ARCHIVED - National Parole Board

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Section II: Analysis by Strategic Outcome

Section II provides information on performance in 2006/07 based on NPB’s strategic outcomes and Program Activity Architecture ( PAA). The strategic outcomes and PAA reflect the Board’s legislative responsibilities and the areas of performance in which Parliament and the public most frequently express interest.

Data Sources and Reliability

Information for this section was extracted from NPB files and reports, a survey of victims of crime, and two major automated systems – the Offender Management System (OMS), and the Pardons Application Decision System (PADS). Data from OMS and PADS, as well as data entry and data collection activities are subject to rigorous review. If data errors are detected, they are corrected. Through these monitoring processes, the Board strives to produce information that is timely and accurate.

 

1. Quality Conditional Release Decisions

Strategic Outcome: Quality conditional release decisions which contribute to public protection
through the safe reintegration of offenders in the community.

Program Activity: Quality Conditional Release Decisions

Program Activity Description: Case review and quality decision-making by Board members; staff support for decision-making; training to ensure professionalism in all aspects of decision-making; and policy development and advice to guide decision-making.

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

Financial Resources 2006/07

Planned Spending	Authorities	Actual Spending
$ 33,131,000	$ 34,565,755	$ 33,962,013

Human Resources 2006/07 (FTE)

Planned	Actual	Difference
356	314	42

In 2006/07, the Board completed 17,949 conditional release reviews. Work to prepare for and conduct these reviews, accounted for $33.9 million in expenditures or 78% of all NPB expenditures for the year.

Progress Towards Commitments Made in Report on Plans and Priorities 2006/07

Program Activity

• Quality conditional release decisions.

Commitments Made

• Effective management of legislative responsibilities, related to conditional release decision-making.

Recent Progress

• 17,949 conditional release reviews completed:
•  
  • 17,271 for federal offenders;
  • 678 for provincial offenders.
• Outcomes of release indicate that 94% of parole releases do not result in a new offence and 99% do not result in a new violent offence
• Plans were developed to enable NPB to assume parole decision-making responsibilities for provincial offenders in British Columbia following the province’s decision to discontinue operation of its board of parole on March 31, 2007.

Commitments Made

• Improve information management in support of conditional release responsibilities through development and of an automated Conditional Release System.

Recent Progress

• Project planning continued. Agreement reached with CSC to take the lead in technical aspects of system development.
• 
  
• Performance status: successfully met.

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 recidivism.

Information is also provided for offenders on statutory release (SR), although these offenders are released by law, and not at the discretion of the Board.

Outcomes of Conditional Release

Information on outcomes for federal offenders under supervision indicates that:

• 78% of releases on parole (day and full) are completed successfully;
• 14% of releases on parole are revoked for a breach of condition;
• 8% of releases on parole end in a new offence, and about 1% ends in a new violent offence;
• 58% of releases on SR are completed successfully, 28% are revoked for a breach of conditions, 13% end with a new offence and 3% end in a new violent offence.

Recent information on the outcomes of release (Table 1) is consistent with long-term trends. Care should be taken, however, with information for 2006/07, as numbers could change as cases make their way through the court process.

TABLE 1 - OUTCOMES OF FEDERAL CONDITIONAL RELEASE
RELEASE TYPE/YR.	SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION		REVOCATION For Breach Of Condition		TOTAL NO RECIDIVISM		RECIDIVISM (Revocation with Offence)				TOTAL RECIDIVISM
							Non Violent		Violent
Day Parole	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
2004-05	2548	82.1	398	12.8	2946	94.9	136	4.4	22	0.7	158	5.1
2005-06	2483	81.7	397	13.1	2880	94.8	138	4.5	20	0.7	158	5.2
2006-07	2527	83.5	363	12.0	2890	95.5	118	3.9	14	0.6	135	4.5
Full Parole	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
2004-05	1050	72.8	254	17.6	1304	90.4	117	8.1	21	1.5	138	9.6
2005-06	984	70.7	264	19.0	1248	89.7	127	9.1	17	1.2	144	10.3
2006-07	924	70.5	259	19.8	1183	90.3	120	9.2	7	0.5	127	9.7
SR	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
2004-05	3140	58.0	1612	29.8	4752	87.7	529	9.8	136	2.5	665	12.3
2005-06	3243	58.6	1645	29.7	4888	88.4	516	9.3	128	2.3	644	11.6
2006-07	3149	58.1	1663	30.7	4812	88.8	489	9.0	117	2.2	606	11.2

Information on the outcomes of release for provincial offenders in the Atlantic and Prairies regions where NPB exercised parole decision-making authority for these offenders indicates that over the past ten years, 79% of releases were completed successfully, 3% resulted in a new offence, and 0.2% resulted in a new violent offence. In real numbers, 14 of 5,223 parole releases for provincial offenders in the last five years, resulted in a new violent offence.

