archived content contenu archivé · elenore klassen djoke byleveld gerald scott mike poyntz carol...

ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content

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

Contenu archivé

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

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

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

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

OF FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS ON THE COMMUNITIES OF AGASSIZ,

HARRISON HOT SPRINGS, AND HARRISON MILLS,

BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

VOLUME I (Final Report)

OCTOBER 30, 1981

FRASER VALLEY COLLEGE RESEARCH GROUP W.W. Zarchikoff

T.J. Segger D.B. Plecas

HV 9507 Z3 1981 V.1

•ed under Grant Number (TB/CT Reg. B 23203) from the Ministry of the

Solicitor General, Evaluation and Special Projects Division, Canada

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

OF FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS ON THE COMMUNITIES OF AGASSIZ,

HARRISON HOT SPRINGS, AND HARRISON MILLS,

BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

VOLUME I (Final Report)

OCTOBER 30, 1981

FRASER VALLEY COLLEGE RESEARCH GROUP WAAL Zorchikoff

T.J. Segger D.B. Plecas

Prepared under Grant Number (TB/CT Reg. B 23203) from the Ministry of the

Solicitor General, Evaluation and Special Projects Division, Canada

I-1 V '15 07

19'el

.// AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

OF FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS ON THE

COMMUNITIES OF AGASSIZ, HARRISON HOT SPRINGS,

AND HARRISON MILLS, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA,/

VOLUME I

W. W. Zarchikoff, T. J. Segger,

and D. B. Plecas

Editor: L. K. Fernstrom

Prepared under Grant Niimber (TB/CT Reg. B 23203)

from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Evaluation and

Special Projects Division, Canada

Points of view or opinions expressed in this report are those

of the authors and may not represent the official

position or policies of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Canada

October 6, 1981 I L I 8 l'ele"eleene."

7"."'""1 MINISTRY OF THE -,C).1(.-1" 1

. . 13 1985

MINISTr:RE

PBLIOTHi

Fraser Valley Valley College Research LLI

4

Victoria Nowell Elizabeth Garvin Sherry Mumford Lis Repstock Jane Simmons Lorna Forde Carol Freeman Barry Parker Joanne Cameron Dianne Douglas Lyra Glass Theresa Sandue Denise Douglas Sally Scott Ken Fernstrom Chris Schoenbaechler Mary Short Dr. Paul Maxim

John Potts Ingrid Gunn Dorothy Gribbon Norrine Roth Maureen Rodgers Lorna Rockwell Sally Parker John Michaud Beatrice Stewart Lucy Fraser Susan Dagliesh Elenore Klassen Djoke Byleveld Gerald Scott Mike Poyntz Carol Parent Dr. J. Wise

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research. project could not have been successfully undertaken without the considerable support and assistance of many people. We are thankful for the willing co-operation and interest of the Steering Committee Chairman, Mayor Mike Dunn and members Mr. Al Fraser, Mrs. Betty Duncan and Mrs. Dorothy Crowe.

We are indebted to the personnel of the project, without whose support this research would not have been possible.

Thanks are also due to Dr. Charles Wolf, Dr. Jim Wise and Dr. Paul Maxim, whose willingness to offer assistance during the data collection and analysis phases of this research is extremely appreciated.

We owe a special acknowledgment to Dr. Barry Moore, Principal, Fraser Valley College and Mr. Eric Woodroff, Dean of Continuing Education Services, for their support and resourcefulness throughout the study. .

Last but certainly not least we want to thank the many officials and citizens who participated in the study.

W.W. Zarchikoff T.J. Segger Darryl Pieces

ii

Fraser Valley College Research Group

W. Zarchikoff Director of Continuing Education

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

1981-10-25

The Honourable Robert Kaplan Solicitor General Ministry of the Solicitor General, Canada Parliament of Canada Ottawa, ON KLA OP9

Dear Sir;

We are pleased to submit herewith our report, An Assessment of the Social and Economic Impacts of Federal Correctional Insitutions on the Communities of Agassiz, Harrison Hot Springs, and Harrison Mills, British Columbia, Canada.

This report presents the findings of interview surveys undertaken of Kent-Harrison households and a sample from a control community, Hope, B.C., survey of correctional employees and interviews with selected officials and agencies. Of particular interest are the findings on residents fear of being victimized by prisoners versus the actual victimization occurances.

We deeply appreciate the opportunity to have assisted you in this most important work. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me.

Respectfully Submitted

cc. Mr. D. Yeomans, Commissioner, CSC Mr. J.W. Braithwaite, Deputy Commissioner, CSC Dr. J. Hooper, Special Projects, CSC Mrs. B. Meagher, FVC Board Chairman Dr. B. Moore, FVC Principal

, Mr. J. Murphy, Regional Director General, CSC Dr. Siu, Deputy Commissioner, CSC Mr. R. Wiebe, Planning, CSC Mr. E. Woodroff, FVC Dean, Continuing Education Mayor M. Dunn, Chairman, Steering Committee IMayor J. Allen, Member, . Steering Cannittee lqrs. D. Crowe, Member, Steering Committee Mrs. M. Short, Member, Steering Committee Mr. A. Fraser, Member, Steering Committee Mrs. B. Duncan, Member, Steering Committee

iii Fraser Valley College Research Group

We look forward to continuing discussions to facilitate implementation of the report's recommendations.

Respectfully submitted,

el/tenet

Mayor Mike Dunn, Chairman

Mr. Al Fraser

Mrs. Dorothy owe

:van

Enclosure

Mayor JohUAllen

eel5esi Mrs. Betty/Duncan

el'eLY Mrs. Mary Short

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

1981-10-23

The Honourable Robert Kaplan Solicitor General Ministry of the Solicitor General, Canada Parliament of Canada Ottawa, ON K1A OP9

Dear Sir;

The Chairman and members of the Committee have had an opportunity to examine and comment on the enclosed prison impact study. The recommendations have been unanimously approved by the committee.

We appreciate the work of those who gathered and synthesized the vast amount of information. The Committee wishes to pay special thanks to the personnel of the Fraser Valley College Research Group. In particular, we are grateful to Messrs. William Zarchikoff, Timothy Segger, and Darryl Plecas. We also wish to express our thanks to the many officials and private citizens who gave their time to complete survey questionnaires and those who participated at public forums.

iv

MAP 1. Province of British Columbia

(Source: British Columbia Regional Index, 1978)

MAP 2. Lower Mainland Region: Province of British Columbia.

(Source: British Columbia Regional Index, 1978).

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS

Chairman(s)

Mr. W. W. Zarchikoff Co-ordinator, Criminal Justice Program Fraser Valley College Abbotsford, British Columbia

Dr. Barry Moore (ex officio) Principal Fraser Valley College Chilliwack, British Columbia

Co-ordinator

Mr. T.J. Segger Instructor, Criminal Justice Program Fraser Valley College Abbotsford, British Columbia

Members

Dr. John W. Ekstedt Associate Professor Department of Criminology Simon Fraser University Burnaby, British Columbia

Dr. Daniel J. Koenig Associate Professor Department of Sociology University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia

vii


Dr. Paul S. Maxim Assistant Professor of Sociology University of Western Ontario London; Ontario

Dr, James A, Wise Associate Professor .Departments Of Architecture and Psychology *University of Washington Seattle, Washington

Dr. Charles P, Wolf Social Impact Assessment New York, New York

viii

Fraser. Valley College Research Group

Amended - August 29, 1980 -1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

SocioEconomic Impact Study

Communities'of Agassiz, Harrison Hot Springs and Harrison Mills

I. Purpose

The purpose of the study is to assess the impact of Federal Correctional

Institutions, including:Kent Maximum Security Institution, Mountain

Prison, and Elbow Lake Forestry Camp, on the economic, social, cultural,

and political life of the communities of Agassiz, Harrison Hot Springs,

and Harrison Mills. The study should also consider the impact of the

proposed expansion of Kent Institution and redevelopment of Mountain

Prison. The study should not concern itself with the institutions them-

selves or their organization, but may include an assessment of impact

on neighbouring communities in the Upper Fraser Valley.

II. Scope

The study should address the following issues;

1. What is the amount of direct contributions to the Municipality of

Kent by Correctional Service of Canada, including grants in lieu of

taxes;

2. What services are supplied to the Institutions by the communities and

what are the costs of providing these services;

3, What vehicle traffic problems are created by the operation of the

Institutions;

4. What is the value of goods and services purchased by Correctional

Service of Canada in the communities;

ix

5. What value does the community receive through the proposed con-

struction activity;

6. What services are provided to the community, by the Institutions,

including volunteer work provided by inmates;

7. What is the number of employees who reside in the community and what

portion of their income is spent in the community;

8. What are the reasons why more CSC employees have not made the

Agassiz/Harrison area their place of residence;

9. What effect has the Prison System had on the school system;

10. What is the impact of the Correctional Institutions on property

values and what effect has it had on people choosing whether or not

to live in the area;

11. What impact has there been on attracting new business to the.community;

12. What is the impact of the Institutions on the tourist industry;

13. What is the number of inmate families who have moved to the area to

be close to the inmate concerned; what is the number of inmate families

who lived in the area prior to the inmate's incarceration; and what

are the costs to the community in delivering services to them;

14. Has there been any significant impact on the rate of crime in the

community and what has been the number of crimes known to have been

committed by inmates of Federal Institutions;

15. Has it placed an extra load on the local RCMP with resulting loss of

protection by residents of the community;

16. What are the factors that residents are most concerned about with

respect to the operations of Correctional Institutions in the area;

17. How is the TiA program viewed hy the community and what has been the

Impact of this program on the community;

18. What differences are there on the impact of Correctional Institutions

on small communities as opposed to larger Urban Centres;

19. How have the prisons affected the life styles of people in the

community;

20. How can relations between Correctional Services of Canada and the

communities be improved, i.e. communications.

III .Procedures

1. The study will rely heavily on interviews of local residents, groups

and public bodies; and should have some educative value for the

respondent and give people an opportunity to document their concerns.

2. The consultant selected to conduct the study will submit progress

reports to a co-ordinating committee appointed by the communities

and to the Solicitor-General.

3. The co-ordinating committee will have the opportunity to review the

final draft of the study before it is submitted to the Solicitor-

General.

4. The study should be completed by October 31, 1980.

xi

STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Mr. John Allen

Mr. Mike Dunn

Mr. Al Fraser

Mayor, Harrison Hot Springs

Mayor, District of Kent

Member, Citizen Advisory Committee, Kent Institution

Mrs. Betty Duncan

Mrs. Dorothy Crowe

Mrs. Mary Short

Representative for the Community of Harrison Mills

Member, Citizen Advisory Committee, Mountain Institution

Representative for the Community of Agassiz

4

1

I.

•1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

TITLE PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

LETTERS OF TRANSMITTAL iii

MAP I PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

MAP 2 LOWER MAINLAND REGION: PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA vi

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS • vii

TERMS OF REFERENCE ix

STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS xiii

LIST OF TABLES xv

RECOMMENDATIONS xxii

1. BACKGROUND

Project Management and Administration 2

Theoretical Approach To Empirical Indicator Development 4

Four Stage Hierarchy of Possible Economic Impacts 5

Four Stage Hierarchy of Possible Social Impacts . 6

Methodology 7

2. RESEARCH FINDINGS, RESULTS AND RESPONSES FOR EACH OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE 23

Term of Reference One 24

Term of Reference Two 25

Term of Reference Three 28 -

Term of Reference Four 32

Term of Reference Five 34

xiit


Page

Term of Reference Stx . 37

Term of Reference Seven 39

Term of Reference Eight 53

Terni of Reference Nine 64

Term of Reference Ten 77

Term of Reference Eleven 82

Term of Reference Twelve 85

Term of Reference Thirteen 87

Term of Reference Fourteen 91

Term of Reference Fifteen 97

Term of Referenca Sixteen 104

Term of Reference Seventeen 136

Term of Reference Eighteen 142

Term of Reference Nineteen 148

Term of Reference Twenty 152

3. BIBLIOGRAPHY 168

xiv


LIST OF TABLES

TABLE I

TABLE II

TABLE III

TABLE IV

TABLE V

TABLE VI

TABLE VII

TABLE 2.1

TABLE 2.2

Page

Outcome of Contact Attempts 10

Reasons for Refusal: Kent-Harrison and Hope 11

Selected Demographic and Geographic Characteristics: Hope and Kent-Harrison 13

Services Available in Study and Comparison Communities (1981) 14

Selected Sample Characteristics: Hope and Kent-Harrison 18

Response Rates by Institutions 20

Institutional Staff by Job Classification: Sample & Population Job Classification Group 21

Survey Item 229: Kent-Harrison Area Resident Reports on Using Community Facilities at the Same Time as Prison Inmates 26

Survey Item 231: Resident Reports on Being Denied Access to Community Facilities Due to Inmate Use of These Facilities: Kent-Harrison Area 27

TABLE 3.1 Survey Item 241(a): Kent-Harrison Resident Opinion on Whether the Prisons Cause Undue Amount of Vehicle Traffic in Area 29

TABLE 3.2

TABLE 3.3

TABLE 4.1

TABLE 5.1

TABLE 6.1

Survey Item 225: Kent-Harrison Resident Opinions on Visibility of Officially Marked Correctional Service Vehicles in the Community 30

Survey Item 226: Kent-Harrison Resident Preference for Marked vs. Unmarked Correctional Service Vehicles in the Community 31

Business Survey, Item 37: Contracts Awarded to Kent-Harrison Businesses (1980) 33

Survey Items 148 and 151: Kent-Harrison Resident Per-ception of Own Security Given Proposed Construction 36

Survey Item 77: Kent-Harrison Resident Attitudes Toward Authorized Inmate Temporary Absences for Volunteer Com-munity Service Work 38

XV


CSC Staff Residence

Gross Family Income

•1

1 1

•1 1

-1 1

1

TABLE 7.1

TABLE 7.2

TABLE 7.3

TABLE 7.4

TABLE 7.5

Page

41

42

43

44

Correctional Service Staff Residence Location by Institution

CSC Employees Survey, Item 1: Location by Institution .....

CSC Employee Survey, Item 46; (1980): CSC Employees

Kent-Harrison Community Survey, Item 257: Gross Family Income (1980); Kent-Harrison Residents

Average Expenditure Per Family and Per Person on Food, Shelter, Clothing, and Transportation by Family Size, Classified by Family Income, 16 Cities, Canada, 1978 (Source: Statistics Canada) 45

TABLE 7.6(a) Amount of Money Spent Locally by Resident CSC Employee Families 46

TABLE 7.7

TABLE 7.8

TABLE 7.9

TABLE 7.10

TABLE 7.11

Annual Amount of Money Spent by Resident CSC Employees and Kent-Harrison Residents on Leisure Time Activities. 47

CSC Employee Survey, Item 59(b): Usual Place of Purchase For Grocery Items: CSC Local Resident Staff 48

CSC Employee Survey, Item 59(c): Usual Place of Purchase of Clothing Items: CSC Local Resident Staff 48

CSC Employee Survey, Item 59(d): Usual Place of Purchase of Automotive Products: CSC Local Resident Staff 48

Kent-Harrison Community Survey, Item 259(c): Usual Place of Purchase for Grocery Items: Kent-Harrison Residents 49

TABLE 7.12 Kent-Harrison Community Survey, Item 260(c): Usual Place of Purchase for Clothing: Kent-Harrison Residents 49

TABLE 7.13 Kent-Harrison Community Survey, Item 261(c): Usual Place of Purchase for Automotive Products: Kent- Harrison Residents 50

TABLE 7.14(a) Reason Given by Resident CSC Employees for Not Purchasing Locally 50

TABLE 7.14(b) Reason Given by Kent-Harrison Residents for Not Purchasing Locally 51

xvi


1

60

What Do CSC Employees 61

CSC Employee Survey, Item 15: Like Most About Their Jobs? .

CSC Employee Survey, Item 14:

TABLE 8.6

TABLE 8.7

TABLE 8.8

TABLE 8.9

TABLE 9.1

Page

TABLE 7,15 Kant eHarrison Community Survey ; Items 13 and la; Employment Status of Kant-Harrison Residents 52

TABLE 8.1 Major Kent-Harrison Employers: Percentage of Employees Living Locally 56

TABLE 8.2 CSC Employee Survey, Item 6(h): Reasons for Not Residing in the Kent-Harrison Area: CSC Employees 57

TABLE 8.3 CSC Employee Survey, Item 6(a): Plans to Move to Kent- Harrison Area: CSC Non-Resident Staff 58

TABLE 8.4(a) CSC Employee Survey, Item 22; Length of Employment: Mean Number of Months Employed With the CSC in the Kent- Harrison Area 59

TABLE 8.4(b) CSC Employee Survey, Item 21: Length of Employment: Mean Number of Months Employed With the CSC Generally 59

TABLE 8.4(c) CSC Employee Survey, Items 21 and 22: Length of Employment: Mean Number of Months Employed with CSC 59

TABLE 8.5 CSC Employee Survey, Item 20: CSC Employees Feelings About Staying With CSC Until Retirement 60

CSC Employee Survey, Item 12: About Entering the Corrections Career Over

CSC Employees Feelings Field Again if Starting

CSC Employees Feelings About Job 62

Previous Place of Residence for Kent-Harrison Residents and CSC Employees 63

Kent-Harrison Community Survey, Items 243(a) and 244(a): Kent-Harrison Resident Opinion About Prison Workers' and Inmates' Children in Local Schools 69

TABLE 9.2 Kent-Harrison Community Survey, Items 243(b) and 244(b): Kent-Harrison Resident Major Concern About prison Workers' and Inmates' Children.in Local Schools 69

TABLE 10.1 Changes in Real Estate Sales and Prices in Kent-Harrison Area (1978-1980) 78

'xvii

Fraser Valley College Research Group •

Page

TABLE 10e2(0.) Perceived Effect of Prisons on Local Real Estate Prices; Kent-rHarrison Residents 79

TABLE 10.2(b) Perceived Effect of Prisons on Local Real Estate Prices: Kent-Harrison Residents (N=218) 80

TABLE 10.3(a) Kent-Harrison Resident Opinions on Prison-Caused Rise in Real Estate Prices 81

TABLE 10.3(b) Kent-Harrison Resident Opinions on Prison-Caused Decrease in Real Estate Prices 81

TABLE 11.1 Kent-Harrison Business Survey: Kent-Harrison Community Opinions of Impact of Institutions on Annual Sales Volume 83

TABLE 11.2 Business Licences Issues (May, 1976 to May, 1980) 84

TABLE 12.1 Kent-Harrison Business Survey: Kent-Harrison Service- Tourism Business Opinions of Impact of Institutions on Annual Sales Volume 86

TABLE 13.1 Inmate Visitors . 89

TABLE 13.2 Resident and CSC Staff Perceptions of the Types of Uhdesirables Attracted to the Area 90

TABLE 14.1 UALs: 1978-1980 94

TABLE 14.2 Offending While at Large: UALs: 1978-1980 95

TABLE 14.3 Characteristics of UAL Inmates 96

TABLE 15.1 Residents Knowing the Correct Police Phone Number and Who Have Called Police in the Last Twelve Months 100

TABLE 15.2 Resident Reports of Victimization and Police Contact in Most Recent Twelve Months 101

TABLE 15.3 Agassiz Detachment at Time of Study 102

TABLE 15.4 Item 171: Resident Opinions on Local RCMP Detachment Size (Number of Officers): Kent-Harrison and Hope 103

TABLE 15.5 Item 170: Resident Ratings of Local Police Protection: Kent-Harrison and Hope 103

TABLE 15.6 Resident Opinions on Local Police Performance: Kent- Harrison and Hope 103

xviii


Page

TABLE 16,1 Resident Feelings About the Presence of Penitentiaries: Kent-Harrison and Hope ..,..,.., 110

TABLE 16.2 Percentage of Residents Agreeing To Selected Comments About Prisons 111

TABLE 16.3 Resident's Most Disliked Thing About Area of Residents . 112

TABLE 16.4 Reasons Kent-Harrison Residents Considered Moving From Area 113

TABLE 16.5 Residents Opinions of Job Training Programs For Inmates 114

TABLE 16.6 Residents Opinions of Education Programs For Inmates 115

TABLE 16.7 Residents Perception of Systems' Responsibility 116

TABLE 16.8 Residents Opinions on When Inmates Should be Eligible for Parole 117

TABLE 16.9 Residents Opinion about Inmates Being Granted Early Release for Good Behaviour in Prison 118

TABLE 16.10 Percentage of. Residents Who Peel Security at Institutions is "Bad Or Very Bad" 119

TABLE 16.11 Amount of Each Correctional Dollar Residents Feel Should be Spent in the Area of Work Programs, Security, Parole, and Rehabilitation 120

TABLE 16.12 Opinions About the Amount of Each Correctional Dollar which Should be Spent in the Areas of Work Programs, Security, Parole, and Rehabilitation: Resident and Non-

' Resident CSC Staff 121

TABLE 16.13(a) Percentage of Residents who Feel Most (or All) Inmates Pose a Dangerous Threat to Society 122

TABLE 16.13(b) Percentage of CSC Staff who Feel Most (or All) Inmates Pose a Dangerous Threat to Society 122

TABLE 16.14(a) What Action Residents Would Take Upon Hearing of an Escape While at Home . 123

TABLE 16.14(b) What Action Residents Would First Take Upon Hearing of an Escape While Not at Home .., 123

TABLE 16.15 Resident Opinions about Reason for Escape 124

xix


Page

TABLE 16.16 Percentage of Residents Owning Firearms and Other Weapons; Kent-Harrison and Hope 125

TABLE 16.17 Percentage of Firearm Owners who Keep Their Firearms Loaded 125

TABLE 16.18 Percentage of Residents Locking Their Doors 126

TABLE 16.19 Percentage of Residents Locking Their Windows

TABLE 16.20 Resident Feelings about Safety of Leaving Their Keys in the Car 127

TABLE 16.21 Resident Feelings about the Necessity of Owning a Firearm for Protection

TABLE 16.22 Resident Reasons for Owning a Firearm 128

TABLE 16.23 Kent-Harrison Resident Opinions about Safeness of Neighbourhood

TABLE 16.24 . Hope Resident Opinions about Safeness of.Neighbourhood 129

TABLE 16.25 Percentage of Residents Who Feel Crime has Increased Locally, In Vancouver and in the Fraser Valley 130

TABLE 16.26 Rating of Particular Off ender Types (based on convictions) Which Residents Would Fear Most: Kent- Harrison and Hope 131

126

127

129

TABLE 16.27

TABLE 16.28

TABLE 16.29

TABLE 16.30

TABLE 17.1

TABLE 17.2

Resident Perception of the Amount of Property Crime in the Local Area: Kent-Harrison and Hope

Resident Perception of the Amount of Drug-related Crime in the Local Area: Kent-Harrison and Hope 133

Residents Perception of the Amount of Personal Crime in the Local Area: Kent-Harrison and Hope

Escapes Fram Particular Institutions Which Would Cause The Most Concern to Kent-Harrison Residents 135

Percentage of Residents Agreeable to Temporary Absences 138

Percentage of Residents Agreeable to Temporary Absences for Different Purposes

132

134

139

TABLE 17.3 Percentage of Residents Agreeahle to Escorted and Unescorted Temporary Absences with Different Purposes. 140

MX


TABLE 17..4 Relations of UALs to Total TAs Granted C1978,80)

TABLE 18.1

TABLE 18.2

TABLE 19.1

TABLE 19.2

TABLE 20.1

TABLE 20.2

TABLE 20.3

TABLE 20.4

TABLE 20.5

TABLE 20.6

TABLE 20.7

TABLE 20.8

TABLE 20.9

Percentage of Residents Knowing of Institutions Security Rating

Percentage of Residents Knowing (Within a Given 3ange) of Institution's Population Size 147

Length of Time Residents (Dog-Owners Only)Owned Watchdog 150

Percentage of Residents Citing Specific Problems Arising from Institutions in Kent-Harrison Area 151

CSC Staff and Residents Perceptions of Prisons as a Menace 157

Percentage of Residents Who Would Not Attend Events Inside Local Prisons 158

Kent-Harrison Resident's Opinions About Communications with the Correctional Service of Canada 159

Kent-Harrison Resident's 'Rating of The Job the CSC is Doing in Notifying the Community of Escapes as They Occur 160

Kent-Harrison Resident's First Contact About Complaints and Request for General Information Regarding the Correctional Service of Canada

CSC Staff and CAC Members Rating of the Effectiveness of CAC's Communication Link Between the Community and the CSC 162

Proportion of Editorials and Letters to Editor Relating to Federal Corrections 163

Frequency of Editorials and Letters to the Editor of the Agassiz Advance

Number of Editorials and Letters to the Editor Which are Opposing Federal Corrections and its Operations ... 167

>pd.

