Browsing by Author "MacRae-Krisa, L.D."
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Metadata only Ethnic Diversity and Youth Offending: An Examination of Risk and Protective Factors(2013) Bertrand, L.D.; MacRae-Krisa, L.D.; Costello, M.; Winterdyk, J.Item Open Access An Examination of Best Practice in Multi-Service Senior Centres(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family. Prepared for The Kerby Centre., 2013) MacRae-Krisa, L.D.; Paetsch, J.J.Since 1976, the Kerby Centre has provided a one-stop-shop for educational, social, wellness, and recreational services and supports for Calgary’s seniors, with the vision of “a happy, healthy senior population.” With plans to relocate its programs and services to a new facility to better serve older Calgarians, the Kerby Centre sought information regarding best practice models in multi-service senior centres. The Kerby Centre contracted the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family to conduct a best practice literature review and environmental scan of best practice models for multipurpose senior centres. It is expected that this report will aid the Kerby Centre in future planning with regard to the new facility. The purpose of this project was to examine emerging trends and best practices (e.g., commonly implemented and/or innovative practices) for multi-purpose senior centres in other jurisdictions. Specifically, this project had the following objectives: (1) To determine key facility/amenity components for an ideal multi-purpose senior centre; (2) To determine key programs for an ideal multi-purpose senior centre; (3) Recommend strategic partnerships that could better position senior centres for success; and (4) Develop five to seven profiles of leading-edge multi-purpose senior centres as recommended targets for further investigation.Item Open Access Findings from the Evaluations of Years 1, 2 and 3 of the Priority Prolific Offender Program(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2013-01-03) Paetsch, J.J.; MacRae-Krisa, L.D.; Bertrand, L.D.; Boyd, J.-P. E.These reports describe the findings of the Institute's evaluations of the Priority Prolific Offender Program over three years. The Program is a project of the Alberta Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, undertaken in partnership with the Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It aims to improve collaboration among police, Crown prosecutors, corrections and social services to increase supervision, timely and meaningful responses to reoffending, as well as services that support the rehabilitation among the small proportion of the offending population who commit the most crimes. The results obtained when examining offenders' behaviour before, during and after the Program were extremely positive and strongly suggestive of the efficacy of the Program in having a positive effect on offenders not only during their time in the Program, but after deselection as well. Across all Program locations, and for both substantive and administrative offences, the number of new convictions among Program participants was substantially lower than in the five years prior to Program.Item Metadata only Kerby Centre Social Return on Investment Project(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2014) MacRae-Krisa, L.D.Item Open Access The Priority Prolific Offender Program: Preliminary Findings from the Final Year of the Process and Outcomes Evaluation(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2017-07-01) Paetsch, J.J.; Bertrand, L.D.; MacRae-Krisa, L.D.; Boyd, J.-P. E.In response to a recommendation from Alberta’s Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force, the Alberta Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, in partnership with the Calgary Police Service, Edmonton Police Service and RCMP, developed and piloted the Priority Prolific Offender Program (PPOP) in 2008. The objectives of PPOP are to ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and upto-date information on prolific offenders, promote rehabilitation through the provision of appropriate support services, and ensure the consequences of offending and reoffending are meaningful. PPOP contracted the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family in 2012 to begin the first year of a three-year process and outcome evaluation involving multiple methodologies. The report from the first year of the process and outcome evaluation (MacRae-Krisa & Paetsch, 2013) used program data on offenders who had been deselected from the program, a survey of PPOP staff and a survey of PPOP stakeholders to re-examine program processes and, in particular, to provide a profile of the offenders in the program as a foundation for examining outcomes in the proposed second and third years of the evaluation. Following an internal review of the program in 2013, PPOP contracted the Institute to conduct the second year of the evaluation, and findings were presented in Bertrand, Paetsch, MacRae-Krisa, & Boyd (2015). That report included a comparison of clients at the program sites in Calgary, Edmonton and the RCMP locations. It also focused on updating the profile of individuals in a retrospective sample who had been PPOP clients and were subsequently deselected, and conducting comparisons across program sites. Further, the report examined these clients’ reoffending behaviour during their time in the program