Offenders with Life Sentences for Murder

"Lifers" represent a visible and growing segment of the federal offender population. In 2006/07 they represented 18% of the federally incarcerated population and 30% of day and full parolees. Offenders with life sentences are not entitled to statutory release. Successful completion rates for day parole for offenders with life sentences are as high as, or higher than rates for other groups of offenders, and rates of re-offending are lower. For example, over the past 10 years, 92% of day paroles for lifers have been successfully completed compared with 81% for offenders serving a determinate sentence. Table 2 provides information on outcomes for day parole by offence of conviction in 2005/06 and 2006/07. The group most likely to re-offend is the property offence group, followed by offenders incarcerated for a violent but non-sexual offence.

TABLE 2 - OUTCOMES for FEDERAL DAY PAROLE by OFFENCE of CONVICTION (%)
Outcome	Murder		Sex Offence		Violent Non-Sex		Drugs		Property		Total
	05/06	06/07	05/06	06/07	05/06	06/07	05/06	06/07	05/06	06/07	05/06	06/07
Successful Completions	93.3	92.6	92.3	96.0	76.4	79.5	89.5	87.8	70.0	73.9	81.7	83.5
Revoked for breach of conditions	6.7	6.6	7.3	3.5	18.6	15.2	8.2	9.3	16.2	17.0	13.1	12.0
Revocations with offence
Non-violent	0.0	0.6	0.5	0.6	3.7	3.9	2.3	3.0	12.9	8.9	4.5	3.9
Violent	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0	1.4	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.9	0.2	0.7	0.6
Total	0.0	0.8	0.5	0.6	5.1	5.3	2.3	3.0	13.8	9.1	5.2	4.5

Offenders serving life sentences for murder and released on full parole, remain on parole for life. Long-term follow-up for this group indicates that about 8% reoffend. Since 1994/95, 2,024 offenders with life sentences for murder have had 2,257 full parole supervision periods. By March 31, 2007 1,489 (66%) of these supervision periods were still active. The outcomes of the remaining cases were as follows:

• 316 (14%) offenders had died while on full parole.
• 293 (13%) were revoked for a breach of conditions.
• 113 (5%) were revoked for a non-violent offence.
• 68 (3%) were revoked as a result of a violent offence.

Convictions for Violent Offences - Federal Offenders

• From 1996/97 to 2006/07, the annual number of convictions for violent offences by day and full parolees declined by 72%.
• Rates of conviction per 1,000 parolees also declined sharply (from 37 to 15 for day parole and from 13 to 5 for full parole).
• Comparison of violent conviction rates and violent crime rates in Uniform Crime Reports shows that full parolees are no more likely than the general public to commit a violent crime.

TABLE 3 - CONVICTIONS FOR VIOLENT OFFENCES BY RELEASE TYPE AND THE RATES OF CONVICTION PER 1000 OFFENDERS UNDER SUPERVISION
YEAR	DAY PAROLE (convictions)	RATES PER 1,000	FULL PAROLE (convictions)	RATES PER 1,000	STATUTORY RELEASE (convictions)	RATES PER 1,000	TOTAL CONVICTIONS
1996/97	38	37	54	13	159	67	252
1997/98	37	30	48	12	157	63	243
1998/99	35	23	37	9	138	55	210
1999/00	57	36	44	10	160	57	260
2000/01	35	25	37	8	167	60	239
2001/02	32	25	33	8	149	52	214
2002/03	22	17	26	6	148	51	196
2003/04	20	15	21	5	149	50	190
2004/05	22	18	27	7	136	45	185
2005/06	20	15	21	5	128	424	169
2006/07*	17	13	9	2	117	37	143

Post Warrant Expiry Reoffending

Post-warrant expiry reoffending information is based on readmissions to a federal institution for offenders who completed their sentence on full parole or SR or were incarcerated to the end of their sentence, between 1991/92 and 1996/97. Long-term follow-up indicates that about 26% of these offenders have returned to a federal penitentiary. There are, however, differing rates of reoffending for offenders within this group:

• 12% of offenders who reached warrant expiry on full parole have returned to a federal institution;
• 32% of offenders who reached warrant expiry on SR, have returned to a federal institution;
• 38% of offenders who remained incarcerated to warrant expiry (e.g. detained), have returned to a federal institution.

Conditional release is founded on the principle that gradual release, based on effective programs and treatment, quality risk assessment, and effective community supervision enhances community safety. Information on post-warrant expiry reoffending reinforces this theory, suggesting that the detailed process of case preparation and risk assessment used by NPB and CSC for parole decision-making is effective in identifying those offenders most likely to remain free from violent crime in the community. Post-warrant expiry reoffending, as reported, deals only with federal reoffending (i.e. a new sentence of two years or more). If all new offences (e.g. fines, sentences of less than two years) were considered, the rate of reoffending would increase. NPB does not have access to this information at this time.

