Performance Monitoring Report 2007-2008

2. THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE BOARD

Public safety and security are fundamental to Canada 's economic and social well-being. However, a changing global and domestic environment is placing significant pressures on the continued effectiveness of our law enforcement, security, corrections and parole agencies. These pressures may require adjustments to Canada 's system of corrections and conditional release to be reflective of initiatives for legislative revision, demographic changes, shifting crime patterns, the changing composition of Canada 's federal offender population and evolving public attitudes towards criminal justice issues. As the federal government is responsible for a significant portion of correctional and conditional release services in Canada , it has an integral role to play in developing effective strategies to deal with these trends.

The Board works in a complex environment which demands effective support for government priorities, careful assessment of pressures within the justice system, thoughtful consideration of public issues and concerns in a dynamic and challenging community context and rigorous pursuit of innovation and improvement to meet workload pressures. A number of trends in both the Board's external and internal environments are discussed below.

Government Priorities 1

In the Speech from the Throne of October 2007, the Government of Canada shared its vision with Canadians on how it plans to continue building a better Canada . In 2008, the Government will focus on five clear priorities: strengthening Canada 's sovereignty and place in the world; building a stronger federation; providing effective economic leadership; continuing to tackle crime; and improving the environment.

The government has a long-term agenda of clear goals and real results, and will focus in the months ahead on the following priorities: realization of Canada's strong Artic vision and a responsible, effective path forward in Afghanistan; modernization of Canada's democratic institutions through measures such as formal limits on federal spending power and reform of the Senate; effective economic leadership and a prosperous future by aggressively moving forward with broad tax relief; a safe and secure Canada in which the Government will continue to tackle crime and strengthen the security of Canadians; and a healthy environment for Canadians in which the Government will deliver realistic and achievable results in areas such as environmental enforcement and product and food safety.

In the area of criminal justice, the Government is committed to the right of all Canadians to feel safe and secure in their neighbourhoods and the country. The Government has introduced measures to protect Canadians and their communities from violent criminals and predators which include measures on the age of protection, impaired driving, dangerous offenders and stricter bail and mandatory prison sentences for those who commit gun crimes. The Government has gone further with a Safer Communities strategy to deal with the critical intersection of drug, youth and property crime. The Government will strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act to ensure that young offenders who commit serious crimes are held accountable to victims and their communities. The Government will also introduce tough new laws to tackle property crime, including the serious problem of auto theft, introduce measures to address elder abuse and to curb identity theft. In addition, the Government is implementing the National Anti-Drug Strategy giving law enforcement agencies powers to take on those who produce and push drugs.

In addition to tougher laws, the Government will provide targeted support to communities and victims. It will help families and local communities in steering vulnerable youth away from a life of drugs and crime and the National Anti-Drug strategy will treat those suffering from drug addiction. The Government will also ensure effective law enforcement and will start with resources to recruit 2,500 more officers to police Canada 's streets.

Initiatives found in Budget 2008 in the area of criminal justice include a Safer Communities Strategy which will be implemented, in part, through effective law enforcement, which will help ensure every Canadian is safe and secure. The Budget provides $400 million in funding to provinces and territories to support them in recruiting 2,500 new front-line police officers. The Government is also providing $122 million over two years to ensure that the federal corrections system is on track to implement a new vision and to achieve better public safety results. In addition, the Budget provides $32 million over two years to enhance the work of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada which prosecutes offences under more than 50 federal statutes and provides prosecution-related legal advice to law enforcement agencies. The funds will assist the Public Prosecution Service of Canada in prosecuting drug cases more effectively and providing greater support for Crown agents across Canada . Budget 2008 also provides more than $60 million over two years for the National Crime Prevention Strategy. Priorities for funding include providing support for vulnerable families and children at risk, preventing youth gang and drug-related crime and preventing recidivism among high-risk groups.

The federal agenda of tackling crime and strengthening the security of Canadians has important implications for the NPB. The Government's proposals for toughening laws as well as sentences will have a significant impact on the NPB as longer sentences, as well as mandatory minimum sentences, will increase the offender population, which will, in turn, add to the high workload volumes that the Board already deals with.

The Board must also deal with important challenges such as the information needs of victims, the broad impacts of diversity, the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the justice system and low levels of public confidence in parole and parole boards. All of these issues are considered in the context of the NPB's enduring commitment to public safety.

The challenge for the Board, given its small size and very limited resources, both human and financial, will be to manage to respond to new government initiatives in addition to its key priorities of enhancing risk assessment instruments and training, developing innovative parole decision models and engaging the public and working in partnership to develop effective strategies for conditional release.

Crime Rates And Trends 2

Following a 30 year-low in 2006, the national crime rate in Canada fell again in 2007, marking its lowest point since 1977. The 7% drop represented the third consecutive annual decrease and continues the general decline seen in police-reported crime since the rate peaked in 1991.

In 2007, property crimes decreased by 8%, while other Criminal Code offences dropped by 9% and the rate of violent crime decreased 3%.

The drop in crime was driven by decreases in virtually all high-volume offences: theft under $5,000, mischief under $5,000, break and enter, common assault, motor vehicle theft, disturbing the peace, fraud and counterfeiting.

Following increases in most serious violent crimes over the past two years, the violent crime rate fell in 2007 and reached its lowest level since 1989. In 2007 the rates of homicide, attempted murder, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and abduction declined or remained stable.

In 2007, crime rates fell in all provinces and territories except Newfoundland and Labrador , Yukon and the Northwest Territories . In 2007, provincial crime rates varied from a low of 5,228 incidents per 100,000 population in Ontario to a high of 13,225 in Saskatchewan.

Continuing the pattern observed over the past 30 years, the highest provincial crime rates in 2007 were reported in the west. Despite a 4% decline, Saskatchewan recorded the highest crime rate for the tenth year in a row, followed by Manitoba , British Columbia and Alberta.

Crime rates in the territories were well above the rest of Canada , also consistent with findings from previous years. For the fifth year in a row, Ontario and Quebec reported the lowest 2007 police-reported crime rates.

Trends in crime have important implications for Board policy, training and operations as the Board must continually enhance its risk assessment tools and training to adapt to changes in the offender profile.

Table 1 Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2008

CRIMINAL CODE INCIDENTS/100,000 POPULATION

Year	Violent		Property		Other Criminal Code 3		Total Criminal Code Incidents
	#	% change	#	% change	#	% change	#	% change
1997	993	-0.9	4880	-7.5	2603	-2.0	8475	-5.1
1998	982	-1.1	4569	-6.4	2610	0.3	8161	-3.7
1999	958	-2.4	4276	-6.4	2518	-3.5	7752	-5.0
2000	984	2.7	4081	-4.6	2601	3.3	7666	-1.1
2001	984	-0.1	4004	-1.9	2668	2.6	7655	-0.1
2002	969	-1.5	3973	-0.8	2764	3.6	7706	0.7
2003	965	-0.4	4121	3.7	3057	10.6	8142	5.7
2004	944	-2.1	3969	-3.7	3247	6.2	8161	0.2
2005	949	0.5	3736	-5.9	3085	-5.0	7769	-4.8
2006	954	0.5	3596	-3.8	2993	-3.0	7543	-3.0
2007	930	-2.5	3320	-7.7	2734	-8.6	6984	-7.4

Note: Information in this table is provided on a calendar year basis.

Of the approximately 2.3 million Criminal Code incidents (excluding traffic offences and other federal statutes such as drug offences) reported to police in 2007, 13% were violent crimes, 48% were property related crimes, and the remaining 39% were “other” Criminal Code incidents (such as mischief, counterfeiting, disturbing the peace and bail violations).

Ten crime types accounted for about 80% of all police-reported incidents in 2007: theft under $5,000 (25%); mischief (16%); break and enter (10%); common assault (8%); motor vehicle theft (6%); disturbing the peace (5%); bail violations (5%); fraud (4%); counterfeiting currency (2%); and assault with a weapon (2%).

