Research Report_________ Assessment of the Transfer of Community Employment Services (CES) from

Research Report_________ Assessment of the Transfer of Community Employment Services (CES) from
________ Research Report_________
Assessment of the Transfer of Community
Employment Services (CES) from
CORCAN to Community Corrections
Ce rapport est également disponible en français. Pour en obtenir un exemplaire, veuillez vous
adresser à la Direction de la recherche, Service correctionnel du Canada, 340, avenue Laurier
Ouest, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0P9.
This report is also available in French. Should additional copies be required, they can be obtained
from the Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, 340 Laurier Ave. West, Ottawa,
Ontario K1A 0P9.
2014 Nº R-324
Assessment of the Transfer of Community Employment Services (CES) from CORCAN to
Community Corrections
Amanda Nolan
Jenelle Power
Mandie Woods
&
Colette Cousineau
Correctional Service of Canada
February 2014
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank members of the Community Reintegration Branch, especially
Carmen Long, Jodi McDonough, Andrew Pettinger, and Erin Crawley for their continued
support with this project. Thank you also to Janelle Beaudette for her help with translation,
interviews, and transcriptions. Thanks also to Lynn Stewart, Jennie Thompson, Renée Gobeil,
and Andrea Moser for providing comments on earlier drafts of the report. Finally, we would like
to express our sincere gratitude to all of the staff members who participated in interviews and
provided valuable consultation regarding the CES.
ii
Executive Summary
Key words: community employment services; offender employment; community reintegration.
The responsibility for the delivery and management of Community Employment Services (CES)
was transferred from CORCAN to Correctional Service Canada’s (CSC) Community Corrections
infrastructure for a two year pilot period. Part of this transition was to change the focus of CES
activities from job development to job readiness. The purpose of the present research was to
examine whether anticipated outcomes of the pilot project were achieved.
A mixed-method research design that incorporated both quantitative and qualitative methodology
was used. Research questions examined whether there have been improvements in employer
engagement and job availability, job placements (number, type, quality, reason left), and
offender post-release outcomes (job attainment and maintenance, revocation). Issues of
implementation were also examined. Three types of information were used to answer the
research questions: staff interviews; archival job-based data; and archival offender-based data.
Overall, results did not indicate large differences between the results of the pre-pilot and the pilot
model. Quantitative results revealed that one anticipated intermediate or longer-term outcome
associated with the CES transfer pilot project that was achieved was a 13 percentage point
increase in CES full-time employment (from 68% to 81%). Over the same time period, the nonCES employment group did not realise an increase, but 80% of offenders in this group were
already employed full-time during both time periods. Qualitative responses based on staff
interviews revealed some difficulties with the implementation of the new CES model.
Challenges noted with regard to employer engagement were primarily due to offender-specific
obstacles related to employers being hesitant to hire individuals with a criminal record and
offenders not having the necessary employability skills. Staff emphasized meeting face-to-face
as the best approach to use when attempting to engage potential employers. Interestingly, the
continued incorporation of some aspects of the old CES model was reported by many of the staff
members, particularly the development of an offender’s pre-employment skills prior to job
placement. Some staff indicated that they prefer to conduct the job-readiness activities
themselves because it is faster and better quality than making referrals elsewhere and it allows
them to more appropriately match an offender with an employer. Several staff members
recommended more of a balance between the old and the new models. Being part of the
community corrections infrastructure was considered a particularly positive aspect of the new
model for many staff members because they believed it improved case management integration.
It should be noted that the short time period over which the implementation of the new model
was examined may not have allowed for identification of all of the potential benefits of the
transfer of the CES. In particular, the benefits of employer engagement in encouraging hiring of
offenders may take more time to realise results. Thus, an assessment of the full impact of the
transfer would be better determined with longer term research.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v
List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................... v
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
CES Transfer to Community Corrections ............................................................................... 2
Transition and Implementation ............................................................................................... 3
The Present Study ................................................................................................................... 5
Method ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Measures, Procedure, and Analytic Approach ........................................................................ 6
Participants .............................................................................................................................. 9
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Employer Engagement and Offender Job Availability ......................................................... 11
Job Placements (Number, Type, Quality, Reason Left) ....................................................... 14
Offender Post-Release Outcomes (Job Attainment, Job Maintenance, Revocation)............ 18
Unanticipated Findings (Implementation) ............................................................................ 20
Summary of Overall Findings ............................................................................................... 23
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 25
References ..................................................................................................................................... 30
iv
List of Tables
Table 1 Staff Respondents by Region and Position, Pre-Pilot and Pilot ...................................... 10
Table 2 Staff Responses Regarding the Effect of CES on Employer Engagement and Offender
Job Availability ..................................................................................................................... 12
Table 3 Proportion of Offenders with CES and Non-CES Jobs with a Revocation at 3 and 6
Months, Pre-Pilot and Pilot .................................................................................................. 19
Table 4 Research Questions and Summary Findings ................................................................... 23
List of Figures
Figure 1. CES Transfer Activities and Anticipated Outcomes....................................................... 4
Figure 2. Proportion of CES and Non-CES Jobs that were Full- and Part-Time, Pre-Pilot
vs. Pilot ................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 3. Proportion of CES and Non-CES Jobs that were Low-Skilled and High-Skilled,
Pre-Pilot vs. Pilot .................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 4. Proportion of CES and Non-CES Jobs that were Left for Positive, Neutral, and
Negative Reasons, Pre-Pilot vs. Pilot ................................................................................... 17
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Research Framework ............................................................................................... 33
Appendix B: Staff Interview Protocols ......................................................................................... 35
Appendix C: Staff Interview Responses ....................................................................................... 43
Appendix D: Job-Based Analyses ................................................................................................ 57
Appendix E: Offender-Based Analyses ........................................................................................ 61
v
Introduction
Corrections research has established the link between employment needs and criminal
behaviour (e.g., Andrew & Bonta, 2003; Gendreau, Goggin, & Gray, 1998; Statistics Canada,
2005). Correctional organizations worldwide continue to adopt various types of employment and
employability skills programs as core rehabilitation interventions provided to offenders.
Employment interventions are purported to assist offenders in the reintegration process by
mitigating the systematic barriers they face as a result of poor employment skills and, in turn,
contribute to post-release success and public safety. This assistance is important given the
relationship that has been demonstrated between community employment and decreased
likelihood of recidivism (Bouffard, MacKenzie, & Hickman, 2000; Brews, Luong, & Nafekh,
2010; Gillis & Nafekh, 2005; Lockwood, Nally, Ho, & Knutson, 2012; Nolan, Wilton,
Cousineau, & Stewart, under review; Taylor et al., 2008; Wilson, Gallagher, & MacKenzie,
2000).
The Canadian federal offender population demonstrates significant employment and
employability needs. Indeed, 65% of male offenders (Boe, 2005) and 72% of women offenders
(Delveaux & Blanchette, 2005) have been found to be unemployed at the time of arrest. Given
this level of need, employment programs are one of the core correctional interventions offered by
the Correctional Service Canada (CSC). CSC aims to enhance offenders’ job readiness and
employment skills while incarcerated and upon release via its Employment and Employability
Program (EEP). The goal of the EEP is to ensure that offenders have the skills and training
necessary to acquire and maintain employment once they are released into the community, thus
supporting CSC’s mission to contribute to public safety.
CORCAN, a Special Operating Agency (SOA) within CSC, contributes to the goal of the
EEP by providing employment training and employability skills to offenders in support of their
safe reintegration into society. CORCAN has been responsible for the delivery of several
employment initiatives. For instance, it provides a range of vocational training programs aimed
at better preparing offenders for employment by providing them with third-party certification in
fields related to labour market needs. Offenders in institutions also have the opportunity to gain
work experience and on-the-job training through CORCAN production shops, which operate in a
business-like manner to provide the most realistic work environment possible. Until March 31st,
1
2012, CORCAN was also responsible for providing offenders with employment support in the
community via Community Employment Coordinators (CECs) and contracted agencies.1 The
role of CECs and contractors was to work in partnership with local community-based service
delivery agencies to provide employment services to offenders (e.g., orientation to community
resources, employment counselling, job search assistance) with a goal of helping offenders to
find and maintain employment in the community.
CES Transfer to Community Corrections
The responsibility of providing offenders with employment support in the community via
the CECs and contracted agencies was transferred from CORCAN to CSC’s Community
Corrections infrastructure for a pilot period from April 2012 to March 2014. The primary
objective of this transfer was to ensure an employment service delivery model that builds upon
the positive reintegration results already obtained by the CECs and contractors while under the
responsibility of CORCAN, with a goal of increasing offender employment in the community by
April 1st, 2014. A new model for the delivery and management of community employment
services (CES) was subsequently developed to assist in achieving this goal, with a greater
emphasis on job development activities rather than the job readiness activities which were the
focus of the previous model.
The Community Reintegration Branch (CRB) has been leading the two-year initiative
designed to refocus the activities of the CECs and contracted services towards job development.
As part of the initiative, CECs and contractors have been focusing their efforts on the marketing
of offenders to potential employers. It is expected that expanding employer networks will result
in increased job opportunities and subsequent job placements for offenders in the community. It
is important to note that although the priority of the CES is to find employers who are ready and
willing to hire offenders, CECs and contractors are still expected to leverage local communitybased service delivery agencies to ensure offenders obtain the employment services required to
address any outstanding employability deficiencies by referring offenders for services. CRB
anticipates that an enhanced focus on job development activities, and the resulting offender
placements with employers, will result in numerous other benefits, including providing offenders
1
In the Atlantic, Ontario, and Prairie regions, CECs are responsible for the delivery of the community employment
support services to offenders. These are individuals hired directly by CSC. In the Quebec and Pacific regions, the
services are contracted out to community-based agencies.
2
with the means to support themselves and their families, providing offenders with structured
activities, creating pro-social community support networks for offenders, increasing awareness
and understanding of skilled offender labour, dispelling myths concerning the hiring of
offenders, providing a resource that addresses employer labour shortages, providing offenders
with a sense of accountability, and generating socio-economic benefits such as offenders
contributing to society as taxpayers.
Transition and Implementation
Following the decision to transfer the delivery of CES from CORCAN to the Community
Corrections infrastructure, a working group was formed and a transition plan put into place to
support the renewed emphasis on job development skills. CECs and contractors were provided
with training in 2012 with the goal of expanding knowledge and skills in the areas of employer
engagement, sustainable relationships, labour market analysis, and employer awareness. CSC
also developed a new communication strategy as a means to convey information and to educate a
wide audience on the benefits of offender employment (i.e., community partners, CSC staff,
offenders, general public, potential employers, media, and other governmental departments).
Additionally, plans were developed to enhance the performance measurement strategy of CES by
improving the quality of data entered into the Offender Management System (OMS), a
computerized case file management system maintained by CSC to manage information on all
federally-sentenced offenders. It was anticipated that OMS enhancements would allow CECs and
contractors to better track and report on engagements with employers, as well as to reflect with
greater accuracy the type of organization(s) to which offenders are being referred.
