Archived Content Contenu archivé 8886.c2... · 2013. 8. 27. · eseeee Coe.eSee ee'eteeeeezeeeete...

ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Contenu archivé L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.

Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

1+

EVALUATION ASSESSMENT OF THE

PRIVATE FAMILY VISITING PROGRAM

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA

Bureau of Management Consulting

Supply and Services Canada

Bureau des conseillers en gestion

Approvisionnements et Services Canada

1

1 1 1 1 NOV

1994

HP/ (9 0 e7 006; C2

/9R1

1

zoePeeseee■eseeee

Coe.

?eSee

ee'eteeeeezeeeete eeW

\-tsee.," aïçe'ç

'éseeereeePeole

\çeee.10-eueee

e e‘eebçiee

eeeeee eeeee ee\e\e'\'e e..\)e.

Project No. 2-3359 August 1981

1 1

1 EVALUATION ASSESSMENT

OF THE PRIVATE FAMILY VISITING PROGRAM

CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA

the bureau of management consulting is an agency of the department of supply and services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In June 1981 the Bureau of Management Consulting was request-ed by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) to perform an evaluation assessment of the newly instituted Private Family Visiting Program (PFVP). The assessment was to meet the needs of CSC for planning as well as comply with the guide-lines promulgated by the Office of the Comptroller General (OCG) for such studies.

Chapters I and II contain an introduction and a profile of the program, its history and objectives. Then, in accordance with OCG guidelines the following areas are examined in more depth:

1) Rationale for the program (Chapter III). The basis for the assumptions which led to program implementation are examined, along with the appropriateness and adequacy of such a program.

2) Impacts and effects of implementing a program of this nature (Chapter III). These are the effects on the inma-tes' behaviour in the institution. Impacts on inmates and their families and on the society in general, are difficult to determine.

3) Alternative methods of implementing the present program, and alternative programs with the same objectives (Chap-ter III). The impact of eliminating the program entirely was also looked at as part of this phase of the analysis. Preliminary study indicates that insofar as the general principles are concerned, the present structure of the Private Family Visiting Program is most feasible.

4) Outline of the techniques to determine if the program is achieving its objectives (Chapter IV). In addition requirements for a more detailed evaluation of the issues in points 1 to 3 above are given.

Recommended options for data collection in most cases are for information that can be obtained on an ongoing basis in the form of reports. Analysis of the implications of these reports and some special surveys are recommended at the time of the periodic evaluation exercise. Details are to be found in Chapter IV.

The overall conclusion is that the program is evaluable. Evaluations of the five initial phase projects should be undertaken sometime after they have been in operation for a year. A target for completion of these five initial evaluations should be December 1982'. •

- ii -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page .

1

1 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose B. Methodology

' II II PROFILE 2 1 1 i A. Background 2

II B. Program Description 3 C. Interfaces 7 I

1 1. Internal interfaces 7

ill2. External interfaces 7

D. External Assumptions 7 E. Program Elements 7

III PROGRAM ANALYSIS 10

A. Program Rationale 10 1. Validity 10 2. Appropriateness 11 3. Adequacy 12 4. Secondary Effects 12

B. Relationship with Existing Programs 14 C. Relationship with Planned Programs 15 D. Alternative Approaches to Objectives' 15

Achievement

IV EVALUATION DESIGN 19

A. Statement of Program Evaluability 19 B. Methodology 19 C. Information Presently Available 24 D. Outline of Evaluation Components 27 E. Comparison Between Data Presently Collected 39

and Data Collection Possibilities F. Feasibility and Usefulness of Data 40

Collection G. Costs of Data Collection 42 H. Conclusions re Data Collection 43 I. Costs of Proposed Evaluation 44 J. Timing 44 K. Implementation 45

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 46

BIBLIOGRAPHY 48

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Table 1

Page

5 Ma.

- iii -

TABLES AND FIGURES

Private Family Visiting Program Systems Flow Process

Structure

Program Logic Model

Evaluation Framework

APPENDICES

6

9

20

A Commissioner's Directive

Evaluation Techniques

Statistics Canada 84-205

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose

Evaluation exists to determine if a program is operating successfully and meeting its objectives in the best fashion in the face of competing needs and limited resources.

The evaluation assessment is the first step in an evaluation. The purpose of an assessment is to appraise the evaluability of a program and recommend the appropriate level of analysis.

B. Methodology

The evaluation assessment study was carried out by reviewing documentation and Private Family Visiting Program policy and operational literature on the functioning of similar programs in other jurisdictions, and by interviewing Correctional Services personnel at headquarters and in the regions.

The users of this report include several groups with their own needs:

- Program managers require operational feedback on how the program is functioning at the institutional level and areas where improvements may be required.

- Senior management requires an assessment of program effectiveness, impacts on the functioning of the institutions and on the community, and options for change.

Also, Treasury Board Policy (1977-47) requires the study to meet OCG guidelines to the extent feasible.

The study attempts to meet all these needs by structuring the evaluation options by purpose as well as breaking them down under the headings put forth by OCG:

- program rationale - impacts and effects - alternatives - objectives achievement

2

CHAPTER II

PROFILE

A. Background

1. General

Until recently, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), policies and practices restricted visiting of inmates to a limited time throughout the day with a limited amount of privacy. The possibility of a program allowing inmates to be visited by their families for longer periods with more privacy has been discussed at various times over the years. Aften the most recent talks on the subject in late 1979, it was decided to further investigate private family visiting for extended periods of time.

Early in 1980 a project was initiated to introduce a Private Family Visiting program in CSC institutions. This program would allow inmates to spend up to three days with wives or close relatives in a private, home-like setting which, although it would be inside the wallà of the institution, would be separate from the general population areas. It was believed that such visits would enable inmates to renew, strengthen and maintàin valuable family ties, especially where the inmate was not able, because of sentence length or other reasons, to go out into the community on day parole or temporary absence.

A Steering Committee of CSC officials was formed to oversee the project. In the months that followed extensive consultations were carried out both with field staff and with representatives of the private sector. Visits were made to several institutions in the United States which have conjugal or family visiting programs in order to learn from their experience. During 1980 policy and operational documentation was prepared and approved and facilities were designed and installed. On December 23, 1980, the first visit took place at Millhaven institution.

Eventually it is planned to implement this program in all maximum and medium security institutions in Canada. It is now in place in one institution in each of the five CSC regions and is targeted to commence at two others before the third quarter of 1981. Utilization rates at present vary from very low to almost one hundred percent.

2. Authority

Subsection 29 (3) of the Penitentiary Act provides that:

3

"Subject to this Act and any regulations made under subsection (1) the Commissioner may make rules to be known as Commissioner's directives, for the organization, training, discipline, efficiency, administration and good government of the Service and for the custody, treatment, training, employment and discipline of inmates and the good government of pentitentiaries. 1960-61, C.53, S.29."

Pursuant to this subsection and to Penitentiary Service Regulations 15 (food and clothing), 16 (medical and dental care), 17 (personal hygiene), 20 (1) (correctional training program) and 27 (visiting and correspondence), the Commissioner issued a directive on December 4, 1980, outlining the intent and functioning of a Private Family Visiting Program.

B. Program Description

Purpose: To promote the successful return of offenders to the community.

Objectives: To assist in the maintenance of family ties and promote effective family functioning.

Participation: Inmates may participate after they have been in an institution for six months, if they are not receiving day paroles or participating in the Unescorted Temporary Absence Program (UTA), and if they are free of convictions for institutional offences within the recent past.

Family members who may participate include wife/husband, common-law partner of more than six months duration, children, parents, foster parents, siblings, grandparents and, in special cases, in-laws.

Operation: Inmates apply to participate in the program. The requested visitors are then notified and community assessments are conducted. At the time potential visitors are interviewed a picture of them is obtained for identification purposes.

Visitors are subject to regular search procedures, as are inmates.

Visits are carried out in fully furnished two and three bedroom units located inside an enclosed compound within the•perimeter of the institution. A recreation area with playground equipment and a selection of toys and games is also provided.

4

g

I 11

The inmate and his visitors are afforded as much privacy as possible, the only interruptions being for the regular institutional counts and for visits by the Program Coordinator. Health Care staff may also visit to administer medication. A telephone line connects the visiting unit with the security control post in the institution to allow two-way communication at all times.