Violent crime, accounting for about 1 in 8 criminal incidents, decreased in 2007, although to a lesser extent than did property crime and other non-violent offences. The drop in total violent crime was due to decreases in common assault, robbery and sexual assault. Common assault, the least serious although most frequent form of violent crime, fell by 3%, the seventh consecutive annual decline.

Other serious violent crimes, including homicide, attempted murder and abduction also decreased while aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and forcible confinement remained stable. The stable rate of assault with a weapon follows seven years of previous increases.

In 2007, police-reported property offences dropped 8% from the year before and reached their lowest rate since 1969. Historically, property offences accounted for about two-thirds of all crime; however, beginning in the mid-1980s, the proportion began to shift. In 2007, property offences accounted for just under half (48%) of all criminal incidents.

Criminal Code incidents that are classified as neither property crimes nor violent crimes fall into the category of "Other Criminal Code " offences. There are four high-volume crime types included in this group, three of which remained relatively stable in 2007: mischief under $5,000, bail violations, and disturbing the peace. The fourth major type is counterfeiting currency. This offence is somewhat unique in that, for a relatively high-volume offence, it is subject to large year-to-year fluctuations. For example, between 2002 and 2004, the rate increased by 146%. Since then, the rate has declined by 73%, including a 54% drop between 2006 and 2007.

Like the violent crime rate in Canada , the proportion of federal warrant of committal admissions which was for violent offences has been declining, from 62% in 1996/97 to 53% in 2007/08. On the other hand, the proportion of warrant of committal admissions for non-violent offences increased from 38% in 1996/97 to 47% in 2007/08.

Criminal Court Rates and Trends 4

Courts are responsible for making a number of critical decisions about a criminal case. These decisions include the determination of whether the Crown has established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and for those offenders found guilty (or who plead guilty), the court must determine the nature of the sentence that will be imposed.

Trends in crime and incarceration have important implications for NPB policy, training and operations. The changing nature of the incarcerated population demands that the Board continue to enhance risk assessment tools and training related to various groups, including sex offenders, armed robbers, etc. The annual number of admissions to custody and average sentence lengths determine the Board's workloads as offenders become eligible for parole. The challenge for the Board is to ensure that it has sufficient resources to respond to these workloads and that these resources are allocated in a manner which addresses regional variations and needs.

The Adult Criminal Court Survey (ACCS) for 2006/07 revealed that the number of cases heard in adult criminal court was virtually unchanged from the previous year. The longer-term trend (over the past decade) has been downward. In fact, the number of cases disposed in 2006/07 represents a 7% decrease over the number of cases completed in 2002/03.

This downward trend generally corresponds to the pattern in police-recorded crime statistics reported to the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey. From 2002 to 2006 there was a 3% drop in the rate of adults charged. More evident is the 16% decline in the rate of adults charged from 1996 to 2005.

Of the provinces and territories which reported to the ACCS in 2006/07, Ontario was responsible for 40% of the cases heard, followed by Quebec at 18%, Alberta at 14% and British Columbia at 12%.

Cases are also becoming more complex. Cases involving multiple charges represented 60% of the adult caseload in 2006/07 compared with 57% of the caseload in 2002/03.

In 2006/07, crimes against the person accounted for 25% of the total number of cases completed, crimes against property accounted for 24%, administration of justice cases accounted for 17% and Criminal Code traffic accounted for 14%. Other Criminal Code offences (which included weapons offences and disturbing the peace offences) represented 8% of all cases. The remaining 12% of cases dealt with other federal statutes, which included drug-related offences, Customs Act offences, Income Tax Act offences and other federal statute offences.

In 2006/07, the most frequently occurring cases were impaired driving (11%) and common assault (11%), followed by theft offences (10%), failure to comply with a court order (7%), breach of probation (7%) and major assault (5%). Taken together, all forms of sexual assault and other sexual offences accounted for less than 2% of the caseload in adult criminal courts in 2006/07. Homicide and attempted murder together accounted for approximately 0.2% of total cases.

A conviction was recorded in 65% of the 372,084 5 cases completed in 2006/07.

Probation was the most frequently imposed sanction in 2006/07 (43%) of all guilty cases. A prison term was imposed in 34% of cases and a fine in 31%. The proportions for both probation and prison terms have remained stable over the last five years, while the imposition of fine sentences has been decreasing (down from 35% five years ago).

The proportion of cases sentenced to prison varies across the country. In 2006/07, the highest incarceration rate was in Prince Edward Island, where 55% of guilty cases resulted in a term of imprisonment, while the lowest rates of incarceration were in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan where prison was imposed in about one-quarter of cases. The variation in the use of incarceration reflects the influence of several factors. First, the mix of offences being sentenced can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If a particular jurisdiction has a higher than average percentage of more serious crimes, it may also have a higher than average overall percentage of cases being sent to prison. Second, courts in different parts of the country may use incarceration in different ways.

In Prince Edward Island , for example, offenders are frequently sent to prison for impaired driving convictions (85% in 2006/07). This was by far the highest incarceration rate for impaired driving convictions in Canada. The next highest incarceration rate for impaired driving convictions was recorded in Newfoundland and Labrador (32%). The lowest rate of incarceration for guilty cases of impaired driving occurred in British Columbia where 4% were incarcerated.

For convicted cases with sentences of two years or more, the average aggregate sentence length of warrant of committal admissions (excluding indeterminate sentences) has declined since 1994/95. The average sentence length has declined from 3.9 years in 1994/95 to 3.1 years in 2006/07. During the same period, the number of warrant of committal admissions with indeterminate sentences (which includes lifers and dangerous offenders) has varied between a high of 199 in 1996/97 and a low of 141 in 2003/04.

Fear of Crime and Public Confidence in Criminal Justice 6

Fear of Crime

Canadians' perceptions of crime in their community can be shaped by a number of factors, including their own personal and household victimization, experiences of those close to them and media reports of criminal incidents.

The latest administration of the General Social Survey (GSS), in 2004, showed that most Canadians believe that crime is lower in their neighbourhood than elsewhere in Canada. About six in ten Canadians (59%) had this opinion, while a further three in ten (29%) thought neighbourhood crime levels were about the same as in other neighbourhoods.

Results from the 2004 GSS revealed that almost six in ten Canadians (58%) believed that their neighbourhood crime rate has remained unchanged over the past five years. Another 30% of the population were of the opinion that crime had worsened in their community, while 6% expressed the belief that crime had dropped. In general, opinions have improved since 1993, when Canadians were more likely to say that crime in their neighbourhood was on the rise (46%) than they were to say that crime was unchanged from five years earlier.

Fear of crime can be measured by feelings of satisfaction with personal safety from crime and an individual's anticipated fear of or worry about becoming a victim. The 2004 GSS asked respondents about their overall satisfaction with their own personal safety from crime, as well as their level of fear of crime in three situations: being home alone at night, taking public transportation at night and walking alone after dark.

In 2004, the overwhelming majority of Canadians were satisfied with their safety from being a victim and this proportion is growing. Fully 94% of Canadians indicated that they were somewhat or very satisfied with their safety from crime, up from 91% in 1999 and 86% in 1993.

The figure remains high but is slightly lower when considering specific situations. For example, nine in ten Canadians (90%) who walked alone in their neighbourhood at night felt safe doing so, 46% felt reasonably safe and 44% felt very safe. This represents a continuing positive trend, up from 88% in 1999 and 86% in 1993. Of those individuals who stayed at home alone in the evening or at night, 80% believed that being in this situation was not at all worrisome, the same proportion as in 1999. Waiting for or using public transportation alone after dark remains the most fear-inducing among the three situations. In 2004, fewer than six in ten (57%) were not at all worried about being the victim of a crime when using public transportation at night, up from 54% in 1999.

Public Confidence in Criminal Justice

A wealth of research has recently been conducted on public attitudes towards the criminal justice system. A comprehensive literature review on public opinion and corrections in Canada was conducted by Julian V. Roberts in 2005 for Correctional Service Canada. The following themes were addressed (among others): public knowledge of corrections, confidence in the correctional system, public opinion on the purpose of corrections, and the effect of information on attitudes.