There are four main activities that comprise the CES pilot project: (1) staff training; (2) a
focus on implementing a shift in activities; (3) an enhancement of the communication strategy;
and (4) enhancement of performance measurement. The anticipated outcomes as a result of these
activities are presented in Figure 1.
3
Figure 1. CES Transfer Activities and Anticipated Outcomes
Initiative
Activities
Products
Immediate
Outcomes
Transfer of CES
Activities
Refocus
Staff Training
Communication
Strategy
Focus on Job
Development Activities
Trained Staff
Increased # Employers
Engaged
Performance
Measurement
OMS Enhancements
Increased Quality of Data
Maintained
Increased # Job
Opportunities Available
Intermediate
Outcomes
Increased # Offender
Placements
Decreased Time to First
Job
Increased Quality
of Jobs
Increased Length of
Time Employed
Increased # Jobs Left for
Positive Reasons
Long-Term
Outcomes
Successful Reintegration into the Community & Reductions in Recidivism
Ultimate Outcome
Contribution to Public Safety
At the end of the two-year pilot project, a management review will be conducted to
examine: (1) program delivery: whether the program was implemented and delivered as
specified; (2) program impacts: whether employment opportunities and levels of offender
employment increased with this initiative; and (3) future directions: identify best practices and
provide analysis and options for consideration for community employment.
4
The Present Study
The purpose of the present research was to examine whether the program goals of the
pilot project were achieved. The results will help to inform CRB’s management review of the
pilot project. Based on the immediate, intermediate, and longer-term anticipated outcomes of the
CES transfer, the following research questions were addressed:
(1) Has there been an increase in employer engagement and subsequent job opportunities
for offenders under the new CES model, compared to the previous model?
(2) Has there been an increase in the number of offender job placements under the new
CES model, compared to the previous model?
(3) Has there been an increase in the number of “high quality” job placements for
offenders under the new CES model, compared to the previous model?
(4) Has there been an increase in the number of CES jobs left for “positive” reasons
under the new CES model, compared to the previous model?
(5) Do offenders take less time to obtain their first job placement post-release under the
new CES model, compared to the previous model?
(6) Do offenders maintain their first job placement post-release longer under the new
CES model, compared to the previous model?
(7) Are offenders less likely to fail on conditional release under the new CES model,
compared to the previous model?
(8) Do the outcomes of the CES vary by region?, and
(9) Have staff members experienced issues with the implementation and delivery of the
new CES model? What were challenges encountered and best practices noted?
5
Method
The present study utilized a mixed-method research design that incorporated both
quantitative and qualitative methodology, including the use of interviews conducted with staff
members and archival data maintained by CSC. The overall research framework used to assess
the pilot project is presented in Appendix A, including the research questions, performance
indicators, information sources, and type(s) of analyses utilized to examine the research
questions.
Measures, Procedure, and Analytic Approach
Staff interviews. Two semi-structured interview protocols were developed for this study
based on the research questions of interest (see Appendix B). The first was designed for staff
members involved with CES activities prior to the start of the pilot project in April 2012. Due to
their previous experience, these individuals could provide a comparison between the two models
and thus questions comparing the two models were included in their protocol. The second was
designed for staff members involved with CES activities after the start of the pilot project. These
individuals only had experience with the new model, and therefore no questions were included
regarding the comparison between the two models. Both protocols included questions directly
linked to the outcomes to be assessed in the present study (e.g., degree of employer engagement,
number of job opportunities available, quality of job opportunities available), as well as general
questions related to CES implementation and the perceived efficacy of the current approach.
All CES staff members (including Program Managers, CECs, and contract staff) who
were active employees as of April 1, 2012 were recruited to participate in an interview for the
present study.2 Interviews took place between June and August of 2013. Consenting staff
members participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews over the telephone, each taking
approximately 15-30 minutes to complete. Interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed
by Research Assistants.
All interview transcripts were analyzed using NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software
package that aids in the management and organization of narrative information. The interviews
were analysed using content analysis, which allows for the systematic and objective
2
This timeframe coincided with the start of the pilot project, therefore allowing interviews to be conducted with
staff members involved solely with the new model as well as staff members who had experience with both models.
6
quantification of text (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992; Krippendorff, 1980; Sandelowski, 1995). In
content analysis, text classified into a given category is assumed to share the same meaning
(Cavanagh, 1997). Inductive coding was used which allows for the creation of categories as the
text is reviewed rather than in advance of coding (Elos & Kyngäs, 2008; Lauri & Kyngäs, 2005).
Archival data. All data regarding offenders and job activities were extracted from
components of OMS. Data and corresponding analyses used were categorized as one of two
types: (1) job-based analyses, and (2) offender-based analyses. The type depended on the
research question of interest (see Appendix A for more detailed information).
Job-based analyses. Two samples of community employment data were extracted from
OMS. All community employment obtained by offenders during the period of January 1st, 2011
until June 30th, 2011 was considered the “pre-pilot job group,” while all community employment
obtained between January 1st, 2013 and June 30th, 2013 was considered the “pilot job group.”3
For each of these samples, jobs obtained were classified as one of two groups: jobs obtained via
a CES placement, and jobs not obtained via a CES placement. Analyses were descriptive in
nature. Several variables (i.e., number of jobs obtained, number of full-time and part-time jobs,
quality of jobs, and reason for leaving a job) were compared between the two job groups (CES
job vs. non-CES job) as well as between the two time periods (pre-pilot vs. pilot).
It should be noted that during the data extraction phase of the research project, several
data quality issues arose for which methodological modifications were necessary. First, there
were several cases of duplicate job entries for a single offender. Jobs that were obtained by the
same offender were matched on full-time or part-time status and job type; if these two variables
were the same and the start dates were within five days of each other, they were determined to be
duplicate entries and only one entry was kept (i.e., the one which began first).4 It is important to
note that the five day rule was not applied to the same job type where one was part-time and the
other was full-time. In this case the jobs were assumed to be different and both kept. Second, the
region where a job was obtained was only available for jobs obtained through the CES. For jobs
not obtained through the CES, the region could only be approximated by assuming it was similar
to an offender’s region of release prior to the start of that job. Finally, in conducting the staff
interviews, issues with the implementation of the pilot in the Quebec region were identified
3
Data were extracted on July 1st, 2013.
For the 2011 job sample, a total of 215 cases were deleted, resulting in a total of 3,816 jobs obtained. For the 2013
job sample, 235 cases were deleted, resulting in a total of 3,884 jobs obtained.
4
7
(discussed further in the result and discussion sections). Consequently, it was decided to exclude
the Quebec region from total job-based analyses to ensure that the overall differences in numbers
pre-pilot to the start of the pilot would not be impacted by these issues.5 Regional breakdowns
that include the Quebec region are, however, still included in the appendices.
The quality of a job was determined based on skill level. A dichotomous variable (highskilled vs. low-skilled) was created by utilizing the National Occupational Classification (NOC)
code assigned to a job in OMS.6 Using the second digit of these NOC codes, jobs were
categorized as either low-skilled (“occupations that usually require secondary school and/or
occupation-specific training” and “occupations for which on-the-job training is usually
provided”) or high-skilled jobs (“management occupations,” “occupations that usually require
university education,” and “occupations that usually require college education or apprenticeship
training”).
Reasons for leaving a job were categorized as: (1) positive, (2) neutral, or (3) negative.
The positive category included: changed job, placement completed, employed, promotion, and
sentence completed. The neutral category included: deceased, deported, quit, other, education,
transferred, medical, program participation, and laid off. Finally, the negative category included:
fired, reoffended, failed, unlawfully at large, terminated by PBC (Parole Board Canada), and
suspended/revoked.
Offender-based analyses. Two samples of offenders were extracted from OMS. Each
sample consisted of a six-month release cohort. All offenders who were released on the first term
of their current federal sentence between November 1st, 2010 and April 30th, 2011 were
considered the “pre-pilot offender group,” while all offenders released on their first term of their
current federal sentence between November 1st, 2012 and April 30th, 2013 were considered the
“pilot offender group.” For both of these samples, offenders were separated into CES and nonCES offender groups, depending on the question of interest. For instance, in looking at an
5
There were 1,095 jobs obtained in the Quebec region during the pre-pilot period, and 1,100 obtained during the
pilot period that were excluded from overall job-based analyses.
6
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada’s (HRSDC’s) National Occupational Classification (NOC)
2006 system was used to categorize types of community employment acquired by offenders (“NOC codes”). NOC is
the nationally-accepted reference on occupations in Canada. It is a tool used to classify occupations according to
their skill level and skill type (HRSDC, 2012). CSC currently uses 64 three-digit NOC codes to classify offenders’
employment in the community, as well as two additional codes created to represent general managerial and
professional occupational categories. For the purpose of the present study, the first two digits of a NOC code were
used; the first represents skill type and the second represents skill level.
8
offender’s first job obtained post-release (i.e., time to first job, and length of time maintained
first job), two groups were formed: offenders whose first job was a CES job placement, and
offenders whose first job was not a CES placement. In examining revocations on conditional
release, two slightly different groups were formed: offenders who had obtained at least one job
post-release via a CES placement during their follow-up period (regardless of other non-CES
jobs obtained)7, and offenders who did not have a CES placement during their follow-up period.
Comparisons were made between the offender groups (CES job vs. non-CES job) as well as
between the two time periods (pre-pilot vs. pilot). Similar to the job-based analyses, the Quebec
region was excluded from the overall analyses.
Participants
Staff members. A total of 44 staff members involved with the CES were interviewed for
the present study.8 Sixty-six percent indicated that they were employed with the CES prior to the
start of the pilot project, while 34% indicated that they were first employed with CES after the
pilot project had began. With regard to their CES-related position, 39% were Program Managers,
39% were CECs, and 23% were CES contractors. A breakdown of staff members’ regions and
position types by involvement either pre-pilot or pilot only is presented in Table 1.9
7
Offenders were followed until whichever of the following came first: their end-of-sentence date, their first date of
revocation, or the date of data extraction (i.e., September 15 th, 2011 and September 15th, 2013).
8
The 44 individuals who were interviewed represented 62.9% of potential interviewees based on the number of staff
names that were provided by CRB and subsequently contacted by the Research Branch (N = 70). Thirteen percent (n
= 9) declined to participate, while 24.3% (n = 17) did not respond to requests for participation.
9
Although it was determined that there were issues with implementation of the new model in the Quebec region, it
was decided to include those respondents in the staff interview responses. This decision was made for several
reasons, including: that this information was used to determine the implementation issues in that region; interest in
their perceptions on the CES as a whole; and, interviewees could indicate that responses were not applicable to them
if they could not answer questions concerning the new model.
9
Table 1
Staff Respondents by Region and Position, Pre-Pilot and Pilot
Staff Involvement
Pilot Only
(n = 15)
%
n
Pre-Pilot & Pilot
(n = 29)
%
n
Total
(N = 44)
%
n
Region
Atlantic
Quebec
Ontario
Prairies
Pacific
17
21
24
17
21
5
6
7
5
6
27
7
20
40
7
4
1
3
6
1
21
16
23
25
16
9
7
10
11
7
Position
Program Manager
CEC
Contract Agency
35
38
28
10
11
8
47
40
13
7
6
2
39
39
23
17
17
10
Note. CEC = Community Employment Coordinator.
Offenders. As noted above, there were two samples used for the offender-based
analyses. The “pre-pilot offender group” consisted of a total of 799 offenders (excluding the
Quebec region) who were released on the first term of their current federal sentence and were
employed in the community at least once during their release prior to the study follow-up date.
Ninety-six percent of the sample was male, and 16% were of Aboriginal ancestry. The average
age at admission was 32 years, and the average sentence length was 3.7 years. The “pilot
offender group” consisted of a total of 976 offenders (again, excluding the Quebec region).
Ninety-three percent of the sample was male, and 20% were of Aboriginal ancestry. The average
age at admission for this group of offenders was 33 years, and the average sentence length was
3.1 years. Thus, overall, the pre-pilot and the pilot samples were similar.
10
Results
The results of this research report are organized by research question of interest. Three
types of results are presented depending on the nature of the question: (1) archival data drawn
from OMS (i.e., based on either the job- or offender-based samples); (2) closed-ended interview
responses (i.e., Likert scales); and (3) open-ended interview responses (i.e., qualitative themes).
When describing interview results, closed-ended information is provided first, followed by
