Community correctional operations: Chapter 3: Community engagement

The evaluation team would like to express their appreciation to the many individuals who contributed to this evaluation and provided valuable information on the operations of Community Corrections.

First, we would like to thank CSC Staff, CSC's Partners, PBC Board Members and CAC members who shared their views and experiences with the evaluation team through focus group discussions and/or online questionnaires.

The evaluation team sincerely appreciates the input provided by Citizen Engagement, Stakeholder Relations, particularly, Jackie Monaghan and Troy Demers as well as Monique Godin from the Community Reintegration Branch, who assisted with reviewing the online partner questionnaires. In addition, the evaluation team would also like to thank Sandra Dey for coordinating with CSC's regions to establish a list of community partners for the distribution of the partner questionnaire and Jim Murphy for his assistance with coordinating the engagement of the CAC membership.

The evaluation team also wishes to extend their appreciation to Lynn Brunette and Martine Rondeau from the Communications and Engagement Division who assisted by examining the feasibility of conducting a media scan as part of this evaluation.

Evaluation Team:

Jillian Flight, Evaluation Officer
Marcie McKay, Evaluation Analyst
Nicole Allegri, Senior Evaluation Manager
Sheena Bradley, Evaluation Analyst
Kendra Delveaux, Senior Evaluation Manager
Christopher J. Rastin, A/Senior Evaluator
Rhea Adhopia, Evaluation Officer
Hortense Kambou, Junior Evaluation Analyst
Sean Horne, Evaluation Analyst

Other contributors (in alphabetical order):

Kossi Aziaba
Adam Crawford
Mark Di Pasquale
Julia Fera
Sarah Heath
Colleen MacDonald

This report focusing on community engagement is the third of four reports evaluating the community correctional operations of Correctional Service Canada (CSC) and examines relevance and performance as per the Treasury Board Secretariat Policy on Evaluation (TBS, 2009). There are no recommendations contained in the current report. The fourth chapter will summarize all three reports and provide comprehensive recommendations addressing all evaluated components of community corrections. The activities being evaluated in this report accounted for 0.37% of CSCs direct program spending for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Overall, community engagement is an essential component of the successful reintegration of offenders into the community.

The evaluation examined performance activities in the areas of engagement, information sharing, and promotion of the work done by CSC.

Engagement: Overall, the evaluation demonstrated that community partners contribute to the safe reintegration of offenders through the provision of community programs, services and housing. In addition to the various services offered, community partners play an integral role in connecting offenders with the appropriate community resources in preparation for their warrant expiry date. For these reasons, it is important for CSC to continue to engage new community partners in order to meet the increasingly diverse needs of the offender population, as well as sustain existing relationships with current partners. Although CSC has several strategies encompassing engagement, there is not an integrated strategy for how CSC should engage its partners. Many engagement strengths were noted by CSC and community partners. Several areas of opportunity were identified, including the need to involve community partners earlier in the release planning process and for community partners to have stabilized funds to ensure continued service provision. In addition to the successful engagement of new partners, increased emphasis should also be placed on the sustainability of current partners and the development of these existing relationships. Lastly, the need for an overall integrated engagement strategy for CSC has been identified in order to better position CSC to build and maintain strong, collaborative relationships to achieve results.

Information Sharing: Information sharing between CSC and partners/stakeholders is guided by policy. CSC staff indicated that these policies and procedures are clear, and both partners and CSC staff indicated satisfaction with the quality and quantity of information shared. However, staff and partners also noted that barriers exist in the types of information that can be shared, and that these barriers impact the ability of community partners to respond adequately and timely to the needs of offenders. Recent initiatives have been piloted to respond to the needs of victims such as a collaborative project between CSC and PBC to offer efficient methods of information sharing.

Promotion: Promoting the work being done by CSC is a noted goal, and one that is expected to ease the transition of offenders into the community through increased public awareness and community support. CSC staff and community partners suggested that in order to increase public awareness, additional promotion of positive correctional results and offender success stories need to be shared by CSC through increased involvement in the community and the use of the media.

Economy: The difficult nature of examining cost effectiveness on community engagement activities has been identified in academic literature. As such, a quantitative cost effectiveness analyses could not be conducted as part of the current chapter of the Community Corrections evaluation. In contrast, qualitative data collected from CSC staff and community partners indicated that CSC distributes resources effectively.

FINDING 1: CSC's community engagement activities are aligned with federal legislation and Government of Canada priorities. The roles of the federal government and community partners are clearly defined.

FINDING 2: Community partners contribute to the safe reintegration of offenders into the community through the provision of community programs, services and housing. Partners ensure a transparent criminal justice system and promote public awareness of correctional activities.

FINDING 3: Staff and partners identified a need to increase the focus and funding of in-reach activities, early collaboration and communication in release planning in order to ensure adequate preparation of community resources for offenders upon release, and improve the transition of offenders into the community.

FINDING 4: The importance of sustaining these relationships with community partners was underscored. Open lines of communication and reciprocal relationships have been identified as a best practice in sustaining relationships with community partners.

FINDING 5: Quantity and quality of programs and services offered to offenders in the community is partially reliant on funds received from CSC. Instability in funding was noted as contributing to inconsistencies and gaps in community programming and services.

FINDING 6: The majority of partners are satisfied with the degree of collaboration between CSC and their organization. However, CSC staff and community partners reported a low frequency of consultation regarding the direction, development, or maintenance of CSC policies, strategies, horizontal initiatives, and other policy/strategy activities.

FINDING 7: Information sharing between CSC and partners/stakeholders is guided by policy and CSC staff and community partners indicated that these policies and procedures were clear. However, limitations exist in the types of information that can be shared due to policy; this can impact the ability of community partners to respond to the needs of offenders.

FINDING 8: CAC members are engaged in a wide variety of activities that assist CSC by contributing to the correctional process, notably through interacting with CSC staff, the public and offenders, and providing impartial advice and recommendations to CSC.

FINDING 9: CSC and CRF staff reported regular consultation and reported that information sharing is done in an efficient manner. However, improvements could be made by consulting with CRF staff earlier in the release planning phase and enhanced use of OMS by CRF staff.

FINDING 10: CRF staff noted gaps in their ability to provide sufficient facilities and services to offenders with specific needs, such as those with mental health issues, women offenders with children, and older offenders with physical health needs.

FINDING 11: Legislation and policies exist regarding collaboration and information sharing with victims, and victims are largely pleased with victim services. Additionally, pilot projects attempting to better integrate victim services across government departments have been initiated.

FINDING 12: The cost of maintaining offenders in the community is significantly lower than in institutions. Although analysis of the cost effectiveness of community engagement could not be performed, mechanisms such as community engagement supporting the gradual transition of offenders into the community are favoured.