Several studies have revealed the same finding: most people know little about the nature and functioning of the correctional system. A self-reported level of knowledge survey conducted in 2004 indicated that 7% of the respondents rated themselves as very informed, while 40% responded with "somewhat informed". The other respondents (53%) rated themselves as not very or not at all informed. Other findings on public knowledge of corrections indicated that people know little about the use of imprisonment in Canada or about life in prison, but assume that it is too easy. Moreover, the general public attitude is that the justice system is generally too lenient. Furthermore, most Canadians cited the news media as their principal source of information about corrections. As corrections in the news generally means bad news, this may explain most of the misperceptions or stereotypes held by the public.

Public trust, confidence and respect for the justice system are essential to ensure continued public participation and support. One measure of this is public satisfaction with the work of the police, courts, correctional and parole systems and the public's perception of personal safety from crime. A 2002 survey revealed that the public had most confidence in the police, and the least in the prison system. There was a positive balance for all branches of the justice system – except for the prison and parole systems, with the greatest confidence deficit emerging for the parole system. Fully 88% of respondents stated that they were very or somewhat confident in the police; less than half the sample expressed this level of confidence in the prison system and approximately one third of respondents expressed this level of confidence with respect to the parole system.

This hierarchy of confidence has been stable for many years, however there is some limited evidence that Canadians' confidence in corrections has increased. Several explanations present themselves to account for this universal hierarchy of confidence in the justice system. The different mandates of the organizations are clearly relevant and the public is more sympathetic to crime control than due process.

A number of surveys demonstrated that Canadians continue to support reintegration. A nationwide poll conducted in 2002 found that more than four out of five respondents agreed that: "a significant number of offenders can become law-abiding citizens through programs, education and other support". The same results were found in a 2004 survey. However, the pattern of responses reverses itself when respondents are asked about the rehabilitation potential of violent and/or sexual offenders.

Parole remains one of the most controversial elements of the correctional system in Canada. Representative surveys of the Canadian public have revealed that most Canadians: over-estimated the parole grant rate; assumed that all inmates apply for parole, and that they all receive parole at the first application; over-estimated the revocation rate, and assumed that revocation occurs most often in response to a new offence; and over-estimated the recidivism rate of offenders released on parole (a proportion of 75% of the respondents over-estimated this rate).

Although members of the public may frequently be critical of the parole system, they do not support abolishing it. A number of explorations of public attitudes towards parole have been conducted over the past few years and they revealed that the public supported a parole system over the "no-parole" option by a margin of 3 to 1. Moreover, in a 2002 survey, respondents were asked to agree or to disagree with the statement that: "It is safer to gradually release offenders into society under supervision and control than to release then without conditions at the end of the sentence". 84% agreed and 14% disagreed with the statement. These findings were confirmed by focus groups conducted in 2004. It should however be noted that the public remained opposed to parole for violent offenders, particularly offenders serving life for murder.

The ageing of Canadian society, which is expected to heighten public sensitivity to issues of crime and safety, coupled with the public's limited understanding of conditional release and its expectations for meaningful debate on the key issues of public safety, create urgent pressures for the Board to continue to engage communities in discussion of conditional release and to forge community partnerships for the safe reintegration of offenders. Community engagement must be supported by clear and accurate information about the effectiveness of conditional release and by processes which monitor performance.

Victims of Crime 7

Victims' involvement in federal corrections and conditional release has grown extensively since the tabling in Parliament of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights Report Victim's Rights – A Voice Not a Veto in October 1998.

While great strides have been made to enact legislation (provincial and federal), develop services, expand information and generally change attitudes about the role of the victim in the criminal justice system, the needs of some victims are still not being met.

To fulfil a promise to better meet the needs of victims of crime in matters of federal jurisdiction, the Government announced, in March 2007, the commitment of $52 million over four years to boost programs, services and funding for victims of crime. The funds are to help federal, provincial and territorial governments respond to a variety of emerging issues facing victims of crime across the country. The funds are to enhance victim support and participation within the criminal justice system and federal corrections, including first response service delivery, court-based services, services for victims of offenders under federal jurisdiction and assistance for those currently underserved by existing services. Some of the money is targeted to assist victims in the North and Canadians victimized abroad.

The appointment of a Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime was also part of the $52 million package for victims. The Ombudsman, who was appointed in April 2007, is tasked with ensuring that the federal government meets its commitments; promoting access to existing government programs and services and identifying and exploring systemic and emerging victim issues. The Ombudsman operates at arm's length from the federal departments responsible for victim issues, namely the Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety. It should be noted that the provinces and territories continue to be the primary providers of victim services and funding.

The NPB is receiving close to $.5 million per year to implement new measures to enhance communications with victims and ensure consistency and quality in service delivery. Resources are being used to respond to several information needs identified by victims, including interpretation services for victims at NPB hearings; voice amplification equipment in hearing rooms so that victims can hear what is said; enhancements to the NPB's website so that victims can have timely access to information about their rights within the conditional release process; community outreach so that victims and victims' groups can raise issues of concern with Board members and staff; and effective training for NPB staff to ensure national consistency in NPB policies and processes.

The Board gives a high priority to victims, and is committed to improving the information and assistance that it provides to them.

Legislative and Policy Context 8

As part of its commitment to tackle crime and make Canada's communities safer, the Government introduced, in the fall of 2007, the Tackling Violent Crime Act to better protect youth from sexual predators and society from dangerous offenders, get serious with drug impaired drivers and toughen sentencing and bail for those who commit gun crimes. The measures included in the legislation will:

• impose mandatory jail time for serious gun crimes;
• create tougher bail rules when a gun is used to commit a crime;
• increase the age of protection for sexual activity from 14 years to 16 years;
• crack down on drug impaired driving; and
• ensure that high-risk and dangerous offenders face tougher consequences when they are sentenced and are better monitored post-release to prevent them from offending again and again.

The Government is also implementing a plan to strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act to include deterrence and denunciation as principles of sentencing and to strengthen pre-trial detention. The Government also plans to launch a comprehensive review of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in 2008.

In addition, the Government has followed through on its commitment to give police the tools they need to better protect Canadians by stopping identity theft activity before the damage is done. Legislation has been tabled which will make it an offence to obtain, possess or traffic in other people's identity information if it is to be used to commit a crime.

The Government has also introduced legislative reforms that would impose mandatory jail time for people who commit the serious crimes of producing and selling illegal drugs. The proposed amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act include:

• a one year mandatory prison sentence for dealing drugs such as marijuana when carried out for organized crime purposes, or when a weapon or violence is involved;

• a two year mandatory prison sentence for dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamines to youth, or for dealing those drugs near a school or an area normally frequently by youth;
• a two year mandatory prison sentence for the offence of running a large marijuana grow operation of at least 500 plants;
• the maximum penalty for cannabis production would increase from 7 to 14 years imprisonment; and
• tougher penalties will be introduced for trafficking GHB and flunitrazepam (most commonly known as date-rape drugs).

The conditional sentencing bill (C-9) received Royal Assent on May 31, 2007. This act amended the Criminal Code to eliminate the availability of conditional sentences for indictable offences punishable by 10 years or more that qualify as either serious personal injury offences (including sexual assault, aggravated assault or sexual assault with a weapon), terrorism offences or criminal organization offences.

Also in 2007, the Government appointed an independent panel to review the operations of the Correctional Service of Canada as part of the Government's commitment to protecting Canadian families and communities. The report, which was released in December 2007, charts a roadmap that is a transformation in the way the Correctional Service of Canada operates to meet the challenges of an offender population that is more violent. As the National Parole Board deals with the same offender population, many of the recommendations have some relevance for the Board.

The roadmap focuses on recommendations in five key areas which will help to enhance public safety.