-


146

161

164

RECOMMENDATIONS

( no specific order of priority implied )

1. THAT: Representatives of the Kent-Harrison communities which host the federal correctional institutions together with representatives of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, Correctional Service of Canada, meet to re-examine and re-assess the current procedure for grant allocation in lieu of taxes, and that further negotiation should be based on factors which are specific to the Kent-Harrison communities including current and potential use of municipal services (e.g., road use, waste disposal land-fill site, emergency services). In as much as payment of grants in lieu of taxes maybe delayed for lengthy.periods of time, that the date of payment does not coincide with the due date for other municipal tax payments and that the District of Kent consitutes a small, rural area with a relatively small municipal budget with little allowance for income estimate error, we also recommend that grants in lieu of taxes be paid in accordance with normal municipal tax deadlines or be subject to penalties as would be levied against other Kent District property owners.

2. THAT: The CSC - Regional Stores (Pacific) re-examine current purchasing policies related to routine acquisition of goods (e.g., foodstuffs and other supplies) for the federal correctional facilities in the Kent-Harrison area with a view toward enhancing the capability of local area businesses to enter the institutional supplies market in a competitive manner (e.s., contracts of sufficient duration to justify capital expenditure on the part of smaller local businesses).

3. THAT: Representatives of the Kent-Harrison business community meet on a mutually agreeable and formal basis with the appropriate representatives of CSC, the Department of Public Works, and other government departments concerned to educate interested members of the local business community on the methods of tender submissions and inform them of contract availability to enable and encourage these proprietors to enter competitively this contract market.

4. THAT: The Offender Programs Branch of CSC and representatives of the Kent-Harrison communities together with the institutional Citizens' Advisory Committees explore the possibility of re-establishing mutdally acceptable inmate volunteer programs in these communities. Also included should be union representatives of labour organizations which may be affected by such programs.

xxii •


THAT: School District #76 Board officials and CSC Regional management representatives (especially Security and Policy/Planning ) formalize communication arrangements so that areas of mutual concern can be discussed and resolved on a regular and ongoing basis.

THAT: CSC establish as soon as possible an independent review of current classification standards to develop a predictive escape risk scale which would assist classification officials in assigning inmates to the appropriate security levels and assist Offender Program Branch in making Temporary Absence decisions.

THAT: The Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia arrange for an immediate increase of police manpower in the Kent-Harrison area. Specifically, we recommend that the ROMP Agassiz Detachment complement be 15 officers, (based on 1980 caseload statistics) one of whom will act as a special officer to deal with matters pertaining directly to the institutions.

THAT: Representatives from CSC and from the Kent-Harrison communities examine together the "public fear" factor resulting from the presence of prisons in order to determine an appropriate, mutually acceptable means of mitigation and/or compensation.

THAT: CSC plans for expansion of present correctional facilities or increase in institutional size (inmate resident population capability) in the Kent-Harrison area be suspended until the issue of public fear mitigation/compensation has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the CSC and the representatives of the hest communities.

THAT: Keeping in mind their mandate protector of the public, the CSC be encouraged to continue its current Temporary Absence policy while at the same time seeking to identify ways whereby the present Temporary Absence program may be of more benefit to the Kent-Harrison communities.

• -THAT Sites for future correctional facilities be located in larger urban settings in order to diminish and/or diffuse potential negative social impacts. Specifically,:we recommend that CSC re7name Kent Institution with a name which has no particular association with local. town, district or municiliality names, and that CSC establish a policy review committee to re-examine current site selection criteria as well as the procedures for the naming of federal institutions especially when these are located in rural areas or small municipal districts which would dictate that the name of the institution be the same as that of a readily identifiable community, municipal district, or other geographically defined area.

xxiii


1

.1

i .

•1 1

ell

2. THAT: The CSC re-examine current policies with regard to the role of Citizens' Advisory Committees and be prepared to assist the Citizens' Advisory Committee of each of Kents, Mountain & Elbow Lake Institutions (financially & otherwise) to develop more formalized communication links with their respective constituent communities.

3. THAT: Representatives of the Kent-Harrison communities which host the federal penitentiaries and of the CSC Pacific Region and of CSC National Headquarters (Ottawa) jointly develop a formal communication arrangement so that issues of concern can be dealt with and resolved on a regular and ongoing basis.

14. THAT: The role of the Kent-Harrison Citizens' Steering Committee be expanded to include the monitoring of the implementation of the preceding 13 recommendations included in this report.

xxiv


1

BACKGROUND

In the summer of 1980 the Solicitor General of Canada responded to

community concern by funding an assessment of the impacts of three closely

situated federal correctional facilities located in the Upper Fraser Valley

area of British Columbia. Consequently, a citizens' Steering Committee

was struck to determine the terms of reference the community felt such a

study should address. These terms'of reference are presented on pages ix

and x.

In December, 1980, the Criminal Justice Department at Fraser Valley

College was contracted by the Correctional Service of Canada, Ministry of

the Solicitor General, to assess the impacts of Kent Maximum Security

Institution, Mountain Medium Security Institution and Elbow Lake Minimum

Security Forestry Camp on the "economic, social, cultural and political life

f the communities of Agassiz, Harrison Hot Springs and Harrison Mills")

(For geographical locations of these communities and correctional facilities,

see Maps i and ii; for a detailed profile of the Kent-Harrison area, see

the METHODOLOGY section in this report). The terms of reference the citizens'

Steering Committee established and which the Correctional Service of Canada

agreed to, included the provision that the Steering Committee "have the

opportunity to review the final draft of the study before it is submitted to

the Solicitor General".

1See Terms of Reference, Section 1; Purpose.


2

PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

In terms of responsibility, the project management structure as

depicted in Figure 1 reveals the dual responsibilities of the Fraser Valley

College Research Group.

Figure 1

Project Management Responsibility

IMPACTING SOURCE IMPACTED COMMUNITY

(Correctional Service of Canada) (Citizens' Steering Committee)

Contractual Agreement Terms of Reference

FRASER VALLEY COLLEGE

RESEARCH GROUP


CLERICAL SUPPORT

RESEARCH ASSISTANTS

INTERVIEW STAFF

3

The administrative and operational project management struture is

outlined in Figure 2.2

Figure 2

Project Management Organization •

:MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR RENT-HARRISON _GENERAL COMMUNITIES

REGIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL C.S.C. (PACIFIC)

DEMI, CONTINUING EDUCATION-FRASER

' VALLEY COLLEGE

CITIZENS' STEERING ' COMMITTEE

.REGIONAL MANAGER .PROJECT CHAIRPERSON POLICY AND PLANNING MANAGER

RESEARCH DIRECTOR

CONSULTANTS .RESEARCH ASSOCIATE

2The dotted lines in Figure 2 represent channels of communication only, thus demonstrating the independence of the project team as a discrete research unit.


4

* THEORETICAL APeROACH TO EMPIRICAL INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT

Based on the initial terms of reference the Steering Committee sup,

plied, the Research Team developed an hierarchy of impacts which the

presence of correctional institutions could cause. 3

The application of this hierarchical model afforded an excellent

method of identifying concerns and clarifying the project's scope. Indeed,

initial concerns became caught in an elaboration process requiring each

concern to be fitted into an hierarchy of possible impacts (see Figures 3

and 4).

The hierarchial model was adopted for the present study at the sug-gestion of Dr. James Wise, Associate Professor of Psychology and . Architecture, University of Washington. Dr. Wise originally ap-plied the model in a 1979-80 Impact Assessment of three sites proposed for a new 500-man medium security prison in Washington state. Unfortunately, that project was cancelled after only six weeks by then-Governor Ray who responded to political opposition over the need for a new institution.

3


non-resident personnel

In-migration

Economical Impact

of Penitentiaries —

MM. Involvement with prison operations

.11•M

prison site

in the community

at the prison

Involvement with inmate population

■•••■

5

FOUR STAGE HIERARCHY OF POSSIBLE ECONOMIC IMPACT

1 --staff — retall/financeserviCe Industries

inmate associatei — retail/financeservice industries

—.municipal taxes

• real estate

--- retail/finance/trade industries

emergency services

--- social services

professional services

.staff — fatal ite

inmate families —1

- -municipal taxes .

— real estate

--- retail/finance/service/trade industries

--emergency services

— social services

--professional services

--I ---grants in lieu af taxes

— retail/trades/service Industries

---energency services

— retail/service industries

--municipal emergency services

— retail industrY emergency services

community ounnunity servi Authnri raft I

community —1 cammunity servicps --authorized I emergency services ' absences 7

retail/service industry

—un-authorizedr

In the absences

4—retalt Industry


open organizations

special events In the

7 prison

In the community

At the prison site

Involvement with prison operations

At the 'residence

Inmate families

Staff families

In-migration

FOUR STAGE HIERARCHY OF POSSIBLE SOCIAL IMPACTS

"Prison Town° Image

r—prominence site

[— visibility centrality

communi ty _J.—directional signs

-- indicators —Prison vehicles

—uniformed personnel

_f—T.Y. media

association Radio

Newspaper

Involvement with Inmate 7 Population

escapes

authorized release

[

-_:fear of injury

fear of arrest

1— electronic interference

I—lighting interference

-- noise

increased traffic L. In the communitY strain on services/utilities

impingement on community facilities .--f demand on resources/services

criminal element

undersired interaction

contributions to commnity

demand on resources/setWices

prison worker element

1 undesired interaction. contributions to Community

Social impacts of

Penitentiaérii---


7

In consultation with.the Steering Committee, the Research Team de-

veloped conceptual impact hierarchies to represent the range of possible social

and economic effects which the presence of federal institutions may exert on

the area in question with particular attention paid to the Steering Committee's

ternis of reference. Once the Committee and the Research Team decided each of

the conceptual hierarchies was an apparently exhaustive listing of possible

impacts, responsibility was then given to the Research Team to translate the

conceptually represented impacts into empirically measureable variables.

It should be pointed out that during the hierarchy development phase

and the subsequent instrument design stage great care was taken to avoid

assuming that any of the conceptually represented impacts constituted either

a positive or a negative influence on the community. It was assumed only that

each item may exert some measureable degree of influence in one or the other

(or both) of these directions on the communities which host the federal

prisons.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology employed in this study included a literature review, a

content analysis of printed media, interview surveys and a CSC employee

questionnaire survey.

Literature Review

Relevant published literature, particularly previous impact as-,

sessment of existing or proposed correctional facilities, was

reviewed.


8

Content Analysis of Printed Media

Local newspaper files were analysed to determine community attitudes

as expressed in editorials and letters to the editor. Three newspapers

were selected to provide information on community attitudes toward

the prison system: The 4assiz Advance which serves the Kent-Harrison

communities of Agassiz, Harrison Hot Springs and Harrison Mills;

the Hope Standard which serves the community of Hope, B.C., located

some 34 kilometers from Agassiz; and the Chilliwack Progress which

is the regional newspaper for the Upper Fraser Valley. A 50 per cent

random sample was taken of all issues of each newpaper during the

years 1976 to 1980 (inclusive), yielding a sample size of 130 issues

for each of the three newspapers. The content of editorials and

letters to the editor which addressed the theme. of: federal corrections

was examined and categorized as being "pro-CSC", "anti-CSC" or

neutral.

Interview Survey

An interview survey was undertaken of Kent-Harrison households, and of

a sample from the town of Hope, B.C. which was selected as a "control"

community. 4 A population of households in each of these areas was

identified using the 1980 Upper Fraser Valley telephone directory.

Using only residential listings, the population sizes were found to be

1280 for Kent-Harrison and 1458 for Hope.

4The collection of interview survey data from these communities was authorized by the Statistical Paperburden Review Staff of Treasury Board Canada. (TB/CT Reg. B 23203)


Interview Survey (cont.)

Information from the British Columbia Telephone Company indicates that

these population sizes represent approximately 96% of the actual

number of households in each community as of August, 1980.5

A systematic random sample of names was drawn from each population,

yielding a sample size for Hope of 243 households (one in six listings

drawn) and 425 for the Kent-Harrison communities (one in three households).

In addition to these, separate systematic random samples (one in three

households) were drawn from the Band registry lists of the three Native

Reserves in the area. All interview appointments were arranged by

telephone except for those interviews conducted in the Native Reserves

where residental telephones are less prevalent. Systematic random

subsamples were drawn from each of the three community samples to

determine the preferred sex of each potential respondent. Interviews

in the Kent-Harrison area ranged from 1 hour to 4.5 hours in length,

while those in Hope ranged from 1 hour to 2.5 hours. The average inter-

view durations were 2.06 hours and 1.68 hours for Kent-Harrison and

Hope respectively. (see Appendix for interview schedules)

5Since the printing of the B.C. Tel directory 15 new residental lines were installed in Kent-Harrison, and 55 new lines were in-stalled in Hope. These were not included in the sample. It is estimated that approximately 3% of all households in both com-munities either have unlisted numbers or are without phone service.


10

Table I below shows the response rates for Kent-Harrison (57.9%)

and Hope (43.2%)

TABLE I

Outcome of Contact Attempts

Area Refusals Not in Service Unable to Contact Total Comp- Total letions

Kent- _ Harrison 73 (17%) 35 (8.2%) 71 (16.7%) 246 (57.9%) 425

Hope 56 (23%) 34 (14%) 48 (19.8%) 105 (43.2%) 243

Seabird Island Reserve* 2 (11.1%) 2 (11.1%) 4 (22.2%) 10 (55.6%) 18

Chehalis Reserve* 5 (21.7%) 3 (13%) 5 (21.7%) 10 (43.5%) 23

Hope Reserve* 1 (12.5%) 1 (12.5%) 4 (50%) 2 (25%) 8

Legend

1. Refusal - Resident did not wish to be interviewed. 2. Not in service - resident's telephone number was no longer in service or

resident had moved. 3. Unable to contact - resident could not be contacted (phoned 5 or more

times). 4. Completions - resident interviewed.

All information obtained from residents of the Seabird Island, Chehalis,

and Hope Reserves was analysed separately, then compared to information ob-

tained from residents of Kent-Harrison and Hope. Generally the responses the

reserve residents gave were so similar to those of Kent-Harrison residents,

however, that their inclusion in this report would not provide any sub-

stantially different information. The only notable difference is that the

reserve residents have a slightly more positive attitude towards offenders,

and a lesser concern for personal safety.


Reason Given Kent-Harrison Hope

TOTALS 73 56

Table II summarizes the reasons given for respondent refusals.

TABLE II

Reasons for Refusal: Kent-Harrison and Hope

11

Not interested 13 21

Too busy to participate 13 13

Moving away 5 4

Unable due to illness/handicap 12 10

• Have language problem 2 5

Don't wish to be involved 12 3

Study won't change anything 4 0

Unhappy with organization of study (i.e. irrelevant questions) 12 0


SI

• 1

11

12

Selection of a Control Community

Part of the design of this impact assessment study included the

simultaneous collection of similar data from a "control" community.

A comparison of the findings from the impacted area with the results

from parallel research undertaken in a community similar in all

respects save one, 'the presence of correctional facilities', helps

to identify particular areas of impact which may be due, directly

or indirectly, to the federal prisons in the Kent-Harrison area.

Hope, B.C., a town 34 kilometers east of the Kent-Harrison area,

was selected as the control community. The Hope area's similarity

to the Kent-Harrison area is shown in Tables III and IV.


13

TABLE III

Selected Demographic and Geographic Characteristics: Hope and Kent-Harrison

Characteristic Hope Area Kent-Harrison Area

Population size* 2,963 ' 4,353

Percent males* 50 54

Total families* 760 990

Total households* 1,040 1,190

Owned dwellings* 680 935

Rented dwellings* 360 300

Distance from Vancouver + 152 135

Distance from Chilliwack - 54 26

Federal Prisons 0 3

Provincial Prisons 0 0

*Source: 1976 Census +Source: British Columbia Regional Index 1978; Province of British Columbia,

Ministry of Economic Development.

Fraser Valley College Reseerch Group

Service Hope Area Kent-Harrison Area

Education

Health

Social

Manpower

Legal

1 Doctor

1 Public Health Nurse

3 Visiting Dentists

1 Pharmacy

3 Visiting Social Workers

1 Day Care Centre

1 Rest Home

1 Community Service

Worker

1 Lawyer

1 Notary

14

TABLE IV

Services Available in Study and Comparison Communities (1981)

2 Elementary Schools

2 Secondary Schools

1 College (P.V.C.)

1 Christian School

3 Elementary Schools

1 Secondary School

1 College (P.V.C.)

1 Christian School

7 Doctors

2 Public Health Nurses

2 Dentists

2 Pharmacies

1 Dental Mechanic .

2 Chiropractors

1 Visiting Optometrist

1 38-bed Hospital

2 Social Workers

1 Day Care Centre

1 Rest Home

1 Community Service

Worker (Volunteer)

1 Manpower office

1 Lawyer

1 Notary

1 Legal Services Worker cont.

Fraser Valley College Research croup

Service

Cultural

Hope Area

1 Library

1 Museum

Kent-Harrison Area

1 Library

1 Taxi

3 Post Offices

1 Newspaper

Financial 1 Bank

1 Credit Union

1 Accountant

2 Banks

1 Credit Union

2 Accountants

Clubs & Organizations Full Range Full Range cont.

15

TABLE rv (cont.)

Emergency 21 Member RCMP Dept.

3 Ambulances

1 Search & Rescue

Volunteer Pire Units

(6 trucks)

9 Member RCMP Dept.

1 Ambulance

1 Seardh & Rescue

Volunteer Fire Units

(4 trucks)

Transportation

Information

2 Taxis

Bus Service to Chilliwack

Air Charter Service

1 Post Office

1 Newspaper

1 Radio Station

Religious 10 Churches 6 Churches


16

Service

Sports & Recreation

TABLE , IV (cont )

Hope Area

1 Recreation Worker

1 Swimming Pool

1 Golf Course

1 Curling Rink

1 Children's Playground

2 Baseball Diamonds

2 Sports Fields

1 Tennis Court

Several Parks

1 Arena

Kent-Harrison Area

1 Recreation Worker

2 Swimming Pools

1 Golf Course

1 Curling Rink (Private)

1 Children's Playground

3 Baseball Diamonds

1 Sports Field .

2 Tennis Courts

Several Parks

2 Community Halls


II

es

•1

17

The following excerpts from the British Columbia Regional Index

summarize the general economy of these two Fraser Valley areas:

The economy (of the Kent-Harrison Area) is based largely on logging, agriculture and tourism. Farming is restricted to Kent Municipality but logging activity is widespread Harrison Hot Springs is a well known tourist and convention centre. Government institutions, including an experimental farm and correctional facilities, broaden the economic base. Manufacturing is dominated by a recently-constructed mobile home plant. Agassiz is the local: trade and service centre Some people employed in the area may prefer to live in the éarger communities with more amenities and more pleasing weather.

The leading resource sector (of the Hope area) is forestry; logging is widespread but manufacturing is limited primarily to a large sawmill at Boston Bar. Mining was important in the past, but closure of the giant Mascot Mine was the major factor in Hope's population loss between 1971 and 1976. The town of Hope, strategically located at the junction of Highways 1, 3 ang 7, derives much of its income by providing services to travellers.

Other similarities between Hope and Kent-Harrison are revealed in the

comparison between the two samples on selected variables outlined in Table

V.

6British Columbia Regional Index, 1978, p. 377,

7Ibid., p. 385.


•

• ,

4 TABLE V

Selected Sample Characteristics: Hope and Kent-Harrison

18

Characteristics Hope Kent-Harrison

Employment Status.

% Employed Full Time 28.6 % Employed Part Time 11.4 % Self Employed 2.9 % Retired 18.1 % Housewife 22.9 % Disabled/Unemployed 4.9

Marital Status

% Married % Separated/Divorced % Widowed % Never Married

Sex

75.2 9.6 9.5 5.7

24.5 9.1 3.3 20.7 26.1 5.8

77.3 4.6 9.1 9.1

% Male

Education

Àverage Years Education

51.4 39.9

11.1 11.2

Income

Average Gross Family Income 1 24,229

Accommodation

% Own Accommodation 79.8 % In Single-detached Dwellings85.7 % Apartment/Condominium 3.9 % Other Accommodation 11.4

Age

Average Age 46.8

20,854

81.4 84.7 4.1

11.2

47.4 • cont.


.1

so

19

TABLE V (cont.)

Characteristics Hope Kent-Harrison

Family Size

Average Number Children at Home 1.9 1.9

Length Of Residence

Average Number of Months 192.0 216.9

'This difference in average gross family income is largely ex-plained by the greater prevalence in Hope of full time employed spouses. 30.3% of the Kent-Harrison residents sampled reported that their spouSes were employed full time, while the corresponding figure for Hope is 41.8%, even though the Hope sample included a higher proportion of males than did the Kent-Harrison samples.


20

Questionnaire Survey: CSC Employees

A questionnaire survey of correctional employees in each of the three

correctional facilities was undertaken. Questionnaires were distribut-

ed to each employee and picked up two weeks later. Of the 423 question-

naires delivered, 125 (29.6%) were completed and returned. (For an

example of the CSC employee questionnaire, see Appendix volume. Table

VI displays the response rate for each institutian.

TABLE VI

Response Rates by Institutions

Institution Employee Population

Questionnaires Returned

Response Rate

Elbow Lake

Mountain

Kent

26 . 16 , 61.5%

134 41 30.6%

263 68 25.9%

TOTALS 423 125 29.6%

As shown in Table VII, responses were obtained from each of the job

classifications or occupational categories within the three institutions.

Except for the somewhat poor response from Group 8 (uniformed line security

staff), the overall sample appears to be representative of the population

of CSC employees in the three institutions combined,


TABLE VII

Institutional Staff by Job Classification:

Sample & Population Job Classification Group *

Institution Sample Population 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOTAL

2 0 3 • 0 2 0 0 0 9 0 16

12.5% 0.0 18.8% 0.0 12.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.2% 0.0 100%

3 0 8 0 3 0 0 0 12 0 26

11.5% 0.0 30.8% 0.0 11.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.2% 0.0 100%

Elbow Lake Sample

Population

• _

Mountain . Sample 1 4 9 1 4 1 6 10 0 4 40

2.5% 10.0% 22.5% 2.5% 10.0% 2.5% 15.0% 25.0% 0.0 10.0% 100%

Population a 4 24 8 9 1 20 52 0 a 134

6.0% 3.0% 17.9% 6.0% 6.7% 0.7% 14.9% 38.3% 0.0 6.0% 100%

Kent Sample 8 1 11 5 7 2 9 4 15 5 67

11.9% 1.5% 16.4%. 7.5% 10.4% 3.0% 13.4% 6.0% 22.4% 7.5% 100%

Population 11 4 40 8 21 7 34 71 56 11 263

4.2% 1.5% 15.2% 3.0% 8.0% 2.7% 12.9% 27.0% 21.3% 4.2% 100%

TOTAL Sample 11 5 23 6 13 3 15 14 24 • 9 123

8.9% 4.1% 18.7% 4.9% 10.6% 2.4% 12.2% 11.4% 19.5% 7.3% 100%

Population 22 8 72 16 33 8 54 123 68 19 423

5.2% 1.9% 17.0% 3.8% 7.8% 1.9% 12.8% 29.1% 16.1% 4.5% 100.1%

*KEY Croup 1: Wardens, Superintendents, Assistant Wardens, Assistant Directors, Preventive Security Officers. Croup 2:

Heads of Social Development, Supervisors of Classification, Heads of Living Unit, Teachers, Arts & Crafts Instructors, Chaplains.