and after leaving it using data obtained from the Justice Online Information Network (JOIN) to determine the longer-term efficacy of PPOP in reducing offending behaviour. The results obtained when examining offending behaviour before, during and after the program for clients in the retrospective sample were extremely positive and strongly suggestive of the efficacy of PPOP in having a positive effect on individuals not only during their time in the program, but after deselection as well. Across all program locations, and for both substantive and administrative offences, the number of convictions during the program was substantially lower than in the five years prior to PPOP and, with the exception of substantive offences among EPS program clients, decreased even further or remained the same following deselection. Given the positive findings with regard to reoffending behaviour during offenders’ time in PPOP and after deselection, one of the recommendations made in the second-year outcome evaluation report was to continue the evaluation for one final year to determine whether the reduced offending behaviour is maintained over a longer period. The second-year report also recommended that a final evaluation year should include another wave of staff and stakeholder surveys to examine any changes in knowledge and perceptions of the program over the intervening period. It was also recommended that a final evaluation year should include a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis to examine the social value created by PPOP. In 2016, PPOP contracted the Institute to conduct a final year of the evaluation of the program, and the current report presents the findings. It includes comparisons across program locations and provides analyses of program clients in both the retrospective and longitudinal samples. The report also discusses findings from the latest wave of staff and stakeholder surveys, and presents an SROI analysis of the program. The objectives of the report are to: (1) report findings from the retrospective longitudinal sample, including offending behaviour before, during and after the program; (2) report findings from the program entry and program exit forms for the longitudinal sample; (3) examine any differences in offender characteristics and program procedures across program locations; (4) analyze views of program staff and stakeholders, and examine any changes in opinions and knowledge of the program in the three years since the last surveys; (5) examine the social value created by PPOP by conducting a SROI analysis; and (6) make recommendations for the program as it moves forward.Item Open Access The Priority Prolific Offender Program: Preliminary Findings from the First Year of the Process and Outcomes Evaluation(Alberta Justice and Solicitor General., 2013) MacRae-Krisa, L.D.; Paetsch, J.J.The Priority Prolific Offender Program (PPOP) joins a growing number of programs in Canada designed to collaboratively address the behaviour of prolific offenders, using a combination of monitoring, enforcement, and rehabilitative services. The objectives of Alberta’s program specifically aim to ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and up-to-date information on prolific offenders, rehabilitation is promoted through the provision of appropriate support services, and the consequences of offending and reoffending are meaningful. The Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family (CRILF) was first contracted in 2010 to conduct a process evaluation of the program. The results of this evaluation yielded five recommendations for the program moving forward: (1) The development of an Operations Manual; (2) A review of the comprehensive bail packages; (3) Adequate funding and resources; (4) Education and awareness; and (5) A process and outcomes evaluation. In 2012, PPOP followed through with the Phase 1 process evaluation’s recommendation to continue the process evaluation and conduct a thorough outcomes evaluation. The comprehensive three-year research strategy proposed by CRILF has three major components: (1) a process analysis designed to monitor and document program implementation, and specifically, to assess whether the Phase 1 process evaluation recommendations have been addressed; (2) an outcome analysis designed to track anticipated changes that result from the activities of the program; and (3) a cost and potential benefit analysis of the program. The purpose of the current report is to discuss the findings of the first year evaluation activities. The objectives of the report were: (1) To re-visit PPOP processes, and assess the current processes in relation to the recommendations provided in the Phase 1 process evaluation; (2) To report preliminary findings from the retrospective data collection; and (3) To make process recommendations for the program as the evaluation enters its second year. Three main methods were employed for this report: a retrospective analysis of data on clients de-selected from the program from its inception to December 31, 2012; a survey of PPOP staff; and a survey of PPOP stakeholders.Item Open Access The Priority Prolific Offender Program: Preliminary Findings from the Second Year of the Process and Outcomes Evaluation(Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family., 2015-01-02) Paetsch, J.J.; Bertrand, L.D.; MacRae-Krisa, L.D.; Boyd, J.