• Offender Accountability: Rehabilitation must be a shared responsibility of the Correctional Service of Canada and the offender.
• Eliminating Drugs from Prison: The presence of drugs in penitentiaries is unacceptable, and it contributes to a dangerous environment for staff and offenders.
• Employability/employment: Without means to earn a living upon release, an offender's rehabilitation is jeopardized.
• Physical Infrastructure: The current stand alone penitentiaries are not seen to be the best manner to meet security and offender needs.
• Eliminating Statutory Release and Accelerated Parole Review-Moving to Earned Parole: Although all five areas will have an impact on the conditional release system in Canada , this area is of the most significance for conditional release and the National Parole Board. The Panel recommended the abolition of statutory release and accelerated parole review. The Panel further recommended that the current system be replaced by a system of earned parole with all decision-making undertaken by the Board. The Panel also recommended significant program enhancements in the institution and the community to support the system of earned release.

The Government is currently assessing the implications of the recommendations and considering its response to the Report.

The Government's legislative reform proposals for toughening laws as well as sentences will have a significant impact on the NPB as new offences and longer sentences will increase the offender population and may introduce into the federal correctional system individuals who would have previously been under provincial responsibility. The abolition of statutory release and accelerated parole review would also have a significant impact on the workload of the Board as all offenders would have to be seen at least once for parole consideration. This will add significantly to the high workload volumes that the Board already deals with.

Diversity: 9

Canada is a multicultural society whose ethno-cultural composition has been shaped over time by different waves of immigrants and their descendents, as well as by the Aboriginal peoples of the country. Each new wave of immigrants has added to its diversity.

As of July 1, 2007, Canada's population had reached 32,976,000, an increase of 326,500 compared to the same date the previous year. The growth rate was 10.0 per thousand down slightly from the rate observed in the previous year (10.4 per 1,000). However, Canada experienced more rapid population growth than any other G8 country in the five years leading up to the 2006 Census. While the number of Canadians increased by 5%, the growth rate was 3% in Italy and France, 2% in the United Kingdom and nearly zero in Japan and Germany. During the same period, Russia's population shrank by 2%. Of the G8 countries, only the United States had a growth rate comparable to Canada's, at 5% between 2001 and 2006.

While nearly 60% of America's population growth is attributable to natural increase, more than two-thirds of Canada's growth between 2001 and 2006 was due to migratory increase, a situation that has been observed for a number of years.

Data from the 2006 Census show that the proportion of Canada's population who were born outside the country reached its highest level in 75 years at 20% of the total population.

The number of foreign-born in Canada has nearly tripled during the past 75 years and their share is inching towards the levels observed from 1911 to 1931. This is a result of the sustained number of immigrants admitted annually to the country, and the slow population growth from natural increase. Between 2001 and 2006, Canada's foreign-born population grew by 14%. This was almost five times faster that the Canadian-born population, which increased by 3%.

Among the Western countries that were also major immigrant-receiving nations, the proportion of the foreign-born population in Canada was exceeded by only one other country: Australia (at 22% in 2006). The proportion of Canada's foreign-born population was much higher than that of the United States (at 13% in 2006).

The nearly 6.2 million foreign-born people in Canada reported more than 200 countries of origin on the 2006 Census.

Among the more than 1.1 million recent immigrants who arrived between 2001 and 2006, almost 6 in 10 were born in Asian countries, including the Middle East. The share of recent immigrants born in Asia (including the Middle East ) has increased steadily since the late 1970s. However, in 2006, the share (58%) was virtually unchanged from 2001 (59%).

Immigrants from Asia did not come in large numbers until a few decades ago. In 1971, 62% of newcomers to Canada were from Europe. Only 12% of newcomers who arrived in the late 1960s were Asian-born. The proportion of Asian-born new immigrants increased to 39% in the late 1970s. By the late 1980s, one-half of the newcomers were born in Asia.

This shift in the source of immigration to Canada since the 1970s was due to a number of factors, such as changes in Canada's immigration programs to build on social, humanitarian and economic goals and international events affecting the movements of migrants and refugees.

The diversity of the federal offender population mirrors the increased diversity of the Canadian population. In 1993/94, 7% of the offender population had self-identified as a part of an ethno- racial group, whereas in 2007/08, the proportion had risen to 15%.

The NPB faces a number of challenges with respect to the evolving ethno-cultural composition of the Canadian population as well as the offender population. The Board must ensure that its composition remains representative of the communities it serve, and that policies, training and decision tools respect issues of diversity and build understanding of factors associated with risk and public safety for different groups of offenders and the communities to which they will return.

Ageing: 10

Throughout most of the twentieth century, a fairly small proportion of the Canadian population was comprised of persons aged 65 or older. In the 1920s and 1930s, seniors accounted for about 5% of the population, while in the 1950s and 1960s they accounted for less than 8%. High fertility rates, low life expectancy and a small population base comprised of many non-elderly immigrants contributed to this profile.

The situation is very different today. Low fertility rates, longer life expectancy and the effects of the baby boom generation are among the factors contributing to the ageing of the population. Between 1981 and 2005, the number of seniors in Canada increased from 2.4 million to 4.2 million and their share of the total population increased from 9.6% to 13.1%. Consequently, older age groups are more and more represented in the total Canadian population.

The ageing of the population will accelerate over the next three decades, particularly as individuals from the Baby Boom years of 1946 to 1965 begin turning age 65.

The number of seniors in Canada is projected to increase from 4.2 million to 9.8 million between 2005 and 2036, and seniors' share of the population is expected to almost double, increasing from 13.2% to 24.5%.

Consistent with Canada's demographics, there has been an increase in the number of older offenders within the offender population in recent years and this trend is expected to continue.

An older offender is defined as anyone 50 years of age and older. Research indicates that the ageing process for offenders is accelerated by approximately 10 years due to factors including socio-economic status, access to medical care and the lifestyle of most offenders. The older offender population on March 31, 2008, represented 22% of the total offender population. This proportion has increased from 11% in 1993/94.

Older offenders have needs that set them apart from the rest of the adult offender population. Their needs are in the areas of medical care, accessibility/mobility, adjustment to imprisonment, peer relationships, family relationships and conditional release. Failure, on the part of the correctional system, to address these specific needs and problems may impede the safe and timely reintegration of older offenders. As such, the Board must ensure that its policies, training and decision tools respect the issue of age and build greater understanding of the factors associated with the risk that older offenders pose to the community.

Offender Profile: 11

While the federal offender population is reflective of Canadian society in its ageing and ethno-cultural portrait, the profile has become much more diverse and complex than it was in the past.

In recent years, the offender population has been increasingly characterized by offenders with extensive histories of violence and violent crimes, previous youth and adult convictions, affiliations with gangs and organized crime, serious substance abuse histories and problems, serious mental health disorders, higher rates of infection with Hepatitis C and HIV and a disproportionate representation of Aboriginal people. Between 1997 and 2005 changes to the offender profile have included:

• more extensive histories of involvement with the court system-roughly 9 out of 10 offenders now have previous criminal convictions;
• more extensive histories of violence and violent offences, with far more assessed as violence-prone, hostile, impulsive and aggressive on admission;
• an increase of more than 100% in the proportion of offenders who are classified as maximum security on admission-13% are now classified at this level on admission;
• an increase of 33% in the proportion of offenders with gang and/or organized crime affiliations-one in six men and one in ten women offenders now have known affiliations;
• an increase of 14% in the proportion of offenders serving sentences for homicide-it now stands at more than one in four male offenders;
• an increase of 71% in the number of male offenders and a 100% increase in female offenders identified at admission as having very serious mental health problems-12% of male and 26% of female offenders are now so identified;
• an increasing prevalence of learning disabilities as well as offenders with low functioning capacities;
• an increasing over-representation of Aboriginal offenders–19% of the institutional population is now of Aboriginal ancestry, while about 4% of the Canadian population is Aboriginal;
• an increasing prevalence of substance abuse-about four of five offenders now arrive at a federal institution with a serious substance abuse problem, with one out of two having committed their crime under the influence of drugs, alcohol or other intoxicants; and
• an increasing rate of infectious diseases–inmates now have a 7 to 10 times higher rate of HIV than the general Canadian population and approximately a 30 times higher rate of Hepatitis C.

While the profile of the offender population is becoming more diverse and complex, there is limited time to prepare an increasing proportion of offenders for release to the community because over 55% of all new male offender admissions (the proportions are higher for new women and Aboriginal male offender admissions (at 62%)) are receiving sentences of less than three years. This is a 61% increase since 1997.

This increasingly complex offender profile represents a significant challenge for the correctional system to adapt to meet its needs, both in the institution and the community. To this end, the Board must ensure that it is continually updating its training and decision tools so that it has a clear understanding of the risk that these offenders pose to the community at large.

Organized Crime and Public views on Organized Crime: 12

Organized Crime

Organized criminal activity in Canada is a multi-faceted problem that requires a broad-based, integrated approach by the country's law enforcement agencies and criminal justice system.

In the 1990s, organized crime was characterized primarily, but not exclusively, by outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs), the illicit drug trade and associated turf wars. Today organized crime activities have expanded beyond these "traditional" activities to include migrant smuggling, trafficking in humans and firearms, marihuana grow operations, identity theft, sexual exploitation of children on the Internet, the production and smuggling of counterfeit goods and money, motor vehicle theft and more.

Until recently, globalization and technological sophistication were considered emerging trends in organized crime–today they are the norm. Due to the advanced capabilities of these groups, they can be found virtually anywhere where there is a profit to be made through criminal ventures. According to the 2007 annual Criminal Intelligence Service Canada report, there were approximately 950 organized crime groups operating in Canada in 2007. These groups can be found to operate in all communities, from major urban centres to rural areas. Wherever there is a profit to be made, organized crime can be found.

Another notable characteristic of today's organized crime groups is the shift from mainly ethnic based groups to multicultural criminal organizations. Although ethnic and cultural heritage remains an influencing principle within the organized crime environment, the growing number of multi-ethnic groups is based on criminal capabilities rather than ethnicity.

Similarly, the structure of organized crime groups is much more flexible today than in the past. Hierarchical groups continue to exist, most notably through OMGs. Law enforcement however, is identifying groups that are based on temporary alliances requiring particular skills to complete a specific criminal enterprise. Once the criminal venture is completed, these individuals may or may not continue to work together.

In recent years, organized crime groups have become more complex and sophisticated, as have the new types of crime. These groups are increasingly using new and evolving technology to commit crime and to communicate with other criminal groups. For example, communications devices are frequently used to target sensitive personal and financial information in order to conduct identity theft and mass marketing fraud. Organized crime groups are also expanding into legitimate business activities, as well as branching out into new markets in Canada.

In the last five years, the Government of Canada has taken a number of measures on the domestic and international fronts to strengthen the ability of law enforcement to pursue criminal organizations and to strengthen border security. These efforts have resulted in more offenders associated with gangs and organized crime being incarcerated in federal institutions (an increase from 12% to 16% of the incarcerated population). As of March 31, 2007, there were 56 separate gangs or gang types in the institutions and in the community. Aboriginal, Street and Biker Gangs were the most prevalent in institutions with Bikers, Traditional Organized Crime and Street Gangs being the largest groups in the community.

The presence of offenders, who are associates or members of criminal organizations, poses a challenge for the correctional system including: intimidation, extortion, and violence within the incarcerated and supervised community populations; drug distribution within the institutions; recruitment of new members; and intimidation and corruption of staff.

Public Views on Organized Crime

There are a limited number of recent studies which assess Canadians' views about the phenomenon of organized crime (OC); however there is a high degree of consistency in terms of the results of these studies. The following are some of the findings of public opinion research:

• Drug trafficking and biker gangs constitute the overriding image or impression that most members of the public associate with OC.
• Canadians' believe that OC is serious and recognize that it is present in their community. They are familiar with news stories about OC groups.
• While OC is viewed as a serious issue and growing, there is a dichotomy between the perceived seriousness of OC and the likelihood of being victimized. Participants tend to believe that it does not affect them personally because they aren't involved in any illegal activities. Moreover, the public does not necessarily think that they should be involved in the fight against organized crime.

The fight against OC has been a national priority since September 2000 when the federal, provincial and territorial Ministers responsible for justice agreed that all levels of government must address OC on a number of fronts. In this context, the views of the public about organized crime are essential to government, law enforcement officials and agencies as well as policy makers as they facilitate the development of strategies to better inform the general public about the dangers of OC and what is being done to respond to these problems.

The Board, for its part, must ensure that training and decision tools build understanding of the factors associated with the risk that offenders associated to or members of criminal organizations pose to the community at large. The Board must also provide the community with clear and accurate information about the effectiveness of conditional release and the processes which monitor the performance of offenders associated with organized crime.

Women and the Criminal Justice System: 13

Women are much less likely than men to be perpetrators of crime. This difference is notable when comparing the relative sizes of the male and female federal offender populations. Women accounted for just under 5% of all federal offenders on March 31, 2008 and proportionally more were newcomers to the federal correctional system.

On March 31, 2008, 84% of federally sentenced women were serving their first federal sentence compared with 67% of federally sentenced men. In addition, as a result of the nature of their offences, women offenders tend to receive shorter sentences than their male counterparts. On March 31, 2008, 39% of federally sentenced women were serving sentences of less than three years on their first federal sentence compared with 27% of federally sentenced men. While 17% of federally sentenced women were serving a first sentence for murder compared to 22% of male offenders, 32% were serving a first federal sentence for a drug offence compared to 18% of male offenders.

Some of the characteristics of the female population are shared with men, while others are not. For example, two thirds of federally sentenced women are mothers and they are more likely than male offenders to have primary childcare responsibilities. Both male and female offenders tend to have histories of childhood trauma and abuse. In addition, federally sentenced women and men tend to have lower educational attainment than the Canadian adult population as a whole. Female offenders, however, have much lower employment rates than male offenders. In 1996, 80% of the women serving time in a federal facility were unemployed at the time of admissions compared to 54% of male offenders.

Drug and alcohol addictions are widespread among federally sentenced offenders. Almost 70% of male and female offenders have problems with alcohol or drug abuse.

However, drugs and alcohol tend to figure more prominently in the lives and criminal offences of federally sentenced women, for whom income-generating crimes such as fraud, shoplifting, prostitution and robbery are often perpetrated to support their addictions.

Some of the most significant differences between female and male federal offenders are the prevalence of diagnosed mental illness, self-abuse and suicide attempts. Federally sentenced women are more likely than men to take part in self-destructive behaviours such as slashing and cutting.

In addition, the federal female offender population is very heterogeneous in terms of ethno-racial background. On March 31, 2008, 55% of the federal female offender population were White, 26% Aboriginal, 8% Black and 4% Asian compared to the male population which was 68% White, 17% Aboriginal, 7% Black and 4% Asian.

Given the differences between female and male offenders, the challenge for the correctional system is to ensure that women's needs and risks are met through supportive environments and a wide variety of educational, vocational and personal development programs that are gender appropriate. The Board, in particular, must ensure that its policies, training and decision tools are respectful of gender and build understanding of the factors associated with the risk that female offenders pose to the communities to which they will return.

Aboriginal Peoples: 14

According to the 2006 census, 1,172,790 people, 3.8% of the population of Canada identified themselves as an Aboriginal person. North American Indian (60%) constituted the largest group of Aboriginal people, followed by Métis (33%) and Inuit (4%). The remaining 3% were either persons who identified with more than one Aboriginal group or Registered Indians or members of an Indian band or First Nation who did not identify as Aboriginal.

The Aboriginal population in Canada is much younger than the non-Aboriginal population. According to the 2006 census, the median age of Aboriginal people was 27 years compared to 40 years for the non-Aboriginal population.

More specifically, according to the 2006 census:

• Children and youth aged 24 and under made up almost one-half (48%) of all Aboriginal people, compared with 31% of the non-Aboriginal population;
• About 9% of the Aboriginal population was aged 4 and under, nearly twice the proportion of 5% of the non-Aboriginal population; and
• 10% of the Aboriginal population was aged 5 to 9, compared with only 6% of the non-Aboriginal population.

Nevertheless, like the total population, the Aboriginal population is slowly getting older. This ageing is due to declining fertility rates and to gradual improvements in life expectancy. However, fertility rates remain higher for the Aboriginal population and life expectancy still lags behind that of the total population of Canada.

Given the number of young children in the Aboriginal population and the higher birth rate, large increases in the Aboriginal population among those 15 to 24 years of age are predicted to occur within the next decade. Since persons up to 35 years of age are seen to be the most "at risk" for criminal activity, the large numbers of Aboriginal youth may have implications for the criminal justice system for many years.

Not only is the Aboriginal population younger and increasing at a higher rate than the population as a whole, there appears to be a growing concentration of this population in the core of larger cities. This urban movement may increase the likelihood of contact with the criminal justice system because of the social, political, economical, educational and racist implications of urban living. This may, in part, account for the high crime rate of urban Aboriginal people and the formation of Aboriginal gangs.

Although Aboriginal people make up only 3.8% of the Canadian population, they accounted for 17.3% of the federal offender population on March 31, 2008. At that time, 69% of federal Aboriginal offenders were North American Indian, 27% were Métis and 4% were Inuit.

As a group, Aboriginal offenders tend to be younger, are more likely to be incarcerated for sexual offences and other violent crimes than non-Aboriginal offenders, have much higher needs (relating to employment and education, for example) and have had more extensive involvement with the criminal justice system as youths.

Research on male Aboriginal offenders suggests that childhood deprivation is commonplace among this group, including early drug and alcohol use, physical and sexual abuse and severe poverty. Many Aboriginal communities are marked by violence, family instability, alcohol abuse and low levels of education. The marginal socio-economical positions of many of Canada's Aboriginal peoples, coupled with their loss of culture and community, have contributed to their criminal behaviour and to their difficulty in making a fresh start.

While the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system has reached crisis proportions, the Board, as a small agency at the back-end of the justice system, has limited capacity to influence this over-representation. The Board, for its part, must continue to ensure that policies respect and are responsive to the special needs of Aboriginal offenders.

In addition, the Board is expanding its hearing models with Aboriginal Cultural Advisors and continues to maintain a workforce profile that includes appropriate Aboriginal representation. As well, the Board, along with CSC, must provide Aboriginal communities with the opportunity for active involvement in the integration of Aboriginal offenders.

Restorative Justice: 15

Restorative justice can be described as a way of dealing with the harm caused by an offence by involving the victim(s), the offender and the community that has been affected. It is a balanced community based approach that deals with criminal activity as an offence against human relationships and secondarily as a violation of the law. It recognizes that once an offence has occurred, there is an opportunity to acknowledge the injustice it caused and to restore equity so that participants feel safer, more respected and more empowered.

Restorative justice is characterized by principles of inclusiveness, reparation, accountability, community involvement, holism, equality and sensitivity. In addition, the idea that crime creates obligations is central to the restorative approach to justice.

Restorative justice sees the offender as having an obligation to provide reparation to the victim and the community and the community has an obligation to define the standards of acceptable conduct and to determine the best ways to repair the damage caused by crime.

The restorative justice approach appears to be gaining acceptance not only among criminal justice practitioners but also among the general public. Public opinion research revealed increased acceptance of reparation, restitution and mediation approaches for certain offenders provided that victims agree to the use of such approaches. In addition, evaluations of restorative justice programs typically find high levels of satisfaction from victims and offenders with the process.

To date, the majority of restorative justice programs involve low-risk offenders, who have committed relatively minor crimes. Few programs target adult offenders, especially offenders who have committed serious offences. Given that the application of restorative justice is still relatively new, practitioners and program designers are actively exploring how the various restorative justice models can be applied with different types of offenders, varying types of crimes and at various stages of the criminal justice process.

There may be potential to incorporate a restorative approach into the parole process through a marriage of restorative justice with offender rehabilitation in order to maximize public safety.

Workloads and Fiscal Constraint: 16

The Government stated in its Economic Statement of 2007 that Canadians expect their Government to set clear goals, deliver results, be accountable and put Canadians and their families first.

Learning from the past, the Government is committed to the continuous examination of its expenditures to ensure responsible spending in terms of results for the taxpayer's dollar.

Source: NPB Main Estimates

 

Note: Figures include contributions to employee benefit plans

The decade of fiscal restraint in the 1990s resulted in very limited resource flexibility for the Board. Rigorous priority setting, innovation and productivity improvements enabled the Board to manage these resource challenges. Things have not changed, in recent years, as the Board continues to experience heavy workload demands (e.g. parole reviews, pardon applications) and increasingly complex decision processes. For example, the Board faces complex and growing workloads related to offenders with histories of violence and offenders subject to long-term supervision orders, growing involvement with victims of crime and growing expectations for public involvement in conditional release processes.

At the same time, the Board must also respond to numerous management improvement initiatives such as modernization of human resource management, Program Activity Architecture and the Management Accountability Framework. Collectively, these pressures create significant challenges demanding careful planning and priority setting.

Prior to 2005, the Board had been successful in obtaining additional resources for specific initiatives such as firearms legislation and Effective Corrections and Citizen Engagement. These resources provided the capacity to implement specific initiatives but did not address program integrity issues associated with ongoing workload demands.

Table 2 Source : NPB Financial Services Division

EXPENDITURES by STRATEGIC OUTCOME 17 ($ Millions)

Year	Conditional Release Decisions		Conditional Release Openness and Accountability		Pardon Decisions and Clemency Recommendations		NPB Total
	$	%	$	%	$	%
2003/04	$27.9	78%	$5.0	14%	$2.7	8%	$35.6
2004/05	$30.9	75%	$5.3	13%	$4.9	12%	$41.1
2005/06	$32.7	76%	$5.8	14%	$4.3	10%	$42.8
2006/07	$33.9	78%	$6.7	15%	$2.8	6%	$43.4
2007/08	$34.3	79%	$6.2	14%	$2.9	7%	$43.4

For 2007/08, the total funds available for the NPB amounted to $46.3 million. Against this total, the Board expended $43.4 million or almost 94% of the funds available.

The Board applies its resources to three strategic outcomes – quality conditional release decisions, open and accountable conditional release decision processes and quality pardon decisions clemency recommendations. The NPB also uses its resources for essential corporate management activities. Conditional release decision-making is the most resource intensive area, accounting for almost eight of every ten dollars expended by the Board.

The Board also receives revenues as a result of the $50 user fee for the processing of pardon applications. For every fee received, the split is as follows: $15 to the RCMP and $35 to the Board. In 2007/08, the user fee generated total revenues of $1,438,491. The NPB portion was $1,006,943. The Board's limited maximum of $410,000 per year was removed in 2007/08.

The Board's total expenditures remained the same in 2007/08 as in 2006/07. However, the expenditures for the conditional release decisions activity increased by $400,000, those for the conditional release openness and accountability activity decreased by $500,000, while those for the pardon decisions and clemency recommendations activity increased by $100,000.

Public Safety Interoperability: 18

Interoperability means people, processes and systems working in a collaborative fashion to share information. Within the public safety and security community, it means ensuring that agencies and government organizations can share the right information at the right time to keep Canadians safe.

Integrating justice information in Canada's criminal justice system is not a simple undertaking. It involves many partners (each with its own mandate to fulfill), new issues that emerge regularly and a range of services that cover every component of the justice system. Therefore, it requires a sophisticated approach that is in keeping with the complexity of its subject matter.

The Government of Canada, through the Department of Public Safety, helped to implement in recent years, the Canada Public Safety Information Network (CPSIN). This established a modern, national information network for Canada's justice system and law enforcement agencies, linking various sources of data related to crime and offenders. Public Safety is currently building on the CPSIN experience, expanding the interoperable environment to include other departments involved in dossiers related to health, safety, crime and national security.