SUMMARY FINDING 1: Community partners contribute to the safe reintegration of offenders into the community through the provision of community programs, services and housing. However, gaps exist in the extent to which CSC collaborates with its partners. Although there are several strategies in place that involve community engagement, CSC does not have a unified approach to engaging its current partners or a plan to expand this engagement to fully support CSC's sixth priority of having productive relationships with increasingly diverse partners.

Relevance is assessed through three issues:

1. Continued Need for the Program: Assessment of the extent to which the program continues to address a demonstrable need and is responsive to the needs of Canadians.
2. Alignment with Government Priorities: Assessment of the linkages between program objectives and
   1. federal government priorities and/or
   2. departmental strategic outcomes.
3. Alignment with Federal Roles and Responsibilities: Assessment of the role and responsibilities for the federal government in delivering the program.

FINDING 1: CSC's community engagement activities are aligned with federal legislation and Government of Canada priorities. The roles of the federal government and community partners are clearly defined.

The importance of CSC engaging citizens and communities has been of interest for decades and the role of enhanced community involvement was underscored (The MacGuigan Report to Parliament, 1977). The Government of Canada has identified community safety as a Government priority, desiring to "make Canada the best place for families" by protecting the safety of Canadian families and communities through an increased focus on dealing with crime and offenders in order to ensure safe neighbourhoods and communities (Government of Canada's Speech from the Throne, 2010).

Through the Transformation Agenda, CSC's Review Panel also placed particular focus on enhancing CSC's capacity to engage community partners, indicating that an investment in long-term community capacity is required to assist reintegration efforts, and ultimately to enhance public safety which is certainly responsive to the needs of Canadians (CSC, 2010d). One of the key recommendations made by the Panel was the need to focus on building economic opportunities for Aboriginal community-based enterprises that support concrete employment opportunities for Aboriginal offenders (CSC, 2010d).

CSC's core legislation and policies, ranging from the CCRA, CSC's mission, and internal policies, (CSC, 2003; CSC, 1997; CSC, 2012d) guide the engagement of communities and citizens in the correctional system. The CCRA (1992) requires that CSC ensure the safe reintegration of offenders into the community upon release and that the principles that shall guide the Service in achieving the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society include the involvement of members of the public in matters relating to the operations of the Service. The CCRA also provides specific requirements for CSC to engage Aboriginal communities, ensuring that "all committees shall consult regularly with Aboriginal communities and other appropriate persons with knowledge of aboriginal matters". The majority (over 60%) of CSC staff and community partners who participated in questionnaires agreed that CSC has clear policies in place to engage communities and that the roles of CSC and partners/stakeholders were clearly defined.

The performance section of Theme 5: Community engagement results will be reported generally and then broken down into the three groups previously discussed:

1. Legislated Partners;
2. Supportive and Rehabilitative Partners; and
3. Victims.

For the purpose of this evaluation, the views of community partners are presented in aggregated format. However, where possible, for questions pertaining to specific groups of partners (i.e., Legislated Partners, Supportive and Rehabilitative Partners, or Victims) results will be presented separately.

One of CSC's departmental priorities is to strengthen strategic partnerships with various partners and stakeholders including non-governmental organizations, police agencies, Regional Halfway House Associations (RHHA), volunteers, Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs), and joint corrections working groups. In essence, CSC is committed to engaging community partners and stakeholders and working collaboratively with organizations and communities to enhance public safety. The following section discusses engagement activities with community partners and stakeholders while subsequent sections will provide further details on the specific activities offered by each group.

FINDING 2: Community partners contribute to the safe reintegration of offenders into the community through the provision of community programs, services and housing. Partners ensure a transparent criminal justice system and promote public awareness of correctional activities.

As documented in the background section of this report, CSC has a number of community and other government partners and volunteers that aid in achieving CSCs overall mandate. For example, community organizations provide housing, programs and counselling to offenders. CSCs public safety partners assist in the supervision and imposition of conditions to assist with successful offender reintegration. CACs and volunteers also serve numerous roles that ultimately assist offenders in community reintegration. Chapters 1 and 2 of the Community Corrections Evaluation have identified gaps in community services, namely the availability of non-CSC programs, and the availability of bed spaces in the community for particular groups of offenders. These gaps in community services have a direct impact on offender release destination, and CSC's ability to use alternatives to suspension to manage levels of escalating risk in the community. Furthermore, CSC's ability to ensure a broad range of specialized services to offenders in the community is reliant on partnerships with community organizations. For these reasons, engaging new partners and sustaining relationships with community partners continues to remain a departmental priority for CSC.

CSC's screening and orientation of new partners

Prior to working in collaboration with new partners, CSC engages individuals and organizations at a broad level to establish mutually beneficial goals. The majority of community partners surveyed agreed that CSC has effective processes established to screen (65%) and to offer orientation sessions to community partners/stakeholders (60%).

Best Practices and Identified Gaps for Working with Community Partners

The following sections will examine best practices for engaging and working in collaboration with community partners as well as identify some of the gaps in community engagement activities, which were identified by CSC staff and community partners. The views presented in the following sections are in aggregated format to represent the overall views of community partners in general (i.e., key informants from non-government organizations, public safety partners, advisory committees and volunteers).

FINDING 3: Staff and partners identified a need to increase the focus and funding of in-reach activities, early collaboration and communication in release planning in order to ensure adequate preparation of community resources for offenders upon release, and improve the transition of offenders into the community.

The transition period from the institution to the community is a critical period for offenders. The majority of community partners in focus groups stressed the importance of early collaboration and release planning for offenders' successful transition to the community, indicating that timely referrals and collaboration with CSC are essential components of strong working relationships. These relationships assist the transition process by ensuring that supports are available to offenders upon release to the community. They also reported that early collaboration provides them with the opportunity to adapt their approach in working with offenders in order to adequately respond to the needs of individual offenders (e.g. providing culture-specific services for Aboriginal offenders such as Elders). Some community partners noted that provincial correctional organizations provide funding to their partner organizations which allows them to have regularly scheduled visits to provincial facilities. However, partners identified that it is sometimes difficult for them to access funding from CSC to engage in these activities, hindering partner abilities to conduct in-reach activities at federal facilities. Some partners noted that they would like to ensure community services are available and prepared for offenders in advance of their release - while they are in custody. Given that in-reach services and community programming are resource intensive, with insufficient funding allocation, partners noted they often need to cut other activities in order to provide in-reach services and community programming. While resources and funding are not limitless, it is important to note that additional funds from CSC would make resources available to do more in-reach work and enhanced community programming. In-reach activities and services are important to ensuring that resources can be put in place prior to an offender's release, and partners noted that CSC may begin to lose important community partners if the funding problem is not resolved.