information on open-ended questions. Further information on interview results is presented in
Appendix C, including all structured interview questions (Table C1), all qualitative themes coded
from open-ended interview responses (Table C4), and selected illustrative quotes taken from
open-ended interview responses (Table C5).
Employer Engagement and Offender Job Availability
Research Question #1: Has there been an increase in employer engagement and subsequent job
opportunities for offenders under the new CES model, compared to the previous model?
Staff interviewees were asked to comment on employer engagement and offender job
opportunities within the context of the CES. Those individuals who were employed both before
and after the start of the pilot project were asked whether there has been an increase in these
activities as a result of the CES, whereas those individuals who were employed only after the
pilot began were asked whether these activities were being achieved optimally. Frequencies of
responses on agreement scales are presented in Table 2.
Just over one-third of interviewees involved in the pre-pilot project agreed that the new
model has resulted in increased employer engagement, and approximately half agreed that it has
resulted in an increased number of job opportunities. Interestingly, all staff respondents
(regardless of involvement pre- or pilot only) appeared almost equally likely to “neither disagree
nor agree” or “agree” with statements regarding employer engagement. A greater percentage of
staff involved with the pilot only, however, indicated agreement with the statement regarding
achievement of optimal number of job opportunities.
11
Table 2
Staff Responses Regarding the Effect of CES on Employer Engagement and Offender Job
Availability
Disagree
Staff
Question
Involvement
The new CES model has resulted in an
increased number of employers being
engaged, compared to the previous
Pre-pilot &
model.
Pilot
The new CES model has resulted in an
(n = 29)
increased number of job opportunities
available for offenders, compared to
the previous model.
Pilot Only
(n = 15)
The CES results in an optimal number
of employers being engaged.
The CES results in an optimal number
of job opportunities available for
offenders.
Neither
Disagree/Agree
Agree
%
n
%
n
%
n
21
6
43
12
36
10
11
3
37
10
52
14
15
2
46
6
39
5
14
2
14
2
71
10
Note. CES = Community Employment Services. Percentages are based on the total number of respondents,
excluding those who did not respond to a question.
Open-ended responses showed that almost half of all staff who were interviewed
emphasized the importance of employer relationship building in contributing to CES success (n
= 18). However, only a third of all respondents reported that they had no issues in engaging
employers to work with offenders (n = 12). The primary challenge reported in engaging
employers was overcoming employers’ negative perceptions on working with an individual who
has a criminal record (n = 19). Some of the reasons indicated by staff as to why employers do not
want to work with offenders included: employers consider offenders a potential liability (e.g.,
stealing from the employer, not showing up on time); employers do not consider offenders to
have the skills needed to perform the job; and employers fear for the safety of their employees.
Other offender-specific obstacles noted were that offenders are not employment ready upon
release (n = 11), and that women offenders pose a unique challenge (e.g., needing a higher
income for child care needs; n = 5). Another major theme that arose was employers’ views on
working with CSC employees such as the CECs. While some staff noted that employers like the
12
assistance from the CECs (n = 4), others noted that employers do not like working with a thirdparty to hire an employee (n = 4). For example, several staff noted that some employers believe
that an employee should contact the employer directly. Another main theme that arose with
regard to engaging employers was funding issues. Staff noted the need for funding for offender
supplies such as bus tickets (to get to interviews) and work boots (n = 11), as well as
employment training for offenders (n = 7). Some staff also stated that having monetary
incentives for employers would help promote engagement (n = 6). When asked about job
opportunities for offenders, staff noted that the number of job opportunities available for
offenders depends on such things as the field of work (n = 17), the location of the city (n = 12),
the nature of seasonal work (n = 8), and the current economy (n = 5).
When asked to indicate the most useful approach in engaging employers, the most
common response was to meet with potential employers face-to-face (n = 17). Several others
reported that educating employers about working with offenders, including the important
contribution to public safety that is made by employing offenders, is helpful (n = 12). Some
respondents also reported that they like to emphasize their role as a support system for the
offenders, and indicated that this can help to alleviate some of employers’ concerns (n = 7).
There appeared to be no substantial differences in open-ended responses regarding the
challenges and best practices associated with engaging employers between pre-pilot and pilot
groups. However, one theme that did arise, particularly by program managers, was the
importance of having the “right person” in the CES position (n = 7). Several individuals
highlighted the skill set of the CEC or contractor in their area, and how this contributed quite
positively to employer relationship building. Key skills noted were being outgoing, personable,
and having good “sales” skills. On the other hand, some managers expressed resistance from
their CEC or contractor to fully follow the new model. This challenge seemed to be more likely
the case with staff members who were involved with the CES prior to the pilot project.
Staff were also asked to indicate how often different types of employers are open to
engagement and the hiring of offenders, based on business size and occupational skill type.
Responses varied greatly regarding which employers are the most open based on size. In general,
respondents perceived large businesses (i.e., 500 plus employees) to be the least open to the
hiring of offenders. Based on skill type, occupations falling under the categories of trades,
transport, and equipment operators, sales and services, primary industry, and processing,
13
manufacturing, and utilities were most likely to be considered by the respondents to be
“often/always” open to engagement. The large majority of respondents (84%; n = 37) indicated
that the trades is the occupational category most open to engagement and the hiring of offenders.
See Table C2 in Appendix C for a table presenting all staff interviewee responses regarding the
types of employers most open to engagement.
Job Placements (Number, Type, Quality, Reason Left)
Research Question #2: Has there been an increase in the number of offender job placements
under the new CES model, compared to the previous model?
Using the job-based samples, the total number of jobs obtained during the two six-month
periods (i.e., pre-pilot and pilot) is presented in Figure 2. During the pre-pilot period, there were
a total of 2,721 jobs obtained in the community by 2,076 offenders (an average of 1.31 jobs per
offender), excluding the Quebec region.10 A total of 23% (n = 624) of the jobs obtained were
CES placements (obtained by 493 offenders; an average of 1.27 jobs per offender). During the
pilot period, there were a total of 2,792 jobs obtained in the community by 2,167 offenders (an
average of 1.29 jobs per offender), excluding the Quebec region. A total of 26% (n = 729) of the
jobs obtained were CES placements (obtained by 586 offenders; an average of 1.24 jobs per
offender). Thus, there was only a three percentage point increase in the proportion of total
community jobs that were CES job placements from the pre-pilot period to the pilot period. A
regional breakdown (see Figure D1 in Appendix D) of results revealed that the proportion of
total jobs increased for the Atlantic and Prairie regions, decreased for the Pacific region, and
remained approximately the same for the Ontario region.
In terms of full- or part-time status, the proportion of CES job placements that were fulltime increased from the pre-pilot to the pilot period by 13 percentage points (from 68% to 81%).
This is in contrast to non-CES jobs, which remained at 83% full-time employed over the two
time periods. A regional breakdown of results is presented in Figure D2 and Figure D3 in
Appendix D. Results revealed that the proportion of CES placements that were full-time
increased for the Atlantic, Prairie, and Pacific regions.
10
As noted in the methodology section, a decision was made to exclude the Quebec region from all quantitative
analyses due to inconsistent implementation of the new CES model. However, the regional breakdowns presented in
the Appendix include the Quebec region for comparison purposes.
14
Figure 2. Proportion of CES and Non-CES Jobs that were Full- and Part-Time, Pre-Pilot
vs. Pilot
2500
2000
17%
17%
1500
Part-time
1000
83%
83%
Pre-pilot
Pilot
Full-time
19%
500
32%
81%
68%
0
Pre-pilot
Pilot
CES
Non-CES
Note. CES = Community Employment Services. A single offender may have obtained multiple jobs falling
under both the CES and non-CES job categories. Excludes jobs obtained in the Quebec region.
Research Question #3: Has there been an increase in the number of “high quality” job
placements for offenders under the new CES model, compared to the previous model?
Using the job-based samples of offenders, we also examined the number of CES job
placements that were low-skilled versus high-skilled during the two six-month periods of interest
(pre-pilot and pilot). Overall, the majority of both CES placements and non-CES jobs were lowskilled during both the pre-pilot and the pilot periods (see Figure 3). During the pre-pilot period,
37% of the CES job placements were classified as high-skilled, and during the pilot period, 38%
of the CES job placements were classified as high-skilled. A regional breakdown is presented in
Figure D4 and Figure D5 in Appendix D. Notably, the proportion of CES job placements that
were high-skilled increased for the Pacific region by 9 percentage points.
15
Figure 3. Proportion of CES and Non-CES Jobs that were Low-Skilled and High-Skilled,
Pre-Pilot vs. Pilot
2500
2000
46%
1500
47%
High-skilled
1000
500
Low-skilled
38%
37%
63%
62%
Pre-pilot
Pilot
54%
53%
Pre-pilot
Pilot
0
CES
Non-CES
Note. CES = Community Employment Services. Frequencies represent the total number of jobs obtained
during a six-month period, either pre-pilot or during the pilot. The CES and non-CES job groups are not
mutually exclusive because an offender may have obtained both a CES job placement and a non-CES job
within the time period of interest.
Staff members were also asked about the job quality of CES placements. Staff employed
prior to the start of the pilot project were asked whether the new model has helped to improve the
quality of job opportunities available for offenders, and under half (43%) agreed. Individuals
employed after the start of the pilot project were asked whether CES activities result in quality
job opportunities available for offenders, and just over half (57%) agreed.
Research Question #4: Has there been an increase in the number of CES jobs left for “positive”
reasons under the new CES model, compared to the previous model?
As presented in Figure 4, a total of 1,932 jobs were left during the pre-pilot period, 23%
of which were CES placements. Of the CES job placements during the pre-pilot, 27% were left
for positive reasons (changed job, placement completed, employed, promotion, or sentence
completed), 33% for neutral reasons, and 40% for negative reasons. A total of 1,457 jobs were
16
left during the pilot period, 30% of which were CES placements. Of the CES job placements,
26% were left for positive reasons, 36% for neutral reasons, and 38% for negative reasons. Thus,
there was no increase in the number of CES job placements left for positive reasons under the
new CES model, compared to the previous model. In general, the CES numbers are consistent
with those for non-CES jobs, with the exception that during the pilot period a slightly greater
proportion of CES placements were left for neutral reasons (36% vs. 29%), and a slightly smaller
proportion of CES placements were left for negative reasons (38% vs. 44%). No clear pattern
emerged when examining results by region (see Figure D6 and Figure D7 in Appendix D).
Figure 4. Proportion of CES and Non-CES Jobs that were Left for Positive, Neutral, and
Negative Reasons, Pre-Pilot vs. Pilot
1600
1400
1200
42%
1000
800
44%
400
200
0
Neutral
31%
600
Negative
Positive
40%
38%
33%
36%
27%
26%
Pre-pilot
Pilot
29%
27%
27%
Pre-pilot
CES
Pilot
Non-CES
Note. CES = Community Employment Services. Frequencies represent the total number of jobs obtained
during a six-month period, either pre-pilot or during the pilot. The CES and non-CES job groups are not
mutually exclusive because an offender may have obtained both a CES job placement and a non-CES job
within the time period of interest.
17
Offender Post-Release Outcomes (Job Attainment, Job Maintenance, Revocation)
Research Question #5: Do offenders take less time to obtain their first job placement postrelease under the new CES model, compared to the previous model?
Research Question #6: Do offenders maintain their first job placement post-release longer under
the new CES model, compared to the previous model?
As previously noted, excluding the Quebec region, a total of 799 offenders during the
pre-pilot period and 976 offenders during the pilot period were released on the first term of their
current federal sentence and were employed in the community at least once during their release
prior to the study follow-up date. During the pre-pilot period, 24% of offenders had a CES
placement as their first job post-release, while 76% had a non-CES job as their first job. During
the pilot period, 25% had a CES placement as their first job-post-release, while 75% had a nonCES job as their first job.
We examined whether offenders took less time to obtain their first job placement postrelease under the new CES model compared to the previous model. Again, the Quebec region
was excluded from analyses. Results revealed that it took offenders whose first job was a CES
placement an average of 63 days to obtain this job during the pre-pilot period and 64 days during
the pilot period. Thus, there was not a decrease in the time it took to obtain a CES job placement
pre-pilot to pilot period. A regional breakdown is presented in Table E1 in Appendix E.
During the pre-pilot period, 67% (n = 128/190) of offenders whose first job was a CES
placement ended their job prior to the end of the study follow-up period. On average, these
offenders kept their first job for an average of 68 days. During the pilot period, 65% (n =
161/246) of offenders whose first job was a CES placement ended their job prior to the end of
the study follow-up period. On average, these offenders kept their first job for an average of 59
days. Thus, there was no increase in the length of job maintenance from pre-pilot to pilot. A
regional breakdown is presented in Table E2 in Appendix E.
18
Research Question #7: Are offenders less likely to fail on conditional release under the new CES
model, compared to the previous model?
In examining revocations while on conditional release, it should be noted that total