Meals are provided by the institution but must be paid for by the inmate and his family.

Family counselling is not mandatory but is available on request.

Guidelines for visits state that they can be up to 48 hours every three months for maximum security inmates and 72 hours every three months for medium security inmates, at the discretion of the warden.

Records and Reporting

Visit application register Weekly visit schedules Individual logs for each visiting unit Individual inmate records Monthly report

5

FIGURE 1: PRIVATE FAMILY VISITING PROGRAM - SYSTEMS FLOW PROCESS

Statement of Voluntary Participation

Declaration of Common-law Union

Notification to Visitors

Application Submitted by Inmate

Notification to Inmate

Review Process

Approval Process

Screening Process

Schedule of Visit

Visit

Follow-up

Community Assessment

6

COMMISSIONER OF

CORRECTION

PROGRAM COORDINATOR

REGIONAL MANAGER OFFENDER PROGRAMS

PRIVATE FAMILY VISITING PROGRAM

SENIOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFENDER PROGRAMS

REGIONAL DIRECTOR - GENERA

ASSISTANT WARDEN SOCIALIZATION

I WARDEN

VISITS AND CORRESPONDENCE

KEY - -- Communication Authority

FIGURE 2: STRUCTURE

Other groups within the institutions and the Correctional Service that would be involved in this program include Security, Medical and Health Care Services, Technical Services and Finance.

7

C. Interfaces

1. Internal interfaces

There are other programs in CSC which have an impact on family relationships. There is a regular program of open visits and correspondence. There are family days and social occasions when the inmate may invite people from his visiting and correspondence- list. There are also escorted absences granted under special circumstances, and the Unescorted Temporary Absence Program and day paroles. These are described further in section III B.

2. External interfaces

The major external group on which a program of this nature will impact is the inmate's immediate family.

D. External Assumptions

1. The number and proportion of offenders in the prison population eligible to participate in a Private Family Visiting Program under present conditions will not increase/decrease dramatically due to such factors as changes in size of population or eligibility for programs such as Unescorted Temporary Absences:

2. The demographic profile of offenders will not change markedly (eg. married/unmarried, with/without families, nearness of family to institution).

3. No other program which would have a marked effect on family interrelationships or recidivism rates is planned for the near future.

E. Program Elements

1. Resources

(a) Operating - from Institutional Operating Budgets (b) Person years - none designated (c) Capital - from Technical Services Capital Budgets

This program requires provision for a secure area in which living units suitable for the use of participating inmates and their families can be located.

8

2. Services

Informing inmates of the program - To make inmates aware of the program's existence and purpose.

Processing of applications, community assessments and decisions - To ensure that participation in program is appropriate for inmate at this time.

Visit - To maintain and promote family ties. Follow-up - To check that visits are having positive effects.

Family counselling - Optional. Maintenance, supplies, services - To maintain facilities adequately.

Security - To maintain the security of the institution and prevent injury to persons.

Financial administration - The accounting of financial transactions associated with the program.

Medical and health care - To ensure the health of inmates and family and to assist in female searches.

3. Outputs

Goal: _ More effective family functioning.

Other potential effects:

Counteraction of institutionalization. Reduction in negative inter-personal tension resulting from incarceration. Improvement in institutional behaviour.

4. Potential Impacts

Positive reintegration of inmates into society. Reduction in recidivism.

Reduction in recidivism

Ile ell alb ON me es OM 1111e 11111 allb MU MI MI Ile OS 00

FIGURE 3: PRIVATE FAMILY VISTING PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL

SERVICES 1 SERVICE OUTPUTS EXPECTED

I PROGRAM OUTPUTS INPUTS POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Positive reintegration of inmates into society

Space and facilities

Equipment and supplies

Professional staff

Administration

Polices and procedures

Information dissemination

Community Assessment

Processing of application

Security

Visit

Follow-up and Counselling

Maintenance, supplies and services

Financial Admin-istration

Medical and Health Care

Inmate and public aware-ness of program

Information on inmate and family environment

Decision as to inmate participation

Safety of inmates, visitors and institution

Family interaction

Monitoring and promoting family ties

Acquisition and maintenance of necessary resources

Accounting

Health of inmates and family

More effective family functioning

Reduction in negative

(

inter-personal tension resulting from incarceration

1

Improvement in institutional behaviour

Counteraction of institutionalization

- 10 -

CHAPTER III

PROGRAM ANALYSIS

The development of a comprehensive evaluation framework requires an understanding both of the program and the context in which it operates. In this chapter we delve into the reasoning behind the Private Family Visiting Program, some of the issues that arise out of this and the program implementa-tion, and we examine the relationship of the PFVP to other CSC programs.

A. Program Rationale

In this section we look at what the program is expected to achieve and examine the bases for this assumption. Then we attempt to determine if the program is an appropriate and adequate response to identified problems. Issues which arise in this examination are mentioned as a precursor to structuring an evaluation in the next chapter.

1. Validity

A number of anticipated and hoped for results of the Private Family Visiting Program were identified and cited as reasons for its implementation. These were outlined in the Profile. The premise on which the program operates is that people who have a strong and supportive relationship with their families are more likely to have a positive reintegration into society. The PFVP is an attempt to help maintain those family ties, particularly with spouses, since research has shown that marriages tend to break down within two years of incarceration,* whereas other family ties are more stable. We shall examine these assumptions with reference to the literature which cites experience from similar programs in other jurisdictions.

The proposition that people who have a strong and supportive relationship with their families are significantly less prone to recidivism has been treated with scepticism by some people associated with the program. They argue that the family relationships did not prevent the inmates from committing the crimes that got them incarcerated in the first place. This would be particularly true in the case of multiple offenders.

Holt, Norman, Donald Miller, Explorations in Inmate-Family Relationships, Research Division, Dept. of Corrections, State of California (1972), page 26.

- 11 -

However, in many instances the family is able to provide an economic and a social buffer between the inmate and society upon his release, thus ensuring that the transition from a prison to a non-prison environment is not too traumatic.

The California research study by Holt referenced earlier also states that "a strong and consistent positive relationship exists -between parole success and maintaining strong family ties while in prison ... among male adult federal prisoners released in 1956, 49% of those who planned to live alone subsequently failed on parole compared to only 25% who went to live with wives and 35% who left to reside with parents."

The CSC Literature Search of PFVP (page 9-13) cites several other sources which point out the positive effects of a satisfactory marriage.

2. Appropriateness

The thesis on which this program is based is that family visiting will tend to strengthen family relationships, especially with spouses, and help to minimize the negative consequences of separation on children.

There is always the suspicion in a voluntary program of this nature that the ones who make use of it are not the ones who need it most and that these are the marriages that would stay together anyway. However, there is no data available which would either support or deny this allegation.

The CSC Literature Search (page 12) summarizes support for the program as a tool to maintain the family unit in the following passage:

"For instance, Schneller (1975) recommended that institutions should increase visiting privileges by means of extending conjugal visiting and home furlough programs. (in Pueschel and Moglia, 1977; 374) Such a recommenda-tion has also been made by Hopper (1969; 88), Macknack in Braswell and DeFrancis (1972; 174) as well as supported by the majority of the authors surveyed. Some such as Bakker, Morris and Janus, have been very specific with regard to such programs (1978)"

Experience in the United States has shown that when children did not establish a regular visiting pattern they exhibited more anti-social and aggressive reactions to their parent's imprisonment.* The Yale Law Journal (1978) states that "the

Sack, William H, Jack Seidler, Phd., Susan Thomas M.S.W. "TheChildren of Imprisoned Parents: A Psychological Exploration" American Journal of Orthophsychiatry 46(4) October 1976 p. 618-628.

- 12 -

impact of a temporary separation can be lessened by measures that encourage the child to maintain the relationship with the parent". The Private Family Visiting Program would presumably be such a measure.

3. Adequacy

To expect that a significant change in behavior will occur among inmates as a result of quarter-yearly visits is probably over-optimistic. If one accepts the premise that a large number of people in institutions are there as the result of behavior developed over long periods of time it may not be realistic to expect that an incentive of this degree will result in a major positive effect.

