders of all faiths residing in CSC’s institutions” through resources (i.e., chaplains) that meet professional qualifications and provide work as outlined in the SOA.^{Endnote xxix}

The overall management of these services is the responsibility of the CSC Chaplaincy Section, a part of the Reintegration Services Division within the Offender Programs and Reintegration Branch, which falls under the Correctional Operations and Programs Sector (COP).^{Footnote 10} The Chaplaincy Section has a centralized organizational structure, with employees located in all regions, including Regional Chaplains, Project Officers and administrative staff. All staff report to NHQ.^{Endnote xxx} Management of chaplaincy services within CSC includes the following functions: budget/resource management and planning; quality assurance; corporate reporting; policy development and advice; stakeholder engagement;^{Footnote 11} and, responding to grievances, Human Rights complaints, media requests and parliamentary questions.

Regional chaplains are the first point of contact for institutional managers responding to routine requests for information, and for providing advice on the delivery of religious and spiritual services. Supported by the Chaplaincy team, Regional Chaplains also perform analysis and assessments of religious and spiritual needs of inmates, to effectively allocate resources in regions on behalf of the national project authority.

Finally, FCRPs are contracted by CSC to contribute to the department’s mandate of supporting the successful reintegration of inmates into the community. It is important to note that FCRPs are separate entities from BoC and are accountable to CSC. FCRPs work in conjunction with chaplains to assist inmates with their reintegration. FCRPs develop networks to provide faith-based reintegration support to inmates transitioning into the community with the key goal of helping to build bridges between inmates and their religious and spiritual community groups. This work involves liaising with parole offices, justice organizations and faith communities, and it relies heavily on the engagement of faith community volunteers to help support inmates’ participation in pro-social religious, spiritual, or faith-based recreational and social activities.^{Endnote xxxi}

Chaplaincy services are defined as the “development, implementation, delivery, and management of religious and spiritual activities, which includes volunteer and other community resources.”^{Endnote xxxii} The scope of the evaluation was determined through a number of activities aimed at identifying evaluation priorities. It was determined that an area of focus would be on determining whether inmates are provided with access to chaplaincy services that meet their religious and spiritual needs. Given the diversity of religious affiliations within the inmate population, chaplaincy services must continuously evolve in order to meet the needs of CSC’s inmate population.

It was further determined that chaplaincy services offered in the community would not be examined within the present evaluation, as they will be assessed as part of an upcoming evaluation on Transition to Community, and that Elder Services would have its own evaluation.^{Footnote 12}

The following provides an overview of the core objectives and questions of the evaluation in order to measure the Program’s relevance and performance (efficiency and effectiveness).

Core Objective: Relevance - The extent to which a program addresses a demonstrable need, is appropriate to the federal government, and is responsive to the needs of Canadians.

Issue 1: Continued Need for Chaplaincy Services

• Do chaplaincy services continue to address a demonstrable need within federal corrections?

Issue 2: Alignment with Departmental and Government Priorities

• How do chaplaincy service objectives align with departmental priorities and federal government priorities?

Issue 3: Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities

• Does the delivery of chaplaincy services align with the roles and responsibilities of CSC and the federal government?

Core Objective: Performance - the extent to which effectiveness, efficiency and economy are achieved by a program:

• Implementation: this evaluation objective ascertains whether chaplaincy services are organized or delivered in such a way that goals and objectives can be achieved;
• Success Effectiveness: the extent to which chaplaincy services are meeting the needs of inmates; and,
• Efficiency and economy: assessment of resource utilization in relation to production of outputs and progress towards expected outcomes.

Issue 4: Achievement of Expected Outcomes

4. What is the framework for providing chaplaincy services across Canada?
5. Do inmates have access to all types of chaplaincy services (e.g., interfaith chaplaincy services, facilities for the expression of the religion or spiritual tenets, and the necessities related to special religious or spiritual rites of the inmate)?
6. How do inmates access chaplaincy services?
7. Are chaplaincy services available to inmates of all faiths?
8. Do available chaplaincy services respond to the needs of inmates of all faiths (e.g., representation of minority faith groups within the institution when needed, accessibility of a sacred space dedicated to chaplaincy services that is available to all faith groups)?
9. Where are institutional chaplaincy services available (e.g., different areas of the institution including segregation, during intake)?
10. Are inmates connected with faith communities during their transition into the community?
11. Does providing chaplaincy services in the institution affect the institutional environment (e.g., decrease inmate anxiety/anger)?
12. Are inmates aware of the chaplaincy services offered to them?
13. How do inmates become aware of the chaplaincy services available to them?
14. Do inmates understand the role of chaplaincy services?
15. To what extent do inmates use chaplaincy services? (e.g., weekly religious services, spiritual education, religious accommodation, inmate-specific reintegration meetings and parole hearings)?
16. Do inmates view chaplaincy services as an important/meaningful part of their daily lives in the institution?

Issue 5: Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

17. Are CSC’s chaplaincy services delivered in a manner that maximizes resources and is consistent with identified standards for excellence?

The evaluation of CSC’s institutional chaplaincy services used a mixed-method research design that incorporated both qualitative and quantitative methodologies aimed at determining the degree to which policy objectives were met. Additionally, elements of Rapid Impact Evaluation (RIE) were used, a method that has been adapted for use in the federal government by the Centre of Excellence for Evaluation at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.^{Footnote 13} Several lines of evidence were used to address the evaluation issues and questions, including a review of relevant internal documentation as well as peer-reviewed literature, analysis of financial information, analysis of automated offender data, and interview and questionnaire data from key informants (e.g., chaplaincy stakeholders, general staff, expert group), and program beneficiaries (inmates).

An extensive examination of peer-reviewed literature and internal and external documents was conducted, including:

• Canadian (federal, provincial, and territorial) and international legislation;
• CSC and other governmental documents and reports (e.g., policies, evaluation reports, research reports, performance measurement reports, and other corporate and operational documents);
• Peer-reviewed academic literature; and,
• Environmental scans of chaplaincy services in other correctional jurisdictions, including provincial, federal departmental models (including defence and healthcare), and international service provision models.

The data collection for the evaluation was conducted in three phases, each with its own distinct methodology and data collection process. The findings of the evaluation are presented according to each of the three data collection phases, referred to as Findings in Focus for Evaluation (FIFE).

FIFE 1: Continued Relevancy and Need for Chaplaincy Services

Inmate Data

Data related to inmate characteristics and sentence information (e.g., warrant expiry date) were extracted from the Offender Management System (OMS) and analyzed using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software.^{Footnote 14}

FIFE 2: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services and Initiatives

Interviews with Inmates

Inmate interviews were conducted during institutional visits between May and November 2017. An interview guide was developed using open-ended and closed-ended questions (such as 5-point Likert-scales, dichotomous and categorical multiple choice questions). Inmates were asked about their experiences with chaplaincy services during intake, incarceration, and prior to release. Random samples were generated using data from the OMS to obtain lists of inmates at the sites where the evaluation team conducted the interviews. Institutions were selected based on proximity, security level, and having an adequate representation of women inmates (Table 1).

A total of 111 inmates participated in interviews. Inmates interviewed were representative of all regions, security levels, and sex. More importantly, the sample size was representative of all faiths and/or spiritual beliefs and included less known faith groups (e.g., Wicca, Rastafarianism and Buddhism).

Furthermore, the sample size accounted for the fact that Chaplaincy Services is available to all CSC inmates irrespective of religious and/or spiritual beliefs, ethnic identities, and cultural backgrounds. However, the findings cannot be generalized because the number of inmates interviewed was not representative of the entire inmate population due to the following factors:

• Limited travel budget;
• Institutional lockdowns;
• Unwillingness of inmates to participate; and,
• Limited access to certain areas of institutions (e.g., maximum and segregation units).

The data collected from interviews was entered into SNAP Survey software and exported into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel. Data extracted from the OMS included supplementary data, such as demographic information and information pertaining to the length of an inmate’s sentence. The evaluation team analyzed qualitative data obtained through open-ended questions using the iterative and inductive process to identify relevant themes.^{Footnote 15} Qualitative data obtained through closed-ended questions were analyzed using descriptive analysis techniques.

Electronic Questionnaires with General Staff

Data was extracted from CSC’s Human Resources Management Section (HRMS) in order to select a sample of general staff who did not work directly with Chaplaincy but who did interact with chaplaincy stakeholders through their type of work. Data on staff classifications, positions and location were retrieved as of September 30, 2017. These data were used to create a distribution list for the general staff questionnaire.

The electronic questionnaire for general staff was developed using SNAP Survey software and administered through CSC’s Intranet site (InfoPoint).^{Footnote 16} The questionnaire solicited the views and experiences of staff not directly involved in the delivery of chaplaincy services to inmates throughout intake, incarceration, and prior to release.^{Footnote 17} The questionnaire used both open-ended and closed-ended questions and was launched on February 5, 2018 and closed on February 19, 2018. A total of 12,704 electronic questionnaires were distributed and 507 participants responded, which resulted in a response rate of 3%. Respondents were from of all regions across Canada and worked in a variety of institutional settings.^{Footnote 18} They also held a diverse range of classifications. It should be noted that because of the low response rate, findings from the general staff questionnaire are not representative and therefore, cannot be generalized to the entire institutional staff population. It is probable that the following challenges contributed to the small sample size:

• Technical issues accessing the questionnaire;
• Lengthiness of the questionnaire; and,
• Limited time to complete the questionnaire due to workloads.

Electronic Questionnaire with Chaplaincy Stakeholders

For this part of the evaluation, staff involved in the delivery of chaplaincy services at CSC were part of the sampling frame. NHQ/RHQ Chaplaincy and BoC identified, those directly involved in delivering religious and/or spiritual services including chaplains (site-based, tradition specific and individual contractors), volunteers from the community, FCRPs, and IFC members. BoC provided data extracted from their records of site-based and tradition-specific chaplains. NHQ and RHQ Chaplaincy supplied data for the individual contractors, FCRPs, and IFC members. Lastly, the Evaluation team liaised with institutional volunteer coordinators to obtain written verbal consent from volunteers in order to secure their participation. A total of 426 electronic questionnaires were distributed and 222 participants responded, which resulted in a response rate of 52%.

A separate questionnaire was developed for chaplaincy stakeholders because they have particular insights into the delivery of religious and/spiritual services. The questionnaire was developed using SNAP Survey software and administered electronically by an external third party, WebDrive Canada Inc. The questionnaire used both open and closed-ended questions. At their request, some chaplaincy volunteers received a paper version of the questionnaire that was provided by mail. Similar to the general staff questionnaire, this questionnaire solicited the experience of stakeholders on the delivery of chaplaincy services to inmates throughout intake, incarceration, and prior to release. The questionnaire was launched on March 26, 2018 and closed on April 16, 2018. A total of 222 participants responded. Respondents were representative of all regions across Canada and worked in a variety of institutional settings.^{Footnote 19} They also held a diverse range of roles in the delivery of chaplaincy services.^{Footnote 20}

FIFE 3: Standards for Excellence in Chaplaincy Service Provision Models

Identification of Standards for Excellence

To determine standards for excellence, three questionnaires were developed to capture the perspectives of three different groups.

• The perspective of expert groups, in relation to the current Chaplaincy service provision model;
• The perspective of program beneficiaries (inmates), in relation to the current Chaplaincy service provision model; and,
• The perspective of provincial and territorial stakeholders, in relation to their current service provision model.

The expert group comprised of:

• Program stakeholders: individuals who directly affect or are affected by the Program and have in-depth knowledge of its design, implementation, and operation. Individuals in this expert group include site-based chaplains, chaplaincy volunteers, regional administrators, and volunteer coordinators;
• Subject matter experts: individuals who have a general expertise in the field in which the Program operates. This includes members of groups such as the IFC, International Prison Chaplain Association, and the Canadian Multi-Faith Federation; and,
• Technical advisors: individuals who have expertise in specific areas relevant to the evaluation or who have an understanding of the broad context of the Program or a technical field relevant to the Program. Individuals in this expert group included academics or advisors in the field of theology/religious studies, psychology, business management/administration, criminology, and sociology.^{Footnote 21}

A sequence of questions was posed in relation to the current Chaplaincy service provision model: what was working well, what were the challenges, what were the areas requiring improvement, and what were other existing best practices related to alternative service provision models.

A thematic analysis was conducted using standardized templates that were developed for each key question. The use of standardized templates increased consistency in how data was interpreted and coded by evaluators. The standardized templates were structured, correspondingly, upon the following five themes:

1. The delivery of chaplaincy services;
2. Recruitment and retention of chaplains and volunteers;
3. Collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices;
4. Supervision and planning of chaplaincy; and,
5. Service provision models.

Each theme also had its own set of subthemes. For each key question, themes and sub-themes were analyzed and ranked according to the proportion of responses that corresponded to them.

Paper-Based Questionnaire with Inmates

The sampling frame for inmates included only those who actively used chaplaincy services. In order to identify these individuals, institutional Wardens and volunteer coordinators liaised with institutional inmate committees on behalf of the evaluation team in order to recruit inmates who actively used chaplaincy services at CSC institutions across Canada.

Paper questionnaires were sent to all institutions for completion by inmates. The questionnaire sought inmates’ opinions on their experiences with chaplaincy services while incarcerated using both open-ended and closed-ended questions. The questionnaire was launched in May 2018 and closed in June 2018. A total of 463 participants responded, which included all regions and security levels.

Electronic Questionnaire with Members of the Expert Group

Participants for this component of the evaluation were recruited in three ways. In regard to program stakeholders, the data provided by NHQ and RHQ Chaplaincy Services and BoC were updated as movement among staff occurs quite often. With respect to subject matter experts, organizations were chosen based on their experience delivering chaplaincy services in an institutional setting (e.g., provincial institutions, forensic psychiatry facilities, and mental health centres to name a few). A web search was performed to retrieve the data, and these organizations were contacted directly to secure consent for their participation. For technical advisors, the sample was obtained through a web search of Canadian universities that specialized in a combination of the areas of study mentioned above. Academics from these universities were then contacted directly to ascertain consent for their participation.

An electronic questionnaire was provided to members of the expert group that was created as part for the evaluation. The questionnaire was developed using SNAP Survey software and administered electronically by an external third party, WebDrive Canada Inc. The questionnaire used open-ended and closed-ended questions. At their request, some members of the expert group received a paper version of the questionnaire that was provided by mail. The questionnaire was launched on May 14, 2018 and was closed on May 31, 2018. A total of 163 questionnaires were sent out, and 144 participants responded, for a total response rate of 88%. The composition of survey respondants included the following:

• Program stakeholders (69%, n = 97);
• Subject matter experts (20%, n = 28); and,
• Technical advisors (11%, n = 15).

Electronic Questionnaire with Provincial/Territorial Experts

An electronic questionnaire using open-ended questions was provided to all 13 provincial/territorial Directors of Corrections (or designates). The questionnaire was launched on June 14, 2018 and closed on August 1, 2018. Experts from all 13 provinces and territories completed the questionnaire (100%, n = 13).

To analyze the qualitative data, a thematic analysis was conducted, where thematic and sub-thematic coding templates were developed for each key question. The themes and sub-themes were developed in advance to increase consistency in how data was interpreted and coded by Evaluators.

Analysis of Qualitative and Quantitative Data

The following quantifiers were used throughout the current report to indicate the weight of emerging qualitative and quantitative themes, and to facilitate the interpretation of evaluation results.^{Footnote 22}

• A few/a small number of interviewees = less than 25%;
• Some interviewees = 25% to 45%;
• About half of interviewees = 46% to 55%;
• Many interviewees = 56% to 75%;
• Most interviewees = over 75%; and,
• Almost all interviewees = 95% or more.

As with any evaluation, certain constraints can impact the validity and reliability of findings and recommendations. Table 2 outlines the limitations and associated impacts that occurred when conducting the current evaluation. The table includes the mitigation strategies that were put in place to ensure confidence in the findings and recommendations of this evaluation.