analyses, again, excluded the Quebec region. The proportion of offenders whose conditional
release was prior to the end of the follow-up (i.e., their WED or the study end date) within three
months and six months is presented in Table 3. Seven percent of offenders with a CES job
placement were revoked within six months of their follow-up during the pre-pilot period;
likewise 7% with a CES job placement were revoked within this same time frame during the
pilot period. Thus, offenders with a CES job placement were not less likely to be revoked on
conditional release during the pilot period than the non-pilot period. It should be noted however,
that these numbers are very small given the possible follow-up time period, and the analyses did
not control for criminal history risk or criminogenic need variables that may have been related to
outcomes.
Table 3
Proportion of Offenders with CES and Non-CES Jobs with a Revocation at 3 and 6 Months, PrePilot and Pilot
Follow-up Time Period
Revoked
Yes
No
3 Months
CES
Non-CES
Pre-Pilot
Pilot
Pre-Pilot
Pilot
(n = 196) (n = 237) (n = 603) (n = 737)
%
%
%
%
0
1
1
2
100
99
99
98
Note. CES = Community Employment Services.
19
6 Months
CES
Non-CES
Pre-Pilot
Pilot
Pre-Pilot
Pilot
(n = 183) (n = 246) (n = 455) (n = 482)
%
%
%
%
7
7
5
9
93
93
95
91
Unanticipated Findings (Implementation)
Research Question #9: Have staff members experienced issues with the implementation and
delivery of the new CES model? What were challenges encountered and best practices noted?
During the interviews, CES staff were also asked several questions regarding the
implementation and delivery of the CES pilot project, including their ability to make appropriate
referrals to community-based agencies, job placement efficiency, case management integration,
challenges with implementation, views on the new model, best practices, and suggestions for
improvement. Some of these questions were structured, while others were open-ended. As
previously noted, tables presenting the frequencies of agreement among staff respondents for all
structured interview questions (Table C1), qualitative themes from open-ended responses (Table
C4), and selected illustrative quotes (Table C5) can be found in Appendix C.
Community-based referrals. Overall, the large majority of all staff interviewed (90%)
agreed that they are able to appropriately refer offenders to community-based agencies to help
them address any outstanding employability deficiencies. Interestingly, however, open-ended
responses revealed that some of the staff would prefer doing the work themselves “in-house”
rather than referring offenders to other agencies (n = 6). This response was not affected by
whether staff were involved pre- or during the pilot period only. These staff members also
reported that referring offenders to outside sources results in work taking too long to be
completed or not being of as good of quality as it could be if they were to do it themselves (n =
6). Some other systematic issues with referring were also noted (n = 8), including a lack of
resources or funding on the part of the community agencies, and that community-based agencies
are not adequately knowledgeable about the challenges and restrictions of working with
offenders.
Job placement efficiency. Just under half (48%) of staff respondents involved pre-pilot
agreed that the new CES model has resulted in improved efficiency in job placements by being
able to place multiple offenders with the same employer, while a slightly higher frequency (69%)
of staff respondents involved after the start of the pilot agreed that CES activities result in the
placement of multiple offenders with the same employer. Through open-ended responses, some
staff noted that they have had positive experiences with employers wanting to hire more
offenders after working with one (n = 11). However, several staff also noted that they would not
20
want to place multiple offenders with the same employer at the same time (n = 5).
Case management integration. Just over half (56%) of staff respondents involved prepilot agreed that the new CES model has resulted in improved integration with the case
management team. Almost three-quarters (73%) of staff respondents involved after the start of
the pilot agreed that within the context of the CES, there is adequate integration with the case
management team. In terms of open-ended responses, many respondents indicated that case
management is as good as it was before, or has improved (n = 20), highlighting such things as
feeling like they are a part of the CRB team, improvements in data recording procedures, and
increased involvement in the team from Parole Officers. Individuals who said that case
management has not improved with the new model tended to suggest that it was fine before (n =
8). Other staff suggested that case management could still be improved with further
communication (n = 6).
Implementation challenges. Open-ended responses revealed that over half of all staff
interviewed (n = 26) indicated that they have experienced difficulties with the implementation of
the CES. The majority of the individuals who reported these difficulties were involved pre-pilot
(n = 17). Although there were many implementation challenges noted, a primary reason staff
indicated struggling with full implementation of the new model was due to too much focus on
the development of offenders’ pre-employment skills (n = 13), and that they believed that they
were not originally hired as “salespeople” and therefore do not have the skills to engage
employers (n = 6). When staff involved prior to the start of the pilot were asked to indicate the
extent to which they have been following the new CES model, three quarters (75%) of
respondents reported that they “almost always” or “always” followed the new model, while just
less than 15% reported that they only followed the new model “occasionally” or “sometimes,”
and 10% stated that they “never” or “almost never” followed the new model. A breakdown of
these responses by region is presented in Table C3 in Appendix C.
Other noted issues with implementation were that the new model takes more time and
there is too much work required (n = 13), staff have issues with data recording or working in
OMS (n = 10), and staff do not like the materials provided (e.g., pamphlets) to engage employers
(n = 5). Several managers (n = 5) also noted specific issues they faced, including feeling
unprepared to manage the employment services and having a lack of information on how to
implement the new model.
21
Through the open-ended interview responses, it was also revealed that there was no clear
differentiation between implementation of the old and the new model in the Quebec region.
Although the majority of these individuals indicated that they follow the new CES model
“always” or “almost always,” there seemed to be some confusion over the difference between the
old model and the new one. In general, the contractors who were interviewed indicated operating
within their own parameters, while using the contract to guide the process with offenders (e.g.,
paperwork, reports, etc.). Furthermore, given that these are outside agencies, they indicated that
they had always been working toward engaging employers.
Perspectives on new model. In terms of their views on the new CES model versus the
old one, open-ended responses revealed that approximately half of the staff who were involved
with the CES pre-pilot (n = 15) indicated that they do not see a large difference between the two
models. Of all the staff interviewed, over a third (n = 13) commented on aspects of the new
model that they like. For example, several staff indicated that they like being part of CRB, and
feel that CRB is a more appropriate place for CES than CORCAN, while others indicated that
they like the change in focus to employer engagement. However, over a third of staff (n = 15)
also recommended that there should be more of a balance between the two models. Suggestions
for creating this balance included allowing more time for working with offenders’ preemployment, as getting to know the offenders prior to placing them in jobs helps to increase the
number and quality of job opportunities. Some individuals (n = 6) also recommended a different
measurement of CES success be used (i.e., besides job placements), but did not have suggestions
on what that could be.
Best practices and suggestions for improvement. Throughout the course of the
interviews, many of the respondents commented on CES “best practices.” For instance, several
staff highlighted the importance of finding the right match between an employer and an offender
(n = 14), especially for a first time employer of offenders (n = 9). In terms of suggestions for
improvement, several staff indicated that more should be done to prepare offenders for
employment before release (n = 8), including such things as ensuring they have increased their
educational level, have participated in employment programs, have obtained their identification
cards, and have a prepared resume. Other suggestions were made that included such things as
improving communication between the CECs, and creating a shared database of employers that
could be used by CECs across the country (n = 6).
22
Summary of Overall Findings
The results of the present research have been summarized into nine findings, which are
presented in Table 4. Findings have been organized by their appropriate sub-headings as found in
the above results section text.
Table 4
Research Questions and Summary Findings
Employer Engagement and Offender Job Availability
Finding #1: Staff perceptions were mixed regarding whether there has been an increase in
employer engagement and offender job availability under the new CES model. Several
challenges in engaging potential employers were noted, with major themes being offenderspecific obstacles (e.g., employers hesitant to hire individuals with a criminal record), the ability
to build good quality relationship with employers, and the need for more funding (e.g., for
offender training and work supplies). Staff emphasized meeting face-to-face as the best approach
to use when attempting to engage potential employers. Managers in particular highlighted the
necessity of having the “right” person employed in the CEC position for optimal outcomes.
Finding #2: Staff perceived small and medium businesses, and employers in the areas of trades,
sales and services, and manufacturing as being the most open to the hiring of offenders.
Job Placements (Number, Type, Quality, Reason Left)
Finding #3: Overall, there was a three percentage point increase in the total proportion of jobs in
the community that were CES placements from the pre-pilot to the pilot period. A regional
breakdown revealed that the proportion of total jobs in the community that were CES placements
increased for the Atlantic and Prairie regions, and decreased for the Pacific region. There was a
more substantial increase (13 percentage points) in the total proportion of CES job placements
that were full-time from the pre-pilot to the pilot period. This is in contrast to non-CES jobs,
which did not increase between the two time periods, though it should be noted that the full-time
employment rate for this group was already high. A regional breakdown revealed that the
proportion of CES job placements that were full-time increased for the Atlantic, Prairie, and
Pacific regions.
Finding #4: Overall, the majority of CES placements and non-CES jobs obtained were
considered “low-skilled,” during both the pre-pilot and the pilot periods. The total proportion of
CES job placements considered “high-skilled” increased just one percentage point from the prepilot to the pilot period. In terms of staff perceptions on job quality, half agreed that it has
increased as a result of the pilot project.
Finding #5: There was no increase in the number of CES job placements left for positive reasons
during the pilot period compared to the pre-pilot period.
23
Table 4 continued…
Offender Post-Release Outcomes (Job Attainment, Job Maintenance, Revocation)
Finding #6: There was no difference between time to first CES job placement or length of time
in CES job, pre-pilot to pilot period.
Finding #7: Offenders with a CES job placement were not less likely to be revoked on
conditional release during the pilot period than the non-pilot period.
Unanticipated Findings (Implementation)
Finding #8: Open-ended interview responses revealed that over half of all staff have
experienced some difficulties with the implementation of the CES. Of note, the majority of
individuals who indicated problems were involved with the CES prior to the start of the pilot
project. However, when pre-pilot staff were asked to indicate the extent to which they have been
following the new model, 75% responded “almost always” or “always.” One primary reason
staff gave for struggling with the new model was a continued focus on the development of
offenders’ pre-employment skills. It appeared that many staff continue to work on job-readiness
activities with offenders “in-house” because they enjoy working with and getting to know the
offenders prior to job placement, and they consider the work done themselves to be faster and of
better quality than would be the case were they referring offenders to outside agencies.
Finding #9: In terms of overall perspectives on the new CES model, open-ended interview
responses revealed that approximately half of the staff involved prior to the start of the pilot
project do not perceive a large difference between the two models. Of all staff interviewed, over
a third commented on aspects of the new model that they liked. Being part of CRB rather than
CORCAN was noted as a particularly positive aspect for some staff members, as they considered
it a more appropriate place for community employment interventions. Some also indicated that it
has had a positive impact on case management integration. Nevertheless, over a third of staff
interviewed recommended that there should be more of a balance between the old and the new
models, allowing more time for working with offenders pre-employment.
24
Discussion
The purpose of the present research was to assess the achievement of anticipated
outcomes associated with the transfer of CES from CORCAN to the Community Corrections
infrastructure. A mixed-method research design that included staff interviews and archival data
was used to assess outcomes.
Employer Engagement and Job Availability
One of the primary components of the new CES model was to refocus the work of the
CECs and contractors from job readiness to job development activities. It was anticipated that
this shift in focus would increase employer engagement and subsequent job availability. Overall,
the responses given by staff members suggest mixed perceptions on whether these outcomes
were achieved. For instance, as might be expected, regardless of staff involvement either before
or after the pilot project began, there were challenges noted with engaging employers to work
with offenders. Major themes were those involving offender-specific challenges (e.g., resistance
to hire individuals with a criminal record). There is previous empirical research to suggest that
employers have negative attitudes toward the hiring of offenders (Graffam, Shinkfield, &
Hardcastle, 2008; Varghese, Hardin, Bauer, & Morgan, 2010). Regardless of the model selected,
it is clear that addressing these negative perceptions is an important part of any agency’s
community employment strategy for offenders. Ensuring staff are willing and able to “sell”
employers on working with offenders is essential to the success of such initiatives.