According to some CSC institutional staff who participated in focus groups, release planning and relationship building efforts can also be stymied by the amount and types of information that can be shared due to privacy laws^{Footnote 11}, access to information practices, and Parole Officer caseload and administrative obligations. Nevertheless, some CSC institutional and community staff indicated the need to establish relationships and build rapport with community partners. Community partners acknowledged that barriers and processes imposed by CSC (e.g., information sharing, access to institutions) sometimes make it difficult for them to provide assistance to offenders. Partners suggested that information fairs and other similar events within institutions and regular in-person meetings between Institutional Parole Officers and residential facility staff could improve this communication pertaining to release planning and in-reach activities.

Additionally, improved communication between Institutional Parole Officers and Community Parole Officers, and between CSC staff and community partners, was identified as necessary to improve the successful release of offenders into the community. Enhancements to communication are imperative to ensuring a greater continuity of care, increase pre-release planning, and more efficient distribution and use of resources. CSC staff in focus groups noted that increased opportunities to build relationships between Institutional Parole Officers and Community Parole Officers aid collaborative efforts. However, workload issues and fewer professional development opportunities limits opportunities for institutional and community staff to develop personal relationships. Community partners noted the importance of having improved communication between Community and Institutional Parole Officers for sharing information, as this impacts how partners can help offenders.

In terms of communication between CSC Parole Officers and community partners, partners stressed the importance of Parole Officers forming relationships with community service providers and noted that this needs to start before release. While some community partners in focus groups noted that cooperation with Parole Officers has improved, they noted that it often occurs on a case by case basis. Some partners noted in focus groups there is not enough dialogue between Parole Officers and service providers, and that there is a need to increase collaboration and build rapport between CSC and partners.

Additionally, partners noted that institutional staff are often not aware of the services available through community partners in the community creating a potential barrier to accessing community partner resources. Similarly, CSC staff in focus groups noted that improved collaboration and relationship building between CSC community staff members and community partners is important in offender release, specifically to make appropriate referrals. They suggested that access to and funding for more resources to learn about what is available in the community (including training and workshops and updated resource banks) would be helpful in making appropriate referrals.

FINDING 4: The importance of sustaining these relationships with community partners was underscored. Open lines of communication and reciprocal relationships have been identified as a best practice in sustaining relationships with community partners.

SUMMARY FINDING 1: Community partners contribute to the safe reintegration of offenders into the community through the provision of community programs, services and housing. However, gaps exist in the extent to which CSC collaborates with its partners. Although there are several strategies in place that involve community engagement, CSC does not have a unified approach to engaging its current partners or a plan to expand this engagement to fully support CSC's sixth priority of having productive relationships with increasingly diverse partners.

CSC engages non-governmental organizations, public safety partners, volunteers and advisory committees to work toward the common goals of public safety and the safe reintegration of offenders into the community. With the majority of offenders being eventually released back into the community, (CSC, 2009a) (90%), it is imperative for CSC not only to establish positive and reciprocal relationships with Canadian communities, partners and stakeholders, but to sustain these relationships.

In order to examine the effectiveness of the processes and strategies developed by CSC to establish additional partnerships, CSC staff and community partners surveyed were asked to what extent CSC has effective processes established to identify new partners/stakeholders, and to establish new partnerships and stakeholder relationships. As presented in Table D4 in Appendix D, less than half of CSC staff (40% and 45%, respectively) and approximately half of community partners (52% identify and 49%, establish respectively) agreed that CSC has effective processes and strategies in place to establish new partnerships. Those staff who disagreed (19% and 16%, respectively), indicated that CSC could refine the processes used to identify new partners and stakeholders (33%), that the provision of additional resources (human/financial) are needed to effectively identify and establish new partnerships (28%), and that it was necessary for CSC to have skilled, full-time employees dedicated to establishing new partnerships (38%). Of the community partners who disagreed that clear processes are in place for establishing new relationships (12%), 45% indicated that CSC should work more with existing partners/stakeholders in order to establish new partnerships while another 45% indicated a need to expedite the investigation process for new partners, approach additional partners, and engage their interest in working with CSC. CSC staff identified that there was a need to have skilled and full-time employees in place to effectively establish new partnerships (39%), while 31% identified a need for openness and an attitude of cooperation with community service providers.

CSC staff and supervisors in focus groups noted that there is a need for CSC to maintain and sustain existing partnerships before establishing new ones. CSC staff and community partners surveyed were asked to identify best practices for engaging or sustaining relationships between CSC and community partners/stakeholders for offenders in general, and also for women offenders, Aboriginal offenders, and offenders with mental disorders. Overall suggestions included increased communication and regular meetings between CSC and partners/stakeholders and also the development of mutually beneficial objectives were necessary in the process of fostering and sustaining relationships between CSC and its community partners.

As indicated in the background section of this report, CSC has several strategies in place that have community engagement components within them. However, CSC does not currently have an integrated, systematic approach to establishing new partnerships. Only approximately half of CSC staff and community partners alike noted that CSC has effective strategies in place for establishing new partnerships. In support of CSC's sixth priority of fostering 'productive relationships with increasingly diverse partners', more emphasis should be placed on ensuring these future partnerships. Moving toward an integrated engagement strategy will assist CSC and its partners to be better positioned to build and maintain strong, collaborative relationships to achieve results for the Canadian public, community partners, and CSC.

FINDING 5: Quantity and quality of programs and services offered to offenders in the community is partially reliant on funds received from CSC. Instability in funding was noted as contributing to inconsistencies and gaps in community programming and services

Through focus group discussions, some community partners reported a need for CSC to improve partnership practices by placing more value on the work of community partners, sustaining existing relationships, working on steering committees together, increasing funding, putting more formal agreements into place, and improving recognition of community partners' programs. It was reported that CSC places too much emphasis on the cost of services and expects more from the partners while cutting back on funds.

Some community partners in focus groups also indicated a need for increased stability in funding since partner agencies are reliant on funding. If funding is not acquired, they can no longer provide service. Some partners noted that they have difficulty attracting and retaining staff because they have difficulty offering the competitive salaries and benefits in comparison to the federal government.

FINDING 6: The majority of partners are satisfied with the degree of collaboration between CSC and their organization. However, CSC staff and community partners reported a low frequency of consultation regarding the direction, development, or maintenance of CSC policies, strategies, horizontal initiatives, and other policy/strategy activities.