From 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, the total expenditures for institutional chaplaincy services was $21.2 million, which accounted for 0.33% of the total CSC direct program spending. This represents an increase in expenditures of 0.04% during that same time period.

Financial data for chaplaincy services expenditures was retrieved from the Integrated Financial and Material Management System (IFMMS). Table 3 presents CSC’s Institutional Chaplaincy total program expenditure for FYs 2015-16 to 2017-18.

For the FY 2015-2016, the total expenditures for institutional chaplaincy services were $7.2 million and accounted for 0.35% of the total CSC direct program spending. The following FY, 2016-2017, the total expenditures ($6.7 million) were 0.33% of the total CSC direct program spending. There are several reasons for the reduced spending during FY 2016-17. They are mainly due to a new SOA starting April 1, 2016 with BoC, which faced a learning curve in managing the complexities of a national standing offer model, particularly regarding recruitment and placement of resources:

• The supplier experienced security clearance delays through Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), which impacted their ability to place resources as quickly as planned;
• The hourly rate for the first year of the SOA was significantly less than the hourly rate for the previous supplier;
• While the total hours of service delivery were slightly lower, the difference in expenditures was more greatly impacted by the lower hourly rate; and,
• There was an overall decline in the in-custody population during this time, therefore actual service standards were not significantly impacted.

In the final year under review, FY 2017-2018, the total expenditures ($7.2 million) were 0.32% of CSC’s total spending. Overall, there was a 0.041% increase in expenditures from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018. Broken down by FY, that represents a 6.59% decrease from 2015-2016 to 2016-2017 and a 7.1% increase from 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.

CSC’s direct program spending represents all budgetary spending from CSC including CORCAN, but excluding Internal Service activity.

The key findings of the Evaluation of Institutional Chaplaincy Services are presented under the following three FIFEs:

• FIFE 1: Relevance of CSC’s Chaplaincy Services;
• FIFE 2: Effectiveness of CSC’s Chaplaincy Services; and,
• FIFE 3: Standards for Excellence in Chaplaincy Service Provision Models.

FIFE 1 focuses on the continued relevance of providing chaplaincy services to inmates. This includes examining the extent to which the Program addresses and is responsive to inmates’ demonstrable need to practice their faith as prescribed by CSC’s governing legislative framework the alignment of the program with corporate priorities, as well as the federal government roles and responsibilities. Moreover, this section provides a broad overview of inmates’ legislative rights to practice their freedom of religion, including potential consequences if these rights are violated.

The findings and supporting evidence pertaining to the relevance of providing chaplaincy services to inmates are presented below, along with next steps meant to guide decisions in the development of a management action plan (MAP) that ensures continuous program improvement.

Finding 1: Need for Chaplaincy Services

There is a continued need to provide chaplaincy services to federal inmates. CSC’s legislative framework facilitates commitments prescribed by international, federal, and provincial/territorial legislation.

There is a continued need to provide chaplaincy services within Canadian federal correctional institutions. In Canada, key pieces of international, federal, and provincial/territorial legislation ensure that freedom of religion is a fundamental human right that is protected; the CCRA and the CCRR further facilitates these commitments. Similar to the Canadian population, inmates have the right to participate in and express their religion or spirituality. Chaplains have provided religious and spiritual services to inmates since the first Canadian penitentiary opened in Kingston in 1835, occupying a role of importance that was considered second only to that of the Warden.^{Endnote xxxiii} The Canadian concept of a penitentiary grew out of the Quaker notion that prisons should be places where inmates repent and make peace with their God.^{Endnote xxxvi} Historically, in Canada, chaplaincy services have primarily been provided to inmates of two faiths, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.^{Endnote xxxv} Over time, the role of chaplains and the religious and spiritual services provided to inmates have evolved to reflect the religious diversity of the Canadian population and in turn CSC’s inmates population.

Evidence: Inmates Diverse Religious and Spiritual Needs

Federal inmates have diverse religious and spiritual needs that are similar to those of the general Canadian population.

• In 2015-2016, approximately 70% of federal inmates identified themselves as having a religious affiliation (see Figure 3 and Table 4);^{Footnote 23}
• According to the 2015 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview, religious affiliation among the federal inmate population is diverse.^{Endnote xxxvi},^{Footnote 24}
• The two most common religious affiliations among federal inmates are Catholic (36%, n = 8,241) and Protestant (13%, n = 2,889);
• Although Catholic and Protestant represent about half of inmate religious affiliation, this proportion has decreased from a combined 57% (n = 13,017) in 2010-2011 to 49% (11,130) in 2014-2015.
• Other common religious affiliations include: other religions (12%, n = 2,811), Muslim (5%, n = 1,236) and Native Spirituality (5%, n = 1,157);
• Religious affiliation was unknown for 10% (n = 2,225) of federal inmates, and 15% (n = 3,496) stated they had no religious affiliation.^{Footnote 25}

Note. The data reflects the number of inmates identifying one religious affiliation from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 according to the 2015 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview. These religious affiliation groupings were modified to remain consistent with the 2011 National Household Survey and a further breakdown can be found in Appendix B.

• Similarly, the religious affiliation among the general Canadian population is diverse (see Figure 4 and Table 5):
• The 2011 National Household Survey reported Catholic (39 %, n = 12,810,705) and Protestant (27%, n = 8,741,350) as the most common religious affiliations among the Canadian population;^{Endnote xxxvii}
• Other common religious affiliations include: Muslim (3%, n = 1,053,945), other religions (2%, n = 713,760) and Orthodox (2%, n = 550,690);
• One quarter (24%, n = 7,765,645) of the Canadian population reported having no religious affiliation.

Note. The data originates from Statistics Canada 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) Profile.^{Endnote xxxviii} A breakdown of religious affiliations can be found in Appendix B.

Table 5: Religious Affiliation among the Canadian Population^{Footnote 26}

Finding 2: Alignment with Priorities and Federal Roles & Responsibilities

Chaplaincy services are aligned with federal government roles and responsibilities, as it provides inmates with the opportunity to participate in and express their religion or spirituality. There is a need to implement a standardized approach in the collection and recording of religion data to ensure consistent and accurate reporting.

Evidence: Importance of Protecting Religious and Spiritual Needs

CSC has a responsibility to provide chaplaincy services to inmates in support of its Charter and other legal obligations. This ensures inmates’ religious and spiritual needs are met and the right to practice their faith is supported.

• CSC’s responsibilities regarding the provisions of religious and spiritual services are outlined in theCorrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) and the Correctional and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR):
1. According to Section 75 of the CCRA, CSC is responsible for providing offenders with reasonable opportunities “to freely and openly participate in, and express, religion or spirituality, subject to such reasonable limits as are prescribed for protecting the security of the penitentiary or the safety of persons.”^{Endnote xxxix}
2. Section 101 of the CCRR states that CSC will make available the requirements for an inmate to practice their religion or spirituality, including: “interfaith chaplaincy services, facilities for the expression of religion or spirituality, a special diet as required by the inmate’s religious or spiritual tenets and the necessities related to special religious or spiritual rites of the inmate.”^{Endnote xl}
3. Although offenders are afforded the right to practice their faith while under CSC custody, Section 4(d) of the CCRA affirms that federal offenders “retain the rights of all members of society, except those that are, as a consequence of the sentence, lawfully and necessarily removed or restricted.”^{Endnote xli}
• There are potential consequences and sanctions for violations of freedom of religion under international laws and Canadian federal, provincial and territorial laws.
1. International context: If violations occur related to international rights the United Nations may enforce political, economic or military sanctions.^{Endnote xlii}
2. Canadian context: Federal human rights complaints can be made through the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or through civil action against the federal/provincial government. Possible remedies may consist of damages (i.e., monetary remedies), declaratory remedies (i.e., interpretation of the parties’ rights), or an injunction.^{Endnote xliii} Provincial and/or territorial human rights complaints can be made through each provincial and/or territorial human rights tribunal. Examples of potential remedies include financial (e.g., compensation for wages lost), non-financial (e.g., reinstatement of employment) and public interest (e.g., a revision of hiring practices).^{Endnote xlvi}
3. CSC context: According to Commissioner’s Directive 81: Offender Complaints and Grievances, an offender complaint or grievance can be made through the offender grievance process. This process carries a legal obligation to provide timely and impartial resolution. If a complaint or grievance is upheld or upheld in part, potential remedies may include corrective action(s).^{Endnote xlv} Offenders may also pursue an alternate legal remedy, such as a legal proceeding before the courts or the Canadian Human Rights Commission in addition to the complaint and grievance process.^{Endnote xlvi}
4. The Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI): According to Part III of the CCRA, the Correctional Investigator (CI) is the ombudsman for federally sentenced offenders and conducts investigations into offender concerns related to CSC’s decisions, recommendations, acts or omissions that affect individuals or groups.^{Endnote xlvii} However, as per Section 179(3) of the CCRA, neither the Commissioner nor the Chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada is bound to act on any finding or recommendation made by the CI.^{Endnote xlviii}

The priorities of CSC’s chaplaincy services are aligned with CSC’s corporate priorities and values and to federal government priorities related to religious and spiritual services.

• Chaplaincy services contribute to CSC’s corporate priorities.^{Endnote xlix}
1. Chaplaincy services support the “safe management of eligible offenders during their transition from the institution to the community, and while on supervision” by continually engaging with faith-based community reintegration groups and chaplaincy volunteers to sustain offender support and opportunities in the community.
2. Chaplaincy services contribute to “safety and security of the public, victims, staff and offenders in institutions and in the community” by providing offenders with the opportunity to explore and apply their faith practice and help them accept responsibility for their actions.
3. Chaplaincy services support “productive relationships with diverse partners, stakeholders, victims' groups, and others involved in support of public safety” by maintaining a relationship with the IFC and individual faith groups to ensure the religious and spiritual needs of offenders are met.
• In addition, chaplaincy services contribute to “efficient and effective management practices that reflect values-based leadership in a changing environment” by continuously examining the program area and refining management practices to better respond to the evolving religious and spiritual needs of the federal offender population.
• Chaplaincy services have been identified as part of two of CSC’s corporate risks.
1. “There is a risk that CSC will not be able to respond to the complex and diverse profile of the offender population” given the continued increase of offenders from various religious backgrounds. A mitigation strategy has been developed to address this risk, which includes:
• Further development and implementation the National Population Management Approach, including Chaplaincy’s new contracting model to strategically integrate accomm, resourcodationes and interventions into a cohesive direction.^{Endnote l}
2. “There is a risk that CSC will lose support of partners delivering critical services and providing resources for offenders” given funding pressures on faith-based organizations which impacts their ability to assist CSC and provide services to inmates. Mitigation strategies have been developed to address this risk, including:
• Increasing volunteer involvement with faith-based organizations to enhance and sustain inmate support opportunities; and,
• Continue to increase the use of technological communications to maintain engagement with partners from diverse faith-based organizations.^{Endnote li}
• CSC accomplishes its mission within a framework of values that demonstrates its commitment to personal and professional integrity as well as guides the organization and its employee’s decision making, behaviour and discretionary judgement. In particular, the core value of inclusiveness states the Service’s commitment “to welcoming, proactively accommodating and learning from cultural, spiritual and generational differences, individual changes, and novel points of view.”^{Endnote lii} Chaplaincy services practices the core value of inclusiveness by providing federal inmates access to multi-faith chaplaincy services. This ultimately aligns with the federal government’s 2015 Speech from the Throne that emphasized “Canada’s strength is its diversity.” ^{Endnote liii}

CSC should strengthen the information management practices and quality of religion data in OMS.

• Currently, CSC collects religion data at offender intake using the OMS in three areas: data related to religious affiliation, religious compatibility, and religious diet and other accommodations (e.g., religious clothing, jewelry, books, etc.);
• Issues have been identified with the information management practices and quality of religion data which has resulted in the collection and recording of incomplete and inconsistent information and has affected CSC’s ability to track historical trends. The following areas have been flagged:
• At intake, it is not mandatory for individual staff members to input data related to religious affiliation;
• The current format in OMS allows individual staff members the ability to create new religious affiliation variables that may overlap (e.g., Native Spirituality Protestant), over-write religious affiliation variables and only capture one religious affiliation instead of multiple religious affiliations, if required;
• During incarceration, there is no standardized practice for recording religious accommodation requests in an inmate’s file; and,
• The definitions and/or criteria used in reporting religious affiliation internally using Corporate Reporting System-Modernized (CRS-M) and externally in the yearly Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview are not congruent.
• It will be important to establish national standardized definitions and/or criteria of religious affiliation groupings. There is also a need to ensure that all data entry practices related to religion are mandatory and clearly outlined in relevant policies and procedures. In addition, when reviewing religion data, there may be an opportunity to identify additional information that could be collected and recorded to better understand and accommodate the inmate population’s religious needs. This will ultimately strengthen the data quality and reporting of CSC’s religion data, will assist in capturing the evolution of inmates’ religious affiliations, and will enhance CSC’s capacity to deliver quality services.

This section presents the evaluation findings pertaining to the performance and effectiveness of chaplaincy services, and explores the following core objectives:

• Implementation: whether chaplaincy services are organized and delivered in such a way that the program’s goals and objectives can be achieved; and,
• Success effectiveness: the extent to which chaplaincy services are meeting the needs of inmates.

In order to evaluate implementation and success effectiveness, chaplaincy services were reviewed throughout three periods: intake, incarceration and prior to an inmate’s release to the community. The provision of chaplaincy services was examined along with specific activities related to the visible presence and recognizability of chaplains, information-sharing practices, religious accommodations. Additionally, GBA+ was conducted to assess how diverse groups may experience policies, programs and initiatives. The impact of chaplaincy services on the institutional environment as well as the extent to which chaplaincy services responds to the needs of inmates was also explored. Findings and supporting evidence are presented, along with a strategic course of action and recommendations which will help guide decisions in the development of a MAP.

For the purposes of simplifying the reporting of the findings, in all instances where chaplaincy stakeholders, general staff, and inmates are discussed, it should be noted that these were the participants of the evaluation (whether interviewed or surveyed) and findings may not be representative of the entire respective population.

Finding 3: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Intake Period

CSC inmates have access to chaplaincy services during the intake period, which assists in responding to the diverse religious and spiritual needs of the inmate population. As just over half of inmates reported being satisfied or very satisfied with chaplaincy services during intake, opportunities exist to further optimize service delivery. Specifically, increasing the visible presence of chaplains at intake, as well as improving inmates’ awareness and accessibility to chaplaincy services and chaplaincy stakeholders (i.e., chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers).

Evidence: Awareness and Accessibility of Chaplaincy Services - Intake Period

Federal inmates entering CSC custody are first introduced to chaplaincy services at intake. During this period, chaplains are responsible for:^{Endnote liv}

• Presenting an overview of chaplaincy services to all inmates. Specific information may include the role of the chaplains, the schedule of available services, location of the sacred space and the process of submitting a religious accommodation request if required;
• Being visibly present in areas other than the chaplain’s office or the sacred space for the purposes of providing spiritual care and dealing with issues of faith including personal and spiritual relationships; and,
• Providing and facilitating religious and spiritual services as well as support services to inmates on an as needed and requested basis.

About half of CSC inmates reported meeting with chaplains and being formally introduced to the breadth of chaplaincy services during intake. In the case of CSC inmates who did meet with chaplains, the necessary information was provided to inmates.

Introduction to Chaplaincy Services

As chaplains introduce inmates to the available services, all inmates, regardless of religious or spiritual affiliation, are provided with the necessary information to access available chaplaincy services, support services and staff when needed during their sentence.