Recognizing that the public safety environment includes a broader set of partners and stakeholder groups than law enforcement, the new initiative extends the scope of Public Safety's involvement on interoperability to address all information sharing relevant to public safety and security.

The project will focus initially on federal government activities in areas related to national security, law enforcement, criminal justice, public health and first responders. Further links will then be made with the provinces, territories and municipalities.

The successful application of risk assessment and risk management tools in corrections is considered to be fundamentally dependent on the creation of an effective infrastructure for information exchange among all criminal justice agencies that deal with offenders. With better information on offenders at their disposal, the police, CSC and the Board will be more equipped to make informed decisions. In turn, this may increase the level of public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Human Resource Management: 19

The Public Service of Canada, with 250,000 employees in 200 departments and agencies is the largest and most complex enterprise in Canada. Federal public servants work in diverse areas where they develop policies, provide advice to government and deliver programs and services directly to Canadians. The non-partisan and competent federal Public Service contributes to the future of Canada.

The world in which the federal Public Service operates has become more complex and in many ways more unpredictable over the last 15 years. This new environment is characterized by an ageing population, a globalized economic landscape, ever-changing information and communications technologies, the emergence of new "horizontal" issues and changing public attitudes towards government.

The Public Service today must address a significant demographic challenge. For the first time, it has more employees over 45 than under, and it is facing the imminent retirement of a generation of valued employees. It must renew its workforce in the strongest labour market in over 35 years with many public and private sector competitors for top-quality graduates from universities and colleges.

If the Public Service is to advise Ministers and deliver programs and services to the highest standards of excellence, it must be creative in its thinking, efficient in its work processes, effective in risk management and fully accountable for its performance. These are the characteristics of a "high" performance Public Service.

To achieve these goals, the federal Public Service will require:

• active and transparent recruitment practices based on sound planning;
• strong leadership and a commitment to developing talent;
• a clear regime for Human Resources governance and accountability; and
• rigorous performance management practices.

The same challenges that are facing the Public Service are also facing the Board. As more than 35% of Board staff (many of whom occupy key positions in the regions and at national office) are 50 years or older, there is a potential for a significant number of departures in the coming years. To counter the anticipated impacts of these departures, while at the same time addressing issues related to diversity, language and gender, the Board has implemented a business plan that addresses human resource and program needs in an integrated manner. The issue of corporate memory loss is being addressed through sound knowledge management practices, training and development.

As a first step in this process, the Board has identified a number of critical positions for which "bridging" approaches are necessary to ensure that departing employees can provide coaching for new employees.

The following section provides information on the Board's composition of staff and Board members.

Table 3 Source: NPB Human Resources Division

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD STAFF COMPLEMENT (As of June 11, 2008 )

Region	Females	Males	Total Staff	Abor.	Visible Minority	Disabled	Official Language Profile		Bilingual
							English	French	#	%
National Office	100	40	140	9	6	4	61	79	90	64
Atlantic	35	6	41	-	-	1	26	15	17	41
Quebec	54	11	65	2	6	-	-	65	45	69
Ontario	58	9	67	-	-	3	62	5	7	10
Prairies	61	19	80	6	2	2	79	1	8	10
Pacific	50	13	63	3	5	2	59	4	4	6
Canada	358	98	456	20	19	12	287	169	171	38
Percent	79%	21%	100%	4%	4%	3%	63%	37%

As of June 11, 2008, 79% of National Parole Board staff were female and 21% were male. The highest proportion of female to male staff was in the Ontario region where females accounted for 87% of all staff, while the lowest proportion was 71% in the National Office. The first official language of 63% of Board staff was English and 37% was French. As well, 38% of the Board's staff were bilingual (staff able to work in both French and English).

The Board's visible minority staff complement decreased by 2 to 19 last year and accounts for 4.2% of the work force. During the same period, the Aboriginal staff complement increased by 3, to 20, while the number of staff with disabilities decreased by 1 to 12. As of June 11, 2008, 4.4% of Board staff were Aboriginal and 2.6% had a disability.

The National Parole Board has sound human resource strategies in place in an effort to meet government objectives with regards to the issues related to diversity, language and gender as well as to ensure that the Board provides effective and efficient service to Canadians.

Table 4 Source: NPB Chairman's Office and Regional Offices

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD MEMBER COMPLEMENT (As of May 13, 2008 )

Region	Females	Males	Total Board Members	Aboriginal	Visible Minority	Official Language Profile		Bilingual
						English	French	#	%
National Office	2	4	6	0	0	1	5	6	100
Atlantic	4	4	8	0	0	5	3	4	50
Quebec	5	6	11	0	1	0	11	10	91
Ontario	10	10	20	1	0	15	5	6	30
Prairies	8	9	17	1	0	15	2	3	18
Pacific	6	6	12	3	1	10	2	3	25
Canada	35	39	74	5	2	46	28	32	43
Percent	47%	53%	100%	7%	3%	62%	38%

As of May 13, 2008, the National Parole Board had a total of 74 members (37 full-time and 37 part-time), with 53% being male and 47% being female. The Board had 5 Aboriginal members (7%), with three members working in the Pacific region and one in the Prairie (the regions with the largest Aboriginal populations) and one in the Ontario region. The Board also had two members from visible minority communities, one in the Pacific region and one in the Quebec region.

The Board also tracks language, education and experience of Board members to ensure that it has the range of skills needed to make quality conditional release decisions. As of May 13, 2008, the first official language of 62% of Board members was English and 38% was French, while 43% of Board members were bilingual.

Ninety-two (92%) of Board members have a university education, 5% have a college education and 3% have a secondary school education. As well, 49% of Board members have experience in corrections and 82% have criminal justice experience.

Board members come from different professional backgrounds. Board members have backgrounds as criminologists, lawyers, parole officers, members of police services, probation officers, members of provincial parole boards, psychologists, social workers, teachers, wardens, counsellors, therapists, health professionals and as members of private industry, Parliament, the Canadian Forces and the clergy.

3. STRATEGIC OUTCOMES – RESULTS FOR 2007-200820

The Program Activity Architecture of the NPB reflects the key aspects of its legislative framework (the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, and the Criminal Code ) 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 2007-2008, 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 of crime 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 2007/08 with regard to outcome 1:

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

 

Expenditures ($ Millions)	Full Time Equivalents Used
$34.3	288

Program Activity Name: 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 this activity is assessed by monitoring of the outcomes of offenders on parole. Outcomes of release provide a complete picture of performance. Completion of a release by an offender without a return to an institution is an indicator of success.

Revocation of a release for a breach of the conditions of release is not a positive result for the offender, but from a community perspective, it is a positive intervention to reduce risk. Releases which result in a new offence are a negative result. Additional information is provided on violent re-offending by parolees as these incidents have the most serious consequences for the community. Further, the section reports on post-warrant expiry re-offending to provide information on the long-term effectiveness of parole in contributing to public safety.

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.
• Less than eight percent of releases on parole ended in a new offence and about 1.1% ended in a new violent offence. In fact, the number of violent offences by offenders on day and full parole declined by 65% between 1996/97 and 2006/07. The numbers for fiscal year 2007/08 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 29% 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 2007/08, 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.

Outcomes of Federal Conditional Release

Release Type/Yr.	Successful Completion		Revocation for Breach of Condition		Total Without Re-offending		Revocation with Offence				Total Revocations with Offence
							Non-violent		Violent
Day Parole	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
2005-06	2483	81.6	397	13.1	2880	94.7	141	4.6	21	0.7	162	5.3
2006-07	2547	81.9	378	12.2	2925	94.0	164	5.3	22	0.7	186	6.0
2007/08	2511	83.5	391	13.0	2902	96.4	96	3.2	11	0.4	107	3.6
Full Parole*
2005-06	985	70.8	262	18.8	1247	89.6	128	9.2	17	1.2	145	10.4
2006-07	972	71.0	255	18.6	1227	89.6	133	9.7	9	0.7	142	10.4
2007/08	990	72.9	262	19.3	1252	92.2	94	6.9	12	0.9	106	7.8
Statutory Release
2005-06	3244	58.5	1652	29.8	4896	88.3	519	9.4	131	2.4	650	11.7
2006-07	3266	58.4	1648	29.5	4914	87.9	540	9.7	136	2.4	676	12.1
2007/08	3348	58.8	1739	30.6	5087	89.4	496	8.7	110	1.9	606	10.6

*Full parole includes only those offenders serving determinate sentences as offenders serving indeterminate sentences can only successfully complete full parole by dying.

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

Information on the outcomes of release for provincial offenders in the Atlantic, Prairie and Pacific regions where the NPB exercises parole decision-making authority also shows positive results. It should be noted that the NPB only assumed parole responsibility for provincial offenders in British Columbia on April 1, 2007 when the British Columbia Board of Parole was disbanded. Over the past ten years, 78% 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, 16 of the 5,344 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% (2,024) of the federally incarcerated population and about 16% (998) of day and full parolees. By 2007/08, the proportions had grown to 19% (2,531) of the federally incarcerated population and 32% (1,661) 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).

Outcome Rates for Federal Day Parole by Offence of Conviction (%)

Outcome	Murder		Schedule I-sex		Schedule I-non-sex		Schedule II		Non-scheduled		Total
	06/07	07/08	06/07	07/08	06/07	07/08	06/07	07/08	06/07	07/08	06/07	07/08
Successful Completions	91.5	92.6	94.4	93.0	77.7	78.2	87.1	87.2	71.3	75.4	81.9	83.5
Revoked for Breach of Conditions	7.0	6.9	4.5	7.0	16.1	17.4	8.9	10.1	15.9	17.4	12.2	13.0
Revocations with Offence - Non-violent Offences	1.1	0.6	1.1	0.0	4.6	3.5	4.1	2.7	12.5	6.8	5.3	3.2
Revocations with Offence - Violent Offences	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.7	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.3	0.7	0.4
Total Revocation with Offence	1.5	0.6	1.1	0.0	6.3	4.4	4.1	2.7	12.8	7.2	6.0	3.6

Offenders, serving life sentences for murder, who are released on full parole, remain on parole for life. Since 1994/95, 1,886 offenders serving life sentences for murder have had 2,120 full parole supervision periods. As of March 31, 2008, 65% of the full parole supervision periods were still active, the offender had died in 13% 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.

Convictions for violent offences:

• Annual numbers of convictions for violent offences dropped 65% for offenders on day and full parole between 1996/97 and 2006/07. (The numbers for fiscal year 2007/08 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 38 to 16 for day parole and from 13 to 3 for full parole).
• Comparisons of rates of conviction for violent offences and violent crime rates based on the Uniform Crime Reports suggest that offenders on full parole are no more likely than the general public to commit a violent crime.

Convictions for Violent Offences by Supervision Type and the Rates of Conviction for Violent Offences per 1000 Supervised Offenders

Year	Day Parole (convictions)	Rates per 1000	Full Parole (convictions)	Rates per 1000	Statutory release (convictions)	Rates per 1000	Total Convictions
1996/97	39	38	55	13	160	67	254
1997/98	38	30	49	12	157	63	244
1998/99	36	24	38	9	138	55	212
1999/00	58	37	47	10	160	57	265
2000/01	35	25	40	9	167	60	242
2001/02	33	25	33	8	149	52	215
2002/03	23	18	27	7	148	51	198
2003/04	20	15	21	5	149	50	190
2004/05	22	18	28	7	137	46	187
2005/06	21	15	21	5	131	43	173
2006/07	22	16	11	3	137	43	170
2007/08	13	10	15	4	110	35	138

Note: The number of convictions for violent offences for 2007/08 will likely fluctuate higher during the 12 to 18 months after the fiscal year ends because outstanding charges often take that long to be resolved by the courts.

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 1992/93 and 1997/98 indicates that about 26% had been re-admitted on a federal sentence by March 31, 2008. There are, however, significant differences in re-offending for offenders within this group:

• about 11% 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 36% 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. 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.

Progress in 2007/08 with regard to outcome 2:

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

 

Expenditures ($ Millions)	Full Time Equivalents Used
$6.2	53

Program Activity Name: Conditional Release Openness and Accountability

Program Activity Description: Provision of information for victims and assistance for observers at NPB 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 for effective partnership and public trust. Results for this program are assessed by monitoring the timeliness of information shared and selected surveys of those who receive information and assistance from the Board (e.g.victims).

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 reporting in this area has two components dealing with outputs and outcomes:

• the volume of NPB activity in response to demands for information/assistance (outputs); and
• the satisfaction of those who receive information and assistance from the Board (outcomes).

Contacts with victims

In 2007/08, the Board had about 20,500 contacts with victims. While the number of contacts with victims decreased in 2007/08, the number has increased 34% 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 1,974 observers at its hearings in 2007/08, a 4% decrease from the previous year.

Victims presentations at hearings

In 2007/08, victims made 244 presentations at 139 hearings. Of this group, most had been family members of victims of murder (38%) or manslaughter (24%). Eighty-eight percent (88%) 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 2007/08, the Board released over 6,000 decisions from the registry. Victims were the most frequent requestors of decisions (about 58%), followed by the media (about 41%).

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 2007/08.

Progress in 2007/08 with regard to outcome 3:

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

Expenditures ($ Millions)	Full Time Equivalents Used
$2.9	36

Program Activity Name: 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 pardon decision-making; development of pardon and clemency policy; the collection of pardon revenues; and development of recommendations for clemency.

A pardon is a formal attempt to remove the stigma of a criminal record for people found guilty of a federal offence who, having satisfied the sentence imposed and a specific waiting period, have shown themselves to be responsible citizens. A pardon is, therefore, a means to facilitate and demonstrate safe community reintegration. Assessment of results in this area considers efficiency (the average time required to process pardon applications) and effectiveness (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 24,000 pardon applications per year, which generate about $1,200,000 in revenues as a result of a $50.00 user fee. The Board may access 70% of all revenues collected. Since 2007/08, the limited maximum of $410,000 has been removed. 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.

Additional streamlining measures implemented in 2007/08, combined with enhancements to the PADS-R system, and additional resources obtained by the removal of the cap on revenues allowed the Division to greatly reduce processing times. In the case of summary offences, applications were processed on average within 1.5 months. Furthermore, measures were implemented to treat the applications for indictable offences which made up the bulk of the backlog. Although processing times remained high in the first half of the fiscal year (up to 18 months) for those applications containing indictable offences, the delay in processing time was greatly reduced in the latter half of the fiscal year (to 9 months or less).

The sustained efforts of the Division, as well as enhancements to the PADS-R system provided net improvement in the processing of pardon applications.

Pardons Granted/Issued and Denied by Year

Decision	2003/04		2004/05		2005/06		2006/07		2007/08
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Granted	8,761	55	17,800	78	3,951	46	7,076	48	14,514	58
Issued	6,832	43	4,745	21	4,402	51	7,672	52	10,332	41
Sub-Total	15,593	98	22,545	98	8,353	98	14,748	99	24,846	99
Denied	265	2	375	2	196	2	103	1	175	1
Total	15,858	100	22,920	100	8,549	100	14,851	100	25,021	100
Average Processing Time	17 months		12 months		11 months		13 months		10 mths*

*Does not include the processing time for cases in which the pardon was denied. For those cases the average processing time was 20 months.

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.

Pardon Revocations and Cessations

Year	Cumulative Pardons Granted/Issued to Date	Pardons Revoked/Ceased during the Year	Cumulative Pardons Revoked/Ceased	Cumulative Revocation/Cessations Rate (%)
2003/04	306,985	1,314	10,594	3.45
2004/05	329,530	557	11,151	3.38
2005/06	337,883	456	11,607	3.44
2006/07	352,631	2,397	14,004	3.97
2007/08	377,477	581	14,585	3.86

Previous | Table of Contents | Next