Approximately 63% of staff and 66% of partners surveyed agreed that they were satisfied with the degree of collaboration between CSC and community partners. However, satisfaction with the level of consultation was lower. CSC consults with stakeholders and partners to understand how to better meet the reintegration needs of offenders. As such, satisfaction with the frequency of consultation between CSC and community partners with respect to the direction and development of CSC policies, strategies, horizontal initiatives, and other related policy/strategy activities was examined. The majority of CSC staff (range 60-86%) and community partners (range 61-76%) surveyed stated that community partners are never to occasionally consulted regarding government horizontal initiatives and other related policy and strategy activities. CSC staff and community partners were asked about consultation regarding governmental horizontal initiatives. CSC staff and community partners reported that partners are never or rarely consulted with regards to the direction, development, or maintenance of CSC strategies for women (56% and 54%, respectively) or Aboriginal offenders (38% and 47%, respectively; see Table D5 and Table D6 Appendix D for additional details).

Information Sharing between CSC and Community Partners

FINDING 7: Information sharing between CSC and partners/stakeholders is guided by policy and CSC staff and community partners indicated that these policies and procedures were clear. However, limitations exist in the types of information that can be shared due to policy; this can impact the ability of community partners to respond to the needs of offenders.

Policy regarding information sharing with community partners

Information sharing between CSC and its partners/stakeholders is guided by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Privacy Act, the Access to Information Act and CSC's Commissioners Directives (CDs). The CCRA provides the legal framework for the sharing of information between CSC and its partners and stakeholders, and between CSC and the Parole Board of Canada. In accordance with the CCRA, "CSC should enhance its effectiveness and openness through the timely exchange of relevant information with victims, offenders and other components of the criminal justice system and through communication about its correctional policies and programs to victims, offenders and the public" with the purpose of providing information that is "relevant to release decision-making or to the supervision or surveillance of offenders" (s.4b and s.25, CCRA, 1992). According to CD 701: Information Sharing, the objective of information sharing is "to assist in the protection of the public and the safe reintegration of offenders by ensuring that all relevant information is received from and/or shared with the appropriate individuals or groups".

In accordance with the Privacy Act , "Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except for the purpose of its original collection and where it is subject to another Act of Parliament" (Department of Justice, 1985). According to CD 701: Information Sharing, section 11 (f) "Only relevant personal information sufficient to meet the requirements of the CCRA needs to be disclosed (CSC, 2012c). As a result of the parameters of these policies, certain offender information, including mental health records, may not be shared with partners/stakeholders and this creates barriers to responding to offender needs. The Guidelines for Sharing Personal Health Information (CSC, 2012e), affords some flexibility in the release of offender health information stating that information sharing must be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, general health information may be shared among staff where there is a 'need to know' and where the information is being used for the purpose of which it was originally obtained (CSC, 2012e). Offender information is protected through CSC's Information Management Services Division, which implemented an access protocol to ensure that the necessary exchanges of information, including facilitating the sharing of information between CSC and external partners, are performed in accordance with the Privacy Act, Access to Information Act, and the CCRA.

Of the CSC staff and community partners surveyed, the majority indicated that the processes and procedures for sharing information with community partners are clear (55% and 69% respectively).

Resources to share information between CSC and community partners

CSC provides a number of tools and strategies intended to help facilitate information sharing between CSC and partners. While many of these tools and strategies are not specifically designed for service providers, they are available to partners and stakeholders who are involved in community corrections operations. The electronic tools include non-publicly accessible electronic information and publicly accessible information.

Non-publicly accessible electronic information include CSC's Offender Management System (OMS), a computer based application developed for CSC and PBC to compile, store and retrieve offender-related information. CSC provides some partners with varying levels of access to OMS^{Footnote 12} through virtual private networks (CSC, 2011g). Another non-publicly accessible portal is InfoPol, a web-based application that allows CSC to share offender information that is relevant to supervision or surveillance with police services in order to assist them during investigations^{Footnote 13}. CSC currently supports access for InfoPol to over 4,700 police users. (CSC, 2012f).

Publicly accessible information for partners and stakeholders on CSC's Website include facility directories and internet sites for volunteers and victims. CSC has posted a list with contact information of all the penitentiaries, parole offices, Community Correctional Centers and Community Residential Centers. CSC's internet site also contains information on CSC's volunteer activities, including an overview of the role volunteers play in the correctional process; the types of programs and services in which volunteers participate; the process involved in becoming a volunteer and, a number of volunteer resources which includes a volunteer reference handbook, as well as links to the websites of other volunteer organizations (CSC, 2007).

In general, CSC staff surveyed indicated that information is shared between CSC and community partners in a manner that promotes efficient use of time and resources for all of the following: incidents, program reports, risk assessments, community assessments, correctional plan updates, community strategy, residency requirements, discretionary release requirements, and pre-release planning information (range 67%-76%). However, community partners reported lower rates of agreement that information sharing was performed in a manner that promotes an efficient use of time and resources, with level of agreement ranging between 35% and 45% for most sources of information. For further detail please refer to Table D7 in Appendix D.

Identified Gaps and Suggestions to Improve Information Sharing between CSC and Community Partners

According to community partners in focus group discussions, information sharing between CSC and partners is important to ensuring that offenders have timely access to required services in the community. Despite this, some partners reported that there are significant barriers to, and gaps in, communication; particularly between CSC staff and community partners. Partners noted that currently the consent to disclose information procedure itself presents a barrier as often the information that is shared is limited or not timely for fear of violating information-sharing and privacy policies. These barriers result in a lack of timely and detailed information shared by CSC institutional staff with partners, particularly regarding mental health records and treatment records, and result in slower and less effective responses in addressing offender needs.

CSC staff were surveyed and asked whether they had any suggestions to enhance offender information sharing with community partners. Half of CSC staff (48%) suggested changes to the way CSC shares offender information with community partners including: improving technological lines of communication such as access to OMS and the use of video conferencing (41%); changing and improving information sharing policies and processes (24%); and increasing physical contact with communities through meetings with community partners. Of the community partners surveyed who indicated changes that could be made to the way CSC shares information with their organizations, one-in-five (20%) stated that CSC needs to be more proactive in the sharing of information (i.e. informants reported hearing about incidents through casual conversation rather than formal means) and they also indicated a need for a better process for consultation and feedback^{Footnote 14}.

Best Practices and Identified Gaps Working with Specific Groups of Community Partners

The following sections will present the individual views of Legislated Partners in a disaggregated format.

1. Legislated and Policy Directed Partners

As discussed in the background section, CSC's legislated and policy directed partners consists of CACs, PBC and internal committees such as the NAAC and NEAC. This section will report results from CACs and PBC but there is insufficient information to report on NAAC and NEAC.

FINDING 8: CAC members are engaged in a wide variety of activities that assist CSC by contributing to the correctional process, notably through interacting with CSC staff, the public and offenders, and providing impartial advice and recommendations to CSC.