• About half of inmates (45%, n = 46) stated that the chaplain never met with them to introduce chaplaincy services during the intake period. Of those inmates who had never met with a chaplain, many (71%, n = 30) expressed that it would have been helpful. Some of the reasons inmates provided as to why this would have been helpful included chaplains providing a great deal of support and guidance, and the information on the available chaplaincy services is needed (e.g., what services are offered).
• Most chaplaincy stakeholders (92%, n =34) and most general staff (80%, n = 122) reported that inmates were often or always introduced to chaplaincy services during the intake period. One possible explanation for the discrepancy between what is being reported by chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff versus inmates is the notion of recall bias.^{Endnote lv} The median reported amount of time since male inmates had been at a reception centre was two years (n = 85). Inmates’ memory of their experience at intake may not be as accurate as it would have been if the question were posed to them when they were at reception. Conversely, a different explanation could be that chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff are basing their perceptions on their observations of this encounter. They are potentially not accounting for inmates who go undetected during intake and are not introduced to available services.

Chaplaincy Services Information

Chaplains provide inmates with a range of information when introducing chaplaincy services. Chaplaincy stakeholders were asked to indicate the types of institutional chaplaincy information that they provided to inmates. The two most commonly cited types included information on the role of the chaplain in providing interfaith services, and the various chaplaincy services offered within the institution (see Figure 5).

This was substantiated among inmates who met with a chaplain during intake and mentioned most commonly receiving information regarding the available chaplaincy services at the institution (n = 22). Moreover, when general staff were asked if they felt inmates were provided with the necessary information they needed regarding chaplaincy services, most (83%, n = 119) agreed.

About half of general staff and inmates reported that chaplains were visibly present during the intake period.

Visible Presence of Chaplains

Having chaplains visibly present throughout the institution provides inmates with continuous access to individuals who provide ongoing support, crisis intervention and spiritual guidance.^{Footnote 27} There was a disparity between the views of inmates, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff regarding the visibility of chaplains at intake. Most chaplaincy stakeholders (82%, n = 28) reported that chaplains were often or always visibly present during intake, however, about half of inmates (58%, n = 60) and half of general staff (51%, n = 77) reported a chaplain being visibly present during the intake period. One possible explanation is that inmates may not remember seeing the chaplains at intake because of the myriad of new things they were being introduced to at intake.

Just over half of CSC inmates indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with the chaplaincy services and activities provided to them during the intake period. Challenges with the access and availability of chaplains and chaplaincy services and activities were identified among chaplaincy stakeholders, general staff and inmates.

Chaplaincy Services and Support Services

Figure 6 shows the available chaplaincy services and support services that chaplaincy stakeholders reported as being available to inmates during the intake period. Since intake is a time of transition for inmates, it is understandable that chaplains are frequently offering personal crisis support to assist those who may be experiencing stress and other emotions as well as providing religious and spiritual items to inmates, so they may continue their religious and spirituality practices.

• Many chaplaincy stakeholders reported that chaplains provided support services to inmates in response to a personal crisis (77%, n = 26); institutional crisis (92%, n = 35); a community hospital visit (59%, n = 20); and, attended a case management meeting (58%, n = 19). In addition, most general staff (86%, n = 125) believed that inmates were provided with the support services (e.g., one-on-one spiritual care) they needed from chaplains;
• Most chaplaincy stakeholders (83%, n = 29) and most general staff (81%, n = 103) felt the available chaplaincy services responded to the needs of all inmate faith traditions during intake;
• Overall, about half of the inmates (54%, n = 49) indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with the chaplaincy services that they received during the intake period. Among those who reported lower levels of satisfaction^{Footnote 28} (28%, n = 25), a few commented that there were issues with the accessibility and availability of chaplains (n = 13) and chaplaincy services (n = 12).

Finding 4:Effectiveness Of Chaplaincy Services – Incarceration – Awareness and Accessibility

Awareness of the availability of chaplaincy’s core services is higher when compared to the awareness of chaplaincy’s ability to provide support services to inmates (e.g., one-on-one spiritual care). However, chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers did not have formal strategies in place for introducing themselves or their services to new inmates. Perceptions of heavy workloads and resource shortages are reasons provided by chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff as to why chaplains may not be able to provide timely information on chaplaincy services to inmates. The needs of inmates could better be met with greater information and access to faith-specific services, programs, and religious leaders.

Evidence: Awareness and Accessibility of Chaplaincy Services - Incarceration Period

The awareness and use of chaplaincy services during the incarceration period were examined in order to address key evaluation questions regarding implementation and effectiveness. Because the program is structured in such a way that inmates are introduced to chaplaincy services at intake (whether through the chaplains or through various means of communication), once assigned to their institution, most inmates should in theory already be aware that CSC offers institutional chaplaincy services.

Inmates were generally well aware of and have used chaplaincy services, but were less aware of the availability of support services. They were more often informed of chaplaincy services by various means of communication than by chaplains or chaplaincy volunteers.

Awareness and Accessibility of Chaplaincy Services

Findings from the present evaluation confirm that inmates were, in fact, generally aware that CSC provides institutional chaplaincy services, and were also aware that the role of chaplains is to provide spiritual care and support to inmates of all faiths (93%, n = 98). Of those inmates, three quarters (72%, n = 75) were aware that chaplains could connect them to a volunteer from their faith in the community while at their institution. Chaplaincy can provide this information at any point during their incarceration, however, the most opportune times are at intake, and upon arrival to the institution. The fact that the findings on the awareness of inmates regarding the availability of volunteers at both intake and incarceration is somewhat lower in comparison to the awareness of the role of the chaplain, highlights that greater emphasis is needed on informing inmates of all the services available to them.

Upon arriving at the institution, inmates can be informed about specific chaplaincy services through various means of communication (see Figure 7). In regard to inmates, it was found that:

• Institutional communication tools (e.g., posters, calendars, inmate handbook, intercom announcements) appeared to be the most common mechanism by which inmates were informed of chaplaincy services, cited by some of the inmates who were interviewed (44%, n = 47);
• Word of mouth (by other inmates) was also a common mechanism through which inmates reported being informed about the availability of chaplaincy services, also cited by some of those interviewed (42%, n = 45). This finding was corroborated by both chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff (48%, n = 107 and 63%, n = 273, respectively).

Note. Categories are not mutually exclusive; therefore, percentages do not add up to 100%. Respondents were asked to select all that applied.

• Some inmates (31%, n = 33) stated that they were made aware of chaplaincy services by the chaplains or chaplaincy volunteers, which was consistent with what both chaplaincy stakeholders (45%, n = 173) and general staff (39%, n = 166) reported;
• General staff perceived that inmates usually learn about chaplaincy services through the inmate handbook, as well as during orientation (70%, n = 300 and 59%, n = 255, respectively). This finding was not nearly as frequently reported by chaplaincy stakeholders (28%, n = 46 and 33%, n = 53, respectively).

The present evaluation delved further into the specifics pertaining to the methods through which inmates learn about chaplaincy services. Inmates were asked a series of questions related to their awareness of chaplaincy services, and those who indicated being aware were then asked to report whether or not these services had been offered to them, and whether or not they had made use of them.

Figure 8 shows that the majority of inmates were aware of most chaplaincy services offered at their institution, with the exception of religious education programs, where fewer (65%, n = 71) indicated that they knew this program was available to them. The chapel was the service that was most commonly used by respondents (80%, n = 84), followed by religious rite and ritual services (76%, n = 67). Those that did not use any services or programs were asked to provide comments as to the reasons why they had not used them. They either indicated that the service/program was not available to them, they were not interested in participating (i.e., had no need for the service or program), or that the program/service did not meet their needs.

Inmates were also asked questions with respect to their awareness of various chaplaincy support services, such as one-on-one counselling in response to an institutional crisis (e.g., lockdowns, death in custody), a personal crisis (e.g., grief as a result of death or loss), a case management meeting, a community hospital visit, or a parole board hearing. Those who were aware of the chaplaincy support services were then asked to indicate whether or not these services had been offered to them, and whether or not they had used them. Findings unequivocally show that inmate awareness of most support services was lower than that of above noted chaplaincy services. Likewise, most support services had lower levels of reported usage even amongst those who indicated being aware of them (see Figure 9). Furthermore:

• Only 40% of inmates (n = 43) reported they were aware that support services were offered for community hospital visits. It was also reported by those inmates as the support service that was the least used (21%, n = 9).
• The only support service with a high degree of awareness in comparison to others were those offered in response to a personal crisis (85%, n = 93), however, approximately only about half of these inmates (53%, n = 49) reported having used this service.
• The vast majority of those who did not use any of these services stated that they simply did not have a need for them. Very few inmates indicated that access to these services was an issue.

Questions in regard to the provision of chaplaincy support services to inmates were also explored for chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff. Almost all chaplaincy stakeholders (97%, n = 118) and general staff (99%, n = 365) reported that chaplains were providing support to inmates during a personal crisis (e.g., grief as a result of death or loss, relationship difficulties/ending). Most chaplaincy stakeholders also indicated that chaplains were providing support to inmates in response to parole board hearings (92%, n = 85), institutional crises (e.g., lockdown, a hostage-taking) (92%, n = 93), case management meetings (90%, n = 80), and community hospital visits (89%, n = 77).

Similarly, most general staff stated that chaplains were providing support to inmates during an institutional crisis (89%, n = 242), case management meeting (81%, n = 195) and parole board hearing (81%, n = 161). Many general staff (68%, n =111) also stated that they had observed chaplains providing support services to inmates during a community hospital visit. Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff who identified that chaplains were not providing support services during community hospital visits or during parole hearings, frequently cited security barriers and safety concerns as reasons for why a chaplain would not provide these support services.

Chaplaincy stakeholders play an important role in providing support services to inmates. The fact that there was a lower percentage of reported use among inmates is in no way an indication that these services are not important or even critical in an inmate’s spiritual journey (as the case would be during an institutional crisis) and should not be interpreted as such. Perhaps greater awareness of the availability of these support services could help to enhance the program’s profile and provide better service to those inmates who require additional support.

Perceptions of heavy workloads and resource shortages are reasons provided by chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff as to why chaplains may not be able to provide timely information on chaplaincy services to inmates.

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were asked if they had faced challenges in raising awareness of chaplaincy services. Almost one quarter of general staff (23%, n = 56) and over a third of chaplaincy stakeholders (40%, n = 36) reported they had faced challenges (see Figure 10).

Among those reporting challenges:

• Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff felt that resource shortages (39%, n =14 and 59%, n = 33, respectively) impeded chaplains’ ability to spend time on informing inmates of the services available to them;
• Both groups (47%, n = 17 and 41%, n = 23, respectively) also felt that workload demands impeded chaplains’ ability to inform inmates of the availability of chaplaincy services;
• These findings were consistent with the fact that relatively few inmates reported they had been informed of chaplaincy services directly by the chaplains themselves.

Note. Categories are not mutually exclusive; therefore, percentages do not add up to 100%. Respondents were asked to select all that applied.

It should be noted that chaplaincy stakeholders alluded to performing administrative tasks (e.g., report writing, completing time sheets) in their daily routines as a major source of their workload challenges. This led the Evaluation Team to conclude that this is what chaplaincy stakeholders were referring to in any instance where workload demands had been identified as a challenge that inhibited chaplains’ ability to deliver services to inmates. It should be noted that in the handbook that CSC provides to chaplains that the need to perform administrative duties is clearly articulated. However, there may be challenges in achieving a balance between performing administrative duties and delivering religious/spiritual services.

Among the chaplaincy stakeholders who reported challenges, some (44%, n = 16) attributed these challenges to obstacles that were not listed in the questionnaire, namely:

• Challenges with communication and information-sharing practices (e.g., site-based chaplains do not always inform inmates that a faith-based chaplain is available, enhanced program advertising is needed, information is provided only upon request);
• Challenges with access to and availability of chaplaincy services (e.g., passes to attend services often do not get sent out, lack of space, chaplaincy services are held at the same time as other activities); and,
• Challenges with inclusivity (e.g., chaplains are predominantly Christian, it is difficult for a chaplain to be interfaith, there is stigma around some faiths, there are barriers for inmates who come from different cultural backgrounds).

Despite all good intentions, these challenges inherently affect the ability to provide effective chaplaincy services to inmates. Awareness is key and the first line of defence to introducing inmates to the mechanisms available to them in their pursuit for rehabilitation, reintegration and spiritual growth.

Inmates were generally satisfied with their first meeting with the chaplain; however, they required more information as to how to access the different chaplaincy services for their particular faith.

Timeliness and Quality of Chaplaincy-Related Information

Another critical question for the present evaluation pertained to the timeliness and quality of chaplaincy related information provided to inmates by the chaplains. In order to measure this, the evaluation first sought to determine the number of inmates who had met with a chaplain. The vast majority of inmates (86%, n = 92) reported they had in fact met with a chaplain at their current institution. According to many chaplaincy stakeholders (58%, n = 46) and general staff (70%, n = 165), chaplaincy services were introduced to inmates for their specific faith traditions within their first week of arriving at their institution. Inmates were asked a series of questions regarding their introduction to chaplaincy services and reported that they were:

• Engaged at the right time (88%, n = 69);
• Easily able to get in touch with the chaplain when they needed (88%, n = 72) (e.g., the chaplain was easily accessible or the chaplain initiated the contact with them);
• Comfortable interacting with the chaplains (94%, n = 82), because they were approachable, respectful and kind;
• Provided with clear information on the chaplaincy services offered for their particular faith at their institution during their first meeting (73%, n = 56) (e.g., they informed them of services provided, activities that occurred, had extensive knowledge of the chaplaincy services offered, explained the scope of the programs);
• Satisfied or very satisfied with the length of time they spent with the chaplain (84%, n = 68); and,
• Satisfied or very satisfied (86%, n = 74) with their first meeting with the chaplain.

General staff also agreed or strongly agreed (79%, n = 258) that chaplaincy services were introduced to inmates at an appropriate time. However, it should be noted that this percentage was slightly lower for chaplaincy stakeholders (70%, n = 74). This finding can potentially be explained by the fact that not all chaplains are able to engage inmates immediately upon their arrival at the institution, due to other conflicting priorities in their work, including, but not limited to, administrative taskings. Furthermore, one-quarter of inmates (24%, n = 19) felt that the chaplain did not adequately explain to them how to access the different chaplaincy services for their particular faith at their institution. Inmates subsequently provided comments into areas of improvements for the first meeting with the chaplain, which included:

• Implementing a formalized orientation approach to chaplaincy services; and,
• Providing greater support to inmates of specific faith traditions (e.g., information for Pagans, Muslims).

The needs of inmates can be better met with greater access to faith-specific chaplaincy services and religious leaders.

Inmate Needs

A series of questions regarding what inmates need in order to practice their particular faith were posed. These questions differed from those that examined which service or program they had used while incarcerated (e.g., questions pertained to what they needed to access, regardless of whether or not they had used the service or program). The aim was to determine the extent to which specific services or items were needed within the institution to practice their particular faith. Approximately two-thirds of inmates indicated they needed:

• Access to religious items (68%, n = 73) as part of their particular faith, particularly written texts (e.g., Bible, Quran, psalms, Book of Hadiths, daily pamphlets);
• Access to a religious leader (61%, n = 66); and,
• To practice religious rites or rituals (67%, n = 74) as part of their particular faith (e.g., prayers, church/mass service, meditation, and celebratory days [e.g., Easter, Eid]).