Challenges were also noted with the CES more generally such as the need for more
funding for offender training and supplies. Staff also expressed the importance of building
quality relationship with employers, and how this can depend on the experience and expertise of
the CEC or contractor. In terms of “what works,” the majority of staff members emphasized
having in-person meetings with potential employers as the best approach to engagement. Staff
also perceived small and medium businesses, and employers in the areas of trades, sales and
services, and manufacturing as being the most open to the hiring of offenders. Previous research
has also found that offenders are most likely to work in the areas of trades and sales and services
(Nolan & Power, under review). Focusing on the development of relationships with employers in
these types of business may produce the best return on investment for the CECs.
25
CES Implementation
In terms of implementation, the majority of individuals who were involved with the CES
prior to the start of the pilot project indicated that they experienced at least some difficulties with
the new model. A primary reason staff indicated struggling with the new CES model was that
they continued to help offenders with their pre-employment skills, either because they enjoy
doing this work, they find it helps with job placing the offender, or they feel they can complete it
faster than outside agencies. Open-ended interview responses revealed that approximately half of
the staff involved prior to the start of the pilot project did not perceive a large difference between
the two models. Given the significant shift in focus of the new model from job readiness to job
development, this lack of perceived difference may be a concern. Alternatively, it is possible that
some staff were already focusing on engaging employers prior to the pilot project. Nevertheless,
over a third of staff interviewed recommended that there should be more of a balance between
the old and the new models, mainly allowing more time for working with offenders’ preemployment. We were unable to determine why this lack of difference was perceived by these
staff members, but it does raise the issue of whether the new model is being fully implemented as
prescribed at this time.
Staff did identify aspects of the new model that they perceived to be positive changes,
such as a movement to CRB rather than CORCAN as they considered it a more appropriate place
for community employment interventions and that it had a positive impact on case management
integration. These positive changes are likely due to the integration of CECs into the larger
structure of community corrections.
Job Placements
A primary goal of the refocus of CES activities is to increase the number of offender job
placements in the community. In the present study, overall results only revealed a three
percentage point increase in the total proportion of jobs in the community that were CES
placements from the pre-pilot to the pilot period, with a regional breakdown revealing an
increase for the Atlantic and Prairie regions. There was a slightly more substantial increase (13
percentage points) in the total proportion of CES job placements that were full-time from the
pre-pilot to the pilot period for Atlantic, Prairie, and Pacific regions. This is a positive result
suggesting that there has indeed been an increase in the number of CES job placements
26
proportionate to the total number of jobs being obtained in the community. In particular, the
increase in full-time job placements is a positive finding – full time jobs may be preferred for
most offenders because they are more likely to provide adequate wages for an appropriate
standard of living, are more likely to provide benefits, and usually entail more structured
productive time; all factors which previous research has shown to be important for offenders who
are successful in the community (Power & Nolan, under review). It is important to note,
however, that the present study did not take into consideration the job market in the community
during the pre-pilot and the pilot periods. It could be that there were more full-time jobs
available during the pilot period than the pre-pilot period.
The majority of CES job placements and non-CES jobs were assessed as low-skilled,
during both the pre-pilot and the pilot periods. The total proportion of CES job placements
considered high-skilled increased only one percentage point from the pre-pilot to the pilot period.
This lack of increase was also reflected in staff perceptions, half of whom reported that job
quality did not increase pre-pilot to pilot. A significant percentage of offenders being employed
in high-skilled jobs may be unlikely, given their known employment needs. Therefore, a lack of
difference in this area pre-pilot to pilot is perhaps not surprising. Furthermore, utilizing NOC
categories to determine whether a job is low- or high-skilled may not be sensitive enough to
capture the actual skill level required of the job. Additionally, while skill level is included in
most definitions of “quality of work,” a number of other factors can also be included such as
whether the employment provides benefits, stability, intrinsic rewards (e.g., job autonomy,
meaningful work, personal satisfaction), working conditions (stress, workload, physical effort),
and quality of workplace interpersonal relationships (management-employee relationship, coworker relationships; Handel, 2005). These aspects require in-depth information about the
offenders’ perceptions of their jobs which was unavailable for this study.
Offender Post-Release Outcomes
In examining an offender’s trajectory post-release, we were primarily interested in the
length of time it took offenders to obtain a job and for how long they maintained their first job.
Results revealed that offenders who acquired their first community employment post-release via
a CES job placement did not take less time to obtain this job during the pilot period than the prepilot period. Furthermore, offenders whose first CES job placement ended (prior to the study end
27
date) did not maintain their job for a longer average period of time during the pilot period than
the pre-pilot period. Given that offenders who go through the CES to obtain employment
generally have higher employment needs and, therefore, require a certain amount of preparation
prior to a job placement (e.g., resume creation, application), a large decrease in time to first job
may be unrealistic. Moreover, it is possible that the continued focus of many staff on offenders’
pre-employment skills may have slowed actual time to job placement. Thus, strong relationships
with community organizations who can offer these services quickly will be a key in decreasing
delays to first job placement.
The ultimate anticipated outcome of the CES is a reduction in recidivism. The present
research found that offenders with a CES job placement were not less likely to be revoked within
six months of their release during the pilot period than the non-pilot period. Similarly, there was
no decrease in revocations pre-pilot to pilot for offenders who were employed in non-CES jobs.
However, the follow-up period was relatively short, recidivism rates were low, and it should also
be noted the profiles of the two groups and of offenders over the two time periods were not
examined for differences in risk or need factors that are related to recidivism.
Limitations
There are a number of limitations of the present study that should be taken into
consideration when interpreting the results. A primary limitation is that the data extraction and
staff interviews occurred just over a year after the pilot project began. Data collected for the
entire period of pilot project would have been more desirable in order to examine the full impact
of the change in models. Correspondingly, given the timeframes, only a short follow-up period
following the start of the pilot could be used to examine some outcomes (i.e., time to first job,
length of time spent in first job, time to first revocation). Longer follow-up periods may have
allowed for greater sensitivity in comparing differences between the pre-pilot and the pilot
periods.
A further limitation is that the present study did not take into account labour market
trends during the two time periods of study. It is possible that the job market could have changed
over time and within the different regions.
Another limitation was the quality of the data available in OMS. For instance, it was
discovered that there were cases of jobs entered into the system twice, yet with slightly different
28
start or end dates. For this reason, we had to select a timeframe that could be utilized to delete
job duplicates. Using this methodology, however, we may not have captured all duplicates if the
discrepancy between start dates for the same job was greater than our chosen timeframe (i.e., five
days). An additional constraint with using OMS data was the limitation of the information
available to assess some outcomes. For example, there is no direct measure of “quality of work”
available in OMS; thus, we had to create a proxy using NOC codes.
Conclusion
The purpose of the present study was to assess whether the program goals of the CES
transfer pilot project were achieved. Overall, results did not reveal strong differences between
employment trends or offender-related employment outcomes during the pre-pilot model and the
pilot model. Nevertheless, given the staff-reported continuation of activities from the old model,
this research may not reflect the results that would occur when the new model is fully
implemented by all staff members. Moreover, the study was not able to assess the full duration of
the two-year pilot period. Given that capacity building with new employers takes time,
improvements in outcomes due to the new model may only be realised over the longer term.
Thus, the full potential of the transfer may be better determined with future research.
29
References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed). Cincinnati,
OH, US: Anderson Publishing Co.
Boe, R. (2005). Unemployment risk trends and the implications for Canadian federal offenders.
Forum on Corrections Research, 17(1), 3-5.
Bouffard, J. A., MacKenzie, D. L., & Hickman, L. J. (2000). Effectiveness of vocational
education and employment programs for adult offenders: A methodology-based analysis
of the literature. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31, 1-41.
Brews, A., Luong, D., Nafekh, M., Verbrugge, P., Jensen, T., Nolan, A., . . . Anastasopoulos, V.
(2010). Evaluation report: Community Employment Centres (CEC) initiative (File # 3942-82). Ottawa, ON: Evaluation Branch, Correctional Service Canada.
Cavanagh, S. (1997). Content analysis: Concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Researcher,
4, 5-16.
Correctional Service Canada (2011). CMT presentation: Community Employment Support
Service “Finding Sustainable Jobs for Offenders”: New governance structure and
transition plan (Internal document). Ottawa, ON: Community Reintegration Branch,
Author.
Correctional Service Canada (2012a). Presentation: Community Employment Services flow
through (Internal document). Ottawa, ON: Community Reintegration Branch, Author.
Correctional Service Canada (2012b). Community Employment Services (CES) referral process.
Ottawa, ON: Community Reintegration Branch, Author.
Correctional Service Canada’s Community Reintegration Branch (2012, September).
Presentation to the NAACJ: Community Employment Services. Presented at the semiannual meeting of The National Association Active in Criminal Justice and the
Correctional Service Canada, Ottawa.
Delveaux, K., & Blanchette, K. (2005). Women offenders’ employment needs: Research for a
gender-informed employment strategy. Forum on Corrections Research, 17, 25-28.
Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care
for Women International, 13, 313-321.
Elos, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 62, 107-115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Gray, G. (1998). Case need domain: “Employment”. Forum on
Corrections Research, 10, 16-19.
30
Gillis, C. A., & Nafekh, M. (2005). The impact of community-based employment on offender
reintegration. Forum on Corrections Research, 17, 10-14.
Graffam, J., Shinkfield, A. J., & Hardcastle, L. (2007). The perceived employability of exprisoners and offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 52, 673-685. doi:10.1177/0306624X07307783
Handel, M. J. (2005). Trends in perceived job quality, 1989 to 1998. Work and Occupations,
32(1), 66-94.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (2012, March 15). National Occupational
Structure 2006. Retrieved from
http://www30.hrsdc.gc.ca/NOC/English/NOC/2006/Welcome.aspx
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Newbury, CA:
Sage.
Lauri, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2005). Developing nursing theories. Werner Söderström, Dark Oy,
Vantaa.
Lockwood, S., Nally, J. M., Ho, T., & Knutson, K. (2012). The effect of correctional education
on postrelease employment and recidivism: A 5-year follow-up study in the State of
Indiana. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 380-396.
Nolan, A., Wilton, G., Cousineau, C., & Stewart, L. (under review). Outcomes for offender
employment programs: The impact of CORCAN participation. Ottawa, ON: Research
Branch, Correctional Service Canada.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Qualitative analysis: What it is and how to begin? Research in Nursing
and Health, 18, 371-375.
Statistics Canada (2005). Criminal justice indicators. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Justice,
Statistics Canada.
Taylor, K., Stys, Y., Jensen, T., Batten, D., Fabisiak, A., Eredyli, L., . . . Li, H. (2008).
Evaluation report: Correctional Service of Canada’s employment strategy: Institutional
component (File # 394-2-74). Ottawa, ON: Evaluation Branch, Correctional Service
Canada.
Varghese, F. P., Hardin, E. E., Bauer, R. L., & Morgan, R. D. (2010). Attitudes toward hiring
offenders: The roles of criminal history, job qualifications, and race. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 769-782.
doi:10.1177/0306624X09344960
Wilson, D.B., Gallagher, C.A., & MacKenzie, D.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based
31
education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 37, 347-368.
32
Appendix A: Research Framework
Research Question
(1) Has there been an increase in
employer engagement and subsequent
job opportunities for offenders under
the new CES model, compared to the
previous model?
(2)
(2) Has there been an increase in the
number of offender job placements
under the new CES model, compared to
the previous model?
(3) Has there been an increase in the
number of “high quality” job
placements for offenders under the new
CES model, compared to the previous
model?
(4) Has there been an increase in the
number of CES job left for “positive”
reasons under the new CES model,
compared to the previous model?
(5) Do offenders take less time to
obtain their first job placement postrelease under the new CES model,
compared to the previous model?
(6) Do offenders maintain their first job
placement post-release longer under the
new CES model, compared to the
previous model?
Performance Indicator
Perceived greater number of
employers engaged during pilot
vs. pre-pilot
Perceived greater number of job
opportunities available during
pilot vs. pre-pilot
Greater number of CES
placements obtained during pilot
vs. pre-pilot
Information Source
 Staff interviews