Section 4 (f) of the CCRA (1992) mandates "that the Service facilitate the involvement of members of the public in matters relating to the operations of the Service."

This involvement can take the form of volunteer participation generally or through participation in a CAC which promotes and facilitates the involvement of community members into operations of CSC (CSC, 2003; CSC, 1997). As outlined in Commissioner's Directive 23: Citizen Advisory Committees, the roles and responsibilities of CACs are:

• Advisors: who provide impartial advice to CSC managers on the operation of correctional facilities and their impact on surrounding communities;
• Observers: who provide impartial feedback on the day-to-day activities and operations of CSC;
• Liaisons: who liaise with CSC staff and offenders and their representatives, other organizations including criminal justice and advocacy groups and the community to address correctional issues; and,
• Supporter: who educate the public about CSC, address public concerns, and build community support for the correctional process.

There are currently close to 500 citizens involved in approximately 100 CACs across Canada (CSC, 2009d). The voluntary members of CACs represent various social, cultural, and demographic backgrounds and occupations, and usually reside in proximity to CSC operational unit for which the committee serves (CSC, 2009b). Members are volunteers who are appointed for a period of two years, by the director, warden or parole representative of the CSC. Members of CACs "believe in the rights of all citizens to become informed participants in the correctional process, contributing to the quality of the process and of the decisions made within it" (CSC, 2011h).

Collaboration/Consultation between CSC and CACs

The role of CACs is critical in assisting CSC to operate with openness and integrity (CSC, 2010b). CACs operate in most CSC facilities and provide advice to the sites regarding their activities (CSC, 2010b). CACs provide feedback to CSC on the implementation of some of the recommendations from the Review Panel Report (CSC, 2010b) and are regularly consulted on various subject areas including: the parole process and reintegration of offenders; dangerous offenders and long-term supervision orders; the role of Victim Services; and, offenders with mental disorders (CSC, 2010b).

CAC members provide CSC with invaluable assistance by contributing positively to the correctional process by interacting with CSC staff, the public and offenders, and providing impartial advice and recommendations to CSC. The three most commonly reported activities of CAC members were: "having regular meetings and discussions with CSC managers and staff" (75%); "regular visits to CSC facilities and programs" (55%); and, "being well informed on the correctional process and other components of the criminal justice system" (51%). For additional detail on CAC activities, including comparisons of these activities between 2004 to 2012, please refer to Table D10 in Appendix D (Citizen Advisory Committee Activities).

The Parole Board of Canada, as part of the criminal justice system, makes independent conditional release and record suspension decisions. The Board contributes to the protection of society by facilitating the timely reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens" (PBC, 2012).

Information Sharing between CSC and PBC

To gain an understanding of how different types of information are shared between the two organizations, CSC staff and PBC Board Members surveyed were asked about the efficient use of time and resources used to share information. Generally, CSC staff (range 84%-94%) and PBC Board Members (range 64%-88%) agreed that offender information is shared between CSC and PBC Board members in an efficient manner (see Table D9 Appendix D). When CSC staff asked about the ways in which CSC could improve information sharing between PBC, suggestions included streamlining the information sharing process with PBC (i.e. paperless information sharing, address technological limitations) and providing Parole Officers with more support (such as a staff member who is responsible for gathering and sharing information).

2. Supportive and Rehabilitative Partners

Community Residential Facilities (CRFs) are the only supportive and rehabilitative partners that the current evaluation collected sufficient data upon which to present results separately. CRFs "exist to promote the successful reintegration of offenders into the community and contribute to the management of risk by ensuring that suitable accommodation, support systems, and monitoring are in place to assist conditionally released individuals become law-abiding citizens" (CSC, 2012g). The majority of CRFs are operated by non-profit organizations and work under contract with CSC. CRFs are governed by a set of minimum standards that have been established by CSC to promote consistence of operation across the country and to ensure critical security features. The Parole Board of Canada may require an offender to reside in a CRF in order to facilitate the successful reintegration of the offender into society and to protect society from undue risk.

Information sharing and collaboration between CSC and CRFs

FINDING 9: CSC and CRF staff reported regular consultation and reported that information sharing is done in an efficient manner. However, improvements could be made by consulting with CRF staff earlier in the release planning phase and enhanced use of OMS by CRF staff.

Almost three-quarters of CSC staff (74%) and CRF staff (70%) surveyed agreed that clear processes and procedures exist for information sharing between CSC and CRFs. Both, CSC and CRF staff reported high levels of information sharing through OMS, however, a need for additional face-to-face meetings as a means of information sharing between CSC and CRFs was highlighted through focus group discussions with CSC staff and community partners.

The vast majority of CSC staff (ranging from 83%-88%) and CRF staff (range 62%-90%) surveyed reported that offender information is shared between CSC and CRFs in a manner that promotes efficient use of time and resources (see Table D8 in Appendix D).

CSC staff and CRF staff were surveyed and asked whether they agreed that CRF staff are consulted by case management teams on a regular basis. The vast majority of CSC staff (86%) and CRF staff (80%) both agreed that CRF staff are consulted by case management teams on a regular basis. Considering that CRF staff see offenders more than Parole Officers do, CSC staff who participated in focus groups reported that offenders often present to the Parole Officer what they want them to see, whereas the community partners are more likely to see the "true picture."

Partners in focus group discussions pointed out that a gap in the information sharing process between CSC and CRFs pertained to the fact that halfway house staff are often not invited to be part of the case management team preparation with CSC staff or meet with the institutional Parole Officer prior to release. Partners stressed frustration pertaining to this and indicated that they feel they have limited input in the development of offenders release plans. Partners indicated that increased communication between institutional staff and community partners as well as increased institutional visits could facilitate better release plans for offenders.

CSC staff were surveyed and asked whether they had any suggestions to enhance offender information sharing with CRF staff. The most frequent suggestion made by CSC staff for enhancing information sharing with CRF staff was improvements in and access to information sharing technology (such as OMS) for CRF staff (30%); and the most frequent suggestion made by partners surveyed was that the communication needs to be improved through the use of consistent case conferences^{Footnote 15}.

Gaps in collaboration and engagement between CSC and CRFs

FINDING 10: CRF staff noted gaps in their ability to provide sufficient facilities and services to offenders with specific needs, such as those with mental health issues, women offenders with children, and older offenders with physical health needs.