With respect to the need for other services and items, the percentage of inmates that reported needing them was somewhat lower. For example:

• About half of inmates (53%, n = 58) reported that they needed access to a religious space in order to practice their particular faith
• Slightly less than half of inmates (45%, n = 48) reported having the need to be involved in religious education programs in order to practice their particular faith (e.g., Bible studies, independent religious studies); and,
• Less than one third (30%, n = 33) reported that they needed to observe a religious diet as part of their particular faith.^{Footnote 29}

The evidence regarding the perception of whether or not the needs of inmates are being met was mixed. While most general staff (85%, n = 282) believed that the current chaplaincy services responded to the needs of all inmate faith traditions at their current institution, slightly less chaplaincy stakeholders (70%, n = 79) reported that it met their needs. Issues with limited access to and availability of religious and spiritual leaders were again cited, as well as a lack of access and availability to chaplaincy services that represent certain inmate faith traditions (e.g., insufficient relationships with minority religious groups in the community, difficulty finding volunteers for certain faiths in the community). As well, ineffencies in information-sharing practices and available resources were also cited by chaplaincy stakeholders (e.g., insufficient knowledge of certain faiths, issues with the announcement of services).

Inmates were generally satisfied with the availability and accessibility of chaplaincy services, yet almost half reported having experienced challenges in using these services. Challenges pertained to the availability of chaplains and the ability to access faith-specific chaplaincy services.

Satisfaction with Chaplaincy Services

Accessibility of chaplains, chaplaincy volunteers and chaplaincy services was another key issue examined within the present evaluation in order to ascertain whether chaplaincy services are organized and delivered in such a way that ensures the goals and objectives of the program can be achieved, and that the needs of inmates can be met in an effective manner.

Just over half of chaplaincy stakeholders felt that inmates had a sufficient amount of time to meet with the chaplains (58%, n = 62) and chaplaincy volunteers (59%, n = 80). Findings showed that there were some disparities between the views of chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff with regards to the ability of inmates to access both chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers. For example:

• Chaplaincy stakeholders were less in agreement (65%, n = 71) that chaplains can be accessed in a timely manner, in comparison to general staff (85%, n = 301);
• Only half of chaplaincy stakeholders (56%, n = 70) were in agreement that chaplaincy volunteers were accessible in a timely manner, in comparison to almost three-quarters of general staff (69%, n = 187); it should be noted that both groups however felt that chaplaincy volunteers were not as easily accessible, as evidenced by lower reported percentages in agreement in comparison to the above finding.

Chaplaincy services and the chaplains themselves are inherently important to inmates as they provide strong spiritual guidance and knowledge. Overall, three-quarters of inmates reported being satisfied or very satisfied (74%, n = 78) with the availability and accessibility of chaplaincy services. That being said, almost one quarter of inmates (22%, n = 23) were in fact dissatisfied. When asked what had made them dissatisfied, they mentioned:

• Limited availability of chaplaincy services for specific faith traditions; and,
• Limited availability of chaplains in certain institutions as a result of resource shortages and workload demands.

Whether satisfied or not, about half of inmates (49%, n = 52) reported that within the last two years, they had experienced, in one way or another, challenges with using the chaplaincy services for their particular faith. For example, inmates cited challenges with:

• Access and availability of chaplaincy services (e.g., services are reported as sporadic and insufficient, lack of services for specific religions, timing of services);
• Access and availability of chaplains or volunteers (e.g., difficulties in getting one-on-one time with a chaplain, challenges accessing Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, or Wiccan chaplains, Buddhist volunteers needed in some institutions);
• Institutional security and movement (e.g., issues with getting security clearances for volunteers, difficulties in seeing chaplains for those in segregation, issue with getting escorted temporary absences (ETAs) to a community church); and,
• Obtaining religious accommodations (e.g., difficulties in obtaining material/items related to their particular faith).

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were also asked about the challenges they encountered in the provision of chaplaincy related services to inmates within their institution. For both groups, the service areas that provided the greatest challenge were those related to:

• Providing religious and/or spiritual services, rites and rituals (50%, n = 67 and 50%, n = 134, respectively);
• Providing religious and/or spiritual education programs (49%, n = 64 and 51%, n = 124, respectively);
• Ensuring religious and/or spiritual items and resources were available to inmates (46%, n = 61 and 45%, n = 123, respectively); and,
• Providing access to a faith community leader or spiritual advisor (47%, n = 64 and 50%, n = 135, respectively).

Other salient challenges were reported as follows:

• Some general staff (39%, n = 116) reported having experienced challenges in creating and maintaining a sacred space that enables all faith traditions to practice as a challenge;
• Some chaplaincy stakeholders (35%, n = 33) pointed to security barriers as a challenge that had an impact on their provision of chaplaincy services; and,
• About half of general staff reported that security barriers (48%, n = 71) and difficulties accessing chaplains and/or chaplaincy volunteers of certain inmate faith traditions (47%, n = 86) were obstacles that had an impact on their provision of chaplaincy services.

Inmates were asked to provide suggestions for improvements to chaplaincy services in order to address the concerns they had raised. Greater access and availability of faith specific chaplaincy stakeholders (e.g., Imams, Sikh chaplains) was repeatedly cited and was the most prevalent suggestion made by inmates. They also suggested that there be:

• Greater access to additional chaplaincy services (e.g., more Bible studies, more church services for Christianity, one-on-one sessions, more opportunities for ETA's);
• Better communication and information-sharing practices (e.g., increase awareness of the services, explain what is offered); and,
• Better access to religious accommodations (e.g., religious items and religious space).

Finding 5: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Visibility and Recognizability

Institutional chaplains, for the most part, did not have formal strategies for introducing themselves or the breadth of services to new inmates. Furthermore, Chaplaincy volunteers were not easily recognizable in institutions.

Evidence: Visible Presence of Chaplains and Chaplaincy Volunteers

• According to CD 750 - Chaplaincy Services, the Institutional Head will ensure “that inmates in all areas of the institution have access to chaplaincy services and, correspondingly, that chaplains have access to inmates in all areas of the institution.”^{Endnote lvi}
• Chaplains are responsible for providing activities that constitute visible presence such as being present and seen throughout the institution and being available during disruptions of institutional operations.^{Endnote lvii}

The majority of chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff indicated chaplains were visibly present throughout most areas of the institution. Segregation and ranges/units were identified as areas in the institution where chaplains could increase their visible presence.

The evidence regarding the visible presence of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers was mixed (see Figure 11). The majority of chaplaincy stakeholders (96%, n = 125) and general staff (97%, n = 436) indicated that chaplains were visibly present throughout the institution, while inmates reported that chaplains were visibly present but to a lesser degree (69%, n = 75). One quarter of inmates (25%, n = 18) reported needing to see the chaplain more often throughout the institution, particularly in segregation, ranges/units and common areas such as the yard and cafeteria.

Note. Perceptions of chaplains: chaplaincy stakeholders, n = 125; general staff, n = 436; inmates, n = 75. Perceptions of chaplaincy volunteers: chaplaincy stakeholders, n = 80; general staff, n = 239. Question on chaplaincy volunteers was not posed to inmates. Each question is independent from one another based on a yes/no response.

In comparison, chaplaincy volunteers^{Footnote 30} were also found to be visibly present, but to a lesser extent, among chaplaincy stakeholders (58%, n = 80) and general staff respondents (79%, n = 239). Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff who said that the chaplaincy volunteers were not visibly present were asked to cite the reasons why they perceived this. These included:

• Security clearance restrictions (71%, n = 42 and 61%, n = 37, respectively);
• Duties do not require access to all areas (56%, n = 33 and 66%, n = 40, respectively);
• Safety concerns (56%, n = 33 and 56%, n = 34, respectively); and,
• Security barriers (44%, n = 26 and 34%, n = 21, respectively).

The above findings can be explained by the fact that visible presence is not mandated for chaplaincy volunteers as it is for chaplains. They are not expected to be visibly present in all areas of the institutions. Nonetheless, these findings are important to take into consideration.

Overall, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff reported chaplains were easily recognizable throughout areas of the institution; however, chaplaincy volunteers were less recognized by general staff.

Recognizability of Chaplains and Chaplaincy Volunteers

Results indicate that chaplains (70%, n = 135) and chaplaincy volunteers (73%, n = 124) were easily recognized by chaplaincy stakeholders at their current institution. Like chaplaincy stakeholders, general staff found chaplains (81%, n = 388) to be easily recognizable, however, only half stated that chaplaincy volunteers (50%, n = 175) were easily recognizable at their current institution.

While exploring the concept of recognizability among chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, the present evaluation found that religious dress was positively perceived amongst those who were surveyed.^{Footnote 31} In addition, the following were identified by chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff after a series of different questions as benefits of having chaplains (79%, n = 22 and 70%, n = 44, respectively) and chaplaincy volunteers (88%, n = 7 and 77%, n = 13, respectively) in religious dress:

• Being easily identifiable;
• Approachable to those who follow the same faith; and,
• Creates a sense of belonging to a community.

Finding 6: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Institutional Environment

Chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers have a positive impact on the institutional environment. The presence of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers within the institutions creates a comfortable atmosphere where inmates are provided with the tools to manage their emotions, engage in communal activities and deepen their understanding of their specific spirituality and faith traditions.

Evidence: Inmates, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff perspectives on chaplaincy services’ impact on the institutional environment

Inmates, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff all feel that the institutional environment is positively impacted by having chaplains/and or chaplaincy volunteers at institutions.

Figure 12 shows an array of terms CSC inmates used during their interviews to describe the impact that chaplaincy stakeholders, chaplaincy services and the sacred space had on them and the institutional environment. In particular, these were terms used by inmates to describe the value in having chaplains at CSC institutions.

There was consensus among the three groups that chaplains have a positive impact on the psychological well-being of inmates (e.g., regarding emotions such as anxiety, stress and anger). For example:

• Most inmates (81%, n = 81) reported feeling less anxious and stressed as a result of chaplaincy presence. For some of those inmates (n = 26), simply knowing chaplains and/or chaplaincy volunteers are consistent figures of support provides the opportunity to seek counsel on dealing with negative emotions;
• Perceptions of general staff highlight that chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers represent an outlet for inmates to talk to and express their emotions at the institution. Most general staff (84%, n = 376) have observed reductions in anxiety and stress among inmates. This strongly suggests that the presence of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers create a safe and comfortable atmosphere for inmates to work through difficult emotions;
• Stress levels according to chaplaincy stakeholders can change very quickly and lead to anger within an institutional environment, particularly during an inmate’s personal crisis. However, almost all of chaplaincy stakeholders (93%, n = 169) reported they had observed reductions in anger among inmates due to a chaplain’s calming presence (n = 24). For example, chaplaincy stakeholders reported they had observed significant changes in inmates who attended meditation sessions.

Figure 13 shows an array of terms general staff used to describe the impact that chaplaincy stakeholders, chaplaincy services, and the working relationship of general staff with chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers had on the institutional environment. Specifically, these were terms used by general staff to describe the value in having chaplains at CSC institutions.

Because of their trustworthy relationships with chaplains, inmates begin forming a sense of community. Many inmates (61%, n = 68) reported that having chaplains at the institution makes them feel like they are part of a community. Of those inmates, some reported feeling accepted by chaplains for who they are. Moreover, some inmates expressed a sense of belonging as they do not feel ostracized and are treated with respect.

Most general staff (80%, n = 344) and almost all chaplaincy stakeholders (95%, n = 186) speak to this communal feeling and were in agreement that chaplains instill a sense of community in inmates. Both chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff suggested that these communal interactions contributed to the ultimate goal of successful reintegration of inmates into the community. Specifically, they commented on the fact that chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers represented a bridge to the community, which in turn contributed to public safety. Some chaplaincy stakeholders (n = 14) reported changes in the behaviour and attitudes of inmates as they begin to put effort into bettering themselves and changing their lives. Figure 14 highlights an array of terms chaplaincy stakeholders used to describe the professional qualities chaplains use to create a comfortable environment at CSC institutions.

The provision of spiritual guidance lays the foundation in creating an environment where inmates can observe their behaviours and decisions while simultaneously discovering new ways of living. Many inmates (73%, n = 81) reported that the spiritual guidance provided by chaplains has had a profound impact on the institutional environment. Inmate perceptions of the provision of chaplaincy services suggests that a deeper understanding of their faith allows for self-reflection where they can challenge their thought processes.

For some inmates (n = 14), the knowledge that was provided by chaplaincy emphasized positive decision making. General staff echoed similar sentiments and explained that spiritual guidance through meditation and prayer provided inmates with the skills necessary to manage their emotions. Essentially, the findings suggest that the provision of spiritual guidance does affect the behaviour of inmates in addition to how they treat those in direct contact with them.

The perceptions of chaplaincy stakeholders in regard to spiritual guidance were very much in line with what inmates and general staff were reporting. Some chaplaincy stakeholders commented on the fact that the provision of spiritual guidance (e.g., through Bible studies and church services) creates a safe environment for inmates that gives them a feeling of strength and hope for the future.

Finding 7: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Communication and Information-Sharing Practices

There are effective communication and information-sharing practices established among Chaplaincy as well as the Interfaith Committee on Chaplaincy (IFC). Specific areas where there were opportunities for improvement included the documentation of chaplaincy related information and sharing timely and relevant information, particularly for faith community reintegration projects.

Evidence: Access and Documentation of Chaplaincy Related Information

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff reported that the majority of chaplains had access to electronic databases, such as OMS and RADAR, and were included on appropriate distribution lists. The documentation of chaplaincy-related information could be improved among chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff.

Access and Documentation of Chaplaincy Related Information

The importance of chaplains’ access to chaplaincy related information and effective documentation is emphasized in CD 750 - Chaplaincy Services, where it is the responsibility of the Institutional Head to ensure: “that chaplains have access to Reports of Automated Data Applied to Reintegration (RADAR) and the Offender Management System (OMS) and are included on appropriate distribution lists so they are aware of new admissions, transfers and releases of inmates.”^{Endnote lviii} In addition, chaplains have an integrated role within the institution, and engage with several different chaplaincy stakeholders as well as institutional and community stakeholders to perform their duties. As outlined in their Statement of Work (SOW)^{Footnote 32}, chaplains are to refer to and consult with appropriate staff and groups when required as well as consult with official representatives of the faith community to direct, facilitate and coordinate religious and spiritual services.^{Endnote lix}

• Both chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff reported that chaplains generally have access to OMS (86%, n = 53 and 29%, n = 145, respectively) and RADAR (87%, n = 54 and 27%, n = 135, respectively) at their current institution;
• However, in terms of documentation, only half of chaplaincy stakeholders (50%, n = 30) and a few general staff (12%, n = 57) reported making chaplaincy-related information entries into OMS. Chaplaincy stakeholders also reported that chaplains use two additional administrative tools, Microsoft Excel (26%, n = 42) and Microsoft Word (29%, n = 47) to document chaplaincy related information;
• Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff indicated that chaplains were included on appropriate distribution lists that informed them of new admissions, transfers and releases of inmates (82%, n = 49 and 86%, n = 160, respectively). They agreed that these distribution lists better enabled chaplains to perform their duties (74%, n = 46 and 65%, n = 167, respectively).

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff agreed that there were sufficient information-sharing practices between chaplains and other chaplaincy stakeholders to enable them to perform their duties. There exists a need to improve the information-sharing practices between FCRPs and other chaplaincy stakeholders. The sharing of relevant information by other CSC personnel to enable chaplaincy stakeholders to perform their duties could be improved as well as the timeliness of this information.

Information-Sharing Practices

The present evaluation asked chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff for their perspectives on whether there was sufficient information-sharing practices between themselves and chaplains, as well as between chaplaincy volunteers and FCRPs to enable those individuals to perform their duties (see Figure 15).

Note. Chaplains: chaplaincy stakeholders, n = 139; general staff, n = 178. Chaplaincy Volunteers: chaplaincy stakeholders, n = 130; general staff, n = 66. FCRPs: chaplaincy stakeholders, n = 63; general staff, n = 55. Each question is independent from one another based on a yes/no response.

• Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff agreed or strongly agreed (82%, n = 139 and 70%, n = 178, respectively) that there was sufficient information sharing between themselves and chaplains to enable chaplains to perform their duties;
• The views of chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were diametrically opposed regarding whether there were sufficient information-sharing practices between themselves and chaplaincy volunteers. Twice as manychaplaincy stakeholders agreed or strongly agreed that there was sufficient information sharing between themselves and chaplaincy volunteers (79%, n = 130) when compared to general staff, where one third (33%, n = 66) were in agreement;
• For the FCRPs, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff views were more in line with each other, where both groups were less in agreement that there was sufficient information sharing between themselves and FCRPs. Only half (52%, n = 63) of chaplaincy stakeholders and almost one third (30%, n = 55) of general staff agreed or strongly agreed with the above statement.

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were then asked if there was sufficient information sharing between themselves and chaplains, as well as between chaplaincy volunteers and FCRPs to enable chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff to perform their duties.

• Results show a similar information-sharing trend, with chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff indicating that they agreed or strongly agreed (78%, n = 131 and 62%, n = 171, respectively) that there was sufficient information sharing between themselves and chaplains to enable chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff to perform their duties.
• The perspectives of chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were again polarized in regard to chaplaincy volunteers:
• Most chaplaincy stakeholders agreed (78%, n = 128) that there was sufficient information sharing between themselves and chaplaincy volunteers, whereas only some general staff (27%, n = 62) were in agreement.
• For FCRPs, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff did not have similar viewpoints. Chaplaincy stakeholders were twice more likely to agree (54%, n = 65) that there was sufficient information sharing between themselves and FCRPs, unlike general staff, where only a few (23%, n = 49) were in agreement with the above statement.

In the above section, results pertained to questions on the efficiency of information-sharing practices. For the following evidence, the focus has shifted to the relevancy and timeliness of the information being shared.

• From the perspective of chaplaincy stakeholders, many (61%, n = 103) felt that information that is of relevance to them is shared by other CSC personnel enabling them to perform their duties. Among these chaplaincy stakeholders, about half (55%, n = 91) stated that the relevant information is shared in a timely manner.
• The results concerning the relevancy and timeliness of information were more positive for chaplains in comparison to chaplaincy volunteers and FCRPs.
• Three-quarters of general staff agreed or strongly agreed that there was relevant information sharing to chaplains (75%, n = 166) by other CSC personnel and that this information was shared in a timely manner (70%, n = 140).
• Unlike chaplains, general staff indicated that about half of chaplaincy volunteers (52%, n = 84) and FCRPs (49%, n = 69) were receiving relevant information from other CSC personnel and in a timely fashion (50%, n = 75 and 46%, n = 63, respectively).

The most effective communication mechanism identified by chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff in sharing chaplaincy related information is online communication such as email and distribution lists.

Communication Mechanisms

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff reported the following as communication mechanisms that were effective in the sharing of chaplaincy related information: online communication, in-person informal meetings, formal meetings and electronic databases. Findings suggest that online communication such as email and distribution lists as well as in-person informal meetings, were preferred (see Figure 16).

There were effective communication and information-sharing practices occurring between the IFC and National headquarters; however, improved communication with faith communities and other faith-based partners and stakeholders would benefit the IFC.

Communication and Information-Sharing Practices: Interfaith Committee on Chaplaincy

In December 2013, CSC renewed its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the IFC. The MOU was established to ensure the delivery and ongoing improvement of effective religious and spiritual chaplaincy services to inmates. The IFC is comprised of volunteers from religious bodies in Canada and acts as a liaison between faith groups and CSC. The IFC advises the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, and it maintains regular dialogue with the CSC Chaplaincy Section on matters related to the religious and spiritual care of inmates.^{Endnote lx}

Information-sharing practices were reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. The IFC reported that online communication was the most effective mechanism in sharing chaplaincy-related information (see Figure 17).

• IFC were posed a series of questions related to the extent to which they agreed that there were sufficient information practices between the IFC and other groups to enable each other to perform their duties. The following percentages represent the extent to which the IFC either agreed or strongly agreed that there were “sufficient information-sharing practices” between the IFC and the following groups to enable them to perform their duties:
• National headquarters (71%, n = 10);
• Regional headquarters (71%, n = 10); and,
• Faith communities and other faith-based partners/stakeholders (46%, n = 6).
• Conversely, the following percentages represent the extent to which the IFC either agreed or strongly agreed that there were “sufficient information-sharing practices” between the IFC and the following groups to enable the IFC to fulfill their role:
• National headquarters (69%, n = 9);
• Regional headquarters (54%, n = 7); and,
• Faith communities and other faith-based partners/stakeholders (42%, n = 5).

As a means of assessing the quality of the information the information members of the IFC were also asked about the relevance of the information being received.

• The following percentages represent the extent to which the IFC either agreed or strongly agreed that information that is of relevance to them was shared by the following groups to enable them to fulfill their role:
• National headquarters (85%, n = 11);
• Regional headquarters (69%, n = 9); and,
• Faith communities and other faith-based partners/stakeholders (50%, n = 6).

Finding 8: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Religious Accommodation Process and Religious/Spiritual Complaints and Grievances

CSC inmates were generally satisfied with the religious accommodation process at their current institution. Many inmates indicated that chaplains provided them with anticipated timeframes for their religious accommodation request and that most of these timeframes were met. There is, however, a need to enhance CSC’s ability to track and monitor religious and spiritual complaints and grievances.

Evidence: Religious Accommodation Process

• Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms^{Endnote lxi} and further supported by the CCRA,^{Endnote lxii} CSC is responsible for providing inmates with access to resources that allow them the freedom to practice their religion and spiritual beliefs. This is referred to as a religious accommodation;
• As outlined in GL 750-1 Inmate Religious Accommodations, chaplains and Institutional Heads have responsibilities in regard to the management and processing of religious accommodations:^{Endnote lxiii}
• Chaplains: responsible for submitting religious accommodation requests using Form 1540 Religious Accommodation Recommendation to the Institutional Head; providing anticipated timeframe to inmates; recommending accommodations to the Institutional Head with the support from a faith community resource person; and, managing non-observance;^{Footnote 33}
• Institutional Head or delegate: responsible for approving religious accommodation requests while considering legislation, policy, and the safety and security of the institution; ensuring religious items that are requested comply with Charter obligations; and ensuring that accommodations are maintained throughout the inmates’ incarceration unless they are suspended as a result of non-observance or operational/security requirements.

Upon receiving written notification of the final decision (i.e., approved or not approved) and the justifications associated with the outcome of their religious accommodation request, inmates are notified of their right to submit a grievance for all or part of the decision.^{Endnote lxiv} Inmates are entitled to use the grievance process to appeal to institutional authorities in the instance where they believe that their right to exercise their religion has been, or is being, violated.^{Endnote lxv} There are many different types of religious accommodations that inmates may request, which include: religious items, religious clothing, modifications to daily routine, rites of passage, health or therapeutic care, and religious diets (see Figure 18).^{Footnote 34}

CSC inmates were generally satisfied with the religious accommodation request process at their current institution. The religious accommodations that inmates most often requested were religious items and clothing, and religious diets.

Frequency and Type of Religious Accommodations

Chaplaincy stakeholders, inmates and general staff were asked a series of questions regarding the religious accommodation process including the frequency, type, timeframes for the completion of requests, and perceptions about the clarity of policy related to religious accommodations. This information provided a snapshot of chaplaincy stakeholders and inmates experiences in regard to the overall process.^{Footnote 35}

• Chaplaincy stakeholders and inmates had similar views regarding the frequency in which they receive and make religious accommodation requests. Some inmates (30%, n = 32) stated they had made a religious accommodation request within the last two years, while some chaplaincy stakeholders (40%, n = 51) reported that they received religious accommodation requests always or often at their current institution.
• Among inmates who submitted a religious accommodation request, about half (47%, n = 15) submitted only one religious accommodation request within the last two years.

Inmates who made a religious accommodation request within the last two years were asked to provide information regarding a maximum of three requests that they had submitted. A total of 48 requests were analyzed. The most common type of religious accommodation request reported by inmates, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were related to:

• Dietary/food (chaplaincy stakeholders, 43%, n = 40; general staff, 91%, n = 457; inmates, 31%, n = 10); and,
• Religious items and clothing (chaplaincy stakeholders, 27%, n = 25; general staff, 80%, n = 402; inmates, 63%, n = 20).

Overall, many CSC inmates reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the religious accommodation request process. CSC inmates indicated that chaplains provided them with anticipated timeframes of when their accommodation request would be met and most of these anticipated timeframes were met.

Timeliness of Religious Accommodations

With respect to anticipated timeframes for processing inmate religious accommodation requests, many inmates (69%, n = 33) indicated that the chaplain had provided them with an anticipated timeframe of when their accommodation request would be met. Most requests where a chaplain had communicated an anticipated timeframe were met on time (82%, n = 27).

Many chaplaincy stakeholders (74%, n = 64) and most general staff (77%, n = 314) agreed or strongly agreed that requested religious accommodations were provided to inmates within a reasonable timeframe. Many inmates (70%, n = 26) stated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the religious accommodation request process.

Religious Accommodation Requests and Privacy

Many chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff indicated that there is clear direction with respect to privacy in GL 750-1 Inmate Religious Accommodation.

According to GL 750-1 Inmate Religious Accommodations inmates may request religious accommodations that may have an impact on their health or therapeutic care and that, “consideration is to be given to inmate privacy, pursuant to Commissioner’s Directive 701 – Information Sharing, when considering the religious accommodation and medical care.”^{Endnote lxvi}

Many chaplaincy stakeholders and many general staff agreed or strongly agreed that, with respect to privacy, GL 750-1 Inmate Religious Accommodations provides clear direction on:

• What religious accommodation request information can be shared on a need to know basis (65%, n = 43 and 66%, n = 173, respectively);
• With whom religious accommodation request information can be shared (63%, n = 40 and 66%, n = 166, respectively); and,
• How religious accommodation request information can be communicated (62%, n = 39 and 64%, n = 165, respectively).

Despite an indication that there was clarity in understanding policy concerning privacy considerations and religious accommodations, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff felt that there were some challenges surrounding the communication of other policies, guidelines, and procedures. For example, some felt that the policies, guidelines and procedures were unclear and did not provide enough direction (n = 11 and n = 11, respectively). Others felt that there may be a bias in the allocation of certain accommodations, favouring some religions over others. General staff also felt that religious accommodations were not always used by inmates as intended by the policy, meaning that they felt there was misuse of the process. For example, some (n = 10) felt that inmate’s requests were not always legitimate (i.e., they did not truly require accommodations), which took resources away from those who truly needed them. There is perhaps a need to further investigate this issue, and, if systemic, then provide clarification to inmates and ensure oversight of the religious accommodation process by the chaplains and Institutional Heads/delegates.

Due to the current information management practices and systems related to tracking complaints and grievances, the evaluation team was unable to review and assess data on religious and spiritual complaints and grievances.

Religious and Spiritual Complaints and Grievances

Built into the religious accommodation process is the right for inmates to formally grieve all or part of a decision and justifications associated with the outcome of a request. Inmates are also entitled to file a complaint or grievance to appeal to institutional authorities in the instance where they believe that their right to exercise their religion has been, or is being, violated.

The evaluation team attempted to examine religious and spiritual complaint and grievance data to identify emerging trends and potential areas of concern. Upon examination, it was found that complaints and grievances were not commonly captured under a single grievance code. For example, a submission alleging inadequate religious/spiritual accommodations might be categorized as a discrimination grievance as opposed to a religious and spiritual programs grievance.^{Endnote lxvii} However, there is a code for religious and spiritual programs.^{Endnote lxviii} Grievances filed under this code are defined as any violation against policies, procedures and institutional provisions for the exercise of religion. This includes approval of religious diet, religious holidays, use and ownership of religious items, and alleged institutional impediments to the free practice of the inmate's religion.^{Endnote lxix} As a result, it was determined that religious and spiritual complaint and grievance data were unreliable due to the complex nature and overlap among grievance categories within the current information management system, and subsequent analyses were not undertaken.

Finding 9: Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Services – Prior to Release

Challenges were reported with the availability of chaplains prior to release. Improvements can be achieved by building community relations earlier in the release process and better information-sharing practices between institutional chaplains and community resources.

Evidence: Chaplaincy Services Prior to Release

The availability of chaplaincy services prior to an inmate’s release into the community generally responded to the needs of inmates. However, there was a strong perception that chaplains were being stretched across the institution which was exacerbated by a shortage of resources and volunteers. Challenges were also reported in terms of workload demands, difficulties in finding contacts for specific faith groups in the community, and issues with inmate’s release planning.

Availability of Chaplaincy Services Prior to Release

Most inmates (76%, n = 25) reported that they were satisfied with the chaplaincy services provided prior to release.^{Footnote 36} Many general staff (73%, n = 128) and chaplaincy stakeholders (67%, n = 53) agreed that in the period of time just prior to an inmate’s release into the community, the available chaplaincy services responded to the needs of inmates, however there is room for improvement. Of the general staff (27%, n = 47) who felt that chaplaincy services did not respond to the needs of all inmate faith traditions, many perceived that there was a shortage of available chaplains and resources.

When inmates were asked whether there was anything else the chaplain could do to help them prepare for release back into the community, some (40%, n = 27) felt that chaplains could do more to ease their release back into the community. Of these, many (59%, n = 16) felt that chaplains could help more with general support and connections to the community, such as locating Alcoholics Anonymous groups, as well as help finding housing and clothing. Furthermore, some (44%, n = 12) felt that further connections to their religious and spiritual supports in the community would be useful. It should be noted that although it is important to consider the type of help that inmates would like from chaplains, these suggestions may lie beyond the scope of Chaplaincy.

Most chaplaincy stakeholders (76%, n = 69) and many general staff (60%, n = 123) reported that inmates were either often or always informed of the possibility of connecting to a faith community prior to release. Correspondingly, many inmates (62%, n = 48) reported that they were aware that this option was available to them. Of the inmates who were not aware, most (76%, n = 25) believed that connecting with a faith leader from their community would be useful. Some (24%, n = 8), did not feel that such a connection was needed. Anecdotally, inmates with this view expressed different reasons for why they felt this way including that they already had a strong support system in place in their community, they were able to fulfil their spiritual needs on their own, or that they would rather attend meetings such as Narcotics Anonymous.

When chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were asked for reasons as to why inmates might not be informed of the opportunity to connect with a faith community, reported issues that were consistent amongst both groups were:

• Chaplains were not informed of when inmates were being released into the community (40%, n = 24 and 37%, n = 60, respectively);
• Workload demands (38%, n = 23 and 33%, n = 54, respectively); and,
• Resource shortages (23%, n = 14 and 22%, n = 36, respectively).

Chaplaincy stakeholders were asked whether there were any challenges at their current institution that had affected the possibility of connecting inmates to their faith community prior to release. Many chaplaincy stakeholders felt there were challenges (64%, n = 52), and those who identified challenges, described the following issues:

• Difficulties in finding contacts for specific faith groups in the community (78%, n = 40);
• An unknown release location (47%, n = 24); and,
• The information was offered, but declined by the inmate (35%, n = 18).

Some chaplaincy stakeholders (43%, n = 22) also pointed to other challenges including, a lack of support from staff, volunteers, or members of faith groups in the community, a lack of communication and information-sharing practices, and challenges related to obtaining ETAs and Unescorted Temporary Absences (UTAs).

About half of general staff felt that challenges existed (54%, n = 74). Of the general staff who identified challenges, many (62%, n = 46) described difficulties in finding contacts for specific faith groups in the community and half (50%, n = 37) believed it was due to an unknown release location. Some general staff (45%, n = 33) saw the challenge as being the fact that the information was offered but declined by the inmate.

Improvements can be achieved by building community relations earlier in the release process, enlisting more and diverse volunteers, increasing the amount of information shared between institutional chaplains and community resources, as well as increased planning, structure, and overall recognition for chaplaincy services.