At the same time a more intensive visiting pattern could be infeasible.for a number of reasons varying from availability of the spouse due to work, transportation difficulties or childrens' schooling i through to availability of the facilities.

4. Secondary effects

Before an evaluation can be carried out it is necessary to attempt to identify all possible intended and unintended effects that may derive from the operation of a program, whether desirable or not.

Potential secondary effects are described below.

(a) Counteraction of the "institutionalization" of the inmate i.e. helping to dissociate him from the mores of a prison society and helping him to maintain a view of himself as a functioning member of the community.

(b) Improvement in institutional behavior. The present structure of the program, allows the privilege of family visiting to be withdrawn for conviction of infractions of institutional rules. There is therefore some expectation that inmates for whom participation in the program is important will be less likely to be a source of unrest. The extent of this effect would depend on the overlap between groups of inmates eligible and wanting to participate in the program, and the groups of inmates who tend to pose disiplinary problems.

It should be noted that the short-term goal of improvement in institutional behavior may be in conflict with the long-term goal of improving family ties,

- 13 -

(c) Improved morale. There seems to be some disagree-ment as to whether the Private Family Visiting Program would cause increases or decreases in levels of tension and unrest for participant inmates.

Those who say it will improve moral point out "an increase in emotional satisfaction by means of allowing more significant interpersonal contact".

Those who say such a program will increase unrest point out that the effect of the contrast between the institutional existance and the life outside will lead to unhappiness and lack of adjustment. Supporters of this view also talk of the problems of "maintaining a relationship under this most frustrating and painful of circumstances".*

There is also the possibility of unrest among inmates who are not able to participate in the program for lack of eligible visitors, although there seems to have been no demonstration of this to date.

(d) Reduction in sexual deviation. The extent of homosexual activity in prisons is attributed to the lack of other sexual outlets in" many cases. The extent to which the program would ameliorate the problem would then depend on the number of inmates who are eligible for and take advantage of the privilege. If this were to become a goal of the program then overnight visiting privileges would have to be extended to all prisoners and allow for visitors other than family members.

(e) Security problems. One of the negative effects of a program of this nature is the impact it has on security. There are implications for the institution in the potential entry of weapons and drugs and implications also for the safety of visitors.

(f) Medical implications. There is a possibility of the transmission of communicable diseases, in particular sexually transmitted diseases. This would have to be monitered by medical personnel.

There is also the possibility of unwanted pregnancies, but this is also a problem with Unescorted Temporary Absences.

* CSC Literature Search on PFVP, page 34.

- 14 -

B. Relationship with Existing Programs

The Private Family Visiting Program, with its goal of fostering family ties, has much in common with other activities in the area of Social and Recreational Programs. Similar purposes lead to programs which are in some cases complementary to and in other cases parallel to the Private Family Visiting Program. Case Management, with its involvement in individual program planning, can suggest involvement as part of a wide range of activities preparing an inmate for functioning in society upon release. The descriptions following provide aquick indication of complementary and parallel activities.

There appear to be no programs in place which would conflict with these objectives.

1. Complementary

(a) Family and Community Visiting

Purpose (among others): To provide a means whereby

inmates' ties with family, friends and community may be maintained.

Eligibility: All inmates, subject to the discretion of the warden.

Period: The warden shall establish the hours of operation, normally outside the normal hours of operation of the institutional work program.

(b) Social and Cultural Development

Purpose (among others): To allow for the acquisition, development and maintenance of social and life management skills by encouraging and assisting inmates' development and maintenance of relationships with individuals and groups of the outside community.

Eligibility: All inmates, subject to the discretion of the warden.

(c) Inmate correspondence and telephone communication.

Purpose: To provide a means whereby inmates' ties with family and friends may be maintained.

Eligibility: All inmates.

- 15 -

2. Parallel

Temporary Absence

Purpose: To allow the inmate to maintain and develop family and community ties.

(a) Escorted Temporary Absence (ETA)

- release from an institution of an inmate or group of inmates under escort for medical, humanitarian or rehabilitation reasons.

Eligibility: All inmates, any time after the sentence commencement date.

Period: ETA's do not normally exceed one day.

(b) Unescorted Temporary Absence (UTA)

- release from an institution of an inmate or group of inmates without escort, for medical, humanitarian, rehabilitation or administrative reasons.

Eligibility: All inmates, subject to section 12 of the Parole Regulations.

Period: UTA's do not normally exceed seventy-two hours per quarter.

Note: Inmates receiving UTA's may not participate in the Private Family Visiting Program.

C. Relationship with Planned Programs

There do not appear to be any programs in the planning stages which would impact upon the inmate's relationship with his family as a primary effect.

D. Alternate Approaches to Objectives' Achievement

1. Alternate Programs

Programs aimed at the maintenance of family ties could vary in scope from leaves of absence through to providing facilities for families to live with inmates on a permanent basis. In a sense many of the existing complementary programs described in Section B could be considered as alternatives to the Private Family Visiting Program.

- 16 -

(a) Option one

The first option therefore is to not further implement a special program and/or to shut down the existing program, based on the premise that other programs already in place suffice. This would have several consequences, both negative and positive.

i) Interest group pressure

When the program was being designed in 1979 there was a great deal of interest in the media supporting the concept of private family visiting. Groups such as prisoner's wives groups and the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Societies were supportive of this program. Presumably the elimination of program would cause adverse publicity and interest group pressure.

ii) Resocialization problems

If this program is built on the premise that a supportive family relationship aids the inmate in socialization and that a family visiting program of this nature would help maintain this relationship, then the elimination of the program would mean that resocialization problems would not decrease.

iii) Inmate unrest

A privilege, once granted, is difficult to take away. Furthermore, if as has been suggested, the program increases inmate morale, its withdrawal would contribute to dissatisfaction.

iv) Cost implications

A major reason for not proceeding with a program of this nature could be the costs. The installation of a minimum of one trailer at a cost of $50,000 in each maximum and medium security institutions (25 altogether) at present would run about $1,200,000 one time costs, or $80,000 per annum if it is assumed that a trailer has a lifetime of 15 years. When administrative, operating and maintenance costs of about $1,000 per unit per annum are added to this it can be seen that the elimination of this program Would save about $104,000 per annum.

(b) Option two

Another option would be to extend temporary absence programs. In many ways (see CSC Literature Search,

- 17 -

section four) these are preferable to a visiting program in that they are less expensive for the institution, they allow a greater degree of community involvement, and the setting is more natural. However, they offer greater opportunities both for escape and for the commission of further offenses and thus many inmates are ineligible for them.

(c) Option three

Another option, similar to a program in Mexico, is to have penal colonies where inmates live with their wives and children. There does not seem to be any indication in the literature of the effect this environment has on the families of inmates. Such a program would have to be investigated much more throughly before it could be considered seriously for implementation in Canada.

2. Modifications to existing program

When we look at a program in an evaluative sense there are some questions which cannot be overlooked:

- Could the program be as effective for less cost? - Could the program be more effective for the same cost? - Could the program be more effective?

Although we discuss the issue here, in the next chapter guidelines to evaluation which will be able to respond to these issues in a more substantive way are presented.

(a) Possible methods for making the program as effective for less cost centre around focusing on who actually benefits from the program and what their actual needs are.

If it can be shown that certain groups of inmates are more likely to respond positively to or benefit most from a program of this nature, eligibility could be limited to them. The problem here is the political infeasibility and the potential for engendering unrest among ineligible inmates.

Other options include cutting down on length of visiting periods, if it can be shown they are still equally effective, providing less well-appointed facilities (this may be a false economy since poor quality furnishings leads to increased maintenance costs), and providing fewer services such as counselling (these are at a minimum level now).

- 18 -

I .

(b) Possible methods for making the program more effective for the same costs centre around changes in visiting procedures. In facilities where there is not full utilization, allowing longer and more frequent visits may have an increased impact on family relationships. If there is full utilization, narrowing eligibility to inmates most likely to benefit and allowing them more or longer visits could increase effectiveness, although the objections mentioned in the previous point hold.

(c) When looking at any changes which would make the program more effective there must be an assessment as to whether current parameters are necessary and positive in effect. The program structure was examined and decisions made when the program was put in place, but it requires reexamination of intervals. Potential modifications that would have to be looked at for their impact on program effectiveness include.