CSC staff who participated in focus groups, highlighted the importance of ensuring offenders have access to adequate housing. Halfway houses were identified as a successful area of collaboration between CSC and the community. However, staff and supervisors noted that more funding is needed to provide sufficient residential facilities to support offenders with specific needs such as those with mental health issues, women offenders with children, and older offenders with physical health needs. Similarly, less than half of CRF staff surveyed felt that CSC's residency options were adequate for, older offenders (47%), offenders with mental disorders (43%) and women offenders with children (36%)

3. Victims

FINDING 11: Legislation and policies exist regarding collaboration and information sharing with victims, and victims are largely pleased with victim services. Additionally, pilot projects attempting to better integrate victim services across government departments have been initiated.

The rights of victims in the justice system have become more prominent over the last 30 years and this includes the right to obtain information concerning the offender of the crime of which they are a victim (Statistics Canada, 2009). CSC is mandated by law to provide services to victims of crime (CCRA, 1992, s. 26). Section 26 of the CCRA outlines CSC's responsibility to disclose, upon request by a victim, specific information about the offender (i.e., the offender's name, the offence for which the offender was convicted, length of the sentence that the offender is serving, and eligibility and review dates with respect to temporary absences or parole)^{Footnote 16} According to Commissioner's Directive 784: Information Sharing between victims and the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC, 2010c), victims of crime are entitled to receive information concerning the offender responsible for the crime committed against them if they meet the definition of "victim" set out in the CCRA^{Footnote 17}, and register as a victim with CSC and PBC CSC, 2010c). Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, came into force in June 2012 and made changes to a number of laws, including the CCRA to increase the accountability of federal offenders and tighten the rules governing conditional release, while promoting the interests and the role of victims in the correctional process. Changes to the CCRA include a broadening of the definition of who is a victim; an increase in the types of information that CSC and PBC may share with registered victims; and the establishment of the right for a victim to make a statement at parole hearings.

As of March 31, 2011, there were 6,940 registered victims who have registered with CSC (CSC, 2011c).

Information Sharing between CSC and Victims

Information sharing with victims is coordinated by the National Victim Services Program (NVSP) at CSC which was created in 2007 to address the needs of victims. The sharing of information with victims is initiated mainly through a publicly accessible internet portal that informs victims of crime about how to both register with CSC Victims Services and provide a victim statement. The Victim Services Unit of CSC's Citizen Engagement Division offers leadership in responding to victim concerns and supports CSC operational objectives related to victims and provides information services to victims.

The National Victim Services Program (NVSP) was evaluated in 2010 and results indicated that the majority of victims surveyed were satisfied with the programs accessibility (67%, n = 372) and the quality of information provided by the NVSP (82%, n = 445: PBC, 2010).

It is also important to note that since the implementation of CSC's Victim Services Units in 2007, service duplication has been noted as a concern between the services provided to victims between CSC and PBC. One of the recommendations contained within the CSC Review Panel was that services to victims be reviewed to ensure that resources are maximized, possible duplication of services avoided, and service gaps be eliminated (Recommendation 85) (CSC, 2010b). The Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime has also advocated for a more seamless approach to service delivery for victims.

Although each agency has a specific mandate according to the CCRA for working with victims, both CSC and PBC recognize that there are areas of shared responsibility and service delivery that could be further streamlined. From this, in 2008 CSC and PBC began discussing issues and approaches to better coordinate information services provided to victims. Since that time, a number of initiatives have been undertaken to ensure a more coordinated approach to their work with victims.

CSC and PBC are working cooperatively on pilot projects that were initiated in January 2010, focusing on streamlining the delivery of victim information services by both agencies (CSC 2012h). These projects in the Atlantic and Pacific regions are exploring the feasibility of delivering these services jointly. The overarching goals of the pilot projects are to provide a more seamless service delivery to victims and to achieve organizational efficiencies by reducing duplication and/or gaps in service delivery.

Given that the majority of CSC offenders are ultimately released into the community, CSC recognizes that enhanced public awareness is critical to a community's willingness to support offenders in their safe reintegration into the community (CSC, 2009a). CSC's Review Panel for the Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety (CSC Review Panel, 2007) stated that when Canadians know more about the federal correctional system, they have more confidence in it. As such, CSC has taken several initiatives to promote community corrections activities.

Previous evaluations found that Canadians possessed little confidence in the criminal justice system (Public Safety Canada, 2011). Overall, the general public tends to hold more negative than positive attitudes toward the criminal justice system in Canada in comparison with other public institutions such as healtcscare or education (Roberts, 2004). Within the criminal justice system, the general public consistently report higher levels of confidence in police agencies than in the courts, corrections and parole (Tufts, 2000; Mirrlees-Black, 2001; Stein, 2001; Roberts, 2004; Gannon, 2005).

The courts, corrections and parole are less visible than policing organizations and for this reason the public do not possess sufficient knowledge pertaining to these areas which contributes significantly to public misperception. The general public report greater levels of confidence in corrections to control and supervise offenders inside institutions as opposed to their ability to rehabilitate and prepare offenders for release (Gannon, 2005; Page, 2004). In addition, public confidence is low regarding the ability of corrections to effectively supervise offenders in the community (Roberts, 2004).

CSC's Promotional Activities

As indicated, effective community corrections relies on partnerships and community support. Enhanced knowledge of the work that CSC performs is expected to enhance the public's confidence and in turn enhance the community's willingness to support offenders in their safe reintegration into the community. Between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, Public Safety Canada initiated 59 Public Education/Citizen Engagement activities intended to provide Canadians opportunities to exchange views about the criminal justice system and promote public awareness and inform communities about criminal justice matters (Public Safety Canada, 2011)

These activities include public dialogue and engagement events, publications, information tools and conferences/presentations. In total, 1,558 people were engaged through conferences and presentations and a further 39, 200 people were reached through publications and information tools (Public Safety Canada, 2011). Public Safety Canada (2011) conducted an evaluation of Public Education/Citizen Engagement activities which yielded mixed results. Some evidence suggested that public confidence has been improved as a result of these activities; however, it cannot be determined whether these results can be generalized to all Public Education/Citizen Engagement activities (Public Safety Canada, 2011).

CSC has also established mechanisms to enhance public awareness, confidence, and enhance the community capacity building for offenders in the community. Several consultation groups have been established to ensure citizen engagement in the provision of community correctional services and programs: Citizen Advisory Committees (CAC), The National Ethno Cultural Advisory Committee (NEAC), and Regional Ethno Cultural Advisory Committees (REAC; CSC, 2009; CSC, 2010b). The National Ethno Cultural Advisory Committee (NEAC) and Regional Ethno Cultural Advisory Committees (REAC) are involved in meetings and forums within and outside ethno cultural organizations to raise awareness and enhance the availability of community resources for ethno cultural offenders (CSC, 2010b). As a result, correctional approaches are better able to meet the specific needs of ethno cultural offenders to prepare them for safe community reintegration.

