THE PRIORITY PROLIFIC OFFENDER PROGRAM: FINDINGS FROM THE FINAL YEAR OF THE PROGRAM EVALUATION

Transcription

1 THE PRIORITY PROLIFIC OFFENDER PROGRAM: FINDINGS FROM THE FINAL YEAR OF THE PROGRAM EVALUATION Submitted to: Alberta Justice and Solicitor General Submitted by: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family Prepared by: Lorne D. Bertrand, Ph.D. Leslie D. MacRae-Krisa, M.A. Joanne J. Paetsch, B.A. John-Paul E. Boyd, M.A., LL.B. August 2017

2 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Alberta Justice and Solicitor General.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables and Figures... vii Executive Summary... x Acknowledgements... xxiv 1.0 Introduction Background Objectives of PPOP Process Analysis Report Process and Outcomes Evaluation Purpose of this Report Organization of the Report Methodology Research Questions Methods Retrospective Analysis Longitudinal Analysis Limitations Retrospective Sample Introduction Criminal History Prior to PPOP Selection Selection to PPOP Grounds for Detention...19 iii

4 3.5 Deselection from PPOP Convictions Before, During and After the Program Longitudinal Sample Program Entry Data Introduction Background Information Criminal History Prior to PPOP Selection Selection to PPOP Substance Abuse Issues at PPOP Selection Mental Health Issues at PPOP Selection Medical and Dental Issues at PPOP Selection Employment and Education Characteristics at PPOP Selection Housing Characteristics and Other Needs at PPOP Selection Service Referrals as Part of PPOP Case Plan Longitudinal Sample Program Exit Data Introduction Background Information Criminal Activity While in PPOP Motivation and Family/Community Support Substance Abuse Issues at PPOP Deselection Mental Health Issues at PPOP Deselection Medical and Dental Issues at PPOP Deselection Employment and Education Characteristics at PPOP Deselection...52 iv

5 5.9 Housing Characteristics and Other Needs at PPOP Deselection Service Referrals While in PPOP Staff Survey Introduction PPOP Processes PPOP Growth and Sustainability Stakeholder Survey Introduction Sample Survey Results Perceptions of Police Officers and Police Analysts Perceptions of Crown Prosecutors Perceptions of Treatment/Service Providers Perceptions of Probation Officers Perceptions of Defence Counsel Views on PPOP Selection Criteria Perceptions of PPOP s Impact and Future Additional Comments Social Return on Investment Analysis Introduction Social Return on Investment The SROI Process Establishing Scope and Identifying Key Stakeholders Mapping Outcomes Evidencing Outcomes and Giving Them a Value Establishing Impact Calculating the SROI Reporting, Using, and Embedding SROI Analysis Issues and Limitations...82 v

6 8.5 SROI Calculation Value of Annual Investment Social Value Creation Summary and Discussion Introduction Summary Retrospective Sample Longitudinal Sample Staff Survey Stakeholder Survey Social Return on Investment Analysis Discussion What are the Profiles of PPOP Clients at Each Program Location at the Point of Selection into the Program? Are There Differences in Clients Offending Patterns Prior to PPOP Entry at Each Program Location? Are the PPOP Selection Criteria Being Followed? What Service Referrals are PPOP Clients Receiving as Part of Their Case Plan? Are There Differences in the Reasons for Deselection across Program Locations? Has Reoffending for PPOP Clients Decreased While They Are in the Program? Has Reoffending for PPOP Clients Decreased After They Are Deselected from the Program? How Have Staff and Stakeholders Views of PPOP Changed Over the Past Three Years? What is the Social Value Created by PPOP? Recommendations References Glossary Appendix A: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Appendix B: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Appendix C: Staff Survey Appendix D: Stakeholder Survey vi

7 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Page Table 1.1: PPOP Logic Model...8 Figure 3.1: Program Location for the Retrospective Sample...14 Table 3.1: Average Number of Convictions during the Five Years Prior to PPOP Selection, by Program Location and Offence Type...15 Table 3.2: Summary of Offender Criminal History Characteristics, by Program Location...16 Table 3.3: Program Selection Criteria at Intake, by Program Location...18 Table 3.4: Offender Criminal History at Referral, by Program Location...19 Figure 3.2: Average Number of Convictions on Primary and Secondary Grounds Charges, by Program Location...20 Table 3.5: Reasons for Deselection, by Program Location...21 Table 3.6: Average Number of Convictions/Month Before, During and After PPOP, by Program Location...23 Figure 3.3: Average Number of Convictions/Month Before, During and After PPOP, for the Calgary Police Service Program Location...24 Figure 3.4: Average Number of Convictions/Month Before, During and After PPOP, for the Edmonton Police Service Program Location...25 Figure 3.5: Average Number of Convictions/Month Before, During and After PPOP, for the RCMP Program Locations...25 Figure 4.1: Program Location for the Longitudinal Sample...28 Table 4.1: Demographic Characteristics of the Longitudinal Sample on Program Entry, by Program Location...28 Table 4.2: Average Number of Convictions Five Years Prior to PPOP Selection, by Program Location and Offence Type...30 vii

8 Figure 4.2: Offenders Level of Motivation upon Program Entry, by Program Location...31 Table 4.3: Program Selection Criteria at Intake, by Program Location...32 Figure 4.3: Offenders Level of Family/Community Support upon Program Entry, by Program Location...33 Table 4.4: Offenders Substance Use Characteristics on Program Entry, by Program Location...35 Table 4.5: Offenders Mental Health Characteristics on Program Entry...36 Table 4.6: Offenders Employment and Education Characteristics, by Program Location...38 Table 4.7: Offenders Housing Characteristics and Other Needs, by Program Location...40 Table 4.8: Service Referrals for Offenders, by Program Location...41 Figure 5.1: Program Location for Deselected Clients in the Longitudinal Sample...43 Table 5.1: Demographic Characteristics of Deselected Clients in the Longitudinal Sample at Program Exit...43 Table 5.2: Reason for Deselection from PPOP...44 Table 5.3: Average Number of Convictions While in PPOP by Offence Type...45 Figure 5.2: Average Number of Monthly Convictions for Deselected Clients in the Longitudinal Sample in the 5 Years Prior to Entry and During PPOP...46 Figure 5.3: Level of Motivation for Deselected Clients in the Longitudinal Sample at Selection to PPOP and Deselection from PPOP...47 Figure 5.4: Extent of Support System for Deselected Clients in the Longitudinal Sample at Selection to PPOP and Deselection from PPOP...47 Table 5.4: Deselected Offenders Substance Use Characteristics on Program Exit...49 Table 5.5: Deselected Offenders Mental Health Characteristics on Program Exit...51 Table 5.6: Deselected Offenders Employment and Education Characteristics...52 viii

9 Table 5.7: Deselected Offenders Housing Characteristics and Other Needs...53 Table 5.8: Service Referrals for Deselected Offenders While in PPOP...54 Table 6.1: Extent to Which Staff Agree with PPOP Goals...55 Table 6.2: Extent to Which Staff Agree with the Primary PPOP Selection Criteria...56 Table 6.3: Extent to Which Staff Agree with the Secondary PPOP Selection Criteria...57 Table 6.4: Staff Perceptions of Support Services...59 Table 6.5: Staff Perceptions of PPOP s Growth and Sustainability...61 Table 7.1: Stakeholder Survey Respondents Profession...65 Table 7.2: Location of Stakeholder Survey Respondents...65 Table 7.3: Means by which Police Officers and Analysts Refer Offenders to PPOP...66 Table 7.4: How Monitoring Information is Used, as Reported by Police Officers and Analysts...67 Table 7.5: Types of Services Provided to PPOP Offenders by Treatment/Service Providers...69 Table 7.6: Types of Services Needed for PPOP Offenders, as Reported by Probation Officers...72 Table 7.7: Extent to Which Police Officers, Police Analysts, Probation Officers, and Defence Counsel Agree that the PPOP Selection Criteria are Appropriate...74 Table 7.8: Stakeholders Level of Agreement with Whether PPOP Goals are Being Achieved...75 Table 7.9: Stakeholders Perceptions of the Impact and Future of PPOP...76 Table 8.1: Value of Annual Investment in PPOP for Longitudinal Sample...84 ix

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In response to a recommendation from Alberta s Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force, the Alberta Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, in partnership with the Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service and RCMP, developed and piloted the Priority Prolific Offender Program (PPOP) in The objectives of PPOP are to ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and upto-date information on prolific offenders, promote rehabilitation through the provision of appropriate support services, and ensure the consequences of offending and reoffending are meaningful. PPOP contracted the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family in 2012 to begin the first year of a three-year process and outcome evaluation involving multiple methodologies. The report from the first year of the process and outcome evaluation (MacRae-Krisa & Paetsch, 2013) used program data on offenders who had been deselected from the program, a survey of PPOP staff and a survey of PPOP stakeholders to re-examine program processes and, in particular, to provide a profile of the offenders in the program as a foundation for examining outcomes in the proposed second and third years of the evaluation. Following an internal review of the program in 2013, PPOP contracted the Institute to conduct the second year of the evaluation, and findings were presented in Bertrand, Paetsch, MacRae-Krisa, & Boyd (2015). That report included a comparison of clients at the program sites in Calgary, Edmonton and the RCMP locations. It also focused on updating the profile of individuals in a retrospective sample who had been PPOP clients and were subsequently deselected, and conducting comparisons across program sites. Further, the report examined these clients reoffending behaviour during their time in the program and after leaving it using data obtained from the Justice Online Information Network (JOIN) to determine the longer-term efficacy of PPOP in reducing offending behaviour. The results obtained when examining offending behaviour before, during and after the program for clients in the retrospective sample were extremely positive and strongly suggestive of the efficacy of PPOP in having a positive effect on individuals not only during their time in the program, but after deselection as well. Across all program locations, and for both substantive and administrative offences, the number of convictions during the program was substantially lower than in the five years prior to PPOP and, with the exception of substantive offences among EPS program clients, decreased even further or remained the same following deselection. x

11 Given the positive findings with regard to reoffending behaviour during offenders time in PPOP and after deselection, one of the recommendations made in the second-year outcome evaluation report was to continue the evaluation for one final year to determine whether the reduced offending behaviour is maintained over a longer period. The second-year report also recommended that a final evaluation year should include another wave of staff and stakeholder surveys to examine any changes in knowledge and perceptions of the program over the intervening period. It was also recommended that a final evaluation year should include a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis to examine the social value created by PPOP. In 2016, PPOP contracted the Institute to conduct a final year of the evaluation of the program, and the current report presents the findings. It includes comparisons across program locations and provides analyses of program clients in both the retrospective and longitudinal samples. The report also discusses findings from the latest wave of staff and stakeholder surveys, and presents an SROI analysis of the program. The objectives of the report are to: (1) report findings from the retrospective longitudinal sample, including offending behaviour before, during and after the program; (2) report findings from the program entry and program exit forms for the longitudinal sample; (3) examine any differences in offender characteristics and program procedures across program locations; (4) analyze views of program staff and stakeholders, and examine any changes in opinions and knowledge of the program in the three years since the last surveys; (5) examine the social value created by PPOP by conducting a SROI analysis; and (6) make recommendations for the program as it moves forward. Methodology The present report utilizes two methodologies to examine characteristics of PPOP clients at the time of their program entry and following their deselection from the program. The retrospective time series analysis is designed to focus on collecting information about the offenders who entered the program prior to 1 November 2012 and who have subsequently exited the program to determine whether their offending behaviour appeared to be altered by the program. As of 30 September 2106, 79 offenders were in the retrospective sample. xi

12 In addition, a pre-test post-test longitudinal sample was identified. This sample includes all offenders selected into PPOP after 1 November An Offender Entry Data Collection Form was completed by program personnel upon an offender s selection into the program. An Offender Exit Data Collection Form was developed to be completed by program personnel upon an offender s deselection from PPOP. As of 30 September 2016, 28 offenders in the longitudinal sample had been deselected from the program. Conclusions Findings from the final year of a comprehensive evaluation of PPOP provided many insights into the effectiveness of the program and yielded further evidence of the efficacy of PPOP in reducing its clients offending behaviour. The following sections discuss highlight of the findings from the final year using the research questions presented developed for the evaluation as a guiding framework. What are the Profiles of PPOP Clients at Each Program Location at the Point of Selection into the Program? A total of 79 offenders had been selected into PPOP prior to 1 November 2012 and had been deselected by 30 September 2016; this group formed the retrospective sample for the evaluation. Just over 40% of the sample entered the EPS program location, while 32% were at the RCMP-N location, 23% were based at the CPS site, and 5% were at the RCMP-S location. The longitudinal sample for the evaluation was composed of 78 offenders who entered the program after 1 November The majority of these offenders were at the RCMP-S and RCMP-N locations (28% and 27%, respectively). Since offenders have to be deselected from the program to be assigned to the retrospective sample, it appears that historically, the RCMP-S site was less likely to deselect offenders from their program. However, the RCMP-S location had the highest proportion of offenders deselected from the longitudinal sample, suggesting that, as the program has matured, this site has experienced greater turnover in its clients. Age of program clients at the time of their selection into PPOP was quite similar across program locations for the retrospective sample and ranged from 33.7 years at the CPS site to 30.6 years at the RCMP locations. However, average age of offenders in the longitudinal sample was considerably higher at the EPS location (40.8 years) than at the other program locations, with the second highest average age being 33.8 years at the CPS site. The Offender Entry Data Collection Form implemented for the longitudinal sample collects information on the length of time that offenders spend on the wait list for the program before entering it. A comparison of data from the 2014 report and the present analysis indicated that the CPS and RCMP sites have made substantial progress in decreasing wait times. In the 2014 analysis, CPS clients spent an average of 23.8 days xii

13 on the waitlist; in the current report, this has decreased to 6.3 days. Although not as substantial a difference, clients at the combined RCMP sites spent an average of 7.5 days on the wait list in the 2014 analysis; in the current report, this has decreased to 3.4 days at the RCMP-N site and 2.4 days at the RCMP-S location. Program personnel were asked to rate clients motivation levels at the time of their entry into the program for the longitudinal sample. The majority of clients were rated as having low motivation and this ranged from 50% at the CPS location to 64% at the RCMP-S location. While these proportions tend to be even higher than they were in the 2014 report, it is encouraging that 9% of the total longitudinal sample were rated as being very motivated in the current analysis, compared to no clients in In line with a recommendation made in the 2014 evaluation report, PPOP changed the names of the mandatory and discretionary selection criteria for the program to primary and secondary criteria in recognition of the fact that some offenders were selected into the program without having met all of the mandatory criteria. For the retrospective sample, the combined RCMP sites were most likely to accept clients who had not met all primary criteria and for the longitudinal sample, the RCMP-S site was most likely to do so. In the retrospective sample, only 6% of program clients met the secondary criterion that their offending behaviour is correlated to mental illness; this percentage had risen to 22% for clients in the longitudinal sample. This suggests that the proportion of clients with mental health issues was underreported for the retrospective sample and that the program has made progress in identifying these issues among its clients. Program personnel were asked to provide information on clients substance abuse issues upon selection to the program for the longitudinal sample. Across all program sites, a considerably higher proportion of program clients had a confirmed addiction in the current analysis (78%) than did in the 2014 report (56%), and a considerably higher proportion also had their level of addiction rated as severe (63% compared to 40%). Clients at the RCMP-N location were most likely to have a confirmed addiction this year, while in the 2014 report EPS clients were most likely to have a confirmed addiction. Despite the increased number of PPOP clients with confirmed addictions, a higher proportion of clients in the 2014 report had received treatment (60%) than in the present report (44%). A number of stakeholders commented on the lack of appropriate addictions resources available for PPOP clients, and this, along with a lack of motivation among offenders to address their substance abuse issues, may have contributed to both the increase of addictions and the decrease in addictions treatment. Indeed, 51% of offenders were rated as having low motivation to address substance use issues in the present analysis, compared to 30% in the 2014 report. Also, despite the increase in addictions, the proportion of PPOP clients who were going to be provided with residential treatment, individual counselling, or group counselling through the program was considerably lower this year than in the 2014 xiii

14 report, again perhaps due to a shortage of appropriate resources to which offenders can be referred. With regard to income and employment, a substantially larger proportion of offenders in the longitudinal sample had no income in the present analysis (51%) compared to the 2014 report (35%). Offenders from the CPS program site were the most likely to have employment income in both analyses. Across program sites, a slightly higher proportion of clients were unemployed in the present analysis (79%) than reported in 2014 (74%). Despite the slight increase unemployment rates, the proportion of offenders with employment goals as part of their case plan was substantially lower in the current analysis (28%) than reported in 2014 (46%). In terms of highest level of education attained, a larger proportion of offenders in the longitudinal sample in the present analysis had completed some high school (65%) than in the 2014 report (54.2%), while considerably fewer had training in a trade or some university education (12%) than in 2014 (25%). Despite the lower levels of education reported in this analysis, fewer offenders had educational goals as part of their case plan (12%) than reported in 2014 (19%). Housing arrangements for offenders in the longitudinal sample at the time of selection into PPOP were very similar in the current analysis and as reported in Just under one-half of offenders at both time periods were in custody at the time of their selection, and just under one-third were living with family or friends. A higher proportion were renting their own home in the present analysis (16%) than in the 2014 report (8%). A slightly higher proportion had housing goals as part of their case plan in the current analysis (22%) than in the 2014 report (19%). Are There Differences in Clients Offending Patterns Prior to PPOP Entry at Each Program Location? Offending patterns of PPOP clients in the retrospective sample during the five years prior to program entry were examined to determine if there were any differences across program locations. Across all program locations, offenders averaged 20 substantive offence convictions and 11 administrative offence convictions during this period. Program clients at the EPS site had the highest average number of substantive convictions (23) compared to the CPS (20) and RCMP (16) program locations. The overall pattern parallels that reported in 2014; however, the difference between the EPS and CPS sites is not as great in the present report as it was in 2014 (EPS = 21; CPS = 16), suggesting that the CPS site has selected offenders with a more prolific offending background in the past three years. While offenders at the RCMP sites had the lowest average number of substantive convictions overall, they were the highest with respect to violent offence convictions (1.8) compared to EPS (1.1) and CPS (0.4). However, both EPS (16) and CPS (14) offenders had a higher number of property offence convictions than clients at the RCMP sites (10). xiv

15 With regard to administrative offence convictions in the past five years for offenders in the retrospective sample, program sites were quite similar, with RCMP clients averaging 12 offences, compared to 11 for both the CPS and EPS program sites. These numbers are somewhat higher than those reported in 2014 (CPS = 9; EPS = 8; RCMP = 9), suggesting that the offenders selected into the program in the past three years may be more likely to breach their conditions. With regard to the number of substantive convictions in the five years prior to PPOP selection for offenders in the longitudinal sample, across all locations offenders averaged 13 substantive convictions and 9 administrative convictions. Offenders at the RCMP-S and RCMP-N locations had the lowest average number substantive convictions (12 each), followed by 14 at EPS and 15 at CPS. Due to the small number of clients in the longitudinal sample in the 2014 report, findings from that report are not compared with the current data. Violent offence convictions were somewhat more common at the RCMP-S site (2.3); for the other sites, average number of violent offence convictions ranged from 0.6 at the RCMP-N location to 1.3 at the CPS site. Average administrative offence convictions in the five years prior to program entry for the longitudinal sample ranged from 8 at the RCMP-N location to 11 at the RCMP-S program site. Are the PPOP Selection Criteria Being Followed? In line with a recommendation from the 2014 evaluation report, the names of the selection criteria for PPOP have been changed from mandatory and discretionary to primary and secondary, and the mandatory criterion of the Offender is considered to be a medium to high risk to reoffend has been dropped. With regard to the primary criteria for offenders in the retrospective sample, across program sites, each criterion was met by at least 90% of offenders. The criterion that differed the most across program locations was that Intelligence indicates the offender is currently active in committing criminal activity which was met by 94% of offenders at the CPS site and 100% at the EPS site, but only 76% at the RCMP locations. It may be that a higher proportion of RCMP offenders were incarcerated when they were selected into the program, and thus were not in a position to meet this criterion. Overall, the pattern of findings with regard to the primary criteria in the current analysis is virtually identical to that reported in Across program sites, two of the four secondary criteria were met by over threequarters of offenders, and the criterion of Offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates was met by 66% of clients in the retrospective sample. However, this criterion was met by substantially more offenders at the RCMP sites (93%) than at the CPS (33%) and EPS (59%) programs. It is possible xv

16 that co-offending is more prevalent in the smaller locales served by the RCMP; this hypothesis could be assessed in future research. The secondary criterion that was met by very few offenders (6%) was that the Offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness. This may indicate that relatively few program clients have had a mental health assessment at the time of their entry into the program. As with the primary criteria, the pattern of findings observed this year with respect to the secondary criteria are very similar to those in the 2014 report. Findings with regard to the primary selection criteria for the longitudinal sample were very similar to those with the retrospective sample and indicated that the substantial majority of offenders met each criterion. The pattern with the secondary criteria was also similar; however, a higher proportion met the criteria that the Offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness (22%) and that the Offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates (85%). What Service Referrals are PPOP Clients Receiving as Part of Their Case Plan? One of the key objectives of PPOP is to promote rehabilitation via the provision of appropriate support services for the offender. The evaluation began assessing agencies and services that offenders would be referred to as part of their PPOP case plan with the implementation of the Offender Entry Data Collection Form for the longitudinal sample. Findings indicated that PPOP is meeting this objective: across all program sites, almost two-thirds of offenders (62%) received service referrals as part of their case plan. This is an increase from 54% reported in The program sites with the highest proportion of clients receiving referrals were EPS (71%) and RCMP-N (76%). The proportion of clients receiving service referrals was lower for the CPS and RCMP-S sites (50% each). The EPS and RCMP sites had the highest proportion of clients with service referrals in 2014 as well. It is not clear what accounts for this regional difference between program sites in the northern and southern parts of the province. It may be that more appropriate services for PPOP clients are available in the Edmonton area or that clients at the northern sites are more in need of services. There is also some evidence that offenders at the EPS program site represent a group with a more entrenched and serious pattern of criminal behaviour and thus may be in need of more service referrals: these offenders were more likely to be incarcerated at program entry, to have spent more time in custody, and to have a higher number of lifetime convictions than offenders at the other sites. Across program sites, the services to which offenders were most likely to be referred were addictions program, family and children s services, employment/ education services, and correctional transitions services. Clients at the RCMP-N program location were considerably more likely to be referred to each of these services than clients at the other locations. For example, almost three-quarters (71%) of RCMP-N xvi

17 clients were referred to family and children s services, compared to 59% of EPS clients, 9% of RCMP-S clients, and no clients at the CPS site. The Offender Exit Data Collection Form obtained information for the longitudinal sample on what services offenders were referred to while they were in the program and whether they, in fact, accessed these services. One-half of program clients received a total of 25 referrals to community agencies. The most common referrals were to addictions programs, mental health services, family and children s services, and correctional transitions services. Offender follow-through with these services was quite good: for three-quarters of the referrals made, the offender accessed the service. Staff members were asked if PPOP has formal partnerships with service providers and over three-quarters of respondents said that no partnerships are in place and commented that they would be very valuable. Further, all stakeholders who said that their organization does not have a formal partnership with PPOP said that a partnership would be beneficial. Two-thirds of staff members said that there are not sufficient support services available to which offenders can be referred. One staff member commented that some of the services that are available cannot be accessed by individuals with criminal records. Three-quarters of treatment/service providers who completed the stakeholder survey said that they are able to provide the services that PPOP requires. Are There Differences in the Reasons for Deselection across Program Locations? Across program sites, the most common reason for deselection within the retrospective sample was that The subject has not committed substantive offences for a minimum period of six months (42%), followed by Intelligence indicates that an offender is incarcerated for a period of one year or more (37%), and The offender is no longer a priority for the referring agency (30%). Offenders were considerably more likely to be deselected because Intelligence indicates that the offender is no longer actively engaged in criminal activities that impact public safety at the RCMP (28%) and EPS (19%) sites than at the CPS program (6%). Offenders were more likely to be deselected from the program because Intelligence indicates that the offender has permanently relocated outside the province at the CPS location (22%) than at the RCMP (7%) and EPS (6%) sites. Deselection was more likely to occur because The offender is no longer a priority for the referring agency at the RCMP (38%) and EPS (34%) locations than at the CPS program (11%). Although reasons for deselection in the longitudinal sample are not available by program location, offenders in this sample were most likely to be deselected because They have been incarcerated for a significant period of time (>1 year) (39%), followed by that Law enforcement agencies advise PPOP that the offender is no longer a priority in their jurisdiction (32%), the Offender has been stable and crime free in the community for at least six xvii

18 months and his/her risk to reoffend has dropped significantly (29%), and that They have died, become permanently incapacitated, or relocated permanently (21%). Has Reoffending for PPOP Clients Decreased While They Are in the Program? Data were obtained from Alberta Justice and Solicitor General s Justice On-line Information Network (JOIN) on the number of substantive and administrative convictions for offenders in the retrospective sample during their time in PPOP and after their deselection from the program through 30 September Across all program sites, offenders spent an average of 35 months in the program. Clients in the EPS program spent the least amount of time in the program (32 months), compared to 38 months for clients at the CPS site and 35 months for offenders at the RCMP sites. Given that the length of time in the program varied widely for individual offenders, number of convictions while in the program was converted to an average number of convictions per month to control for the differing time periods. The number of convictions in the five years prior to entering PPOP was also converted to a monthly average. Findings provided strong evidence that the number of both substantive and administrative convictions per month decreased from before entering the program to during the program. Across all program sites, offenders averaged.33 substantive convictions per month in the five years before entering PPOP and decreased to.2 convictions per month during offenders time in the program, a decrease of 39%. A decrease in substantive offences while in the program was observed at all program sites, and ranged from a decrease of 42% at the CPS site to 37% at the RCMP programs and 35% at the EPS sites. While the decrease at all sites was slightly less than reported in 2014, the data in the present analysis still provides strong and consistent evidence that substantive convictions decreased while offenders were clients of PPOP. A similar pattern was obtained for administrative convictions, with the number of convictions per month decreasing at all program sites from the five years prior to PPOP to the time offenders spent in the program. Across all program sites, the average number of administrative convictions per month in the five years before entering the program was.19; this decreased to.14 during the program, a decrease of 26%. The decrease was highest at the CPS site, where the average number of administrative convictions per month decreased by 39% from before to during the program. At the RCMP sites, administrative convictions decreased by 20% from before to during the program, and at the EPS site, administrative convictions decreased by 17% from before to during the program. Again, these findings were similar to those reported in 2014, although the decreases were somewhat less in the current analysis. A similar analysis was conducted for offenders in the longitudinal sample comparing the average number of substantive and administrative offences per month in the five years prior to PPOP with number of offences while in the program. Across all xviii

19 program sites, substantive convictions decreased from.24 per month in the five years prior to entering PPOP to.09 per month while in the program, a decrease of 63%. The number of administrative conviction increased slightly from.09 per month in the five years before entering PPOP to.1 while in the program, an increase of 11%. This increase could be due, at least in part, to the higher levels of surveillance and monitoring of offenders while in PPOP, which could lead to a higher number of breaches of conditions being identified and charged. Has Reoffending for PPOP Clients Decreased After They Are Deselected from the Program? While it could be argued that a decrease in offending might be expected while offenders are in PPOP due to the increased surveillance and monitoring that is one of the hallmarks of the program, a powerful test of the efficacy of PPOP is whether a decrease in offending behaviour persists once they have been deselected from the program. Changes in patterns of offending behaviour were compared for offenders in the retrospective sample from the time they spent in the program to their time after deselection until 30 September With regard to substantive offences, across all program sites, offenders exhibited a further decrease in convictions from.2 per month during the program to.18 per month after deselection, a decrease of 10%. The overall decrease from the five years before entering PPOP to the period following deselection was 45%. Offenders at the CPS site had an average of.19 substantive convictions per month during the program; this decreased to.14 per month after deselection, a decrease of 26%. The overall decrease in substantive convictions for CPS clients from before the program to after deselection was 58%. EPS clients also showed a decrease in substantive convictions from during PPOP (.24 per month) to after deselection (.2 per month), a decrease of 17%. The overall decrease in substantive convictions from before entering the program to after deselection was 46%. RCMP clients showed a slight increase in substantive offences from during the program to after deselection from.17 to.18, an increase of 6%. However, the overall decrease in substantive convictions from before PPOP to after deselection for RCMP clients was 33%. Overall, the pattern of findings obtained this year is similar to that reported in 2014, except that in 2014 RCMP clients did have a further decrease in convictions from during the program to after deselection. With regard to administrative convictions, across all program sites, the average number of convictions from during PPOP to after deselection remained the same at.14. However, there was an overall decrease from the five years prior to entering the program to the period after deselection of 24%. Offenders at the CPS program site showed a decrease in administrative convictions from.11 per month during the program to.04 per month after deselection, a decrease of 64%. Overall, the decrease in xix

20 administrative convictions for CPS clients from before the program to after deselection was 78%. For clients at the EPS program site, the number of administrative convictions decreased from.15 per month while in PPOP to.12 per month after deselection, a decrease of 20%. The overall decrease in administrative offences from before entering the program to after deselection for EPS clients was 33%. Clients at the RCMP sites exhibited an increase in administrative offences from.16 per month during their time in the program to.21 per month after deselection, an increase of 32%. Overall, these offenders had a 5% increase in administrative offences from prior to entering PPOP to after their deselection. While the findings with regard to offending behaviour before, during and after the program are similar this year to those reported in 2014 for the CPS and EPS program sites, in 2014 the RCMP sites did show an overall decrease in administrative offences over time. Overall, the findings with regard to reoffending are strongly supportive of the efficacy of PPOP in reducing offending behaviour over a sustained period of time. How Have Staff and Stakeholders Views of PPOP Changed Over the Past Three Years? Surveys of PPOP staff and community stakeholders including police officers and analysts, Crown prosecutors, defence counsel, treatment/service providers, and probation officers regarding their views of PPOP were conducted in These surveys were repeated this year to examine any changes in opinions and perceptions of the program over time. Staff members were more likely to agree that PPOP is meeting its stated program goals this year than they were when surveyed in They were also more likely to strongly agree that the primary and secondary selection criteria for the program are appropriate in this year s survey. While all respondents this year said that the process of notifying Crown prosecutors that an individual is a prolific offender is working well, a considerably lower proportion agreed that prosecutors are using the Comprehensive Offender Management Packages (COMP) than in This staff perception is somewhat surprising since the prosecutors who completed the stakeholders survey were very positive about the COMP and indicated that they find them very useful. In both the current and 2013 staff surveys, a large proportion of respondents said that there are insufficient support services available to which PPOP clients can be referred. In addition, in the current survey, as in 2013, a large proportion of staff said that PPOP does not have formal partnerships with service providers and that the program would benefit from the development of partnerships. xx