Group 3: CL, GS, CT Croups (e.g.: trades, maintenance, food services, forestry programs, etc.). Croup 4: Psychologists, Health Care Services (PS, NU-HOS, NU-HOT, EB-HOT). Group 5: Secretaries, Finance, Clerical Support (CR, ST-SCY, FI-01). Group 6: CX-COF-6, CX-COF-7, CX-COF-8. Group 7: • CX-COF-3, CX-COF-4, CX-COF-5, CX-STI. Group 8: CX-00E-1, CX-COF-2. Group 9: CX-LUF-1, CX-LUF-2. Group10: HP-2, HP-3.

(CX-COF: Custodial Uniform Security; C%-LUF: Custodial Non-Uniform Living Unit Staff; WP: Case Management Officers and Offender Program Staff)

Fraser V

alley

Colle

ge R

esearch G

rou

p

22

METHODOLOGY

Responses from both community surveys and the CSC employee survey

were coded and stored in a computer file, Data were organized and analysed

using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) system.

Interviews with Selected Officials and Agencies

A number of selected individuals and agencies were contacted to ob-

tain relevant factual data. Part of this aspect was comprised in a

survey of local business managers and proprietors, with particular

emphasis on tourism-related enterprises. (See Appendix for instrument)

Also included were such auxilary sources as law enforcement agencies.

(local and provincial), welfare agencies, municipal and school board

officials, prison wardens and officials, CSC regional management,

real estate agencies and institutional Citizens' Advisory Committee

representatives.

Public Forums

After the community resident interviews were completed, a series of

four public forums were held, one in each of the communities of Hope,

Harrison Hot Springs, Harrison Mills and Agassiz. Verbatim.transcripts

were recorded and presented to the Citizens' Steering Committee for

editing prior to inclusion in this report (see Appendix volume). These

public forums were held in order to provide all citizens with the op-

portunity to voice their concerns and opinions, both general and specific,

regarding the Correctional Service of Canada and its local manifestations.


23

RESEARCH FINDINGS, RESULTS AND

RESPONSES FOR EACH OF THE TERMS OF

REFERENCE*

* The data analysis and presentation of findings have been kept as simple as possible. It is the authors' hope that what has been sacrificed in statistical sophistication will be more than offset by the enhanced readability and comprehensibility of this report. While the data can no doubt be re—analysed to test a host of other social—scientific hypotheses, the authors have restricted their investigation to those issues expressed in the Steering Committee's terms of reference.


24

Term of Reference Number One

What is the amount of direct contributions of the municipality of Kent

by the Correctional Service of Canada, including grants in lieu of taxes?

Answer

In 1980 the Municipality of Kent received a grant from the federal

government in lieu of taxes that would normally be paid on land and facilities

used by the Correctional Service of Canada. (CSC) This grant, the only

direct financial contribution of the CSC to the Municipality of Kent, amounted

to $64,185. Specifically the grant covered the following taxes:

General Purpose tax; $27,940

Regional Hospital tax: 1,690

Regional District tax: 72

School tax: 35,483

Total $64,185

Source: Municipality of Kent Administrator

The Municipality has been informed by the federal government that the

1980 grant is under review and will be increased as per the requirements of

the recently enacted Municipal Grants Act (1980).1

While the amount of in-

crease is unknown, the Act is intended to allow the federal.%government to

provide grants in the future which more adequately compensate municipalities

for taxes on federal properties within their boundaries. In this regard, it

is worth noting that in 1979, for example, the B.C. Assessment Authority

valued land and buildings at Mountain and Kent institutions at $1,365,854

for tax purposes, while the federal government placed the value of these

properties at $789,585, a lesser amount by $576,269. 2

1It is of concern to the municipality that grant funds are not received until more than one year after tax assessments are made.

2This information was obtained from Municipality of Kent Administrator.


1

.11

ell

1 11

2-5

Term of Reference Number Two

What services are supplied to the institutions by the communities and

what are the costs of providing these services?

Answer

The communities supply no services to the institutions. Services the

institutions can draw upon, such as policing, health 1 , hydro2

, and road

service, are provided by the provincial government and, in the Kent-Harrison

area, they do not require a financial contribution from the municipal

government. With the exception of the policing services 3 , there are no

indications that the institutions' use of these services in the Kent-Harrison

area in any way affects the quality of the services.

Services the comiunity makes available in the Kent-Harrison area,

including recreation facilities, fire protection, and waste disposal services,

generally are not used by the institutions. 4 The institutions have their own

fire protection and recreation services; a private contractor handles waste

disposal. 5

1The Correctional Service of Canada relies essentially on its own health care staff and facilities. (Source: Correctional Service of Canada, Pacific Regional Manager-Health Care Services)

2BC Hydro provides service on a contract basis. (Source: Correctional Service of Canada, Pacific Regional Manager-Finance)

3The matter of policing services is addressed by the response to "term of reference number fifteen."

4While community facilities "generally" are not used by the institutions, there are still occasions when inmates on temporary absence could be at a local building or facility. The community survey showed that just over half of Kent-Harrison residents can recall being at a facility at the same time as an inmate on authorized release (see Table 2.1). Only 2.1% of residents, though, report ever being denied access to a facility due to the use of the facility by inmates (see Table 2.2).

5This information was obtained-through interviews with officials at

each of the institutions.


4 or more

TOTAL

13.6 33

100.0 243

TABLE 2.1: Survey Item 229

Kent-Harrison Area Resident - Reports an Using Community Facilities at the Same Time as Prison Inmates*

Number of Times in Past 12 Months Per 'Cent

0 45.7 111

1 13.6 33

2 18.5 45

8.6 21 3

1111111•Ilt

*Table 2. 1H'showa.the distribution of responses to interview survey items 228 and 229: "About how many times have you . . ., to the best of your knawledge, been inside a local building or facility (e.g., swimming pool, bowling alley, library, park, or theatre . . .) at the same time as a prison inmmte?"


27


Resident Reports aa Being Denied Access to Community Facilities Due to Inmate Use of These Facilities: Kent-Rarrison Area

Whether Denied Access Per Cent

tes 2.1 .5

No 97.1 234

Don't now 0.8 2

TOTAL 100.0 241

MIMIC


Term of Reference Number Three

What vehicle problems are created by the operation of the institutions?

Answer

According to the local RCMP detachment, traffic resulting from the

operation of the prison has not presented any specific problem in traffic

volume or in any other respect. The detachment reports that it has been

necessary to ticket some staff for traffic violations on occasion, but the

proportion being ticketed (or involved in traffic accidents) is no different

than appears to be the case for residents of Kent-Harrison. The detachment,

however, has received complaints about speeders from residents living near the

1 institution.

Many residents feel that the presence of institutions in the area has

affected the traffic situation in the community. Approximately 42% of

residents surveyed felt the prisons caused an undue amount of vehicle traffic

(see Table 3.1). Only two of all surveyed residents, however, felt their

activities had been affected by the additional traffic volume.2

It is noteworthy that the vast majority of Kent-Harrison residents do not

object to seeing officially marked prison vehicles in the community (see Table

3.2). Moreover, only 4.9% of surveyed residents would prefer that the

institutions use -"unmarked" vehicles as opposed ta "marked" vehicles

(see Table 3.3).

1This information was obtained through an interview with a member of

the Agassiz RCMP detachment.

2One residents*reports "nearly getting hit" while driving to work by CSC employees who drive too fast, and another resident felt it was too dangerous to cycle during shift changes at the local prisons. (Source: responses to survey item #241(b))


Opinion

Yes

No

Don't Know

TOTAL 999* 238 7•111■11t MMUS

29

TABLE 3.1: Survey Item 241(a)

Kent-Harrison Resident Opinion on Whether the Prisons Cause Undue Amount of Vehicle Traffic in Area

Per Cent N

42.4 101

44.1 105

13.4 32 «Mai/MOW/MO

eVariation from 100% due to rounding.


30

.2: Survey Item 225 TABLE 3

.11

r. .1

4

es

Kent-Harrison Resident Marked Correctional

Opinions on Visibility of Officially Service Vehicles in the Community

. Opinion. .

Object Strongly

Object Somewhat

Don't Really Mind

Appreciate

Very Much Appreciate

Don't Know

TOTAL

Per Cent

2.9

11.2

79.8

4.5

0.4

1.2

100.0 242 MIIIMII•11•13 711••

7

27

193

11

1

3


..„

711•11111■11


Kent-Harrison Resident Preference for Marked vs. Unmarked Correctional Service Vehicles in the Community

Preference Per Cent

Prefer Marked Vehicles • .67.1 163

Prefer Unmarked Vehicles 4.9 12

Makes No Difference 27.2 66

Don't Know 0.8 2

TOTAL 100.0 243


Term of Reference Number Four

What is the value of goods and services purchased by the Correctional

Service of Canada in the community?

Answer

In 1980 the Correctional Service of Canada purchased $585,584 worth of

goods and services from businesses in the Kent-Harrison area.1 Most of this

amount ($513,384) was spent by the Department of Supply and Services on behalf

of the Correctional Service of Canada.2 Another $45,000 of this amount was

spent by the Department of Public Works on the Correctional Service of -

Canada's behalf.3

The remaining $27,200 was spent on local purchases made by

institutional officials directly.4

Potentially, the Correctional Service of Canada could purchase more goods

and services locally than is now the case. Of local businesses which have

sought the opportunity to supply goods and services to the institutions, 60%

(9 of 15) have been awarded contracts (see Table 4.1). Of all businesses

which would be eligible and able to submit bids for tender, however, 22% (9

of 41) were not interested.5

1This figure is consistent with the amount reported in total by 52.6% (82 of 156) of the business community (5.7% did not wish to provide information and 35.3% could not be-contacted). Of all business providing information, 9 companies reported being awarded contracta totalling $497,591 in 1980 (see Table 4.1).

2Th1s figure was obtained from Supply and Services Canada, Pacific

Region. 3This figure was obtained from the Department of Public Works,

Pacific Region. The interviewed official pointed out that during the 1980-81 fiscal year a total of $1.18 million in construction contracts was awarded to non-local businesses which were doing work at the local prisons. Some of the amount, the official added, might well have gone to local firms es the result of sub-contracting.

4This figure is a total of the amount reported by officials at each

of the institutions. 5An additional 41.5% (17 of 41) of businesses which would be eligible

• and able to submit bids did not do so due to competitive pricing considerations. The remaining 36.6% (15 of 41) of business, as already noted, submitted bids. (Source: Business Survey, item #7)


3 «MI

3

1 •■••■•■■ •••■■

20

am, • 11

33

TABLE 4,1; Business Survey e Item 37

Contracts Awarded to Kent-Harrison Businesses (1980)

Type of Businesses Businesses Businesses Businesses Total Business/Industry Surveyed Eligible* Submitting Bids Successful $ Value

Professional

Finance

Agriculture

Manufacturing

Construction

Service-Trade

Service-Retail .

Tourism-Service

Tourism-Retail

3 3 2 1 $ 95,000

9 6 5 1 329,331

14 14 4 4 62,760

18 . 18 3 3 10,500

re. «memo

TOTAL 82 41 15 9 $497,591

*Due to their size or nature of operation a nUmber of businesses were identified by the research team to be ineligible or non-applicable tenders for contracts with the CSC.


SI

• 1

4

dl

.1

ell

E's

Term of Reference Number Five

What value does the community receive through the proposed construction

activity?

Answer

It was estimated that the originally proposed expansion of Kent and re-

development of Mountain would cost $33.3 million. ' The portion of this amount

awarded to local business and the number of business receiving contracts would

be determined through the regular bidding process. It would be presumptuous

to provide even a rough estimate of the actual dollar amount going into the

community as a result of the proposed construction activity, but an estimate

can be made concerning an economic impact of completed construction.

If completed as proposed, the expansion and re-development program would

result in an institutional staff increase of 143 persons.2 Based on what is

known about• the present complement of CSC staff, it can be estimatedthat among

new staff $293,975.97 would be spent locally. 3 Excluding shelter costs, this

1This figure was reported by the CSC Pacific Regional Manager of

Policy and Planning, and is based on 1980 dollars. The figure includes a $9.8 million expenditure for Kent and a $23.5 million expenditure for Mountain.

2The present staff complement at Kent would be increased to 320 staff from 263, and at Mountain the staff complement would be increased to 220 from 134. (Source: Pacific Regional Manager-Policy and Planning)

3As will be discussed in more detail in the response to "term of reference number seven", 27.7% of CSC employees reside locally and each family of this group spends an average of $7,142.68 per year locally.

. ,Thus, it could be expected that 40 (.277 x 143 = 39.6) of the new staff iwould spend $282,850.13 (39.6 x $7,142.68 = $282,850.12) per year locally. Again, as will be discussed in the response to "term of reference number seven", non-resident CSC employees each spend an average of $107.60 per year locally on auto products alone. Thus, it could be expected that 103 new non-resident CSC employees would spend at least $4,125.84 (103 x $107.60 = $11,125,84) in the Kent-Harrison area. The total amount to be spent by the group of 143 new staff as a whole, then, is at least $293,975.97 ($282,850.13 + $11,125.84).


35

would bring the total amount spent locally by CSC staff to at least

$1,129,669.53 (1980 dollars) per year. 4

It can also be said that completed re-development of Mountain Institution

would have a positive social value in that many residents would feel more

secure (see Table 5.1). On the other hand, however, the completed expansion

of Kent would result in many residents feeling less secure about that

institution (again, see Table 5.1).

•

4

This figure was obtained by adding $293,975.97 to $835,693.56, the amount currently being spent per annum locally by the ptesent complement of CSC staff (as discussed in term of reference number seven").


J

•s

*I

TABLE 5.1: Survey Items 148 and 151

Kent-Harrison Resident Perception of Own Security Given Proposed Construction

Mountain Redevelopment Kent Expansion • (New Fence)

Much More Secure 1.3 12.9

Somewhat More Secure .8 37.8

Makes No Difference 29.8 48:1

Somewhat Less Secure 29.8 --- -

Much Less Secure .37.0 .8

Don't Know 1.3 .4

238 241


.11

37

Term of Reference Number Six

What services are provided to the community by the institutions,

including volunteer work provided by the inmates?

Answer

Other than a 24-hour fire call warning system at Mountain Institution

: which is provided at no cost to the communities, the institutions do not

provide any service to the community. Spokesmen for each of the institutions

pointed out that offenders could do volunteer work for the community, but that

past experiences showed that residents were not receptive. In both Mountain

and Elbow Lake Institutions offenders worked in the community (e.g., park

clean-up, painting facilities, shaerelling snow for senior citizens) as

requested before 1979.1 Since 1979 work has not been done because of concerns

union workers in the community expressed and concerns for safety other -

residents expressed.2

Our survey indicates it might be the nature of the volunteer work

offenders do as opposed to volunteer work per se that residents object to.

Indeed, virtually 70% of surveyed residents indicated they would grant

temporary absence to suitable offenders wanting to do volunteer community

work. 3

lInformation obtained through interviews with prison officials at each of the institutions.

2Inmates at Mountain Institution, however, have a program for senior citizens in Chilliwack. Every Friday a group of inmates is taken to Chilliwack to assist senior citizens under extended care with shopping.

3Among Agassiz, Harrison Hot Springs, and Harrison Mills residents there is considerable variation on this point. 90% of Harrison Mills residents would grant temporary absences for volunteer work, while 71.3% of Agassiz residents and only 51.7% of Harrison Hot Springs residents would do so (see Table 6.1).


4

J 1

11 1

ell

4

11


Kent-Harrison Resident Attitudes .Toward Authorized Inmate Temporary Absences for Volunteer Community Service Work

_ Community • % Disagree % Agree Don 't Know N

Agassiz 27.1 71.3 1.5 195

Harrison Hot Springs 32.3 51.7 16.1 31

Harrison Mills - 10.0 90.0 0.0 10

am/M.0mm

TOTAL (Kent-Harrison) 27.1 69.5 3.4 236

Manniffll MIME


Term of Reference Number Seven

What is the number of employees who reside in the community and what

portion of their income is spent in the community?

Answer

Figures obtained from the CSC show that 117 employees (27.7%) of a total

complement of 423 reside in the Kent-Harrison area (see Table 7.1).1

These

employees have an average gross family income of $32,213 per year, of which at

least 22.2% or $7,142.68 is spent locally.2 Thus, as a group, these employees

spend $835,693.56 a year locally.

It is important to bear in mind that the figures reported on local

spending by CSC employees do not include all local spending. Shelter costs,

for example, were not included due to the difficulties which are associated

with assessing the amount of mortgage and rent money which is paid to local

banks and landlords as opposed to those outside the community. Given that

each CSC family would spend an average of $4,871.40 per year on shelter costs

according to Statistics Canada information (see Table 7.5) and given that a

good proportion of it would be spent locally, it seems reasonable to assume

1This figure is somewhat higher (4.5%) than the figure determined from our survey of CSC employees (see Table T.2).

2The average family income for CSC employees living in the Kent-Harrison area is substantially higher than that of other Kent-Harrison families (see Tables 7.3 and 7.4). This difference should be expected, however, since a good number of Kent-Harrison residents are retiredpersons and some would be employed in industries in which employee earnings are not ordinarily as high as they are in corrections (e.g., tourism/service industry). For a distribution showing the employment status of Kent-Harrison residents, see Table 7.15.

The amount of money spent locally was determined by multiplying the average annual expenditure given family size and family income (see Table 7.5) by the proportion of residents buying goods locally (see Table 7.6(a) and 7.6(b)). Tables 7.6(a) and 7.6(h) are summary tables; Table 7.7.provides more specific information about the amount of money spent on leisure activities since this information is based on survey information alone rather than on information supplied by Table 7.5.


4-0

that when shelter'Costs are included, the amount of money spent locally by

residenLCSC employees exceeds $1,000,000 per year.

Many non-resident CSC staff also spend part of their earnings in the

Kent-Harrison area. Our survey of CSC.staff revealed that 42.7% of non-

resident CSC staff purchase gasoline in the area on an average of 1.4 times

per month.3 Assuming each fill-up required an average èxpenditure of $15,

this group spends $32,926.82,annually at service stations. Our survey also

showed that nearly one-fifth (19. .8%) of non-resident CSC staff have bank

accounts in the Kent-Harrison area which indicates fUrther that non-resident

CSC staff frequent local businesses to some extent.4

Many resident CSC employees do not buy goods such as auto supplies,

groceries, and clothes in the community. 65.5% of resident CSC employees,

for example, buy groceries elsewhere; and 41.4% buy auto supplies elsewhere

(see Tables 7.8, 7.9, and 7.10).5 Their reasons for buying elsewhere are

essentially the same as reasons given by other Kent-Harrison residents who

shop elsewhere. First, they feel the prices are too high and, second, they

feel the selection is poor (see Tables 7.14(a) and 7.14(b)).6

3These figures are based on reports by CSC employees concerning the -number of times they use a service station in Kent-Harrison. (Source: CSC Employee Survey, item #60)

4This information is based on reports by CSC employees concerning personal banking within the Kent-Harrison area. (Source: CSC Employee Survey, item #69)

5This buying pattern is essentially the same as it is for Kent-Harrison residents. Indeed, 50.5% of Kent-Harrison residents purchase groceries elsewhere, 67.4% buy clothes elsewhere, and 37.6% buy auto supplies elsewhere (see Tables 7.11, 7.12, and 7.13).

6Given these similarities in buying patterns between resident CSC

employees and other Kent-Harrison residents, it is not surprising that the proportion of family income spent locally is almost identical for the two groups. As noted earlier, resident CSC employee families spend 22.2% of their gross family income locally. Similarly, other Kent-Harrison residents spend 23.3% ($4,863.11 of $20,854) of their gross family income locally (see figures in Tables 7.6(b) and 7.4).


TABLE 7;.1

Correctional Service Staff Residence Location by Institution1

41

Institution

Elbow Laké

Mountain

Kent

TOTAL3

Total3

26

134

263

423

Resident2

Non-Resident2

5 21 (19.2%) (80.8%)

25 109 (18.7%) (81.3%)

87 176 (33.1%) (66.9%)

117 306 (27.7%) (72.3%)

1 itions allotted to each the - time of our survey

Figures here are based on the number of CSC staff pos institution. The number of occupied CSC positions at was actually ten fewer than the total reported here.

2"Resident" infers residence in the Kent-Harrison area while "Non-Resident" includes all other areas of residence.

3Totals here are based on occupied CSC positions at the time of the employee survey. The actual establishment strengths for Elbow Lake, Mountain, and Kent Institutions are 26, 134, and 263 respectively.

1


1 .11

1 *I •1

4 1

1 5 10 16 (6.25%) (31.25%) (62.5%)

11 29 1 41 (26.8%) (70.7%) (2.4 7.)

17 44 7 68 (25.0%) (64.7%) (10.3%)

TABLE 7.2: CSC Employee Survey, Item 1

CSC Staff Residence Location by Institution

Ilistitution Kent-Harrison Chilliwack Other Total

Elbow Lake

Mountain

Kent

TOTAL 29 18 125

(23.2 7. ) (62.4 7. ) (14.4 7.)



Gross Family Income (1980): CSC Employees 1

*income Per Cent N

_Less.than $20,000 10.2 11

$20,000 - $24,999 20.4 22

$25,000 - $29,999 19.4 21

$30,000 - $34,999 11.1 12

$35,000 - $39,999 13.9 15

$40,000 - $50,000 15.7 17

Over $50,000 9.3 10

TOTAL 100.0 108

1 Average gross family income, computed fram raw data, for all CSC staff surveyed is $31,947. For CSC staff residing in the Kent-Harrison area (N = 27), the 1980 average gross family income is $32,213.


TOTAL 100.0 205

el

1 •I

•1

4 •1

TABLE 7.4: Kent-Harrison Community Survey, Item 257

Gross Family Income (1986): Kent-Harrison Residents 1

Income Per Cent N

Less than $10,000 24.4 50

$10,000 - $14,999 16.1 33

$15,000 - $19,999 14.2 29

$20,000 - $24,999 16.1 33

$25,000 - $29,999 6.3 13

$30,000 - $34,999 8.3 17

$35,000 - $50,000 6.3 13

Over $50,000 8.3 17

1 Average 1980 gross family income computed from raw data is $20,854.


• Two Three Four 5 or More Pereons Persons Persons Persons

One Persan

1,026 345 324 247 90 20

919 22 123 282 298 194

1,480 105 345 407 391 232

784 3

45 163 288 285

905 7

63 219 351 265

es

TABLE 7.5 Average Expenditure Per Family and Per Person on Food, Shelter,

Clothing, and Transportation by Family Size, Classified by Family Income, 16 Citiez, Canada, 1978 (Source: Statistics Canada)

AU Classes

Humber or' Families in Sample

Ai]. classes . 5,114 Under $6 . 000 482 $6,000 - 11,999 - 900 $12,000 19,999 1,318 $20,000 - 29,999 1,418 $30,000 and over 996

imeod EXpendlture Per Family

AU classes Under $6 ,000 $6,000 - 11,999 $12,000 - 19,999 $20,000 - 29,999 $30,000 and over

3,344.7 1,380.0 2,134.1 2,988.3 3,843.5 5,007.7

1,777.2 1,193.8 1,633.5 2,033.8

.1 1

2,357.0 1,754.8 2,155.2 2,683.6 3,252.6 3,827.3

3,615.4 .1

2,670.5 3,335.0 3,738.2 4,507.9

4,241.6 1 1

3,586.4 4.060.7 5,289.6

5,277.6 1

4,295.2 5,080.9 6,261.4

Shelter Expenditure Per Family

Al]. classes Under $6,000 $6,000 - 11,999 $12,000 - 19,999 $20,000 - 29,999 $30,000 and over

3,429.2 1,647.6 2,311.5 2,982.6 3,903.2 5,086.4

2,424.5 1,519.9 2,355.8 2,729.4

1 1

3,213.4 1,984.5 2,163.5 2,871.1 3,600.8 4,932.9

3,577.9 1

2,282.8 3,010.3 3,862.7 4,871.4

4,034.0 1 2

3,239.4 4,173.4 4,956.7

4,409.5

3,411.6 4,183.1 5,451.3

Clothing Expenditure Per

AU classes Under $6,000 $6,000 11,999 $12,000 - 19,999 $20,000 - 29,999 $30,000 and over

Family

' 647.7 219.0 603.5 857.5

2 1

1,109.3 409.7 513.0 955.6

1,368.4 1,964.7

1,520.9 1

729.8 1,147.1 1,630.1 2,440.4

1,801.1 1 2

1,233.4 1,661.2 2,645.2

2,276.5

1,432.6 1,988.4 3,232.7

1,369.5 276.3 615.6

1,068.1 1,601.2 2,559.8

Transportation Expenditure

AL]. classes Under $6,000 $6,000 - 11,999 $12,000 - 19,999 $20,000 - 29,999 $30,000 and over

2,334.8 294.1 984.5

2,013.1 2,862.4 4,065.4

Per Family

1,082.9 252.5 863.0

1,646.9 1 2

2,216.0 410.6

1,038.0 2,202.0 2,704.6 3,654.3

2,702.3

1,283.1 2,073.8 2,973.0 4,244.2

3,099.8 3,090.3

1

2,196.0 1,867.4

3,253.4 2,860.2

4,092.0 4,330.1

1Sample inadequate for reliable estimate.