Perceived effectiveness of CSC's promotional activities

Only one in five (21%) CSC staff surveyed and two in five (40%) community partners agreed that CSC effectively promotes community correctional activities to the general public. When asked about the effectiveness of CSC's use of promotional strategies with the general public, two-thirds of CSC staff (67%) and community partners (63%) surveyed indicated that CACs were an effective promotional strategy. CSC staff also indicated that the Speakers Bureau and the Community Forum Program were effective promotional strategies (46% & 44%, respectively); while community partners indicated that the Community Forum Program and CSC media releases were effective (53% & 43%, respectively). The Speakers Bureau is a national database that provides profiles of CSC staff that are registered and able to participate in speaking engagements to a variety of agencies on their topics of expertise and the Community Forum Program provides selected registered non-profit applicants the opportunity to organize a criminal justice forum in their community. Both CSC initiatives are intended to enhance public knowledge of the work CSC performs.

Best Practices to Promote CSC's Community Corrections Activities

During focus group discussions, CSC staff noted that CSC is making a good effort at highlighting success stories but that their efforts are often thwarted by negative media publications. Both CSC staff and community partners stated that positive community correctional results are not often shared with the public. Consistent with the views voiced by partners, some institutional staff suggested that improving the profile of CSC within the community could be achieved by developing strategies to increase public awareness surrounding offender success stories and the role of CSC, specifically Parole Officers' roles in crime prevention, and by proactively addressing public misperceptions about crime and offenders. With respect to emphasizing the importance of community corrections to the public, focus group sessions with community partners indicated that both CSC and partners need to raise public awareness of community corrections and the importance of offender rehabilitation and reintegration. Some partners indicated that CSC and partners should collaborate on public education activities.

FINDING 12: The cost of maintaining offenders in the community is significantly lower than in institutions. Although analysis of the cost effectiveness of community engagement could not be performed, mechanisms such as community engagement supporting the gradual transition of offenders into the community are favoured.

As previously indicated in the financial resource section of the current report, CSC spent approximately $7.3 million on community engagement activities in FY 2010-2011, accounting for 0.37% of direct program spending. Community engagement activities included victim services, volunteers and citizen engagement activities. As previously examined in Chapter 2 of the Community Corrections Evaluation, the cost of maintaining an offender in a CRF is significantly lower than in an institution. In 2008-2009, the cost of maintaining an offender in a CRF was on average $139.60^{Footnote 18} per day, whereas the cost of maintaining an offender in a medium security institution was approximately $256.76^{Footnote 19} per day; yielding a cost savings of $117.16 per offender each day (CSC, 2008, COMO 2008-2009)^{Footnote 20}.

The nature of the community engagement activities is not something that can be examined through OMS data analysis. As previous research has also discovered, it is extremely difficult to identify and measure all activities and resources that are relevant to the outcomes of community engagement activities (Carr- Hill, R. & Street, A., 2008). For instance, researchers have noted several difficulties when trying to evaluate economy and cost-efficiency when it comes to community engagement activities, specifically:

1. Identifying and costing activities and specifically the costs of volunteer time;
2. Identifying and measuring benefits;
3. Attribution of any changes in community to the approaches and methods of community engagement; and,
4. Measuring success/achievement of desired outcomes (Carr- Hill, R. & Street, A., 2008).

There was limited data collected regarding the specific community engagement activities and the trends in their occurrence across time which prevented any analysis. However, the Community Engagement Division is currently developing a performance measurement strategy to consistently report on community engagement activities and outcomes. As such, it may be possible to perform efficiency and effectiveness analysis for citizen engagement activities in the future, but it was not possible at this time. However, CSC staff and community partners were asked economy related questions regarding community engagement activities through an online questionnaire. Respondents generally recognized that community engagement activities are necessary in providing the community supports that are vital to the successful reintegration of offenders, but this relationship and engagement is intangible and as such difficult to measure.

When asked to what extent CSC distributes resources (financial and human) to community partners in an efficient manner, almost half (45%) of CSC staff and over half (55%) of community partners stated that CSC distributes resources effectively. Among staff and community partners surveyed who disagreed (16% and 23%, respectively), a lack of funding provided to community partners to administer programs to offenders and a lack of resources for offenders with specific cultural attributes, were the reasons cited for such disagreement.

Community partners play an essential role in supporting correctional activities on multiple levels. Overall, community partners support the safe reintegration of offenders into the community. Supportive and rehabilitative partners working directly with offenders in the community provide programming, housing, and support to facilitate their reintegration into the community. In addition, legislative and policy directed partners also work directly with offenders, as well as in collaboration with CSC's regional and national offices to inform the development of CSC's policies and procedures. With the majority of offenders being eventually released back into the community (90%; Public Safety Canada, 2010), it is imperative that CSC establish positive and reciprocal relationships with Canadian communities, partners and stakeholders. Community partners assist offenders in their transition to the community on a daily basis, and play an integral role in connecting offenders with the appropriate community resources in preparation for their warrant expiry date.

Promotion of community correctional activities and public awareness are important components of the offender reintegration process. Research has shown that when Canadians know more about the federal correctional system, they have more confidence in it. As such, CSC recognizes that enhanced public awareness is critical to a community's willingness to support offenders in their safe reintegration into the community and therefore continues to promote community correctional activities through community forums, consultations with the public and community organizations.

Overall, community engagement is an essential component of the successful reintegration of offenders into the community. While recommendations will be presented in Chapter 4 of the Community Corrections Evaluation, with a focus on legislated and policy directed partners, supportive and rehabilitative partners, and victims, potential areas of opportunity have been identified in the area of community engagement. The need for increased stability of, and timely access to, funding for supportive and rehabilitative partners pertaining to community programs and services was underscored by key informants. Increased attention and funding for pre-release planning was another topic that, as observed in Chapter 2, was repeatedly identified by large proportions of CSC staff and community partners. Specifically, there is a need for funding to increase in-reach activities of community partners in the institutions. Community partners stress that release planning should begin at intake but identify that additional resources for in-reach activities is essential. Moreover, staff and community partners identified the need for improved communication, particularly in relation to release planning, between Institutional and Community Parole Officers as well as between Community Parole Officers and community partners. Lastly, partners and staff indicated that in addition to the successful engagement of new partners, increased emphasis and focus should also be placed on the sustainability of current partners and the development of these existing relationships.

The goal of community correctional operations is to provide effective community reintegration. Supervising offenders in the community is most cost-effective. If CSC invests in community engagement to enhance programs and services for offenders in the community, then it is possible that enhanced correctional results will follow. Although the cost-effectiveness of this collaboration could not be adequately measured in this evaluation, community engagement is vital to the achievement of CSC mission and supports the sixth corporate priority.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2007). Research Highlights; housing options upon discharge from correctional facilities. Vol. 7 (1) Ottawa, ON. Author.