21 A smaller proportion of staff members this year said that the process of monitoring PPOP clients is working well and that the program s response to relapse and reoffending is timely and adequate; however, staff were slightly more likely to report that offenders are engaged with the program in this year s survey. A higher proportion of staff said that PPOP should be expanded to other locations in Alberta this year than in 2013; however, a substantially lower proportion said that the current processes and procedures in place would support the expansion of the program. With a few exceptions, responses to the stakeholder survey were quite similar this year to those received in Substantially fewer police officers and analysts said that using local police forces as the sources of referrals to PPOP is working well in this year s survey. A higher proportion of stakeholders agreed that the PPOP selection criteria are appropriate this year than in 2013, and a higher proportion said that PPOP should be expanded to other locations in Alberta this year; however, a lower proportion of respondents said that the resources currently in place are sufficient to support the future expansion of the program. A lower proportion of stakeholders said that they would like to see changes made to the current policies and procedures this year. What Is the Social Value Created by PPOP? In this final year of the evaluation of PPOP, it was decided that an important component of the evaluation should be an examination of the value that has been created by the investment in PPOP over the past several years. It was determined that the most appropriate methodology to assess the value creation of the program would be a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis. SROI is a framework for measuring and communicating the social, economic or environmental impact of investment in an organization, project or program. In the context of PPOP, the SROI involved assessing and valuing the impact of the program s outcomes and relating the value of that impact to the investment made in the program. Given the availability of an established program logic model and comprehensive evaluation data for a longitudinal sample of PPOP clients, it was determined that an evaluative SROI was most appropriate methodology for the program. The overall estimated value of investment in offenders in the longitudinal sample from development of the sample on 01 November 2012 through 30 September 2016 was $1,134,774. The predicted value of the social return created by the program during the same time period was $4,305,443, resulting in a ratio of value creation to investment of 3.79:1. This suggests that, for every dollar invested in clients in the longitudinal sample, the social value created PPOP was $3.79. xxi

22 Recommendations The data analyzed and presented in this final year report of the PPOP evaluation yielded the following recommendations, which should be considered as PPOP is transitioned into the Integrated Offender Management Initiative: (1) Comprehensive Offender Management Package (COMP): While almost all of the Crown prosecutors who responded to the stakeholder s survey said that they are using the COMP, just over one-half of staff said that they were being used. Further, staff suggested that the relatively low rate of usage is because they are too long. Given this discrepancy between the views of staff and Crown prosecutors, the program should consult with a broader range of Crown than completed the survey to determine their views on the content of the COMP, and consider revising the content accordingly. It is also possible that some Crown prosecutors are not aware of the program, which suggests that PPOP should continue its educational efforts with the Crown. (2) Support Services: A substantial number of staff members said that there are not sufficient support services available to meet the needs of PPOP clients in areas such as housing, treatment beds and resources in rural locations. It was noted that the current services available in rural locations are particularly inadequate. The program should review the services available at each location and determine if other services exist that are not currently being utilized. (3) Formal Partnerships: The majority of staff and stakeholders said that PPOP does not have formal partnerships with service providers, and agreed that formal partnerships would be beneficial. Formal partnerships could serve to increase the provision of appropriate services, and the program should continue its efforts to establish partnerships and service agreements with agencies providing services in areas such as rehabilitation, employment, mental health, and addictions. It was noted that a formal partnership with Alberta Health Services is particularly important. (4) Addictions Counsellor: The substantial majority of PPOP clients have problems with addictions, and staff noted that addiction treatments currently available to PPOP clients are inadequate. Staff commented that adding addiction counsellors to the PPOP teams would be beneficial. The program should explore the feasibility of expanding the teams to include addiction counsellors. (5) Awareness of PPOP among Police Officers: The comment was offered that most police officers are not aware of the existence of PPOP. The program should continue its efforts to educate police personnel about the existence of PPOP and the benefits that can be achieved by referring prolific offenders to it. xxii

23 (6) Monitoring of Offenders: One-half of staff members did not think that the current process of monitoring PPOP offenders is working well. The program should examine why this is the case and consider whether any changes are needed to increase the efficiency of the monitoring process. (7) Response to Relapse: Staff were less likely to say that the program s response to relapse and reoffending is timely and adequate this year than in the 2013 survey. The program should examine why this is the case and consider whether any changes are needed to improve the program s response. (8) Referral Process: A substantially smaller proportion of police officers and analysts said the process of referring offenders to PPOP is working well in this year s stakeholder s survey than in The program should explore why this is the case and consider making changes to the referral process as required. (9) Goal Setting: Given the high levels of unemployment and housing issues among PPOP clients, but the low numbers of clients with employment or housing goals as part of their case plans, the program should review the processes in place for setting goals in the case plans to determine if any changes are required. (10) Program Processes and Procedures: While almost all staff and stakeholders agreed that PPOP should be expanded to other locations, a minority of staff members said that the current processes and procedures would support expansion. The program should review the current processes and procedures to determine if any changes are needed that would support expansion. (11) Continued Data Collection: As the formal evaluation of PPOP ends, the program should consider continuing the completion of the Offender Entry and Exit Data Collection Forms to facilitate internal monitoring of the successes and challenges of PPOP. xxiii

24 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family gratefully acknowledges the support and contributions of a number of agencies and individuals who assisted in making this project possible. First, and most importantly, the Institute would like to thank Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for funding this project. From the Priority Prolific Offender Program, the Institute gratefully recognizes the Program Manager, Menasha Nikhanj, for her ongoing support and guidance throughout the project. Thanks also to the former Acting Manager, Colleen Connelly, for her assistance during the past year. In addition, the authors would like to thank Georgina Burt-Severo, Program Support Analyst, and Krissy Sangster, Administrative Support, for their tremendous assistance in providing the data analyzed in this report to the Institute. We also express our appreciation to PPOP personnel for completing the staff survey and to representatives from community agencies for completing the stakeholder survey. Thank you to Brenda Maire and Lori Bates from the Justice On-line Information Network (JOIN) for arranging to have the JOIN data analyzed for this report provided to the Institute. Finally, the authors gratefully acknowledge the Alberta Law Foundation for its ongoing and generous support of the Institute. xxiv

25 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The problem of repeat offenders is well documented. The correctional literature indicates that a small percentage of offenders, commonly referred to as chronic, persistent, or prolific offenders, commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Studies by the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family in the area of chronic and persistent youth offenders have contributed to this body of research (Smith, Bertrand, Arnold, & Hornick, 1995; MacRae, Bertrand, Paetsch, & Hornick, 2008; MacRae-Krisa, Bertrand, Paetsch, & Rinquist, 2014). In a study of serious habitual youth offenders, Smith et al. (1995) found that although they composed only 3% of the youth offender population, the serious habitual offenders were responsible for 14% of the criminal occurrences. This finding was reinforced by MacRae et al. (2008), who found that serious habitual offenders comprised only 1% of youth offenders in Calgary in 2006 but were responsible for 6% of chargeable incidents. These findings are consistent with research in the United Kingdom, which revealed that approximately 100,000 of the total offending population of one million offenders were responsible for 50% of the crime in England and Wales but that 5,000 of the most prolific offenders were responsible for approximately 10% of offences (Home Office, 2010). With the study of chronic, persistent and prolific offenders becoming a priority in recent years, it has become increasingly evident that this population faces a number of unique challenges untreated mental health issues, substance abuse, and poverty that contribute to their offending behaviour and ongoing involvement with the criminal justice system (Pottruff, 2010). In an Alberta study of the pathways and transitions of persistent youth offenders to adulthood, MacRae-Krisa et al. (2014) found that these youth had multiple individual, family, peer, school, and community risk factors throughout childhood and adolescence. Further, mental health issues and addictions proved to be potentially critical risk factors among this group of persistent offenders. These findings point to the need for the coordination of the justice system and other services in any programs that are meant to address the unique needs of persistent and prolific offenders. As noted by Alberta s Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force (2007), these offenders consume a tremendous proportion of the criminal justice system s time and resources. The Task Force recommended that targeted action be taken to address the problem of repeat offenders (p. 61). In response to this recommendation, the Alberta Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, in partnership with the Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service and RCMP, developed and piloted the Priority Prolific Offender Program (PPOP) in With PPOP, Alberta joined British Columbia and the Yukon as Canadian jurisdictions that have implemented uniquely designed and targeted prolific offender management programs. Modelled on the Prolific and Other Priority Offender program introduced in 1

26 England and Wales in 2004, these programs involve collaboration among justice sectors, such as police, Crown prosecutors, corrections, and social services, to increase supervision, timely and meaningful responses to reoffending, and services that support rehabilitation and reform (British Columbia Criminal Justice Reform Secretariat, 2009). 1.2 Objectives of PPOP Alberta s PPOP has three key objectives: (1) to ensure that Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and up-to-date information when prosecuting priority prolific offenders through a comprehensive offender management package; (2) to promote rehabilitation through the provision of appropriate support services for the offender; and (3) to promote meaningful consequences for offenders. To accomplish these objectives, PPOP has established a focused and integrated strategy to manage offenders in a systematic, methodical, and collaborative way, balancing law enforcement and social service provision. As a result, many partners and stakeholders have been involved in the implementation of the program, all of whom play a key role in its operation. The involvement of multiple partners has allowed PPOP to maximize its adaptability to the unique needs of the communities and offenders it serves and to enhance its flexibility in responding to those needs. PPOP involves police officers, criminal intelligence analysts, program support analysts and probation officers. As stated on Public Safety Canada s website: The PPOP unit includes police officers representing the Calgary Police Service, the Edmonton Police Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), criminal intelligence analysts, program support analysts and probation officers. PPOP receives referrals from law enforcement on repeat offenders who primarily commit low-complexity crimes (e.g., break and enters or property crimes). PPOP works to ensure that the courts have the most comprehensive information available on these offenders so that the most appropriate sentences are imposed and rehabilitation opportunities are realized. The PPOP unit monitors court procedures, makes recommendations to the Crown or probation officer regarding support services that could promote rehabilitation, and facilitates access to services upon the offender's release. 2

27 1.3 Process Analysis Report The Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family was contracted in the fall of 2010 to conduct a process analysis as the first phase of an evaluation of PPOP. The goal of the process analysis was to determine the extent to which the implementation procedures had been effective, efficient, and in line with the objectives and desired outcomes. In April 2011, a report by MacRae, Bertrand, Paetsch, and Hornick presented the results of the process evaluation and concluded that PPOP offers a promising and beneficial approach in addressing the issue of prolific offenders in Alberta. Based on the findings of the evaluation, a number of recommendations were made, all of which were implemented: (1) the development of an operations manual; (2) a review of the comprehensive bail packages; (3) a review of the funding and resource structure; (4) increased education and awareness; and (5) a process and outcomes evaluation. The process evaluation report also yielded a detailed logic model articulating the objectives, inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the program (see Table 1.1 at the end of this chapter). 1.4 Process and Outcomes Evaluation In 2012, PPOP decided to continue the process evaluation, following the recommendation of the initial evaluation report and to conduct a thorough outcomes evaluation. The Institute was contracted to conduct the first of a proposed three-year process and outcomes evaluation. The objectives listed in the logic model as well as the results of the initial process analysis contained in the MacRae et al. (2011) report suggested the need for a comprehensive research evaluation strategy to test the impact of PPOP. The strategy has three major components as follows: (1) a process analysis designed to monitor and document program implementation, and, specifically, to assess whether the process evaluation recommendations have been addressed; (2) an outcome analysis designed to track anticipated changes that result from the activities of the program; and (3) a cost and potential benefit analysis of the program. 3

28 The process analysis examines how PPOP is actually implemented and addresses the question of whether the program has been carried out as it was intended. It primarily involves monitoring and documenting program activities and outputs using multiple data sources PPOP records, comprehensive bail packages, and surveys of service providers and PPOP staff. The outcome analysis includes a measurement of short-term and long-term outcomes to determine whether the program is having its intended effect in achieving specific program objectives. The outcome analysis uses multiple data sources, such as PPOP records, comprehensive offender management packages, surveys of service providers and PPOP staff, offending data from Alberta s Justice On-line Information Network (JOIN), as well as a combination of retrospective time series design and longitudinal pre-test post-test comparison group design. The results of the first year of the process and outcome evaluation were presented in a report by MacRae-Krisa and Paetsch (2013), and indicated that PPOP processes are largely in line with the intention of the program. Findings of this report revealed that the PPOP selection criteria are for the most part being followed. In addition to clearly meeting the mandatory offending criteria for selection, the offenders demonstrate the presence of a number of co-morbid risk factors, including substance addictions, homelessness, lack of employment, and criminal association. Though the analysis of discretionary criteria among the retrospective sample showed that mental health issues were largely absent among the sample, it is expected that this is an underestimation due to the referring agency not being aware of a mental health diagnosis, or to the fact that many offenders likely had not had a proper assessment at the time of referral. With regard to the process of selection, the staff and stakeholder surveys yielded a number of suggestions to improve the process, including increasing the number of requisite convictions or consideration of the ratio of charges to convictions, development of a program risk assessment tool to ensure consistency in this regard, and expanding the source of referrals from police to include other sources, such as probation officers. The development and distribution of the comprehensive bail packages continued to be a feature of PPOP that was viewed very positively. Overall, staff and stakeholders believed the information contained in the packages to be appropriate and effective for making recommendations regarding bail and sentencing, and the process for providing this information to the Crown was efficient. A need to change the format of the bail package emerged, and as well, to change the name of the bail package so that it was not viewed purely as a source of information for bail hearings. It was further suggested that communication between PPOP and the Crown could improve with regard to the bail package and each offender. The importance of continued education and advocacy for the program among Crown prosecutors and judges was also revealed. Analysis of the information provided in the bail packages demonstrated a complete picture of each 4

29 offender, with the recommendations for conditions being comprehensive and appropriate to each individual s needs and risk profile. The discretionary criteria used to select many offenders demonstrated the complex needs of the offender group, and the resultant need for PPOP to provide a range of services and resources to support the offenders in changing their lives. Findings related to the provision of community services were similar to the initial process evaluation, in that both the staff and stakeholder surveys revealed that existing treatment and support services are not sufficient to meet the needs of PPOP offenders. Though PPOP endeavours to link offenders with necessary support services, the services themselves are often limited in their selection criteria, willingness to accept those with a criminal record, appropriateness, and availability. As revealed in the surveys, inability to provide appropriate support services when they are needed, such as immediately following an offender s release from custody, often contributes to recidivism. However, it is also important to note that the offender s willingness to engage in services is a key factor to success. The continued development of formal partnerships with service providers is an important consideration for the program moving forward. Overall, staff and stakeholders believed that monitoring and the response to relapse and reoffending by PPOP is timely and adequate. However, it was reported that effectiveness of monitoring and surveillance is largely dependent on the cooperation of justice system partners, such as referring agencies and probation, as well as a better understanding of which organization is responsible for filing breaches and new charges. The availability of surveillance and monitoring was also a common theme, with many staff and stakeholders pointing to the need for more resources in this area in order for it to be effective. As PPOP moves forward, it was recommended that communication with external agencies regarding responsibilities for monitoring, compliance, and charges be revisited. The staff and stakeholder surveys revealed a number of considerations for the future of PPOP. Though response to the program and any possible expansion was overwhelmingly positive, it was also recognized that the program must have appropriate processes and resources before it increases its current caseload or is offered in other communities. The preliminary findings from Year 1 of the comprehensive process and outcome evaluation revealed a number of themes and considerations for the program. The retrospective analysis showed an offender population with complex needs and risk profiles, pointing to the need for a comprehensive and coordinated response. Reexamining PPOP processes revealed that although the recommendations from the 2011 process evaluation have been followed, the program needs to continue to address the format of the comprehensive bail packages, communication with the Crown and courts, 5

30 monitoring and surveillance resources, and importantly, community supports and services. Findings from the second year of the outcome evaluation were presented in Bertrand, Paetsch, MacRae-Krisa, & Boyd (2015). That report included a comparison of clients at the program sites in Calgary, Edmonton and the RCMP locations. It also focused on updating the profile of individuals in the retrospective sample who had been PPOP clients and were subsequently deselected, and conducting comparisons across program sites. Further, the report examined these clients reoffending behaviour during their time in the program and after leaving it using data obtained from JOIN to determine the longer-term efficacy of PPOP in reducing offending behaviour. The results obtained when examining offending behaviour before, during and after the program for clients in the retrospective sample were extremely positive and strongly suggestive of the efficacy of PPOP in having a positive effect on individuals not only during their time in the program, but after deselection as well. Across all program locations, and for both substantive and administrative offences, the number of convictions during the program was substantially lower than in the five years prior to PPOP and, with the exception of substantive offences among EPS program clients, decreased even further or remained the same following deselection. Given the positive findings with regard to reoffending behaviour during offenders time in PPOP and after deselection, one of the recommendations made in the second-year outcome evaluation report was to continue the evaluation for one final year to determine whether the reduced offending behaviour is maintained over a longer period. The second-year report also recommended that a final evaluation year should include another wave of staff and stakeholder surveys to examine any changes in knowledge and perceptions of the program over the intervening period. It was also recommended that a final evaluation year should include a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis to examine the social value created by PPOP. 1.5 Purpose of this Report This report includes the findings of the final year of the evaluation of PPOP. It presents comparisons across program locations and includes analyses of program clients in both the retrospective and longitudinal samples. The report also discusses findings from the latest wave of staff and stakeholder surveys, and presents an SROI analysis of the program. The objectives of the report are to: (1) report findings from the retrospective longitudinal sample, including offending behaviour before, during and after the program; (2) report findings from the program entry and program exit forms for the longitudinal sample; 6

31 (3) examine any differences in offender characteristics and program procedures across program locations; (4) analyze views of program staff and stakeholders, and examine any changes in opinions and knowledge of the program in the three years since the last surveys; (5) examine the social value created by PPOP by conducting a SROI analysis; (6) make recommendations for the program as it moves forward. 1.6 Organization of the Report The following chapter discusses the methodologies used to collect the data discussed in this report. Chapter 3.0 presents results of the retrospective data analysis, Chapter 4.0 presents findings from the program entry forms for the longitudinal sample, and Chapter 5.0 analyzes data from the program exit forms for the longitudinal sample. Chapter 6.0 presents findings from the staff survey and Chapter 7.0 contains analysis of the survey of community stakeholders. The SROI analysis is presented in Chapter 8.0, and the summary, conclusions and recommendations are contained in Chapter

32 Table 1.1 PPOP Logic Model Program Objectives Objective #1 Inputs Activities Outputs Short-term Outcomes Long-term Outcomes Ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and upto-date information when prosecuting prolific offenders - Program funding - PPOP project manager - 4 Police Constables (1 EPS, 1 CPS, 2 RCMP) - 2 Probation Officers - 2 Criminal Intelligence Analysts - Administrative support - Crown Prosecutors - Information systems (e.g., PIMS, JOIN, ACOM, CPIC, EPROS) - PPOP offenders selected - PPOP offenders notified - Information is gathered by the Criminal Intelligence Analyst for preparation of the comprehensive bail packages - Crown is notified that an individual is a PPOP client and provided with the comprehensive bail package to inform decision making on bail and sentencing - Selection criteria are followed - 20 PPOP offenders are monitored in each of three locations - Complete, accurate and up to date bail packages are provided to the Crown by PPOP - Crown requesting court to consider bail and sentencing recommendations as per the bail package - Crown and Judge/JP recommends/ orders conditions for PPOP offender reflective of bail package information - PPOP offender receives conditions which are reflective of their needs and risk profile - Decrease reoffending for PPOP offenders while in the program - Reduce the crime severity index for PPOP offenders while in the program - Decrease reoffending for PPOP offenders after they are deselected from the program - Reduce the crime severity index for PPOP offenders after they are deselected from the program - Reduce the overall crime rate in the community - Reduce the crime severity index for the community - Reduce the level of victimization in the community by PPOP offenders

33 Table 1.1 PPOP Logic Model (cont d) Program Objectives Objective #2 Inputs Activities Outputs Short-term Outcomes Long-term Outcomes Promote rehabilitation via the provision of appropriate support services for the offender - Program funding - PPOP Project Manager - 4 Police Constables (1 EPS, 1 CPS, 2 RCMP) - 2 Probation Officers - Administrative support - Crown Prosecutors - Rehabilitation and support services - PPOP offenders selected - PPOP offenders notified - Case Management Plans completed/updated for each PPOP offender - Referrals made to appropriate programs and services - PPOP offenders are deselected - Case plan completed and reviewed in a timely fashion - Meetings held with agencies identified in the case plan - Most appropriate services are received - Deselected PPOP offenders no longer require the support of the program - Services are coordinated - PPOP offenders receive services in a timely fashion - PPOP offenders increase compliance with conditions - PPOP offenders needs are met with unique combinations of services - The sentence and conditions contribute to the rehabilitation of the PPOP offender - Decrease reoffending for PPOP offenders after they are deselected from the program - Reduce the crime severity index for the PPOP offenders after they are deselected from the program - Reduce the overall crime rate in the community - Reduce the crime severity index for the community - Reduce the level of victimization in the community by PPOP offenders

34 Table 1.1 PPOP Logic Model (cont d) Program Objectives Objective #3 Inputs Activities Outputs Short-term Outcomes Long-term Outcomes Promote meaningful consequences for offenders - Program funding - PPOP Project Manager - 4 Police Constables (1 EPS, 1 CPS, 2 RCMP) - 2 Probation Officers - Administrative support - Crown Prosecutors - Rehabilitation and support services - Increased monitoring by EPS, CPS, RCMP and PPOP probation officers - breaches - new charges - curfew checks - PPOP unit meets to discuss individual clients - Breaches or new charges laid quickly - Increased number of curfew checks - Deselection criteria are being followed - Initial increase in the number of breaches for PPOP offenders - Decrease in the number of breaches for PPOP offenders over time while in the program - PPOP offenders increase compliance with conditions - Decrease reoffending for PPOP offenders after they are deselected from the program - Reduce the crime severity index for the PPOP offenders after they are deselected from the program - Reduce the overall crime rate in the community - Reduce the crime severity index for the community - Reduce the level of victimization in the community by PPOP offenders

35 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Research Questions This report addresses the following research questions: (1) What are the profiles of PPOP clients at each program location at the point of selection into and deselection from the program? (2) Are there differences in clients offending patterns prior to PPOP entry at each program location? (3) Are the PPOP selection criteria being followed? (4) What service referrals are PPOP clients receiving as part of their case plan? (5) Are there differences in the reasons for deselection across program locations? (6) Has reoffending for PPOP clients decreased while they are in the program? (7) Has reoffending for PPOP clients decreased after they are deselected from the program? (8) How have staff and stakeholders views of PPOP changed over the past three years? (9) What is the social value created by PPOP? 2.2 Methods Retrospective Analysis The retrospective time series analysis focused on collecting information about the offenders who entered the program prior to 1 November 2012 and subsequently exited the program to determine whether their offending behaviour appeared to be altered by the program. While this design is somewhat limited in internal validity because of its inability to control for history without a control group, it does provide information about how clients offending behaviour changed while in the program and after exiting. The retrospective sample is composed of 79 offenders who had been deselected from the program as of 30 September The Institute was provided with the intake form, comprehensive offender management package, and deselection form for each 11

36 offender. The information contained in these documents was coded and descriptively analyzed to produce a profile of the sample at the time of their entry into the program, as well as a historical profile of their offending patterns. Data on these individuals offending patterns while they were in the program and after their deselection were provided from Alberta Justice and Solicitor General s Justice On-line Information Network (JOIN) Longitudinal Analysis In an attempt to address the limitations of the retrospective sample, a pre-test post-test longitudinal sample was identified. This sample includes all offenders selected into PPOP after 1 November 2012 (N=78). The Institute developed an Offender Entry Data Collection Form (see Appendix A) to be completed by program personnel upon an offender s selection into the program. This form collects information on: the offenders demographic characteristics; reasons for selection into the program; their offending history prior to the program; any substance abuse, mental health, medical or dental issues; employment, education and housing status; and any agencies the offenders are expected to be referred to as part of their case plan. Entry Data Collection Forms were analyzed for this group of offenders by program location. An Offender Exit Data Collection Form (see Appendix B) was developed to be completed by program personnel upon an offender s deselection from PPOP. This form collects data on: any changes in family status since program selection; reason for deselection from the program; convictions during their time in the program; information on their case plan, including any addictions, mental health, medical or dental treatment they may have received; change in employment, education or housing status while in the program; and whether they accessed the services they were referred to by the program. As of 30 September 2016, 28 offenders in the longitudinal sample had been deselected from the program. Because of the relatively small number of deselected offenders in the longitudinal sample, data could not be analyzed by program location and were aggregated across sites. 2.3 Limitations Some limitations to the data presented in this report are worthy of note. With regard to program clients in the retrospective sample, although one of the reasons for their deselection is that they had been incarcerated for a period of one year or longer, and this is accounted for in the data analysis, it is possible that some offenders might have been incarcerated following deselection and thus would not be in a position to engage in further criminal activity. This could have the effect of artificially lowering the criminal conviction rates following deselection. However, the consistent findings across program sites with regard to convictions after leaving PPOP suggests that the possibility of subsequent incarceration did not have a substantial effect on the findings. 12

37 Further, although the number of offenders in the total sample is relatively large at this time, the number of offenders in the retrospective sample at one of the RCMP locations is quite low, and thus the RCMP sites were combined for purposes of data analysis. For this reason, it is not possible to compare findings across RCMP sites. With regard to the longitudinal analyses, the total number of program clients in the sample who have been deselected from the program is still relatively low, and this precluded comparison of the exit data across program sites. 13

38 3.0 RETROSPECTIVE SAMPLE 3.1 Introduction The retrospective sample is composed of 79 offenders who entered the program prior to 1 November 2012 and had been deselected from the program by 30 September The substantial majority of the retrospective sample was male (91.1%; n=72) with only seven of the offenders being female. Figure 3.1 provides the number of offenders in this sample from each program location. The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) location had the highest number of offenders (n=32), followed by the RCMP-North (RCMP-N) location (n=25), the Calgary Police Service (CPS) location (n=18), and the RCMP-South (RCMP-S) location (n=4). Due to the small number of offenders in the RCMP-S location, analyses conducted by program location combine the two RCMP program sites. Figure 3.1 Percentage Program Location for the Retrospective Sample Calgary Police Service (n=18) Edmonton Police Service (n=32) RCMP - South (n=4) RCMP - North (n=25) Source of data: Program Data Total N=79 The purpose of this chapter is to present a profile of the sample to their deselection from the program, using available program information: intake referral form and comprehensive bail package, including criminal history, the Comprehensive Offender Management Package (COMP; previously called the Show Cause Report), and conviction synopsis. In addition, data on the offenders criminal convictions during the program and after deselection (to 30 September 2016) were available from JOIN. 3.2 Criminal History Prior to PPOP Selection Across program sites, offenders in the retrospective sample were an average of 17.1 years of age when they received their first conviction, ranging from 12 to 42 years. The average age of offenders at first conviction at the CPS program location was higher 14

39 (18.1 years) than either the EPS location (16.6 years) or the RCMP locations (16.9 years). However, one offender at the CPS location was substantially older at the time of his first conviction (42 years) because he had recently immigrated to Canada. When this individual is removed from the analysis, the average age at first conviction for the CPS offenders was in line with those in the other programs (16.7 years). Table 3.1 presents the average number of substantive and administrative offence 1 convictions in the five years prior to PPOP selection. Offenders at the EPS program location group had more convictions for substantive offences in the five years prior to PPOP selection (22.5) than either the CPS group (20.1) or the RCMP group (16.3); however, these differences across program locations were not statistically significant, F(2, 76)=2.13, ns. Table 3.1 Average Number of Convictions during the Five Years Prior to PPOP Selection, by Program Location and Offence Type Program Location Offence Type CPS EPS RCMP Total Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Criminal driving convictions Violent offence convictions Weapons offence convictions Fraud offence convictions Drug offence convictions Property offence convictions Other criminal offence convictions Total Substantive offence convictions Total Administrative offence convictions Total convictions Source of data: Conviction Count Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=32; Total N for RCMP=29 For all three program locations, convictions for property offences were the most common of the substantive offences. Criminal driving convictions were more common among the EPS group, as were fraud offences. Violent offences were more common 1 Substantive offence refers to all criminal occurrences other than those related to compliance with court orders such as failures to appear or breaches of bail conditions. Administrative offence refers to occurrences related to failures to comply with court orders such as failures to appear or breaches of bail conditions. 15