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were asked to describe what was working well and what were the challenges in relation to the provision of chaplaincy services prior to an inmate’s release into the community. Many chaplaincy stakeholders (56%, n = 33) felt that the chaplaincy services were working well. However, some (36%, n = 21) also thought that a few challenges existed particularly with the access or availability (or lack thereof) of chaplains (n = 10), for example a lack of community resources who are willing to support inmates in their reintegration. Another identified challenge was a lack of information sharing (n = 8), such as a lack of knowledge regarding policies in relation to pre-release planning.

When chaplaincy stakeholders were asked to suggest ways to improve chaplaincy services prior to release, some (34%, n = 20) mentioned increasing the availability of chaplains and chaplaincy services (e.g., by starting to build community relations earlier in the release process, enlisting more and diverse chaplaincy volunteers, and setting up follow-up sessions with inmates post release).

Finding 10: Gender-Based Analysis Plus
The lack of specialized knowledge on managing inmates with mental health needs and the growing diversity of the inmate population highlight the major challenges for delivering religious and/or spiritual services to CSC’s diverse inmate population, particularly those with mental health needs, ethnocultural, and LGBTQ2 inmates.

Since 1995, the Government of Canada has been committed to using GBA+, an analytical tool used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and initiatives.^{Endnote lxx} The current government renewed this commitment in 2015 by mandating the Minister of Status of Women Canada to ensure all government departments and agencies are aware of the different impacts that decisions can have on diverse groups of people.^{Endnote lxxi}Specifically the “plus” in GBA+ highlights the fact that we must go beyond sex and gender to acknowledge the multiple identity factors that intersect to make us who we are, such as race, ethnicity, religion, age, and mental or physical disability.^{Endnote lxxii}

Evidence: Inmates Needs

Overall, most general staff and just over half of chaplaincy stakeholders felt that chaplaincy services met the needs of CSC’s diverse inmate population. Results show that there is a need for specialized knowledge and the recruitment of personnel with experience in delivering religious and/or spiritual services to inmates with mental health needs, LGBTQ2 and ethnocultural inmates.^{Footnote 37}

Inmates with Mental Health Needs

The discrepancy between the perceptions of chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff was significant when examining whether chaplaincy services met the needs of inmates with mental health issues. More than three-quarters of general staff (77%, n = 271) perceived that chaplaincy services addressed the needs of inmates with mental health issues, compared to slightly over half chaplaincy stakeholders (57%, n = 73). Despite the disparities in agreeance between the two groups, there was consensus on the challenges that chaplaincy stakeholders have encountered when attempting to deliver chaplaincy services to inmates with mental health needs. For example, chaplaincy stakeholders reported that they felt ill-equipped to deliver services to inmates with mental health issues. For example, they reported that inmates with mental health issues have specific needs that go beyond the expertise of chaplains at institutions (n = 12). General staff (n = 10) further explained that there was a lack of resources in the form of qualified staff with specialized training in mental health, which leads to a lack of access to chaplaincy services for inmates with mental health needs as very few inmates with mental health issues seek chaplaincy services.

Ethnocultural Inmates

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were provided with a definition of the term ethnocultural in order to ensure that they provided their perceptions on whether chaplaincy services met the needs of the inmates in question.^{Footnote 38} The responses of chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were then examined through this lens.

The divergent views between chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff perceptions were somewhat pronounced when examining whether chaplaincy services met the needs of ethnocultural inmates. Most general staff (81%, n = 284) perceived that the needs of ethnocultural inmates were met with the provision of chaplaincy services, compared to approximately two-thirds of chaplaincy stakeholders (67%, n = 87) reported that the needs of ethnocultural inmates were met. Despite some agreeance on whether the needs of ethnocultural inmates were met, there was consensus on the challenges faced by this particular group faced in regard to chaplaincy services. Again, the notion of the lack of chaplaincy services for specific faith traditions was repeated, in addition to a lack of inclusivity within chaplaincy services specifically for ethnocultural inmates.

The present evaluation finds that there is continual concern regarding the availability of chaplaincy services for non-Christian inmates. Some chaplaincy stakeholders commented that there have been times where imates were disallowed participating in non-Christian activities. This goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which indicates that all federal inmates should have the opportunity to participate in and express their religion or spirituality. Some general staff perceptions substantiate these claims as they have also observed a lack of religious leaders for specific faith traditions in addition to a lack of chaplaincy services for specific faith traditions (n =10). According to general staff, there does not appear to be equal representation among the leaders of specific faith traditions. It is the perception of some general staff that access to chaplaincy services for ethnocultural inmates is hindered owing to the fact these inmates do not feel comfortable interacting with predominantly Christian chaplains.

LGBTQ2 Inmates

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff agreed to a certain extent that chaplaincy services met the needs of LGBTQ2 inmates. Many general staff (70%, n = 189) and two-thirds of chaplaincy stakeholders (66%, n = 65) reported that the religious and/or spiritual needs of LGBTQ2 inmates were met. However, both groups felt that there was room for improvement in this area for Chaplaincy.

A few general staff (10%, n = 26) felt that chaplaincy services do not meet the needs of the LGBTQ2 community. Of those general staff, some (n = 7) reported a lack of inclusion on the part of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers who hold particular beliefs. Some chaplaincy stakeholders shared similar sentiments in regard to chaplaincy services not meeting the needs of the LGBTQ2 community in addition to highlighting the lack of inclusivity in chaplaincy services (n = 8). Some chaplaincy stakeholders expressed that LGBTQ2 inmates did not appear to be welcomed when attempting to obtain chaplaincy services. Because of these perceptions, it appears LGBTQ2 inmates have been hindered from accessing chaplaincy services. General staff and chaplaincy stakeholders felt that there were no proactive endeavors to facilitate LGBTQ2 inmates who would like to explore their faith and or spirituality.

Women Inmates

The views of chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff differ in their perceptions as to whether or not the chaplaincy services offered by CSC meet the needs of its diverse population. Most general staff (80%, n = 158) perceived that the needs of women inmates were met by chaplaincy services. Fewer chaplaincy stakeholders agreed. Many chaplaincy stakeholders (61%, n = 51) reported that chaplaincy services met the needs of women inmates. According to general staff, there were few chaplaincy services specifically available for women inmates because some religious groups have particular beliefs (e.g., beliefs on reproductive rights and pre-martial sex) that, if not followed, can affect women in an adverse way. Moreover, it was reported by chaplaincy stakeholders that the most dedicated chaplaincy volunteers tend to come from religious groups that hold these particular beliefs and thus questioned whether those chaplaincy volunteers could provide meaningful support to all women.

Older Inmates

There was not a significant disparity between chaplaincy stakeholders (72%, n = 107) and general staff (85%, n = 295) perceptions of whether the religious and/or spiritual needs of older inmates (defined as 50 years of age or older) were met. However, both groups’ highlighted areas of concern, which if addressed, can further enhance the provision of chaplaincy services for older inmates.

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff both commented on the lack of access and availability of chaplaincy services that stems from mobility issues, which are common among older inmates. Some chaplaincy stakeholders spoke of the structural environment of institution and described how it restricts the movement of older inmates who have limited mobility. For chaplaincy stakeholders, in particular, the structural environments of CSC institutions have not evolved to address the needs of its aging population (e.g., considering mobility issues).

Inmates with Disabilities

There was some disparity between the views of chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff for inmates with disabilities. Most general staff (81%, n = 276) perceived the needs of inmates with disabilities were met with the provision of chaplaincy services. Slightly less chaplaincy stakeholders (67%, n = 86) reported that the needs of inmates with disabilities were met. Moreover, both chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff commented that inmates with disabilities encountered similar challenges as older inmates in regard to access and availability of chaplaincy services. Chaplaincy stakeholders were again keen on reporting the structural impediments within CSC institutions that make it difficult for inmates with disabilities to access chaplaincy services. Furthermore, chaplaincy stakeholder perceptions of inmates with disabilities was not limited to physical impairments but extended to learning difficulties as well.

Indigenous Inmates

There was little difference between the percentage of chaplaincy stakeholders (79%, n = 111) and general staff (82%, n = 305) who perceived that the religious and/or spiritual needs of Indigenous inmates were being met. Despite the consensus between both groups, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff reported two areas of concern that, if addressed, had the potential to improve the ability of CSC to meet the needs of Indigenous inmates with respect to the provision of chaplaincy services.

First, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff both identified in their comments a lack of access and availability to chaplaincy services for Indigenous inmates. Perceptions of both groups’ centers on what appears to be the reduction of Indigenous culture to a belief system solely based on Native spirituality. Viewing Indigenous inmates through that lens potentially leads to the notion that Indigenous inmates do not require chaplaincy services.

Because of this assumption, chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff stated that Indigenous inmates were not able to follow more than one faith tradition. Both chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff contended that while Indigenous inmates might be following a spiritual path, some would still like to be connected to another faith. There appears to be an inflexibility regarding claiming religious affiliations. Consequently, Indigenous inmates feel conflicted and unsure of how to express their full spiritual conscience.

Overall, it appears that when it comes to meeting the needs of women inmates, older inmates, inmates with disabilities and Indigenous inmates, minor improvements are required to address the needs of these groups. However, significant improvements are needed to enhance chaplaincy services to better meet the needs of inmates with mental health issues, as well as ethnocultural and LGBTQ2 inmates.

Finding 11: Management of Chaplaincy Services

There is a lack of familiarity among chaplaincy volunteers and general staff with the current management structure for delivering chaplaincy services. Chaplaincy stakeholders reported challenges with the availability of professional development opportunities, recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, supervision and oversight, as well as communication and information-sharing practices.

In FY 2013-2014, Chaplaincy initiated a transition in the way chaplaincy services are delivered to the inmate population. With the exception of a number of contracts in the Prairie region, the transition was completed in FY 2014-2015 and included several changes, including migrating from a region-based multiple supplier model to a national supplier/SOA and combining the majority of service provision under one supplier/SOA (currently with BoC).

Evidence: Management of Chaplaincy Services

Less than one-quarter of chaplaincy volunteers and general staff reported that they were familiar with the current Chaplaincy management structure under the national single supplier model.

Chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff were posed a series of questions intended to assess their familiarity with the present management structure for the delivery of chaplaincy services. General staff were only posed questions related to the efficiency and effectiveness of chaplaincy services being delivered and questions regarding the lines of accountability and clarity of roles and responsibilities within the current management structure.

About half (48%, n = 105) of chaplaincy stakeholders identified that they were not familiar with the current Chaplaincy management structure. Further examination of this data revealed that while most chaplains (90%, n = 53) were familiar with the current management structure, chaplaincy volunteers (20%, n = 22) and general staff (21%, n = 108) were much less familiar with it.

Based on their familiarity with the management structure, respondents were then requested to specify the extent to which they agreed that certain areas were functioning well within it (see Figure 19).

The majority of chaplaincy stakeholders did not perceive that the current management structure was functioning well in relation to various components of service provision. They reported specific challenges with the availability of professional development opportunities, with the recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, oversight and supervision, as well as communication and information-sharing practices.

A small number of chaplaincy stakeholders (13%, n = 10) agreed that the current management structure provided adequate professional development and training. Contributing factors reported by chaplaincy stakeholders included the limited availability and access to professional development and training opportunities (n = 49), a lack of support for chaplains to participate in both CSC specific and supplier-based professional development (n = 16), and a lack of funding and resources for professional development (n = 10). Furthermore, few chaplaincy stakeholders agreed that the current management structure easily recruits (16%, n = 14) and retains (21%, n = 18) chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers. Chaplaincy stakeholders surmised that challenges with recruitment and retention were associated with:

• A lack of incentives to attract chaplains and/or volunteers to institutions;
• Chaplains having limited time to recruit volunteers during their work hours;
• Difficulty retaining chaplains and/or volunteers due to the structure of the current management model; and,
• A limited reserve of chaplains and/or volunteers from which to recruit.

Some chaplaincy stakeholders agreed that the current management structure allowed for effective communication (34%, n = 30), provided efficient (33%, n = 29) and effective (33%, n = 30) delivery of chaplaincy services and promoted workplace well-being and support (29%, n = 24). Conversely, about half of general staff agreed that the current management structure provided efficient (49%, n = 47) and effective (48%, n = 47) delivery of chaplaincy services. Of chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff who disagreed,^{Footnote 40} there was a belief that the lack of efficacy and effectiveness were due to issues with current resources, supervision and oversight by management, and planning of chaplaincy services to meet the needs of inmates.

About half of chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff indicated that the current chaplaincy management structure provided clear lines of accountability (49%, n = 43 and 48%, n = 48, respectively) and clarity of roles and responsibilities (48%, n = 42 and 55%, n = 53, respectively). Issues with a supervision and oversight, communication and information-sharing practices, clarity of roles and responsibilities, and resources for chaplains were cited by chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff as challenges hindering the current management structure’s ability to achieve these objectives.

Chaplaincy stakeholders were divided in regard to the proportion of individuals who disagreed (32%, n = 25) or agreed (31%, n = 24) that chaplaincy services planning activities were guided by sufficient analysis of chaplaincy related information to inform decision making. It was suggested that methods of information gathering and analysis (n = 13) and collaboration and information-sharing practices (n = 9) needed to be improved in order to enhance chaplaincy services planning.

An examination of the Chaplaincy service provision model was undertaken to identify standards for excellence that will strategically inform the future delivery of the program. This will ultimately enable CSC to better respond to the diverse and continuously evolving religious and spiritual needs of the inmate population. This examination presents itself at an opportune time, as CSC recently transitioned to a new service provision model. As previously discussed, this transition was initiated in FY 2013-2014, at which time chaplaincy services migrated from a region-based multiple supplier model to a national single supplier provision model/SOA with BoC. This model was fully implemented in FY 2014-2015 with the exception of remaining region-based contracts in the Prairie region which expired in Fall 2018.

Under the current sevice provision model, BoC is the single supplier of the chaplains who deliver religious and spiritual guidance to CSC’s inmate population. These services are offered at pre-determined prices, under set terms and conditions, when and if required. Moreover, CSC does not enter into a contract with the supplier until CSC issues a “call-up” against the standing offer for the services of a chaplain.^{Endnote lxxiii} Call-ups are the contractual agreement through which site-based and tradition-specific chaplains are engaged for the purposes of the providing chaplaincy services. At present, there are 160 individual chaplains (site-based and tradition specific) in total who deliver services at CSC institutions.^{Footnote 41} CSC provides oversight of the services being delivered by the supplier’s chaplains, as outlined below (Table 6).

As the supplier, BoC is responsible for the overall management of the human resources component in the delivery of chaplaincy services at CSC institutions (e.g. recruitment of chaplains and volunteers, pay and benefits of chaplains and the on-going professional development of chaplains). This key BoC responsibility, as well as other responsibilities, are further explained below (Table 7).

In managing the human resources component of Chaplaincy Services at CSC, BoC must supply chaplains that can perform the duties prescribed in the SOW. As previously described, the SOW indicates that chaplains must carry out roles and responsibilities that ensure a visible presence is maintained throughout the institution; provide religious services, rites and rituals to inmates; provide religious spiritual education to inmates; engage with community members in matters related to cectional chaplaincy and restorative justice; and, integrate chaplaincy services into the life institution. Figure 20 highlights the activities mentioned in the SOW, and displays how chaplains manage these services in CSC institutions nationwide. Almost two-thirds of these constitute activities related to the visible presence of chaplains, including official appointments made with inmates, and individuals visits or conversations with inmates.

Comparison of Service Delivery Models

Principles from the RIE approach were applied to assess the current service provision model and the potential use of other service provision models, along with identified standards for excellence.