- provision of additional services such as babysitting, use of recreational facilities.

- allowing inmates eligible for UTA's to participate.

- setting the guidelines for more frequent or longer visits.

- using the facility for other purposes, such as quiet times, when it not in use for the program.

- allowing inmates from minimum security institutions to use the facilities, or building facilities for those institutions.

- providing transportation assistance for families which require it.

- providing transportation assistance for families which require it.

- redefining eligibility criteria to include friends.

- not allowing disiplinary convictions to interfere with program participation.

- assessing whether some procedures (such as ordering food) should be standardized across all institutions.

- 19

CHAPTER IV

EVALUATION

An evaluation framework for the Private Family Visiting Program is developed in this chapter. Following the guide-lines laid down by the OCG, issues are identified along with techniques to measure the manner and extent to which results are being achieved or problems are surfacing.

The potential users of evaluation information and the value of this data to them is considered in conjunction with the costs of data collection, in order to suggest what should be collected and what should be ignored in a data collection excercise. The rationale for these decisions is provided at the end of the chapter. Descriptions of various data collec-tion techniques are provided in Appendix "B".

A. PROGRAM EVALUABILITY

Our work in chapters II and III indicates that the program is indeed evaluable. Objectives, although not quantifiable at this stage due to a lack of program experience, are suffi-ciently well formulated to form a basis for evaluation. There is agreement on what constitutes program success (although surrogate measures of program effectiveness may be required). Literature on programs of this nature indicates that the activities undertaken here have a good chance of leading to goal achievement. None of the activities seem to be expending effort in a direction that is not within the program mandate.

There appear to be no legal, political, ethical or adminis-trative constraints that would impede the utility or execu-tion of an evaluation study except in the implementation of some of the effectiveness measures. This will be discussed in section F on the feasibility of data collection.

B. METHODOLOGY

In this section the first thing we do is identify the infor-mation needs of the various users of the program evaluation. As we shall point out in the section G on costs, there is no point in obtaining information which will not be used. Interested parties include institutional staff, senior management at the regional and national headquarters, central agencies, the political level of the government, and the general public.

Following the OCG guidelines to provide a framework, we out-line the components of evaluation, their purpose and use, and those interested in the results, in Table 1.

Regional H.Q. National H.Q. Central Agencies Political Level

- 20 -

TABLE 1: PURPOSES OF EVALUATION

EVALUATION COMPONEN1 PURPOSE AND USE INTERESTED PARTIES

A. Program Rationale

Causal Linkages

1. To assess the con-tinuing relevance of the stated pro-gram objectives and mandate.

2. The consistency of the activities and the outputs with the mandate, objec-tives and intended impacts and effects is also examined.

The Program RationH ale is the first step in evaluating a program. There is no point in fur-ther evaluating ac-tivities which are no longer relevant.

The evaluation of program impacts and effects falls natu-rally into several parts which are listed below.

B. Impacts & Effects

Audience Evaluation

The impacts and ef-1 fects of the PFVP on inmates and their families are analysed in the Objectives Achievel ment section.

1. The Audience Evalu ation determines who is participat-ing in the program in terms of inmates and family.

Institution Regional H.Q. National H.Q.

Implementation Evaluation

Impact of Other Programs

Impact Evaluation

Institutions Regional H.Q. National H.Q.

Institution Regional H.Q. National H.Q. Political Level Central Agencies

- 21 -

I• TABLE 1: PURPOSES OF EVALUATION

(Continued)

EVALUATION COMPONENT PURPOSE AND USE INTERESTED PARTIES

LI This section forms a basis for the evaluation of eli-gibility criteria in the Objectives Achievement section.

2. The Implementation Evaluation attempts to measure and evaluate the quan-tity and quality of service provided to the PFVP.

3. In order to identiH fy if funds are being allocated op-timally, it is necessary to deter-mine the extent to which other pro-grams complement, duplicate, overlap or work at cross purposes to this program. This ana-lysis could also point out why re-sults may be other than expected.

4. No system is iso-lated and it is necessary to study the intended and unintended effects of the program on the institution, institutional staff, surrounding community and others.

National H.Q. Regional H.Q. Institutions Central Agencies Political Level General Public

- 22 -

I

I

1

1

Cost Evaluation

C. Alternatives

Process Evaluation

TABLE 1: PURPOSES OF EVALUATION (Continued)

EVALUATION COMPONEWII PURPOSE AND USE INTERESTED PARTIES

5. A comparison of predicted versus actual annual cost of the program can act as a warning of problem areas are arising in its ope-ration.

Expenditures in money and time are necessary to deter-mine the efficiency with which objecti-ves are achieved.

1. This part of the evaluation has two components. The first is an exami-nation of program alternatives which would have a simi-lar goal to the present program at less cost or with mere effect.

2. The second part of the evaluation is an examination of the present pro- 1 grams policies and , procedures with an eye to their ade-quacy and possible changes to improve the program's effil ciency or effecti-veness.

Institutions Regional H.Q. National H.Q.

Institution Regional H.Q. National H.Q. Central Agencies

Institution Regional H.Q. National H.Q. Central Agencies Political Level General Public

I 111

a I

EVALUATION COMPONEN11

D. Objectives Achievement

INTERESTED PARTIES

Institutional Users Regional H.Q. National H.Q. Central Agencies Political Level General Public

- 23 -

PURPOSE AND USE

This component of the evaluation serves as a summary of the program ef-fectiveness. Here it is determined whether the desired effect on the in-mate has been achieved due to the program. In-tended and unin-tended side-effects, both desirable and un-desirable must be taken into account.

TABLE 1: PURPOSES OF EVALUATION (Continued)

- 24 -

1 1 1 , Il

Evaluation strategies for monitoring a continuing program are necessarily different from those employed in seeking information about a new program. Initially, evaluation acts as a planning tool as much as a tool for determination of effectiveness. The Private Family Visiting Program is still in the process of development. Therefore, there are many operational questions asked under the heading 'process evaluation', which management would probably not want to spend the resources answering in subsequent evaluations unless the program undergoes significant change.

Certain aspects of the evaluation have already been performed in a preliminary way during this evaluation assessment. These include the:

- program rationale, - causal linkages, - impact of other programs, and - alternatives.

An attempt was also made in the evaluation assessment study to identify some of the possible unintended effects of the PFVP.

In section D a breakdown of all the evaluation issues and suggested ways to obtain information on them are given. This includes the areas covered during the evaluation assessment, so that more detail can be obtained and so that changes in the program and the environment will not render the evaluation invalid.

This breakdown of evaluation issues is only a starting point for evaluation design. It is not necessary to answer every question to make progress in evaluating a program, so the feasibility and costs of performing an evaluation is to be considered before recommendations are made on data collection.

C. INFORMATION PRESENTLY AVAILABLE

Several data sources are maintained now by CSC. They are described here.

1. Monthly Visit Statistics

Information collected on an institutional basis, includes:

1) No. of applications 2) No. of visits approved 3) No. of visits conducted 4) No. of days the visiting unit was available for use 5) No. of days the visiting unit was used

- 25 -

6) No. of applications still under review 7) No. of applications denied

a. negative community assessment (other than visitor declined or common-law relationship not proven)

b. visitor declined to participate c. common-law relationship not proven d. institutional offence e. inmate withdrew application f. participating in the T.A. Program g. less than 6 months in institution h. other (specify)

Each institution keeps its records in a somewhat different form.

2. Financial Information

Financial information is also available on an institutional basis.

- All salary funds are charged to Socialization; however, these are not broken down by time spent on the PFVP as opposed to other programs, except in those institutions where it is being done on an interim basis for internal information.

Expenditures of public funds, other than salaries, are charged to Technical Services. These expenditures can be identified as being attributable to the PFVP.

3. Case Management Information

Information on topics such as the number of children an inmate has, his marital status, etc., would have to be derived from his Community Assessment Report.

Information contained in this report should include the following:

Names, ages and relationships of visitors Length of marital/common-law relationship Number and ages of children Medical/social problems of family members a) physical limitations and/or medical treatment b) psychological/psychiatric involvement c) outside agency involvement (i.e. separation, divorce,

guardianship, etc.) Impact of visiting/not visiting on children and children's schooling Family involvement in offence

- 26 -

Family dynamics including impact of separation on inmate and family Visiting duration and frequency Transportation arrangements Safety or security concerns of the family

4. Procedural Information

Detailed procedures under which the program operates can be found ineach institution's standing orders. These delineate the services provided and the responsibilities of people involved in administering and participating in the program.