Data Analyses
Frequencies
Qualitative themes

OMS data
- job-based sample

Frequencies

Greater number of higher skilled
jobs obtained through CES
during pilot vs. pre-pilot


Staff interviews
OMS data
- job-based sample


Frequencies
Qualitative themes

Greater number of CES jobs
being left for ‘positive reasons’
during pilot vs. pre-pilot

OMS data
- job-based sample

Frequencies

Shorter average length to first
CES job placement post-release
during pilot vs. pre-pilot.

OMS data
- offender-based
sample

Frequencies

Longer average time maintaining
first CES job placement postrelease during pilot vs. pre-pilot

OMS data
- offender-based
sample

Frequencies



33
Appendix A continued…
Research Question
(7) Are offenders less likely to fail on
conditional release under the new CES
model, compared to the previous
model?

Performance Indicator
Offenders with a CES job
placement less likely to have a
revocation on first release during
pilot vs. pre-pilot

(8) Do the outcomes of the CES vary
by region?

Regional variations for research
questions #1 - #7
(9) Have staff members experienced
issues with the implementation and
delivery of the new CES model? What
were challenges encountered and best
practices noted?



Implementation issues noted

Perceived challenges encountered
Best practices indicated
34

Information Source
OMS data
- offender-based
sample
OMS data
- job-based sample
- offender-based
sample
Staff interviews


Data Analyses
Frequencies
Logistic regression
(controlling for
time released and
other covariates)
Frequencies
Qualitative themes


Frequencies
Qualitative themes


Appendix B: Staff Interview Protocols
Interview protocol for those who began CES employment BEFORE April 2012
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
The new CES model has resulted in an
increased number of employers being
○
○
○
○
○
engaged, compared to the previous
model.
 (If disagreed) Why has the new model not resulted in an increased number of employers being engaged?
 Please list the 3 main types of challenges you have encountered in engaging employers.
 What have you found to be the most useful approach in getting employers to be receptive to the hiring of offenders (i.e., what is
the best “sales pitch” to use)?
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
The new CES model has resulted in an
increased number of job opportunities
○
○
○
○
○
available for offenders, compared to the
previous model.
 (If disagreed) Why has the new model not resulted in an increased number of job opportunities for offenders?
35
Appendix B continued…
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
The new CES model has resulted in
improved efficiency in job placements by
○
○
○
○
○
being able to place multiple offenders
with the same employer.
 What would help to improve efficiency?
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
The new CES model has helped to
improve the quality of job opportunities
○
○
○
○
○
available for offenders (e.g., pay level,
stability, desirability for offender).
 What would help to improve the quality of job opportunities available?
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
Within the context of the CES, you are
able to appropriately refer offenders to
community-based agencies to help them
○
○
○
○
○
address any outstanding employability
deficiencies.
36
Appendix B continued…
 (If disagreed) What challenges have you encountered in referring offenders to community-based agencies?
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
The new CES model has resulted in
improved integration with the case
○
○
○
○
○
management team, compared to the
previous model.
 (If disagreed) What would help improve integration with the case management team?
 On a scale from 1 to 3, with 1 being “Never/Rarely”, 2 being “Sometimes”, and 3 being “Often/Always”, to what extent do you
agree that the following types of employers are open to engagement and the hiring of offenders:
Never/
Sometimes
Often/
Rarely
Always
Based on size:
Small businesses (0-99 employees)
○
○
○
Medium businesses (100-499 employees)
○
○
○
Large businesses (500+ employees)
○
○
○
Based on skill type:
○
○
○
 Business, finance and administration
○
○
○
 Natural and applied sciences
○
○
○
 Health
○
○
○
 Social science, education, government service and religion
○
○
○
 Art, culture, recreation and sport
○
○
○
 Sales and services
○
○
○
 Trades, transport and equipment operators
○
○
○
 Primary Industry - Natural resources, agriculture and production
○
○
○
 Processing, manufacturing and utilities
37
Appendix B continued…
 Which occupational category would you consider the most open to engagement and the hiring of offenders?
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Never” and 5 being “Always”, to what extent have you (or if a program manager, your staff
members) been following the new CES delivery model as explained in the training sessions?
Never
Almost Never
Occasionally/
Almost Always
Always
Sometimes
○
○
○
○
○
 Can you please tell me why you (or your staff members) have not been following the new delivery model as explained in the
training:
 Can you please tell me about any other challenges you have experienced with the new CES model (that have not already been
mentioned)?
 Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding the new CES model or CES activities?
38
Appendix B continued…
Interview protocol for those who began CES employment AFTER April 2012
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
The CES results in an optimal number of
○
○
○
○
○
employers being engaged.
 Please list the 3 main types of challenges you have encountered in engaging employers.
 What have you found to be the most useful approach in getting employers to be receptive to the hiring of offenders (i.e., what is
the best “sales pitch” to use)?
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
The CES results in an optimal number of
job opportunities being available for
○
○
○
○
○
offenders.
 (If disagreed) Why is CES not resulting in an adequate number of job opportunities for offenders?
39
Appendix B continued…
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
CES activities result in the placement of
multiple offenders with the same
○
○
○
○
○
employer.
 What would help to improve the likelihood of the placement of multiple offenders with the same employer?
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
CES activities result in quality job
opportunities available for offenders (e.g.,
○
○
○
○
○
pay level, stability, desirability for
offender).
 What would help to improve the quality of job opportunities available?
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
Within the context of the CES, you are
able to appropriately refer offenders to
community-based agencies to help them
○
○
○
○
○
address any outstanding employability
deficiencies.
40
Appendix B continued…
 (If disagreed) What challenges have you encountered in referring offenders to community-based agencies?
 On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree”, to what extent do you agree with the
following:
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
or Disagree
Agree
There is adequate integration with the case
○
○
○
○
○
management team.
 (If disagreed) What would help improve integration with the case management team?
 On a scale from 1 to 3, with 1 being “Never/Rarely”, 2 being “Sometimes”, and 3 being “Often/Always”, to what extent do you
agree that the following types of employers are open to engagement and the hiring of offenders:
Never/
Sometimes
Often/
Rarely
Always
Based on size:
Small businesses (0-99 employees)
○
○
○
Medium businesses (100-499 employees)
○
○
○
Large businesses (500+ employees)
○
○
○
Based on skill type:
 Business, finance and administration
 Natural and applied sciences
 Health
 Social science, education, government service and religion
 Art, culture, recreation and sport
 Sales and services
 Trades, transport and equipment operators
 Primary Industry - Natural resources, agriculture and production
 Processing, manufacturing and utilities
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
41
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
Appendix B continued…
 Which occupational category would you consider the most open to engagement and the hiring of offenders?
 Can you please tell me about any other challenges you have experienced with the new CES model (that have not already been
mentioned)?
 Is there anything else that you would like to add regarding the new CES model or CES activities?
42
Appendix C: Staff Interview Responses
Table C1
All Structured Interview Questions and Frequencies of Staff Respondents who Indicated Agreement
Pre-Pilot & Pilot
(n = 29)
%
n
Employer
engagement
Job
Opportunities
Job Placement
Quality
Job Placement
Efficiency
The new CES model has resulted in an
increased number of employers being
engaged.
The CES results in an optimal number
of employers being engaged.
The new CES model has resulted in an
increased number of job opportunities
available for offenders.
The CES results in an optimal number
of job opportunities available for
offenders.
The new CES model has helped to
improve the quality of job
opportunities available for offenders.
CES activities result in quality job
opportunities available for offenders.
The new CES model has resulted in
improved efficiency in job placements
by being able to place multiple
offenders with the same employer.
CES activities result in the placement
of multiple offenders with the same
employer.
36
10
Staff Involvement
Pilot Only
(n = 15)
%
n
-
-
39
5
52
14
-
-
-
-
71
10
43
12
-
-
-
-
57
8
48
13
-
-
43
69
%
n
37
15
59
24
48
20
55
22
-
-
-
Total
(N = 44)
9
Table C1 continued…
Pre-Pilot & Pilot
%
n
Referrals to
CommunityBased
Agencies
Case
Management
Integration
Within the context of the CES, you (or
your staff) are able to appropriately
refer offenders to community-based
agencies to help them address any
outstanding employability
deficiencies.
The new CES model has resulted in
improved integration with the case
management team.
Within the context of the CES, there is
adequate integration with the case
management team.
Pilot Only
Total
%
n
%
n
90
35
62
26
85
22
87
13
56
15
-
-
-
-
73
11
Note. CES = Community Employment Services. Responses of “agree” and “slightly agree”’ were combined. Percentages are based on the total number of
respondents, excluding those who indicated the question was not applicable for them.
44
Table C2
Staff Responses Regarding Types of Employers Open to Engagement
Staff Involvement
Pre-Pilot & Pilot
(n = 29)
Sometimes
Never/
Rarely
Category
Based on size
Small businessesa
Medium businessesb
Large businessesc
Based on NOC
Business, finance, and
administration
Natural and applied
sciences
Health
Social science,
education, government
service, and religion
Art, culture,
recreation, and sport
Sales and services
Trades, transport, and
equipment operators
Primary industry
Processing,
manufacturing, and
utilities
Often/
Always
Pilot Only
(n = 15)
Sometimes
Never/
Rarely
Often/
Always
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
4
11
63
1
3
17
50
18
11
14
5
3
46
71
26
13
20
7
0
15
46
0
2
5
62
54
27
8
7
3
39
31
27
5
4
3
93
26
7
2
0
0
77
10
23
3
0
0
84
21
16
4
0
0
100
10
0
0
0
0
93
27
7
2
0
0
91
10
9
1
0
0
89
24
11
3
0
0
91
10
9
1
0
0
50
14
50
14
0
0
50
6
50
6
0
0
11
3
50
14
39
11
8
1
46
6
46
6
0
0
18
5
82
23
0
0
7
1
93
13
15
4
37
10
48
13
9
1
55
6
36
4
4
1
29
8
68
19
8
1
39
5
54
7
Note. Percentages are based on the total number of respondents, excluding those who indicated the question was not applicable for them. a 1-99 employees. b 99500 employees. c 500+ employees.
45
Table C3
Staff Responses Regarding Extent to which Staff Follow New CES Model, by Region
Never/
Almost Never
Atlantic
Quebec
Ontario
Prairies
Pacific
Total
(n = 5)
(n = 5)
(n = 7)
(n = 5)
(n = 6)
(N = 29)
%
40
0
0
0
17
10
Occasionally/
Sometimes
n
2
0
0
0
1
3
%
20
0
29
0
17
14
Almost Always/
Always
n
1
0
2
0
1
4
%
40
100
71
100
67
75
n
2
5
5
5
4
21
Note. CES = Community Employment Services. Question was asked of staff involved pre-pilot start only. Percentages are based on the total number of
respondents, n = 1 missing.
46
Table C4
Qualitative Themes among Staff Respondents
Employer Engagement and Offender Job Availability
Offender-specific obstacles
Employers are hesitant to hire individuals with a
criminal record
Offenders are not employment ready on release /
do not have the necessary job skills
Female offenders pose a unique challenge
Relationship with employers
Building a relationship with employers is key
Need to have the “right” person employed in the
CEC position
Some employers do not like being approached by a
third party when hiring
Some employers are open to engagement and like
having third party involvement (i.e., the CEC)
New tools / training has helped to build
relationships and create job opportunities
Funding issues
Need funding for offender supplies such as bus
tickets and work boots
Need funding for training offenders
Incentives for employers would help further
engagement
Pre-pilot & Pilot
(n = 29)
%
n
Staff Involvement
Pilot Only
(n = 15)
%
n
%
n
46
13
40
6
43
19
25
7
27
4
25
11
7
2
20
3
11
5
54
15
20
3
41
18
14
4
20
3
16
7
7
2
13
2
9
4
14
4
0
0
9
4
11
3
7
1
9
4
29
8
20
3
25
11
25
7
0
0
16
7
18
5
7
1
14
6
47
Total
(N = 44)
Table C4 continued…
Job Availability
Depends on the type of employer (e.g., physical
labour positions and small businesses more open to
hiring offenders)
Depends on location of city (e.g., easier to find jobs
in more urban locations)
Jobs can be weather or season-dependent (e.g.,
construction)
The economy has led to a decrease in jobs
Best approach when engaging potential employers (i.e.,
“sale pitch” used)
Meeting face-to-face
Educating employers about offenders (e.g.,
emphasizing contribution to public safety)
Emphasizing aspects of the model that help (e.g.,
having the CEC as a support for the offender)
Job Quality
More training and opportunities in institution
would increase job quality
Incentives would / do improve job quality
Unanticipated findings
Referrals to community-based agencies
Systematic issues with referrals (e.g., not enough
resources or funding; some community-based
organizations are not knowledgeable about
working with offenders)
Takes too long for work to be done outside, or it is
not of good quality when it comes back
Staff would prefer doing the work in-house
themselves
39
11
40
6
39
17
29
8
27
4
27
12
14
4
27
4
18
8
18
5
0
0
11
5
46
13
27
4
39
17
29
8
27
4
27
12
18
5
13
2
16
7
18
5
20
3
18
8
11
3
0
0
7
3
21
6
13
2
18
8
21
6
0
0
14
6
14
4
13
2
14
6
48
Table C4 continued…
Job placement efficiency
An employer will hire more offenders if he/she had
positive experiences with the first hire
Would not place more than one offender with the
same employer, at least not at the same time
Case management integration
Is good or has improved with new model (e.g.,
Parole Officers more involved; being a part of
programs/CRB, and data recording have improved
team integration)
Has not changed with the new model (e.g., was
adequate before pilot)
Is not good / could be improved (e.g., need more
communication; Parole Officers don’t seem to have
interest working with CES)
Implementation
Quebec region – implementation of new model
unclear / some difficulties with switch in contracts
Staff struggling with full implementation of new
model
Struggling because they are focused on
development of pre-employment skills
Struggling because they were not hired as
“salespeople”
Staff do not like materials provided (e.g.,
pamphlets)
The new model takes more time / there is too much
work to be done
Staff have issues with data recording or working in
OMS
29
8
20
3
25
11
14
4
7
1
11
5
46
13
47
7
46
20
29
8
0
0
18
8
11
3
20
3
14
6
21
6
0
0
14
6
39
11
13
2
30
13
14
4
13
2
14
6
11
3
13
2
11
5
29
8
33
5
30
13
29
8
13
2
23
10
49
Table C4 continued…
There are specific issues faced by managers (e.g.,
feeling unprepared to manage employment
services; lack of information on how to implement
new model)
Overall perspectives on new model (job development)
vs. old model (job readiness)
Do not see a large difference between the models
Believe there should be a balance of the two
models (e.g., more time for working on preemployment; getting to know the offenders helps to
increase the number and quality of job
opportunities)
Systematic aspects of the model that staff like (e.g.,
being part of CRB; change in focus to employer
engagement)
There should be a different measurement of
success (e.g., besides job placements)
Best practices
Important to create the right match between
employer and offender
A good match is very important for the first time
employer of offenders
Suggestions for improvement
Offenders need to be more prepared for
employment upon release
There should be more one-on-one time with
offenders
Other suggestions (e.g., have a shared database of
potential employers across Canada; increase
communication between CECs)
14
4
7
1
11
5
54
15
13
2
39
17
43
12
20
3
34
15
29
8
33
5
30
13
14
4
13
2
14
6
39
11
20
3
32
14
25
7
13
2
21
9
14
4
27
4
18
8
29
8
0
0
18
8
18
5
7
1
14
6
Note. CRB = Community Reintegration Branch; CEC = Community Employment Coordinator; CES = Community Employment Services. Percentages are based
on the total number of staff interviewed, not the total number of respondents to a question.
50
Table C5
Selected Illustrative Quotes from Staff Interviews
Theme
Quote
Employer Engagement and Offender Job Availability