Family size for CSè employees set at "three persons" based on information from item #47 of the CSC employee survey which showed the average number of people supported by CSC employee families living in Kent-Harrison is 2.8. Family size for Kent-Harrison residents was also set at "three persons" based on information from item #256 of the Kent-Harrison Community Survey which showed that the average number of persons supported by each Kent-Harrison family is 2.7.


34.5

27.6

58.6

$1,555.23

673.55

2,487.10

2,326.80

Food $ 4,507.90

Clothing 2,440.40

Transportation 4,244.20

Local Leisure Activity 2,326.80

TOTAL $13,519.30 $7,042.68

719:111:1111111

=====

4-6

TABLE 7.6(a)

Amount of Money Spent Locally by Resident CSC Employee Families

• Annual Percent Spending Average Amount Spent Locallyl Per Family Purchase

TABLE 7.6(b)

Amount of Money Spent Locally by Kent-Harrison Resident Families

Annual - Purchase • Amount Spent

Food $3,738.20

Clothing 1,630.10

Transportation 2,973.00

Local Leisure Activity 629.64

Percent Spending Average Locally2 Per Family

49.45 $1,848.54

32.50 529.78

62.40 1,855.15

629.64

TOTAL $8,970.94 $4,863.11

1Figures are based on reports by CSC employees concerning purchasing patterns (see item #59 of the CSC Employee Survey).

2Figures are based on reports by Kent-Harrison residents concerning purchasing patterns (see items #259, 260, and 261 of the Kent-Harrison Community Survey).


TABLE 7.7

Annual Amount of Money Spent by Resident CSC Employees and Kent-Harrison Residents on Leisure Time Activities

( CSC- EmPloyees Residents Average Local Average Local

Type of Activity Annual Expenditure Annual Expenditure

Walk/Drive $ 443.64 $ 71:76

Church 57.12 41.76

Service Club 122.52 7.20

Sports 143.16 92.76

Visiting/Socialization 227.52 ' 66.12

Education •••••••• 18.84

Hobbies 428.28 76.08

Restaurants 628.92 192.60

Lounge or Pub . 275.64 62.52

TOTAL $2,326.80 $629.64

1111111•111111i1M1111■1111 311■11111111•111111

1Figures are based on reports by CSC employees concerning monthly local expenditures as per item 61 of the CSC employee survey.

2Figures are based on reports by Kent-Harrison residents concerning monthly local expenditures as per item 262 of the Kent-Harrison community survey.


TOTAL 100.0 29

48

TABLE 7.8e - CSC Employee Survey, Item 59(b)

Usual Place of Purchase for Grocàry Items: CSC Local Resident Staff

Usual Place of Purchase Per Cent N

Kent-Harrison 34.5 10

Chilliwack 62.1 18

Vancouver 3.4 1 •IMIIMOM

MIMI;

TABLE 7.9: CSC Employee Survey, Item 59(c)

Usual Place of Purchase of .Clothing Items: CSC Local Reeident Staff

Usual Place of Purchase Per Cent


Chilliwack 62.1 18

Vancouver 10.3 3

TOTAL 100.0 29

Malt

TABLE 7. 10: CSC Employee Survey, Item 59(d)

Usual Place of Purchase of Automotive Products: CSC Local Resident Staff



Chilliwack 41.4 • 12 •••■■

TOTAL . 100.0 et


243 99.9*

211111111111Mlé

8

9

49

TABLE 7.11: Kent-Harrison Community Survey, Item 259(c)

Usual Place of Purchase for GroCery Items: Kent-Harrison Residents



Chilliwack 48..1 117

Vancouver 1.2 3

Other _1.2 3 .._ .«IMI•■•■.

TOTAL

*Variation from 100% due to rounding.


Usual Place of Purchase for Clothing: Kent-Harrison Residents



Chilliwack 60.4 145

Vancouver 3.3

Other 3.7

TOTAL


99..9* 240


••••■


Usual Place of Purchase for Automotive Products: Kent-Harrison Residents



Chilliwack 35.8 82

Vancouver 0.9 2

Other 0.9 2 .1■00•Ii

TOTAL 100.0 229

21111■1111M111

TABLE 7.14(a)

Reason Given by Reàident CSC EMployees for Not Purchasing Locally l.

Prices Poor Type of Purchase Too High N Selection N Other N

Why don't buy groceries 61.1Z 11 33.3% 6 5.6Z 1

Why don't buy clothes .35.0% 7 65.0% 13

Why don't buy auto products 81.8% 9 18.2%


TABLE 7..14'(b)

- Reason Given by Kent-Harrison Residents for Not Purchasing Locally 2

m 1 m m m Why don't 1 buy 57.7% 71 33.3% 41 . 0.8% 1 0:8% 1 .7:3% 9 < m groceries 07 < 0 Why don't 0 buy 43.4% 66 49.3% 75 1.3% 2 0.7% 1 5.3% 8 g clothes , m . M m Why don't m buy auto 64.6% 53 14.6% 12 3.7% 3 3.7% 3 13.4% 11 m m 1 . products o

g 0 c -0

2The "reasons" are based on sampled.resident responses to items 259(b), 260(b), and 261(b) on the Kent-Harrison community survey. Residents were responding to an open-ended question for each item.

Type of Prices Poor Non-Negative Poor Purchase *Too High lq Selection N Other N Quality N Other N

'The "reasons" are based on CSC employee responses to items on the CSC employee survey. Employees were responding to an open-ended question for each item.

5Z

TABLE 7.15: Kant-Harrison Community Survey, Items 13 and 19

Employment Status of Kent-Harrison Residents

Employed.

Employed Part-Time

Retired

Housewife

Disabled

Unemployed

TOTAL

Resident

34.9%

12.4%

20.7%

26.1%

1.2%

4.6%

.99.9%*

Resident's Spouse l

34.4%

10.4%

14.5%

14.5%

1.7%

1.7%

77.2%

71•111119111111M


1This column only totals 77.2% because 22.8% of the respondents do not have spouses living with them.


53

Term of Reference Number Eight

What are the reasons why more CSC employees have not made the Agassiz/

Harrison area their place of residence?

Answer

Of the 423 CSC employees working at Kent, Mountain, and Elbow Lake

Institutions, 72.3% do not reside in the Kent-Harrison area (see Table 7.1).

This percentage is 15.1% higher than is the case for other major elements in

the area (see Table 8.1). However, information obtained through a survey of

CSC employees indicates that the reasons for the difference have little to do

with the Kent-Harrison area per se. The reasons for this 15.1% difference can

be explain in terms of matters relating to the employment and previous places

of residence for CSC employees. A detailed account is provided below.

There is no question that a number of CSC employees do not live in the

Kent-Harrison area because of a dislike for the area. Responding to an open-

ended question on the CSC employee survey, 56.7% of employees not living in

the Kent-Harrison area stated a dislike for the area as a reason for not

living there. More specifically, 10.2% felt the area was too isolated, 20.4%

did not like the facilities or shopping, 1.1% did not like the weather (too

windy), and 25% did not live there for two or more of these reasons (see

Table 8.2).

The reasons given by 43.2% of CSC employees not living in the Kent-

Harrison area have nothing to do with the area per se. Soma employees (8%)

did not wish to be so close to work, and some (10.2%) were satisfied living

in their present community.' Reasons given by the remaining 25% included not

wishing to break ties with friends and community activies, spouse would need


54

to change job or at least travel further, and uncertainty about their

future with the Correctional Service of CanadaI (again, see Table 8.2).

Of those CSC employees not residing in Kent-Harrison, 2.3% are

definitely planning to move to the area while another 10.2% are at least

"thinking about" such a move. Of the remaining 87.5% not presently

considering such a move, 65.9% stated that they were definitely not planning

to relocate (see Table 8.3).

The reasons CSC staff gave indicate why some employees do not live

locally, but do not explain why the percentage of CSC employees living

outside the Kent-Harrison area is higher than the percentage of employees of

other major Kent-Harrison employers living outside the area. Part of the

difference might be attributed to the nature of prison work. As noted

earlier, 8% of non-resident CSC . employees did not wish to live close to work.

Most of these employees felt that living close to the prisons would increase

the possibility of meeting ex-of fenders and disgruntled community members.

Other parts of the CSC employee survey indicate, however, that two

additional factors should be considered.

One factor is the newness of the Kent institutions and thus the fact

that many of the prison employees working the Kent-Harrison area are still

not settled in their employment with the CSC. Indeed, our survey of CSC

employees indicates that "length of employment" might be a determinant in an

employee's decision to move to the Kent-Harrison area. A comparison of CSC

1Not surprisingly, non-resident CSC . employees are less certain about their future with the CSC than are resident CSC emplayees. Responses to questions about their future with the,CSC show that members of this group are less likely to see themselves reaching retirement with the CSC (see Table 8.5), would be less likely to enter the corrections field again if starting a career over (see Table 8.6), and are less likely to see "job security" as one of the aspects they like about the job (see Table 8.7). Additionally, this grou rated their feelings about the job more negatively (see Table 8.8).1


55

employees who live in the Kent-Harrison area with those who don't shows that

resident CSC employees ahve heen employed an average oe nearly two years

(22.8 months) longer in the Kent-Harrison area, and this group has been

employed with the CSC over two years (27.1 months) longer generally (see

Tables 8.4(a), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c)). We should expect, then, that the number

of employees moving to the Kent-Harrison area will increase to some extent

as the average "length of employment" for employees at Kent Institution

increases.

The other factor to be considered is migration patterns; i.e., previous

place of residence for CSC employees. For CSC employees living in the Kent-

Harrison area, the previous places of residence are essentially the saine as

for other Kent-Harrison residents (see Table 8.9). For CSC employees not

living in the Kent-Harrison area, the previous places of residence, however,

are very different. A high percentage of non-resident CSC employees previously

resided outside B.C., while a lower percentage previously resided in the

Central Fraser Valley which is near Kent-Harrison (again, see Table 8.9).

Because of this lower percentage (only 3.5% compared to 20.1% for KÉnt-

Harrison residents) we should not expect there to be a greater number of CSC

employees presently living in the Kent-Harrison area.


TOTAL 1043 (Average) 34. 2

56

TABLE 8.1

Major Kent-Harrison Employers: Percentage of Employees Living Local/y 1

Employer Number of Per Cent

Full-Time Employees Residing. Locally

CSC 423 27.7

Provincial Government 95 57.9

Manco Homes 250 40.0

Harrison Hot Springs Hotel 275 30.5 ••••■■18

'Figures provided by employers listed, March, 1981.


TOTAL 99.9* 88

711111111111i


TABLE 8.2: CSC Employee Survey, Item 6(b)

Reasons for Not Residing in the Kent-Harrison Area: CSC Employees

Per Cent

Lack of facilities 15.9 14

Isolation 10.2 9

Inadequate shopping facilities 4.5 4

Two or more of the reasons cited above 25.0 22

Too close to work 8.0 7

Weather 1.1 1

Like present community 10.2 9

Other 1

25.0 22 ••••••••11

1Other reasons include such responses as: not wishing to break present social ties, respondent's uncertainty about their future with CSC, and not wishing to move further away from spouse's job location.. .


58

TABLE 8.3: CSC Employee Survey, Item 6(a)

Plans to Move to Kent-Harrison Area: CSC Non-Resident Staff

Plan to Move Per Cent N

Definitely 2.3 2 ,

Strongly Considering It 1.1 1

Thinking About It 9.1 8

Not Considering It 21.6 19

Definitely Not 65.9 58

TOTAL 100.0 88

711•111111111111M


50

30

15

50

30

15

TABLE 8.4(a): CSC Employee Survey, Item 22

Length of Employment: Man Number of Months Employed With the CSC in the Kent-Harrison Area

Present Place Months Resident Months Non-Resident of Employment N CSC Staff Employed N CSC Staff Employed N

Kent ..... 66 26.43 16 21.98

Mountain 41 106.54 11 : 65.43

Elbow 16 . 228.00 1 56.80

TABLE 8.4(b). CSC Employee Survey, Item, 21

Length of Employment: Mean Number of Months Employed With the CSC Generally

Present Place Months Resident Months Non-Resident of Employment N CSC Staff Employed N. CSC Staff Employed N•

Kent 66 72.88 16 48.76

Mountain 41 122.54 11 81.20

Elbow 16 228.00 1 101.86

TABLE 8.4(c): CSC Employee Survey, Items, 21 and 22

Length'of Employment: Mean Number of Months Employed with CSC

CSC Resident CSC Non-Resident Employees Employees

Employed with CSC Generally 96.2 69.1

Employed in Kent-Harrison Area 65.7 42.9


60


CSC Employees Feelings About Staying With CSC Until Retirement

Resident CSC Non-Resident Response Scale Employees CSC Employees

1. Yes . . 48.3% 26.0%

2. Probably 24.1% 34.4%

3. Probably Not 13.8% . 11.5%

4. No 13.8% 14.6%

5. Don't Know 0.0% 13.5%

(29) (96)


CSC Employees Feelings Alùyut Entering the Corrections Field Again if Starting Career Over

Resident CSC Non-Resident Response.Scale Effiployees CSC &up/ogees

1. Yes • 31.0% 18.9%

2. Probably 20.7% 15.8%

3. Probably Not 17.2% 33.7%

4. No 24.1% 28.4%

5. Don't Know 6.9% 3.2%

'(29) (95)

(e)

(N)


6--I


What Do CSC Employees £ike Most About Their Jobs?

Resident CSC Non-Resident Most Liked:Think . Employees CSC Employees

It's challenging 4.0% 7.7%

• The pay-- 20.0% . 15.4 7.

The excitement 0.0% 1.1%

The variety 12.0% 7.7%

It's interesting 0.0% 6.6%

Working with people 8.0% 14.3%

Personal satisfaction 4.0% 3.3%

Job security 48.0% 35.2%

Nothing 4.0% 8.87.

(25) (91)


(N)

6-2


CSC Employees Feelings About Job

Resident CSC Non-Resident Level of Feeling Employees CSC Employees

Delighted 6.97. 1.1%

Pleased 6.9% 5.3%

Satisfied 41.4% 42.6%

Mixed Feelings , 27.6% 34.0%

Dissatisfied 10.3% 11.7%

Unhappy 3.4% 3.37.

Terrible 3.4% 2.2%

(29) (94) (N)


12.0 20.8 15.1

5.7 8.3 4.7

12.9

19.1

17.7

4:8

7.7

8.3

4.2

4.2

12.5

16.7 52.3

8.1

2.3

7.0

7.0

TABLE 8.9

Previous Place of Residence for Kent-Harrison Residents and CSC Employees 1

Kent-Harrison Resident CSC Non-Resident Previous Place of Residence Residents Employees CSC Employees

b3

Central Fraser Valley 20.1 25.0 3.5 .

Greater Vancouver

Vancouver

Upper Fraser Valley

BC Interior

Victoria & Northern BC

Outside BC

Outside Canada

• (N) (209) (24) (96)

Figures based on employee responses to item 3(b) on the CSC employees survey and on resident responses to item 4(b) of the Kent-Harrison community survey.


64

Term of Reference Number Nine

What affect has the prison system had on the school system?

Answer

Children of inmate families and CSC employee families together account

for less that 6%1 of all students enrolled at schools in the Kent-Harrison

area according to estimates by school officials. More specifically,

teachers and school administrators estimate there are between 12 and 20

students from inmate families and between 30 and 40 students from CSC

families attending school in the area.2

Community residents expressed some concern about children of inmate

families in the school system. Just over 20% of community residents

indicated they were at least somewhat concerned (see Table 9.1). The major

concern of 51.1% of these residents is that children of inmate families could

serve as a bad influence on other children. Another 12.8% of these residents

listed "harassment of other chidren" as a concern, and 10.6% could not

specify a particular concern. None of the concerns the remaining 25.5% noted

were offered in more than one or two instances (see Table 9.2).

Children in the school system form CSC families caused concern for 2.6%

of Kent-Harrison residents (see Table 9.1). The .types of concern were

essentially the same as those expressed about children of inmate families

(see Table 9.2).

1School District #76 (Kent-Harrison area) reported a 1980/81 en-rollment of 797 students.

2These estimates are based on information received from interviews with teachers and administrators from School Districts #76.


65

In July, 19.8(l e an Escape Notification System (ENS) based on an agreement -

between CSC and School District #76 (Agassiz-Harrison) became operative.3

Since this time there has been one escape from Mountain Institution

which tested the conditions of this agreement and during which, according , to

an interviewed School Board officials, the ENS procedures were effected

smoothly by both parties concerned.4

The CSC ENS policy in School District #76 is as follows:

When an escape has occurred from either of the above institutions, the necessary information will be relayed immediately to:

1) R.C.M.P (Agassiz Detachment) 2) Agassiz/Harrison School Board

A CSC staff member willbe detailed to McCaffery School, when school is in session or upon opening, during an escape. The officer will vacate when mutually agreed to by CSC and school officials.

3) C.N. train crews. 4) C.P. train crews. 5) RHQ (PAC) Duty Officer 6) Radio Station CHWK, Newsroom

NOTES: (a) Inmates declared U.A.L. from Kent/Mountain Institutions -

only the following are to be notified:

R.C.M.P. Agassiz Detachment School Board CSC RHQ (PAC)

CO During normal business hours responsibility to ensure the above is that of the A/W Security. After normal business hours responsibility for the above is that of the Institutional Duty Officer.

3ENS procedures were incorporated into Agassiz-Harriosn School District (#76) Policy and Procedures Manual June 9, 1980. A related set of procedures became CSC policy as of an internal memorandum dated July 17 e 1980.

40n September 15, 1980, an inmate escaped from Mountain Institution at 08:30 hr and was apprehended at 18:20 hr that same day.


4

I I

•1

66

The school board policy and procedures manual identifies the following

as steps to he taken upon notification of an escape from either Mountain or

Kent Institutions. 5

1. The Principal (or Vice-Principal) of each school in the district will be advised of the circumstances and directed to inform all of his teachers.

2. The Bus Supervisor will be advised of the circumstances and directed to inform all of his drivers.

3. If the escape takes place during hours that school is in session the Secretary-Treasurer (or his alternate) will proceed directly to McCaffrey School, ascertain the security of the students and staff and the posting of a Mountain Institution Guard.

• 4. A record of all notifications received from Mountain will be kept at the Administration Office.

Original discussions in the development of the notification system

iacluded a requirement for CSC to provide an audible alarm to alert the sur-

rounding community in the event of an escape. The following excerpt from an

internal CSC memorandum illustrates the problems surrounding the use of such

an alarm:

However, after discussing the idea and types of alarms available with the Wardens and A/W's Security at Kent and Mountain, and also represent-atives of the community including the School Board, the CAC's, elected officials and the ROMP, the consensus was that an audible alarm was undesireable having many disadvantages and providing no benefit.

The more obvious disadvantages and concerns included the following:

5Source: School District #76, Policy and Procedures Manual, Section

720.


67

11 such.an alarm would cause undue panic in the community.

2) the loudness of the alarm would limit the. effective range and too loud an alarm would be disturbing particularly during the late-or early hours.

3) a peculiar': alarm would be positive notification to the escapee when his absence was detected, how much lead time he has, drive him to cover, etc* It helps him not the public!

4) most alarms available would not be peculiar nor proprietary to Corrections, hence should it be duplicated by a local business or industry, consider the confusion or costs to change.

5) misunderstandings are inevitable when the alarm is not sounded, considering the "Escape Notification System" requires UAL in-mates to be reported to the School Board, or temporarily un-accounted for inmates within the institution.

6) a belated and unnecessary alarm would have an unsettling effect on inmates and staff which may upset normal institutional activities.

In conclusion, it was deciged there will be no alarm to alert the public in the event of an escape.

A locally celebrated and somewhat controversial case of prison impact on

the local school system is that of the McCaffery School closure which followed

an incident which included an April 27, 1980 escape from Mountain Institution

and a related murder in the community of Harrison Mills.

Available documentation indicates that this kindergarten school, some 2

kilometers distant from Mountàïn/Kent Institutions, was closed May 15, 1980,

due to public pressure emanating from the April 27, 1980 incident cited above.

(see exhibits 9.1 to 9.5)

6Internal CSC Memorandum, 2020-1, 1980 07 17. This memorandum continued:

Although it was decided alarms are undesireable and there is no need for an alarm to alert the public in the event of an escape, it was recognized that the


1

Although costs to the school board were minimal (Exhibit 9.2) the school

at Harrison Hot Springs had to compromise the use of its gymnasium and library

as a result of the relocation of McCaffery students.

CSC should hava thm capability to sound an alarm for operational needs in the. event of an escape.

The use of this alarm would be at the discretion of the Werdens, as stated in the Standing Orders, and - shall be limited in use to circumvent traffic in emergencies or for escapes during "hot pursuit" such as, when an inmate was seen eing over the fence, or when an inmate was seen and known to be in a particular area which may be far from the institution.

The alarm system to be used in these situations is basically the "Code-3-Bar" (siren and flashing lights) similar to that used by several institutions including Kent. The advantages of this type of siren is that they are controlled (limited) to law enforcement agencies and cannot be duplicated; they are readily available when installed in vehicles on-site for im-mediate use; they are cost effective as no major fund-ing or maintenance is required; they are mobile and can be deployed to remote locations in pursuit; they will not cause undue panic nor do they positively advise an escapee that he is being pursued.

The Warden at Mountain has indicated a "Code -3 -Bar" will be obtained for that institution.

Because the use of these alarms is limited to CSC needs, the existence and intended use need not be widely ad-vertised, however, the community officials, the CAC's, the School Board, and the RCMP have been advised for awareness purposes only. Although Sgt. Bradley of the RCMP recommended residents in the immediate proximity be advised of the ENS including the possible use of the vehicle siren, public notification of the vehicle alarm will be limited to-notification by CAC's if there are inquiries , or by CSC officials particularly the Wardens who may wish to advise citizens who have ex-pressed concern, and other citizens as escape situations warrant it.


4 fr9

There is however a considerahle amount of documentation which suggests

that the closure of McCaffery school was due more to factors pertaining to

the structural soundness of the building and the safety of continued teacher/

student utilization of the building (see Exhibits 9.6 to 9.8). This inform-

ation, together with indications of parental support for McCaffery School (see

Exhibit 9.9) serve to confuse the issues surrounding closure of McCaffery

School. Whether or not the McCaffery School closure was a direct result of

prison proximity or structural unsoundness remains unresolved to date.