40 among the RCMP program group (1.8) than either EPS (1.1) or CPS (.4); however, weapons offences, drug offences and other convictions were most common in the CPS program location. With regard to administrative offence convictions, all program locations were quite similar and the average number ranged from 10.5 at the CPS site to 11.1 at the RCMP locations. Overall, offenders at the EPS program location had the highest average number of convictions in the five years prior to PPOP selection (33.3) followed by CPS (30.6) and RCMP (28.1) offenders. However, the only comparison across program locations that was statistically significant was for violent offences, F(2, 76)=3.76, p<.05. Subsequent comparisons across individual sites indicated that the average number of violent offences per offender was significantly higher at the RCMP locations than at CPS (p<.05). EPS did not differ significantly from either of the other two program sites. Table 3.2 presents a summary of the criminal history characteristics for PPOP offenders as provided in the program s COMP/Show Cause Report, by program location. Table 3.2 Summary of Offender Criminal History Characteristics, by Program Location Program Location Characteristic CPS EPS RCMP Total Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Approximate time in custody since first conviction (months) 1 Percentage of life incarcerated since first conviction 2 Total times given a custodial sentence Total times admitted to custody Number of criminal convictions committed while subject to bail conditions 5 Number of convictions while subject to sentence for other offences Source of data: Show Cause Report/Comprehensive Offender Management Package Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=32; Total N for RCMP=29 1 Missing cases for EPS=1; RCMP=2 2 Missing cases for EPS=1; RCMP=2 3 Missing cases for EPS=1; RCMP=1 4 Missing cases for CPS=4; EPS=13; RCMP=18 5 Missing cases for EPS=1; RCMP=1 6 Missing cases for EPS=1; RCMP=1 16

41 With regard to time in custody since first conviction, the EPS program group, on average, had spent the greatest amount of time in custody (70.9 months), followed by the CPS group (66.6 months) and the RCMP group (64.4 months), although this difference was not statistically significant. In terms of the percentage of their lives that they had spent in custody since their first conviction, offenders in all three program locations were quite similar, with approximately one-third of their lives spent in custody. Offenders in the EPS program had received a substantially higher average number of custodial sentences (65.2) than those in the CPS (51.9) and RCMP (43.6) groups. This difference was statistically significant (F(2, 74)=4.07, p<.05) and follow-up comparisons indicated that the EPS location was significantly higher than the RCMP programs. Although nonsignificant, the EPS group was also admitted to custody a substantially higher average number of times (36.4), than those in the CPS (22.8) and RCMP groups (18.2). The difference between the number of custodial sentences received and the number of times admitted to custody is likely due to offenders serving some custodial sentences concurrently. Table 3.2 also presents the average number of criminal convictions committed while subject to bail conditions, and while subject to sentences for other offences. Regarding convictions while subject to bail conditions, the EPS group had the highest average number (20.9), followed by the RCMP (17.9) and CPS (17.7) groups. With regard to convictions while subject to other sentences, the EPS (26.4) and RCMP (24.2) groups were quite similar, compared to 17.6 for the CPS group, although these differences were not statistically significant. 3.3 Selection to PPOP This section summarizes the program information available regarding offender selection to PPOP, primarily drawn from the intake referral form and the Comprehensive Offender Management Package (COMP), previously called the Show Cause Report. Average age at selection to PPOP was similar for all program sites and did not differ significantly, with offenders in the Calgary program averaging 33.7 years of age at selection (range = 19 to 62 years), compared to 32.7 years for the EPS group (range = 20 to 48 years) and 30.6 years for the RCMP group (range = 18 to 54 years). Table 3.3 summarizes the Program Selection Criteria at intake. Primary criterion #1 (a history of frequently committing substantive offences) was met for all offenders; however, the other four primary criteria were met by most but not all offenders. The primary criterion that was not met by the most offenders was #4 (intelligence indicates the offender is currently active in committing criminal activity); this criterion was not met by seven offenders in the RCMP program, and one offender in the CPS program. In terms of the secondary criteria, the most commonly selected were secondary criterion #1 (offender s criminal behaviour is correlated with addictions), which at least 17

42 three-quarters of the offenders in each program location met, and secondary criterion #3 (offender is unemployed and does not have stable residency), which was met by 86.3% of offenders in the RCMP program, 75% in the EPS program and 77.8% in the CPS program. Table 3.3 Program Selection Criteria at Intake, by Program Location Criteria Primary criterion #1: A history of frequently committing substantive offences Primary criterion #2: A history of committing substantive offences while on release Primary criterion #3: A history of noncompliance with court orders including failing to appear and breach of conditions Primary criterion #4: Intelligence indicates the offender is currently active in committing criminal activity Primary criterion #5: Criminal behaviour of the individual has a serious impact on public safety and victimization and/or on public confidence in the justice system Secondary criterion #1: Offender s criminal behaviour is correlated with addictions Secondary criterion #2: Offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness Secondary criterion #3: Offender is unemployed and does not have a stable residency Secondary criterion #4: Offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates Source of data: Intake Referral Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=32; Total N for RCMP=29 CPS EPS RCMP Total n % n % n % n % Interestingly, almost all of the individuals at the RCMP program sites (93.1%) met secondary criterion #4 (offender may be influential with other offenders resulting 18

43 in criminal behaviour among associates), compared to over one-half at the EPS site (59.4%) and one-third (33.3%) in the CPS program. Secondary criterion #2 (offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness) was met by no offenders at the RCMP sites, one offender at the CPS site and four offenders at the EPS site, which suggests that these clients had not undergone mental health assessments prior to entering the program. Table 3.4 summarizes the offenders criminal history at referral to PPOP, as reported by the referring agency. Nearly all of the offenders at all program locations had a history of property offences and non-compliance with court orders. A history of drug offences was somewhat more common among offenders at the CPS (77.8%) and EPS (78.1%) locations than at the RCMP program sites (58.6%). Violent offences were considerably more common at the RCMP (72.4%) and EPS (71.9%) program locations than at the CPS location (44.4%). Weapons offences were more common at the CPS (55.6%) and RCMP (55.2%) sites than at the EPS program (37.5%), and a history of driving offences was more common at the EPS (68.8%) and RCMP (58.6%) sites than at the CPS program (44.4%). Table 3.4 Offender Criminal History at Referral, by Program Location Criminal History CPS EPS RCMP Total n % n % n % n % Violent offences Property offences Weapons offences Drug offences Non-compliance with court orders Driving offences Source of data: Intake Referral Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=32; Total N for RCMP= Grounds for Detention The COMP/Show Cause Report summarizes offenders criminal history, grounds for detention, and the bail conditions recommended by the program based on the offender s profile and risk factors. Primary grounds for detention are related to circumstances where the detention is necessary to ensure the offender s attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law. Convictions on primary grounds include administration of justice crimes such as failure to appear or comply with release or sentencing conditions, escape and obstruction of justice. Primary grounds for detention may also include gang activity, unemployment, or homelessness 19

44 circumstances that may contribute to failure to attend court. Secondary grounds for detention are related to circumstances where detention is necessary for public safety and relate to the likelihood that the offender will commit an offence if released. Charges on secondary grounds include substantive offences such as violent, property and drug offences. Secondary grounds may also include risk to public safety and child welfare involvement. Overall, the PPOP offenders in the sample averaged 25.2 convictions on primary grounds charges and 42.5 convictions on secondary grounds charges (see Figure 3.2). Figure 3.2 Average Number of Convictions on Primary and Secondary Grounds Charges, by Program Location Number of Convictions Convictions on Primary Grounds Charges Convictions on Secondary Grounds Charges Source of data: Show Cause Report/Comprehensive Offender Management Package Total N=79; Missing cases: CPS=1; EPS=1; RCMP=2 Ranges on Primary Grounds: CPS=5-46; EPS=4-81; RCMP=5-63; Total=4-81 Ranges on Secondary Grounds: CPS=14-90; EPS=8-175; RCMP=4-60; Total=4-175 At all program sites, offenders had a higher number of convictions on secondary grounds offences than on primary grounds offences. Offenders in the EPS program had an average of 50 convictions on secondary grounds, compared to 43.8 convictions in the CPS program and 33.1 convictions in the RCMP sites. This difference was statistically significant (F(2, 72)=3.2, p<.05) and follow-up comparisons indicated that EPS offenders had significantly more convictions on secondary grounds charges than did RCMP offenders. Offenders in the EPS program also had the highest average number of convictions on primary grounds (29.2), compared to the RCMP (23.6) and CPS (20.6) programs; however, none of these differences were statistically significant. 3.5 Deselection from PPOP CPS EPS RCMP Total On average, offenders spent 34.5 months in the program, the least being less than 7 months and the most being 76 months, before being deselected. Offenders in the EPS program site, on average, spent the least amount of time in the program (32.2 months) while offenders in the CPS and RCMP sites, on average, spent more time in the 20

45 program (37.6 and 35.1 months, respectively). However, length of time in the program did not differ statistically significantly across program sites. Offenders can be deselected from the program for a number of reasons. Table 3.5 provides a summary of the reasons for deselection and the proportion of offenders to whom each applies. Note that more than one reason for deselection can apply to an offender. Table 3.5 Reasons for Deselection, by Program Location Reasons for Deselection CPS EPS RCMP Total n % n % n % n % The subject has not committed substantive offences for a minimum period of six months. This does not include cases where law enforcement officers are involved but charges have not been laid. Intelligence indicates that the offender is no longer actively engaged in criminal activities that impact public safety. The offender demonstrates low risk for reoffending. Intelligence indicates that an offender is deceased or has become permanently incapacitated. Intelligence indicates that an offender has permanently relocated outside the province. Intelligence indicates that an offender is incarcerated for a period of one year or more. The offender is no longer a priority for the referring agency Source of data: Deselection Checklist Multiple Response Data; Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=32; Total N for RCMP=29 Across all program sites, the most common reason for deselection was that the offender has not committed substantive offences for a minimum period of six months (41.8% of all offenders), pointing to the possible success of the program for these offenders. The second most common reason for deselection was that the offender had been incarcerated for a period of one year or more (36.7%). The third most common reason for deselection was that the offender is no longer a priority for the referring agency (30.4%). Approximately one-fifth of the offenders were deselected because they were no longer engaged in criminal activity that impacts public safety and a similar 21

46 number were deselected because they demonstrated a low risk for reoffending. Few offenders were deselected because they were permanently incapacitated or deceased. There were some notable differences in reasons for deselection across program sites. Offenders at the RCMP sites were more likely to be deselected because they had ceased to commit substantive offences for at least six months (48.3%) than were offenders in the CPS or EPS programs (38.9% and 37.5%, respectively). Offenders in the RCMP sites were more likely to be deselected because they no longer engaged in criminal activities that impact public safety (27.6%) than individuals at the EPS (18.8%) and CPS (5.6%) sites. 3.6 Convictions Before, During and After the Program Data were obtained from Alberta Justice and Solicitor General s Justice On-line Information Network (JOIN) on the number of substantive and administrative convictions for PPOP clients in the retrospective sample during their time in the program and after deselection from the program to 30 September 2016 (the data cut-off date for this report). Across all program locations, an average of 38.8 months had elapsed between offenders deselection from the program and 30 September 2016 (range = 6 to 73 months). By program location, offenders at the CPS site had been out of the program for an average of 41.6 months, EPS offenders had been out of the program for an average of 41.2 months and RCMP offenders had been out of the program for an average of 34.5 months. These differences across program sites were not statistically significant. Since the length of time individuals were in the program and out of the program varied widely, convictions during these periods were converted to an average number of convictions per month to control for these differing time periods. For comparative purposes, the number of convictions in the five years prior to PPOP selection were also converted to an average number of convictions per month. As possible reasons for deselection from PPOP include the incarceration, incapacitation, death or relocation of the offender, individuals who were deselected for these reasons (n=38) were excluded from the analysis of convictions after exiting the program to provide the most conservative estimate of post-program convictions. Table 3.6 presents the average number of convictions per month before, during and after PPOP by program location. At each program location results indicated that both substantive and administrative convictions decreased from before entry to PPOP to during the program and, at the CPS and EPS program locations, decreased again from levels during the program to after deselection. For example, offenders at the CPS program site had an average of.33 substantive convictions per month in the five years prior to PPOP selection; this decreased to.19 convictions per month while in the program and then 22

47 decreased further to.14 convictions per month after deselection from PPOP. A comparable pattern was seen at the EPS site, where program clients had an average of.37 substantive convictions in the five years prior to program entry,.24 convictions per month during their time in the program and.20 convictions per month after deselection. Offenders in the RCMP program sites had an average of.27 substantive convictions per month prior to entering PPOP,.17 convictions per month during the program and a slight increase to.18 convictions per month following deselection. Across all programs, a similar pattern was seen with administrative convictions. Table 3.6 Average Number of Convictions/Month Before, During and After PPOP, by Program Location 5 Years Prior to PPOP (Monthly Average) CPS EPS RCMP Total Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Substantive Convictions Administrative Convictions Total Convictions During PPOP (Monthly Average) Substantive Convictions Administrative Convictions Total Convictions After PPOP (Monthly Average) 1 Substantive Convictions Administrative Convictions Total Convictions Source of data: Conviction Count Form and JOIN Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=32; Total N for RCMP=29 1 Excludes offenders who are incarcerated, have relocated, or are permanently incapacitated or deceased. Total N for CPS=8; Total N for EPS=16; Total N for RCMP=17 In order to maximize the comparability of the before, during and after program data, analyses were conducted on the average number of convictions per month prior to entering the program and during PPOP using the subset of individuals included in the after-program analyses those who were deselected because they had not committed offences for at least six months, they were no longer engaged in criminal activity that 23

48 impacts public safety, they demonstrated a low risk for reoffending and/or they were no longer a priority for the referring agency. Figure 3.3 presents the average number of convictions per month before, during and after the program for offenders at the CPS program location. The findings were quite dramatic and indicate that for substantive, administrative and all convictions combined there was a substantial reduction in average number of convictions per month from the five years prior to PPOP entry to the period that offenders were involved with the program. Total convictions, for example, decreased from an average of.41 per month prior to PPOP to.13 per month during PPOP. The average number of monthly convictions after exiting the program increased slightly to.18, but was still substantially lower than pre-program levels. Figure 3.3 Average Number of Convictions/Month Average Number of Convictions/Month Before, During and After PPOP, for the Calgary Police Service Program Location Substantive Convictions Administrative Convictions Total Convictions 5 Years Prior to PPOP During PPOP After PPOP 0.18 Source of data: Conviction Count Form and JOIN Excludes offenders who are incarcerated, have relocated, are permanently incapacitated or deceased, or are no longer a priority for the referring agency. Total N for CPS=6 Figure 3.4 presents the comparable analysis for the EPS program site. Overall, findings were similar to those obtained at the CPS site. For substantive, administrative, and total convictions, there was a decrease from pre-program to program levels, and levels remained lower than pre-program after deselection. Total convictions decreased from an average of.58 per month prior to PPOP to.28 per month during PPOP and increased slightly to.32 after PPOP. Overall, the number of convictions before, during and after the program was higher at the EPS site than at the CPS site. Finally, Figure 3.5 presents this analysis for the RCMP program locations. Once again, the pattern of findings is consistent and indicates a decrease in the average number of convictions per month from pre-program to program levels for substantive, administrative and total convictions, with conviction levels remaining lower after 24

49 deselection. Total convictions decreased from an average of.55 per month prior to PPOP to.38 per month during PPOP and after deselection. Figure 3.4 Average Number of Convictions/Month Average Number of Convictions/Month Before, During and After PPOP, for the Edmonton Police Service Program Location Substantive Convictions Administrative Convictions Total Convictions 5 Years Prior to PPOP During PPOP After PPOP 0.32 Source of data: Conviction Count Form and JOIN Excludes offenders who are incarcerated, have relocated, are permanently incapacitated or deceased, or are no longer a priority for the referring agency. Total N for EPS=8 Figure 3.5 Average Number of Convictions/Month Average Number of Convictions/Month Before, During and After PPOP, for the RCMP Program Locations Substantive Convictions Administrative Convictions Total Convictions 5 Years Prior to PPOP During PPOP After PPOP 0.38 Source of data: Conviction Count Form and JOIN Excludes offenders who are incarcerated, have relocated, are permanently incapacitated or deceased, or are no longer a priority for the referring agency. Total N for RCMP=8 25

50 Across all program sites, the findings are very positive and suggest the effectiveness of PPOP in reducing offending behaviour among its clients. While a decrease in convictions when offenders are in the program might be expected simply due to increased surveillance, these lower levels being sustained following deselection strongly suggests that PPOP is effective in reducing offending behaviour even after involvement with the program has ended. 26

51 4.0 LONGITUDINAL SAMPLE PROGRAM ENTRY DATA 4.1 Introduction On 1 November 2012, PPOP staff implemented an Offender Entry Data Collection form designed by the Institute for all new clients accepted into the program (see Appendix A). This form collects information on: the offenders demographic characteristics; the reasons for their selection into the program; their offending history prior to the program; the presence of any substance abuse, mental health, medical or dental issues; their employment, education and housing status; and any agencies the offenders will likely be referred to as part of their case plan. Offenders entering the program after this date became part of a longitudinal sample that uses a pre-test posttest design that collects information upon clients selection into the program and again following their deselection using the Offender Exit Data Collection Form (see Appendix B). A total of 78 offenders entered the program during the period 1 November 2012 to 30 September 2016 and comprise the current longitudinal sample. Twenty-eight of these individuals had been deselected from the program as of 30 September This chapter presents a profile of the 78 clients in the longitudinal sample at the time of their entry into PPOP according to the information provided on their entry forms. 4.2 Background Information The substantial majority of the offenders in the longitudinal sample are male (89.7%; n=70). Figure 4.1 presents a breakdown of the number of offenders at each program location. The highest number of clients were at the RCMP-S location (n=22), followed by the RCMP-N location (n=21), the CPS location (n=18) and the EPS location (n=17). Table 4.1 presents demographic characteristics of the longitudinal sample by program location. Across all locations, offenders were an average of 33.9 years of age when they entered the program. Clients in the EPS program were considerably older at program entry (mean = 40.8 years) than those in the CPS (mean = 33.8 years), RCMP-N (mean = 33.5 years), or the RCMP-S (mean = 29 years) locations. This difference is largely due to the range in ages of offenders at program entry. The age range of offenders at the EPS site was years, compared to years at CPS, at RCMP-S and at RCMP-N. 27

52 Figure Program Location for the Longitudinal Sample Percentage Calgary Police Service (n=18) Edmonton Police Service (n=17) RCMP - North (n=21) RCMP - South (n=22) Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N=78 Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Longitudinal Sample on Program Entry, by Program Location Program Location Characteristic CPS EPS RCMP-N RCMP-S Total Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Age at PPOP Entry Time on Wait List (Days) n % n % n % n % n % Marital Status 2 Single Married Cohabiting Dating Divorced Widowed Offenders with Children Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=17; Total N for RCMP-N=21; Total N for RCMP-S=22 1 Missing cases for CPS=3; EPS=2; RCMP-N=5; RCMP-S=3 2 Missing cases for EPS=1; RCMP-N=1; RCMP-S=1 28

53 Overall, offenders spent an average of 3 days on the wait list before entering PPOP; however, across program sites, the substantial majority of offenders (86.2%) did not spend any time on the wait list. The wait list has decreased considerably from 9.3 days in the 2014 evaluation. The longest average wait time was for the CPS program location (6.3 days). This is a substantial decrease from 23.8 days in The wait time for the RCMP-S location averaged 2.4 days and the wait time at the RCMP-N site averaged 3.4 days, while there was no wait time for the offenders at the EPS site. With regard to marital status, the substantial majority of program clients were either single or cohabiting. Across all program locations, the majority of offenders were single (61.3%), ranging from 35% at the RCMP-N location to 77.8% at the CPS location. A total of 20 offenders (26.7%) were in a cohabiting relationship. Just over one-third of clients had children (34.6%), ranging from 16.7% of CPS clients to 52.4% of RCMP-N clients. A few (n=8) offenders were married or dating, and one was divorced. Across program locations, 27 offenders had children under 17 years of age and nine had children who resided with them. Six of the offenders had a history of Child and Family Services involvement. 4.3 Criminal History Prior to PPOP Selection Offenders age at the time of their first conviction was available for 72 PPOP clients in the longitudinal sample. Across all program sites, offenders were, on average, 17.6 years of age at their first conviction (range = 12 to 28). Ages were similar at all program sites and ranged from 16.7 years at the CPS location to 18.4 years at the RCMP- N program site. Across program sites, offenders had received an average of 61.7 convictions in their lifetime (range = 12 to 160). Offenders in the EPS program had the highest number of lifetime convictions (mean = 81.4), followed by the CPS program with an average of 71.5 convictions. Clients in the RCMP programs had considerably fewer lifetime convictions (RCMP-N mean = 61.1; RCMP-S mean = 39). Data were also available on the length of time offenders had spent in custody since their first conviction for 51 PPOP clients. On average, offenders at all program sites had spent 51.6 months in custody (range = 2 to 253 months). Offenders at the EPS program site had spent the greatest amount of time in custody (mean = months). Offenders at the CPS program had spent an average of 71.2 months in custody, while RCMP program clients had spent considerably less time in custody (RCMP-N mean = 33.2 months; RCMP-S mean = 23.6). Table 4.2 presents the average number of convictions for individuals in the longitudinal sample in the five years prior to PPOP selection. Across all program locations, offenders averaged 22.5 convictions; substantive offence convictions (mean = 13.2) were more prevalent than administrative convictions (mean = 9.3). Among the substantive convictions, property offences were the most common (mean = 8.3), followed by convictions for violent offences (mean = 1.4), fraud-related offences (mean 29

54 = 1.3), and drug offences (mean = 1.1). The average number of convictions per offender for other types of substantive offences were all less than 1. Table 4.2 Average Number of Convictions Five Years Prior to PPOP Selection, by Program Location and Offence Type Program Location Offence Type CPS EPS RCMP-N RCMP-S Total Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Criminal driving convictions Violent offence convictions Weapons offence convictions Fraud offence convictions Drug offence convictions Property offence convictions Other criminal offence convictions Total Substantive offence convictions Total Administrative offence convictions Total convictions Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=17; Total N for RCMP-N=21; Total N for RCMP-S-22 With regard to program location, offenders at the CPS site had the highest average number of convictions across all offence types (mean = 24.3) followed by individuals at the RCMP-S (mean = 23) and EPS locations (mean = 22.7). Offenders at the CPS (mean = 14.8) and EPS (mean = 13.9) locations had the highest numbers of substantive convictions, while program clients at the RCMP-N (mean = 12.3) and RCMP-S (mean = 12.1) locations were somewhat lower. The average number of convictions for administrative offences was highest at the RCMP-S (mean = 10.8) and CPS (mean = 9.5) sites. The average number of property offence convictions was higher at the CPS (mean = 9.5) and EPS (mean = 8.9) sites than at the RCMP-N (mean = 7.8) and RCMP-S (mean = 7.2) locations, while the average number of drug-related offences was highest at the EPS (mean = 1.7) and RCMP-N (mean = 1.1) locations. Fraud-related convictions 30

55 were highest at the CPS site (mean = 2.2) and were somewhat lower at the other locations. Violent convictions were highest at the RCMP-S location (mean = 2.3), followed by the CPS (mean = 1.3), EPS (mean = 1.2), and RCMP-N (mean =.6) sites. 4.4 Selection to PPOP Program personnel were asked to rate the offenders motivation upon entry to PPOP; ratings for the total longitudinal sample and for each program location are provided in Figure 4.2. One-fifth (20%) of EPS clients were rated as very motivated, as were 11.1% of CPS clients. Less than 5% of clients at both RCMP sites were rated as very motivated. Overall, offenders were more likely to be rated as having low motivation (59.2%) than as being motivated (22.4%). One-third of the RCMP-N clients were rated as motivated (33.3%), while one-fifth of the CPS clients (22.2%) and EPS clients (20%) were rated as motivated. RCMP-S clients were most likely to be rated as having low motivation (63.6%), followed by clients in the RCMP-N (61.9%), EPS (60%), and CPS sites (50%). Figure 4.2 Offenders' Level of Motivation upon Program Entry, by Program Location Percentage Very Motivated Motivated Low Motivation Unknown 9.2 CPS EPS RCMP-N RCMP-S Total Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=15; Total N for RCMP-N=21; Total N for RCMP-S-22 Missing cases for EPS=2 Table 4.3 summarizes the Program Selection Criteria at intake to PPOP. Across all program sites, the primary selection criteria were present for most offenders, and ranged from 99% for primary criterion #3 (a history of non-compliance with court orders) to 89% for primary criterion #5 (criminal behaviour of the individual has a serious impact on public safety and victimization and/or on public confidence in the justice system). 31

56 Table 4.3 Program Selection Criteria at Intake, by Program Location Criteria CPS EPS RCMP-N RCMP-S Total n % n % n % n % n % Primary criterion #1: A history of frequently committing substantive offences Primary criterion #2: A history of committing substantive offences while on release Primary criterion #3: A history of non-compliance with court orders including failing to appear and breach of conditions Primary criterion #4: Intelligence indicates the offender is currently active in committing criminal activity Primary criterion #5: Criminal behaviour of the individual has a serious impact on public safety and victimization and/or on public confidence in the justice system Secondary criterion #1: Offender s criminal behaviour is correlated with addictions Secondary criterion #2: Offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness Secondary criterion #3: Offender is unemployed and does not have a stable residency Secondary criterion #4: Offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=17; Total N for RCMP-N=21; Total N for RCMP-S=22 With regard to program location, all clients at the EPS program met all five primary criteria; some clients at the CPS and RCMP sites did not meet one or more primary criteria. However, in all program sites, at least three-quarters of offenders met each primary criterion. With regard to the secondary criteria, across program sites, at least three-quarters of offenders met secondary criterion #4 (offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates) (84.6%), secondary criterion 32

57 #1 (offender s criminal behaviour is correlated with addictions (79.5%), and secondary criterion #3 (offender is unemployed and does not have a stable residency) (75.6%). Only 21.8% met secondary criterion #2 (offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness). A substantial difference across programs was observed with regard to secondary criterion #1, with 90.5% of RCMP-N and 88.2% of EPS meeting this criterion, compared to 77.3% of RCMP-S and 61.1% of CPS clients. Further, 41.2% of EPS offenders met secondary criterion #2, compared to less than one-quarter of clients at the other program sites. Program personnel were asked to rate the offenders level of healthy family and community supports upon entry to the program (Figure 4.3). Across all program sites, only 7.8% of program clients were rated as having a high number of healthy supports; the most common response was that offenders had a low number of healthy supports (50.6%), followed by a moderate number of healthy supports (22.1%) and no healthy supports (19.5%). Figure 4.3 Percentage Offenders' Level of Family/Community Support upon Program Entry, by Program Location High Number of Healthy Supports Moderate Number of Healthy Supports Low Number of Healthy Supports CPS EPS RCMP-N RCMP-S Total No Healthy Supports Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=17; Total N for RCMP-N=21; Total N for RCMP-S-22 Offenders in the RCMP programs were most likely to be rated as having a high number of healthy supports (RCMP-N = 14.3%; RCMP-S = 13.6%); no clients at either the CPS or EPS locations had a high number of supports. Clients at the CPS (22.2%) and EPS (31.3%) locations were most likely to be rated as having no healthy supports, compared to 9.5% of offenders at the RCMP-N location and 18.2% at the RCMP-S site. 33

58 4.5 Substance Abuse Issues at PPOP Selection The Offender Entry Data Collection Form includes information on any substance abuse issues being dealt with by the program clients (Table 4.4). Across all program sites, the substantial majority of offenders had either a confirmed addiction (77.9%) or problems with substance use (14.3%). At each program site, well over three-quarters of program clients had substance abuse issues, ranging from 88.9% at the CPS location to 95.2% at the RCMP-N location. The RCMP-N location had the highest proportion of offenders with a confirmed addiction (85.7%), followed by the CPS (77.8%), EPS (75%), and RCMP-S (72.7%) locations. Almost two-thirds of offenders (63.4%) with substance abuse issues across program sites were rated as having a severe level of addiction, and an additional 23.9% were rated as having a moderate addiction. The largest proportions of offenders with a severe addiction were at the RCMP-S (70%) and CPS (68.8%) locations. Less than one-half (43.7%) of program clients with substance abuse issues had received addictions treatment in the past; the highest proportions were at the CPS (50%) and RCMP-N (50%) locations. The most common types of addictions treatment prior to PPOP entry across all program locations were residential treatment (71%), group counselling (38.7%) and individual counselling (32.3%). Individuals at the RCMP-N program site were considerably more likely to have received group counselling (70%) in the past than clients at the other program sites. Across program locations, when asked what addictions treatments were going to be provided through PPOP, program workers were most likely to indicate residential treatment (45.1%), followed by individual counselling (42.3%). The RCMP-N program was considerably more likely to make use of individual counselling (80%) and residential treatment (65%) than were the other program locations. Finally, program personnel were asked to rate the offenders motivation to address their substance abuse issues. As shown in Table 4.4, only five (7%) offenders across program sites were rated as very motivated to address their substance abuse issues. Offenders at the RCMP-S (60%) and RCMP-N (55%) sites were more likely to be rated as having low motivation than at the other sites. 4.6 Mental Health Issues at PPOP Selection Program personnel were asked to provide information regarding any mental health issues of PPOP clients at program entry (Table 4.5). Due to the relatively low number of offenders with diagnosed mental health issues, this analysis was not conducted separately by program location. Almost one-half of program clients (45.8%) were rated as having no mental health concerns, while 25% had a suspected mental health disorder and 30.6% had a confirmed disorder. 2 The most common confirmed or suspected disorder was attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (36.4%), 2 One program participant was rated as having both a suspected and a confirmed mental health disorder. 34

59 followed by schizophrenia (22.7%), anti-social personality disorder (18.2%), depression (18.2%), and mood disorder (13.6%). Table 4.4 Offenders Substance Use Characteristics on Program Entry, by Program Location Characteristic Substance Use No concerns Offender has problems Confirmed addiction Level of Addiction 1 Mild Moderate Severe Unknown Offender Has Received Treatment for Substance Abuse in the Past 1 Type of Treatment Previously Accessed 2 Detox Residential Individual counselling Group Counselling AA/NA Other Type of Treatment to be Provided through PPOP 3 Detox Residential Individual Counselling Group Counselling AA/NA Other Offenders Level of Motivation to Address Substance Use Issues 1 Very motivated Motivated Low Motivation Unknown Program Location CPS EPS RCMP-N RCMP-S Total n % n % n % n % n % Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=17; Total N for RCMP-N=21; Total N for RCMP-S=22 1 This analysis was only conducted for offenders who either had problems with substance use or a confirmed addiction (n=71). 2 This analysis was only conducted for offenders who had received substance abuse treatment in the past (n=31). Multiple response question. 3 This analysis was only conducted for offenders who either had problems with substance use or a confirmed addiction (n=71). Multiple response question