Lessons learned-quality conditional release decisions: The Board carried-out a series of case audits in 2006/07 to assess issues related to conditional release policies, processes, training and risk assessment. As a result, NPB developed plans for improvement in several areas, including:

• training on psychopathy, the behaviour of psychopaths and the use of actuarial information in risk assessment for conditional release decision-making;
• information for decision-making for accelerated parole review cases, the quality of case preparation for these cases and training on legislative requirements;
• the implications of decisions to suspend an offender’s release and then cancel the suspension, and revocations of release for subsequent risk assessment for release; and
• the need for better information and training related to mental health issues for offenders.

2. Open and Accountable Conditional Release Processes

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

Program Activity: Conditional Release Openness and Accountability.

Program Activity Description: Information for victims of crime; assistance for observers at hearings and those who seek access to NPB’s decision registry; public information; and investigation of 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. Work in this area recognizes that NPB operates in a difficult environment in which timely sharing of accurate information is fundamental to effective partnership and public trust. Results for this area are assessed by monitoring the timeliness of information shared, by conducting surveys of those who receive information and assistance from the Board (e.g. victims), and by conducting relevant management reviews and investigations.

Financial Resources 2006/07

Planned Spending	Authorities	Actual Spending
$ 7,668,000	$ 7,853,576	$ 6,561,010

Human Resources 2006/07 (FTE)

Planned	Actual	Difference
74	64	10

Progress Towards Commitments Made in Report on Plans and Priorities 2006/07

Program Activity

• Conditional Release Openness and Accountability

Commitments Made

• Effective management of legislative responsibilities related to open and accountable conditional release processes.

Recent Progress

• 21,434 contacts with victims, 2,055 observers at hearings, distribution of 5,871 decisions from the decision registry.
• NPB developed plans to provide victims with a more effective voice in the justice system through: improved access to information about parole; better voice amplification equipment in NPB hearings; simultaneous translation at hearings; enhanced outreach to victims, particularly in northern and Aboriginal communities; and improved training for NPB staff.
• 
  
• Performance status: successfully met.

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 2006/07, the Board had over 21,000 contacts with victims. Most were victims of violence, such as sexual assault, or the family of murder victims. The vast majority (95%) of victims surveyed in past years have expressed satisfaction with the quality and timeliness of information provided by NPB staff.

Observers at Hearings: The Board had 2,055 observers at its hearings in 2006/07, a 27% increase compared with 2005/06. This increase can be attributed to growing public awareness of the observer provisions of the CCRA and the federal fund to pay the travel costs for victims to attend NPB hearings. Most observers (90%) agreed that the hearing process is rigorous and that Board members are very thorough in reviewing information for decision-making.

Victims’ Presentations: In 2006/07, 252 victims made presentations at hearings. Most were family members of murder or manslaughter victims. The majority of presentations (85%) were in person. The remainder came in the form of audio or video tapes. There has been an increase in the number of victims making presentations at hearings which appears to be linked to the fund to pay travel costs for victims to attend NPB hearings.

Decision Registry:The CCRA permits access to specific NPB decisions and to decisions for research purposes through NPB's decision registry. For specific cases, any person who demonstrates an interest may, on written application to NPB, have access to the contents of the registry. 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 CCRA does not define the contents of the "registry of decisions", or what constitutes demonstrating interest in a case; however, in keeping with the concepts of openness and accountability, the Board makes available the complete risk assessment and decision documentation of Board members. Individuals demonstrate an interest by writing to the Board to ask for access to the decision registry. In 2006/07, the Board released 5,871 decisions from the registry. Victims access the registry most frequently (36%), followed by media (30%).

Lessons learned - victims, observers and the decision registry: In April 2006, NPB completed a review of policy and operational issues related to victims, observers, and the decision registry. This review, along with the Board’s previously completed surveys of victims, highlighted the need for innovation and improvement that will focus on:

• better information for victims, the public and the media on the Board’s website and in print form;
• assessment of the use of video conferencing as a means to allow victims to observe hearings;
• provision of interpretation services for victims at NPB hearings under certain circumstances; and
• enhanced training for NPB staff.

These findings shaped NPB’s contribution to the new federal initiative to provide victims with a more effective voice in the justice system.

3. Quality Pardon Decisions

Strategic Outcome: Quality pardon decisions and clemency recommendations which contribute to public protection and support the process of rehabilitation.

Program Activity: Pardon Decisions/Clemency Recommendations.

Program Activity Description: Case review and quality decisions to grant, deny or revoke pardons; support for pardon decision-making; development of pardons policy; 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, after satisfying their sentence and a specific waiting period, have shown themselves to be responsible citizens. A pardon is, therefore, a means to facilitate 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).