Offender-specific obstacles
Employers are hesitant to
hire individuals with a
criminal record
“Because right now with the job market being the way it is they can get a body from where ever they want.
Unfortunately for us, we have got a body but we have also got a criminal record attached. So are they going to take the
person with no criminal record with all the same qualifications, or our guy and I don’t know if I can trust him or not”?
“Often, they don’t have developed skills and it’s also the fact that agencies like banks will do a background check.
They systematically refuse people with criminal records. There are a lot of sectors that refuse”.
Offenders are not job-ready

“Okay, how do I say it, like it’s sort of like if you put the cart before the horse. You know what I mean? So, the
employer, we don’t have a problem necessarily getting employers, the problem is we don’t want to give employers guys
who we know are going to fail. Even if we had ten employers we only want to give those employers clients that are
going to show up, that are reliable, that are dependable, that have skills, but what we’re finding is a lot of the clients
are not job-ready. So we’re not going to initiate those clients with our employers”.
Relationship with employers
Need to have the “right”
person employed in the
CEC position
“… in part we inherited people who were hired to do a job that was geared at employment preparation, which was a
lot of counselling, working with offenders, getting them ready. So we did spend a lot more time with the offenders
doing that then actually placing offenders in jobs. I think we would do a lot better if we hired people with that in mind
because it’s very different attributes you need in order to do that job then to do the stuff before for pre-ready. I find
that’s where the difficulty lies and if we’re not doing as good I don’t think it has to do with goals, I think it has to do
with how the positions have been staffed. I had someone who had the right attributes and I saw her engage and job
place amazingly and she was just starting. So I assume that if I could develop someone like her with her attributes then
it would be outstanding”.
“I think it can work quite effectively, but I think that’s our barrier, our barriers are really who we have hired, where
the emphasis is and what they need to do”.
51
Table C5 continued…

Funding issues
Need funding for offender
supplies, training, and
incentives for employers
“… it [funding] helps with job placement. When the employer says ‘hey I need a guy’ and you have a perfectly great
person to work for him but the guy doesn’t have any equipment, you can’t send him. So it makes things easier to move
people about. I just came from actually Marks Work Warehouse begging for donations and stuff like that seeing if they
would contribute to the program”.
“Oh funding, that’s the biggest thing from the transfer over from CORCAN. Everybody was really excited about the
transformation over because CSC has core funding, but we have zero budget this year. So that is one of the biggest
things. You can’t grow a garden without seeds, and we have no seeds”.
“I mean our CSC person is 100% committed, but I think that there has been lots of change, I mean that has to do with
inconsistent funding, um, I would like to see more access to funding for, you know, work support, things for the clients,
um, bus tickets to get to interviews. Some of these things we provide through our office anyway, but beginning work
supplies like work boots and hard hats and for women some of the basic office attire, if they are working in an office.
So I think that these things, if there is funding available, would certainly be helpful to get people going”.
Job Quality
More training and
opportunities in institution
would increase job quality
“Well in order to improve the quality [of jobs] you have to improve the quality of the offender. You have to improve
their work skills, there educational level, their motivation and you know give them work opportunities to have them
practice those skills. And we fail miserably at that. For the most part”.
Community-based Referral
Takes too long for work to
be done outside, or it’s not
good quality when it comes
back
“… unfortunately what has happened there is I have tried sending guys to get resumes done and what I have been
finding is various issues with that. Some will say yep we will do the resume for you, or help you with it, and then the
resume comes back and they show me and it’s got typos, huge gaps in it, it’s just something that is not going to get you
through the door. So I end up redoing it myself in a better format to make it suitable, so basically we are doing it twice.
Not only that issue but also the time issue... so there are issues that make our clients different from the regular Joe on
the street, and maybe it’s [the mode] not facing these barriers? We still need to address that with them, because the
community agency either does not know how to address them, or the client is too afraid or embarrassed to ask. So as
much as I have tried to refer out, because that’s what we have been told to do, I have unfortunately had a lot of them
coming back and saying can you help me? And of course I do. And that’s what they need, they still need that support”.
52
Table C5 continued…
“Um, depending on what they are, there are some resources in the community that are quite good. . . . And once the
guys have wrapped their head around ‘I need to find work’, it’s not ‘I need find work in a few weeks’, it’s ‘I need to
find work now’. And when they go to a centre and they are told well you need to fill out this paper work and bring it
back then we will book an appointment to make a determination to see if you actually need this assistance then at that
point we can book you in for a couple workshops to find out how to do a resume in a workshop setting. By the time they
get the services it is almost two months from initial contact. So I would say with some things, yes, there are some things
in the community that are great to refer out to. But I find in terms of employment stuff the offenders get so frustrated
that it’s going to take so long, so I just end up doing it myself. I am perfectly capable to teach them how to write a
resume or teach them how to use a computer to send out a résumé, it will take 15 to 20 minutes, or they can go out and
it will take two months”.
Job Placement Efficiency
An employer will hire
more offenders if had
positive experiences with
the first hire
“I have had success with some of my employers; they have liked who they have had. I don’t know if that’s necessarily
the model. I think if the employer has a good experience with an offender, they are going to be more open to the
program. So if you get a solid person in there right off the bat, that’s the trick. You can’t just take one of your offenders
because they match the employer on a few skills, like they can’t do that job. You really have to match them so it’s a
solid relationship, then that seals the deal with the employer”.
“Well to be honest, it’s mostly if the offender does a good job, that’s how we get more than one sometimes that will
work at the same place. If they don’t hired two or three guys at the same time, you hire one and he or she does a great
job well it’s kind of easier to sell to say, ‘listen would you have another opening for... you know this person’”.
Case Management Integration
Is good or has improved
with new model
“… you know what being part of the program board, um, having the onsite manager, very important. I feel like I am
part of a team now rather than when I was just part of CORCAN. My manager was in [city] and I could not be part of
the team. I was never brought in so I always thought I was just not part of everything and nobody really cared what I
was doing. Now they care, and so I am part of, you know, when they are assigning programs I am considered like a
program now. So way better”.
53
Table C5 continued…
“I am enjoying being part of the case management side of things, CORCAN was not case management. It’s good for
me to be aware of what CORCAN does, what the institution does for employment, both sides, but we should be part of
the case management side of things because it is very key I feel. I am thankful that were part of the CRB and that there
is a continuum of care and knowing that I am part of knowing what’s going on and you know I have weekly meetings
with the programs people and I share what is going on with me and it helps with the programs like the community
maintenance program because it’s about skill building, part of that and I am able to work with the programs officers
more closely because we know what each other’s doing and again that travels up to the parole officer. So I am very
pleased with the program and being part of CRB, all the way around I like it”.
Implementation