OM alle en IIIIIII • gall 11111111 11111111 all Mt Ili Ile el!

D. OUTLINE OF EVALUATION ODMPONENTS

ISSUES AND EVALUATION COMPONENT POTENTIAL INDICATORS DATA SOURCES DATA ODLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

A. PROGRAM RATIONALE - What is the legislative Legislation, regulations, policies. Examine program documentation. A.1 Basis for program or administrative basis

for the program?

- What are the documented Program initiation documentation. Examine program initiation documen- needs this forms a tation. response to?

- Are the objectives well Statement of objectives. Examine program documentation. formulated in order to Agreement of management and staff Discussions with management and staff. form a basis for program on statement. evaluation? Are objectives quantificable?

- Are objectives accepted Discussions with management, inmates by inmates, staff and and staff. professionals?

- Are the objectives 1, 2 and 3 above. Judgement. appropriate and relevant to the program mandate?

- What external influences Examine the literature. could impact upon the Discussions with mangement and staff. program?

- What is the prtority of See Impacts and Effects: Impact Interviews with management and analysis the program in the face of Other Programs of competing programs. of competing needs? .

A.2 Causal Linkages 2. Examine the linkages Examination of the literature. Literature search. between the program ef- Interviews with inmates, families, Surveys, questionnaire or case study. fects and impacts (out- institutional staff. puts) and the overnight family visits with inmates (inputs).

sJ

Ma an Me en OM OM WIN MI al so me ow as an um ins ems

D. OUTLINE OF EVALUATION COMPONENTS (Continued)

EVALUATION COMPONENT

B. IMPACTS AND EFFECTS

B.1. Audience Evaluation

ISSUES AND POTENTIAL INDICATORS DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

a) Eligibility:

- How many inmates are Derived from criteria and inmate Survey. eligible to participate? files.

- Do staff or inmates per- Questionnaires and discussion. ce ive problems with criteria?

- What are priorities for From staff. participation?

articipatiöii Inmate

DATA SOURCES

- Percentage of eligible inmates who participate.

- Reasons for non-partici-pation.

- Reasons for ceasing to apply.

- Extent to which distance from home affects visiting pattern.

From (a) and quarterly reports.

Numbers with application denied or no application submitted (note demographic characteristics). From C.A. and questioning (note demographic characteristics). From C.A.'s and from surveys.

Trend analysis.

Through monthly reports and surveys. Through survey. Through survey.

Documentation analysis survey.

co

FamirY

- Percentage of families with children who bring them on visits. If not, why not?

- Why have families refused to participate?

- Average number of visi-tors.

- Relationship of visitors. Problems encountered and solutions devised.

Identify families from C.A. Discussions required if reasons not on file.

Identify families from C.A. Discussions required. Not presently reported, although on inmates' files.

From staff.

Report and/or survey.

Survey.

Monthly report.

Annual report.

Number of unit's and days/week Monthly reports. scheduled.

From monthly report.

From visiting unit logs.

From requests for visits.

Average waiting time, from schedule

Document analysis.

1

OM OM OM IMP 11113 am as us nu am am as an ern fue


ISSUES AND EVALUATION COMPONENT POTENTIAL INDICATORS

d) Participation: Common-Law Partner

- Percentage of common-law spouses to total spouses in prison population and to spouses visiting.

- What problems were en-countered and what solu-tions were devised?

From C.A.'s.

DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

Documentation analysis.

From management and staff. Annual report.

B.2. Implementation Evaluation

a) Quantity of services provided: Facility Utilization

- What number of visits ' were actually possible I during the period?

- How many visits were actually carried out during the period?

- During which days of the week did vacancies occur?

- Which days of the week were the most requested visiting periods?

- How long is the waiting list?

h) Quality of services provided:

- Were any difficulties experienced in receiv-ing and discharging visitors?

- Were any difficulties experienced with the

e.

41.

•

II

u.) g o

Ill• OM OR Mil OM MI MI Si MI MI MI MI MI OM


ISSUES AND EVALUATION COMPONENT POTENTIAL INDICATORS DATA SOURCES DATA OOLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

cleanliness, maintenan- Interviews with visitors, inmates Survey. ce, furnishing or over- and staff. all adequacy of the visit units?

- Was children's play area deemd satisfac-tory?

- What are visitors' On-site evaluation. Observation. views on the security and privacy provided?

- What are inmates' views on the visits they ex-perienced?

B.3. Impact of Other What other programs in Examine CD's for other programs Documentation review. Programs CSC could have some im- and discuss with management and Discussion.

pact on this one? staff.

To what extent do they ' duplicate, complement, overlap, or work at cross . w n n purposes to this program?

Are there notable trends Monthly reports. Trend analysis. in the Temporary Absence Program since the incep-tion of the PFVP?

5 .4. Impact Attitudes of institutional Discussion with Union, staff and Survey. Evaluation staff and community toward members of commuriity.

program.

Changes in institutional Comparison of pre-program activi- Documentation review. activities and routines un- ties by means of time breakdowns dergone as a result of the (not now collected) organizational program. changes.

WA IMO MI Ma IMP MI MI IIIIIII • MI MI MI IBM NM


ISSUES AND EVALUATION COMPONENT POTENTIAL INDICATORS DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

Identification of intended From objectives statements. Documentation review. impacts on the institution, staff and surrounding community.

Identification of unintended' From observation, literature Survey. impacts on the institution, 'review, comments of staff, Discussions with staff, management staff and surrounding corn- unions and others (letters, and community organizations. munity (including the ef- newspaper articles). fects on non-participant inmates).

H.5. Cost Evaluation Operating and maintenance Technical Services Account. Reports from institutions. costs.

Personnel costs. Not broken out from Socialization . . .

account at present.

Average food cost per visit, Varies by institution. Some charge « . .

to the inmate and the a set rate and provide food, others institution, order from grocery store.

Other relevant cost informa- . le is

tion.

Comparison of predicted ver- From budget estimates and actuals. . . .

sus actual annual cost of the program (exclusive of capital costs).

Average cost per visit . « It

(salary, operating and maintenance costs).

(.4 ■-•

DATA SOURCES DATA ODLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

Examination of literature. Literature review. Identification of new program Discussion with CSC headquarters staff. thrusts in CSC.

alm no • ea ow am am ow us am am um mu am al am au am


EVALUATION COMPONENT

C. ALTERNATIVES C.1 Alternative

Programs

1 ISSUES AND

I POTENTIAL INDICATORS Alternative program stra-tegies oriented towards same need. - conception - costs

C.2 Process Evaluation Changes to present pro-gram to more effective-ly or efficiently serve same need: (based on Divisional Instruction)

Question staff, inmates and their Survey. families.

a) Application process and Forms:

- is the application process clear and workable?

- is the application form clear?

- can improvements be made to the community assess-ment process?

- do information brochures accurately describe the program and clearly convey the information to inmates and their families?

- are initial orientation sessions effective?

h) Case Management Team (CMT) Responsibilities:

- is the role of the CMT Question staff, inmates and their Survey. well defined and under- families. stood by inmates, their families and institutional staff?

- are there any difficulties with the "Private Family

MIN ow mg mu an rim an I» me am mu am an am Mil BMII


EVALUATION COMPONENT ISSUES AND

POTENTIAL INDICATORS DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

Visiting Consent Form"? - are there any difficulties

with the "Statement of Voluntary Participation" Form?

- are there any difficulties with the "Declaration of Common-Law Union" Form?

- what community assessment procedures are being fol-lowed?

- have visits between incar-cerated family members taken place and if so, what difficulties were encountered?

c) Family Visiting Coor-dinator:

- has one been appointed? - how effective is he/she? - what difficulties have

been experienced? - how have the difficulties

been overcome? - recommendations for im-

provement to the program?

Question institutions. Response from each institution.

4

4

L.)

d) Visit Frequency and Duration:

- what was the actual visit frequency of regular pro-gram participants?

- did any visits occur more frequently than every three months? less fre-quently? why?