60 Table 4.5 Offenders Mental Health Characteristics on Program Entry Characteristic n % Mental Health 1 No mental health concerns Offender has a suspected mental health disorder(s) Offender has been diagnosed with a mental health disorder(s) Mental Health Diagnoses 1,2 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Schizophrenia Anti-social Personality Depression Mood Disorder NOS (Not Otherwise Specified) Psychosis Bipolar Anxiety FASD Offender Has Received Treatment for their Mental Health Issues in the Past Offender Requires Medication for their Mental Health Issues Type of Treatment being Provided Through PPOP 1,2 Psychiatric consultation Medication stabilization Assessment Individual counselling Group counselling Other Offenders Level of Motivation to Address Mental Health Issues 2 Very motivated Motivated Low motivation Unknown Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N=78; Missing cases=6 1 It was possible for offenders to have both a confirmed and suspected mental health disorder. 2 Based on offenders with confirmed mental health diagnoses (n=22) Most offenders (72.7%) with a confirmed mental health disorder had received treatment for their mental health issues in the past, and almost all (95.5%) required medication for their mental health issues. When asked what mental health treatment was being provided through PPOP, the most common response was a psychiatric consultation (68.2%) and medication stabilization (68.2%), followed by an assessment (54.5%) and individual counselling (45.5%). 36

61 Only one offender was rated as very motivated to address his mental health issues, while 31.8% were rated as motivated, and 50% were rated as having low motivation. 4.7 Medical and Dental Issues at PPOP Selection Program personnel were asked to indicate if the offenders had any medical or dental issues upon selection to PPOP. The substantial majority of program clients were rated as having no medical issues (88.5%). Only six offenders had a medical condition specified; thus, no further analyses were conducted on medical issues. With regard to dental issues, 88.5% of offenders were rated as having no dental issues at PPOP selection. Only five offenders were rated as having dental issues and these data were not analyzed further. 4.8 Employment and Education Characteristics at PPOP Selection The Offender Entry Data Collection Form includes information on PPOP clients employment and educational status at program entry (Table 4.6). Across all program locations, the most common source of income for offenders was no income (50.7%) followed by social assistance (31.5%). Less than one-fifth of program clients (15.1%) had employment income at the time of their selection into PPOP. A considerably higher proportion of clients at the RCMP-S program location (61.9%) and the EPS site (60%) had no income than at the CPS (47.1%) or RCMP-N (35%) sites. Offenders at the CPS (23.5%) and RCMP-S (23.8%) sites were more likely to have employment income than at the EPS location (0%) and the RCMP-N site (10%). With regard to employment status at PPOP selection, across all program locations over three-quarters of offenders (78.7%) were unemployed. Only 10.7% of offenders had full-time employment, while an additional 5.3% had seasonal employment. Clients at the EPS (93.8%), RCMP-N (81%), and RCMP-S (76.2%) locations were more likely to be unemployed than at the CPS site (64.7%). Conversely, CPS (29.4%) and RCMP-S (23.8%) clients were more likely to have full-time or seasonal employment than those at the RCMP-N (9.5%) or EPS (0%) sites. Just over one-half of offenders at the RCMP-N location (52.4%) had employment goals as part of their PPOP case plan, compared to 29.4% at the EPS site, and 16.7% at the CPS location, and 13.6% at the RCMP-S site. The lower percentage at the CPS program probably reflects the fact that a higher proportion of CPS clients were already employed. The most common employment goal (n=8) was to obtain full-time work, followed by obtaining certification in a trade (n=4). 37

62 Table 4.6 Offenders Employment and Education Characteristics, by Program Location Program Location Characteristic CPS EPS RCMP-N RCMP-S Total n % n % n % n % n % Source of Income at PPOP Selection 1 No income Social assistance Employment insurance Employment Other Employment Status at PPOP Selection 2 Unemployed Part-time employment Full-time employment Seasonal employment Other Offender has Employment Goals as Part of Case Plan Highest Level of Education Attained at Selection 3 No education Elementary Junior high school Some high school High school graduate Trade Some university University graduate Other Offender has Educational Goals as Part of Case Plan Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=17; Total N for RCMP-N=21; Total N for RCMP-S=22 1 Missing cases for CPS=1; EPS=2; RCMP-N=1; RCMP-S=1 2 Missing cases for CPS=1; EPS=1; RCMP-S=1 3 Missing cases for CPS=6; EPS=3; RCMP-N=3; RCMP-S=1 With respect to the highest level of education obtained prior to PPOP selection, across all program locations, offenders were most likely to have some high school education (64.6%), followed by a high school diploma (13.8%). One individual at each of RCMP-N and RCMP-S program locations had some university education and one at the 38

63 EPS location was a university graduate. CPS clients (25%) were more likely to have completed high school than clients at the RCMP-S (14.3%), RCMP-N (11.1%), and EPS (7.1%) sites. Across program locations, almost all clients were rated as being able to read (91%) and write (88.5%). For the CPS, RCMP-N and RCMP-S sites, over 90% of PPOP clients could read and write; at the EPS program, 76.5% were rated as being able to read and 70.6% could write. Relatively few offenders had educational goals as part of their PPOP case plan; this ranged from 4.5% at the RCMP-S program to 19% at the RCMP-N locations. Overall, just over one-tenth of offenders (11.5%) had educational goals in their case plan. The most common educational goal was to obtain a GED (n=2) and upgrade at NorQuest College (n=2). One offender each had the following educational goals: recertify in a trade; complete first aid and safety courses; complete computer training; take classes while in custody; and complete high school. 4.9 Housing Characteristics and Other Needs at PPOP Selection Table 4.7 provides a summary of the items on the Offender Entry Data Collection Form relating to offenders housing characteristics and other needs upon selection to PPOP. Across all programs, 44.2% of offenders were in custody at selection to PPOP and 29.9% were living with family or friends. Only 16.9% of offenders either rented or owned their own home. The largest proportion of program clients who were in custody were at the EPS location (62.5%); a considerably smaller proportion of clients at the CPS (44.4%), RCMP-N (42.9%) and RCMP-S (31.8%) sites were in custody at PPOP selection. Two CPS program clients were living in a shelter, while one client at the EPS and no clients at the RCMP sites were living in a shelter. RCMP-S program clients were most likely to be living with family or friends (50%), compared to 33.8% at the RCMP-N, 16.7% at the CPS, and 12.5% at the EPS sites. Across all program locations, one-fifth (21.8%) of offenders had housing goals as part of their PPOP case plan. The most frequently mentioned housing goal was to obtain their own residence (n=7), to live with parents after release from custody (n=3) and to live in a treatment facility (n=2). With regard to other needs the offenders required assistance with, almost onequarter (23.1%) needed help with obtaining identification; 41.2% of clients at the EPS program location needed assistance with this, compared to 28.6% at the RCMP-N location, 27.8% at the CPS site and no offenders at the RCMP-S location. Over onequarter of offenders (29.5%) needed help with obtaining the basic necessities of life; 41.2% of the EPS clients were rated as having this need, compared to 38.9% at the CPS, 22.7% at the RCMP-S, and 19% at the RCMP-N sites. 39

64 Table 4.7 Offenders Housing Characteristics and Other Needs, by Program Location Characteristic Offender s Living Arrangement upon PPOP Entry 1 In custody Shelter Second-stage housing With family/friends Rents own home Owns own home Other Agency CPS EPS RCMP-N RCMP-S Total n % n % n % n % n % Offender has Housing Goals as Part of Case Plan Offender Requires Assistance Obtaining Identification Offender Requires Assistance Obtaining Basic Necessities Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=17; Total N for RCMP-N=21; Total N for RCMP-S=22 1 Missing cases for EPS= Service Referrals as Part of PPOP Case Plan Across program locations, just under two-thirds of offenders (61.5%) received service referrals as part of their case plan. The proportion of program clients with service referrals ranged from 50% at the CPS and RCMP-S locations to 70.6% and 76.2% at the EPS and RCMP-N sites, respectively. Table 4.8 presents the services that offenders were referred to as part of their PPOP case plan. The most common services referred to were addictions services (39.7%) and family/children s services (34.6%), followed by employment/education services (30.8%), correctional transitions services (30.8%), and mental health services (12.8%). Referrals to family/children s services were most common at the RCMP-N (71.4%) and EPS (58.8%) program locations; no offenders at the CPS site received this type of referral. RCMP-N clients were more likely to receive referrals to addictions services (76.2%) and employment/educational services (57.1%) than clients at the other program sites. CPS clients were more likely to receive referrals to mental health services (27.8%), compared to under 10% at the other sites. 40

65 Table 4.8 Service Referrals for Offenders, by Program Location Program Location Service CPS EPS RCMP-N RCMP-S Total n % n % n % n % n % Addictions Services Family/Children s Services Employment/Education Services Correctional Transitions Services Mental Health Services Housing Services Medical Services Other Source of data: Offender Entry Data Collection Form Total N for CPS=18; Total N for EPS=17; Total N for RCMP-N=21; Total N for RCMP-S=22 Multiple Response Question

66 5.0 LONGITUDINAL SAMPLE PROGRAM EXIT DATA 5.1 Introduction On 1 November 2012, PPOP staff implemented an Offender Exit Data Collection form designed by the Institute for all clients in the longitudinal sample who exited the program by 30 September 2016 (see Appendix B). This form collected information on: any changes in the offenders demographic characteristics since program entry; the reasons for their deselection from the program; their offending history while in the program; any substance abuse, mental health, medical or dental services received while in the program; any changes in their employment, education and housing status while in the program; and any agencies the offenders were referred to while in the program. A total of 28 offenders in the longitudinal sample had been deselected from the program as of 30 September 2016, and this group comprises the current longitudinal sample for which complete entry and exit data are available. This chapter presents a profile of these clients at the time of their deselection from PPOP according to the information provided on their exit forms and, where relevant, discusses changes in their characteristics during their time in the program. The relatively small number of deselected clients in this sample precludes analysis of data by program location; for this reason, findings in this chapter are presented aggregated across program sites. 5.2 Background Information The substantial majority of the deselected offenders in the longitudinal sample are male (85.7%); four deselected offenders are female. Figure 5.1 presents a breakdown of the number of deselected offenders at each program location. The highest number of clients were at the RCMP-South location (n=9), followed by the EPS location (n=7), the RCMP-North location (n=7) and the CPS location (n=5). Table 5.1 presents demographic characteristics of the longitudinal sample at program deselection. Offenders were an average of 38.9 years of age when they exited the program. Deselected offenders spent between 3 and 41 months in PPOP (mean = 17.3 months). The marital status at the time of deselection from the program was the same as at program entry for the substantial majority of offenders (82.1%), with most program clients either cohabiting (42.9%) or single (39.3%). Two offenders who were single at the time of program entry had entered a cohabiting relationship by deselection, and one individual who was cohabiting at program entry was divorced at program exit. Just over one-quarter of deselected clients (28.6%) had children. 42

67 Figure Program Location for Deselected Clients in the Longitudinal Sample 32.1 Percentage Calgary Police Service (n=5) Edmonton Police Service (n=7) RCMP - North (n=7) RCMP - South (n=9) Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N=28 Table 5.1 Demographic Characteristics of Deselected Clients in the Longitudinal Sample at Program Exit Characteristic Mean Range Age at PPOP Deselection Time in Program (Months) n % Marital Status Single Married Cohabiting Dating Divorced Offenders with Children Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N =28 Table 5.2 provides the reasons for offenders deselection from PPOP. The most common reason was that the offender had been incarcerated for more than one year while they were in the program (39.3%), followed by the offender was no longer a priority for law enforcement in their jurisdiction (32.1%), the offender had been stable and crime free for a period of at least six months (28.6%), and the offender had died, 43

68 become permanently incapacitated or had relocated (21.4%). Of the six individuals who had two reasons for deselection provided, five had been stable and crime free for at least six months and were therefore no longer a priority for law enforcement in their jurisdiction, and one had died, become permanently incapacitated or had relocated and had also been incarcerated for s significant period of time. Table 5.2 Reason for Deselection from PPOP Reason n % Offender has been stable and crime free in the community for at least six months and his/her risk to reoffend has dropped significantly Law enforcement agencies advise PPOP that the offender is no longer a priority in their jurisdiction They have died, become permanently incapacitated, or relocated permanently They have been incarcerated for a significant period of time (>1 year) Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N =28 Multiple response data. 5.3 Criminal Activity While in PPOP Three-quarters (75%) of deselected offenders had at least one substantive or administrative conviction during their time in PPOP. Table 5.3 presents the average number of substantive, administrative and total convictions of deselected offenders during their time in the program. Property offence convictions were the most prevalent and averaged 4.61 per offender. The prevalence for all other substantive offence convictions averaged less than one. The average number of total substantive convictions per offender during their time in the program was The corresponding average for administrative convictions was 1.93 and 8.07 for substantive and administrative convictions combined. Two offenders who were in the program for relatively short periods accounted for a disproportionate number of convictions. One offender was in the program for three months and during this period had 74 convictions, while another was in the program for four months and had 32 convictions. The next highest number of convictions for any offender while in the program was 13. When these two outliers are removed from the analysis the average number of substantive convictions for the 26 remaining offenders during their time in the program was 2.81 (range = 0 to 10). The average for administrative convictions was 1.81 (range = 0 to 8) and total convictions averaged 4.62 (range = 0 to 13). 44

69 Table 5.3 Average Number of Convictions While in PPOP by Offence Type Offence Type Mean Range Criminal driving convictions Violent offence convictions Weapons offence convictions Fraud offence convictions Drug offence convictions Property offence convictions Other criminal offence convictions Total Substantive offence convictions Total Administrative offence convictions Total convictions Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N =28 It should be noted that offenders could be in PPOP for very different lengths of time for the longitudinal sample of offenders who had been deselected, this ranged from 3 to 41 months. Thus, simply calculating an average number of convictions during their time in the program does not take account of the fact that the offenders differed widely in the length of time that they could potentially have convictions. For this reason, average number of convictions per month while in the program and in the five years prior to program entry was calculated; see Figure 5.2. This provides for a more valid comparison of criminal activity across program clients. As clients who were deselected because they had died, become permanently incapacitated or relocated, or who were incarcerated for a significant period of time while in PPOP were potentially not in a position to offend while they were in the program, individuals who were deselected for these reasons were excluded from this analysis. This provides the most conservative data for offending behaviour while in the program. The average number of substantive convictions per month during the five years prior to PPOP selection (.24) was considerably higher than the average number of substantive convictions during the program (.09). The average number of administrative convictions in the five years prior to entering the program was slightly lower (.09) than the average number of administrative convictions during the program (.10). This could be due, at least in part, to the higher levels of surveillance and monitoring of offenders in the PPOP program, which could result in offenders receiving more breaches. The average number of total monthly convictions was also considerably higher in the five years before selection into the program (.33) than during the program 45

70 (.19). These findings are very positive for the program and suggest that offending behaviour decreases once individuals enter PPOP. Figure 5.2 Average Number of Convictions/Month Average Number of Monthly Convictions for Deselected Clients in the Longitudinal Sample in the 5 Years Prior to Entry and During PPOP Substantive Convictions Administrative Convictions Total Convictions 5 Years Prior to PPOP During PPOP Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N =28 This analysis excludes clients who were deselected because they had died, become permanently incapacitated or relocated, or who had been incarcerated for a significant period of time while in PPOP (n=16). 5.4 Motivation and Family/Community Support In addition to closely monitoring offenders while they are enrolled in PPOP, the program also develops a case plan for each client and provides referrals to appropriate services. Program personnel were asked to rate the offenders motivation upon selection to the program and again upon deselection from PPOP; Figure 5.3 compares motivation levels at these two points. While low motivation was the most common rating at both selection and deselection, a lower proportion of offenders were rated as having low motivation at deselection (48.1%) than at program entry (63%). Further, while no program clients were rated as very motivated at program entry, two offenders were rated as very motivated upon deselection. Program personnel were also asked to rate the number of healthy family and community supports the offenders had at program entry and again at deselection; see Figure 5.4. While offenders were most likely to be rated as having no healthy supports or a low number of healthy supports at both program entry (77.8%) and at deselection (71.4%) the proportion was slightly lower at deselection. Further, a higher proportion of offenders were rated as having a high number of healthy supports at deselection (14.3%) than at program entry (3.7%). 46

71 Percentaage Figure 5.3 Level of Motivation for Deselected Clients in the Longitudinal Sample at Selection to PPOP and Deselection from PPOP Very motivated Motivated Low Motivation Unknown 18.5 On Selection to PPOP On Deselection from PPOP Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N =28; Missing cases=1 Figure 5.4 Extent of Support System for Deselected Clients in the Longitudinal Sample at Selection to PPOP and Deselection from PPOP Percentaage No healthy supports Low number of healthy supports Moderate number of healthy supports High number of healthy supports On Selection to PPOP On Deselection from PPOP Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N =28; Missing cases at selection=1 47

72 When program personnel were asked if offenders had made progress on developing healthy supports during their time in PPOP, they indicated that progress had been made by over one-third of clients (39.3%). Program personnel were further asked if the offender had a negative life experience while in PPOP, and they responded that four offenders (15.4%) did have a negative experience and, for three of these individuals, the negative life experience affected their progress in the program. 5.5 Substance Abuse Issues at PPOP Deselection The Offender Exit Data Collection Form includes information on any substance abuse issues being dealt with by the program clients while they are connected with PPOP; see Table 5.4. The substantial majority of offenders in the longitudinal sample who have been deselected had either a confirmed addiction (64.3%) or problems with substance use (25%) when they entered the program. Relatively few program clients with substance abuse issues accessed services while they were in PPOP. The services that were accessed by four clients each were residential treatment, individual counselling and group counselling. When asked the offenders level of participation in substance abuse programming, program personnel were most likely to indicate either a low or moderate level of participation (91.3%). Only 8.7% of offenders with substance abuse issues were rated as having a high level of participation. Just over one-quarter of offenders (28.6%) were rated as having made progress with their substance abuse issues while in PPOP. Of the six clients who were rated as making progress, three achieved abstinence and three were able to reduce their substance use. Program personnel were also asked if the PPOP clients with substance abuse issues relapsed while they were in the program, and almost two-thirds (63.6%) had suffered a relapse. Of these, over three-quarters (78.6%) recovered from their relapse while in the program. A few offenders were connected with substance abuse aftercare services upon their deselection from PPOP. Of these services, the most common were individual counselling (12%) and AA/NA (8%). Finally, program personnel were asked about the offenders attitude towards substance abuse services upon deselection. Over two thirds (68.2%) of clients were rated as having a negative attitude, while 27.3% had a positive attitude and only one individual was rated as having an excellent attitude. 48

73 Table 5.4 Deselected Offenders Substance Use Characteristics on Program Exit Substance Use at Program Entry No concerns Offender has problems Confirmed addiction Substance Abuse Services Accessed While in PPOP 1 Detox Residential treatment Individual counselling Group counselling AA/NA Other Characteristic n % Offenders Level of Participation in Substance Abuse Programming 2 Low Moderate High Offender Made Progress with Substance Abuse Issues 3 Yes No Offender Suffered Relapses While in PPOP 4 Yes No Substance Abuse Aftercare Services Connected with After Deselection 1 Detox Residential treatment Individual counselling Group counselling AA/NA Other Offenders Attitude Toward Substance Abuse Services at Deselection 4 Negative Positive Excellent Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N=28 1 This analysis was only conducted for offenders who either had problems with substance use or a confirmed addiction (n=25). Multiple response question 2 This analysis was only conducted for offenders who either had problems with substance use or a confirmed addiction (n=25). Missing cases=2 3 This analysis was only conducted for offenders who either had problems with substance use or a confirmed addiction (n=25). Missing cases=4 4 This analysis was only conducted for offenders who either had problems with substance use or a confirmed addiction (n=25). Missing cases=

74 5.6 Mental Health Issues at PPOP Deselection Program personnel were asked to provide information regarding any mental health issues of deselected PPOP clients in the longitudinal sample at program exit; see Table 5.5. Almost two-thirds of clients (64.3%) did not have any mental health concerns, three clients had a mental health diagnosis at program entry, four were diagnosed with a mental health condition while they were in the program, and four had a suspected mental health condition at deselection. One client had a mental health diagnosis at program entry and another suspected mental health issue at deselection. Two clients had a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and one client each had diagnoses of bipolar disorder, dyslexia, anti-social personality disorder, anxiety/depression, and not otherwise specified psychosis. One client each was suspected of having the following diagnoses: delusional disorder; depression; posttraumatic stress disorder; and low intelligence. Program personnel were asked what, if any, treatments for mental health disorders offenders were being provided through PPOP. Of the 10 offenders with confirmed or suspected mental health diagnoses, the most common treatments being provided through PPOP were medication stabilization (n=5), assessment (n=4), psychiatric consultation (n=3), and individual counselling (n=3). When asked about clients level of motivation to address their mental health issues, program personnel said that four clients had low motivation, two were motivated, and one was very motivated. Over one-half of clients (55.6%) with mental health issues were rated as having made progress in addressing their condition while in the program. Four clients made progress by living a stable lifestyle, four made progress by achieving medication compliance and three were participating in mental health supports. Program personnel said that one-half (50%) of clients with mental health issues were connected with mental health aftercare upon exiting PPOP: three clients were connected with psychiatric consultation; two were receiving individual counselling; and one was connected with residential treatment upon deselection. When asked what the offenders attitude was towards mental health services upon deselection, program personnel said that three individuals had a negative attitude, four had a positive attitude and one had an excellent attitude. 5.7 Medical and Dental Issues at PPOP Deselection Program personnel were asked to indicate if the offenders had any medical or dental issues upon deselection from PPOP. All but two program clients were rated as having no medical issues (92.9%). One offender had a pre-existing medical condition upon entry to the program, while another was diagnosed with a medical problem while he was in the program. The small number of clients with medical issues precludes any 50

75 further analyses of these data. Similarly, no offenders in the longitudinal sample were rated as having dental issues either upon program entry or while in PPOP. Table 5.5 Deselected Offenders Mental Health Characteristics on Program Exit Characteristic n % Mental Health 1 No mental health concerns Offender had a mental health diagnosis at PPOP entry Offender diagnosed with a mental health disorder(s) during PPOP Offender had a suspected mental health condition at deselection Type of Treatment Provided Through PPOP 1,2 Psychiatric consultation Assessment Medication stabilization Individual counselling Group counselling Other Offenders Level of Motivation to Address Mental Health Issues 2 Very motivated Motivated Low motivation Unknown Offender Made Progress in Addressing Mental Health Condition During PPOP 2,3 Yes No Type of Progress Made on Addressing Mental Health Condition 1,4 Stable lifestyle Medication compliance Participation in mental health supports Offenders Attitude Toward Mental Health Services upon Deselection 2,5 Negative Positive Excellent Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N=28 1 Multiple response question 2 Based on offenders with mental health diagnoses or suspected mental health disorder(s) (n=10). 3 Missing cases=1 4 Based on offenders who made progress in addressing mental health condition during PPOP (n=5). 5 Missing cases=

76 5.8 Employment and Education Characteristics at PPOP Deselection The Offender Exit Data Collection Form includes information on deselected PPOP clients employment and educational status at program exit; see Table 5.6. Almost one-half of deselected offenders (48.1%) had no income, while almost one-quarter (22.2%) had income from employment and 18.5% were receiving social assistance. Over two-thirds (70.4%) were unemployed at program exit, while 14.8% were employed fulltime, and one offender each had seasonal and part-time employment. Four offenders who were unemployed at program entry had obtained employment by program exit, while three individuals who were employed at program entry were unemployed at program exit. Table 5.6 Deselected Offenders Employment and Education Characteristics Characteristic n % Source of Income at PPOP Deselection 1 No income Social assistance Employment insurance Employment Other Employment Status at PPOP Deselection 1 Unemployed Part-time employment Full-time employment Seasonal employment Unknown Highest Level of Education Attained at Deselection 2 Junior high school Some high school High school graduate Trade Some university University graduate Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N=28 1 Missing cases=1 2 Missing cases= With respect to the highest level of education obtained by PPOP deselection, offenders were most likely to have some high school education (65.2%), followed by a high school diploma (17.4%). Only two program clients had any education beyond high school. Almost all offenders were rated by program personnel as being able to read and write (96% each). 52

77 5.9 Housing Characteristics and Other Needs at PPOP Deselection Program personnel reported that over one-third of deselected PPOP clients (42.9%) made housing changes during their time in the program. For over threequarters of these offenders (77.8%), it was reported that their housing situation improved. Table 5.7 provides a summary of the items on the Offender Exit Data Collection Form relating to offenders housing characteristics and other needs upon deselection from PPOP. Over one-quarter (28.6%) of offenders were renting their own home at deselection from PPOP, compared to 18.5% at program entry, while 25% each were living with family or friends or in custody. The proportion of offenders in custody at deselection (25%) was substantially lower than at program entry (40.7%). No offenders in the longitudinal sample owned their own home at program entry, while one individual owned a home at deselection. Program personnel reported that three offenders were able to obtain identification and the basic necessities of life during their time in PPOP. Table 5.7 Deselected Offenders Housing Characteristics and Other Needs Offender s Living Arrangement upon PPOP Exit In custody Shelter Rehabilitation facility With family/friends Rents own home Owns own home Unknown Characteristic n % Offender Obtained Identification While in PPOP Offender Obtained Basic Necessities While in PPOP Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N= Service Referrals While in PPOP A total of 25 referrals to community agencies were made for one-half of the deselected offenders (50%) in the longitudinal sample during their time in PPOP. The types of agencies to which referrals were made are presented in Table 5.8. Most frequently, referrals were made to addictions services (24%), mental health services (20%), family/children s services (16%), and correctional transitions services (12%). For each referral made, program personnel were asked if the offender accessed the service. For three-quarters of the referrals made (76%), the offender accessed the service

78 Table 5.8 Service Referrals for Deselected Offenders While in PPOP Service n % Addictions services Mental health services Family/children s services Correctional transitions services Employment/education services Housing services Medical services Other Source of data: Offender Exit Data Collection Form Total N=28 Multiple response question

79 6.0 STAFF SURVEY 6.1 Introduction The PPOP staff survey was conducted to provide information on the process and outcomes of the program from the perspective of those working most closely with it. The staff survey was last conducted for the first outcome evaluation report submitted in Where appropriate, changes in the views of staff in the intervening three years are highlighted. All staff and supervisors were ed a link to the survey and asked to complete it independently. Nine of 10 staff/supervisors who were sent the survey completed it, for a response rate of 90%. On average, staff members and supervisors who completed the survey had been involved with PPOP for 44 months (range = 23 to 90 months). This chapter summarizes the quantitative and qualitative data obtained from the survey. 6.2 PPOP Processes Staff were asked a number of questions regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of PPOP in relation to program processes and procedures. Staff were first asked the extent to which PPOP is meeting its three program goals; see Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Extent to Which Staff Agree with PPOP Goals Goal Goal #1: Ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and up-to-date information when prosecuting prolific offenders Goal #2: Promote rehabilitation via the provision of appropriate support services for the offender Goal #3: Promote meaningful consequences for offenders Source of data: Staff Survey Total N=9 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree n % n % n % n % n %

80 Overall, staff were very positive about PPOP s ability to meet its program goals. With regard to goal #1, ensuring Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and upto-date information when prosecuting prolific offenders, all of those surveyed either strongly agreed (88.9%) or agreed (11.1%). A substantially higher proportion of staff strongly agreed this year than did in the 2013 survey (53.8%). All staff surveyed either strongly agreed (77.8%) or agreed (22.2%) that PPOP was meeting goal #2 (promoting rehabilitation via the provision of appropriate support services for the offender). While one staff member strongly disagreed that PPOP was meeting this goal in the 2013 survey, no one disagreed or strongly disagreed this year. For goal #3, promoting meaningful consequences for offenders, the majority strongly agreed (66.7%) or agreed (11.1%) that this goal is being met; however, two participants (22.2%) neither agreed nor disagreed. In the 2013 survey, one staff member disagreed that this goal was being met; in the current survey, no one disagreed. When asked if the process of receiving referrals from local police services is working well, all but one respondent (88.9%) said that it is. The one staff member who disagreed elaborated on his/her response, indicating that there has been a decline in referrals from the Edmonton Police Service in Staff were also asked their views on the primary and secondary selection criteria for the program. Table 6.2 summarizes the extent to which staff agree that the primary criteria are appropriate for selection of offenders into the program. Table 6.2 Extent to Which Staff Agree with the Primary PPOP Selection Criteria Criteria Criterion #1: A history of frequently committing substantive offences Criterion #2: A history of committing substantive offences while on release Criterion #3: A history of noncompliance with court orders including failing to appear and breach of conditions Criterion #4: Intelligence indicates the offender is currently active in committing criminal activity Criterion #5: The criminal behaviour of the individual has a serious impact on public safety and victimization and/or on public confidence in the justice system Source of data: Staff Survey; Total N=9 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree n % n % n % n % n %

81 All staff who participated either agreed or strongly agreed with all five of the criteria: a history of frequently committing substantive offences; a history of committing substantive offences while on release; a history of non-compliance with court orders including failing to appear and breach of conditions; intelligence indicates the offender is currently active in committing criminal activity; and that the criminal behaviour of the individual has a serious impact on public safety and victimization and/or on public confidence in the justice system. No respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with any criterion. Respondents to this year s survey were considerably more likely to strongly agree that the primary criteria are appropriate than were respondents to the 2013 survey, in which the proportion who strongly agreed ranged from 46.2% to 61.5%. Table 6.3 summarizes the views of staff regarding the secondary selection criteria. Overall, staff were very positive that the secondary criteria are appropriate for the selection of offenders to PPOP, with three-quarters saying that they strongly agree with each criterion. No one disagreed that any criterion is appropriate, and only one staff member neither agreed nor disagreed with criterion #4, the offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates. As with the primary criteria, respondents to this year s survey were considerably more likely to strongly agree that the discretionary criteria are appropriate than were respondents to the 2013 survey, where the proportion who strongly agreed ranged from 15.4% to 61.5%. Table 6.3 Extent to Which Staff Agree with the Secondary PPOP Selection Criteria Criteria Criterion #1: The offender s criminal behaviour is correlated with addictions Criterion #2: The offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness Criterion #3: The offender is unemployed and does not have stable residency Criterion #4: The offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates Source of data: Staff Survey Total N=9; Missing cases=1 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree n % n % n % n % n %