Contract regions
Quebec region – new
model hasn’t been
implemented at all or was
implemented late/recently
“I haven’t seen a change. I don’t know if it’s because of the contract, the way that with the changes we just had, we
had the end of a contract with CSC and then we just started a new one a couple days ago. I don’t know if that’s
keeping us from seeing any changes”.
“The first challenge is that with the new model we got the information, so we were involved in the bidding for the
contract, however, when it came time to apply it on April 1st 2013, the parole officers at CSC weren’t aware of the
change at all so we had to inform them. And still now, it’s not clear for them. There’s been no official word to come
down. So it was annoying that us, as subcontractors, had to tell them how they need to work”.

Struggling with implementation of new model
Struggling because they
were not hired as
“salespeople”
“The CECs... they don’t feel equipped to do what’s being asked of them, and I don’t feel equipped to provide them
with the assistance that they are looking for. It’s very much out of my scope and the CECs, they are basically being
asked now to perform a sales job and it takes a certain person to do sales and to do it successfully, and they weren’t
hired with that particular skill set, and learning it on the job, while being evaluated, knowing that it’s a two year pilot,
it’s put a lot of pressure on them to perform. Some of them feel under the gun as to how they are doing. Honestly some
of them have given up, they think their positions will be gone within a year and it’s hard to adopt the changes because
they don’t see a future. They are all looking actively for work elsewhere”.
54
Table C5 continued…
“I think it also has a lot to do with the person itself, and I think that since the model is very sales-orientated that the
person has to be really proactive and motivated and sort of like a people person, so I think having the right person in
the role probably would impact just how successful the model is. Someone who isn’t comfortable going out into the
community and engaging prospective employers or really doesn’t know how to sell, I don’t think it would be as
successful. So I think that plays a huge role as well”.
Perspectives on New Model vs. Old
Do not see a large
difference between models
“No they were doing everything before, or everything they are doing now they were doing before, it’s just a different
data entry now than it was before, that’s all I see. Maybe it’s different in other regions where you have staff delivering
it, but here we have been using contractors for quite some time and you know I thought there was a radically different
statement of work coming when we had this big transfer, but frankly it looks identical”.
“To be honest, I don’t see a lot of change from pre- to post. Um, except for how we record and do paperwork. I mean
we do have more of a focus on employer relationships rather than focusing on the offender, but there’s not a whole lot
of change”.
“I’d say no different. Yah the same reasons I mentioned, I still see the CEC people spending time with offenders, they
are not solely devoted to employer engagement there is still that duality there at least that’s the message we have been
given, not just employer engagement. . .”
Systematic aspects of the
model that are liked
“It’s such a key intervention to enhance reintegration and I think making it part of the whole reintegration division has
really created an understanding that the CEC is part of the management team and decisions that will effect
employment, programming and parole. That integration has really enhanced the focus on employment and has allowed
them to see the importance of parole and program officers too. The big picture”.
“But the one advantage is that I have access to the program assistance, being in the program department and I have
my... I have quite a bit of help in terms of managing my wait list and assignment and all that. That is a full time job by
its self so that being removed from... getting help from that is enormous help. And I don’t mind being in the
department, it’s like being included, instead of working in isolation as much. So that is a big plus for it”.
55
Table C5 continued…
Should be a balance of the
two models
“The most ideal is honestly a mix. There was definitely some really positive things that came out of the new idea and
the new model for job developing, but you really have to get to know the offender to understand their strengths and
weaknesses with the case management team in order to really make it more successful. So if there could be a mix… and
I find that’s what I have been doing, it seems to work very well here, in this region anyway. I am just hoping that the
file continues forward”.
“… but I don’t think you can throw the baby out with the bath water. The reality is there are still going to be
[challenges], especially if your community is lacking in resources for job related job search and employment search
skills, the CEC is a one-stop shop. So to say all they can do is job prospect and engage employers and that’s it, when
you have someone who doesn’t even know how to do an interview, we don’t have a community agency or support
because of cuts in provincial funding. If a person doesn’t have a resume and we don’t have an immediate resource to
go to for help, the CEC needs to help him with it. To say all they can do is employer engagement, I agree that should
be their primary focus, I think that they’re dead on, but we have to recognise time that has to be spent for those other
things that need to be done up front”.
Do not like the new model
“This has been explained to me it’s not focused on the employee, it’s focused on the employer and the belief is if we
can make enough employers aware of this group who are in need of employment, we will then get them more jobs,
which is a kin to saying - I am going to send you a whole bunch of lawnmowers without asking you if you have grass to
cut, and by the way do you really need this grass cut this way because the guys we send out to you are very, very
specific in their capacities and their backgrounds. It was a silly, silly move in my opinion. You know what’s going to
work is that most of the CECs aren’t using it anyway, they are using the old system”.
56
Appendix D: Job-Based Analyses
Figure D1. Total Number of Jobs Obtained (CES vs. Non-CES) by Region, Pre-Pilot and
Pilot
1200
1000
800
78%
82%
82%
600
74%
Non-CES
76%
80%
CES
400
57%
70%
56%
74%
200
26%
30%
18%
43%
20%
0
44%
24%
18%
22%
26%
Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific
Pre-pilot
Pilot
Note. CES = Community Employment Services.
57
Figure D2. Number of Full- and Part-Time CES Jobs Obtained by Region, Pre-Pilot and
Pilot
300
250
1%
21%
200
28%
16%
13%
150
57%
Part-time
16%
99%
22%
100
79%
50
84%
78%
72%
20%
80%
88%
Full-time
47%
85%
43%
53%
0
Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific
CES Pre-pilot
CES Pilot
Note. CES = Community Employment Services.
Figure D3. Number of Full- and Part-Time Non-CES Jobs Obtained by Region, Pre-Pilot
and Pilot
1000
900
16%
800
12%
18%
12%
82%
88%
700
600
23%
21%
500
Part-time
400
300
200
100
84%
23%
88%
79%
77%
20%
80%
77%
Full-time
22%
20%
78%
80%
0
Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific
Non-CES Pre-pilot
Non-CES Pilot
Note. CES = Community Employment Services.
58
Figure D4. Number of CES Jobs Obtained by Skill Level by Region, Pre-Pilot and Pilot
300
250
200
31%
36%
32%
20%
21%
29%
150
High-skill
Low-skill
56%
100
63%
69%
80%
46%
50
37%
68%
79%
71%
64%
70%
44%
54%
30%
0
Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific
CES Pre-pilot
CES Pilot
Note. CES = Community Employment Services.
Figure D5. Number of Non-CES Jobs Obtained by Skill Level by Region, Pre-Pilot and
Pilot
1000
900
800
36%
700
37%
45%
48%
600
500
46%
46%
High-skill
400
Low-skill
300
200
100
64%
45%
63%
55%
54%
55%
50%
50%
0
49%
54%
52%
46%
54%
51%
Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific
Non-CES Pre-pilot
Non-CES Pilot
Note. CES = Community Employment Services.
59
Figure D6. Number of CES Jobs left for Positive, Neutral, and Negative Reasons by
Region, Pre-Pilot and Pilot
200
180
160
140
39%
37%
44%
120
80
60
31%
40%
33%
37%
48%
40%
21%
23%
0
31%
27%
36%
24%
27%
36%
28%
Neutral
51%
33%
38%
42%
40
20
Negative
36%
100
28%
26%
21%
Positive
29%
36%
23%
35%
Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific
CES Pre-pilot
CES Pilot
Note. CES = Community Employment Services.
Figure D7. Number of Non-CES Jobs left for Positive, Neutral, and Negative Reasons by
Region, Pre-Pilot and Pilot
800
700
600
36%
41%
500
400
41%
44%
300
37%
45%
38%
29%
39%
22%
40%
14%
34%
43%
29%
27%
34%
32%
33%
30%
30%
36%
18%
21%
28%
31%
23%
0
Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific Atlantic Ontario Quebec Prairies Pacific
100
Negative
Neutral
30%
200
45%
52%
Non-CES Pre-pilot
Non-CES Pilot
Note. CES = Community Employment Services.
60
Positive
Appendix E: Offender-Based Analyses
Table E1
Average Length of Time (in Days) to First Community Job, Pre-Pilot and Pilot
Pre-Pilot
Region
Group
# Days
Atlantic
Ontario
Prairies
Pacific
Quebec
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
(n = 40)
(n = 70)
(n = 75)
(n = 224)
(n = 39)
(n = 248)
(n = 36)
(n = 67)
(n = 50)
(n = 219)
71
76
65
54
35
49
83
76
81
62
Pilot
Region
Group
# Days
Atlantic
Ontario
Prairies
Pacific
Quebec
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
(n = 50)
(n = 82)
(n = 73)
(n = 245)
(n = 86)
(n = 30)
(n = 37)
(n = 96)
(n = 55)
(n = 239)
87
64
66
53
48
36
64
68
68
55
Note. CES = Community Employment Services.
61
Table E2
Average Length of Time (in Days) Maintained First Community Job, Pre-Pilot and Pilot
Pre-Pilot
Region
Group
# Days
Atlantic
Ontario
Prairies
Pacific
Quebec
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
(n = 23)
(n = 36)
(n = 52)
(n = 116)
(n = 27)
(n = 141)
(n = 26)
(n = 29)
(n = 30)
(n = 105)
67
69
68
70
97
73
40
86
50
62
Pilot
Region
Group
# Days
Atlantic
Ontario
Prairies
Pacific
Quebec
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
CES
Non-CES
(n = 34)
(n = 33)
(n = 46)
(n = 117)
(n = 57)
(n = 179)
(n = 24)
(n = 46)
(n = 20)
(n = 131)
53
74
48
59
64
71
75
73
48
56
Note. CES = Community Employment Services.
62
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement