Performance Monitoring Report 2006-2007

3. STRATEGIC OUTCOMES - RESULTS FOR
    2006-2007²⁰

The Program Activity Architecture of the NPB reflects the key aspects of its legislative framework (Corrections and Conditional Release Act and Criminal Records Act) and the areas of performance in which Parliament and the public most frequently express interest. In this context, the Board's strategic outcomes are the cornerstones of its public accountability.

For the year 2006/07, the Board's three strategic outcomes were:

1. conditional release decisions which contribute to public protection through the safe reintegration of offenders in the community;



2. open and accountable conditional release processes that ensure active involvement and engagement of victims and the public, before and after conditional release decisions are made; and



3. pardon decisions and clemency recommendations which contribute to public protection and support the process of rehabilitation.

Progress in 2006/07 toward outcome 1:

Conditional release decisions which contribute to public protection through the safe reintegration of offenders in the community.

Program Activity: Conditional Release Decisions

Program Activity Description: Case review and quality decision-making; provision of support for decision-making; provision of appropriate training to ensure professionalism in all aspects of decision-making and policy development to guide decision-making and operations.

The effectiveness of the activities surrounding quality conditional release decision-making is assessed through the monitoring of the outcomes of offenders on parole. Outcomes of release provide balanced information on performance. For example, completion of a period of parole supervision by an offender without returning to an institution is an indicator of success. Revocation of a release for a breach of the conditions of parole is not a positive result for the offender, but from a community perspective, it is a positive intervention to reduce risk. Finally, releases which result in a new offence are clearly a negative result.

Over the past ten years, the Board has conducted an average of 23,000 conditional release reviews annually and made an average of 6,100 decisions to release offenders on either day or full parole.

The Board uses three indicators related to the performance of parolees in the community:

• outcomes of conditional release;



• convictions for violent offences; and



• post-warrant expiry readmission on a federal sentence.

Outcomes of conditional release for federal offenders

Over the last ten years, performance information indicates that:

• Over 78% of releases on day and full parole were completed successfully.



• About 14% of releases on day and full parole were revoked for a breach of conditions.



• Eight percent (8%) of releases on parole ended in a new offence and about 1.2% ended in a new violent offence. In fact, the number of violent offences by offenders on day and full parole declined by 55% between 1996/97 and 2005/06. The numbers for fiscal year 2006/07 are not included as the number of convictions could increase during the next 12 to 18 months as cases make their way through the courts.



• Over 58% of releases on statutory release were completed successfully, about 28% were revoked for a breach of conditions, about 13% ended in a new offence and 3% ended in a new violent offence. It must be remembered that offenders on statutory release are released by law and not at the discretion of the Board.

Recent information on the outcomes of conditional release is consistent with long-term trends. Care should be taken, however, when reviewing the outcome rate information for 2006/07, as the number of revocations with offence will often fluctuate higher during the 12 to 18 months after a fiscal year ends because outstanding charges often take that long to be resolved by the courts.

Top of Page

Top of Page

Outcomes of conditional release for provincial offenders in the Atlantic and Prairie regions

Information on the outcomes of release for provincial offenders in the Atlantic and Prairie regions where the NPB exercises parole decision-making authority also shows positive results. Over the past ten years, 79% of releases of provincial offenders on day and full parole were completed successfully. Three percent (3%) of releases were revoked because of a new offence, while 0.3% were revoked because of a new violent offence. In real numbers, over the past ten years, 14 of the 5,233 parole releases for provincial offenders resulted in a new violent offence.

Outcomes of conditional release for offenders serving life sentences for murder

Offenders serving life sentences for murder represent a visible and growing component of the federal offender population. In 1994/95, they represented 14% of the federally incarcerated population (2,024) and about 16% (998) of day and full parolees. By 2006/07, the proportions had grown to 18% (2,435) of the federally incarcerated population and 30% (1,589) of day and full parolees. Offenders serving life sentences are not entitled to statutory release.

Day parole for offenders serving life sentences for murder has yielded positive results. Over the last ten years, 92% of day paroles, for offenders serving life sentences for murder, have been successfully completed compared to 81% for offenders serving determinate sentences. The rate of re-offending was also lower for offenders serving life sentences for murder at 1% compared to 7% for offenders serving determinate sentences. In fact, offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (property offences) were most likely to reoffend, followed by offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (offences such as armed robbery, assault).