82 When asked if the criteria are consistently used to select offenders, all 9 staff members agreed. When asked whether they thought that any changes should be made to the way in which offenders are selected, staff offered a number of comments and suggestions. One individual commented that the first primary criterion of five or more substantive charges laid within the past five years might be too low and that consideration should be given to raising the threshold to more convictions within the past five years or five or more convictions within a shorter time period. Another respondent made this point as well. Two staff members also commented that they thought that all of the criteria should be given equal weight, rather than being divided into primary and secondary, and that offenders should be considered eligible for the program if they meet seven of the nine criteria. One respondent suggested that it might also be useful to consider offenders motivation towards rehabilitation when selecting them into the program. Staff were also asked whether the process of providing Comprehensive Offender Management Packages (COMP) to Crown prosecutors is working well. All but one respondent (88.9%) said that it is working well. The one individual who did not think that the process is working well commented that: Although Crown has requested to have specific information included in the COMP, they actually don t end up using it in bail hearings (day to day operations) because the document is too long. Over the years, the COMP has evolved away from just a tool for the Crown. Police are interested in using the document for bail hearing purposes and do not need as much information as is currently in the COMP. Also, the COMP is very onerous to update in terms of the executive summary to give risk assessment information that is absolutely necessary for bail hearing information (especially as the case load increases or becomes scalable). All respondents said that the process for notifying Crown prosecutors that an offender is a prolific offender is working well; one respondent to the 2013 survey did not think that this was working well. Staff members were asked if Crown prosecutors are using the COMP, and 55.6% said that they are, while 44.4% said that they are not. The proportion who said that they are being used is considerably lower than in the 2013 surveys. When those who responded that the COMP are not being used were asked why not, two respondents said that they are unsure if they are being used, while one said that from his/her experience, they are being used about 40% of the time. Another individual responded that they are too long too much information. Can t pick out what is important to them (which varies between each Crown). Participants were also asked whether support services are sufficient and about formal partnerships with service providers; see Table 6.4. When asked whether there are sufficient support services available for the offenders in the program, a majority 58

83 (66.7%) said no. This is comparable to the proportion who said no in the 2013 survey (69.2%). When asked to elaborate, two participants mentioned specific areas in which more services are needed such as housing, support staff, treatment beds, and rural resources. Another respondent commented: I believe that there are appropriate services, however they are structured so that many of those individuals with criminal records cannot access them, i.e. housing. Another staff member commented that what is needed is: A systematic approach to collaborative, integrated offender management whereby each ministry communicates with others. This requires a systemic alignment of Gold, Silver and Bronze levels of staffing in each ministry so that process relationships can be formed to get offenders services REGARDLESS of who makes the call to the service providers. Housing and addictions are the absolute key issues and are rarely addressed without buy-in from the offender. This requires a great deal of work with the offender to shape their behaviour and therefore requires a complete paradigm shift in police to actually understand how to respond to the criminogenic needs of the offender. Table 6.4 Staff Perceptions of Support Services Question Are there sufficient support services available to which prolific offenders can be referred? Does the program have formal partnerships with service providers? Yes No n % n % Source of data: Staff Survey Total N=9 When asked if PPOP has formal partnerships with service providers, over threequarters (77.8%) of staff members said that it does not, which was very similar to the proportion that responded negatively in the 2013 survey (84.6%). One respondent commented that there is a desperate need for the establishment of formal partnerships with rehabilitation agencies as well as employment and mental health agencies. Another commented that formal partnerships would allow for process relationships as opposed to only personal relationships between stakeholders. However, one individual who said that PPOP does not have formal partnerships commented that progress has been made in this area: This is what PPOP Calgary has been working towards with the various agencies such as treatment facilities and Alberta Works. During the information gathering phase and holding meetings with several agencies, the Calgary Constable has become very aware of some limitations the program has and what could be 59

84 changed to enhance the credibility of the program and enable the partnerships to be put into place. Staff were asked about the monitoring of PPOP offenders, and whether the current processes are working well. Just over one-half of respondents (55.6%) agreed that the monitoring is working well, which is lower than in the 2013 survey (76.9%). When asked to elaborate, one individual commented that monitoring is not as effective in Edmonton, in comparison to Calgary, due to the program location and access to law enforcement resources. Another commented that unless we have committed stakeholders who have committed to a formal process relationship, offender management will not work. Managing these types of offenders cannot be done of the side of your desk. Finally, one respondent commented on the situation for PPOP North and upcoming changes to the program that should serve to enhance offender monitoring: The group of offenders that PPOP North supervises is not necessarily representative of the population of prolific offenders in Northern Alberta. PPOP North is looking to change that, with a move to a police station in Edmonton in the coming weeks and the implementation of Integrated Offender Management through the Capital Region. Staff were asked about their perceptions of offender engagement in the program. When asked if offenders are engaged in the program, 44.4% said yes, 44.4% said no, and one individual said that the answer is both yes and no. The proportion who said yes is up slightly from the 2013 survey (30.8%). Two respondents commented that only offenders who want to change for the better are engaged with the program. Another staff member commented: I find that offenders usually are very engaged at the onset but the lack of formal partnerships and ready help cause a delay in any meaningful assistance and causes a gap that is usually filled with criminal activity. The individual who said that the answer is both yes and no commented that: The relationship is fluid, sometimes they participate, other times they do not. What keeps them engaged is the long-term relationship we build with them over time. For offenders who refuse to engage, it comes to a point where you need to get them off your list and pass them over to police for enforcement. You can help them too much and then start to become an enabler. When staff members were asked to rate the extent to which offenders comply with treatment and bail or probation sentencing conditions, two-thirds (66.7%) responded sometimes, while 22.2% said often and one respondent (11.1%) said rarely. The proportion who said rarely in this year s survey is lower than in the 2013 survey (30.8%) and the proportion who said often is higher this year (7.7% in 2013). Respondents were asked whether the program s response to relapse or reoffending is timely and adequate, and a majority (55.6%) said yes, which is lower than 60

85 the proportion in the 2013 survey (85.6%). One respondent commented that there are too many barriers in place not only to lay charges in a timely manner, but also for the Crown/Court to respond to reoffences. Finally, with regard to program processes, staff were asked whether they felt the deselection criteria for the program are appropriate, and a large majority (88.9%) agreed and only one participant disagreed. This is the same pattern that was obtained in the 2013 survey. Two respondents commented on other deselection criteria that should be included. One said that a criterion that should be included is when the offender is simply not interested. We have too many offenders ready to join the program and that we can t accept due to lack of capacity, when we could let go of those who will not work with the program. In a similar vein, the other respondent commented that I believe there should be one more criterion, the offender refuses to participate in diversion or rehabilitation but still is a high risk to reoffend and should become the priority of an enforcement team. 6.3 PPOP Growth and Sustainability Staff and supervisors were asked a number of questions related to the ability of PPOP to grow and be sustainable. Table 6.5 summarizes the results. Table 6.5 Staff Perceptions of PPOP s Growth and Sustainability Question Yes No n % n % Should PPOP be expanded to other locations? Should the unit be expanded to accept more offenders? Do the processes in place support moving forward? Are resources in place sufficient for future expansion? Source of data: Staff Survey Total N=9 When asked if PPOP should be expanded to other locations in Alberta, all respondents said yes. This is an increase from the 2013 staff survey, when two participants said that the program should not be expanded to other locations. When asked if the current unit should be expanded to accept more offenders, again, a substantial majority (88.9%) said yes. The one respondent who said that PPOP should not be expanded to accept more offenders commented that if our learnings are pushed to community and local stakeholders, there would be no need for PPOP to expand. Staff members were asked if the current processes and procedures would support the expansion of PPOP. One-third of respondents (33.3%) said that the current 61

86 processes and procedures would support expansion of the program, which was a substantial decline from the 76.9% who said yes in the 2013 survey. Two respondents who did not think that the current processes and procedures could support the expansion of PPOP commented that more program personnel is required before PPOP could be expanded. One staff member commented that learning from the program must be discussed in a larger sense, not the program itself. The concept of PPOP remains that it is a boutique program, thus the discussions need to be started around Integrated Offender Management. Another suggested that a change in focus may be required: focus needs to be on those committing the most problems in the community. These persons may not meet the current criteria. Selection should be based on the effect the person is having on the community versus whether or not they are considered prolific. Finally, one individual mentioned the need for government support for expansion: they are at the beginning stages [of expansion], but require much more robust support and advocacy at all levels of government in all the ministries. This has to be preceded by education and advocacy by the people currently doing the work. With regard to the sufficiency of resources and program expansion, similar to the findings from the 2013 survey, a large majority (88.9%) felt that the current resource structure is not sufficient to support expansion. One respondent commented that specialized housing for these offenders if required. Two staff members commented that additional personnel would be required for future expansion, while another discussed several areas in which additional resources would be required: Culture change in police to understand [that] criminogenic needs drive crime and unless needs are addressed, crime will continue. Culture change in other social services to understand and accept their role in the public security continuum. Crown prosecutors to recognize the Pareto principle and treat the 80/20 prolific offenders with PRIORITY. Information sharing protocol between ministries and education to Gold, Silver, and Bronze personnel that we are ALLOWED to share information for purposes of case management for public safety. Dedicated housing and addictions supports for provincial offenders transitioning out of jail and back into the community. Federal offenders have access to these services, but provincial offenders do not. Staff members were asked what impact PPOP has had on the justice system. Two respondents commented on how useful the COMP is to Crown prosecutors and judges: PPOP has demonstrated the information is key. The bail packages provided to Crown are second to none. It has been demonstrated numerous times that offenders on PPOP receive either longer sentences or tend not to commit further offences. PPOP Calgary has had a very positive impact on the Criminal Justice System in providing current and sourced information to the Crown and enabling the judge to make decisions based on accurate and relevant information. Working closely 62

87 with the Crown has resulted in better conditions for the offenders as well as appropriate sentences for repeat offenders. Another respondent commented on the impact of PPOP on offenders: While the impact of PPOP has been minimal for the criminal justice system, I believe that the impact individually for offenders has been significant. The impact on any system, whether criminal or not, will only occur when the learnings of PPOP are pushed out to the other systems and communities. Finally, staff and supervisors were asked for any additional comments they had about PPOP, and most of the comments addressed the ways in which the program could evolve as it moves forward. PPOP is a great concept and could be an extremely great tool in lowering crime. The studies show that it has had great success. PPOP needs to develop solid formal partnerships with treatment and other government agencies. The PPOP and RCMP HOM programs will not survive separately having the same goal, the programs need to come under one umbrella and not compete against each other. To expand this program, it will take a lot of support from decision makers. It will also take the creation of new positions. In speaking for the RCMP, we are a police force that is set up for reactionary policing not proactive policing. It will also take changing police culture. In policing, political pressure seems to take over and dictate what our priorities are. While PPOP has served individual offenders well, it is too small a program to create systems changes that are required in order that all prolific, chronic offenders have access to services and don t end up in the cycle of the justice system. The future for PPOP is to move away from the title of PPOP and move to an Integrated Offender Management approach where we share our key learnings with our partners and engage them into creating systems changes to ensure that all are responsible for community safety. Edmonton is moving forward with an Integrated Offender Management initiative to expand the already good work that PPOP has done. This will include a larger, more diverse offender caseload with the aim of teaching front line officers how to manage offenders with risk-need-responsivity (RNR) principles. 63

88 7.0 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY 7.1 Introduction An important component of PPOP is its relationship with community partners. Eight key community stakeholder groups were identified: police (Edmonton Police Service, Calgary Police Service, RCMP), who provide referrals and monitoring support; Sheriffs Investigative Support Unit, who provide surveillance on PPOP targets; Crown prosecutors, who receive and utilize the comprehensive bail packages to recommend bail and sentencing conditions; defence counsel, who defend offenders in court; Provincial Court Judges, who make decisions regarding bail and sentencing; treatment/service providers, who provide support services (e.g., rehabilitation, housing, mental health, education, employment, etc.); probation officers, who provide supervision to PPOP offenders in the community; and police analysts, who provide analytical and monitoring support, as well as make referrals to PPOP. The survey was designed to ask both general and specific questions with regard to each stakeholder s role in relation to PPOP. A total of 113 surveys were distributed, and 42 stakeholders completed them for a response rate of 37.2%. Unfortunately, there were no judges or members of the Sheriffs Investigative Support Unit who completed the survey. Responses of the police officers and analysts were combined since the questions they were asked were substantially the same. 7.2 Sample Table 7.1 shows the distribution of professions among the sample. Crown prosecutors, probation officers, and treatment/service providers composed the majority of the sample, at 26.2%, 21.4%, and 21.4% respectively. Police officers comprised 19% of the sample. Police analysts (7.1%) and defence counsel (4.8%) accounted for the remainder of the sample. 64

89 Table 7.1 Stakeholder Survey Respondents Profession Profession Total n % Crown prosecutor Probation officer Treatment/service provider Police officer Police analyst Defence counsel Source of data: Stakeholder Survey Total N=42 Stakeholders were asked the location where they work, and the results are summarized in Table 7.2. The majority of respondents (57.1%) were in Edmonton, while 19% were from Calgary and 23.8% were from other locations across Alberta. Table 7.2 Location of Stakeholder Survey Respondents Location Total n % Calgary Edmonton Other* Source of data: Stakeholder Survey Total N=42 * Other includes Airdrie, Gleichen, Leduc, Medicine Hat, Sherwood Park, St. Albert, Stony Plain, Westlock, Wetaskiwin, and rural southern Alberta 7.3 Survey Results Perceptions of Police Officers and Police Analysts A total of eight police officers and three police analysts responded to the survey, 36.4% (n=4) from Calgary, 36.4% (n=4) from Edmonton, and 27.3% (n=3) from surrounding areas. On average, the police officers and analysts in the sample had known about PPOP for 4.8 years, ranging from 1 to 8 years, and had each referred an average of 2.2 offenders to the program, ranging from 0 to 4. 65

90 Police officers and analysts were asked a number of questions about their roles in relation to PPOP, such as referral and monitoring of offenders. Table 7.3 summarizes data on the means by which the eight police officers and three analysts refer offenders to PPOP. One-half (54.5%) complete the referral form, while 88.8% of respondents also the PPOP Constable and approximately one-quarter (27.3%) call the PPOP Constable. One-third (36.4%) said that they provide the offender s name, date of birth, and a brief synopsis as their referral, and one reported that they refer offenders from the Serious Habitual Offender Program (SHOP) if youth who have reached adulthood continue to offend. Table 7.3 Means by which Police Officers and Analysts Refer Offenders to PPOP Means Total n % I complete the referral/intake form I the PPOP Constable I call the PPOP Constable I provide the offender s name, date of birth, and a brief synopsis I refer offenders from SHOP if youth who have reached adulthood continue to offend Source of data: Stakeholder Survey Total N=11 Multiple response data Police officers and analysts were asked whether local police services as the source of PPOP referrals is working well. Less than one-half of respondents (45.5%) agreed that this is working well, which is a considerable decrease from 93.8% of respondents to the 2013 survey. One respondent who said that the referral process is not working well said that it s adequate in my opinion but a bit more hands on presence in detachments and more frequent contact (even bi-yearly) would improve the referral process. We are very fortunate in our office to have an excellent working relationship with our PPOP member. Another respondent commented that most officers don t know that it exists, while one individual said that field investigators are apprehensive of the amount of work for themselves and they know PPOP resource levels are low. Police and analysts were also asked specific questions about the monitoring of offenders. First they were asked whether they continue monitoring the activities of offenders for PPOP once they have been selected for the program. Just under one-half of respondents (45.5%) said that they do continue to monitor the activities of the offender, and, of these, 80% said that this process is working well. When the one individual who 66

91 did not think that the process was working well was asked why not, they responded that there isn t good communication. Participants were asked what they do with information gained from monitoring an offender, and the results are summarized in Table 7.4. Most respondents (81.8%) said that they share the information with PPOP, and almost two-thirds (63.6%) said that they share it with other police officers. Two police officers each said that they use the information to help solve crimes and that they enter the information into the PROS system. One officer said that they share the information with Crown prosecutors. The one officer who indicated that they use the information for another purpose said our PPOP offenders are shared in our internal bulletin so as to advise our service of their involvement. Table 7.4 How Monitoring Information is Used, as Reported by Police Officers and Analysts How Information is Used Total n % Share the information with PPOP Share the information with fellow police officers Share the information with Crown Prosecutors* Use the information to help solve crimes* Enter the information into PROS* Other Source of data: Stakeholder Survey Total N=11; *these questions were only asked of police officers (n=8). Multiple response data Additionally, police officers were asked whether they are aware of other methods used to monitor PPOP offenders. Two respondents said that they are aware of other methods. When asked to identify these other methods, one respondent mentioned the RCMP Habitual Offender Management program, while another said that Calgary PPOP facilitates partner relationships from many sources and has access to all CPS resources. Finally, police officers and analysts were asked whether there are any programs within their agencies that overlap with PPOP. Almost two-thirds of respondents (63.6%) said that there are. When asked what the outcome of this overlap is, two respondents mentioned that a new program called the Prolific Offender Engagement Team is just starting up and the effects of the overlap have yet to be seen. 67

92 7.3.2 Perceptions of Crown Prosecutors Eleven Crown prosecutors responded to the survey, answering questions regarding their experience with PPOP and the Comprehensive Offender Management Packages (COMP). One prosecutor was from Calgary and the other ten were from Edmonton. Their level of experience with the program varied, with their knowledge of PPOP spanning 1 to 8 years and averaging 5.3 years. When asked how many of their cases have involved PPOP offenders, answers ranged from 4 to 14, with an average of 9.7. One individual responded too many to count. Crown prosecutors were asked a number of questions regarding the COMPs. When asked if the process of PPOP creating and providing Crown prosecutors with COMPS is working well, ten respondents (90.9%) agreed it is and one respondent said that it is not. The respondent who did not think that the process is working well commented that I don t always see one of these on the file. One Crown prosecutor who said that the process is working well commented that these packages are invaluable, especially on bail. When asked if they are using the COMPs, all but two of the Crown Prosecutors (81.8%) said that they are. One respondent who said that they do not use them said that he or she hadn t heard of them and the other individual said that he or she hasn t always seen them. When respondents who said that they used the COMPs were asked if the information contained in them is useful for prosecuting offenders, all nine Crown prosecutors agreed. Ten respondents (90.9%) said that they receive the COMPs in a timely fashion, all respondents said that the information is up-to-date, and ten (90.9%) said that the information they receive is accurate. Crown prosecutors were also asked whether the process for notifying them that an offender is part of PPOP is working well, and the majority agreed (81.8%) while two individuals disagreed. One of the respondents who disagreed said that they sometimes learn that an offender is a PPOP client by chance, while the other commented that a designated Crown prosecutor for PPOP clients is needed in Calgary. When asked if appropriate offenders are being identified for PPOP, all 11 respondents agreed that this is the case. Crown prosecutors were asked whether they are more likely to suggest conditions for PPOP offenders. The majority of respondents (81.8%) said that they are more likely to suggest conditions for PPOP offenders, while two respondents said that they are not. One of these individuals commented that it s case specific, so it depends on the case, while the other said that [they] need to be detained, not [receive] conditions. Finally, when asked if offenders are complying with treatment and bail or probation sentencing conditions, just over one-third of prosecutors (36.4%) said sometimes, 18.2% each said often and rarely, and 27.3% said that they don t know. Crown 68

93 prosecutors were asked if PPOP s response to relapse or reoffending is timely and adequate and eight of the nine individuals (88.9%) who responded said yes. The one individual who said no commented that probation monitoring is non-existent Perceptions of Treatment/Service Providers A total of nine treatment/service providers completed the survey, with seven respondents from Edmonton and two from Calgary. The treatment/service providers had known about PPOP for an average of 3.4 years (range =.5 to 7 years), and had provided services to an average of 5.1 PPOP offenders (range = 2 to 15). Treatment/service providers were asked a number of questions about the services they provide to PPOP offenders and their views of the program. When asked what type of services they provide to PPOP offenders, the treatment/service providers surveyed provided a variety; see Table 7.5. The most common are counselling (66.7%) and mental health services (66.7%), followed by addiction treatment programs (55.6%). Two respondents each said that they provide permanent housing services, temporary or transitional housing services, or employment programs. One respondent each said that they offer community access support and supports to assist in the transition from incarceration to the community. Table 7.5 Types of Services Provided to PPOP Offenders by Treatment/Service Providers Types of Services Total n % Mental health services Counselling Addiction/treatment programs Permanent housing Temporary/transitional housing Employment programs Community access supports Transitional supports from incarceration to community Source of data: Stakeholder Survey Total N=9 Multiple response data

94 When asked if they are able to provide the services that PPOP requires, threequarters (75%) of the eight who responded said yes, while two respondents said no. When the respondents who did not think that they are able to provide the services required were asked why not, one individual said that the group from which referrals are made needs to be expanded. AHS personnel who work with offenders need to be included. The other respondent commented: Not always and this has been a specific challenge. PPOP is based on the criminal justice system and my service is based on equality and choice rooted in the social work system. PPOP can enforce certain restrictions whereas my service is voluntary for those involved. Service agencies have the right to refuse to support people that pose a risk to their staff. My service works very hard at developing relationships with agencies. There have been occasions where the two philosophies have clashed and relationships have been damaged. I believe we require an increased effort in working collaboratively rather than moving the responsibility from one system to the next. When asked if they have a formal partnership with PPOP, only two of the seven (28.6%) treatment/service providers who responded said that they did. Those who answered no (n=5) were asked whether a formal partnership would be beneficial, all respondents indicated that it would be. When asked specifically if they have encountered any issues with regard to information sharing in their work with PPOP, two of the seven (28.6%) said yes. When asked to elaborate, one respondent said that information sharing has been able to be worked out on a case-by-case basis, but a more formalized consent-to-share-information form would be beneficial. Treatment/service providers were asked whether the referral process from PPOP to their agency is working well. Five of the six (83.3%) of the individuals who responded said that the process is working well. The individual who did not think that the referral process is working well commented that only a few of the PPOP officers have contacted us and we often have to connect with them. Treatment/service providers were asked whether having PPOP closely involved is a benefit, and all who responded (n=7) agreed. When asked whether PPOP staff fulfill their role in facilitating appropriate service referrals, all of those who responded to the question (n=6) agreed that they do. Treatment/service providers were asked if they have the capacity to provide timely service to offenders in PPOP, and five of the seven (71.4%) individuals who responded said that they do. When asked why they do not have this capacity, one individual commented that there are many systems that need to align for clients to receive the best and most timely services to meet their needs. Due to multiple systems and some clients complex needs, it can be difficult for all systems to align. Finally, when asked if they have dedicated resources for offenders in PPOP, four of the seven (57.1%) said that they do. 70

95 When those who said no were asked to elaborate, one individual commented that PPOP clients are served along with non-ppop clients. PPOP clients and other high-risk/highneeds clients (i.e., those under the supervision of the Behavioural Assessment Unit) are given a higher priority for service however Perceptions of Probation Officers A total of nine probation officers responded to the survey, two of them working in Edmonton and the remainder in other locations around Alberta. No probation officers based in Calgary completed the survey. Probation officers were asked about offender selection, services for offenders, offender compliance, and deselection from PPOP. Probation officers were first asked whether they thought the appropriate offenders are being selected for PPOP, and all agreed that they are. Probation officers were also asked the extent to which offenders are complying with treatment, bail, and sentencing conditions. Over three-quarters (77.8%) said that offenders comply with their conditions sometimes, while one respondent each said often and rarely. When asked whether the program s response to relapse or reoffending is timely and adequate, all but one probation officer (88.9%) agreed that it is. The one individual who disagreed commented that I don t believe [the response] can always be timely to relapse can be hard to assess and intervene. Sometimes offenders won t admit to this until much later. That being said, I think responses to reoffending were fair for the most part. Probation officers were also asked about support services for offenders. When asked whether there are sufficient support services available, all but one probation officer (88.9%) said no. Respondents who said that there are not enough support services were asked what additional services are needed; see Table 7.6. Over threequarters of probation officers suggested that temporary/transitional housing and employment programs are needed (77.8% each). Two-thirds said that rehabilitation services immediately upon offenders release and drug treatment beds/programs are necessary (66.7% each). Permanent housing services were mentioned by 44.4% of respondents, while reintegration services and transit passes were each suggested by one-third (33.3%%) of respondents. One probation officer said that access to resources for remote rural clients is needed. Finally, probation officers were asked about the appropriateness of the criteria for deselection from the program. Eight of the nine respondents (88.9%) agreed that the deselection criteria are appropriate and one disagreed. The individual who disagreed commented that the period of being crime free should be raised to one year from the current six months. 71

96 Table 7.6 Types of Services Needed for PPOP Offenders, as Reported by Probation Officers Types of Services 72 Total n % Temporary/transitional housing Employment programs Rehabilitation services immediately upon offenders release Drug treatment beds/programs Permanent housing Reintegration services Transit passes Access to services for remote rural clients Source of data: Stakeholder Survey Total N=9 Multiple response data Perceptions of Defence Counsel Two defence counsel, one from Calgary and one from Edmonton, completed the stakeholder survey. The respondents had known about PPOP for eight and three years. One individual had represented 5 clients who had been involved with PPOP, while the other had represented 25 PPOP clients. When asked if appropriate offenders are being identified for PPOP, both defence counsel said that they are. Defence counsel were also asked if the disclosure by Crown prosecutors of the information contained in the Comprehensive Offender Management Packages is working well, and both agreed that it is. When asked if the referral services used by PPOP are appropriate for their clients, one lawyer said that they are and one said that they are not. The individual who did not think that that the services are appropriate commented that there is a significant need for more referrals and access to residential drug treatment. One defence lawyer agreed that there are sufficient support services available to which PPOP clients can be referred and one disagreed. When the individual who did not think that there are sufficient services was asked what is needed, he or she mentioned: more drug treatment beds/programs; more temporary/transitional housing; more reintegration services; and more rehabilitation services immediately upon an offender s release from prison. When asked to what extent offenders are complying with their treatment and bail or probation sentencing conditions, both defence counsel said that compliance

97 occurs sometimes. One lawyer said that the program s response to relapse or reoffending is timely and adequate, and one did not think that this is the case. The lawyer who disagreed that the response is timely and adequate offered the following comment: Where Drug Treatment Court is effective is appreciating the nature of drug addiction and that relapse for many will happen. It is crucial that accused persons begin to look at PPOP officers as individuals who can support them and [are] not just looking for a breach that will send them back to jail. A relapse should not always result in a recommendation that bail is revoked, but perhaps look at it like they need to spend a short, sharp period of time in custody and then be given another chance to prove that they are committed to getting clean. When asked if they think that the PPOP deselection criteria are appropriate for the program, one defence lawyer said that they are and one said that they are not. The respondent who disagreed commented that often longer term support is required for an individual to find a stable life in the community Views on PPOP Selection Criteria Police officers, police analysts, probation officers, and defence counsel were asked the extent to which they agreed that the PPOP primary and secondary selection criteria are appropriate; see Table 7.7. Findings were slightly more positive than those obtained in the 2013 survey. A substantial majority of the respondents (over 95%) either agreed or strongly agreed with the appropriateness of each of the primary selection criteria. No one disagreed with the appropriateness of any of the primary criteria. A majority of respondents (over 70%) also agreed or strongly agreed with the appropriateness of each of the secondary criteria. Four respondents (18.2%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the appropriateness of secondary criterion #1, the offender s criminal behaviour is correlated with addictions. Though 72.7% agreed or strongly agreed with secondary criterion #2, the offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness, 13.6% disagreed and another 13.6% neither agreed nor disagreed. Regarding secondary criterion #3, the offender is unemployed and does not have stable residency, while 72.7% agreed or strongly agreed, 13.6% disagreed and 13.6% neither agreed nor disagreed. Finally, over 77.3% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the appropriateness of secondary criterion #4, the offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates. However, 9.1% disagreed and 13.6% neither agreed nor disagreed. No one strongly disagreed with the appropriateness of any of the secondary criteria. 73

98 Table 7.7 Extent to Which Police Officers, Police Analysts, Probation Officers, and Defence Counsel Agree that the PPOP Selection Criteria are Appropriate Criteria Primary criterion 1: A history of frequently committing substantive offences Primary criterion 2: A history of committing substantive offences while on release Primary criterion 3: A history of non-compliance with court orders including failing to appear and breach of conditions Primary criterion 4: Intelligence indicates the offender is currently active in committing criminal activity Primary criterion 5: Criminal behaviour of the individual has a serious impact on public safety and victimization and/or on public confidence in the justice system Secondary criterion 1: Offender s criminal behaviour is correlated with addictions Secondary criterion 2: Offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness Secondary criterion 3: Offender is unemployed and does not have a stable residency Secondary criterion 4: Offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates Source of data: Stakeholder Survey Total N=22 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree n % n % n % n % n % When asked whether any changes should be made to the PPOP selection criteria, one respondent commented that the key issues are addiction, mental health, and the 74