Although present arrangements for CSC/School Board communications may

not be formalized to the satisfaction of both parties, the School Board appears

to be involved in communication with CSC officials to a higher degree than was

the case in the past. An interviewed member of the Agassiz-Harrison School

Board indicated that communication between the School Board. and CSC was im-

proving and that "information sharing" between the two organizations was be-

coming more easily accomplished.

An indication that this is so was manifested during a November 7 incident

which saw local RCMP and local federal correctional personnel combine in a man-

hunt for escaped United States prisoners in the Agassiz-Harrison area. During

this incident, at the request of the Agassiz-Harrison School Board, armed

MOuntàin Prison Security personnel accompanied afternoon school bus drivers

as students were transported home.


.s

11 1

1 I I

TABLE 9.1: Kent-Harrison Community Survey, Items 243(a) and 244(a)

Kent-Harrison Resident Opinion About Prison Workers' and Inmates' Children in Local Schools

Opinion About Opinion Inmates' Children

Very Concerned 3.0%

Somewhat Concerned 17.3%

Not Very Concerned 27.3%

Not at All'Concerned 48.5%

Don't Know 3.9%

Opinion About Prison Workers' Children

o.4%

2.2% •

14.7%

81.9%

0.9%

,(231) (232)

TABLE 9.2: Kent-Harrison Community Survey, Items 243(b) and 244(b)

Kent-Harrison Resident Major Concern About Prison Workers' and Inmates' Children in Local Schools

(N)

Major Concern

Bad Influence

Harassment of Other Children

Other

Nothing

Concern About Concern About Inmates' Children Prison Workers' Children

27.8%

••■■■••••••

50.0%

10.6%

51.1%

12.8%

25.5%

22.2%

(47) (18) (N)


-7110 CHEAM STREET P0 BOX 69

AGASSIZ. B C 71 VOM 1A0

TELEPHONE: 796-2225

G A. R. Fonoc •IICR AAAAA

Ms. J. I. CAM:BELL DISTRICT *ORSINI ITS ASSI

The Solicitor General, Parliament Buildings, Ottawà, Ontario. g, 1980.05.08

/I (.

É SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 76 AGASSIZ-HARRISON BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES

11 EXHIBIT

9.1

Dear Sir:

In view of the recent escape 'on April 27, 1980 which culminated in the violent death of a local citizen on April 28, 1980 the Board of School Trustees is very concerned over the lack of responsibility shown by Agassiz Mountain Prison Officials. Their inability to furnish this area with an adequate amount of protection has caused this Board to consider re-locating the McCaffrey Elementary School in order to insure the safety of • our students and teachers. The promise from Prison Officials to provide "Special Attention" to this school in the event of an escape has never been fulfilled. The need for this "Special Attention" was recognized and fully discussed at a meeting April 9, 1979 but never acted upon.

This isolated school, for your information, is located approximately 2 kilometers from the prison fence and houses approxi-mately 60 kindergarten students and two female teachers. Can you imagine the explosive situation that Would develop should a prisoner decide to use hostages to make good his escape!

In this School Board's view the Federal Government has two options:

1. To supply this District with two classrooms at Kent Elementary; School which is in the heart of th à- community.

OR

May 28, 1980 - Copy to Mr. R. Wiebe - /2

RDG(PAC)

VUM 1AU TELEPHONE: 796-222e

J. I. CAMPBELL 13111TAICT ADMINIOTRATIVIC 72

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 76 AGASSIZ-HARRISON BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES

The Solicitor General, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario.

-2 -

2. To place a full-time guard at the McCaffrey School from 8:30 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Monday through Fridaïuntil such time as the citizens of this Community feel the prisons you have located here are no longer a threat to the safety of our young children.

I hope your commitment in regard to our needs will be more reliable than that given by the persons you have placed in charge of local prisons.

Yours truly,

V.D. Chairman, Board of School Trustees

VDR/jc

c. Mr. A.B. Patterson, MLA Mr. A. Williams, Attorney-General Mr. H. Schroeder, MP Mr. B. Smith, Minister of Education

-Mr. J. Murphy, Regional Director General Mayer M. Minn Mayor J. Allen The Vancouver Sun The Prdvince

•■•

•7;4

1 Ex'Ir

1

.1 1

1

1

1 el

1

EXHIBIT 9 . 3

Sçh .00âl, Board moves 7.1 indergarten tij Village

Followineelastzr,M9e.hôni. Board, meetinetfesiees have -deCided that McCaffrey kindergàrten beclused

• down for the remainder of this school ' tenu. - •

-The following statement was releas-ed'TtiesdaY. by the Board office. . , "Due to the proximity of the Mc-Caffrey School to the Agassiz Moun-

- tain Prison and until such time as the Board of School Trustees is satisfied that suitable arrangements are made to ensure the safety of the pupils at the McCaffrey .School, the Trustees have decided to 're-locate these kindergar-ten pupils effective immediately. The.

pupils in Mrs. Key's two classes Will be taught in the Harrison Hot-Springs.

School libraiy and Mrs. Visser and her pupils will have their ; morning :lesson - in the Harrison.. Het Springs 'school. gymnasitun. -- Specific, details WilV be communicated to parents through. the

• • school principal. The Board expects I thé arrangements to continue for the .!

• balance of theschool year and will •. review the situation before sChool

re-opens in September.." . Muçh of the contents of McCaffrey -J

• were moved to. the,.Harrisoir. School •- Wednesdaiand the children will be in ,e ,z..their new location today (Thursday).

73

• . • • . . .

- Bad' rd éves:: you ne Ou. • •.‘

away frôffis . . . . .

Special to The Stm s " ' À >Ilk rally held lait week - • AGASSIZ — Rather. than Wait for int.:. lax security - at. the priSon. drew Over,4002. • proved security at Mountain . Prison; the. . .area residents -andledAd a yisitte .

Agassiz-Harrison school board has decided medium-security - instittnion to transfer children from . McCaffrey kind. . General Robert Kaplan;: Vihe•tumouneett - ,;

: ergarten, tw,o kilometres of open fields .. SundaY a $1.1 million Spending prograinto- , from the prison, to Harrison *elementary boost security. •-•.:e• .

school, eight kilometres away: Forde said te has '‘beett instriteted • ' 'write today .te

: Scheel district secretary-treaSurer *on .beinfe emerge- .. bifeitting Forde said Tuesday the 60-children one. tion. taken and. th'e hope that theschool can

• their teachers will be transferred Thin:a- b e re.epeeed septemb,er. -

• ."Y V!! qie ceher "I haven't tompoSed it yetisitt it Willise • Fie said .the schok board expects they ..."à1 those Huge' he.said toclaY..• ..E•A will attend classes there until the end of the ;". Behind the actien of the hoard ià écincern -sehook year in Jutte,and return to a re- ,-',:otparentsi opened McCaffrey School in September:, were getting some calls from perm&

&We re-opening McCaffrey, thebokril ..ents who didn't think we were, doing" :will "reconsider its position inlight whatinough," said Forge ' • •-• sr , iàii; 6 !1-

.

bas happene4 to sectuity at . the leis= • "We have not seen any signs of changes„H the meantime," he Said. : security and the board feelsit has to take: •.- - Apprehension haS been high in the area ',eaten at this time.M. rel.?:1 Er4 'since Harrison Milli•postmaster Malcolm said costs of the transfer .woyld,

• Nelson, 43, was gabbed to death April 28. A :minitnal, involiring onlY the moving ~î • Mountain Prison escaper bu been charged Some equipment from.tweelaatrooms"ine&

with second-degree murder in. coimectIon:4-; a "minor detour'', for thq.bus which,* r, with the death. • •• ready picks up the kindergarten children -.

*.

3r4 . ïSi 0 11.

dl

I

1

gbui

sfs

74

EXHIBIT 9.4

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE

BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES (AGASSIZ-HARRISON)

Monday, May 12, 1980

Moved by Mr. Freeman, seconded by Mr. Williams the minutes of the regular meeting April 28, 1980 be adopted as circulated. CARRIED.

The chairman welcomed Sgt. Bradley of the local R.C.M.P. and invited him to address the Board. Sgt. Bradley outlined the agreement that was made in April of 1979 with the prison officials relative to the procedure that would be followed in the event of an escape from Mountain Prison and =further elaborated on the recent incident that exposed the short comings of the exiating arrangement. Sgt. Bradley advised the meeting that it has now been established that the duty officer at Mountain Prison, in the event of an escape or a prisoner at large, will inform the school district by either contacting the secretary-treasurer or his alternate. A letter to this effect will be sent to the prison. Sgt. Bradley was thanked for his remarks and left the meeting.

Mr. Peter Cooper of Harrison Hot Springs, following introduction by the chairman, spoke to the meeting requesting the immediate closure of the McCaffrey Elementary School. Mr. Cooper pointed out the vulnerability of this school and the recent publicity that has made everyone (including potential escapees) aware Mrs. Key is alone with her kindergarten class each afternoon. Mr. Cooper in closing his remarks called upon the Board to re-locate these students as soon as possible.

Following a brief discussion it was moved by Mrs. Hallam seconded by Mr. Freeman that the Board of School Trustees agree in principle with the concern that the kindergarten students at McCaffrey school should be moved to a safer location in the shcool district as soon as possible and alternate classrooms will be sought immediately. CARRIED.

iI

75

Ii 1 EXHIBIT

9.5 BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 76 (AGASSIZ -HARRISON)

May 26, 1980

Follawing some discussion on the status of McCaffrey School it was moved by Mrs. Hallam seconded Mr. Freeman that McCaffrey School will remain closed for the balance of this school year and the kindergarten students will remain in Harrison Hot Springs Elementary School. CARRIED.

There being no further business at hand the meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. on a motion from Mr. Freeman.

EXHIBIT 9.6

McCAFFREY SCHOOL GETS CHECK UP

McCaffrey School will be getting a complete check while it is closed to see just what has to be done to the building to put it back in good condition.

Dry rot has been observed at various locations and the shcool board wants to know how much money will be required to repair the damage.

If costs prove to be too high, other accommodation may be sought for students next September.

•1

.1

EXHIBIT 9.7

4

SI II

76

McCaffrey School unsafe

.11

EXHIBIT 9 . 8

1

1

•1

1

structural columns on the east wall were completely rotted through.

McCaffrey School was built in 1952. For the first 15 years of its existence, about 2 feet of water sat in the crawl space. It wasn't until a sump pump was installed that the school really dried out This long, eriod of constant

elikkriieleitteffia deterioration of the building.

Graham is expected to submit cost estimates for repairs to the school later this week. If these costs are too high, McCaffrey may be closed down. how-ever by closing the school, this district will lose $37,000 in grants from the provincial government.

School Board members are awaiting a final report from G.R. Graham, architect, on McCaffrey School before making a decision on a course of action.

in his preliminary report . Graham stated that in his opinion, the building

no longer structurallt safe,. iffletitteenaiireqe-tieetilpte

• for any purl:Rise tinleSs 'adequate structural support to the roof system has been provided.

On his investigation, it was discov-ered there was a considerable amount of rot present in the foundation plates to the exterior walls and in addition, the bottom portion of at least three

.• -Dry rot at the co. re .

.

• .. . ...

TheÂga 0 00l Board few and recognizing the value of the annotmeectfu-wee sz -or-her-will - fal—se niiniki-fse:, ,the.... apply • to.7:3frictoria=-Iorapproximately pa/-1-z., -._.t,,1,...sr.as to_carnOiifra e heir $50,000- tcr renovate McCaffrey school 'true inientioronfflM, . . ,

sônie -- -time - That McCaffrey needed -repairs. The entire.. west wall , and portiOns-ofthe„çeiling,- over thé wash-roomeWdr-e damaged by dry rot. They knew,:_it could, be re,novated but they hoped to convince Victoria to build two new.,Cra-Ssrooms in Harrison at a cost of

and - get -it- ready for re-opening in September. At .no time did the rrnstee refen*-4WoriginaL--réaibns given. for- die closure of- the kindergar-ten M on --- ay 15. ,.....8, -

Have-they.-forgotten_ the issue that • they manufactured a month and e half agoJnorder' to-force, anywhere„from. $125,0007 to $150,000 When ., the .board over - reaCted and (three times the amount required _to transferred 60 children.and two teach- renovate•the eXisting facility). _ ers to Harrison Hot Springs without - ..42 :ThaLeampteand-the children-lvere costsniting parents or teachère8fitie-,:lised_ aeiribuns by a board playing dents, they were_ just latching onto a -- - political games.-- • _ golden opportunity. The prison issue Whileièrare.renovatinithe school became.,:a-veryi. convenient„ argument - -ever the summeeperhaps: the board for closing a school the trustees: tied . should be looking-atmending some of been -detemained!. -.tre., phase 'out all fheir_own attitudes tow.ards the public. along _ • YOu,cart fool some of the , people all of

, .

Bowing to: public pressure . from a the time.»

1

EXHIBIT 9.9

1

14 77

McCaffrey has unique value Editor, The Advance -

McCaffrey_ .,..Elementary is a two classroorn:s:;_eitooFin -Wthree to four acre setikreWiticIto-SerieS, theneeds of

T-ehildree-etiterjnetizesIe;o1- system. Theillyilie'Property. was used to beitteadvantage when Grades l and 2 Were in attendance.

Its unique value has been overlook-ed;.. -On a number of occasioneft.there have beèn discussions to phase it out—to hold the propertylor-disposal. It came ta à head on the.preterbf the

Lerheic11ie pres- -; sti re came -from iefinceqa4a-.1autr-those exerting j.zessure- --seemed ta ,forget

that Mrs.' Scarff. texight at thekhaol'', for eight-. 9.earewithout anyone beine

‘;:trécincerned. As indicated by Architect Graham,

todays cost of - building- etien, two classrooms is extremely high. Fortu-nately, several parents spoke up for their children and told the school board in no uncertain terms they liked McCaffrey and wanted it re-opened for

éir and other children!s- use. The , School- Board voted to repair

McCaffrey School. Children will con-tinue to enjoy an uncrowded start in

iSChoal."-- _Some-. of - uLthialc that is important.

Ted Dunn

1 SI

1 1

•1 1

-1 1

7-8

Term of Reference Number Ten

What is the impact of the correctional institutions on property values

and what effect have they had on people choosing whether or not to live in the

area?

Answer

According to the local real estate agents, the institutions have not

negatively affected real estate prices in the Kent-Harrison area. Among

agents surveyed, only one could recall an instance where an offer to purchase

real estate in the area was withdrawn specifically because the potential buyer

did not like the institutions. 1 Other information obtained from real estate

agents shows that since 1978 the number of residential units soldhas increased

by, 70.83% and the average selling price per unit has risen by 40% (see Table

10.1).

Residents of Kent-Harrison appear to be split in their opinions about the

effect the institutions have had on real estate prices. While 32.1% of the

residents feel the institutions are responsible for an increase in property

values, 27.1% feel the institutions have caused prices to drop (see Tables

10.2(a) and 10.2(b)). Of those respondents who felt that the prisons had

affected real estate prices, 65.1% said this was a "bad thing," 21.7% said it

was a "good thing," 1.6% felt it was "neither good nor bad," while 11.6% said

they "don't care." The tendency to view the penitentiaries' effect on real

estate prices as a "bad thing" appears to be associated more strongly with a

perceiyed decrease in property values (see Tables 10.3(a) and 10.3(b)).

1 Information obtained through personal interviews with agents at real estate firms in Kent-Harrison.


7-9

TABLE 10.1

Changes in Real Estate Sales and Prices in Kent-Rarrison Area (1978-1980) 1

.% Change 1978 1979 1980 1978-1980

Number of Residential Units Conveyed

Total Value of Residential Units Conveyed

Average Sale Price per Unit Conveyed

22 24 39 70.83%

$931,100 $1,038,575 $2,310,190 148.11 7.

$42,323 $43,274 $59,236 39.96%

•

17igure based on information received from an employee of Kent-Rarrison's major real estate firm.

Fraser Valley College Research Grkpup

■1111... ■••■■

TOTAL 70 59 1292

=MI

80

TABLE 10.2(a)

Perceived Effect Of Prisons on Local Real Estate Prices: Kent-Harrison Residents'

Direction of Effect2

Degree of Effect Increase Decrease Total

Large 17 11 28

Moderate 28 30 58

Small 19 • 17 36

Very Small 6 1. 7

'Figures based on residents' responses to items # of the Kent-Harrison Survey.

2A further 89 respondents felt that the presence of prisons had caused neither an increase nor a decrease in real estate values. Thus the total of respondents in this case is, in fact, N = 218.


TABLE 10 . 2 (b )

Perceived Effect of Prisons on Local Real Estate Prices: Kent-Harrison Residents (14 = 218) 1

Direction of Effect

Neither Increase Degree of Effect Increase Decrease nor Decrease Total %

Large 7.8% 5.0% 12.8

Moderate 12.8% 13.8% ----- 26.6

Small 8.7% 7.8% ----- 16.5

Very Small 2.8% 0.5% ----- 3.3

No Effect ----- ----- 40.8% 40.8

TOTAL 32.1% 27.1% 40.8% 100.0

1Percentage figures based on responses to items # of the Kent-Harrison Survey.


«MO MO 3.3%

MI.M.IM MO Moan.

mM1 ■•••••••

9.1% 11

10.0% 30

5.9% 17

1

90.9%

86.7%

94.1%

100.0%

Large

Moderate

Small

Very Small

4

82

TABLE 10. 3 (a) 1

Kent-Harrison Resident Opinions on Prison-Caused Rise in Real Estate Prices

Opinion on Perceived Increase

A Good A Bad Neither Good Don't Degree of Effect Thing Thing nor Bad Care N -

Large 41.2% 35.3% 5.9% 17.6% 17

Moderate 35.7% 53.6% 10.7% 28

Small 42.1% 47.4% 5.3% 5.3% 19

Very Small 33.3% 16.7% 50.0% 6 ••■•■••■•

TOTAL 38.6% 44.3% 2.8% 14.3% 70

=IC= = =I=

1 TABLE 10.3(b)

Kent-Harrison Resident Opinions on Prison-Caused Decrease in Real Estate Prices

Opinon on Perceived Increase

A Good A Bad Neither Good Don't Degree of Effect ,Thing Thing nor Bad Care N

TOTAL 1.7% 89.8% 8.5% 59

MISMOIMMC =Iiii=11=11:1 ====11111:1

1Figures based °Iv:responses to items # of the Kent-Harrison Survey. A further 89 respondents felt that prisons had caused neither an increase nor a decrease in real estate prices and that this was neither a good nor a bad thing.


à

83

Term of Reference NUmber Eleven

What impact has there been on attracting new business to the community?

Answer

The results of the business survey show that many existing businesses

have increased their annual sale volumes as a result of the institutions.

Indeed, 48% of all businesses surveyed reported an increase in sales volume

due to the presence of the institutions. Conversely, only 0.8% of the

businesses reported a drup in sales volume felt to be attributable to the

presence of institutions in the area (see Table 11.1).1

Also, the number of business licences issues each year since 1976 has

increased in Harrison Hot Springs by 36.1% and in Kent by 12.7% (see Table

11.2).

1Two businesses reported an increase in vandalism which was felt to be

a consequence of the presence of the institutions in the area.


4

1 TABLE 11.1: Kent-Barrison Business Survey

Kant-Harrison Business.Community Opinions of Impact of Institutions on Annual Sales Volume .

1. Business reports increase in average annual sales as a result of direct or indirect sales to either 48.0% 39 correctional institutions or CSC staff

84

2. Business reports no increase in average annual sales as a result of direct or indirect sales to correctional institutions, CSC staff, or other regular client ele.

3. Business reports a decrease in average annual sales due to increased competition incurred within the region as a result of the correctional facilities within the area

TOTAL

51.2% 42

0.8% 1.

100.0% 82


1

1

1

85

TABLE 11.2

Business Licences Issues '(May, 1976 to May, 1980) 1

% Change Area Licence Issued 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1976-1980

Kent 150 142 141 150 169 12.7%

Harrison Hot Springs 36 41 44 48 49 36.1%

Figures obtained from Municipal Records at the District of Kent and the Village Municipality of Harrison Hot Springs.

Fraser' Valley College Research Group

86

Term of Reference Number Twelve

What is the impact of the institutions on the tourist industry?

Answer

Of business operations in service/tourism, none reported that their

business had been negatively affected by the presence of the institutions in

the area. However, 20% of these businesses did report increased sales volume

and linked this increase to the institutions (e.g., staff eating in

restaurants) (see Table 12.1).


TABLE 12.1: Kent-Harrison Business Survey

Kent-Harrison Service-Tourism Business Opinions of Impact of Institutions on Annual, Sales Volume

1. Business reports an increase in average annual sales as a result of direct or indirect sales to either institutions or CSC staff

2. Business reports no increase in average annual sales as a result of institutions or CSC staff

3. Business reports a decrease in average annual sales due to presence of institutions

20.0% 4

80.0% 16

0.0% 0

TOTAL -100.0% 20


88

Term of Reference Number Thirteen

What is the number of inmate families who have moved to the area to be

close to the inmate concerned; what is the number of inmate families who

lived in the area prior to the inmate's Incarceration; and what are the costs

to the community in delivering services to them?

Answer

While the exact number of inmate families who have moved to the Kent-

Harrison area specifically to be close to the inmate concerned was not

determined, figures the CSC made available indicate that the total is eleven

at most. Specifically, visiting records show that only one inmate at Kent,

one at Elbow Lake, and sixteen inmates at Mountain receive regular visits from '

people residing in the Kent-Harrison area. Of these eighteen, only eleven

receive visits fram family members living in the area (see Table 13.1).

There is no reason to believe that the cost to the community in

delivering services to families of inmates is any more or less than the cost

of delivering services to any other family within the community.1 In any

avent, since the number of families involved is so few, the economic impact

of this group on the Kent-Harrison area can be described as being of no

measurable consequence.

A number of Kent:-Harrison residents, however, hold a negative view of

inmate families moving into the area. Responding to an open-ended question

about what types of undesirables they felt were attracted to the Kent-Harrison

1Even if it was assumed that all or a majority of the families involved were receiving social assistance, the formula used in the province of BC to détermine the• specific monetary contribution due from each community to support health and welfare service costs depends ontotal population rather than the number of people actually receiving social assistance in each community. Therefore, the Kent-Harrison area would not be burdened with any extra costs.


89

area, 14.1% of the area's residents listed "relatives of inmates" and

another 8.3% listed "low-income families" (see Table 13.2).2 Additionally,

26.3% indicatàd they would feel less secure with inmate families moving into

the area. 3

2Interestingly, an even greater number of CSC staff hold a negative view of inmate families. Responding to an open-ended question about what types of undesirables they felt were attracted to the Kent-Harrison area, 36% of staff noted "relatives of inmates" and an additional 9.6% listed "led-income families" (see Table 13.2).

3This figure is based on resident responses to item #236(f) of the Kent-Harrison Community Survey.


TABLE 13.1

Inmate Visitors1

Elbow . Statistics Compared Kent Mountain Lake Total

Average Institutional Population : 150 170 43 363

Number of Inmates Receiving Regular Visits2

20 63 17 100

Number of Inmates Receiving Visits from 1 16 1 18 Community Residents

Number of Inmates Visited. by:

a) Wife 1 - 1 b) Wife and Children 1 7 - 8 ' c) Parents/Siblings 2 - 2 d) Female Friend - 3 - 3 e) Male Friend - 1 1 f) Male and Female Friends - 1 1 2 g) Business Associates - 1 1

Total Number of Visitors from Community 2 37 2 41

Total Number of Adult Visitors from 1 20 2 23 Community

Total Number of Visitors to Instituion in January, 1981

545 930 51 1526

1Figures are based on information obtained from "visits and correspondence" records at Kent, Mountain, aad Elbow Lake Institutions.

2"Regular" meaning at least once every two weeks.