Offenders, serving life sentences for murder, who are released on full parole, remain on parole for life. Since 1994/95, 1,733 offenders serving life sentences for murder have had 1,943 full parole supervision periods. As of March 31, 2007, 67% of the full parole supervision periods were still active, the offender had died in 12% of cases, while 13% of the full parole supervision periods had been revoked for a breach of conditions and 9% had ended as the result of a new offence with 3% ending as the result of a new violent offence.

Top of Page

Convictions for violent offences:

• Annual numbers of convictions for violent offences dropped 55% for offenders on day and full parole between 1996/97 and 2005/06. (The numbers for fiscal year 2006/07 were not included as the number of convictions could increase during the next 12 to 18 months as cases make their way through the courts.)



• The rate per 1,000 offenders on day and full parole has also revealed a downward trend since 1996/97 (from 37 to 15 for day parole and from 13 to 5 for full parole).



• Comparisons of rates of conviction for violent offences and violent crime rates based on the Uniform Crime Reports suggests that offenders on full parole are no more likely than the general public to commit a violent crime.

Post-warrant readmission on a federal sentence

Post-warrant expiry re-offending is based on readmissions on a federal sentence for offenders who completed their sentences on full parole, statutory release as well as for offenders that were released at warrant expiry (at the end of their sentence).

Long-term follow-up for federal offenders who completed their sentences on full parole, statutory release or were released at warrant expiry between 1991/92 and 1996/97 indicates that about 26% had been re-admitted on a federal sentence by March 31, 2007. There are, however, significant differences in re-offending for offenders within this group:

• about 12% of offenders who completed their sentences on full parole had been re-admitted on a federal sentence;



• about 32% of offenders who completed their sentences on statutory release had been re-admitted on a federal sentence; and



• about 38% of offenders who were released at warrant expiry had been re-admitted on a federal sentence.

Conditional release is founded on the principle that gradual release to the community, based on effective programs and treatment, quality assessments of the risk of re-offending and effective community supervision enhances community safety. In this context, gradual and supervised release is considered more effective than release "cold turkey" at the end of the sentence. Information on post-warrant readmission on a federal sentence reinforces this theory, suggesting that the detailed process of case preparation and assessment used by the Board and CSC for parole decision-making is effective in identifying those offenders most likely to remain free from crime in the community.

Post-warrant expiry re-offending, as reported, deals only with federal re-offending (i.e. a new sentence of two years or more). If all new sentences (e.g. fines or sentences of less than two years) were considered, the rate of re-offending would increase. The NPB does not have access to this information; however, work continues to develop a more comprehensive picture of post-warrant expiry re-offending.

Top of Page

Progress in 2006/07 toward outcome 2:

Open and accountable conditional release processes that ensure active involvement and engagement of victims and the public, before and after conditional release decisions are made.

Program Activity: Conditional Release Openness and Accountability

Program Activity Description: Provision of information for victims and assistance for observers at hearings and those who seek access to the NPB's decision registry; public information strategies; and investigation of tragic incidents in the community.

This program activity is designed to ensure that the Board operates in an open and accountable manner, consistent with the provisions of the CCRA and that it shares information effectively in support of public safety and effective conditional release. Work in this area recognizes that the NPB operates in a difficult environment in which timely sharing of accurate information is fundamental to effective partnership and public trust. `Results for this area are assessed by monitoring the timeliness of information shared and by conducting surveys of those who receive information and assistance from the Board.

The CCRA requires the Board to provide information for victims of crime, allow observers at its hearings and provide access to its decisions through a registry of decisions. Performance in this area has two components:

• the volume of NPB activity in response to demands for information/assistance; and



• the satisfaction of those who receive information and assistance from the Board.

Contacts with victims

In 2006/07, the Board had about 21,400 contacts with victims. The number of contacts with victims has increased 50% in the last five years. Most were victims of violence, such as sexual assault or the family of murder victims. Victims do not always agree with NPB decisions, but the majority of those surveyed in 2003 expressed satisfaction with the quality and timeliness of the information provided by NPB staff.

Observers at hearings

The Board had 2,055 observers at its hearings in 2006/07, a 27% increase from the previous year.

Top of Page

Victims speaking at hearings

In 2006/07, victims made 252 presentations at 152 hearings. Of this group, most had been family members of victims of murder (44%) or manslaughter (23%). Eighty-five percent (85%) of the presentations were made by the victims in person, and the rest were on either audio or video tape.