- did visits generally last

From inmates' files and from facility log.

Documentation analysis.

/O.

11M

alu ma no ail Ili Ilmm us mu um mow um mu mu mu au um

D. OUTLINE OF EVALUATION ODMPONENTS (Continued)

OM.


POTENTIAL INDICATORS DATA SOURCES DATA ODLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

for 48 and 72 hours res-tively?

- did some visits last less than or longer than the prescribed time? why?

e) Security:

••■•

- is the visiting compound On-site evaluation. Observation. a perimeter fencing

• adequate? - are there problems with

inmate counts and/or vi- A sits to the visiting compound and units?

- what are the visitors Discussion with staff, inmates and Survey. 4 views on the security and Ivisitors. privacy provided?

- what minor breaches of the rules for private family visiting have occurred?

- have there been any pro- w q blems with contraband? explain.

- have there been any pro- • a blems with weapons or escape instruments? explain.

- have visits been terminat- Exception reporting by staff, or Special report. d ed because of disturbances by discussion. in the institution? explain.

f) Provision of Food, Cleaning and Linen Supplies:

(see Implementation Evaluation)

Mai 1111111 UM OM me NM MR MI IMO Mt IOU UM Mil IIIIIII NM MI Mill 111111


DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

g) Cleaning and Maintenance Day:

- how are weekly cleaning Discussions with staff. routines being carried out?

- have any problems developed in this area?

• describe?

h) Private Family Visiting Observation. Program Financial Trans- actions:

- have adequate cost accounting procedures and records been established?

(also see section B.5 Cost Evaluation)

i) Private Family Visiting Program Regulations:

- clothing; have any pro-blems arisen because of inmates clothing during visits? explain.

- communications; what uses have been made of the di-rect telephone line?

- panic button; have these been installed and if so, have they been used?

- visiting between families; have any problems arisen in this regard? explain.

- alcohol and drugs; what methods have been devised to handle drugs? have there been any problems with either drugs or alcohol?

ISSUES AND EVALUATION COMPONENT POTENTIAL INDICATORS

Discussions with staff.

Survey of each institution.



a

1 4

tri

Annual reports.

te crt


IIIIII MU OM lilt MN 1.11 lag till OM MO MI NM IMO IMM1 MI OM



POTENTIAL INDICATORS DATA SOURCES DATA OOLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

- inspection and inventory; how are the furnishings standing up? has there been problems with break-age or damage? has finan-cial recovery been ef-fected?

- supervision of children; have there been problems associated with the super-vision of children? explain.

j) Early Termination of Visits:

- have visits been terminat- Exception reporting by staff. ed early?

- why did the termination come about and how was it requested?

- have the persons involved participated in subsequent visits?

1 k) Visit Standby List:

- has a visit standby list Discussion with staff. Survey of each institution. been established?

- is it being used effecti- vely?

1) Responsibility for Transportation and Food: 1

- have there been any pro-blems in this regard? explain.

- have any visits not been See Audience Evaluation, part b. carried out because visi-tors lacked transportation or money to pay for food?


Annual reports.

t.4 -4

MI1 BM III VS 111111 0111 MI MO BM MI 11101 1011 inn 01111 111111 MO MI an 1111111


ISSUES AND EVALUATION COMPONENT POTENTIAL INDICATORS DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

m) Records, Reports and Evaluations:

- are there records which should be kept which are not being maintained?

- are these records now being kept-WO:a-serve no purpose?

- are there reports which are redundant?

- are there reports which should be submitted which are not?

- is the information con-tained in records and reports adequate for evaluation purposes?

Observation. Survey of each institution. Discussion with staff.

n) Medical Services:

- what services are provi- Discussion with staff. ded?

- what, if any, medical Exception reporting. emergencies have arisen?

- how have these emergencies been dealt with?

o) Counselling:

- have visitors or inmates Discussion with staff. requested/used counselling in conjunction with visits?

p) Fire Emergencies:

- what, if any, fire emer-gencies have arisen?

- how have these emergencies been dealt with?

Exception reporting. Special report.

MI MI Ile IIIIIII IN MI MI 1111111 1111111 Ma MI MI MI UM BM UM


EVALUATION COMPONENT ISSUES POTENTIAL

INDICATORS/DATA SOURCES DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

D. OBJECTIVES ACHIEVEMENT

1. Immediate Effects on Program Participants:

a)-How have relationships with spouses/common-law spouses been affected?

Participant and non-participant opinion. Marriage breakdown rate. Visiting history from C.A.'s.

Case study assessment of effects.

Survey.

b) How have relationships with children been affected?

0 How have relationships with other family members been affected?

Psychiatric assessment of parent-child bonding. Visiting history from C.A.'s.

Visiting history from C.A.'s.

Case study.

Survey.

Survey.

d) How have inmates been affected?

Hostility levels before and after visit. Morale. Incidence of homosexual encounters.

Interviews. Psychiatric assessments.

e) Should there be a reas-sessment of eligibility criteria?

Input from (a)-(d) and Audience Evaluation. co

2. Long-term Effects On Program Participants:

a) Has the program had an effect on the inmates' - family cohesiveness? - recidivision/parole

success?

Baseline data comparing family re-relationships to those of general population, taking into considera-tion factors such as age, region, etc. Information from C.A.'s.

Report and archival analysis.

Quasi-experimental study. b) What positive and what negative effects were observed?

Observation of inmates involved—in program and not involved in program. Comparison between groups.

C) What factors other than Psychological assessment of inmates Case study. family visiting could participating and not participating have been responsible for in program.

- 39 -

E. COMPARISON BETWEEN DATA PRESENTLY COLLECTED AND DATA COLLECTION POSSIBILITIES

1. Types of Data Presently Collected

Report data now generated is shown in Section C. Surveys and experimental studies are not performed on an on-going basis, so if this kind of data is required, it would have to be collected during an evaluation.

Records analysis is not done on a regular basis but can be done e.g. an assessment of the number of inmates who would be eligible for the Private Family Visiting Program was made during the program design phase. In order to acquire this kind of information a special request would have to be made to the institutions or the evaluators themselves would have to go through files and documents.

2. Summary of Data Collection Possibilities

(a) Report generated data

i) Monthly or quarterly reporting of information is use-ful for data needed in managing, and for developing trends.

A comparison between report data now generated and Section D shows that monthly or quarterly information could be collected in the following areas:

- Average number of visitors per visit - Relationship of visitors

ii) Annual or semi-annual reporting is useful in noting exceptional circumstances that may impact upon program design and should be examined by senior management.

Information to be reported annually or on an exception basis includes:

Family visits - problems encountered and solutions devised

Visits of common-law spouse - problems encountered and solutions devised

Costs - operating and maintenance - personnel - food costs to inmate and to institution

Problems with contraband, weapons, escape instruments Visits terminated due to institutional disturbances Visits terminated early for other reasons - how many, why, and how were they requested?

- 40 -

Medical emergencies - what were they and how were they dealt with?

Fire emergencies - what were they and how were they dealt with?

b. Survey data

Information obtainable through interview and questionnaires can be used for many purposes, but it is usually of an evaluative nature and tends to provide reasons for observation.

Surveys can be in the form of a case study of one or more inmates, or in the form of a questionnaire or interview which goes to either inmates, their families or the institutions themselves.

c. Records' analysis

The Operational Information Service (OIS) data system can provide information on numbers eligible for the PVFP at about a $6000 cost.

Some information is available in one form or another in records and files of the institutions, but it requires some kind of extraction and processing to put it in a form that is useful to the manager/evaluator.

d. Experimental study

One of the most definitive ways to comment on program effectiveness is to compare statistically the effects of the program on those participating in it, to the characteristics of a group of similar people not involved in such a program.

Examination of the Section D shows that areas where experimental study has been suggested are concerned with evaluating program effectiveness with respect to inmates and their families.

F. FEASIBILITY AND USEFULNESS OF DATA COLLECTION

There are a number of issues with respect to data collection. There is the identification of what is truly useful, the obtaining of data that accurately reflects the functioning of the program, and the interpretation of that data.