Kent-Harrison Residents

7.0%

14.1%

8.3%

4.6%

7.9%

58.1%

CSC Staff

8.0%

36.0%

9.6%

0.8%

7.2%

38.4%

Type of Undesirable Attracted

Criminal Associates

Relatives of Inmates

Low-Income Families

Transients

Others

No Undeiirables

I TABtE 13.2

Resident and CSC Staff Perceptions of the Types of Undesirables Attracted to the Areal

TOTAL 100.0 7. 100.0%

(11) (241) (125)

1Figures are based on responses to item 242 of the Kent-Harrison community survey and item 55 of the CSC employee survey.


I

1 el I •1

4

Term of Reference Number Fourteen

Has there been any significant impact on the rate of crime in the

community, and what has been the number of crimes known to have been committed

by inmates of. the federal institutions?

Answer

The crime rate for the Kent-Harrison area is substantially higher than

the average for a BC community, but there is no reason to believe this higher

rate sould be attributed to the presence of institutions in the area.1

Indeed, information concerning the unlawful absence of inmates from

institutions in the Kent-Harrison area shows that crimes committed by inmates

locally are very rare events.2 Specifically, an analysis of information on

thOse inmates who were declared "unlawfully at large" (UAL) at any time during

the three-year period from January 1, 178, to December 1, 1980, shows that

while 62 inmates were declared unlawfully at large, only two committed

offences in the Kent-Harrison area while at large (see Table 14.1 and 14.2).

For the most part, inmates declared UAL did not commit off ences anywhere

1In 1979 the( average crime rate for. a BC community with a population of 5700 people or more was 118.88 crimes per 1000 population. IntheKent-Harrison area in 1979 the crime rate was 161.96 per 1000 population and in 1980 the rate rose to 181 per 1000 population. The crime rate for Kent-Harrison, however, remains relatively unchanged from 1976 when the rate was 174 per 1000 population. (Source: Criminal Justice Monthly Reports, BC Police Commission)

2On a cautionary note, it must be kept in mind that our information

concerning the activity of inmates while at large is limited. For example, there may have been charges laid at some time well after the inmate was apprehended, but this information would not necessarily be contained in reports available for this examination. Thus, the actual number of offences committed by inmates declared UAL might be higher than shown here. All figures used here are based on written reports and files made available by the Correctional Service of Canada. 'Information on UALs was verified by information made available by the RCMP (Agassiz detachment).


93

within a hundred kilometers of the area, nor were they likely ta be

apprehended within a hundred kilometers of the Kent-Harrison area (see

Table 14.2). 3

Although the possibility of an offence being committed in Kent-Harrison

by an inmate from an of the institutions in the area is not very likely,

available information concerning the"characteristics of UAL inmates suggests

steps could be taken to reduce the possibility even further. When compared

to offender populations generally, inmates declared UAL are clearly an

identifiable group in terms of age, offence type, sentence length, time

served since admission, previous offences, and length of criminal history.

In short, they can be described as young but violent career criminals who

have histories of escape and very little time . served on a long sentence (see

Table 14•3)• 4 It would seem, then, that an escape risk scale could be

3Virtually all UAL inmates apprehended within one hundred kilometers of the Kent-Harrison area are escapees (as opposed to walkaways, etc.) from Mountain Institition. Interestingly, half of the UALs from Elbow Lake are apprehended outside the province of BC.

4Generally speaking, UAL inmates differ from other inmates in that they are more likely to have a record of violence. Indeed, every offender (100%) declared UAL at Mountain had a record of violence, and 71% of UALS from Elbow Lake had a record of violence. With regard to specific offences, again there are differences between UAL inmates and other inmates. For example, 47% of UALs at Mountain were under sentence for robbery, yet only 6% of Mountain's inmate population was under sentence for this offence. Similarly, 34% of UALs at Elbow Lake were serving a sentence for robbery, while only 21% of the total inmate population generally were under sentence for this offence.

UAL inmates differ from other inmates in terms of the amount of time they have spent in prison for their present offence. Thus, while the average length of time served for all inmates at Mountain and Elbow Lake Institutions is five years, the average length of time served for UALs is only three years. For UALs at Mountain Institution, the amount of time served represents only 26% of their sentences, as compared to an average of 42% for all inmates generally at Mountain. For UALs at Elbow Lake, the amount of time served represents 38% of their sentences, while the percentage for all inmates generally at that institution is 40%. While comparisons to inmate populations generally were not made regarding •

criminal histories, it is noteworthy that inmates declared UAL are, quite clearly, career criminals. Indeed, UALs from Mountain average nine previous convictions each and have records spanning an average of 12 years. Similarly, UALs from Elbow Lake each average 11 previous convictions and


9-4

devised which would help classification officials more easily identify those

inmates who require higher security levels.5

4Continued. have records spanning an average of 14 years. Finally, inmates declared UAL generally have histories of being UAL. Of the UALS at Mountain, 80% have been unlawfully at large previously, and this percent rists to 87 if convictions for "failing to appear" and "skipping bail" are included. At Elbow Lake the percentages are 63 and 78 respectively. The average number of previous UALs (including skipping bail) for each inmate declared UAL is two.

5This suggestion is not intended as a criticism of present classification procedure. The facts generally and particularly the fact that there are significant differences between Mountain and Elbow Lake Institutioils in terms of "offending while at large" clearly indicates that classification officials are doing a commendable job.


«UMW'S,

NOT

OPEN

1

7 .1■0

9 Mg*

.11/0/Le

37 21 4

7 19 38

5

1 2

3 3 16

2 6 8

19

50

136

TOTAL 1979

Attempted Escape,

Escape .

Escape from Escort

Walkaway

Fail to Return fram TA

TOTAL 1978

TOTAL 1978-1980

9-5

TABLE 14.1

UALs: 1978-19801

Type of UAL Kent Mountain Elbow Lake Region

Attempted Escape 2 •-• - 5

Escape - 2 - 13

Escape from Escort 2 2 3 13

Walkaway - ...... 5 7

Fail to Return from TA - 3 1 10

- — — — TOTAL 1980 4 7 9 - 48

Attempted Escape - J. - 1

Escape - 4 - 10

Escape fram Escort - 1 .2 7

Walkaway - - 15 15

Fail to Return from TA - 1 - 2 5

9111•1111:

1All figures are based an written reports and fileé made available by the Correctional Service of Canada. The information was verified with

• information made evailable by the RCMP.


70% 0%

0%

7% 23%

Place of Apprehension (14 cases) (27 cases)

Mean number of days at large (excludes still at large) 29 106

96

TABLE 14,2

Offending While at Large

UALs: 1g78-19801

Mountain Elbow Lake

(14 cases) (30 cases) Offences Committed at Large

% of UALs not committing offences 57% % of UALs committing offences in Kent-Harrison area 14% % of UALs committing off ences within 100 km, but out-side Kent-Harrison area 0% % of UALs committing offences within province, but outside 100 km 29% % of UALs committing offences outside province 0%

% not apprehended (turned self in) 0% 19% % apprehended within Kent-Harrison area 43% 0% % apprehended within 100 km, but outside Kent- Harrison area 0% 4% % apprehended within province, but outside 100 km 50% 33% % apprehended outside province 7% 44%

Length of Time at Large (17 cases) (34 cases)

% less than/equal to one day 29% 6% % more than one day, less than/equal to one week 29% 9% % more than one week, less than/equal to two weeks 12% 15% % more than two weeks, less than/equal to two months 12% 50% % more than two months, less than/equal to six months 18% 20% % more than six months 0% 18% % still at large

1Information was not available on all cases. The number of cases for which information was available is indicated on the table. All figures are based on written reports and files made .available by the Correctional Service of Canada. The information was verified with information made available by the RCMP.


78(5) 87 (5)

9.7

TABLE 14.3

Characteristics of UAL Tom tes 1

Mountain Mountain Elbow Lake. Elbow Lake Region Characteristics Pop. UAIs ., Pop. . UALs . Pop..

Age:

Average age 39 28 39 33 34 % Under Age 30 30 56 (3) 17 53 40 2 Under Age 35 45 94 (3) 37 72 61

Sentence Length:

Average Years 12 11 (2) 12 9 10

Time Served:

Average years 5 3 5 3 3.5 % of Total Sentences 42 26 (3) 40 38 34

Present Major Offence: .

. . % Robbery . 6 47 2) 21 34 18 Z Drugs 5 • 7 (2) 40 22 20 28es 40 13 (2) 0 0 11

Criminal Record:

% Record of Violence 100 (2) 71 (2) # Previous Convictions 3 9 (4) 11 (8) Length of History (Tts) 12 (9) 14 (12) % Record of Escape 80 (5) 63 (5) % Record of Escape

including ETA/SS # Previous Escapes 2 (5) 2 (5)

amr EXCLUDED. 4 •

1Source: As per Tables 14.1 and 14.2. Miesing cases are in parentheses O. All figures rounded to nearest whole number.

2Using a CEC memo "Population Profile" dated March 2, 1981, sentences of "20+" were treated as "20 years" and sentences of "life" and "preventive detention" were treated as being "25 years."

3Aa per above, sentences of "10+" were treated as "12 years."

4The two attempted escapes from Kent have yet to be decided by the courts, thus it would net be appropriate co note these cases hare. The escapes from escort from Rent involved the same inmate...an offender CdiCe convicted of robbery...who had served approximately three years of an eight-year sentence.


98

Term of Reference Number Fifteen

Has the crime rate placed an extra load on the local RCMP with the

resulting loss of protection by residents of the community?

Answer

The prisons in the Kent-Harrison area have had a direct impact on

policing services available to the residents of the community, and there is

some indication of an indirect impact as well.

"Direct impact" refers to police manpower and resources the community

detachment requires to address matters directly involving the institutions.

This includes investigations into incidents at the institutions, review and

recording Of correspondence relating to temporary absences and parole

releases, patrolling around the institutions, assisting other detachments by

taking statements from inmates in the institutions, and monitoring the

activities of offenders on temporary absence. Records obtained from the

Agassiz ROMP show that in 1980 the detachment spent a total of 845 man-hours

on such matters. 1 This does not include an additional 647 man-hours the

Serious Crime Squad (Vancouver) spent investigating cases from the prison.

Nor does it include an»estimated 97.5 man-hours detachment members and

clerical staff spent reviewing and recording correspondence specifically

related to temporary absences, transfers, and paroles.

"Indirect impact" refers to police manpower and resources required to

address matters which arise as an indirect result of the institutions. This

1Agassiz RCMP keeps a separate record of all hours members of the

detachment spend on matters directly related to the prisons. Members feel the record underéstimates somewhat the hours as members do not always record every incident of time spent. For instance, time spent monitoring inmates on temporary absence is never recorded.


99

includes traffic flow, problems stemming from visitors and staff of the

institutions, and citizen complaints and calls for assistance which stem from

citizen concerns about the prison. It is virtually impossible to determine

the exact number of man-hours spent on these matters, yet there is no doubt

that some police manpower and resources are used. There is some indication,

for example, that the Agassiz RCMP get more calls for assistance than they

would if the prison were not in the area. This becomes clear when survey

results from Hope and Kent-Harrison are compared.

Survey results showed that the percentage of people in both Kent-Harrison

and Hope who have "called the police in the last 12 months" was very nearly

the same (see Table 15.1). Consistent with this were results which showed

that the percentage of people in both communities who knew (or at least

thought they knew) the correct telephone number for the police was also ver3i

nearly the same (see Table 15.1). We would have expected, however, the

percentages in Kent-Harrison to be substantially lower since that area has a

substantially lower official crime rate2 and a similar percentage of Kent-

Harrison residents reported being the victims of theft, assault, or robbery,

the victim of personal or neighbourhood vandalism, arrested or ticketed (see

Table 15.2). Thus, it would seem that many Kent-Harrison residents are

contacting the police for reasons other than their actually being a victim of

crime. As is pointed out in the response to "term of reference number

sixteen", one reason appears to be resident fear of crime.

2Figures obtained from the

rate in 1980 for the Hope area population and (835/4600 pop.) Harrison area. The difference

BC Police Commission show that the crime was (1371/5460 pop.) 251 per 1000 181 per 1000 population for the Kent-is 70 per 1000 population.

Fraser, Valley College Research Group

100

Considering both direct and indirect impacts, it seems reasonable to

argue that at least one extra police officer (one man-year) is needed in the

Kent-Harrison area to meet the demands the prisons place on the detachment. 3

Given an additional officer for this purpose and using as a measure the 1980

crime rate and average caseload police officers elsewhere in BC handle, the

Agassiz detachment should be made up of 15 officers.4

This is six more than

were at the detachment at the time of this research project, and three more

than have been allotted to the detachment for 1981 (see Table

3It is worth noting that in Burnaby, BC, for example, the RCMP has one

senior member assigned to serve as a full-time liaison to prisons in the Burnaby area.

4In 1979 the average caseload a police officer in BC handled was 73.95 cases (BC Police Commission, Bulletin #7, 1980). This ratio is essentially the same as that recommended by the Policy and Planning Division of the RCMP, which is set at one general duty officer for every 75 criminal code cases. Given there were 835 criminal code cases (818 when excluding 17 which were prison-related) in Kent-Harrison in 1980, there should have been 11 (818 + 73.95 = 11.06) general duty officers to handle them. This is in addition to one Special Reserve officer needed for the area and two Provincial Traffic officers.

5The need for more police officers was expressed by the Kent-Harrison community. Virtually one-third (32.6%) of those responding to our survey indicated that they felt more police officers were needed (see Table 15.4). While resident opinions of the police in both communities are, on the whole, quite favourable, Kent-Harrison residents, when compared to those of Hope, tend to perceive a greater need for more police officers and also feel they receive a lower degree of police protection. Kent-Harrison residents also tend ito view the job done by local police somewhat less favourably than their counterparts in Hope (see Tables 15.5 and 15.6).



39.5

23.1

Hope Residents

42.3.

28.2

101

TABLE 15.1

Residents Knowing the Correct Police Phone Number and Who Have Called Police in the Last Twelve Months 1

Z Who Have Called Pblice in Last Twelve Months

Z Who Knew the Correct Police Phone Number

1Figures based on responses to items 168 and 169 of the resident surveys.


102

TABLE 15.2

Resident Reports of Victimization and Police Contact in Most Recent Twelve Monthsl

Kent-Harrison Residents Hope Residents

Z Experiencing Vandalism

.% Experiencing Neighbourhood Vandalism

‘Z Experiencing a Theft

Z Experiencing a Robbery

Experiencing.an Assault

Having Been Arrested

Z Having Been Ticketed

7.6 12.4

38.0 50.0

10.0 20.0

1.2 1.9

4.6 5.8

7.0 11.4

12.9 15.2

1Figures based on responses te items 127, 128, 125, 121, 123, 166, and 167 of the resident surveys.


•

TABLE 15.3

Agassiz Detachment at Time of Study

103

1981 Allotment

9 General Duty (includes 1 G.I.S.)

2 Prov. Traffic

1 Speciai/Reserves

12 TOTAL

Actual Members Present

7 General Duty (0 G.I.S.)

1 Prov. Traffic

1 Special/Reserves

Needed Allotment

11 General Duty (includes 1 G.I.S.)

2 Prov. Traffic

1 Special/Reserves

1 General Duty for prisons

9 TOTAL 15 TOTAL


en

SI

.4

f • • 1

.1

J

1 •1

1

1

104

TABLE 15.4: Item #171

Resident Opinions on Local RCMP Detachment Size (Number of Officers): Kent-Harrison and Hope

Opinion Kent-Harrison ( g = 240) Hope (N = 103)

Too Many 4.1% 14.6%

About Right 54.1% 51.5%

Not Enough 32.6% 20.4%

Don't Know 9.1% 13.6%

TOTAL 99.9%* 100.1%*

*Variations from 100% due to rounding.

TABLE 15.5: Item #170

Resident Ratings of Local Police Protection: Kent-Harrison and Hope

Rating Kent-Harrison (N = 241) Hope (N = 105)

Excellent 12.9% 13.3%

More Than Adequate 9.5% ' 17.1%

. Adequate 61.4% 61.9%

Less Than Adequate 13.3% 5.7%

Totally Inadequate 1.7% 1.0%

Don't Know 1.2% 1.0%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% =1•11•1•11=11e =ISM=

TABLE 15.6

Resident Opinions on Local Police Performance: Kent-Harrison and Hopel

Opinion Kent-Harrison Cg = 238) Hope Cg = 105)

Very Good .2,8.9% 31.4% Good 4 ,.9% 56.2% Fair 20.6% 10.5% Bad .1.7% 1.0% Very Bad 1.3% 1.0% Don't Know . 1.7% 0.0%

' TOTAL. ' 100.13e 100.1%* 1Figures based on responses to item # of the resident surveys. *Variation krom 100% due to rounding.


105

Term of Reference Number Sixteen

What are the factors that residents are most concerned about with

respect to the operations of correctional institutions in the area?

Answer

As is no doubt the case with citizens anywhere in the world, Kent-Harrison

residents do not feel very good about prisons. Our survey showed that 39.7%

of Kent-Harrison residents have "mixed feelings" about prisons and an

additional 45.1% feel "mostly dissatisfied" or worse (see Table 16.1). It is

doubtful, though, that most Canadians feel as badly about prisons as do the

residents of Kent-Harrison.1 According to our survey, 46.6% of Kent-Harrison

residents describe the prisons as a menace, and 67.5% believe the quality of

life in the area has been changed by the presence of the prisons (see Table

16.2).2 Moreover, nearly 32% of those_surveyed stated that prisons were the

feature they most disliked about the area (see Table 16.3), and 4.6% have even

considered moving as a result of the prisons (see Table 16.4).

The reasons Kent-Harrison residents have negative feelings about prisons

are probably as varied as those of other Canadians. In the case of Kent-

Harrison residents, at least, our survey results indicate that the negative

feelings expressed are not the result of a dissatisfaction with the way the

prison system operates. Indeed, the opinions of most Kent-Harrison residents

1Residents of Hope feel slightly better about prisons generally than

do the residents of Kent-Harrison (see Table 16.1). This is supported further by other tables in this section which present survey data from both Hope and Kent-Harrison.

2Note from Table 16.2 that a number of Hope residents feel prisons in Kent-Harrison are a menace and have changed the quality of life in Hope.

•


106

concerning programs of offenders, parole eligibility, selection criteria for

release of inmates, temporary absences, and what the primary goals of the

system should be are, for the most part, very much in line with the policies

of the Correctional Service of Canada (for some opinions of Kent-Harrison

residents, see Tables 16.5, 16.6, 16.7, 16.8, and 16.9). Furthermore, the

negative feelings do not appear to be related to the perceived impact of

inmate families moving to thdarea, as already noted in the response to "term

of reference number thirteen". Certainly the negative feelings are not

related to the impact of prison workers living in the area and, in fact, 70%.

indicated that they welcome having prison workers living in the area. 3

Finally, as is pointed out later in the responses to "term of reference number

nineteen", the number of Kent-Harrison residents who find their activities and

lifestyles changed by the presence of institutions is not large enough to

account for the degree of dissatisfaction expressed.

The dissatisfaction many Kent-Harrison residents have about prisons

appears to stem largely from a concern about prison security. This is clearly

the single major concern of Kent-Harrison residents. Simply, a large number

of Kent-Harrison residents do not feel the level of security is good enough.

Thus', 46% of residents surveyed, for example, described the security at

Mountain Institution as "bad" or "very bad". Generally speaking, Kent-

Harrison residents felt the security in Canadian prisons as a whole was better

than that at Elbow Lake Institution (see Table 16.10).

The concern for security was indicated by a number of factors other than

residents' responses about how they felt about the level of security the

institutions in the area provide. (In this regard, information from our

3Source: Responses to item #245(b) on Kent-Harrison survey (see Appendix).


1

II i•

II

•1

1.0/

survey of Hope residents and CSC staff provided a valuable comparison.)

First, when asked how much of each "correctional dollar" they would spend (if

in charge) on work programs, parole, rehabilitation programs, and security,

Kent-Harrison residents indicated they would spend the largest amount (

on security. This e more than Hope residents would spend on security (see

Table 16.11). Interestingly, the saine pattern holds true in the responses of

CSC staff who live outside the area. The average member of CSC staff living

in the Kent-Harrison area would spend 42e of each dollar on security, while

CSC *staff living outside the area would spend an average of only 36e (see

Table 16.12).

Second, when asked what percentage of inmates they perceived to be a

threat from each of the prisons in the Kent-Harrison area and from Canadian

prisons generally, Kent-Harrison residents perceived a greater percentage from

prisons in the Kent-Harrison area to be a threat than did residents of Hope

(see Table 16.13(a)). Again, the same pattern holds true when comparing non-

resident CSC staff to CSC staff living in the Kent-Harrison area (see

Table 16.13(b)).

Third, when asked what they would do in the event of an escape, Kent-

Harrison residents were more likely to respond actively (see Tables 16.14(a)

and 16.14(b)). Fourth, when asked what they thought were the reasons for

escapes, Kent-Harrison residents placed more emphasis on "poor security" than

did residents of Hope (see Table 16.15). As well, Kent-Harrison residents are

more likely to own firearms and other weapons (see Table 16.16), more likely

to keep their firearms loaded (see Table 16.17), more likely to lock their

doors and windows (see Tables 16.18 and 16.19),4 more likely to feel it is

4Interestingly, a slightly greater percentage of Kent-Harrison residents than Hope residents feel it is safe to leave their keys in the car (see Table 16.20).


1

108

necessary to own a firearm (see Table 16,21), more likely to own a firearm

for purposes of self,-protection (see Table 16.22), and, as noted in the

responses to "term of reference number seventeen", more likely to feel a

higher level of security is necessary for temporary absences.5

Finally, our survey showed that Kent-Harrison residents feel their

neighbourhood is less safe than do the residents of Hope (see Tables 16.23 and

16.24), and a greater percentage feel there has been an-increase in crime .

locally (see Table 16.25). All of this is despite the fact, as noted earlier,

that Hope has a much higher crime and victimization rate than •ent-Harrison.

- While the residents of Kent-Harrison and Hope share simi1ar concerns

regarding specific types of escaped offenders (see Table 16.26), it is

significant that these two communities differ markedly in their concern about

-particular types of crime in their respective local areas. An indication of

concern about crime is the residents perception of its prevalence in the

community. Tables 16.27, 16.28 and 16.29 demonstrate clearly that crimes

against persons are most salient to the Kent-Harrison population. Property

crimes and drug-related offences are perceived to comprise the major problem

in the Hope area.

It is in light of these findings that the feeling of many Kent-Harrison

residents stated, that it is safer to leave the keys in an unattended car at

home (see Table 16.20) becomes explicable. In fact some of these residents

Although many of the differences shown in this section to exist between Hope and Kent-Harrison residents are not statistically significant, inasmuch as the differences are consistently in the same direction it seems appropriate to consider them as indicators. Also, in responses to questions pertaining to matters totally unre- lated to the issue of public safety (e.g., politics, leisure activit-ies, attitude towards government, life satisfaction) there were basically no differences between Kent-Harrison and Hope residents. Thus, the differencàs cannot simply be dismissed as differences in community attitudes generally.


5

4 Li

• ' II [ II •

SI •1

4

109

stated that an escapee prowling around their residence would then have the

opportunity to leave without endangering the owner or his family.

Not surprisingly, resident concern about escapes by inmates from

particular institutions is related to the security level of the prisons.

For example, 54.8% of the local residents stated that an escape from Kent

Institution would cause them more concern than an escape from either of

Mountain or Elbow Lake (see Table 16.30).

In sum," ,crirtually all of the information pertaining to resident concerns

about prisons in the Kent-Harrison area suggests that a good number of

Kent-Harrison residents have a fear of prisons and that this fear is greater

than it is for people who donrt live in the area. While there are other

concerns, they were expressed by a very small number of residents.