These findings should be considered to enhance effectiveness in the delivery of chaplaincy services. Two principles of RIE were applied in the evaluation as follows:

• An expert group comprised of program stakeholders, subject matter experts and technical advisors was established, along with program beneficiaries (inmates) to determine standards for excellence of the current service provision model. This strategy was put in place to ensure a balanced perspective from internal and external stakeholders.^{Footnote 42}
• An examination of other program designs, to determine the feasibility of integrating the identified standards for excellence

Finding 12: Standards for Excellence

There are opportunities to deliver chaplaincy services in a manner that maximizes resources and addresses gaps and weaknesses by implementing standards for excellence related to retention and recruitment, effective service delivery, and collaboration/information-sharing practices. It should be noted that within the current service provision model, CSC has no authority over the chaplain recruitment decision process and community and collegial engagement.

The following section examines key findings obtained from questionnaires completed by the expert group and program beneficiaries on their respective points of view regarding what was working well, what were the current challenges, what were the areas requiring improvement, and the best practices from alternative service provision models that could be applied to the Chaplaincy service provision model.

The expert group and program beneficiaries identified numerous components of the current Chaplaincy service provision model that were working well, including the availability, accessibility, and quality of Chaplaincy services, as well as efficient collaboration between chaplaincy and community stakeholders.

What is Working Well

The expert group and program beneficiaries (inmates) were asked to describe what was working well with the current Chaplaincy service provision model. This served as a means of gauging the areas in which the current model is excelling. Table 8 provides a summary of the findings from the thematic analysis.^{Footnote 44}

Overall, three predominant themes emerged from the data. The effective delivery of chaplaincy services ranked highest amongst the three themes for both the expert group and program beneficiaries in relation to what worked well with the current Chaplaincy service provision model.

In relation to the above noted themes, program stakeholders, subject matter experts, and technical advisors all identified that the following components worked well for the current Chaplaincy model:

• The availability and accessibility of specific chaplaincy services:
1. Religious education programs (e.g., Bible study);
2. Visibility of chaplains in the units can lead to fruitful conversations, particularly when inmates are experiencing crisis or bereavement; and,
3. Regular services and weekly meetings with inmates are appreciated.
• That chaplaincy services can assist with inmates' rehabilitation:
• Having access to spiritual support for an inmate can have a powerful influence on healing and rehabilitation;
• The provision of services by chaplains makes a remarkable difference in the lives of inmates and their likelihood of successful reintegration into society; and,
• Spiritual care is an important part of the restorative justice mandate of CSC, and being able to provide continuity of service throughout an institution makes the service more effective.
• There was good collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices between chaplaincy and community stakeholders:^{Footnote 45}
• Engagement with community stakeholders within institutions assisted with inmates’ reintegration into society;
• Chaplains’ involvement both inside and outside of the institution and their presence and visibility within the institution and the wider community; and,
• The ability of chaplains to act as bridges between the institution and the community.

Inmates only spoke of the effectiveness of the delivery of chaplaincy services in terms of what was working well. As program beneficiaries, inmates exclusively made comments about the effective components of the service provision model (i.e., satisfaction with/quality of chaplaincy services and chaplains and/or chaplaincy volunteers). This is understandable, as they are better able to speak to the service delivery aspect of the model, because they are not directly involved in the management and oversight of the Program. Inmates tended to describe how approachable and supportive chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers were, or to how the services that they have used led to their personal or spiritual growth.

On the whole, the current national single supplier model has the ability to contribute to the Program’s ultimate outcome through the provision of qualified chaplains capable of providing quality chaplaincy services to inmates, and capable of carrying out the roles and responsibilities prescribed by the SOW.

Challenges within the current Chaplaincy provision model were reported by program experts and program beneficiaries with regard to resource allocation and orientation/ongoing development of chaplains. To a certain extent, challenges were also reported by program beneficiaries with the access and availability of chaplaincy services and stakeholders, as well as religious accommodations process.

Challenges

The expert group and program beneficiaries were asked to provide feedback with respect to perceived challenges within the current service provision model. Challenges were used as a means of determining issues/obstacles that have emerged within the existing service provision model that may be hindering it from achieving its immediate and long-term outcomes.

Overall, most of the expert group and program beneficiaries’ feedback can be grouped according to five standardized themes (see Table 9^{Footnote 46}). The effectiveness of the delivery of chaplaincy services ranked first for inmates as a challenge with the current model, in contrast to the expert group, which ranked the recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers as the most significant challenge. In contrast with what inmates reported what was working well, they did not focus solely on the delivery of programs and services in their assessments of the challenges. The expert group also spoke to challenges within collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices.

In relation to the above noted themes, the expert group identified the following components as challenges with recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers for the current model in its ability to contribute to the immediate and long-term outcomes of the program:

• Absence of orientation and ongoing development - chaplaincy is by and large excluded from all training opportunities provided to CSC staff;
• Pay and benefits related issues;
• Resource shortages and lack of full-time chaplains in some institutions; and,
• Underestimated chaplain hours-to-inmate ratios.

These findings are in line with challenges that have also been identified in relation to the previous region-based multiple supplier model where communication, financial/employment security, spiritual health/ professional and vocational development, and resources in the areas of administration, clerical support, “tools for the trade” were identified as areas of needs for chaplains.^{Endnote lxxiv}

With respect to inmates’ feedback on the challenges with the delivery of services, they pointed to issues with the availability and accessibility of services of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, in addition to religious accommodations. For instance, inmates spoke of their frustration with not being able to access services over certain periods of time (e.g., weekends) or when conflicted with their schedule. They also mentioned that there were challenges with being unable to access chaplains of their respective faith tradition. If they were able to access a chaplain, meeting lengths were not satisfactory. Inmates felt chaplains were over-burdened with a heavy workload.

Overall, the challenges that have been presented speak to some of the disadvantages of using a national single supplier model. With this model, resource allocations are limited to the terms and conditions of the SOA. Based on the funding and hourly caps set in the SOA, resources are provided to meet inmate demand for religious and spiritual services. Given these constraints, there are limits to the the number of hours^{Footnote 47} that are available to chaplains to provide certain types of services, and access to chaplains is also restricted. These limitations are further compounded by the administrative requirements that chaplains are tasked with as part of their duties. If the chaplains do not complete these administrative tasks, the supplier is unable to demonstrate the value for money spent by CSC.

With respect to training and development, the supplier is responsible for providing this to chaplains to a certain extent and therefore, CSC does not have control over the quality, applicability, nor the appropriateness of the training that is being provided to chaplains that are working in CSC’s institutions. CSC provides training to chaplains within very strict parameters, which mostly encompasses security training modules and little to no personal development. While CSC allocates a fixed amount of funding to the supplier for the services being rendered, the distribution of salaries and benefits is the responsibility of the supplier and therefore the proportion of that funding that is allocated to these areas is at their discretion.

There are areas for improvement with respect to resource allocation, orientation and ongoing development of chaplaincy stakeholders, information-sharing practices between chaplaincy and community stakeholders, as well as with the access and availability of chaplaincy services/chaplains, and religious accommodations. It is noted that within the current service provision model CSC has no authority over the chaplain recruitment decision process and community and collegial engagement.

Areas of Improvement

The expert group and program beneficiaries were asked to determine what they viewed as areas for improvement within the current service provision model. By acquiring feedback in relation to areas for improvement, estimates can be made about what would need to occur in order to achieve immediate and long-term outcomes of the Program.

Overall, similar predominant themes emerged from the data on areas of improvement (Table 10).^{Footnote 48} Complimentary to the themes that were alluded to most commonly in other discussions about the current Chaplaincy service provision model, improving on the delivery of chaplaincy services ranked first among themes identified by inmates, and improving the recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers ranked first among the expert group in relation to areas for improvement. In addition, improving collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices ranked second for each of the three expert groups in terms of areas for improvement within the existing service provision model.

Despite some program stakeholders highlighting the availability and accessibility of chaplains and the availability and accessibility of services within the current service provision model among the things that worked well, others also identified that there could be improvements made if services were more easily accessible and available to inmates. For example, by:

• Increasing the number of mentors available to inmates;
• Increasing the number of services available to inmates for specific faiths; and,
• Providing bilingual services in all regions.

Congruent with what inmates had identified as challenges within the current model, inmates suggested that chaplaincy could increase the availability and accessibility of chaplaincy services, chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, and religious accommodations. For example, by:

• Facilitating a process that will grant better access to the multi-faith center;
• Instituting weekly or bi-weekly chaplain visits with inmates;
• Ensuring that opportunities for inmates of any faith tradition to participate in ETAs is equitably permitted;
• Implementing measures that will allow for better information-sharing practices between chaplaincy and institutional staff;
• Effecting changes to how chaplains, their work hours, and their workloads are managed and distributed; and,
• Providing the essential items required to practice a religion.

Program stakeholders and subject matter experts also identified a need to increase staffing and hours as specific areas for improvement with respect to improving the recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers. For instance, by:

• Backfilling vacant positions;
• Revising the chaplain hours-to-inmate ratios; and,
• Having site-based chaplains work in collaboration with the site volunteer coordinator to organize and coordinate the schedules of regular volunteers visiting their institution.

The expert group also identified a need to improve orientation and ongoing development in relation to improving the recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, particularly with respect to:

• Providing specific competency-based training and coaching to chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers (e.g., motivational Interviewing; how to use Risk, Need and Responsivity principles in their spiritual care work);
• Providing opportunities for chaplains to meet and confer on a regular basis;^{Footnote 49} and,
• Revising the qualifications and credentials required to be hired as a chaplain in CSC institutions (e.g., having experience within a correctional setting, professional accreditation from an organization such as the Canadian Association for Spiritual Care).

With the exception of program stakeholders, all other groups emphasized a need to improve collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices between chaplaincy and community stakeholders. For example, improvements could be achieved by:

• Maintaining contact with as many community faith groups as possible in order to facilitate inmates’ connection with their respective faith tradition when they are released into the community;
• Consulting with professional accreditation organizations and with leaders from community faith groups in order to strengthen chaplaincy’s ability to adequately meet the spiritual needs of all inmates; and,
• Increasing the number of hours allotted to chaplains for community engagement.

In general, the areas for improvement identified by this evaluation speak to some of the challenges with using a national single supplier model. There are limitations to access and availability of chaplains and services with an as needed system of service delivery. There is limited control over the provision of training and professional development of chaplains. Recruitment is conducted by the supplier and CSC has no authority over the recruitment decision process. Community and collegial engagement is also the responsibility of the supplier, and therefore CSC also has no authority over the practices of the supplier.

Some of the other suggested areas for improvement fall out of the single supplier’s responsibilities. For example, with respect to bilingual services, the supplier is only responsible for providing such services in Quebec and New Brunswick. The provison of religious accommodations by chaplaincy is not absolute. It is subject to “what is reasonably accessible to adherents in the community considering legislation and policy and the safety and security of the institution”.^{Endnote lxxv}

There are best practices from alternative provision models that ensure sufficient information sharing and collaboration with community stakeholders and that all services, chaplaincy stakeholders and religious accommodations are available/accessible to inmates regardless of faith tradition. There are also various types of service provision models that can serve as best practices in the delivery of chaplaincy services.

Best Practices related to Alternative Chaplaincy Service Provision Models

The expert group was asked to identify best practices that the current CSC service provision model could adopt from other service provision model(s) (see Table 11^{Footnote 50}). Inmates were also asked if there were any additional chaplaincy services that they would like to access that were not available at their current institution. The aforementioned questions were posed as a means of assessing what elements of alternative service provision models could be applied to the current service provision model, thereby potentially increasing/optimizing how it is functioning.

The use of alternative service provision models ranked first among program stakeholders in relation to the themes that emerged for best practices that could be applied to chaplaincy services, explicitly, either the use of a government employee model; a national single supplier model; or a region-based multiple supplier model.

Best practices related to the delivery of chaplaincy services ranked first among the themes spoken to by inmates. Suggestions for best practices within the current service provision model included:

1. Implementing measures that ensure that all chaplaincy services are available/accessible to inmates regardless of faith tradition (e.g., ensuring that inmates can be paired with a community mentor of the same faith);
2. Implementing measures that ensure that all chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers are available/accessible to inmates regardless of faith tradition (e.g., having volunteers available to lead rites and rituals for specific faith traditions when a chaplain is unavailable); and,

3. Identifying and removing unnecessary barriers that prevent inmates from accessing the religious accommodations they legitimately require (e.g., modifying the Personal Property of Offenders CD to allow for dollar value limits specific to religious articles so that these items do not count towards the $1500 limit for allowable items).

The expert group and program beneficiaries also identified a need to identify and implement ways in which to ensure sufficient collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices between chaplaincy and community stakeholders.It was suggested that CSC could encourage institutional chaplains to connect and form partnerships with other religious groups in the community. This would enhance their ability to provide multi-faith chaplaincy services to inmates. Therefore, the responsibility to ensure this connection materializes would fall to BoC since this action would be related to service delivery. As per the SOA, CSC is not responsible for service delivery.

Finding 13: Chaplaincy Service Provision Model

There are three plausible models for service provision identified by the expert group that CSC can consider as mechanisms through which to improve on its delivery of core chaplaincy services – a government employee model, a region-based multiple supplier model, or retaining the current national single supplier model with adoption of the standards for excellence identified in this evaluation. Chaplaincy Services may also wish to consider the use of a hybrid model, one that would combine aspects of various models into one.

Various service provision models exist that could serve as a conduit for identified standards for excellence.

The following section highlights the efficiencies that can be discerned from the above noted evidence regarding the Chaplaincy provision model. When the findings of the current service provision model were examined as a whole, it was possible to infer some overall standards for excellence in relation to the delivery of chaplaincy services, recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, as well as collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices.

The Delivery of Chaplaincy Services
Overall, based on the above findings, the expert group, inmates, and the provinces/territories spoke of two standards for excellence that have already been implemented in their respective service provision models:

• A commitment to ensuring that program beneficiaries are satisfied with the quality of chaplaincy services; and,
• Striving to provide chaplaincy services to inmates that assist in their rehabilitation.

Alternatively, from the evidence, it was also clear that program beneficiaries would like to see improvements in the availability and accessibility of chaplaincy services, chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, and religious accommodations. Therefore, in terms of standards for excellence that could be implemented, inmates alluded to a need for measures that ensure that all services, as well as chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers, are accessible to inmates regardless of faith tradition, and to the removal of barriers preventing inmates from accessing religious accommodations.

The Recruitment and Retention of Chaplains and Chaplaincy Volunteers

Opinions from the expert group were aligned in identifying that the recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers was both a challenge and an area for improvement within the current model. Specifically, the challenge was in the ability to continuously improve orientation and opportunities for ongoing development of chaplains and volunteers. There was also a consensus among program stakeholders, technical advisors, and inmates that a specific challenge and area for improvement was having adequate/increasing resource allocations to meet increasing demand on chaplaincy services.

Correspondingly, CSC’s provincial/territorial counterparts largely spoke to the need to improve the recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers by improving orientation and ongoing development. In addition, they also described a need to increase resources, staffing, and work hours in relation to challenges/ areas for improvement within their models.

More importantly, chaplains in particular spoke to the need to improve the pay and benefits package within their contracts. Chaplains reported a sharp decrease in their wages and benefits package with the advent of the national single supplier, which in turn led to higher turnover. Chaplains argued an improved pay and benefits package would be an incentive to retain their services.

Based on the above evidence, Chaplaincy is encouraged to consider the mechanisms in place that encourage orientation and ongoing development of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers and ensure that there is sufficient staff to meet the needs of inmates.

Collaboration, Communication and Information-Sharing Practices

The expert group and program beneficiaries were united in identifying that collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices was an area for improvement within the current model, in comparison to the practices they identified within other existing models. Chaplaincy should ensure that there is sufficient collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices between chaplaincy and community stakeholders.