Financial Resources 2006/07

Planned Spending	Authorities	Actual Spending
$ 2,258,000	$2,893,791	$2,823,003

Human Resources 2006/07 (FTE)

Planned	Actual	Difference
35	38	(3)

Historically, the Board has received about 20,000 pardon applications per year; however in 2005/06 and 2006/07, applications rose to 27,900 and 26,800 respectively. This sudden increase produced a backlog of 20,000 applications and demanded effective action to enhance productivity in the short-term and to establish sustainability for the pardon program in the long-term. NPB charges a $50.00 user fee for the processing of pardon applications. The Board may access 70% of revenues collected, to an annual maximum of $ 410,000. The RCMP has access to 30% of user fees collected. Fees do not represent the full cost of a pardon. The fee is set at $50.00 so as not to serve as an impediment for Canadians who wish to benefit from a pardon.

Progress Toward Commitments Made in Report on Plans And Priorities 2006/07

Program Activity

• Pardons

Commitments Made

• Effective management of legislative responsibilities related to the processing of pardon applications, including measures to enhance productivity.

Recent Progress

• 14,851 applications processed – average process time, 13 months.
• 96% of all pardons issued/granted remain in force.
• Plans developed to eliminate the backlog of applications and establish sustainability for the pardons program.
  
• Performance status: partially successful. NPB encountered a backlog of applications due to sudden workload increases; however, a plan has been developed to eliminate the backlog and create long-term sustainability for pardons.

The Criminal Records Act (CRA) authorizes the Board to: grant pardons for offences prosecuted by indictment, if it is satisfied the applicant is of good conduct, and is conviction-free for five years; and issue pardons for summary convictions, following a conviction free period of three years. In 2006/07, the average processing time for all pardons was 13 months. For cases involving summary convictions only, the average process time was five months.

TABLE 4 – PARDONS GRANTED/ISSUED and DENIED by YEAR
Decision	2001/02		2002/03		2003/04		2004/05		2005/06		2006/07
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Granted	10,725	63	7,204	49	8,761	55	17,800	78	3,951	46	7,076	47
Issued	5,920	35	7,232	49	6,832	43	4,745	21	4,402	51	7,672	52
Sub-Total	16,645	98	14,436	98	15,593	98	22,545	98	8,353	98	14,748	99
Denied	409	2	286	2	265	2	375	2	196	2	103	1
Total	17,054	100	14,722	100	15,858	100	22,920	100	8,549	100	14,851	100
Average Process Time	20 months		17 months		17 months		12 months		11 months		13 months

The pardon revocation/cessation rate remains low (4%), demonstrating that most people remain crime free after receipt of a pardon. The CRA includes two categories of revocation. The first is for offences that the court dealt with summarily, or which could have been dealt with summarily. The Board reviews these cases and assesses the need to revoke. The second involves automatic revocation for an indictable offence. For this category, the RCMP notifies the Board of the offence, and the pardon ceases to exist.

TABLE 5 - PARDON REVOCATIONS
	Cumulative Pardons Granted / Issued to Date	Pardons Revoked / Ceased during the Year	Cumulative Pardons Revoked / Ceased	Cumulative Revocation / Cessation Rate (%)
2001/02	276,956	463	8,378	3.03
2002/03	291,392	902	9,280	3.18
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	3.43
2006/07	352,631	2397	14,004	3.97

Lessons learned – sustainability for the pardon program: Since its inception, the pardon program has faced heavy workloads that stretched resources to the limit. The emergence of a backlog of 20,000 applications in 2006/07 created serious challenges in terms of program effectiveness and public credibility. This backlog, the most recent in a series that the Board has encountered, highlighted the need for NPB to go beyond the temporary solutions that had been tried in previous years to a more comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach. In this context, the Board conducted an extensive review of the pardon program, leading to the development of a detailed business plan to eliminate the backlog in the short-term and establish sustainability for the program in the long-term. Key elements of the business plan include:

• policy refinement to strengthen program effectiveness and efficiency;
• process streamlining based on three simple criteria: eliminate the unnecessary; automate the routine; and focus employees on value-added work;
• productive use of technology to support case processing and decision-making;
• introduction of a "single officer" concept in which one pardon officer will deal with a case from start-to-finish, leading to issuance of a pardon or referral of the case to a Board member for decision. This approach will eliminate duplication of effort and reduce process times;
• effective human resource planning that will enable NPB to introduce a "single officer" concept, recruit and train a project team to eliminate the backlog of applications and provide sufficient staff to deal with 30,000 applications per year in the future;
• removal of the cap on the revenues that NPB can access each year to provide greater flexibility to cover costs of program delivery;
• establishment of service standards for the pardon program by April 1, 2009; and
• review of issues related to the user fee for pardons, including the amount of the fee and the conditions specifying when NPB is entitled to keep the fee.

 

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page