TOTALS 100.1%* 100%

TABLE 16.1:

Resident Feelings About the Presence of Penitentiaries: Kent-Harrison and Hope

Level of Feeling

% Pleased

% Mostly Satisfied

% Having Mixed Feelings

% Mostly Dissatisfied

% Unhappy

% Feel Terrible

% Don't Know

Kent/Harrison Residents

1.2

12.0

39.7

20.7

16.5

7.9

2.1

Hope Residents

1.0

18.0

42.0

15.0

7.0

5.0

12.0



111

TABLE 16.2

Percentage of Residents Agreeing To Selected Comments About Prisons*

Item

% Agreeing that "Prisons are a menace"

% Agreeing that "Prisons have changed the quality of life in the community"

% Agreeing that "Family is not safe due to prisons"

Kent/Harrison Residents Hope Residents

46.6 10.6

67.5 26.0

51.5 10.6

*Figures based on responses to item #89 on resident surveys.


-le* 100% TOTALS

1-1.2

TABLE 16.3

Resident's Most Disliked Thing About Area Of Residents 1

Thing Disliked % Disliking among'Kent/Harrison % Disliking among Hope Residents Residents

Isolation 5.4 4.0

Prisons 31.7 0.0

Facilities 13.4 16.2

Weather 10.3 14.1

Police 0.9 1.0

Other 18.3 35.4

Nothing 20.1 29.3

1Figures based on responses to item #12 on the resident surveys.


Fraser Valley College Research 'Group

4

•1

•1

4

TABLE 16.4

Reasons Kent/Harrison Residents Considered Moving From Areal

Reason Given % Giving Reason

Employment 10.0%

Dislike Facilities 1.7%

Dislike Prisons 4.5%

Dislike Isolation 0.8%

Dislike Weather 1.7%

Other 16.6%

No Particular Reason 2.1%

N/A - Did Not Consider 62.5% Moving

TOTAL 99.9%*

1Figures based on responses to item #10 of the resident surveys.


113


TABLE 16.5

Residents Opinions of Job Training Programs For Inmates'

_ Opinion

Programs are very worthwhile

Programs are some-what worthwhile

Programs are not very worthwhile

Programs are not at all worthwhile

Dont Know

% Kent/Harrison Residents % Hope Residents

50.8 61.5

36.4 28.8

4.5 0.0

2.5 0.0

5.8 . 9.6

TOTAL 100% 99.9%*




4

TABLE 16.6

Resident's Opinions of Education Programs For Inmates*

Opinion % Kent/Harrison Residents % Hope Residents

Programs very worth- 44.4 50.5 while

Programs are some- 41.8 36.6 what worthwhile

Programs are not 6.7 4.0 very worthwhile

Programs are not 2.5 2.0 at all worthwhile

Don't Know 4.6 6.9

TOTAL 100% 100%

*Figures based on responses to item #80 of the resident surveys.


34.9

10.9

10.9

41.6

1.7

20.6

6.9

14.7

56.9

1.0

11"6

TABLE 16.7

Resident's Perception of Systems Responsibility'

Noted Responsibility

To Protect Society

To Punish Offenders

To Rehabilitate Offenders

All Of The Above Equally

Don't Know

% Kent-Harrison Residents % Hope Residents

TOTALS 100% 1 00. 1%*

'Figures based on responses to item #47 of the resident surveys.

*Variation from 1007. due to rounding.

Fraser Valley College Research Group g

2.2

11.5

18.5

35.7

20.3

10.1

3.4

6.7

10.1

11.2

33.7

22.5

12.4

TOTALS 100.1%* 100%

117

TABLE 16.8

Resident's Opinions on When Inmates Should be Eligible for Parolel


One-third of sentence complete

One-half on sentence complete

Two-thirds of sentence complete

Three-quarters of sentence complete

No Parole

Don't Know

Length of time into sentence when parole should be considered

One-quarter sentence 1.8 . complete


*Variations from 100% due to rounding.


TOTAL 100% 100%

118

TABLE 16.9

Resident's Opinion about Inmates Being Granted Early Release for Good Behavior in Prison*


Inmates should be granted early release for good behavior in prison.

Inmates should not be granted early release for good behavior in prison.

Don't Know

76.4 73.0

19.4 24.0

4.2 3.0

*Figures based on responses to item #79 on the resident surveys.


119

TABLE 16.10

Percentage of Residents Who Feel Security at Institutions is nad Or Very Bad'*

Institution

Bad security at Elbow Lake Institution

Bad security at Mountain Institution

Bad security at Kent Institution

Rad security at Canadian Prisons generally


32.1 2.9

46.0 21.9

25.9 , 12.4

31.3 24.7

*Figures based on responses to items #39, 40, 41, and 42 of the rèsident surveys.


TABLE 16.11

Amount of Each Correctional Dollar Residents Feel Should be Spent in the Area of Work Programs, Security, Parole, and Rehabilitation*

Area Money Spent Average Amount According to Average Amount According Kent-Harrison Residents to Hope Residents

Amount On Security 32t 22e

Amount On Work Programs 29e 264

Amount On Rehabilitation 22e 30e Programs

Amount On Parole 12t llt

Amount which should not 5e be spent on any of the above

*Figures based on responses to item #73 of the resident surveys. Ail figures here were rounded to the nearest cent.


TABLE 16.12

Opinions About the Amount of Each Correctional Dollar which Should be Spent in the Areas of Work Programs, Security, Parole, and Rehabilitation:

Resident and Non-Resident CSC Staff*

Area Money Spent Average Amount According to Average Amount According 'eo C.S.C. Staff Living In Kent- C.S.C. Staff Living Outside

Harrison Kent-Harrison

Amount On Security 42e 36e

Amount On Work Programs 28e 24e

Amount On Rehabilitation 13e ue Programs

Amount On Parole 13e 13e

Amount which should not 3e 8e be spent on any of the above

* Figures based on resident responses to item #33 of the C.S.C. Staff survey. All figures here were rounded to the nearest cent.


■ 11 I.

il

•1

TABLE 16,13(a)

Percentage of Residents who Feel Most (or All) Inmates Pose a Dangerous Threat to Society l

Institution % of Kent-Harrison Residents % of Hope Residents

122

Canadian Institutions Generally

Kent Institution

Mountain Institution

Elbow Lake Institution

19.3 16.2

37.9

21.0

8.2

13.4

8.6

2.9

TABLE 16.13(b)

Percentage of CSC Staff who Feel Most (or All) :Inmates Pose a Dangerous Threat to Societyl

Institution at Which % of C.S.C. Staff Living n % of C.S.C. Staff Not Inmates are Confined Kent-Harrison Area Living in Kent-Harrison

Area

Canadian Institutions Generally

Kent Institution


Elbow Lake Institution

53.9 23.6

67.8

42.8

21.4

55.6

28.1

6.7

1 . Figures based on responses to items #43, 44, 45, and 46 of resident surveys.

2Figures based on CSC staff responses to item #29 of the CSC Staff Survey.


25.6

36.6

1,7

12.6

23.5

56.4

20.8

5.9

5.9

10.9

TOTALS 100% 99.9%*

41.0

1.9

34.3

10.0

12.9

58.0

1.0

20.0

3.0

18.0

TOTALS 1001,1%* 100%

12:3

TABLE 16.14(a)

What Action Residents Would Take Upon Hearing of an Escape While at Home l

Action Would •Take Kent-Harrison Residents Hope Residents

% who would do nothing

% who would lock doors

% who would listen to news

% who would check on family

% who would take other action

TABLE 16.14(b)

Wht Action Residents Would First Take Upon Hearing of an Escape While Not at Home2

Action Would Take Kent-Harrison Residents Hope Residents

% would do nothing

% who would lock doors

% who would listen to news

% who would check on family

% who would take other action





26.3

0.8

5.5

Poor Classification

None of the Above

Don't Know

38.5

0.0

14.4

22.9 21.2

26.0 44.5

TOTALS 100% 100.1%

124

TABLE 16.15

Resident Opinions about Reason for Escape 1

Reason % of Kent-Harrison Residents % of Hope Residents Giving Reason Giving Reason

Poor Security

Poor Security & Poor Classification


.1!Variation from 100% due to rounding.


4.8

0.0

0.8

2.4

91.9

2.0

0.0

0.0

3.9

94.1

12"5

TABLE 16.16

Percentage of Residents Owning Firearms and Other Weapons: Kent-Harrison and Hope*

Kent-Harrison Residents • Hope Residents

% owning a firearm

% owning another type of weapon

52.3 49.0

6.3 3.9

*Figures based on responses to items #136 and 139 of the resident surveys.

TABLE 16.17

Percentage of Firearm Owner-Wwho Keep Their Firearms Loadedl

Times Loaded Kent-Harrison Firearm Owners

Hope Firearm Owners

Always kept loaded

Loaded most of the time

Loaded half of the time

Seldom loaded

Never loaded

TOTAL (N) (124) 99.9% * (51) 100%

1Figures based on responses to item #137(c) oi the resident surveys.



TOTALS

1 Figures based on responses to item #130 of the resident surveys.

*Variation fram 100% due to rounding.

100% 1 00 .1% *

126

TABLE 16.18

Percentage of Residents Locking Their Doors1

Times Locked % Kent-Harrison Residents % Hope Residents

All of the time 30.8 26.0

Night time only 56.3 60.6

Never 12.5 13.5

Don't Know 0.4 0.0

TABLE 16.19

Percentage of Residents Locking Their Windows1

Times Locked % Kent-Harrison Residents % Hope Residents

All of the time 59.5 61.2

Night time only 22.4 15.3

Never 16.4 21.4

Don't Know 1.7 2.0

TOTALS 100% 99.9%*

1 Figures based on responses to item #131 of the rident surveys..


Fraser Valley Coilege Research Group

7.6

88.6

3.0

0.8

2.9

92.2

1.9

2.9

TOTALS 100% 99.9%*

7.8

13.9

47.6

29.4

1.3

2.9

3.8

37.5

55.8

0.0

TOTALS 1 00% ' 100%

1.1/

TABLE 16.20

Resident Feelings about Safety of Leaving Their Keys in the Car l

Which Is Safer?

Leaving keys in car

Taking keys out of car

It makes no difference

Don't know




TABLE 16,21 .

Resïdent Feeling about the Necessity of Owning a Firearm for Protection*

How Necessary? % Kent-Harrison Residents - % Hope Residents

Very Necessary

Quite Necessary

Not Very Necessary

Completely UnnecessarY

Don't Know



128

TABLE 16.22

Resident Reasons for'Owning a Firearm*

Reason Given % Kent-Harrison Residents % Hope Residents Giving Reason Giving Reason

Protection 19.4 10.0

Target Shooting 12.1 12.0

Hunting 54.8 64.0

Other 13.7 14.0

TOTALS (N) (124) 100% ( 50) 100%

*Figures based on responses to item #137(b) of the resident surveys.


, 13.6

47.9

23.7

13.1

1.7

7.1

34.6

19.6

14.6

5.4

18.9

34.5

29.0

22.7

5.5

3.4

5.0

7,2

32.9

28.3

10.1

2.1

19.4

30.8

54.8

9.7

4.8

1.0

Me.>

33.7 70.9 31.1

40.4 17.5 40.8

9.6 7.8 13.6

1.0 1.9 1.0

1.0 0.0 0.0

14,4 1.9 13.6

Very Safe

Reasonably Safe

Fairly Safe

Somewhat Safe

Very Safe

Don't Know

129

TABLE 16.23

Kent-Harrison Resident Opinions about Safeness of NeighbourhOod*

Level of Safeness Kent-Harrison Kent-Harrison Kent-Harrison Kent-Harrison Area compared to compared to compared to

Hope Vancouver Abbotsford

Very Safe

Reasonably Safe

Fairly Safe

Somewhat Unsafe

Very Unsafe

Don't Know

*Figures based on responses to items #155, 156, 157, and 158 of resident survey.

TABLE 16.24

Hope Resident Opinions about Safeness of Neighbourhood*

Level of Safeness Hope Area Hope Compared Hope Compared Hope Compared to Kent-Harrison to Vancouver to Abbotsford

*Figures based on responses to items $155, 156, 157, and 158 of resident survey.


130

TABLE 16.25

Percentage of Residents Who Féel Crime has Increased Locally, in Vancouver, and in the Fraser Valley*

% of Kent Harrison Residents % of Hope Residents who feel crime has increased who feel crime has

increased

. Own Local Area

Vancouver Area

Fraser Valley Area

*Figures based on responses to items #152, 153, and 154 of the resident surveys.

Area

56.8

76.3

75.1

33.3

54.3

80.0


2.07

2.72

3.20

3.83

4.21

4.28

2.13

3.01

3.05

3.98

4.06

4.76

131

TABLE 16.26

Rating of Particular Offender Types (4ased on convictions) etch Residents Would Fear Most: Kent-Harrison and Hope.*

Type of Escaped Offender Average Rank Position Kent-Harrison(N = 234) Hope(N = 102)

Murder

Rape

Child Molesting

Robbery

Manslaughter

Drug Trafficking

* Figures displayed in this table indicate the average rank respondents assigned to each type of offender. Thus the lower the number, the greater the concern. These figures are based on responses to item #146 of the resident survey.


132

TABLE 16,27

Resident Perception of the Amount of Property Crime in the Local Area:

Kent-Harrison and Hope*

Relative Amount Kent-Harrison'(N . = 241) Hope (N . 105)

High 19.5% 25.7%

Average 51.9% 53.3%

Low 22.8% 17.1%


Total 100.0% 99.9%


+Variation from 100% due to rounding.


133

TABLE 16,28 : ,

Resident Perception of theltmount of Drug-related Crime in the Local Area; Kent-Harrison and Hope*

Relative Amount Kent-Harrison (N= 241) Hope (N = 105)

High 20.3% 34.3%

Average 42.3% 43.8%

Low 19.5% 12.4%

Don't Know 17.8% 9.5%

Total 99.9% 100.0%


+Variation from 100% due to rounding.-


100.0% 100.0% Total

I: • s

.1.34

TABLE 16,29

Residents Perception of the Amount of Personal Crime in the Local Area:

Kent-Harrison and Hope*

Relative Amount Kent-Harrison (N = 242) Hope (N = 105)

High 22.3% 6.7%

Average 33.1% 35.2%

Low 38.0% 50.5%


*Figures based on responses to item #143 in the resident surveys.


1

1 •11 1

el

1

1 •I

Escape From:

Kent Institution


Elbow Lake

Makes No Difference

Don't Know

% Most Concerned (N = 239)

54.8

9.6

1.3

32.2

2.1

4

SI

1

SI

.1

TABLE 16.30

Escapes From Particular Institutions Which Would Cause The Most Concern to Kent—Harrisem Residents:*

13.5

Total 100.0

*Figures based on responses to item #I45 of the resident surveys.


136

Term of Reference Number Seventeen

How is the temporary absence program viewed by the community, and what

has been the impact of this program on the community?

Answer

Generally speaking, the residents of Kent-Harrison do not object to ,

inmates being granted temporary absences (TAs), but they are concerned about :

the level of security involved with each temporary absence. Our survey of

Kent-Harrison residents showed that while 80% of residents agree with day-time

escorted temporary absences (ETAs), the percentage of residents agreeing with

night-time escorted absences is less at 65.8%. The percentage of residents

who support unescorted TAs (UTAs) is even lower, with 29.5% supporting day-

time UTAs and only 16% supporting night-time UTAs (see Table 17.1). Thus, it

appears that the number of Kent-Harrison residents supporting temporary

absences decreases as control over inmate movement and visibility is

decreased.1

Survey findings also show that many Kent-Harrison residents are concerned

about the reasons an inmate is granted temporary absence. Thus,,while 91.6%

of residents were agreeable to TAs for the purpose of an inmate seeing an ill

relative, 67.9% were agreeable to an inmate being given a TA to play baseball,

1Interestingly, the residents of Kent-Harrison are slightly more supportive of day-time escorted TAs than are residents of the neighbouring community of Hope (80.6% vs. 75%). On the other hand, Hope residents are not as concerned about the level of security involved as shown by higher percentages of Hope residents are agreeable to night-time escorted TAs, day-time unescorted TAs, and night-time unescorted TAs (see Table 17.1). Further evidence that Kent-Harrison residents, compared to residents of Hope, are more concerned about security is provided by Table 17.3, which shows that regardless of the purpose for which a TA is granted, a higher percentage of Kent-Harrison residents would grant escorted TAs, but a much lower percentage would grant unescorted TAs.


137

and only 45 : 1% were agreeable to an inmate being given a TA to go shopping.

(For these and other comparisons, see Table 17.2).2

An examination of the numbers of temporary absences granted from local

institutions during the three-year period from January 1, 1978, to December

31, 1980, clearly indicates that the safety of community residents has not

been affected. From a total of 20,730 ETAs granted during this three-year

period, only 16 resulted in inmates being declared unlawfully at large (see

Table 17.4). More importantly, only two of the 16 inmates committed offences

while at large, and in both of these cases the off encas were committed over

100 km from the Kent-Harrison area.3 From a total of 1121 UTAs granted

during the same period, 8 resulted in inmates being unlawfully at large and

one offence was committed. In this case again, the offence was committed over

100 km from . the Kent-Harrison area.4 In sum, then, about one in every 10,000

escorted temporary absences and one in every 1000 unescorted temporary

absences results in an offence being committed, and these offences are not

committed locally.5

2Table 17.2 shows that, except for TAs concerning the illness of an inmate or his/her relative, a slightly larger percentage of Hope residents appear to accept the different purposes for granting TAs (see Table 17.2). Rather than an indicator of greater acceptance of TAs, this might well be a result of Hope residents being less concerned with security issues and thus not as concerned about what an inmate is doing while on temporary absence.

3Both of these cases resulted in charges of robbery against the inmate involved. (Source: Agassiz RCMP, as per Table 14.1)

4This case resulted in charges of auto theft and dangerous driving against the inmate involved. (Source: Agassiz RCMP, as per Table 14.1).

5The rates per 1000 TAs from institutions in the Kent-Harrison area is slightly lower than the rate for the Pacific Region (see Table 17.4).


4

I

80.6

65.8

29.5

16.0

74.0

68.6

45.6

29.6

TABLE 17.1

Percentage of Residents Agreeable to Temporary Absences*

Type of TA

Day-time Escorted

Night-time Escorted

Day-time Unescorted

Night-time Unescorted

% Kent-Harrison Agreeable % Hope Agreeable



139

TABLE 17.2

Percentage of Residents Agreeable to Temporary' Absences for Different Purposes*

% Kent-Harrison Residents % Hope Residents Agreeable Agreeable

Purpose of TA

Visit ill relative

Visit wife

Visit parents

Visit ill friend

Attend church

See doctor

See about job

Attend college

Play baseball

Visit friend

Go swimming

Go bowling

Go shopping

91.6

77.4

75.5

70.5

61.1

85.6

70.5

68.8

67.9

49.3

50.2

46.9

45.1

90.3

76.5

76.5

75.5

68.0

83.5

71.8

71.9

73.8

56.3

56.3 55.3

54.4



63.1

42.7

43.0

49.8

39.2

67.5

46.4

45.6

50.6

37.1

38.4

34.2

32.9

43.7

47.1

46.1

32.4

34.0

29.1

33.0

40.8

31.1

19.4

20.4

19.5

16.5

46.6

29.4

30.4

44.1

34.0

54.4

38.8

31.1

42.7

35.9

35.9

35.9

35.9

28.5

34.7

32.5

20.7

21.9

18.1

24.1

23.2

17.3

12.2

11.8

12.7

12.2

TABLE 17.3

Percentage of Residents Agreeable to Escorted and Unescorted Temporary Absences with Different Purposes*.

Purpose of TA Kent-Harrison Kent-Harrison Hope % Hope % % Agreeable to % Agreeable to Agreeable to Agreeable to

ETA UTA ETA UTA MO.

. Visit ill relative

Visit wife

Visit parents

Visit ill friend

Attend church

See doctor

See about job

Attend college

Play baseball

Visit friend

Go swimming

Go bowling

Go shopping



141

TABLE 17.4

Relations of UALs to Total TAs Granted (1978-80)*

Pacific - • _ Kent • Mountain Elbow Lake Region

Ratio UAL/Total ETA 2/167 6/11,556 8/9,007 36/34,319

Ratio UAL/Total WA'. 5/782 3/339 34/2,827

Rate UAL. per 1:2 .5 0.9 1 1000 ETA

Rate UAL per 6.0 9.0 12.0 1000 UTA


142

Term of Reference Number Eighteen

What differenees are there on the impact of correctional institutions on

small communities as opposed to larger urban centres?

Answer

Given the nature of the study, with its primary focus ontheKentrgiarrison

area, there was little opportunity to examine directly the impact of

institutions on small communities as opposed to larger urban centres. Such an

undertaking would, in itself, comprise a study of significant proportions. We

can conjecture, however, on some of the differences. Three of these are

discussed below.

One difference is th a availability of police manpower. Simply, since

smaller centres have fewer policemen on duty at any given time, they have less

capacity to respond quickly and effectively to incidents (e.g., escapes)

arising from the institution. In Kent-Harrison, for example, there are so few

officers on shift at any one time that there are many times during the day

when no officer is anywhere near the institutions in the area.1 Even if an

officer is near the institution, he or she may well be busy attending to

another problem. While the local police detachment (Agassiz RCMP) for Kent-

Harrison can count on neighbouring detachments (Mission and Chilliwack) for

assistance when necessary, such assistance does not help to shorten a response

time which may be crucial.1

1 This assessment is based on the observations of the study's associate who spent approximately 30 hours accompanying officers in the area.

2Agassiz RCMP estimate it would take a minimum of 20 minutes Mission or Chilliwack RCMP detachment to provide Agassiz with assistance.

research on patrol

for either

Fraser Valley College Research .Group

143

Another difference concerns the visibility of the institution and its

operations. Clearly, in smaller communities prisons and their operations are

more visible if for no other reason than that*tiley are major facilities and

employers. By contrast, in a larger urban area an institution is among

hundreds or perhaps thousands of major facilities and employers. Similarly,

incidents (e.g., escapes) are more noticeable in a small community since each

incident represents a larger proportion of the total number of newsworthy

events occuring over a given period than would be the case in a large urban

centre.

For residents of a smaller community this "greater visibility" would

provide a constant reminder that a prison is close by and so there is a

"forced awareness" of prisons. Indeed, this is supported by our survey which

showed that Kent-Harrison residents are far more knowledgeable about

institutions than are residents of the neighbouring community of Hope where

there are no prisons. For example, 79.4% of Kent-Harrison residents knew that

Kent Institution is a maximum security facility, while only 26.7% of Hope

residents knew this information (see Table 18.1). Similarly, 21.8% of Kent-

Harrison residents could identify (within a given range) the number of inmates

inside Kent, whereas only 1.9% of Hope residents knew this information (see

Table 18.2 for this and other comparisons.

It seems reasonable to assume that related to this issue of visibility is

the image non-residents would have of communities where there is a prison. The

prison in a large urban centre is not likely to command a high degree of

importance for the person thinking about such an area. For example, it is -

hard to imagine Lower Mainland Correctional Centre or New Haven readily coming

to mind when one thinks of Burnaby, or the Regional Psychiatric Centre coming


144

to mind when one thinks of Abbotsford (a large rural centre). In a smaller

area such as Kent-Harrison, however, where prisons have greater visibility,

it is perhaps more likely Kent Institution, for example, comes to mind. Our

survey of Hope residents provides some indication that, indeed, non-residents

will see prisons as having a larger role in the smaller community than is

actually the case. Nearly 18% (17.8 7. ) of Hope residents indicated that they

associated prisons with the Kent-Harrison area (as opposed to either farming,

resorts, or logging). Furthermore, 26.i% listed prisons as Kent-Harrison's

second major industry, and another 26.3% listed prisons as the third major

industry (again, as opposed to logging, resorts, and farming). Certainly the

matter of community image is not helped in communities which have prisons

frequently mentioned in the news media -- especially when these prisons have

the same name as the area (e.g., Kent, Elbow Lake).4

Perhaps most important is the issue of public safety. There is, however,

no evidence to suggest people in smaller communities having prisons would be

any less safe than people in a large urban centre. It has already been noted

that, at least in the case of Kent-Harrison, inmates declared unlawfully at

large do not remain in the community. A review of unlawfully-at-large

incidents occurring between 1978 and 1980 indicates that 74% of the inmates

are apprehended in large urban centres and 13 of 15 who committed further

- off ences did so in a large urban centre.5 This is not to say that inmates

3Source: Kent-Harrison Survey results to items #251(a), 251(b), 251(c) (see Appendix).