Types of Service Provision Models

In their discussions, the expert group identified three different types of service provision models that CSC can potentially employ to supply its core set of chaplaincy services to inmates:

• A government employee model;
• A national single supplier model (current model); and,
• A region-based multiple supplier model.

Data from consultations with provincial/territorial correctional services delineates that there is no single model for delivering chaplaincy services in the provinces/territories. Some provinces/territories use a government employee model that included both full and part-time government employees, a volunteer-based model or a private contract model, or a mixed model made up of some variation of the other types.

The three models referred to above and as well as attested to by the provinces/territories are herein established as the counterfactuals for Chaplaincy’s service provision model. It is evident that the three models presented by the expert group have distinctive advantages and disadvantages. Table 12 below provides a brief overview of each counterfactual.

Based on the descriptions provided above, when the national single supplier model that CSC currently uses is compared with the two other models, differences can be observed in the level of oversight, the terms under which chaplains are recruited, how salaries and benefits are determined, and in the management/supervision of staff.

The government employee model can be advantageous as CSC has direct control over all components of service delivery, including the recruitment process and the assessment of candidates. With the national single supplier and the region-based multiple supplier models, the supplier and contract-holding faith community is responsible for this and CSC is not involved in the recruitment process. What could be considered as disadvantageous about the region-based multiple supplier model, when compared to the national single supplier model, is that there are various regional managers overseeing various contracts, whereas with the current service provision model, this process is streamlined. On the other hand, under the region-based multiple supplier model, CSC’s ability to foster strong partnerships with faith communities and to facilitate bridge building to these communities for inmates upon their release may be enhanced given the direct relationship regional managers have with suppliers under this model. With the national single supplier model the supplier is an intermediary between CSC and the faith communities from which chaplains are coming from.

The region-based multiple supplier model offers more flexibility which can be advantageous in retaining chaplains as salaries and benefit entitlements may vary because they are set at the discretion of each individual faith community contractor. The government employee model is somewhat flexible as well. Terms and conditions of employment are established, collective agreements for most occupational groups where salaries and benefit entitlements such as vacation pay, dental and health benefits, training allowances, and pensions are periodically negotiated

through collective bargaining to ensure that they remain competitive with those of the Canadian labour market.^{Endnote lxxxii} The national single supplier model does not appear to be as flexibe because salaries are set by the supplier. This leaves the single provider at a disadvantage as chaplains could potentially secure a similar position for a higher wage and a better benefits package outside of CSC.

When a government employee model is compared to a national single supplier model and a region-based multiple supplier model in relation to staffing, the government employee model offers many advantages. There are different staffing options (e.g. permanent, casual, or term). Moreover, if chaplains are permanent employees, they can be full-time or part-time and they have fixed work hours. Having permanency also could allow chaplains to develop a level of knowledge and understanding of the intricacies and needs of the institutions in which they work that chaplains in the other models may not be able to acquire.

With respect to the management and supervision of staff, the region-based multiple supplier could have variations in frameworks as it is dependent on the faith community holding the contract. With the government employee model and the national single supplier model this framework is standardized.

The purpose of this exercise was to highlight best practices and give a broad overview of alternative service provision models for Chaplaincy’s service provision model that could be corroborated by expert groups, program beneficiaries, and provincial/territorial Corrections counterparts. By engaging with groups that were both internal and external to Chaplaincy, it was hoped that a balanced perspective on the impact of chaplaincy services would be achieved. Based on trends found in the data among the expert group and program beneficiaries, it was possible to identify four common areas in which standards for excellence were identified:

• The current Chaplaincy service provision model;
• The delivery of chaplaincy services;
• The recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers; and,
• Collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices.

Each area had specific components in which standards for excellence have been or could be implemented:

• Having measures in that place that ensure that all services and chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers are available/accessible to inmates regardless of faith tradition;
• A commitment to ensuring that program beneficiaries are satisfied with the quality of chaplaincy services and programs;
• Identifying and removing unnecessary barriers that prevent inmates from accessing the religious accommodations required;
• Striving to provide chaplaincy services to inmates that assist in their rehabilitation;
• Ensuring that mechanisms are in place that support orientation and ongoing development of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers;
• Ensuring there is adequate resource allocations to meet the needs of inmates; and,
• Identifying and implementing mechanisms that support sufficient collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices chaplaincy and community stakeholders.

Evidence derived from consultations with provincial/territorial corrections regarding their respective chaplaincy service provision models were consistent with the findings on best practices, in that multiple alternative service provision models were identified and there were complimentary best practices highlighted in relation to the delivery of chaplaincy services and the recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers.

Overall, the existing Chaplaincy service provision model has some efficiencies to be gained. Many standards for excellence can be derived from the current service provision model and from alternative models. Should CSC determine that there is a need to make changes, each of these standards for excellence can be applied to any of the three service provision models identified (i.e., a government employee model, improvements/changes to the current national single supplier model, a region-based multiple supplier model or perhaps a hybrid model). As a future direction, a more in-depth examination of the current service provision model in comparison to the other service provision models that were identified would help to determine which model, or possibly combination thereof, would be the most efficient and effective in accommodating the Program’s targeted outcomes.

Within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are the fundamental freedoms, of religion, thought, belief and expression. This means that the law permits all Canadians to express their religion and/or spirituality without hindrance; in the case of federally incarcerated persons, CSC provides the services of chaplains to ensure that inmates have access to religious and spiritual care.

The evaluation found that chaplaincy services at CSC are relevant and to a certain extent, meet the needs of inmates. Positive impacts were found regarding the presence of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers at CSC institutions. Chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers assisted inmates in developing tools to manage their emotions, and establishing interpersonal relationships while simultaneously deepening their understanding of their specific spirituality and faith traditions. Key areas identified for service improvements include:

• Access to chaplaincy services (i.e., site based and tradition specific) and chaplaincy volunteers during the intake and incarceration periods and to religious accommodations (i.e., the sacred space and religious items);
• Visibility of chaplains within the institution and at intake (i.e., visiting all areas of the institution, formal strategies for introducing themselves to all new inmates);
• Effectiveness and efficiency of the management of chaplaincy services, particularly with respect to collaboration, communication and information-sharing practices (i.e., between CSC, Chaplaincy, BoC and community stakeholders);
• Recruitment and retention of chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers;
• Training and personal development (i.e., security training, specialized training to deal with the needs of inmates with mental health issues); and,
• Engagement and community relations (i.e., building community relations prior to release).

This evaluation will assist CSC in enhancing the delivery of chaplaincy services for all inmates. Moreover, the findings of this evaluation provides CSC with the necessary information to equip chaplaincy stakeholders and general staff, as well as community stakeholders with the tools to ensure the religious and or spiritual needs of inmates are met.

Based on the findings of this evaluation, the following eight recommendations are made:

Recommendation 1: Information Management Practices and the Quality of Religion Data

There is a need to implement a standardized approach in the collection and recording of religion data to ensure consistent and accurate reporting.

It is recommended that Chaplaincy fosters partnerships with relevant OPIs to effectively facilitate the following:

• Review and update policies and procedures as needed related to religion and spirituality to ensure that mandatory information management practices are established;
• Establish national standardized definitions and/or criteria related to religious affiliation; and,
• Identify any additional religious information that should be collected and recorded in OMS.

This will provide CSC with the opportunity to enhance the consistency and accuracy and reporting of religion data and allow for the analyzing of trends over time. In addition, CSC will be better able to respond to religious needs of inmates and issues .

Recommendation 2: Planning and Monitoring/Service Delivery

The religious/spiritual needs of inmates are dynamic and continuously evolving. There is a need to further enhance chaplaincy services to strengthen the provision of services for all inmates.

It is recommended that Chaplaincy implements measures to enhance service standard objectives with a view to improve the religious and spiritual services provided to inmates.

Chaplaincy should consider strategies to effectively facilitate the following:

• Develop a standardized approach to planning and service delivery that takes into consideration the uniqueness of each institutional context.
• Closely monitor inmate religious affiliation and institutional information to adjust services as necessary to better meet the evolving needs of inmates. This will include the continuous monitoring of the hours-based service provision model within each institution in order to address local needs and expressed concerns with accessibility/availability of chaplains and resource shortages.
• Ensure that mechanisms are in place to better target chaplaincy services to meet the diverse needs of the inmate population and reflect what is available in the community;
• Develop an institutional service delivery plan specific for the intake period to ensure coverage and access to chaplains and services;
• Facilitate a process that will ensure that chapels/sacred spaces are accommodating of all religious groups;
• Develop and implement measures necessary to enhance the awareness of support services offered by chaplains and chaplaincy volunteers among inmates; and,
• Continue to remain in regular dialogue with key stakeholders to ensure that effective and appropriate service level standards are delivered.

Implementation of the above strategies will afford CSC the opportunity to strengthen service delivery standards and effectively respond to the religious and spiritual needs of all inmates throughout the continuum of care.

Recommendation 3: Visibility and Recognizability

Institutional chaplains, for the most part, did not have formal strategies for introducing themselves or the breadth of services to new inmates. Furthermore, Chaplaincy volunteers were not always easily recognizable in institutions.

It is recommended that Chaplaincy develops strategies for institutional chaplains to introduce themselves and their services to new inmates, particularly at intake, and to make their presence more visible in all areas of the institution. Strategies should also be developed to increase the recognizability of chaplaincy volunteers.

This can be achieved by:

• Developing and implementing a standardized approach that will ensure that all inmates are introduced to the breadth of chaplaincy services both at intake and within the institution;
• Strengthening guidelines and clarifying intended outcomes for increasing visibility;
• Establishing a planned visitation pattern for institutional chaplains; and
• Consulting with relevant stakeholders on the development of a process whereby chaplaincy volunteers can more easily be recognized by inmates and staff throughout the institution.

Recommendation 4: Faith-Based Community Reintegration

Many inmates rely on Chaplaincy for reintegration support to connect with religious groups in the community. There are opportunities for Chaplaincy and FCRPs to improve the assistance they provide to inmates in making connections with faith-based communities prior to release.

It is recommended that Chaplaincy maintains productive relationships with faith-based communities and examines the feasibility of increasing the use of practices that will ensure continuity of care and linkages between chaplains and faith-based resources in the community. This can be achieved by:

• Sharing of timely and relevant information with faith community reintegration projects (FCRPs);
• Building faith community relationships earlier in the release process;
• Improving procedures for planning and preparing for an inmate’s release, including faith-based support; and,
• Expanding the breadth of faith community engagement to support offender reintegration.

Recommendation 5: Religious/Spiritual Complaints and Grievances

There is a need to enhance CSC’s ability to track and monitor the number of religious and spiritual complaints and grievances.

It is recommended that Chaplaincy Services enhance their information management practices related to religious/spiritual complaints and grievance data. This can be achieved by:

• Establishing a systematic approach to better capture religious and spiritual complaints and grievances data.

Such action will afford the opportunity to enhance the consistency, accuracy and reporting of religious/spiritual accommodation complaints and grievances and allow for analyzing trends over time. In addition, Chaplaincy will be able to systematically respond to the issues identified.

Recommendation 6: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Inmate Populations

Inmates with mental health needs, LGBTQ2 inmates and some ethnocultural inmates have reported experiencing challenges in receiving religious and/or spiritual care.

It is recommended that Chaplaincy adopts measures to better orient institutional chaplains to deliver religious and/or spiritual services to CSC’s diverse inmate population, particularly inmates with mental health needs, LGBTQ2 inmates and ethnocultural inmates.

This can be achieved in the following ways:

• By providing ongoing information and a dedicated orientation on mental health and diversity to chaplains; and,
• Determining the feasibility under the current contractual arrangements to recruit institutional chaplains with experience in delivering religious and/or spiritual services that respond to the needs of CSC’s diverse inmate population.

The implementation of the above strategies is consistent with the action items found in the Commissioner’s mandate letter from the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for groups of offenders with particular needs (Black Canadians, women, young adults, LGBTQ2 people, seniors and people with disabilities^{Endnote lxxxiii}). Specifically, it emphasizes that “in the interest of effective rehabilitation, it is important that services, interventions, assessment tools and correctional approaches be tailored to address the full diversity of CSC's population” and that CSC is encouraged to “work with organizations active within these various communities to ensure that offenders' particular needs are met, both within institutions and upon release”.

Recommendation 7: Standards For Excellence

There is a need to ensure that the standards for excellence identified in this evaluation are implemented at all CSC institutions in the delivery of chaplaincy services.

It is recommended that Chaplaincy incorporates the standards for excellence identified by the expert group and program beneficiaries, as part of its review in identifying the most efficient and effective practices to meet the Program’s intended outcomes. This can be achieved by:

• Ensuring that all inmates have access to chaplaincy services, chaplains, and chaplaincy volunteers regardless of faith tradition;
• Identifying and removing unnecessary barriers that prevent inmates from accessing religious accommodations;
• Providing (where feasible) enhanced orientation and ongoing development to chaplains and, if deemed feasible, developing an approach for the creation of a learning and development plan for chaplains;
• Ensuring that service provision standards meet the needs of inmates;
• Identifying and implementing mechanisms to ensure sufficient collaboration/information-sharing practices between Chaplaincy and community stakeholders.

By implementing these standards for excellence, Chaplaincy will be demonstrating that it is making efforts to deliver services in a manner that will contribute to the achievement of the Program’s immediate, intermediate, and long-term outcomes.

Recommendation 8: Chaplaincy Service Provision Model

Based on the strengths, weaknesses, and best practices that have been identified in the present evaluation, there is a need for Chaplaincy to review and make changes to its service provision model.

It is recommended that Chaplaincy considers the standards for excellence identified in this evaluation to make a determination as to the most efficient and effective service provision model that will contribute to the Program’s short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes. Chaplaincy should:

• Assess the feasibility of adopting a new alternative service provision model (e.g., a government employee model^{Footnote 51}, a region-based multiple supplier model, an improved national single supplier model, or a hybrid model) by conducting a more in-depth analysis of the intricacies involved in each model and engaging in a consultation process; and,
• Explore the feasibility of establishing key competencies for chaplains and a certification process for the delivery of multi-faith services within its model.

Recommendations from the 2004 Chaplaincy Services Evaluation

The last evaluation of Chaplaincy was published in April 2004. The purpose of the evaluation was to examine the impact of Chaplaincy’s pastoral ministries, as defined by six specific objectives:

1. To assess the extent to which CSC Chaplaincy is a "visible presence" in the institution and the community;
2. To assess the impact of pastoral/spiritual ministry on inmates and ex-offenders;
3. To assess Chaplaincy involvement in the inmate escort program, determining whether the interaction contributes to the overall goals of Chaplaincy and what impact it is having on inmates;
4. To assess the integration of Chaplaincy into the case management process, institutional/community life, and the overall culture;
5. To assess the impact Chaplaincy is having on supporting inmates and staff; and,
6. To address a number of general issues that relate to the impact, quality, and effectiveness of CSC Chaplaincy.

The table below summarizes the key findings and recommendations based on the above objectives.

Religious Affiliations and Definitions

The following table provides definitions of the specific religious affiliations included within the overall religious category. We modified the religious affiliation definitions included within the 2011 National Household Survey and reconciled them with the 2015 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview.^{Footnote 52}

Expert Group

Program stakeholders
Are individuals who directly affect or are affected by the program. They have in-depth knowledge of the programs design, implementation and operation. Individuals in this expert group include:

Subject matter experts
Are individuals who have a general expertise in the field in which the program operates. Individuals in this expert group are members of:

Technical advisors
Are individuals who have expertise in a specific area relevant to the evaluation, such as the broader context of the program or a technical field relevant to the program. Individuals in this expert group include academics or advisors including:

The following is a detailed breakdown of the percentage of services delivered by chaplains for the FY 2018-19. These percentages represent chaplains’ workload and the amount of time they dedicate to providing services to inmates.