99 likelihood of reoffending, as shown by their previous record and by their ability to obey court orders, while another said that I don t think mental health issues should be a secondary criterion. Mental health is not a criminogenic factor while the other ones listed are. One participant suggested that perhaps some secondary factor about the offender lacking social ties (i.e., disengaged from family, history of domestic violence, etc.) [should be included], and another said that the number of historical offences should be increased Perceptions of PPOP s Impact and Future All of the stakeholders were asked general questions about the impact and future of PPOP: whether it has met its goals, its impact on the justice system, and whether it could and should be expanded. Table 7.8 provides stakeholders level of agreement with whether PPOP goals are being achieved. Similar to the findings from the 2013 survey, a substantial majority of stakeholders either agreed or strongly agreed that PPOP is achieving each of its three goals. No participants disagreed that PPOP is ensuring that Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and up-to-date information when prosecuting prolific offenders, while 88.1% either agreed or strongly agreed that this is the case. With regard to PPOP s goal to promote rehabilitation via the provision of appropriate support services, 7.5% disagreed, while 82.5% either agreed or strongly agreed. Finally, when asked if PPOP is promoting meaningful consequences for offenders, 5% disagreed, and 82.5% either agreed or strongly agreed. No respondents strongly disagreed that any on the goals are being met. Table 7.8 Stakeholders Level of Agreement with Whether PPOP Goals are Being Achieved Goal Goal #1: Ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and up-todate information when prosecuting prolific offenders Goal #2: Promote rehabilitation via the provision of appropriate support services for the offender 1 Goal #3: Promote meaningful consequences for offenders 1 Source of data: Stakeholder Survey Total N=42 1Missing cases=2 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree n % n % n % n % n %

100 Table 7.9 summarizes the results of a series of questions related to the impact and future of PPOP. When asked whether PPOP has improved the efficiency of the justice system, just over three-quarters (76.2%) agreed that it has, while 16.7% disagreed and 7.1% didn t know. These proportions are almost identical to those obtained in the 2013 survey. Respondents who did not think that PPOP has improved the efficiency of the justice system were asked why not and one individual commented that the program needs to be implemented on a provincial scale to be effective, while another said that we need a Crown prosecutor specifically designated to deal with PPOP files to ensure the background information is appropriately put before the court. One individual who said that he or she did not know if the program has improved the efficiency of the justice system said that I am involved with PPOP as a stakeholder that provides support to people with disabilities and can speak only from that perspective. Our liaison, specifically the member from probation, has greatly improved our ability to work within the justice system which ultimately promotes rehabilitation. Table 7.9 Stakeholders Perceptions of the Impact and Future of PPOP Question Has the program improved the efficiency of the justice system? Do you think PPOP should be expanded to other locations in Alberta? Do you think the PPOP Unit should be expanded to take in more prolific offenders? Are the resources in place sufficient to support future expansion of the program? Do you think the processes that are in place would support PPOP moving forward? Would you like to see any changes made to the current policies and procedures? Yes No Don t Know n % n % n % Source of data: Stakeholder Survey Total N=42 Stakeholders were also asked a number of questions related to the expansion of PPOP. When asked whether PPOP should be expanded to other locations in Alberta, almost all respondents (90.5%) said yes, which is slightly higher than the proportion in the 2013 survey (84.6%). Two respondents did not think PPOP should be expanded, and two said that they didn t know. One individual who did not think that the program should be expanded commented that rural locations do not have the services/resources to 76

101 dedicate to a PPOP unit and to offenders, while another noted that other programs are in place HOM for example. When asked whether the current PPOP units should be expanded to take in more prolific offenders, the substantial majority (83.3%) said yes, almost identical to the percentage who agreed in the 2013 survey. Six respondents (14.3%) disagreed that the PPOP units should be expanded, and one said that he or she did not know. When stakeholders who did not think that the PPOP units should be expanded were asked why not, most comments focused on issues of program capacity. For example, one respondent commented: I would argue capacity issues. It can be challenging to appropriately support offenders if there are several, as these clients tend to be complex and require numerous services, while another said that I m not sure that they have the capacity (i.e., staff and resources) to do this successfully. One stakeholder commented that the units should be expanded only if the resources to manage these prolific offenders are in place. The process only works if they can keep up with and maintain their files/contacts with offenders. When asked if the resources currently in place are sufficient to support the future expansion of the program, almost two-thirds (61.9%) responded no, while 21.4% agreed, a decrease from 34.7% in the 2013 survey, and 16.7% didn t know. Among stakeholders who thought that there are not adequate resources in place to support future expansion, the most common response was that more PPOP staff (police, probation officers) and funding are needed to monitor the caseload effectively. One individual commented that caseloads of PPOP personnel are high, and additional staffing would be very beneficial to both the clients and the case management/supervisory personnel. Expansion of treatment providers in smaller and/or rural settings would also help to increase access to treatment/services. Another suggested several areas in which increased resources would be beneficial: A commitment to housing from the province of at least a bed space or two at a couple of agencies across the province would be a great first step. Federal corrections maintains guaranteed bed space for parolees; I would submit that the province could do something similar as housing is the first step for anyone, criminal or otherwise, to get back on their feet. Additionally, while more police, more probation, more analysts, dedicated Crown could always be helpful, perhaps a more critical role could be that of a registered social worker. This would allow for contact by the program with a target who may no longer be on conditions. One respondent suggested that there needs to be an addiction counselor on the PPOP team as the majority of the PPOP clients are where they are in the criminal justice system due to crimes committed in order to support their addictions, while another said that the program still needs more addictions and mental health supports. Stakeholders were also asked questions about PPOP processes in relation to the future of the program. As shown in Table 7.9, when asked if the processes are in place to support PPOP moving forward, almost three-quarters (71.4%) said yes, while 16.7% 77

102 disagreed and 11.9% did not know. These proportions are quite similar to those found in One individual who disagreed said that I think a stronger loop back to the court system is still required. The information is there but I m not sure if it is being utilized by Crowns and judges to the best of its ability, while another spoke of the need for expanded access to treatment options: There needs to be a wider circle of treatment providers, particularly in smaller population centres, who are willing to work with forensic clientele at locations closer to where those clients reside. Lack of local treatment resources, and chronic transportation/financial limitations mean that clients are often limited in their access to timely and appropriate treatment. When asked if they would like to see any changes made to the current policies and procedures, just under one-quarter (23.8%) said yes, a decrease from one-third in the 2013 survey. Two-thirds (66.7%) said that they would not like to see any changes, while 9.5% said that they did not know if any changes should be made. Respondents who said that they would like to see changes to the policies and procedures were asked what changes they would suggest. One individual spoke specifically of the need for formal agreements between PPOP and community resources: it would be beneficial if memoranda of agreement could be formed directly between the PPOP program and community mental health clinics, Primary Care Networks, and the like. It would also be beneficial to educate community mental health providers as to the similarities and differences between general mental health clients and forensic mental health clients, such that treatment providers become more aware of the former and less uncomfortable with the latter. Forensic mental health clientele are doubly stigmatized, which reduces their access to appropriate services. Another stakeholder mentioned the importance of trying to increase PPOP clients engagement with the program: I think it would be helpful to have agreeable offenders engaged a little more into their case plans. Have short term, medium, and long term goals that are monitored and met. One individual suggested that more information sharing among those who are involved with the clients would be beneficial Additional Comments At the conclusion of the survey, stakeholders were invited to provide additional comments about PPOP. A total of 16 participants provided comments, which were almost all positive about the program. Examples of these specific comments included: PPOP s quick wins are demonstrated on the enforcement end. The Comprehensive Offender Management Packages are great assets to probation officers, police, and the courts. I thought the stability and consistency of the program worked well it was helpful to have the same probation officer and policing member involved in the offender management. I think it would be great 78

103 to build capacity around the programming where can these offenders look to for housing, employment, and transportation? In my experience, these offenders tend to fall into a gap for services. I also thought it was in some ways beneficial that the policing member was removed from the service in the sense that it helped the offenders see this member with less angst. That being said, there could be huge benefits to each jurisdiction investing in the offender management plan for their communities. I have found the PPOP program to be highly beneficial to clients, in that it both serves the mental health and criminogenic needs of high risk clients, while also fostering crime prevention, thereby contributing to public safety and security. I look forward to continued involvement in this very worthwhile endeavor. It s a great program which I would like to see grow with more oversight of the law enforcement agencies. Like all case management programs, with a multi-disciplinary group the likelihood of achieving goals is much greater. I believe it is a great program. Please expand the PPOP team to include AHS personnel to provide addiction and mental health counselors. The team are great. Friendly and resourceful and get supports in place that assist in ensuring fewer crimes. Would like to see it in each division. I personally have greatly appreciated the probation officer involved in Edmonton PPOP. She has been unbelievably valuable in connecting the worlds of criminal justice and disabilities. I would like to see process developed as collaboration often relies heavily on having the right person at the table and once that person leaves, little remains. While positive about PPOP in general, one respondent commented on the problems faced by offenders in rural communities: I think that PPOP works very well in the large urban centres but not in the rural areas. Once a client moves out of the cities, then policies and chain of command become very muddied. 79

104 8.1 Introduction 8.0 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS PPOP has seen a significant investment of time and resources over the last number of years, therefore, examining the value created by this investment has been identified by stakeholders as an important aspect of the evaluation. Given the obvious social and economic implications of PPOP for its clients, systems, and the public, the proposed approach to analyze the impact of the investment in PPOP by Alberta Justice and Solicitor General and its partners and stakeholders was Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis. The following sections detail the SROI process undertaken for PPOP, the context for the SROI as well as a discussion of the social value creation of the program. 8.2 Social Return on Investment SROI is a framework for measuring and communicating the social, economic or environmental impact of investment in an organization, project or program (The SROI Network, 2012). The methodology was developed in the mid-1990s as a tool to communicate to investors the impact of their programs (Simpact Strategy Group, 2011). Over time, the methodology has evolved into a helpful tool for evaluation, management, and communication for agencies and organizations. SROI is a story about how change is created by measuring social, environmental and economic outcomes (The SROI Network, 2012). The process of creating an SROI builds upon the existing or developing logic model or outcomes framework of an organization or program by assessing the impact of the outcomes and valuing this impact. Though the SROI analysis produces a ratio representing the monetary value of the impact of investment in a program, it is important to recognize that it represents value creation. SROI analyses can be evaluative, using outcomes measurement to determine the value of change caused by a program, or predictive, assessing the value of a program if its outcomes were achieved. Evaluative SROIs require the collection of good outcomes data, while predictive SROIs provide a foundation by which outcomes can be measured. Regardless of the approach, SROI is based on seven principles (The SROI Network, 2012, p. 9): (1) Involve stakeholders; (2) Understand what changes; (3) Value the things that matter; 80

105 (4) Only include what is material; (5) Do not over-claim; (6) Be transparent; and (7) Verify the result. 8.3 The SROI Process There are six stages to conducting an SROI (The SROI Network, 2012) Establishing Scope and Identifying Key Stakeholders The first stage of the SROI involves determining the information available, the stakeholders that should be involved, and the boundaries of the SROI. SROI is largely dependent on whether the outcomes for the program are achieved by clients. Fortunately, PPOP has undergone a long-term evaluation using longitudinal research methods; therefore, an evaluative approach to the SROI using the longitudinal sample was determined to be the most accurate and effective approach. Stakeholder engagement has been a key aspect of the process evaluation from the beginning, with staff, Crown and other external stakeholders being surveyed on a number of occasions. Data collected from these stakeholders were used in the development of the SROI, as well as additional requests for information as the SROI was developed Mapping Outcomes PPOP has an established program logic model with program outcomes, which provided the foundation for the SROI analysis. As part of this process, program stakeholders were consulted to ensure the outcomes were current and relevant Evidencing Outcomes and Giving Them a Value The third stage of the SROI development process involves finding data, or evidence, to establish whether the outcomes have occurred. The longitudinal aspect of the PPOP evaluation provided these outcomes data for 28 clients. The process of valuing outcomes involved searching for financial proxies both in the literature and the SROI Canada database. 81

106 8.3.4 Establishing Impact The fourth stage of the SROI development process involves factoring in deadweight, displacement, attribution, and drop-off to establish overall impact. These elements are defined as follows (Simpact Strategy Group, 2011): Deadweight: the amount of an outcome that would have happened anyway if the client had not participated in the activity. Displacement: the amount the value created should be reduced due to the program displacing another positive activity as an unintended consequence. Attribution: the proportion of the value created that was caused by the activity or contribution of another organization or person. Drop-off: the deterioration of an outcome over time. For PPOP, each of these elements was established using the evaluation data available, stakeholder feedback, and the literature. The SROI values calculated for this project used a five-year projection; in other words, the SROIs predicted the value created over a five-year period. A discount rate was also used to reduce the value created according to the level of risk in the predictions. The availability of longitudinal data reduced the risk of the predictions significantly; however, given the n was relatively small, there were no longitudinal outcomes data available beyond the clients time in the program, and the exact value of investment could not be calculated, a discount rate of 15% was applied to the PPOP SROI Calculating the SROI The fifth stage of the process involves calculating the SROI values, factoring in the inputs, social value creation, impact assessment, and discount rate. In addition, an annual interest rate of 3% was added to the value created Reporting, Using, and Embedding The final stage of the SROI involves sharing the findings with PPOP stakeholders and responding to their input. 8.4 SROI Analysis Issues and Limitations There are a number of issues and limitations that must be recognized. In general, SROI is largely based on informed assumptions about the social value created by the 3 8% is considered an average discount rate. 82

107 achievement of a program outcome. Though decisions about value creation are based on what is known about the program and research about similar programs, it is impossible to say definitively that the value creation estimated will actually be achieved without following program clients closely after they exit. Conversely, it is also impossible to account for all the social value created by a program, as the effects may go far beyond what can be estimated, and could include emotional, attitudinal, and situational effects that could indirectly have an ultimate impact on systems. Therefore, while SROI has strong communication value and allows us to see the effect of a program from the perspective of value creation, the calculation (ratio) in particular should always be communicated in the context of evaluation findings and the overall story of social return on investment. Some additional limitations specific to the PPOP SROI are also worthy of note. First, though the availability of longitudinal data has provided a strong evidence base for this SROI, the data are somewhat limited in that the n is small, and there are no outcome data available beyond the clients exit from the program. Therefore, the duration of program effects was in most cases estimated based on the data available, research, and anecdotal information. Estimating the inputs for the longitudinal sample also raised some issues of accuracy, given it is impossible to know exactly how much direct and in-kind resources were expended on the longitudinal sample. In addition, there is generally never enough data to accurately calculate the value of all inputs into any program, but this is particularly true for PPOP given the individual approach to rehabilitative services and the variation in monitoring requirements and resources for each. For this SROI, it was impossible to factor in all of the nuances of investment. Therefore, only direct program costs were accounted for, and discounting was used to account for the risk posed by not having cost data for all investments. It must be noted that the value of investment and the approach to delivering the program varies by PPOP site. Therefore, it would have been most accurate to calculate the SROI by site. However, the sample sizes were too small for this to be meaningful. Provided the outcomes of the program are the same regardless of the site, the risk of calculating the SROI based on the full sample is relatively low. If the program continues to collect evaluation data in the future, it may benefit from conducting a unique SROI analysis for each site. 8.5 SROI Calculation The SROI calculation for PPOP was based on the outcomes established by the program logic model and what was known about the impact of the program on the group of 28 clients who composed the longitudinal sample. 83

108 8.5.1 Value of Annual Investment Given the SROI is based on outcomes for the 28 offenders in the longitudinal study, the value of annual investment was prorated for this group of offenders based on when (investment year) and how long (number of months) they were in the program (see Table 8.1). 4 The annual investments by Edmonton Police Service, Calgary Police Service, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as Alberta Justice s program budget, were combined and an average monthly cost per offender was calculated. 5 The total annual investment for the 28 offenders was calculated based on how long (number of months) they were in the program, with the overall estimated value of investment in these offenders totalling $1,134,774. Table 8.1 Value of Annual Investment in PPOP for Longitudinal Sample (01 November September ) Fiscal Year Investment 2012/2013 $ 50, / , / , / , / ,447 Total $1,134,774 Source of data: PPOP Budget n=28 The value of investments by peripheral agencies and stakeholders providing monitoring and social, health, and mental health services were considered in the calculation of value of annual investments. It is important to note that partner organizations and agencies contribute significant resources to support PPOP clients in their rehabilitation. However, given each offender is provided a unique and changing combination of services and supports, it is difficult to accurately value these inputs. Much of these resources are cost recovered through the provincial social services and health care systems. In addition, the costs to each of the police services of monitoring, arresting, and processing the offenders is impossible to calculate without more precise data than were available, and are not factored into the inputs for the SROI. The same is 4 It is important to acknowledge that the dosage for each client would also have varied by the number of contacts they had while in the program, and other factors such as location, time spent incarcerated, etc. While it is impossible to know exactly how much was invested in each individual client, an average cost that accounts for time spent in the program helps to mitigate these fluctuations. 5 It is acknowledged that each police service incurs their own costs in seconding resources to PPOP, and that these officers are responsible for the specific offenders in their area. However, the value of the annual secondments did not vary significantly, and the program location for the offenders in the longitudinal sample were evenly distributed. Therefore, the annual value of program investment for the longitudinal sample was not calculated specifically based on program location, but rather based on the overall investment in the program by Alberta Justice and all the police services. 84

109 true for the police and justice IT systems, which are central to the success of the program but are also impossible to estimate Social Value Creation Social value creation for PPOP was assessed based on the outcomes of the program, the social impact of achieving those outcomes, and the value of that social impact. It is important to note that social value creation for prolific offenders may not purely result from the program s success in rehabilitating the offender, but also from the program s role in increasing public safety. Simply put, by preventing prolific offenders from committing crimes, whether it is because the offender utilized the supports and resources offered by PPOP to change their lives, or because the offender was incarcerated due to increased monitoring, public safety and the social value created by that through crime prevention increases. The outcomes for PPOP have been well established since the implementation of the program, and were used to determine the social value created. In examining PPOP s outcomes for the purpose of assessing social value, not all outcomes were valued for the purposes of the calculation, but all outcomes were deemed central to telling the contextual story of social value creation for the program. The success of PPOP depends on the selection of appropriate offenders for the program, and pre-determines the impact of social value creation. Over time, PPOP has adjusted the selection criteria for the program to ensure that impact of the program investment is maximized, both in terms of increasing public safety and the likelihood of having a positive impact on the offender while they are in the program. Conversely, the deselection criteria for PPOP are central to maximizing the social value created by the program s investment, in that they ensure that the program expends resources on offenders who can realistically benefit. The process-related outcomes for PPOP are also foundational to social value creation. Central to the effectiveness of the program is the development of Comprehensive Offender Management Packages (COMPs) by PPOP for Crown prosecutors, which ensure that they have complete, accurate and up-to-date information on the offenders, and assist in the selection of appropriate conditions for offenders. In this way, Crown prosecutors and the prosecutorial system (e.g., administration, etc.) could be considered an additional target population 6 for the SROI in that they are direct beneficiaries of the investment in the program. Information provided by the program suggests that the development of the COMPs, in addition to 6 Serious consideration was given to including this in the calculation. However, data for the various measures required for the calculation were not available for all sites, nor was the value of the investment in creating COMPs. In addition, the inclusion of this would have led to over-claiming. However, there could be benefit to collecting the data required and calculating a separate SROI for this component of the program in the future. 85

110 saving the Crown time and resources in compiling that information, benefit multiple Crown prosecutors per offender, and saves time and resources in the development of bail conditions and gathering other information (e.g., pre-trial credit calculations). The creation of the COMPs leads to greater efficiency in the justice system (less time spent by Crown prosecutors and other law enforcement officials on collecting information), and better offender management in the community. In addition, the case management of PPOP clients provides a solid foundation for ensuring that the complex needs of clients are met in a timely fashion, and that services are not duplicated. Though it is difficult to attach a value to decreased duplication of services, it is important to consider the efficiencies to social, health, and mental health systems created by the centralized case management that PPOP offers. PPOP s case management also decreases stress, confusion, and frustration among clients and their families as they work to address the issues that have led to their behaviour. PPOP addresses a variety of client needs while they are in the program, often at the root of their offending behaviour. For the purposes of the evaluation, these needs were generally categorized as substance abuse, mental health, medical/dental, employment/education and housing. Though the evaluation data revealed that medical and dental outcomes were not relevant for the longitudinal sample targeted for the SROI, the pre-test data for the longitudinal sample revealed that eight offenders had referrals to medical services as part of their case plan. Thus, the social value created by the program s holistic approach to rehabilitation is evident, in its consideration of mental health, health, and social/economic factors. For the SROI calculation, data for the sample were available for substance abuse, mental health, employment and education, and housing outcomes. The social value created in connecting clients to rehabilitation, mental health treatment, employment and education, and housing often relates to either future cost avoidance or cost reallocation. For those with substance abuse issues who receive treatment or resources while in PPOP, social value is created in the future cost avoidance of emergency medical services to treat addiction-related conditions. Similarly, those who receive diagnoses and support for mental health conditions while in the program ultimately reduce the likelihood that acute or emergency medical services for mental healthrelated issues will be required. Stable employment and education is an issue for many PPOP clients, who often enter the program either unemployed or lacking training and/or education to obtain meaningful employment. The future cost avoidance of income supports is a result of clients improving their education or employment situations. Finally, and importantly, many PPOP clients do not have access to stable housing upon entering the program and struggle to secure even their most basic needs. Recognizing that the cost of homelessness is great, clients who are supported by PPOP in obtaining stable housing ultimately prevent future costs of transient and even chronic homelessness that too often plague the system. Overall, the rehabilitative and 86

111 stabilizing supports that PPOP provides prevent chronic, long-term costs to health and social systems. For some clients, the effect of PPOP s addressing root causes of prolific offending, as well as the intensive monitoring provided by the program, creates social value in the police, justice, and penal systems. The monitoring that clients are subject to while in the program creates an initial increase in the number of breaches, however, for clients who are successful, these breaches decrease over time as the program s rehabilitative efforts take hold. Though it may seem intuitive that the increased monitoring of offenders results in an increased number of breaches, from the perspective of social value creation, increased monitoring also could reduce the likelihood that offenders are committing substantive offences against people or property, thus reallocating resources. Not only is social value created in lower court costs for trials and convictions on substantive offences, but also in increased public safety. With consideration of the outcomes data, what is known about the social impact of prolific offender programs, and the likelihood of success, the social return on investment was calculated using a five-year prediction model. As previously discussed, the investment in the program for the 28 clients in the longitudinal sample was calculated as $1,134,774. The predicted value of social return created was $4,305,443, with the amount of return generated per dollar of investment being $

112 9.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 9.1 Introduction The preceding chapters presented the findings of the final year of a multi-year evaluation of the Alberta Justice and Solicitor General s Priority Prolific Offender Program (PPOP). This report focused on the outcomes of a group of PPOP clients who entered the program prior to 1 November 2012 and have since exited the program (the retrospective sample). Findings from a group of offenders who entered the program after 1 November 2012 and formed a pre-test post-test evaluation sample design (the longitudinal sample) were also presented. In addition, the report discussed findings from surveys of PPOP staff members and community stakeholders. Finally, the social value created by PPOP was examined through a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis. PPOP is one of a growing number of programs in Canada designed to address the behaviour of prolific offenders, using a combination of monitoring, enforcement, and rehabilitative services. The objectives of Alberta s program specifically aim to provide Crown prosecutors with complete, accurate, and up-to-date information on prolific offenders, promote rehabilitation through the provision of appropriate support services, and ensure that the consequences of offending and reoffending are meaningful to the offender. The Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family was first contracted in 2010 to conduct a process evaluation of the program. The results of this evaluation yielded five recommendations for the program moving forward: (1) the development of an operations manual; (2) a review of the comprehensive bail packages; (3) adequate funding and resources; (4) education and awareness; and (5) a process and outcomes evaluation. Following the final recommendation, PPOP contracted the Institute in 2012 to begin the first year of a three-year process and outcomes evaluation involving multiple components. The report from the first year of the process and outcomes evaluation (MacRae-Krisa & Paetsch, 2013) used program data on offenders who had been deselected from the program, a survey of PPOP staff and a survey of PPOP stakeholders to re-examine program processes and, in particular, to provide a profile of the offenders in the program as a foundation for examining outcomes in the proposed second and third years of the evaluation. 88

113 Following an internal review of the program in 2013, PPOP contracted the Institute to conduct the second year of the evaluation and it was determined that a comparison of clients at the program sites in Calgary, Edmonton and the RCMP locations would be desirable. The report presented findings from the 56 offenders who were currently in the longitudinal sample, analyzed by program location, as well as preliminary findings from the longitudinal sample. In 2016, PPOP contracted the Institute to conduct a final year of the evaluation. The current report presents findings from the final retrospective sample of 79 offenders, analyzed by program location, and also examines these clients reoffending behaviour during their time in the program and after leaving it using data obtained from the Justice On-line Information Network (JOIN) to determine the longer-term efficacy of PPOP in reducing offending behaviour. Two new data collection forms were implemented on 1 November The Offender Entry Data Collection Form provides a detailed profile of clients upon their entry to PPOP while the Offender Exit Data Collection Form collects information on clients experiences while in the program. Offenders who entered the program following implementation of these data collection instruments became part of a pre-test post-test longitudinal sample. The report analyzed program entry data for 78 offenders who comprised the longitudinal sample, and program exit data for 28 individuals who have been deselected from the longitudinal sample. The staff and stakeholder surveys that were conducted in 2013 were repeated for the present report to examine any changes in knowledge and perceptions of PPOP over this three-year period. Finally, an SROI analysis was conducted that allowed an estimate of the social capital created by PPOP. 9.2 Summary The following sections summarize the findings from the final year of the evaluation of PPOP Retrospective Sample Program Clients The retrospective sample was composed of 79 offenders who had entered the program prior to 1 November 2012 and had been deselected by 30 September A substantial majority of the sample was male. 89

114 The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) program location had the greatest number of offenders (n=32), followed by the RCMP-North (n=25), Calgary Police Service (CPS) (n=18) and RCMP South (n=4) locations. Criminal History Prior to PPOP Selection On average, offenders in the retrospective sample were 17.1 years of age when they received their first conviction. Average age at first conviction ranged from 16.6 years at the EPS location to 18.1 years at the CPS location. Offenders in the EPS program had an average of 23 convictions for substantive offences in the five years prior to entering PPOP, compared to 20 for the CPS clients and 16 for the RCMP. At all program locations, property offences were the most common of the substantive offences. Offenders at the RCMP program locations had an average of 12 administrative convictions in the five years before entering PPOP, compared to 11 for the CPS and EPS sites. The EPS program group, on average, had spent 71 months in custody since their first conviction, followed by 67 months for the CPS group and 64 months for the RCMP offenders. Offenders at the EPS program location had received a higher average number of custodial sentences (65) than offenders at the CPS (52) and RCMP (44) sites. Selection to PPOP Average age at selection to PPOP was 33.7 years at the CPS program, 32.7 years at the EPS site and 30.6 years at the RCMP locations. Only primary selection criterion #1 (a history of frequently committing substantive offences) was met by all offenders; however, the substantial majority of offenders met each of the other primary criteria. Over four-fifths of offenders met the secondary criterion of their offending being correlated to addiction. Four-fifths of offenders met the secondary criterion of being unemployed and without stable residency. 90

115 Two-thirds of offenders met the secondary criterion of being influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates. This criterion was met by a substantially higher proportion of offenders at the RCMP sites (93%) than at the EPS (59%) or CPS (33%) locations. Only 6% of offenders met the secondary criterion of their behaviour being correlated to mental illness. Only one offender in the CPS program and no offenders in the RCMP program locations met this criterion. Almost all offenders had a history of non-compliance with court orders, while a history of drug offences was more common among individuals at the CPS (78%) and EPS (78%) programs than at the RCMP (59%) sites. A history of violent offences was more prevalent among offenders at the RCMP (72%) and EPS (72%) locations than at the CPS (44%) program. Primary grounds for detention are based on ensuring offenders will attend court to be dealt with according to the law. Offenders averaged 25 convictions on primary grounds, with clients in the EPS program having a higher number of convictions (29) than those in the RCMP (24) or CPS (21) locations. Secondary grounds for detention are based on ensuring public safety. Offenders averaged 43 convictions on secondary grounds. Offenders in the EPS program averaged 50 convictions on secondary grounds, compared to 44 for the CPS and 33 for the RCMP sites. Deselection from PPOP On average, offenders spent 35 months in PPOP, ranging from 32 months at the EPS location to 35 months at the RCMP locations and 38 months at the CPS site. The most common reason for deselection, given for two-fifths of all program clients, was that the offender has not committed substantive offences for a minimum period of six months. Offenders in the RCMP programs were more likely to be deselected for this reason (48%) than those in the CPS (39%) and EPS (38%) programs. Over one-third of all offenders were deselected because they had been incarcerated for a period of one year or more. Offenders at the RCMP (38%) and EPS (38%) sites were slightly more likely to be deselected for this reason than CPS program clients (33%). 91

116 Convictions Before, During and After PPOP On average, 39 months elapsed between offenders deselection from PPOP and 30 September 2016, and ranged from 42 months at the CPS program location to 41 months at the EPS and 35 months at the RCMP sites. At all program sites, the general pattern observed was that the average number of substantive and administrative convictions per month decreased from before entry to PPOP to during the program and then decreased again from levels during the program to after deselection. For example, at the CPS program location, offenders had an average of.33 substantive convictions per month in the five years prior to entering PPOP; this decreased to.19 convictions per month during the program and then decreased further to.14 convictions after exiting the program. At the EPS site, offenders had an average of.37 substantive convictions per month in the five years prior to PPOP selection, which decreased to.24 convictions per month during the program and.2 convictions per month after deselection. At the RCMP locations, offenders averaged.27 substantive convictions per month prior to PPOP,.17 convictions per month during the program and.18 convictions per month after deselection. For the CPS program location, clients averaged.18 administrative convictions per month in the five years prior to entering PPOP, which decreased to.11 convictions per month during the program and decreased further to.04 after deselection. At the EPS site, offenders had an average of.18 administrative convictions per month prior to entering PPOP,.15 convictions per month during the program and a further decrease to.12 convictions per month after deselection. For the RCMP locations, clients averaged.2 administrative convictions prior to entering the program, which decreased to.16 convictions per month during the program and then showed a slight increase to.21 convictions per month after exiting the program. 92