-P. E.The Priority Prolific Offender Program (PPOP) joins a growing number of programs in Canada designed to collaboratively address the behaviour of prolific offenders using a combination of monitoring, enforcement, and rehabilitative services. The objectives of Alberta’s program aim to ensure Crown prosecutors have complete, accurate, and up-to-date information on prolific offenders, promote rehabilitation through the provision of appropriate support services, and ensure the consequences of offending and reoffending are meaningful. PPOP contracted the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family in 2012 to begin the first year of a three-year process and outcome evaluation involving multiple methodologies. The report from the first year of the process and outcome evaluation (MacRae-Krisa & Paetsch, 2013) used program data on offenders who had been de-selected from the program, a survey of PPOP staff and a survey of PPOP stakeholders to re-examine program processes and, in particular, to provide a profile of the offenders in the program as a foundation for examining outcomes in the proposed second and third years of the evaluation. Following an internal review of the program in 2013, PPOP contracted the Institute to conduct the second year of the evaluation and it was determined that a comparison of clients at the program sites in Calgary, Edmonton and the RCMP locations would be desirable. The current report focuses on updating the profile of individuals in the retrospective sample who had been PPOP clients and were subsequently de-selected, and conducting comparisons across program sites. An additional 22 clients who were de-selected from the program since the last report have been added to this sample. Further, this report examined these clients’ re-offending behaviour during their time in the program and after leaving it using data obtained from the Justice On-line Information Network (JOIN) to determine the longer-term efficacy of PPOP in reducing offending behaviour. The purpose of the current report is to discuss the findings of the second year of the evaluation. The objectives of the report are to: (1) report findings from the retrospective data collection; (2) report preliminary findings from the longitudinal data collection; (3) examine any differences in offender characteristics and program procedures across program locations; ix (4) develop a strategy for a cost/benefit analysis of PPOP; and (5) make recommendations for the program as it moves forward.Item Open Access Risk and Protective Factors Among an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Youth Offenders in Calgary(The Canadian Institute for Law and the Family., 2011) MacRae-Krisa, L.D.; Bertrand, L.D.; Costello, M.Risk and protective factors were divided into five distinct domains: individual, family, peer, school, and community. Analyses of factors within these domains yielded a number of significant findings. Individual Factors Domain • A large majority of youth in all groups were male; there were no significant gender differences between groups. • Though there were no significant differences between groups with regard to employment status, youth in the 1st or 2nd generation immigrant group were the least likely to be employed at the time they were interviewed (30.8%). • With regard to drug and alcohol related behaviour, a majority of youth in all groups had experience with drugs and alcohol; however, Caucasian 1st or 2nd generation immigrant, Canadian born, and Native/Métis youth were significantly more likely to have substance abuse issues than 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth from other ethnic backgrounds (76.9%-78.5% vs. 23.1%). • Analyses of property-related delinquent behaviours revealed that the only factor that demonstrated significant differences between groups was having broken into a house; Native/Métis youth were the most likely to have engaged in this behaviour (86.7%) compared to 30.8% of 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth from other ethnic backgrounds, who were the least likely. • Analyses of mental health characteristics revealed a number of factors where there were significant differences between groups. The 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth from other ethnic backgrounds were the least likely to have received a psychological assessment (9.1%) compared to 76.9% of Native/Métis youth. All Caucasian 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth had received counselling, compared to just over half (54.5%) of 1st or 2nd generation youth from other backgrounds. Native/Métis youth were the most likely to have a diagnosis of mental health problems (71.4%) compared to only 7.7% of 1st of 2nd generation, other ethnic background youth. Diagnoses of depression, ADHD/ADD, and FASD demonstrated significant differences between groups. Half of the Caucasian 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth were diagnosed with depression, compared to only 7.7% of Native/Métis and 1st or 2nd generation ix immigrant, other ethnic background youth. Caucasian 1st or 2nd generation immigrant youth were most likely to have a diagnosis of ADHD/ADD (58.3%), compared to only 7.7% of 1st or 2nd generation, other ethnic background youth, and also had the highest proportion of FASD diagnoses – 25%, compared to 2% of Canadian born youth, 7.7% of Native/Métis, and 0% of 1st or 2nd generation, other ethnic background youth.