Decision Registry

The CCRA permits access to specific decisions and to decisions for research purposes through the NPB's registry of decisions. For specific cases, any person who demonstrates an interest may, on written application to the Board, have access to the contents of the registry relating to a specific case. Information that would jeopardize the safety of a person, reveal the source of information obtained in confidence or adversely influence the reintegration of the offender is deleted. For research purposes, people may apply to the Board for access to decisions and receive information after the decisions have been screened to remove all personal identifiers.

The legislation does not define the contents of the "registry of decisions" or what would constitute demonstrating interest in a case. However, in keeping with the concepts of openness and accountability, the Board makes available the complete case assessment and decision-making documentation of Board members.

In 2006/07, the Board released over 5,800 decisions from the registry in response to about 1,500 requests. Victims were the most frequent users (about 37%), followed by the media (about 26%).

Investigations

The Board participates in Boards of Investigation into incidents where offenders on conditional release have committed a serious offence in the community. Boards of Investigation are conducted in co-operation with CSC and usually have three members: a Chairperson, who is a representative from the community, a representative from CSC and a representative from NPB. If warranted, other community members are appointed who have expertise in the issue under review. The Board of Investigation conducts an in-depth review of file documentation and hearing tapes and carries out on-site interviews with those involved in the release and supervision of the offender. There were no new Boards of Investigation conducted in 2006/07.

Top of Page

Progress in 2006/07 toward outcome 3:

Pardon decisions and clemency recommendations which contribute to public protection and support the process of rehabilitation.

Program Activity: Pardon Decisions and Clemency Recommendations

Program Activity Description: The review of pardon applications and the making of quality decisions to grant or deny pardons; provision of support for pardons decision-making; development of pardons and clemency policy; the collections of pardon revenues; and development of recommendations for clemency.

The Criminal Records Act (CRA) was originally created in 1970 to ease, through the granting of a pardon, the stigma of a criminal record for those offenders who demonstrate over an appropriate number of years that they can lead crime free lives. A pardon is a formal attempt to remove a stigma for people found guilty of a federal offence who, having satisfied the sentence imposed and a specified waiting period, have shown themselves to be responsible citizens. A pardon is, therefore, a means to facilitate and demonstrate safe reintegration in the community. Results are assessed in terms of the average time required to process pardon applications and the rates of revocation of pardons.

In Canada, over 3 million people have criminal records. This group represents the potential clientele for the pardon program. Over the last five years, the Board has received, on average about 21,000 pardon applications per year, which generate about $1,050,000 in revenues as a result of a $50.00 user fee. The Board may access 70% of the revenues collected to an annual maximum of $410,000. The RCMP has access to 30% of the user fees collected. The fee, which does not reflect the full cost of the program for the NPB or the RCMP, is set at $50.00 so as not to serve as an impediment for Canadians who wish to benefit from a pardon.

The Criminal Records Act empowers the Board to grant pardons for offences prosecuted by indictment if it is satisfied the applicant is of good conduct and has been conviction-free for at least the last five years. It also requires the Board to issue pardons for summary convictions, following a conviction-free period of three years. The grant/issue rate for pardons has been 98% or 99% for the last five years.

In 2006/07, the average processing time for pardons was 13 months. Although the sustained efforts of the Division as well as the implementation of the Pardon Application Decision System Renewal (PADS-R) provided net improvement in the processing of pardon applications, the key factor in determining processing time, which is out of the control of the NPB, is the number of applications received. The numbers of applications received in the past two years, which have been at an all time high, did not allow the Division and the NPB to reduce processing times in 2006/07.

The CRA gives the NPB the authority to revoke a pardon if the person to whom the pardon was issued or granted is subsequently convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction, on evidence establishing to the NPB's satisfaction that the person is no longer of good conduct or because of evidence that the person made a false or deceptive statement or concealed information relative to the application.

The CRA also states that a pardon ceases to exist if the person to whom it was granted or issued is subsequently convicted of an indictable offence, an offence that is punishable either as an indictable offence or on summary conviction (a hybrid offence), except for driving while ability impaired, driving with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood or failing to provide a breath sample. The NPB has the authority in these cases. A pardon also ceases to exist if the NPB is convinced by new information that the person was not eligible for a pardon at the time it was granted or issued.

The cumulative pardon revocation/cessation rate remains low (4%) demonstrating that most people remain crime free after receipt of a pardon.

²⁰2006-2007 Estimates Part III Report on Plans and Priorities, National Parole Board, 2006
Performance Report for the period ending March 31, 2006, National Parole Board, 2006