117 9.2.2 Longitudinal Sample Program Entry Data Program Clients A total of 78 offenders entered PPOP during the period 1 November 2012 through 30 September 2016 and formed the longitudinal sample analyzed for this report. Twenty-eight of these offenders had exited the program by 30 September The substantial majority of the offenders in the longitudinal sample are male. The RCMP-South program location had the greatest number of offenders in the sample (n=22), followed by the RCMP-North (n=21), CPS (n=18), and EPS (n=17) locations. Across program locations, offenders averaged 33.9 years of age at PPOP selection, with EPS clients having a higher average age (40.8 years) than those at the CPS (33.8 years), RCMP-N (33.5 years), or RCMP-S (29 years) locations. Overall, program clients spent an average of 3 days on the wait list before entering PPOP, a considerable decrease from 9.3 days in year 2 of the evaluation. The longest average wait time was 6.3 days at the CPS program (down from 23.8 days in 2014); average wait time was 3.4 days at the RCMP-N site, 2.4 days at the RCMP-S site, and 0 days at the EPS location. Across program locations, most offenders were either single (61%) or cohabiting (27%) at the time of PPOP entry. One-third of program clients had children under 17 years of age and nine had children who resided with them. Six offenders had a history of Child and Family Services involvement. Criminal History Prior to PPOP Selection On average, offenders were 17.6 years of age at the time of their first conviction; age at first conviction ranged from 16.7 years at the CPS location to 18.4 years at the RCMP-N program site. Program clients averaged 62 convictions in their lifetime. EPS program clients had the highest average number of lifetime convictions (81), followed by the CPS program (72) and the RCMP-N (61) and RCMP-S (39) sites. 93

118 Offenders had spent an average of 52 months in custody since their first conviction. Average time in custody was highest at the EPS program site (104 months); CPS program clients had spent an average of 71 months in custody, while RCMP-N and RCMP-S program clients had spent an average of 33 and 24 months in custody, respectively. In the five years prior to entering PPOP, offenders averaged 23 convictions; convictions for substantive offences were more prevalent (13) than administrative convictions (9). Offenders at the CPS program site had the highest average number of overall convictions (24) followed by individuals at the RCMP- S (23), EPS (23) and RCMP-N (20) locations. Among convictions for substantive offences, property offences were the most common (8.3), followed by violent offences (1.4), fraud-related offences (1.3), and drug offences (1.1). Selection to PPOP Across program locations, offenders were more likely to be rated by program personnel as having low motivation (59%) than as being motivated or very motivated (32%) at program entry. Offenders at the EPS site were most likely to be rated as motivated or very motivated (40%), while offenders at the RCMP-S site were most likely to be rated as having low motivation (64%). With regard to the selection criteria for PPOP, across program sites, the primary selection criteria were present for most offenders. All five criteria were present for all offenders at the EPS program site. However, criterion #2 (a history of committing substantive offences while on release) was only present for 83% of CPS clients and criterion #5 (criminal behaviour has a serious impact on public safety and/or public confidence in the justice system) was only present for 78% of RCMP-S clients and 86% of RCMP-N clients. Differences across program sites were found with regard to the presence of the secondary criteria for PPOP entry. For example, with regard to secondary criterion #1 (the offender s criminal behaviour is correlated with addictions), 91% of the RCMP-N and 88% of the EPS clients met this criterion, compared to 77% at the RCMP-S site and 61% at the CPS location. Offenders at all program sites were most likely to be rated as having a low number of healthy family and community supports at their entry to PPOP (51%). RCMP-N clients were less likely to be rated as having no healthy supports (10%) than those at the RCMP-S (18%), CPS (22%) and EPS (31%) locations. 94

119 Substance Abuse Issues at PPOP Selection Across program sites, the substantial majority of offenders had either a confirmed addiction (78%) or problems with substance use (14%). The RCMP-N location had the highest proportion of offenders with a confirmed addiction (86%), followed by the CPS (78%), EPS (75%), and RCMP-S (73%) locations. Less than one-half of offenders with substance abuse issues had received treatment in the past (44%), the highest proportion being at the CPS location (50%) and the RCMP-N location (50%). Ratings of offenders motivation to address their substance abuse issues indicated that, across program locations, only 7% of clients were very motivated. Offenders at the RCMP-S (60%) and RCMP-N (55%) sites were more likely to be rated as having low motivation than offenders at the EPS (47%) and CPS (38%) locations. Mental Health Issues at PPOP Selection Just over one-half of clients across program sites had a confirmed or suspected mental health disorder at PPOP selection. The most common disorders were attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, anti-social personality disorder, and depression. Almost three-quarters of offenders with a confirmed mental health disorder had received treatment in the past. Employment and Education Characteristics at PPOP Selection Across program sites, one-half of offenders had no income at selection into PPOP. The most common source of offenders income was social assistance (32%), followed by employment income (15%). Clients at the CPS (24%) and RCMP-S (24%) sites were more likely to have employment income than at the EPS (0%) and the RCMP-N (10%) locations. Clients at the EPS (94%), RCMP-N (81%), and RCMP-S (76%) locations were more likely to be unemployed than at the CPS site (65%). CPS (29%) and RCMP-S (24%) clients were more likely to have full-time or seasonal employment than those at the RCMP-N (10%) or EPS (0%) sites. Across program locations, offenders were most likely to have some high school education (65%), followed by high school completion (14%). Clients at the CPS site were more likely to have completed high school (25%) than those at the RCMP-S (14%), RCMP-N (11%) and EPS (7%) locations. 95

120 Housing Characteristics and Other Needs at PPOP Selection Among all offenders, 44% were incarcerated at selection to PPOP and 30% were living with family or friends. Only 17% either rented or owned their own home. The EPS site had the highest proportion of offenders in custody (63%), compared to 44% at the CPS, 43% at the RCMP-N and 32% at the RCMP-S locations. Almost one-quarter of program clients needed assistance with obtaining identification and almost one-third needed help obtaining the basic necessities of life. The highest proportion of clients who required assistance with both of these needs was at the EPS program location. Service Referrals as Part of PPOP Case Plan Almost two-thirds of PPOP clients received service referrals as part of their case plan. The most common services that PPOP referred clients to as part of their case plan were addictions services (40%), family/children s services (35%), employment/education services (31%), and correctional transitions services (31%). The most common service referrals used at the EPS and RCMP-N program sites were family/children s services and addictions services, while the most common referrals at the CPS location were to addictions services. Relatively few referrals were made at the RCMP-S site. Program Exit Data Background Information A total of 28 PPOP clients in the longitudinal sample had been deselected from the program as of 30 September 2016 and had a completed Offender Exit Data Collection Form. The largest proportion of deselected clients was at the RCMP-S program location (32%), followed by the RCMP-N (25%), EPS (25%) and CPS (18%) sites. On average, offenders were 39 years of age upon deselection and averaged 17 months in the program. 96

121 The marital status for the substantial majority of deselected offenders was the same as on entry to PPOP. The most common reason for deselection was that the offender had been incarcerated for more than one year while they were in the program (39%), followed by the offender was no longer a priority for law enforcement in their jurisdiction (32%), the offender had been stable and crime free for a period of at least six months (29%), and the offender had died, become permanently incapacitated or had relocated (21%). Criminal Activity While in PPOP Three-quarters of deselected offenders in the longitudinal sample had at least one substantive or administrative offence while they were in the program. Property offence convictions were the most common while clients were in the program and averaged 4.61 per offender. The average number of total substantive convictions while in PPOP was 6.14 per offender, and the average number of administrative convictions was The average number of substantive convictions per month during the five years prior to PPOP selection (.24) was considerably higher than the average number of convictions per month during the program (.09). The average number of administrative convictions per month in the five years before entering the program (.09) was slightly lower than the average number of convictions per month while in PPOP (.10), which may be attributable to the higher levels of surveillance and monitoring of offenders while in the program. Motivation and Family/Community Support While offenders were most likely to be rated as having low motivation at both program entry and exit, a smaller proportion were rated as low motivation at deselection (48%) than at program entry (63%). The proportion of offenders who were rated as having no healthy supports or a low number of healthy supports was slightly lower at deselection (71%) than at program entry (78%). Also, a higher proportion of clients were rated as having a high number of healthy support at deselection (14%) than at program entry (4%). 97

122 Substance Abuse Issues at PPOP Deselection Almost all PPOP clients had either a confirmed addiction or problems with substance use when they entered the program; however, only relatively few accessed addictions services while in the program. Despite the relatively few offenders who accessed addictions services while in PPOP, over one-quarter of offenders with substance abuse issues were rated as having made progress with their addictions while in the program. Over two-thirds of program clients were rated as having a negative attitude towards substance abuse services upon deselection, while over one-quarter were rated as having a positive attitude. Mental Health Issues at PPOP Deselection Almost two-thirds of deselected clients in the longitudinal sample were rated as having no mental health concerns upon leaving the program. Of the clients with confirmed or suspected mental health disorders, the most common treatments provided through PPOP were medication stabilization, assessment, psychiatric consultation, and individual counselling. Over one-half of offenders with mental health issues were rated as having made progress in addressing their conditions while in the program. One-half of clients with mental health issues were connected with mental health aftercare upon exiting PPOP. Employment and Education Characteristics at PPOP Deselection Over two-thirds of deselected offenders were unemployed at program exit, while 15% were employed full-time. Almost one-half of offenders had no income upon deselection, while 22% had income from employment and 19% were receiving social assistance. Deselected offenders were most likely to have some high school education (65%) or a high school diploma (17%). 98

123 Housing Characteristics at PPOP Deselection One-third of PPOP clients made housing changes while in the program, and for over three-quarters of these individuals, it was reported that their housing situation improved. Over one-quarter (29%) of clients were renting their own home at deselection, compared to 19% at program entry, while 25% were living with family or friends. No clients owned their own home at program entry, while one individual owned a home at deselection. The proportion of offenders in custody was considerably lower at deselection (25%) than at program entry (41%). Service Referrals While in PPOP One-half of the deselected offenders received referrals to community agencies during their time in PPOP. The most common referrals were to addictions services, mental health services, family/children s services, and correctional transitions services. For three-quarters of referrals made, the offender accessed the service Staff Survey Nine PPOP staff members and supervisors completed the staff survey to provide information on the process and outcomes of the program. On average, these individuals had been involved with the program for 44 months. PPOP Processes All staff members either agreed or strongly agreed that PPOP is meeting its goals of ensuring that Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and up-to-date information when prosecuting prolific offenders and promoting rehabilitation via the provision of appropriate services for the offender. The majority of staff members agreed or strongly agreed that PPOP is meeting its goal of promoting meaningful consequences for offenders. All staff either agreed or strongly agreed that all five of the primary selection criteria for PPOP are appropriate for the program. 99

124 Staff were also very positive regarding the secondary criteria for program selection, with three-quarters of respondents strongly agreeing that each criterion is appropriate. All staff members agreed that the criteria are consistently used to select offenders for the program. All but one staff member said that the process of providing Comprehensive Offender Management Packages (COMP) to Crown prosecutors is working well, and all staff members said that the process for notifying Crown prosecutors that an individual is a prolific offender is working well. Just over one-half of staff members said that Crown prosecutors are using the COMP. Two individuals commented that they are not being used because they are too long. Over two-thirds of staff members said that there are not sufficient support services available for offenders in the program. Comments indicated that additional services are needed in areas such as housing, support staff, treatment beds, and rural resources. Over three-quarters of staff said that PPOP does not have formal partnerships with service providers. One respondent said that there is a great need for formal partnerships to be established with rehabilitation, employment, and mental health agencies, while another noted that progress has been made in developing formal partnerships. Just over one-half of staff said the current processes for monitoring PPOP offenders is working well. Just under one-half of respondents agreed that offenders are engaged in the program. When asked to rate the extent to which offenders comply with treatment and bail or probation sentencing conditions, two-thirds of respondents said that this occurs sometimes. Just over one-half of staff members agreed that the program s response to relapse or reoffending is timely and adequate. Almost all staff members said that the deselection criteria for PPOP are appropriate. 100

125 PPOP Growth and Sustainability All staff members agreed that PPOP should be expanded to other locations in Alberta. A substantial majority of respondents agreed that the current program should be expanded to accept more offenders. Only one-third of staff members said that the current processes and procedures would support the expansion of PPOP. Two respondents commented that more program personnel is required before the program could be expanded. Almost all staff members did not think that the current resource structure is sufficient to support expansion of the program Stakeholder Survey A survey of PPOP stakeholders was completed by 42 individuals from the following professional groups: police officers; police analysts; Crown prosecutors; defence counsel; treatment/service providers; and probation officers. Perceptions of Police Officers and Analysts Just under one-half of the 11 police officers and analysts who responded to the stakeholder survey said that they continue monitoring the activities of offenders for PPOP once they have been selected for the program. Of these respondents, four-fifths said that this process is working well. When asked what they do with the information gained from monitoring the offenders, the most common responses were that they share it with PPOP and they share it with other police officers. Perceptions of Crown Prosecutors The 11 Crown prosecutors who responded to the stakeholder survey had each dealt with an average of 9.7 cases that involved PPOP offenders. Almost all respondents said that the process of PPOP creating and providing Comprehensive Offender Management Packages (COMPs) to Crown Prosecutors is working well. 101

126 The substantial majority of respondents said that they use the COMPs, and all of the Crown prosecutors who use the COMPs said that the information contained in them is useful for prosecuting offenders. Almost all Crown prosecutors said that they receive the COMPs in a timely fashion, all said that the information is up-to-date, and almost all said that the information they receive is accurate. Most respondents said that the process of notifying them that an offender is part of PPOP is working well, and all Crown prosecutors said that appropriate offenders are being identified for PPOP. Most Crown prosecutors said that they are more likely to suggest conditions for PPOP offenders. Just over one-third of prosecutors said that offenders sometimes comply with treatment and bail or probation sentencing conditions, while almost one-fifth each said that this often or rarely occurs. Perceptions of Treatment/Service Providers The nine treatment/service providers who responded to the stakeholder survey had each provided service to an average of 5.1 PPOP offenders. The most common services that respondents provide to PPOP offenders are counselling, mental health and addiction treatment. Three-quarters of respondents said that they are able to provide the services that PPOP requires. Just over one-quarter of treatment/service providers said that their organization has a formal partnership with PPOP, and all respondents who do not have a partnership said that one would be beneficial. When asked if the referral process from PPOP to their agency is working well, the substantial majority of respondents said that it is, and all said that having PPOP closely involved is a benefit. Over two-thirds of treatment/service providers said that they have the capacity to provide timely service to PPOP offenders. Perceptions of Probation Officers All nine probation officers who responded to the survey said that appropriate offenders are being selected for PPOP. 102

127 Over three-quarters of probation officers said that offenders sometimes comply with their treatment, bail and sentencing conditions, while one respondent each said that they comply often and rarely. Almost all respondents said that the program s response to relapse or reoffending is timely and adequate. Most probation officers said the support services that are available for PPOP offenders are not sufficient. The services that were mentioned most frequently as being inadequate were temporary and transitional housing and employment programs. Most probation officers agreed that the PPOP deselection criteria are appropriate. Perceptions of Defence Counsel The two defence counsel who responded to the stakeholder survey both said that appropriate offenders are being identified for PPOP, and that disclosure of the information in the COMPs by Crown prosecutors is working well. One defence lawyer agreed that there are sufficient support services to which PPOP clients can be referred and the other disagreed. When asked the extent to which offenders comply with their treatment and bail or probation sentencing conditions, both defence counsel said that they sometimes comply. One lawyer said that the program s response to relapse or reoffending is timely and adequate, while the other did not agree that this is the case. One defence lawyer said that the PPOP deselection criteria are appropriate and the other said that they are not. Views on PPOP Selection Criteria Police officers and analysts, probation officers and defence counsel were asked the extent to which they agreed that the PPOP primary and secondary selection criteria are appropriate. Almost all respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that each of the primary criteria are appropriate, and the majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the secondary criteria are also appropriate. Perceptions of PPOP s Impact and Future Over 80% of all respondents to the stakeholder survey either agreed or strongly agreed that PPOP is meeting each of its three goals. Three-quarters of respondents agreed that PPOP has improved the efficiency of the justice system; only 17% disagreed with this. 103

128 Almost all stakeholders said that PPOP should be expanded to other locations in Alberta, and a substantial majority said that the current PPOP units should be expanded to take in more prolific offenders. However, almost two-thirds of respondents said that the resources currently in place are not sufficient to support expansion of the program. Almost three-quarters of respondents said that the processes are in place to support PPOP moving forward, while 17% disagreed with this. Less than one-quarter of respondents said that they would like to see changes made to PPOP s current policies and procedures Social Return on Investment Analysis In conducting the Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis for PPOP, social value creation was assessed based on the outcomes of the program, the social impact of achieving those outcomes, and the value of that social impact. The investment in the program for the 28 clients in the longitudinal sample for 2012 to 2016 was calculated as $1,134,774 and the predicted value of social return created was $4,305,443. The resulting SROI ratio was 3.79:1, indicating that the amount of return generated per dollar of investment was $ Discussion Findings from the final year of a comprehensive evaluation of PPOP provided many insights into the effectiveness of the program and yielded further evidence of the efficacy of PPOP in reducing its clients offending behaviour. The following sections discuss the success of the program, the challenges faced by it, and the lessons learned through the evaluation using the research questions presented in Chapter 2 as a guiding framework. Where available and appropriate comparisons are made between findings in the current round of data analysis and the 2014 evaluation report What are the Profiles of PPOP Clients at Each Program Location at the Point of Selection into the Program? A total of 79 offenders had been selected into PPOP prior to 1 November 2012 and had been deselected by 30 September 2016; this group formed the retrospective sample for the evaluation. Just over 40% of the sample entered the EPS program location, while 32% were at the RCMP-N location, 23% were based at the CPS site, and 5% were at the RCMP-S location. The longitudinal sample for the evaluation was composed of 78 offenders who entered the program after 1 November The majority of these offenders were at the RCMP-S and RCMP-N locations (28% and 27%, 104

129 respectively). Since offenders have to be deselected from the program to be assigned to the retrospective sample, it appears that historically, the RCMP-S site was less likely to deselect offenders from their program. However, the RCMP-S location had the highest proportion of offenders deselected from the longitudinal sample, suggesting that, as the program has matured, this site has experienced greater turnover in its clients. Age of program clients at the time of their selection into PPOP was quite similar across program locations for the retrospective sample and ranged from 33.7 years at the CPS site to 30.6 years at the RCMP locations. However, average age of offenders in the longitudinal sample was considerably higher at the EPS location (40.8 years) than at the other program locations, with the second highest average age being 33.8 years at the CPS site. The Offender Entry Data Collection Form implemented for the longitudinal sample collects information on the length of time that offenders spend on the wait list for the program before entering it. A comparison of data from the 2014 report and the present analysis indicated that the CPS and RCMP sites have made substantial progress in decreasing wait times. In the 2014 analysis, CPS clients spent an average of 23.8 days on the waitlist; in the current report, this has decreased to 6.3 days. Although not as substantial a difference, clients at the combined RCMP sites spent an average of 7.5 days on the wait list in the 2014 analysis; in the current report, this has decreased to 3.4 days at the RCMP-N site and 2.4 days at the RCMP-S location. Program personnel were asked to rate clients motivation levels at the time of their entry into the program for the longitudinal sample. The majority of clients were rated as having low motivation and this ranged from 50% at the CPS location to 64% at the RCMP-S location. While these proportions tend to be even higher than they were in the 2014 report, it is encouraging that 9% of the total longitudinal sample were rated as being very motivated in the current analysis, compared to no clients in In line with a recommendation made in the 2014 evaluation report, PPOP changed the names of the mandatory and discretionary selection criteria for the program to primary and secondary criteria in recognition of the fact that some offenders were selected into the program without having met all of the mandatory criteria. For the retrospective sample, the combined RCMP sites were most likely to accept clients who had not met all primary criteria and for the longitudinal sample, the RCMP-S site was most likely to do so. In the retrospective sample, only 6% of program clients met the secondary criterion that their offending behaviour is correlated to mental illness; this percentage had risen to 22% for clients in the longitudinal sample. This suggests that the proportion of clients with mental health issues was underreported for the retrospective sample and that the program has made progress in identifying these issues among its clients. 105

130 Program personnel were asked to provide information on clients substance abuse issues upon selection to the program for the longitudinal sample. Across all program sites, a considerably higher proportion of program clients had a confirmed addiction in the current analysis (78%) than did in the 2014 report (56%), and a considerably higher proportion also had their level of addiction rated as severe (63% compared to 40%). Clients at the RCMP-N location were most likely to have a confirmed addiction this year, while in the 2014 report EPS clients were most likely to have a confirmed addiction. Despite the increased number of PPOP clients with confirmed addictions, a higher proportion of clients in the 2014 report had received treatment (60%) than in the present report (44%). A number of stakeholders commented on the lack of appropriate addictions resources available for PPOP clients, and this, along with a lack of motivation among offenders to address their substance abuse issues, may have contributed to both the increase of addictions and the decrease in addictions treatment. Indeed, 51% of offenders were rated as having low motivation to address substance use issues in the present analysis, compared to 30% in the 2014 report. Also, despite the increase in addictions, the proportion of PPOP clients who were going to be provided with residential treatment, individual counselling, or group counselling through the program was considerably lower this year than in the 2014 report, again perhaps due to a shortage of appropriate resources to which offenders can be referred. With regard to income and employment, a substantially larger proportion of offenders in the longitudinal sample had no income in the present analysis (51%) compared to the 2014 report (35%). Offenders from the CPS program site were the most likely to have employment income in both analyses. Across program sites, a slightly higher proportion of clients were unemployed in the present analysis (79%) than reported in 2014 (74%). Despite the slight increase unemployment rates, the proportion of offenders with employment goals as part of their case plan was substantially lower in the current analysis (28%) than reported in 2014 (46%). In terms of highest level of education attained, a larger proportion of offenders in the longitudinal sample in the present analysis had completed some high school (65%) than in the 2014 report (54.2%), while considerably fewer had training in a trade or some university education (12%) than in 2014 (25%). Despite the lower levels of education reported in this analysis, fewer offenders had educational goals as part of their case plan (12%) than reported in 2014 (19%). Housing arrangements for offenders in the longitudinal sample at the time of selection into PPOP were very similar in the current analysis and as reported in Just under one-half of offenders at both time periods were in custody at the time of their selection, and just under one-third were living with family or friends. A higher proportion were renting their own home in the present analysis (16%) than in the 2014 report (8%). A slightly higher proportion had housing goals as part of their case plan in the current analysis (22%) than in the 2014 report (19%). 106

131 9.3.2 Are There Differences in Clients Offending Patterns Prior to PPOP Entry at Each Program Location? Offending patterns of PPOP clients in the retrospective sample during the five years prior to program entry were examined to determine if there were any differences across program locations. Across all program locations, offenders averaged 20 substantive offence convictions and 11 administrative offence convictions during this period. Program clients at the EPS site had the highest average number of substantive convictions (23) compared to the CPS (20) and RCMP (16) program locations. The overall pattern parallels that reported in 2014; however, the difference between the EPS and CPS sites is not as great in the present report as it was in 2014 (EPS = 21; CPS = 16), suggesting that the CPS site has selected offenders with a more prolific offending background in the past three years. While offenders at the RCMP sites had the lowest average number of substantive convictions overall, they were the highest with respect to violent offence convictions (1.8) compared to EPS (1.1) and CPS (0.4). However, both EPS (16) and CPS (14) offenders had a higher number of property offence convictions than clients at the RCMP sites (10). With regard to administrative offence convictions in the past five years for offenders in the retrospective sample, program sites were quite similar, with RCMP clients averaging 12 offences, compared to 11 for both the CPS and EPS program sites. These numbers are somewhat higher than those reported in 2014 (CPS = 9; EPS = 8; RCMP = 9), suggesting that the offenders selected into the program in the past three years may be more likely to breach their conditions. With regard to the number of substantive convictions in the five years prior to PPOP selection for offenders in the longitudinal sample, across all locations offenders averaged 13 substantive convictions and 9 administrative convictions. Offenders at the RCMP-S and RCMP-N locations had the lowest average number substantive convictions (12 each), followed by 14 at EPS and 15 at CPS. Due to the small number of clients in the longitudinal sample in the 2014 report, findings from that report are not compared with the current data. Violent offence convictions were somewhat more common at the RCMP-S site (2.3); for the other sites, average number of violent offence convictions ranged from 0.6 at the RCMP-N location to 1.3 at the CPS site. Average administrative offence convictions in the five years prior to program entry for the longitudinal sample ranged from 8 at the RCMP-N location to 11 at the RCMP-S program site Are the PPOP Selection Criteria Being Followed? In line with a recommendation from the 2014 evaluation report, the names of the selection criteria for PPOP have been changed from mandatory and discretionary to 107

132 primary and secondary, and the mandatory criterion of the Offender is considered to be a medium to high risk to reoffend has been dropped. With regard to the primary criteria for offenders in the retrospective sample, across program sites, each criterion was met by at least 90% of offenders. The criterion that differed the most across program locations was that Intelligence indicates the offender is currently active in committing criminal activity which was met by 94% of offenders at the CPS site and 100% at the EPS site, but only 76% at the RCMP locations. It may be that a higher proportion of RCMP offenders were incarcerated when they were selected into the program, and thus were not in a position to meet this criterion. Overall, the pattern of findings with regard to the primary criteria in the current analysis is virtually identical to that reported in Across program sites, two of the four secondary criteria were met by over threequarters of offenders, and the criterion of Offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates was met by 66% of clients in the retrospective sample. However, this criterion was met by substantially more offenders at the RCMP sites (93%) than at the CPS (33%) and EPS (59%) programs. It is possible that co-offending is more prevalent in the smaller locales served by the RCMP; this hypothesis could be assessed in future research. The secondary criterion that was met by very few offenders (6%) was that the Offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness. This may indicate that relatively few program clients have had a mental health assessment at the time of their entry into the program. As with the primary criteria, the pattern of findings observed this year with respect to the secondary criteria are very similar to those in the 2014 report. Findings with regard to the primary selection criteria for the longitudinal sample were very similar to those with the retrospective sample and indicated that the substantial majority of offenders met each criterion. The pattern with the secondary criteria was also similar; however, a higher proportion met the criteria that the Offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness (22%) and that the Offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates (85%) What Service Referrals are PPOP Clients Receiving as Part of Their Case Plan? One of the key objectives of PPOP is to promote rehabilitation via the provision of appropriate support services for the offender. The evaluation began assessing agencies and services that offenders would be referred to as part of their PPOP case plan with the implementation of the Offender Entry Data Collection Form for the longitudinal sample. Findings indicated that PPOP is meeting this objective: across all program sites, almost two-thirds of offenders (62%) received service referrals as part of their case plan. This is an increase from 54% reported in

133 The program sites with the highest proportion of clients receiving referrals were EPS (71%) and RCMP-N (76%). The proportion of clients receiving service referrals was lower for the CPS and RCMP-S sites (50% each). The EPS and RCMP sites had the highest proportion of clients with service referrals in 2014 as well. It is not clear what accounts for this regional difference between program sites in the northern and southern parts of the province. It may be that more appropriate services for PPOP clients are available in the Edmonton area or that clients at the northern sites are more in need of services. There is also some evidence that offenders at the EPS program site represent a group with a more entrenched and serious pattern of criminal behaviour and thus may be in need of more service referrals: these offenders were more likely to be incarcerated at program entry, to have spent more time in custody, and to have a higher number of lifetime convictions than offenders at the other sites. Across program sites, the services to which offenders were most likely to be referred were addictions program, family and children s services, employment/ education services, and correctional transitions services. Clients at the RCMP-N program location were considerably more likely to be referred to each of these services than clients at the other locations. For example, almost three-quarters (71%) of RCMP-N clients were referred to family and children s services, compared to 59% of EPS clients, 9% of RCMP-S clients, and no clients at the CPS site. The Offender Exit Data Collection Form obtained information for the longitudinal sample on what services offenders were referred to while they were in the program and whether they, in fact, accessed these services. One-half of program clients received a total of 25 referrals to community agencies. The most common referrals were to addictions programs, mental health services, family and children s services, and correctional transitions services. Offender follow-through with these services was quite good: for three-quarters of the referrals made, the offender accessed the service. Staff members were asked if PPOP has formal partnerships with service providers and over three-quarters of respondents said that no partnerships are in place and commented that they would be very valuable. Further, all stakeholders who said that their organization does not have a formal partnership with PPOP said that a partnership would be beneficial. Two-thirds of staff members said that there are not sufficient support services available to which offenders can be referred. One staff member commented that some of the services that are available cannot be accessed by individuals with criminal records. Three-quarters of treatment/service providers who completed the stakeholder survey said that they are able to provide the services that PPOP requires. 109

134 9.3.5 Are There Differences in the Reasons for Deselection across Program Locations? Across program sites, the most common reason for deselection within the retrospective sample was that The subject has not committed substantive offences for a minimum period of six months (42%), followed by Intelligence indicates that an offender is incarcerated for a period of one year or more (37%), and The offender is no longer a priority for the referring agency (30%). Offenders were considerably more likely to be deselected because Intelligence indicates that the offender is no longer actively engaged in criminal activities that impact public safety at the RCMP (28%) and EPS (19%) sites than at the CPS program (6%). Offenders were more likely to be deselected from the program because Intelligence indicates that the offender has permanently relocated outside the province at the CPS location (22%) than at the RCMP (7%) and EPS (6%) sites. Deselection was more likely to occur because The offender is no longer a priority for the referring agency at the RCMP (38%) and EPS (34%) locations than at the CPS program (11%). Although reasons for deselection in the longitudinal sample are not available by program location, offenders in this sample were most likely to be deselected because They have been incarcerated for a significant period of time (>1 year) (39%), followed by that Law enforcement agencies advise PPOP that the offender is no longer a priority in their jurisdiction (32%), the Offender has been stable and crime free in the community for at least six months and his/her risk to reoffend has dropped significantly (29%), and that They have died, become permanently incapacitated, or relocated permanently (21%) Has Reoffending for PPOP Clients Decreased While They Are in the Program? Data were obtained from Alberta Justice and Solicitor General s Justice On-line Information Network (JOIN) on the number of substantive and administrative convictions for offenders in the retrospective sample during their time in PPOP and after their deselection from the program through 30 September Across all program sites, offenders spent an average of 35 months in the program. Clients in the EPS program spent the least amount of time in the program (32 months), compared to 38 months for clients at the CPS site and 35 months for offenders at the RCMP sites. Given that the length of time in the program varied widely for individual offenders, number of convictions while in the program was converted to an average number of convictions per month to control for the differing time periods. The number of convictions in the five years prior to entering PPOP was also converted to a monthly average. Findings provided strong evidence that the number of both substantive and administrative convictions per month decreased from before entering the program to during the program. Across all program sites, offenders averaged.33 substantive convictions per month in the five years before entering PPOP and decreased to.2 110