The issues identified in Section D all reflect items of interest to some parties, to some extent. However, the results obtained from monitoring some of the indicators may not prove entirely reliable. Furthermore, the costs of data

1 •

- 41 -

collection may not be worth the information received. For these reasons surrogate measures of program effectiveness may be used to measure program worth i.e. rather than looking at family functioning the effect on institutional behavior may be observed, or rather than looking at recidivism inmate attitudes may be surveyed.

Effectiveness is difficult to measure. No matter how program information is acquired, in a human setting, it is a struggle to be able to state conclusively to what extent results are attributable to a particular program. There are many other influences present in the form of transfer effects from other programs and in the form of variables outside the control of the program. Variation within the program itself is a further source of confusion; within the PFVP counselling may or may not take place, the frequency of visits and the relationship of visitors will vary. Differences in inmates that could have some effect on family function and on results include such factors as age, sex, ethnicity, length of sentence, number of years incarceration for previous sentences, as well as socioeconomic status as measured by indicators such as education, previous occupation and income level. To quote Gardiner:

"The efforts of criminal justice agenices constitute only a few of many factors affecting crime rates or other out-come measures. Other factors which are assumed to con-tribute to these rates include biological and psychological characteristics of the population, family stability, houàing conditions, employment opportunities, the weather, cultural patterns, and steps taken by indi-viduals to reduce their potential for victimization. Not only do we know little about the separate contributions of each of these factors to aggregate outcome indicators; there is also some evidence that they have differential impacts on various types of offenders".*

Data collected at regular intervals through reports is very useful for developing trends, and it is not too onerous to collect for easily measurable items such as the number of days a unit is occupied. However, information which is not used or needed on a regular basis should not be collected by regular reports as it tends to contribute to paperwork burden. Furthermore, frequent measuring tends to encourage over-production of highly measurable items.

Experimental and quasi-experimental designs, with control/ comparison groups and "before" and "after" measures are used to safeguard against alternative explanations of the out-comes. In this study such designs are suggested to measure the effect of the PFVP on recidivism, on the inmates'

* Gardiner, John A.: "Public Policy Evaluation".

- 42 -

positive readjustment to society and on the cohesiveness of the family. Some of the problems with designs of this nature are mentioned in Appendix "B" where they are described.

In order to give a definitive answer on whether objectives are being achieved there must be some standard against which to measure program performance. rertain statistics on marriage and divorce rates among the general population are available in Statistics Canada publication 84-205 (see Appendix "C"), but it is probably more relevant to compare participant outcomes with historical data or with non-participants. The disadvantage of the first technique is that societal trends may be changing at the same rate as institutional trends making it difficult to attribute results to program intervention. The disadvantage of the second technique is that to be valid comparisons should be made with those who would be eligible and who would want to participate in a family visiting program, and it would not be politically or morally feasible to deny a privilege merely for the purposes of an experiment.

Note: If it is desired to collect information from inmates' families for the purposes of an effectiveness evalua-tion, Treasury Board approval must be received and Statistics Canada must approve the survey design.

G. COSTS OF DATA COLLECTION

Evaluation should be cost-justified. The relevance and importance of an issue must be considered in determining whether it should form part of the study and in deciding what evaluation techniques are appropriate. As the adage goes, "there is no point in spending a dollar to solve a ten cent problem".

1. Reports

The cost of producing reports consists of the additional administrative services that go into them, the cost of designing a data gathering system and the cost of training personnel in reporting. This would be largely an incremental cost for this program since much of the data is generated anyway in the course of the work.

Analysis of reports is fairly straightforward and could be considered to absorb no further costs.

- 43 -

2. Surveys

Surveys have both fixed and variable costs, therefore the expense will depend on the extent of the survey. Fixed costs include the planning of the survey, deciding on the reliabi-lity and validity required, deciding on sampling techniques (if applicable) and questionnaire, interview or case study design.

i I II

Fixed costs for a survey can be estimated at about 3 weeks salary for planning, design and testing (probably stretched over 6 weeks real time) and at least another three weeks for , data processing and analysis, depending on to what use the , II data is put. 3. Records' Analysis

Records' analysis is really another form of survey and therefore subject to the same costs.

4. Experimental Studies

Experimental and quasi-experimental designs require a large effort in design, monitoring and analysis and would cost at least a person-year for a study with a term not over three years.

H. CONCLUSIONS RE DATA COLLECTION

Considering the various points that have been brought out in this chapter about the costs and feasibility of various types of data collection and bearing in mind the uses to which they would be put, the points below seem to follow.

1.

Experimental and quasi-experimental studies are useful as an academic exercise, but results may well be open to misinterpretation 'and disagreement and they would not provide a definitive statement of program effectiveness. When their expense and difficulty is taken into account we must recommend against their use.

The variable costs are the costs of data collection, proces-sing and analysis which will depend on the size of the sample selected and on the survey method, i.e. questionnaires, interviews, etc.

- 44 -

2.

The expense of surveys varies depending on the manner in which they are carried out. They can provide answers to a lot of the "why's" when it comes to evaluating program results. Which of the surveys suggested by the Annex should be carried out depends on the resource constraints of the evaluators in time and money, and when the survey is carried out. (Evaluations after the next one, for instance, should not require a process evaluation.)

3.

Annual reports as a means of sharing information with other program managers should be put in place.

4.

Consideration should be given to adding information on visitor relationships and the average number of visitors to monthly reports.

I. COSTS OF PROPOSED EVALUATION

If the conclusions on data collection pointed out in the previous section are agreed to, an evaluation study in thenear future by two analysts should take between six and twelve weeks for a cost of $20,000 to $40,000. The wide range is due to the possible differences in the scope of surveys taken to determine program effect and variations in program functioning, and differences in the depth to which program options are explored.

J. TIMING OF THE EVALUATION

Evaluation should not take place before the program has been running in an institution for at least a year. Program managers feel it will take at least that long for the program to begin to stabilize, and to develop experience to act as a basis for analysis.

Nonetheless, certain parts of the evaluation, particularly those dealing with operational concerns, would be of value to management at the earliest convenient date.

Bearing these concerns in mind, we suggest that the first evaluation of the Private Famly Visiting Program take place before the end of 1982 in those five institutions where the program has already been implemented.

A 'process' and 'implementation' evaluation should take place again after the program has been completely implemented in

! I

' I 1 1

11 : •

- 45 -

all medium and maximum security institutions across the country.

K. IMPLEMENTATION

Below are outlined the next steps for data collection in order to have operational information and a data base for analysis during the evaluation.

1. Steps to Collecting Information by Report

- Decide on information requirements Decide on responsibilities for data collection

- Design forms for reporting - Pre-test of forms - Develop process for distribution of reports - Initiate data collection

2. Steps to Carry Out Surveys

- Assign responsibility for evaluation Decide which surveys will be required and when

- Design survey - Pre-test questionnaires if they are to be used - Perform survey

Carry out data reduction and analysis

- 46 -

CHAPTER V

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the preceeding analysis, it has been concluded that certain aspects of the Private Family Visiting Program are evaluable. To prepare for and carry out the evaluations, it is recommended that:

1. each project evaluation be divided into the following sections (Chapter IV, Section D):

(a) Program rationale, which comments on the continuing relevance of the program objectives and mandate, and the plausibility of the causal linkages between activities and outputs and the attainment of ojbectives;

(b) impacts and effects - to determine the intended and unintended program effects by means of the following components:

i) Audience evaluation to assess program use by inmates and their families;

ii) Implementation evaluation to assess the quantity and quality of visiting services provided;

iii) Impact of other programs to assess the effect that other programs may have on the achievement of this program's objectives;

iv) Impact evaluation to assess the intended and un-intended effects of the program on the institu-tion, staff and community; and

v) Cost evaluation to compare predicted and actual costs of the program.

(c) alternatives - to determine other less expensive or more effective ways of achieving program objectives:

i) Alternative programs to assess other programs which would have a similar effect on objectives achievement; and

ii) Process evaluation to assess ways of improving the administration and functioning of the program within its present framework.

(d) objectives achievement, which summarizes the results of the evaluation and the effects on the users.

I - 47 -

Hi

2. Questions in Chapter IV, Section D, be used as a guideline to performing the evaluation, with the exception of questions which require experimental studies to answer.

3. Evaluations be undertaken sometime after each project has been in operation for a minimum of one year, with a target date of December 1982 for completion of the five initial project evaluations.

In addition, it is recommended that an annual report be designed and instituted as a means of sharing information on the Private Family Visiting Program with other program managers.

,

- 48 -

111

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Scarvia B., Samuel Ball, The Profession and Practice of Program Evaluation, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Fransisco (1978).

Atkinson, Hargreaves, Horowitz, Sorenson Editors, Evaluation of Human Service Programs, Academic Press, (1978).

Clark, L.P., Designs for Evaluating Social Programs, Policy Studies Associates, N.Y. (1976).

Cook, Thomas D., Fay Lomax Cook, Melvin M. Mark, Randomized and Quasi-Experimental Designs in Evaluation Research: An Introduction, Carleton University, Ottawa (1976).

Holt, Norman, Donald Miller, Explorations in Inmate-Family Relationships, Research Division, Dept. of Correction, State of California (1972).

Hudson, J., Problems of Measurement in Criminal Justice, Carleton University, Ottawa (1976).

Pallone, Nathaniel J., James J. Hennessy, "Empirical Derivation of a Scale for Recidivism Pronèness Among • Parolees". Offender Rehabilitation, vol 2(2) winter 1977, Haworth Press.

Rutman, L., Planning an Evaluation Study, Carleton University, Ottawa (1976).

Sack, William H., M.D., Jack Seidler, Phd, Susan Thomas, M.S.W. "The Children of Imprisoned Parents: A Psychological Exploration", American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 46(4), October 1976, p 618-628.

Weiss, Carol H., Evaluation Research, Prentice-Hall Inc. N.J. (1972)

Yale Law Journal, On Prisoners and Parenting: Preserving the Tie that Binds, vol 87, 1978, 1408-1429.

APPENDIX '' Ali

COMMISSIONER' S DIRECTIVE

— A . 1 —

MEMORANDUM NOTE DE SERVICE

1 1

OMM,

1 OBJET PURPOSE

DÉFINITION DEFINITION

1

I f IIosf`'cvaenrflamdae7t

Gouvernement

E •

Il TO 1> All Regional Directors General À Tous les Directeurs Généraux Régionaux I L

D.R. Yeomans FROM

DE Commissioner Commissaire

1 SU BJ ECT

°BJETPRIVATE FAMILY VISITING PROGRAM

SECURITY . aAmenum - DE stamt

OUR FILE/NOTRE REFERENCE

YOUR FILE/VOTRE REFÉRENCE

DeVIE January 13, 19 3 1 Le 13 janvier 1981

PROGRAMME DE VISITES FAMILIALES PRIVÉES

1 AUTHORITY

1. Regional Directors General are hereby authorized to proceed with projects under the Private Family Visiting Program in accordance with directions set out in this memorandum. These directions relating to the -private Family Visiting Program will be superseded in due course by a Commis-sioner's Directive (CD) and Division—al Instruction (DI) currently being prepared at National Headquarters.

AUTORISATION

1. Les directeurs généraux régionaux sont par la présente autorisés à don-ner suite aux projets reliés au Pro-gramme de visites familiales privées, conformément aux directives énoncées dans les pages Suivantes et que vien-dront remplacer en temps voulu une Directive du Commissaire (PC) et une Instruction divisionnaire (ID) en cours d'élaboration à l'Administra-tion centrale.

1 2. The purpose of the program is to

assist in the maintenance of family ties and to prepare inmates for posi-tive reintegration into society.

2. Le Programme a pour objet d'aider les détenus à entretenir des liens fami-liaux et à préparer leur réintégra-tion sociale.

3. Private family visits are defined as those which take place between in—mates and family members in special visiting units . located within the penitentiary reserve, where inmates and their families will be accorded privacy.

POLICY

4. National Headquarters will be respon-sible for ensuring the development of policies and procedures for the Private Family Visiting Program.

3. Visite familiale privée désigne la réunion dans l'intimité et pour une période limitée, d'un détenu et de membres de sa famille dans une unité spéciale située sur les terrains du pénitencier.

POLITIQUE

4. Il appartient à l'Administration cen-trale de veiller à l'élaboration de politiques et de procédures relatives au Programme de visites familiales privées.

.../2

HI

I I 1

JI

1.

A - 2 -

1

1

1

APPLICATION PROCESS AND FORMS

5. All inmates requesting family visits will be required to apply using the "Application for Participation in the Private Family Visiting Program" form shown at Annex A. Staff personnel will process the application in ac-cordance with locally developed pro-cedures. These procedures are to include determining the inmates' eligibility and completing a communi-ty assessment with the persons who will be visiting. Applications will be required for each visit. A follow-up will be undertaken after each visit.

Community assessments will be con-ducted by the field staff of the Case Management Team who will obtain and validate photographs of any family member who applies to visit an in-mate. The person conducting the field investigation will receive and transmit documents that will be used to determine participants' relation-ship to the inmate (photographs, marriage and birth certificates, etc.) and the family's willingness to participate. The onus of proof of family relations rests with the in-mate and his family. The Case Man-agement Team is the body primarily responsible for determining the need for and frequency of community as-sessments.

Al]. rules pertaining to the operation of the Private Family Visiting Pro gram will be prepared and distributed to the inmate population and given to the members of the family when the community staff commence their community assessments.

Initial orientation will take place with the inmate and his/her family members who will be participating in the program. The purpose of the ini-tial orientation is to ensure that both the inmate and his/her family members are fully aware of the rules and regulations pertaining to the Private Family Visiting Program.

PROCESSUS'ET FORMULES DE DEMANDE

5. Tous les détenus qui veulent recevoir leur famille devront remplir la for-mule "Demande de participation au Programme de visites familiales pri-vées" reproduite à l'Annexe A. Le personnel traitera les demandes con-formément aux procédures locales, qui doivent prévoir des critères d'admis-sibilité des détenus au Programme et une évaluation communautaire des vi-siteurs. Les détenus devront présen-ter une formule de demande pour chaque visite.

C'est le personnel local de l'équipe de gestion des cas qui mènera les évaluations communautaires et qui se chargera d'obtenir et de faire vali-der les photographies des membres de la famille qui désirent rendre visite à un détenu. La personne qui effec-tue l'evaluation recevra et transmet-tra les documents qui serviront à déterminer le lien de parenté entre les participants et le détenu (photo-graphies, certificats de mariage, ex-traits de naissance, etc.) ainsi que la déclaration de participation volontaire au Programme. Il appar-tient au détenu et à sa famille de prouver le lien de parenté qui existe entre eux. Par ailleurs, c'est l'équipe de gestion des cas qui est chargée d'évaluer la nécessité et la fréquence des évaluations communau-taires.

Toutes les règles relatives au dérou-lement du Programme de visites fami-liales pives seront distribuées aux détenus et remises par le personnel aux membres des familles au moment de l'évaluation communautaire.

Avant les visites, on familiarisera avec les modalités . du Programme les détenus et les membres de leur famil-le afin de s'assurer qu'ils en con-naissent bien les règles et les rè-glements.

A - 3 -

CASE MANAGEMENT TEAM RESPONSIBILITIES

6. Applications will be reviewed by the appropriate Case Management Team who will assess inmate and family eligi-bility and make recommendations.

The Case Management Team will com-plete a "Progress Summary" (form CSC 430) and forward it to the Director for approval or denial.

The Case Management Team is to ensure that:

a. all parties sign a copy of the "Private Family Visiting : Consent Form" attached at Annex B;

b. each visitor completes a copy of the "Statement of Voluntary Par-ticipation" attached,at Annex C and that the signature is proper-ly witnessed. Any person under the age of majority in the prov-ince where the institution is located and wishing to partici-pate in the program must have the written consent of his/her parent or legal guardian and this must be indicated by the completion of the second part of Annex C. A separate form must be completed for each visitor; and

c. common-law partners have signed and completed a "Declaration of Common-Law Union" form as at-tached at Annex D.

Community assessment procedures will be applied in accordance with section 7.3.4 of the Case Management Policy

Archived Content Contenu archivé 8886.c2... · 2013. 8. 27. · eseeee Coe.eSee ee'eteeeeezeeeete...

Documents

Transcript of Archived Content Contenu archivé 8886.c2... · 2013. 8. 27. · eseeee Coe.eSee ee'eteeeeezeeeete...