Carr- Hill, R. & Street, A. (2008). Economic analysis of cost-effectiveness of community engagement to improve health, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, UK.

Correctional Service Canada. (1997). Commissioner's Directive 775: Volunteers and Volunteer Activities. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2001). Commissioner's Directive 767: Ethnocultural Offender Programs. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada. (2003). Commissioner's Directive 023: Citizen's Advisory Committees. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2006). Ten-Year Status Report on Women's Corrections 1996-2006). Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2006A). Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections: Innovation, learning and Adjustment: 2006-07 to 2010-11. Ottawa, ON: Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2007). Volunteers. Retrieved on June 13, 2012 from: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/benevols/index-eng.shtml

Correctional Service Canada Review Panel (2007). A Roadmap to strengthening Public Safety. (Cat. No. PS84-14/2007E), Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Governments Services Canada.

Correctional Service Canada (2008). Review of Community-based Residential Facilities in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2009a). 2008-2009 Departmental Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2009b). Reference Handbook: Volunteering in the Correctional Service Canada. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada (2009c). The Changing Federal Offender Population: Highlights 2009, Retrieved on April 30, 2012 from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/special_reports/sr2009/sr-2009-eng.shtml

Correctional Service Canada (2009d). Volunteer Participation in the Correctional Service of Canada: Who are our Volunteers? Retrieved on June 13, 2012 from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/benevols/vols/2-eng.shtml

Correctional Service Canada (2010a). 2009-2010 Departmental Performance Report. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Service Canada (2010b). Annual report 2008-2009, 2009-2010 Citizen Advisory Committee. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2010c). Commissioner's Directive 784: Information Sharing between Victims and the Correctional Service of Canada. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2010d). The Transformation Agenda: Report on Key Elements of the Correctional Continuum. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service of Canada (2011a). 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities. Ottawa, ON: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Correctional Services Canada (2011b). Citizen engagement directorate. In Communications and engagement. Retrieved on February 2, 2012 from CSC's internal website.

Correctional Service Canada (2011c). Community Engagement-PMF Outcomes and Performance Indicator Data: From April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011. Ottawa, ON: Internal Document.

Correctional Service Canada (2011d). Evaluation Report: Community Corrections Chapter 1: Correctional Interventions (File 394-2-84) Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2011e). Evaluation Report :Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections. Chapter One: Aboriginal Healing Lodges (File 394-2-49) Ottawa, ON: Author. .

Correctional Service of Canada (2011f). Federal Community Corrections Strategy- Vision to 2020. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2011g). Information Sharing With Partners. Retrieved on May 17, 2012 from CSC's internal website.

Correctional Service Canada (2011h). The CAC Mission. Retrieved on May 17, 2012 from
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/cac/mission-eng.shtml

Correctional Service of Canada (2011j). Volunteer Programs. Retrieved on May 17, 2012 from CSC's internal website.

Correctional Service Canada (2012a). Citizen Engagement Directorate. Retrieved on May 15, 2012 from CSC's internal website.

Correctional Service Canada (2012b). Commissioner's Directive 702: Aboriginal Offenders. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2012c). Commissioner's Directive 701: Information Sharing. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2012d). Commissioner's Directive 715-2: Post Release Decision Process. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Correctional Service Canada (2012e). Guidelines for Sharing Personal Health Information. Ottawa, ON. Author.

Correctional Service of Canada (2012f). InfoPol. Retrieved on May 17, 2012 from CSC's internal website.

Correctional Service Canada (2012g). Statement of Work, Community Residential Facilities. Retrieved on May 17, 2012 from CSC's internal website.

Correctional Services Canada (2012h). Streamlining Victim Information Services, Correctional Service of Canada and Parole Board of Canada, Framework for the Review the Regional Pilot Projects.

Correctional Service of Canada (2012i). Volunteers. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/benevols/index-eng.shtml on February 12, 2013.

Conditions and Conditional Release Act, R.S.C. 1992, c.20.

Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations, SOR/92-620.

Department of Justice (1985) Privacy Act (R.S.C., 1985, c.P-21). Retrieved on July 26, 2012 from
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21/page-3.html#docCont

Gannon, M. (2005). General Social Survey on Victimization, Cycle 18: An overview of findings - 2004. Statistics Canada, Ministry of Industry.

Government of Canada (2010). Speech From The Throne: A Stronger Canada. A Stronger Economy. Now and for the Future. 3 March 2010 Ottawa, Ontario.

MacGuigan, M. (1977). Report to Parliament: The sub-Committee on the Penitentiary System in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.

Mirrlees-Black, C. (2001). Confidence in the Criminal Justice System: Findings from the 2000 British Crime Survey. Home Office Research, Development and Statistical Directorate. Research Findings, no. 137. Retrieved on Jan 31st, 2009 from http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/crimereductionprogramms2.htm

National Association Active in Criminal Justice (2012a). About us. Retrieved on June 13, 2012 from:
http://www.naacj.org/en/about_us_history.php

National Associations Active in Criminal Justice (2012b). Mission Statement and Objectives. Retrieved on May 11, 2012 from
http://www.naacj.org/en/about_us_mission.php

Page, B., Wake, R., & Ames, A. (2004). Public confidence in the criminal justice system. Home Office Research, Development and Statistical Directorate.

Parole Board of Canada (2010). Evaluation Report: Federal Victims Strategy. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Parole Board of Canada (2012). Welcome to the Parole Board of Canada. Retrieved on June 13, 2012 from:
http://pbc-clcc.gc.ca/index-eng.shtml.

Public Safety Canada (2010). Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview: Annual Report 2010. (Cat no. PS1-3/2010E-PDF). Ottawa, ON: Author.

Public Safety Canada (2011). Evaluation Report: Effective Corrections and Citizen Engagement Initiatives. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Remarks for Wayne G. Wouters for Collaborative Culture Camp. (October 2010) .

Roberts, J. R., (2004). Public Confidence in Criminal Justice: A Review of Recent Trends 2004-05. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

Statistics Canada (2009). Victim Services in Canada: National, Provincial and Territorial Fact Sheets. (Catalogue no. 85-003-X) Ottawa, ON: Author.

Stein, K. (2001). Public Perception of Crime and Justice in Canada: A Review of Opinion Polls. Ottawa, ON: Department of Justice Canada.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2009). Policy on Evaluation. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Tufts, J. (2000). Public Attitudes Toward the Criminal Justice System. Juristat, 20 (12). Cat. no. 85-002-XIE. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.