135 convictions per month during offenders time in the program, a decrease of 39%. A decrease in substantive offences while in the program was observed at all program sites, and ranged from a decrease of 42% at the CPS site to 37% at the RCMP programs and 35% at the EPS sites. While the decrease at all sites was slightly less than reported in 2014, the data in the present analysis still provides strong and consistent evidence that substantive convictions decreased while offenders were clients of PPOP. A similar pattern was obtained for administrative convictions, with the number of convictions per month decreasing at all program sites from the five years prior to PPOP to the time offenders spent in the program. Across all program sites, the average number of administrative convictions per month in the five years before entering the program was.19; this decreased to.14 during the program, a decrease of 26%. The decrease was highest at the CPS site, where the average number of administrative convictions per month decreased by 39% from before to during the program. At the RCMP sites, administrative convictions decreased by 20% from before to during the program, and at the EPS site, administrative convictions decreased by 17% from before to during the program. Again, these findings were similar to those reported in 2014, although the decreases were somewhat less in the current analysis. A similar analysis was conducted for offenders in the longitudinal sample comparing the average number of substantive and administrative offences per month in the five years prior to PPOP with number of offences while in the program. Across all program sites, substantive convictions decreased from.24 per month in the five years prior to entering PPOP to.09 per month while in the program, a decrease of 63%. The number of administrative conviction increased slightly from.09 per month in the five years before entering PPOP to.1 while in the program, an increase of 11%. This increase could be due, at least in part, to the higher levels of surveillance and monitoring of offenders while in PPOP, which could lead to a higher number of breaches of conditions being identified and charged Has Reoffending for PPOP Clients Decreased After They Are Deselected from the Program? While it could be argued that a decrease in offending might be expected while offenders are in PPOP due to the increased surveillance and monitoring that is one of the hallmarks of the program, a powerful test of the efficacy of PPOP is whether a decrease in offending behaviour persists once they have been deselected from the program. Changes in patterns of offending behaviour were compared for offenders in the retrospective sample from the time they spent in the program to their time after deselection until 30 September With regard to substantive offences, across all program sites, offenders exhibited a further decrease in convictions from.2 per month during the program to.18 per month after deselection, a decrease of 10%. The overall decrease from the five years 111

136 before entering PPOP to the period following deselection was 45%. Offenders at the CPS site had an average of.19 substantive convictions per month during the program; this decreased to.14 per month after deselection, a decrease of 26%. The overall decrease in substantive convictions for CPS clients from before the program to after deselection was 58%. EPS clients also showed a decrease in substantive convictions from during PPOP (.24 per month) to after deselection (.2 per month), a decrease of 17%. The overall decrease in substantive convictions from before entering the program to after deselection was 46%. RCMP clients showed a slight increase in substantive offences from during the program to after deselection from.17 to.18, an increase of 6%. However, the overall decrease in substantive convictions from before PPOP to after deselection for RCMP clients was 33%. Overall, the pattern of findings obtained this year is similar to that reported in 2014, except that in 2014 RCMP clients did have a further decrease in convictions from during the program to after deselection. With regard to administrative convictions, across all program sites, the average number of convictions from during PPOP to after deselection remained the same at.14. However, there was an overall decrease from the five years prior to entering the program to the period after deselection of 24%. Offenders at the CPS program site showed a decrease in administrative convictions from.11 per month during the program to.04 per month after deselection, a decrease of 64%. Overall, the decrease in administrative convictions for CPS clients from before the program to after deselection was 78%. For clients at the EPS program site, the number of administrative convictions decreased from.15 per month while in PPOP to.12 per month after deselection, a decrease of 20%. The overall decrease in administrative offences from before entering the program to after deselection for EPS clients was 33%. Clients at the RCMP sites exhibited an increase in administrative offences from.16 per month during their time in the program to.21 per month after deselection, an increase of 32%. Overall, these offenders had a 5% increase in administrative offences from prior to entering PPOP to after their deselection. While the findings with regard to offending behaviour before, during and after the program are similar this year to those reported in 2014 for the CPS and EPS program sites, in 2014 the RCMP sites did show an overall decrease in administrative offences over time. Overall, the findings with regard to reoffending are strongly supportive of the efficacy of PPOP in reducing offending behaviour over a sustained period of time How Have Staff and Stakeholders Views of PPOP Changed Over the Past Three Years? Surveys of PPOP staff and community stakeholders including police officers and analysts, Crown prosecutors, defence counsel, treatment/service providers, and 112

137 probation officers regarding their views of PPOP were conducted in These surveys were repeated this year to examine any changes in opinions and perceptions of the program over time. Staff members were more likely to agree that PPOP is meeting its stated program goals this year than they were when surveyed in They were also more likely to strongly agree that the primary and secondary selection criteria for the program are appropriate in this year s survey. While all respondents this year said that the process of notifying Crown prosecutors that an individual is a prolific offender is working well, a considerably lower proportion agreed that prosecutors are using the Comprehensive Offender Management Packages (COMP) than in This staff perception is somewhat surprising since the prosecutors who completed the stakeholders survey were very positive about the COMP and indicated that they find them very useful. In both the current and 2013 staff surveys, a large proportion of respondents said that there are insufficient support services available to which PPOP clients can be referred. In addition, in the current survey, as in 2013, a large proportion of staff said that PPOP does not have formal partnerships with service providers and that the program would benefit from the development of partnerships. A smaller proportion of staff members this year said that the process of monitoring PPOP clients is working well and that the program s response to relapse and reoffending is timely and adequate; however, staff were slightly more likely to report that offenders are engaged with the program in this year s survey. A higher proportion of staff said that PPOP should be expanded to other locations in Alberta this year than in 2013; however, a substantially lower proportion said that the current processes and procedures in place would support the expansion of the program. With a few exceptions, responses to the stakeholder survey were quite similar this year to those received in Substantially fewer police officers and analysts said that using local police forces as the sources of referrals to PPOP is working well in this year s survey. A higher proportion of stakeholders agreed that the PPOP selection criteria are appropriate this year than in 2013, and a higher proportion said that PPOP should be expanded to other locations in Alberta this year; however, a lower proportion of respondents said that the resources currently in place are sufficient to support the future expansion of the program. A lower proportion of stakeholders said that they would like to see changes made to the current policies and procedures this year. 113

138 9.3.9 What Is the Social Value Created by PPOP? In this final year of the evaluation of PPOP, it was decided that an important component of the evaluation should be an examination of the value that has been created by the investment in PPOP over the past several years. It was determined that the most appropriate methodology to assess the value creation of the program would be a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis. SROI is a framework for measuring and communicating the social, economic or environmental impact of investment in an organization, project or program. In the context of PPOP, the SROI involved assessing and valuing the impact of the program s outcomes and relating the value of that impact to the investment made in the program. Given the availability of an established program logic model and comprehensive evaluation data for a longitudinal sample of PPOP clients, it was determined that an evaluative SROI was most appropriate methodology for the program. The overall estimated value of investment in offenders in the longitudinal sample from development of the sample on 01 November 2012 through 30 September 2016 was $1,134,774. The predicted value of the social return created by the program during the same time period was $4,305,443, resulting in a ratio of value creation to investment of 3.79:1. This suggests that, for every dollar invested in clients in the longitudinal sample, the social value created PPOP was $ Recommendations The data analyzed and presented in this final year report of the PPOP evaluation yielded the following recommendations, which should be considered as PPOP is transitioned into the Integrated Offender Management Initiative: (1) Comprehensive Offender Management Package (COMP): While almost all of the Crown prosecutors who responded to the stakeholder s survey said that they are using the COMP, just over one-half of staff said that they were being used. Further, staff suggested that the relatively low rate of usage is because they are too long. Given this discrepancy between the views of staff and Crown prosecutors, the program should consult with a broader range of Crown than completed the survey to determine their views on the content of the COMP, and consider revising the content accordingly. It is also possible that some Crown prosecutors are not aware of the program, which suggests that PPOP should continue its educational efforts with the Crown. (2) Support Services: A substantial number of staff members said that there are not sufficient support services available to meet the needs of PPOP clients in areas such as housing, treatment beds and resources in rural locations. It was noted that the current services available in rural locations are particularly inadequate. 114

139 The program should review the services available at each location and determine if other services exist that are not currently being utilized. (3) Formal Partnerships: The majority of staff and stakeholders said that PPOP does not have formal partnerships with service providers, and agreed that formal partnerships would be beneficial. Formal partnerships could serve to increase the provision of appropriate services, and the program should continue its efforts to establish partnerships and service agreements with agencies providing services in areas such as rehabilitation, employment, mental health, and addictions. It was noted that a formal partnership with Alberta Health Services is particularly important. (4) Addictions Counsellor: The substantial majority of PPOP clients have problems with addictions, and staff noted that addiction treatments currently available to PPOP clients are inadequate. Staff commented that adding addiction counsellors to the PPOP teams would be beneficial. The program should explore the feasibility of expanding the teams to include addiction counsellors. (5) Awareness of PPOP among Police Officers: The comment was offered that most police officers are not aware of the existence of PPOP. The program should continue its efforts to educate police personnel about the existence of PPOP and the benefits that can be achieved by referring prolific offenders to it. (6) Monitoring of Offenders: One-half of staff members did not think that the current process of monitoring PPOP offenders is working well. The program should examine why this is the case and consider whether any changes are needed to increase the efficiency of the monitoring process. (7) Response to Relapse: Staff were less likely to say that the program s response to relapse and reoffending is timely and adequate this year than in the 2013 survey. The program should examine why this is the case and consider whether any changes are needed to improve the program s response. (8) Referral Process: A substantially smaller proportion of police officers and analysts said the process of referring offenders to PPOP is working well in this year s stakeholder s survey than in The program should explore why this is the case and consider making changes to the referral process as required. (9) Goal Setting: Given the high levels of unemployment and housing issues among PPOP clients, but the low numbers of clients with employment or housing goals as part of their case plans, the program should review the processes in place for setting goals in the case plans to determine if any changes are required. 115

140 (10) Program Processes and Procedures: While almost all staff and stakeholders agreed that PPOP should be expanded to other locations, a minority of staff members said that the current processes and procedures would support expansion. The program should review the current processes and procedures to determine if any changes are needed that would support expansion. (11) Continued Data Collection: As the formal evaluation of PPOP ends, the program should consider continuing the completion of the Offender Entry and Exit Data Collection Forms to facilitate internal monitoring of the successes and challenges of PPOP. 116

141 REFERENCES Alberta s Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force. (2007). Keeping Communities Safe: Report and Recommendations. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. American Public Human Services Association. (2013). Social Return on Investment. An APHSA Innovation Center Issue Brief. Available at: Bertrand, L.D., Paetsch, J.J., MacRae-Krisa, L.D., & Boyd, J.-P.E. (2015). The Priority Prolific Offender Program: Findings from the Second Year of the Program Evaluation. Prepared for Alberta Justice and Solicitor General. British Columbia Criminal Justice Reform Secretariat. (2009). Prolific Offender Management Project Update. British Columbia: Government of British Columbia. Home Office. (2010). Prolific and Other Priority Offenders: Results from the 2009 Cohort for England and Wales. United Kingdom: Home Office. Available at: fice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/misc0310.pdf. Hornick, J.P., Paetsch, J.J., & Bertrand, L.D. (2000). A Manual on Conducting Economic Analysis of Crime Prevention Programs. Prepared for the National Crime Prevention Centre. Calgary, AB: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family. MacRae, L.D., Bertrand, L.D., Paetsch, J.J., & Hornick, J.P. (2008). A Profile of Youth Offenders in Calgary: An Interim Report. Prepared for the City of Calgary and the Alberta Law Foundation. Calgary, AB: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family. MacRae, L.D., Bertrand, L.D., Paetsch, J.J., & Hornick, J.P. (2011). Evaluation of the Priority Prolific Offender Program. Prepared for Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security. MacRae-Krisa, L., Bertrand, L.D., Paetsch, J.J., & Rinquist, L. (2014). Pathways and transitions of persistent youth offenders in Alberta: Final report. Prepared for the Alberta Safe Communities Innovation Fund. 117

142 MacRae-Krisa, L.D., & Paetsch, J.J. (2013). The Priority Prolific Offender Program: Preliminary Findings from the First Year of the Process and Outcomes Evaluation. Prepared for Alberta Justice and Solicitor General. Pottruff, K. (2010). Chronic Offenders Literature Review. Prepared for Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security. Public Safety Canada (nd). Priority Prolific Offender Program (PPOP) (Synopsis). Available at: Simpact Strategy Group. (2011). Simpact Strategy Training Guidebook. Calgary, AB: Simpact Strategy Group. The SROI Network. (2012). A Guide to Social Return on Investment. London: Matter&Co. Smith, R.B., Bertrand, L.D., Arnold, B.L., & Hornick, J.P. (1995). A Study of the Level and Nature of Youth Crime and Violence in Calgary. Calgary, AB: Calgary Police Service. 118

143 GLOSSARY ACOM: Alberta Community Offender Management System Administrative Offence: Administrative offence refers to occurrences related to failures to comply with court orders such as failures to appear or breaches of bail conditions. COMP: PPOP s Comprehensive Offender Management Package (previously called the Show Cause Report). It summarizes the offender s criminal history, grounds for detention, and the bail conditions recommended by the program based on the offender s profile and risk factors. Cost-Benefit Analysis: A systematic process that examines inputs in terms of costs relative to outcomes in terms of what is achieved by the intervention in monetary terms. CPIC: The Canadian Police Information Centre, which maintains a national database containing information on individuals conviction records, warrant status and other matters relating to criminal involvement. CPS: The Calgary Police Service EPROS: Edmonton Police Reporting and Occurrence System EPS: The Edmonton Police Service Internal Validity: Refers to the extent that the observed changes can be attributed to the program or intervention and not to other possible causes such as history, maturation of participants, or selection bias. JOIN: Justice Online Information Network, an Alberta provincial database containing information on individuals conviction and sentence records. Logic Model: Framework used when evaluating a program that articulates the objectives, inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the program. Longitudinal Sample/Analysis: In this study, offenders entering the program after November 1, 2012 became part of a longitudinal sample that uses a pre-test posttest design and collects information upon clients selection into the program and again following their deselection. 119

144 Mean: The mean is the average response to a question. It is calculated by adding up all of the responses received and then dividing the resulting sum by the total number of responses. Missing Cases: The number of responses on individual questions that are not available. The most common reason for missing cases in survey or interview data is that the respondent chose not to answer a particular question. In file review data, missing cases are usually the result of the relevant information not being included in the file. Multiple Response Data: Multiple response data refers to questions in which respondents are allowed to choose more than one answer. In tables where multiple response data are presented, the percentages presented for individual items will total more than 100. N and n: N refers to the total number of respondents to a survey or interview or the total number of files that were available for review while n refers to a subset of the total responses that may be selected for specific data analyses. For example, if 100 people respond to a survey, N = 100. If 30 of those respondents identify as female, then n = 30 females and n = 70 males. Outcome Analysis: Evaluation methodology designed to measure short- and long-term outcomes to determine whether the program is having the intended effect in achieving specific program objectives. PIMS: Police Information Management System for the Calgary Police Service PPOP: The Priority Prolific Offender Program Pre-test/Post-test Design: A research methodology that collects data on program participants before they enter a program and again after they exit it to determine what effects the program had. Process Analysis: Evaluation methodology designed to examine how a program is actually implemented and answers the question of whether the program has been carried out as it was intended. Range: The lowest and highest responses from the range of responses received to a question. Retrospective Sample/Analysis: In this study, the retrospective time series analysis is designed to focus on collecting information about the offenders who entered the program prior to November 1, 2012 and who have subsequently exited the 120

145 program to determine whether their offending behaviour appeared to be altered by the program. Substantive Offence: Substantive offence refers to all criminal occurrences other than those related to compliance with court orders such as failures to appear or breaches of bail conditions. SROI: Social Return on Investment is a framework for measuring and communicating the social, economic or environmental impact of investment in an organization, project or program. YCJA: The federal Youth Criminal Justice Act 121

146 APPENDIX A Offender Entry Data Collection Form

147 PPOP Evaluation Offender Entry Data Collection Form INSTRUCTIONS: This form should be completed for all offenders who enter the program. The form should be completed once a Case Plan and Comprehensive Bail Package have been developed. If an offender is de-selected from the program before a Case Plan or Comprehensive Bail Package is developed, please complete the information to the best of your knowledge. Program entry is defined as the point at which PPOP engages with the offender. Upon completing this form, please save it using the FPS number as the file name. FPS #: Date of Birth: mm/dd/yy Referring Agency: Length of time on waitlist (days): Date of program entry: mm/dd/yy Program Location: Calgary (CPS) Calgary (RCMP) Edmonton (EPS) Edmonton (RCMP) PPOP Police Officer (name): PPOP Probation Officer (name): Gender: Male Female Ethnicity: Relationship status: Single Married Cohabiting Dating Divorced Widowed Offender has children à # of children: # children living with offender: # of children under the age of 17: Child and Family Services are involved with the family How would you rate the offender s motivation on entry to PPOP? Very motivated Motivated Low motivation Unknown Selection Criteria Mandatory Criteria A history of committing substantive offences (5 charges with 3 convictions in at least 5 years) A history of committing substantive offences while on release A history of non-compliance with Court orders including failing to appear and breach of conditions Intelligence indicates the offender is currently active in committing criminal activity Discretionary Criteria The offender s criminal behaviour is correlated with addictions The offender s criminal behaviour is correlated to mental illness The offender is unemployed and does not have stable residency The offender may be influential with other offenders resulting in criminal behaviour among associates

148 The criminal behaviour of the individual has a serious impact on public safety and victimization and/or on public confidence in the justice system The offender is considered to be a medium to high risk to reoffend Criminal History (to PPOP program entry date) Date of first conviction: mm/dd/yy Date of last conviction: mm/dd/yy Total criminal convictions: Approximate time in custody since first conviction (days): Convictions in the five years prior to PPOP entry: Substantive Convictions # Administrative Convictions # Other criminal driving offences Violent offences Weapons offences Property offences Deceit offences Drug offences Other criminal offences Fail to appear Escape lawful custody/unlawfully at large Fail to comply with release conditions Fail to comply with a sentence/probation Fail to comply with court order Obstruction of justice Obstruct a police officer Perjury Criminal flight Criminal hit and run Convictions from age 18 to five years prior to PPOP entry: Substantive Convictions # Administrative Convictions # Other criminal driving offences Violent offences Weapons offences Property offences Deceit offences Drug offences Other criminal offences Fail to appear Escape lawful custody/unlawfully at large Fail to comply with release conditions Fail to comply with a sentence/probation Fail to comply with court order Obstruction of justice Obstruct a police officer Perjury Criminal flight Criminal hit and run Youth convictions (age <18) Substantive Convictions # Administrative Convictions # Other criminal driving offences Violent offences Weapons offences Property offences Deceit offences Fail to appear Escape lawful custody/unlawfully at large Fail to comply with release conditions Fail to comply with a sentence/probation Fail to comply with court order

149 Drug offences Other criminal offences Obstruction of justice Obstruct a police officer Perjury Criminal flight Criminal hit and run YCJA offences Case Plan How often will the offender report to PPOP? Family/Community Support How would you rate the offender s general support system on selection to PPOP? No healthy supports Low number of healthy supports Moderate number of healthy supports High number of healthy supports Substance Use No substance abuse concerns (continue to Mental Health section) Offender has a confirmed addiction Offender has problems with substance use How would you rate the offender s level of addiction? Mild Moderate Severe Unknown The offender received treatment for substance use in the past Type of treatment previously accessed: Detox Residential Individual counselling AA/NA Group counselling Other: What addiction services are going to be provided to the offender through PPOP (check all that apply)? Detox Individual counselling Group counseling Residential treatment AA/NA Other: How would you rate the offender s motivation to address his/her substance use issues? Very motivated Motivated Low motivation Unknown Mental Health No mental health concerns (continue to Medical Section) Offender has been diagnosed with a mental health disorder(s) Specify mental health diagnoses: Offender has a suspected mental health disorder(s) Specify mental health concerns: The offender received treatment for their mental health issues in the past The offender requires medication for his/her mental health issues What mental health treatment is being provided to the offender through PPOP (check all that apply)? Assessment Medication stabilization Individual counselling Group counselling Psychiatric consultation Other:

150 How would you rate the offender s motivation to address his/her mental health issues? Very motivated Motivated Low motivation Unknown Medical No medical issues (continue to Dental Section) Offender has a medical condition Specify medical diagnoses/concerns: Offender requires treatment for this medical condition What medical services will the offender be referred to through PPOP?: Dental No dental issues (continue to Employment/Education Section) Offender requires dental services What dental services will the offender be referred to through PPOP?: Employment/Education Source of income at PPOP selection (select all that apply): No income Social assistance Employment insurance Employment Other: Employment status at PPOP selection: Unemployed Part-time employment Full-time employment Seasonal Employment Other: Offender has employment goals as part of his/her case plan Specify employment goals: Highest level of education attained at PPOP de-selection: No education Elementary Junior high school Some high school High school graduate Trade Some university University graduate Other: The offender can read The offender can write Offender has educational goals as part of his/her case plan Specify educational goals: Housing Offender s living arrangement upon PPOP entry: In custody Shelter Rehabilitation facility Half-way house Second-stage housing With family/friends Rents own home Owns own home Other: Other Offender has housing goals as part of his/her case plan Specify housing goals: Offender requires assistance obtaining identification Offender requires assistance obtaining basic necessities

151 Stakeholder Involvement What agencies will the offender be referred to as part of his/her case plan (please list)? Conditions List the release conditions recommended for the offender:

152 APPENDIX B Offender Exit Data Collection Form

153 PPOP Evaluation Offender Exit Data Collection Form INSTRUCTIONS: This form should be completed for all offenders for whom a data entry form has been completed upon their de-selection from the program. Upon completing this form, please save it using the FPS number as the file name. FPS #: Date of de-selection: mm/dd/yy Program Location at de-selection: Calgary (CPS) Edmonton (EPS) Calgary (RCMP) Edmonton (RCMP) PPOP Police Officer (name): PPOP Probation Officer (name): Relationship status: Same as on selection to PPOP Changed to: Single Married Cohabiting Dating Divorced Widowed Children: Same as on selection to PPOP Changed to: à # of children: # children living with offender: # of children under the age of 17: If Child and Family Services was involved on entry to PPOP, did that involvement change by the time the offender exited from PPOP? Yes No Not applicable How did Child and Family Services involvement change? Reason for De-selection Offender has been stable and crime free in the community for at least six months and his/her risk to reoffend has dropped significantly Law enforcement agencies advise PPOP that the offender is no longer a priority in their jurisdiction They have died, become permanently incapacitated or relocated permanently They have been incarcerated for a significant period of time (>1 year) Criminal History (from program entry date to de-selection date) Date of first conviction after entry to PPOP: mm/dd/yy Not applicable Total criminal convictions since PPOP selection: Approximate time in custody since PPOP entry (days): Convictions in the period from PPOP selection to de-selection: Substantive Convictions # Administrative Convictions # Other criminal driving offences Violent offences Weapons offences Property offences Deceit offences Drug offences Other criminal offences Fail to appear Escape lawful custody/unlawfully at large Fail to comply with release conditions Fail to comply with a sentence/probation Fail to comply with court order Obstruction of justice Obstruct a police officer

154 Perjury Criminal flight Criminal hit and run Case Plan How would you rate the offender s motivation on de-selection from PPOP? Very motivated Motivated Low motivation Unknown Family/Community Support How would you rate the offender s general support system on de-selection from PPOP? No healthy supports Low number of healthy supports Moderate number of healthy supports High number of healthy supports Did the offender make progress on developing social supports during his/her time with PPOP? Yes No Did the offender have a significant negative life experience while they were with PPOP? Yes No Do you think this event affected their progress? Yes No Substance Use No substance abuse concerns (continue to Mental Health section) Offender had a confirmed addiction upon selection to PPOP Offender had problems with substance use upon selection to PPOP What substance abuse services did the offender access during his/her time with PPOP? Detox Individual counselling Group counseling Residential treatment AA/NA Other: How would you rate the offender s participation in substance abuse programming? Low Moderate High Did the offender make progress in addressing their substance abuse issues? Yes No If yes, indicate general type of progress: Abstinence Reduced use Use of less severe substance Other: Did the offender suffer any relapses while with PPOP? Yes No Did the offender recover from this/these relapse(s) while with PPOP? Yes No Was the offender connected with substance abuse aftercare upon de-selection from PPOP? Detox Individual counselling Group counseling Residential treatment AA/NA Other: What was the offender s attitude toward substance abuse services upon de-selection from PPOP? Negative Positive Excellent Mental Health No mental health concerns (continue to Medical Section) Offender had a mental health diagnosis upon entering PPOP Offender was diagnosed with a mental health condition during his/her time at PPOP Specify mental health diagnosis: Offender has a suspected mental health condition upon de-selection from PPOP Specify suspected mental health condition:

155 What mental health treatment was provided to the offender through PPOP (check all that apply)? Assessment Medication stabilization Individual counselling Group counselling Psychiatric consultation Other: How would you rate the offender s motivation to address his/her mental health issues? Very motivated Motivated Low motivation Unknown Did the offender make progress in addressing his/her mental health condition? Yes No If yes, indicate general type of progress: Stable lifestyle Medication compliance Regular participation in mental health supports Other: Was the offender connected with mental health aftercare upon de-selection from PPOP? If yes, indicate the type of aftercare: Individual counselling Psychiatric consultations Residential treatment Other: What was the offender s attitude toward mental health services upon de-selection from PPOP? Negative Positive Excellent Medical No medical concerns (proceed to Dental Section) Offender had a diagnosed medical condition upon entering PPOP Offender was diagnosed with a medical condition during his/her time at PPOP Specify medical diagnosis: What medical treatment was provided to the offender through PPOP? How would you rate the offender s motivation to address his/her medical issues? Very motivated Motivated Low motivation Unknown Did the offender make progress in addressing his/her medical condition? Yes No If yes, indicate general type of progress: Was the offender connected with medical aftercare upon de-selection from PPOP? Yes No If yes, indicate the type of aftercare: What was the offender s attitude toward medical services upon de-selection from PPOP? Negative Positive Excellent Dental No dental concerns (proceed to Employment/Education Section) Offender had known dental issues upon entering PPOP Offender was assessed as having dental issues during his/her time at PPOP What dental services were provided to the offender through PPOP? How would you rate the offender s motivation to address his/her dental issues? Very motivated Motivated Low motivation Unknown Did the offender make progress in addressing his/her dental issues? Yes No If yes, indicate general type of progress: Was the offender connected with dental aftercare upon de-selection from PPOP? Yes No If yes, indicate the type of aftercare:

156 What was the offender s attitude toward dental services upon de-selection from PPOP? Negative Positive Excellent Employment/Education Source of income at PPOP de-selection (select all that apply): No income Social assistance Employment insurance Employment Other: Employment status at PPOP de-selection: Unemployed Part-time employment Full-time employment Seasonal Employment Other: If employment goals were part of the case plan, did the offender reach these all of these goals? Yes No If no, which goals were not met? Highest level of education attained at PPOP de-selection: No education Elementary Junior high school Some high school High school graduate Trade Some university University graduate Other: The offender can read The offender can write If educational goals were part of the case plan, did the offender reach these all of these goals? Yes No If no, which goals were not met? Housing Did offender make any housing changes while in PPOP? Yes No Did the offender s housing situation improve? Yes No Offender s living arrangement upon entry de-selection from PPOP: In custody Shelter Rehabilitation facility Half-way house Second-stage housing With family/friends Rents own home Owns own home Other: If housing goals were part of the case plan, did the offender reach these all of these goals? Yes No If no, which goals were not met? Other Offender obtained identification during time with PPOP Offender obtained the necessities of life during time with PPOP Stakeholder Involvement What agencies was the offender referred to during his/her time with PPOP (please list)? Agency Did the offender access this service? Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown

157 Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes No Unknown Conditions List the release conditions that the offender received while with PPOP:

158 APPENDIX C Priority Prolific Offender Program: Staff Survey

159 Priority Prolific Offender Program: Staff Survey Background Information The Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family is conducting an evaluation of the Priority Prolific Offender Program (PPOP). The purpose of the evaluation is to examine the processes and outcomes of the program. As a member of the PPOP staff, your input and experiences are very important to the evaluation. Therefore, we are asking you to participate in a survey regarding your experiences with the program. Your participation is completely voluntary, and you are free to withdraw from the study at any time. You may refuse to answer any question. All the information you provide will be anonymous, and your name will not be used in any of the Institute's publications. What is your position with the program? How long have you been involved with the program? 1

160 Priority Prolific Offender Program: Staff Survey Perceptions of PPOP The basic goals of PPOP are to ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate and up-to-date information when prosecuting prolific offenders, to promote rehabilitation via the provision of appropriate support services for the offender, and to promote meaningful consequences for offenders. How much do you agree or disagree that PPOP meets each of these goals? Neither Strongly Strongly agree Agree agree/disagree Disagree disagree Goal #1: Ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and up-to-date information when prosecuting prolific offenders. Goal #2: Promote rehabilitation via the provision of appropriate support services for the offender. Goal #3: Promote meaningful consequences for offenders. The program relies on referrals from local police services. Is this process working well? Yes No If no, why not? 2