4In light of these findings, it may seem appropriate for CSC to re-examine its current policy for the naming of institutions (Correctional Service of Canada, Commissioner's Directive 108, May 31, 1980), especially where small communities or areas are concerned.

5Source: These figures are calculated on the basis of written reports and files the Correctional Service of Canada made available. Information on UALs was verified by information made available by the RCMP (Agassiz detachment).


145

declared UAL from prisons in major centres don't also immediately travel to

a centre elsewhere. It reaffirms the notion, though, that inmates are

basically "city people" (as one veteran "Visits and Correspondence" officer

noted as an explanation for why inmates and their families do not live in the

Kent-Harrison area).


es

4

1-4-6

TABLE 18.1

Percentage of Residents Knowing of Institution's Security Rating *

Institution

Kent Institution Is Maximum

Mountain Institution Is Medium

Elbow Lake Is Minimum

% Kent-Harrison Residents % Hope Residents Knowing Knowing

79.4 26.7

60.5 23.8

56.8 15.2

*Figures based on responses to items #53, 54, and 55 of - resident surveys.


147

TABLE 18.2

Percentage of Residents Knowing (Within a Given Range)

of Institution's Population Size *

Institution

Kent's Pop. Between 150 And 225 Inmates

Mountain's Pop. Between 76 And 150 Inmates

Elbow's Pop. Between 0 And 75

% Kent-Harrison Residents % Hope Residents Knowing Knowing

21.8 1.9

23.5 4.8

18.5 1.0

*Figures based on responses to items #48 and 49 of resident surveys.


.14S

Term of Reference Number Nineteen

How have the prisons affected the life styles of people in the community?

Answer

The large majority of Kent-Harrison residents (82.9%) do not feel the

prisons have in any way affected their life styles, as in part indicated by the

responses to the survey question which asked residents if they felt the prisons

had affected their activities.1 Virtually all residents who did feel that the

prisons affected their activitr patterns noted that they did not go on outings

(e.g., picnics, evening walks, cycling) . at certain and to certain places

because of a fear for the safety of their families. Some of this group also

felt their evening walks and cycling were restricted and made less enjoyable

due to the number of watchdogs in the community.2 This is noteworthy because

the number of watchdogs in Kent-Harrison is arguably an indicator of citizen

fear of crime. Our survey revealed that nearly twice as many people in Kent-

Harrison own watchdogs as do people in the neighbouring community of Hope.3

Thus, it may be that this is an example of prisons having both a direct and

indirect impact on life style.

In addition to being asked about the affect of prisons on their

activities, residents were also asked if they found the prison lighting

bothersome, whetheror, not they noticed any noise from the prison, and if the

prison caused any interference on their radios or television sets. Just over

10% stated that they found the prison lighting bothersome, 2.9% reported

noticeable increase in noise level, and 3.3% felt the prison caused TV

interference (see Table 19.2).

1Source: Responses to item #237(a) df Kent-Harrison Survey (see Appendix).

2Source: Responses to item #347(b) of Kent-Harrison Survey (see Appendix).

3W1ereas 27% of Kent-Harrison residents own watchdogs, only 15.2% of


149

Continued. Hope residents own watchdogs. .(Source: Responses to item #140(a) of Kent-Harrison Survey) Also, compared to Hope, a greater percentage of Kent-Harrison residents have acquired their watchdogs within the last 24 months (see Table 19.1). Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the greater number of wutchdogs in Kent-Harrison as compared to Hope-is not simply because there is a greater number of farms in the area.

3


26.7

26.7

46.7

150

TABLE 19.1

Length of Time Residents (Dog-Owners Only) Owned Watchdogl

Time Owned % Kent-Harrison Owners % Hope Owner Owning Owning

Owned less than 2 years 50.9

Owned between 2 and 5 years 12.7

Owned over 5 years 36.4

TOTALS (N)

'Figures based on responses to item #140(b) of resident surveys.


(55) 100% (15) 100.1%* _


151

TABLE 19.2

Percentage of Residents Citing Specific Problems Arising from

Institutions in Kent-Harrison Area *

Problem Cited % Kent-Harrison Residents

Citing

% Kent-Harrison Residents Find No Problem

% Kent-Harrison Residents PIT67567E

Know •■•■•■•••■••••••

Prison lighting is bothersome

Prison affected noise level in area

Prison cause T.V . and radio inter-ference

*Figures based on responses to items #238, 239, and 240 of the resident surveys.

10.4 89.6 0.0

2.9 95.4 1.7

3.3 85.8 10.9


15'2

Term of Reference Number Twenty

How can relations between the Correctional Service of Canada and the

communities be improved, i.e., communications?

Answer

Whenever attention is given to the ways in which relations can be

improved between a community and any organization, some consideration is

usually given to how the community can be made more knowledgable about the

organization of concern. Such an emphasis seems based on the notion that a

"lack of knowledge" leads to community discontent. Thus, advocates of the

notion would argue that one need only raise community awareness and

knowledge levels and relaeions between the community and the organization will

be improved. No doubt, in many cases, relations do improve with heightened

community awareness.

In the case of corrections, it is doubtful that increased community

awareness would help to improve relations. Indeed, the results of our survey

indicate that an increased awareness of prison operations might lead to an

increase in "negative"1 attitudes. The vest evidence that this is true is

provided by a comparison of CSC staff to Hope residents in terms of their

feelings about a number of prison-related issues including whether or not

prisons are felt to be a meance (see Table 20.1), the types of undesirables

felt to be attracted to the area (see Table 13.2), how each correctional

dollar should be spent (compare figures in Table 16.11 to those in-_Tahle..- 16.12), ,

and the proportion of inmates felt to pose a dangerous ehreat to society.

(compare figures in Table 16.13(a) to those in Table 16.13(b)). CSC staff

• 1By "negative" here we mean that there is a fear of prisons as weil as a dislike for other reasons.


153

are clearly th à most knowledgeable about the prisons in the area, yet they

hold more negative attitudes than Kent-Harrison residents. Similarly, Kent-

Harrison residents hold more negative attitudes than Hope residents who

• obviously have farless exposure to prisons.

Another course of action sometimes thought to improve relations is to

involve the community in organizational activities, in this case, prison

activities. Here again, though, knowledge levels would be increased, and

there is the assumption that residents in the community want to be involved.

Our survey indicates otherwise. Nearly half of all Kent-Harrison residents

indicated they would not attend a club event at any of the prisons, and even

fewer would attend if inmates were present (see Table 20.2). Only 8.8% of

2 Kent-Harrison residents would consider a career in corrections.

The course of action most likely to provide better relations between the

community and-the Correctional Service of Canada is one which improves the

lines of communication between the community and correctional officials. Our

survey showed that a quarter of Kent-Harrison residents are dissatisfied with

the present communication system (see Table 20.3). Part of this dis-

satisfaction can be attributed to many community residents' perception that

the CSC is doing a bad job of notifying the community in the event of an

escape (see Table 20.4), and that there is not enough direct contact between

local government officials and prison officials in Ottawa.3 Additionally, it

2This figure is based on resident responses to item #59 of the Kent-Harrison Survey.

3Our survey showed that 63.2% of residents did not feel there was enough contact between local government officials and prison officials in Ottawa. Our survey showed that an additional 26.4% did not know whether or not there was enough contract presently taking place. (Source: Item

. #11,rof the Kent-Harrison Survey)


.D4

appears that many Kent-Harrison residents do not know who to contact when they

want general information or want to voice a complaint (see Table 20.5).4

In this regard, only 4.1% of the residents indicated they could contact the

local Citizens' Advisory Committee if they had a complaint about local

prisons, and just 2.9% of the residents indicated they would contact the local

Citizens' Advisory Committee if they wanted general information about local

prisons (again, see Table 20.5).

The fact that very few Kent-Harrison residents rely on the Citizensl

Advisory Committee (CAC) as a communication link to the Correctional Service

of Canada (CSC) is particularly important because CACs were established

primarily to improve the communication link between the community and the

CSC.5

Indeed, communication and co-operation between the CAC and the CSC is

good" or "very good" according to membersof the CAC. 6 The problem, it

seems, is that communication links between the CAC and the community are not

adequate. Only 50% of local CAC committee members feel CACs are doing a

good" or "very good" job of effective liaison with the community, and only

16.4% of local CSC staff feel CACs are doing a "good" or "very good" job of

providing an effective communications link to the community (see Table 20.6).

4It is interesting to note that residents are more likely to contact

prison, officials if they need general information than if they wished to make a complaint. Thus, it might be argued that some residents themselves are in part to blame for not helping better relations as they are not taking initial complaints to the organization they are complaining about or to the body (Citizens' Advisory Committee) set up for presenting resident concerns (see Table 20.5).

5As per Commissioner's Directive 216, one term of reference of CACs is to "advise and assist the Warden/Institutional Director in informing and educating the local community on the operations and programs of the institutions."

• 60f local Citizens r Advisory Committee members interviewed, ( % of

all CAC members), indicated that communication and co-operation was Itgood" or "very good".

Fraser 'Valley College Research Group

155

To itiprove the communication link between the community and the CSC,

the CAC might wish to consider using a medium which will make them more

accessible and visible to the community. Our survey of CAC members showed

that 58.3% of CAC members rely on informal means (i.e., word of mouth) to

report to constituents whereas only 25% rely on the local paper. The

remaining 16.7% stated that they report back through planned meetings. The

suggestion here that the CAC be more visible and accessible should not be

interpreted as a suggestion that the CSC increase its visibility in the

community. As implied earlier, and for reasOns noted in the responses to

"term of reference number eighteen", the indications are that the CSC should

keep a low profile. Making the CAC more visible, though, should increase the

community's confidence that its issues of concern will be addressed.

Finally, in addition to improving communication links, relations between

the community and the CSC would no doubt improve as the community feels less

of a need to be concerned about public safety. In this regard, it is worth

noting that residents really only began actively to express a dissatisfaction

with the CSC following the murder in 1980 of a fellow community member, a

murder alleged to have been committed by an escapee from Mountain Institution.

' Indeed, an analysis of the subject matter of editoriale and letters to the

editor in the local weekly newspaper shows that while the proportion of

editorials and letters to the editor which relate to federal corrections is

greater than it is for other neighbouring local newspapers, and while the

proportion has been steadily increasing in the last five years the biggest

increase was in 1980 (see Table 20.7). In fact, from being essentially the

fourth most frequent subject of editorials and letters in 1977, 1978, and 1979

. in the local Kent-Harrison newspaper, federal corrections became the. most

frequent subject of editorials and letters to the editor in 1980 (see Table


1

156

20.8). More importantly, though, whereas in 1977 only 40% of corrections-

related letters and editorials took a position which opposed the CSC and its

operations, and in 1978 only 50% took an opposing position, and an even

smaller percentage (27.3%) took an opposing position in 1979, in 1980 nearly

all letters and editorials (96%) took a position opposed to the CSC and its

operations (see Table 20.9). Thus, it seems reasonable to expect that

relations will improve once residents become more convinced that a similar

incident (murder of a community member) will not occur again. The building

of a second fence around Mountain Institution is a very positive step because,

aside from its capacity to reduce the possibility of escapes, it makes

residents at least feel more secure.

.,<,


el

I I el

I I

11

157

TABLE 20.1

C.S.C. Staff and Residents' Perceptions of Prisons as a Menace *

Group

C.S.C. Staff living in Kent-Harrison


% Who Feel Prisons Are A Menace

34.5%

46.6%

C.S.C. Staff living outside 25.6% Kent-Harrison

Hope Residents 10.6%

*Figures based on responses to item #89 of the Kent-Harrison Survey and Hope Survey, and item #37 of the CSC Employee Survey.


158

TABLE 20.2

Percentage of Residents Who Would Not Attend Events Inside Local Prisons *

Event

Would not attend club, no inmates present

Would not attend club, inmates present

Would not attend course, inmates present

Would not attend to socialize with inmates


44.2 34.3

58.7 35.2

56.0 - 35.2

70.0 44.8

*Figures based on items #84, 85, 86, and 87 of the resident surveys.


Very Satisfied

Somewhat Satisfied

Have Mixed Feelings

Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Don't Know

4.9%

20.6%

32.5%

16.9%

8.6%

16.5%

159

TABLE 20.3

Kent-Harrison Resident's Opinions About Communications with ehe Correctional

Service of Canada

Resident's Opinion % e Residents Holding Opinion

*Figures based on responses to item #110 of the resident survey.


TABLE 20.4

Kent-Harrison Resident's Rating of The Job • the C.S.C. is Doing in Notifying the Community

of Escapes as They Occur *

Rating % af Residents Giving Rating

Very good 2.1

Good 19.9

Fair 34.9 . .

Bad 22.0

Very Bad 15.4

Don't Know 5.8

*Figures based on responses .to item #109 of the resident survey.

J.bU


I

1

! 91

•1

SI

411

el

1

161

TABLE 20.5

Kent-Harrison Resident's First Contact About Complaints a:iid Request -eor General Information Regarding the Correctional Service Qf Canada *

Group Contacted % of Residents Contacting % df Residents Contacting Regarding Complaints Regarding General Informatiol

Prison Officials 24.1

Police 5.8

Mun. Govt. 13.3

C.A.C. 4.1

Nobody 1.2

Other 26.6

Don't Know 24.9

*Figures based on responses to items #119 and 120 of the resident survey.

yr


45.8

6.3

5.8

2.9

1.7

10.0

27.5

el

1

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

, Very Poor

Don't Know

1.7%

14.7%

31.9%

12.9%

7.8%

31.0%

20.0%

30.0%

20.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

162

TABLE -20, 6.

CSC Staff and CAC Members Rating of the Effectiveness of CAC's Communication Link

Between the Community and the CSÇ

Rating Given % of C.S.C. Staff Giving % Of C.A.C. Members Rating Giving Rating

(116) ( )

* Figures based on interviews with C.A.C. members and responses to item #78 on the C.S.C. employee survey.

(N)


Fra

ser V

alley C

olle

ge R

esea

rch

Gro

up

TABLE 20.7

.Proportion W Editorials and Letters to ,Editor Relating to Federal Corrections *

All Subjects O Federal Corrections Related News-

paper Year Letters Editorials Total Letters Editorials Total % .f "All Subjects"

1976 68 50 118 0 0 0 0%

1 t 1977 43 55 98 3 2 5 5.1%

e) g 1978 48 69 117 3 3 6 5.1%

CbelPt 1979 70 65 135 9 2 11 8.1%

41.'4 1980 96 62 158 15 10 25 15.8%

1976 47 82 129 2 4 6 4.7% -0

w 1977 61 81 142 0 0 0 0.0% 0 al

1978 35 76 111 0 1 1 .007% 0 0

ew 1979 64 78 142 0 0 0 0.0% 4

w 1980 37 70 107 0 0 0 0.0% . x u m 1976 0 0

130 82 212 0 0 0 0.0% e 0 1977 ''91 75 166 0 0 0 0.0% yi $4 .-I beit 978 r-I 0

106 93 199 3 0 3 1.5% .r4 14 1979

130 69 199 '0 0 0 ' 0.0% 0 1980 92 73 165 i 0 1 • 1 .007%

* The information on this table was obtained by taking a 5.0% random sample of all issués of the . Agassiz Advance, Hope Standard, and Chilliwack Progress during the years 1976 - 1980 (inclusive)

Year

1976

164

TABLE 20,8

Frequency of Editorials and Letters to the Editor of the Agassiz Advànce

Ranking Subject Quantity

1 Local Politics 24 2 Provincial Politics 19 3 Local Economy/Development 11 4 Bilingualism 6 5 Federal Politics 4 5 Provincial Economy 4 5 CRTC/CBC 4 6 National Unity 3 6 National Economy 3 6 Agassiz Advance 3 6 Liquor Laws 3 6 Post Office 3 7 Local Civic Organizations 2 7 Local Arts/Culture 2 7 ICBC 2 8 Miscellaneous (1 insertion only) 16

Notices 9

1977 1 Local .Pnlitics _ 24 2 iocal,Economy/Development 11 3 Federal Politics 6 3 . Society & the Family 6 4 *Federal Corrections 5 5 Provincial Politics 4 5 Labour Disputes 4 6 Environmental Concerns 3 6 Health Services in Community 3 7 Local Arts/Culture 2 7 Agassiz Advance 2 7 Bilingualism 2 7 CRTC/CBC 2 8 Miscellaneous (1 insertion only) 17 - Notices 7

1978 1 Local Politics 19 2 Federal Politics 15 3 Provincial Politics 12 4 Environmental Concerns 8 4 Local Economy/Development 8 5 *Federal Corrections 6 5 Labour Disputes 6 6 F.V.C. 5 7 Provincial Education 4 7 Society 4 8 Vancouver Politics 2

cont.


16.5

TABLE 20.8 Cont. , Year Ranking Subject Quantity

1978 cont. 8 Religion 2 8 National Economy 2 8 Agassiz Advance 2 • 8 Crime 2 8 Local Arts/Culture 9 Miscellaneous (1 insertion only)11 - Notices 7

1979 ' 1 Local Politics 23 2 Provincial Politics 15 2 Federal Politics 15 3 Local Economy/Development 13 , 4 *Federal Corrections 10 5 • Provincial Education 8 6 International Politics 5 7 Hockey Violence 4 8 National Unity 3 8 Environmental Concerns 3 9 Local Education 2 9 Provincial Education 2 9 Provincial Health Services 2 9. CRTC 2 9 Society 2

10 Miscellaneous (1 insertion — only) 1/

- Notices 15

1980 1 *Federal Corrections 25 2 Local Politics 18 3 Environmental Concerns 9 4 Local Economy/Development 8 4 Crime .

_. 8

5 Civil Rights 6 . 5 Provincial Politics 6 6 Local Public Services 5 6 International Politics 5 6 Federal Politics 5 6 Provincial Education 5 7 Society 4 7 Local Sports/Recreation 4 7 Freedom of the Press 4 7 Animal Welfare '4 8 RCMP 2 8 CRTC/CBC 2 8 Agassiz Advance 2 8 National Unity' 2 9 Miscellaneoùs (1 insertion only)9 - Notices 25

Cont.


I '8 1

1

1

TABLE 20.8 (cont.)

* The information on this table was obtained by taking a 50% random sample of all issues of the Agassiz Advance during the years 197E-1980 (inclusive). A communications consultant made the determination of the subject matter of each editorial and each of the letters to the editor.

Fraser Valley College Researcii Group

O O O O O

O O o O O

1 O O o O

1 1 O o o

O o O O o

3 1 O 1 O

0 5 1 o O

0 6 0 1

0 0 0 1 2

O O o o 0

0 2 0 0 1

4 14

1 5 0

1 4

1 O o O o

5 14

1 5 0 •1

4

tb-7

I

1 el .1

TABLE 20.9

Number of Editorials and Letters to the Editor Which are Opposing

Federal Corrections and its Operations!e

Newspaper; Agassiz Advance

Year Subject Pro Con Neutral Year Total

1976 CPS/NPS/NPB 0 CPS in Kent-Harrison 0 Kent Institution 0 Mountain Institution 0 Elbow Lake . 0

1977 CPS/NPS/NPB CPS in Kent-Harrison Kent Institution Mountain Institution Elbow Lake

1978 CPS/NPS/NPB CPS in Kent-Harrison Kent Insitution Mountain Institution Elbow Lake



1 O o 1 O

O 1 O

0 0 2 2 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 4 0 0

* The information on this table was obtained by taking a 50% random sample of all issues of the Agassiz Advance during the years 1976-1980 (inclusive). A communications consultant made the determination of whether or not the subject matter of each editorial and letter was either "pro" or "con" corrections.


168

Bibi iographz

A. Published Referendes

Agassiz Advance (1976 - 1980) all issues, Agassiz, B.C.

Agassiz-Harrison Community Services Society (1981) Agassiz-Harrison Area Directory, Agassiz, B.C.

B.C. Police Commission (1980) Bulletin #7,. Vancouver, B.C.

B.C. Police Commission (1976 - 1980) Criminal Justice Monthly Reports, Vancouver, B.C.

B.C. Ministry of Economic Development (1978) British Columbia Regional Index, Victoria, B.C.

British Columbia Telephone Company (1980) Upper Fraser Valley Telephone Directory, Burnaby, B.C.

Chilliwack Progress (1976 - 1980) all issues, Chilliwack, B.C.

Correctional Service of Canada (1979) Commissioner's Directive #216, Ottawa, Ontario.

Correctional Service of Canada (1980) Commissioner's Directive #108, Ottawa, Ontario.

Hope and District Chamber of Commerce (1978) Directory of Hope (Second Edition), Hope, B.C.

Hope Standard (1976 - 1980) all issues, Hope, B.C.

Nie N., Hull C., Jenkins J., Steinbrenner K„ Bent D.,(1975) . Statistical Package For The Social Sciences (Second Edition) McGraw-Hill, Inc., U.S.A.


re9

Statistics Canada 09761 Census . Data, Ottawa,

Statistics Canada (1978) Census Data, Ottawa.

B. Officials used as References

B.C. Police Commission (Resource staff).

B.C. Telephone Company (Customer Services - Chilliwack).

Citizen Advisory Committee (B.C. members).

Correctional Service of Canada (Officials at Kent, Mountain, Elbow Lake, Regional Office).

Department of Public Works Canada (Officials at Vancouver).

Department of Supply and Services Canada (Officials at Abbotsford).

Hope Social, Community, and Emergency Service Agencies (Representatives .).

Kent-Harrison Social ,Community and Emergency Services Agencies (Representatives)

Municipal District of Kent (Administrative Staff).

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Members at Agassiz and Burnaby Detachments, and Vancouver Policy Analysis Section).

School District #76: Kent-Harrison (Administrative Staff for Board).

School District #32: Hope (Administrative Staff for Board).

Township of Hope (Administrative Staff).

•

Fraser Valley dollege Research Group

j A "

"

170

Village of Harrison Hot Springs (blenistrative Staff).

C. Other Prison Impact Assessment Studies

Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff, Engineers, Architects and Planners. (1979) Environmental Reviews Correctional Institution Sites Southern Wisconsin; Preliminary Report. Prepared for the Bureau of Facilities Management, Department of Administration and the Department of Health and Social Services, Wisconsin.

P.S. Ross and Partners, Management Consultants. (1974). Impact of Proposed Medium Security Correctional Facility, Maple Ridge, British Columbia; Prepared for the Correctional Service of Canada.

Solicitor General Canada (1978) Mission Medium Security Institution - Community Attitude Survey, (Unpublished Report), Ottawa.

Shera, Wes. (1979). The Social Impact Of A Juvenile Containment Centre On A B.C. Community. Prepared for the Corrections Branch, Ministry of the Attorney-General, Province of British Columbia.

Stanley, Craig. (1978) The Impact of Prison Proximity On Property Values In Green Bay And Waupan, Wisconsin. A Study commissioned by the State of Wisconsin, Division of Corrections and the Bureau of Facilities Management.

; kV"

A

MII\11sTRY OF TI41-

SOLICITOR rsC,ep 41.

1'3 1985

1: M/NISTCR L


Map

LI1RAF1Y AND RE.FERF.NCE CENTRE/ BiE3LIOTHÈQUE ET CENTRE DE RÉFÉRENCE

MINfeerY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL MINISTE DU SOLLICITEUR GÉNÉRAL 340 LAURIE.n AVE. WEST. Room 11A/

!140 OUEST, AVENUE LAURIER, PIECE 11A OTTAWA, ONTARIO

KiA

âeËË(_

le*±hg ao

IA'1" 2 2 1993

L 1 me,P

Date Due

HV Zarchikoff, W.W. 9507 An assessment of the Z3 social and economic 1981 impacts of federal v.1 correctional institutions

on the communities...

archived content contenu archivé · elenore klassen djoke byleveld gerald scott mike poyntz carol...

Documents