Performance Monitoring Report 2010-2011

Acronyms Used in this Report

APR

Accelerated Parole Review

CCRA

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

CRA

Criminal Records Act

CRIMS

Conditional Release Information Management System

CSC

Correctional Service of Canada

DP

Day Parole

ETA

Escorted Temporary Absence

FP

Full Parole

GSS

General Social Survey

PBC

Parole Board of Canada

OMS

Offender Management System

RCMP

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

SR

Statutory Release

TA

Temporary Absence

UAL

Unlawfully-at-Large

UTA

Unescorted Temporary Absence

WED

Warrant Expiry Date

Highlights of 2010/11

14 new crime bills received Royal Assent. Some of them will significantly affect the Board’s workload in the future.

3% increase in the federal offender population (on April 10, 2011, 14,219 offenders were incarcerated and 8,644 offenders were on conditional release).

16,845 reviews conducted by the Board (15,999 federal and 846 provincial).

5,265 day parole release decisions (4,769 federal and 496 provincial).

62% grant rate for federal day parole, four percentage points lower than the previous year.

43% grant rate for provincial day parole, four percentage points lower than the previous year.

4,260 full parole release decisions (3,804 federal and 456 provincial).

39% grant rate for federal full parole, two percentage points lower than the previous year.

31% grant rate for provincial full parole, six percentage points lower than the previous year.

1,757 decisions to impose residency conditions on statutory release, increase of seven percentage points from the previous year.

299 the number of offenders in the community with long-term supervision orders on April 10, 2011.

89% successful completion rate on federal day parole, increase of 3 percentage points from the previous year.

77% successful completion rate on federal full parole for offenders serving determinate sentences, increase of one percentage point from the previous year.

62% successful completion rate on statutory release, increase of one percentage point from the previous year.

0.1% rate of violent reoffending on federal day parole, the lowest in five years.

0.8% rate of violent reoffending on federal full parole for offenders serving determinate sentences, a slight increase from the previous year.

1.3% rate of violent reoffending on statutory release, a slight decrease from the previous year.

22,483 contacts with victims, slightly more than the previous year.

2,311 observers at 948 PBC hearings, a slight increase from the previous year.

237 presentations made by victims at 137 hearings, a slight increase from the previous year.

5,689 the number of decisions sent from the decision registry, a slight decrease from the previous year.

12,379 pardon decisions made; 76% pardons granted, 22% pardons issued, and 2% pardons denied.

51 active clemency cases.

Introduction

The Parole Board of Canada has four program activities: Conditional Release Decisions, Conditional Release Openness and Accountability, Pardon Decisions and Clemency Recommendations, and Internal Services.

Conditional Release Decisions is by far the largest program activity of the Parole Board of Canada. This includes: the review of offenders' cases and the making of quality conditional release decisions, including appeals; provision of in-depth training on how to assess the risk of reoffending in order to assist Board members in the decision-making process; coordination of program delivery throughout the Board and with the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and other key partners.

Conditional Release Openness and Accountability is the second largest program activity. This focuses on the provision of information to victims and other interested parties within the community, as well as coordinating victims' and other observers' attendance at hearings, providing assistance to victims in preparing their victims' statements and providing access to the decision registry.

Pardon Decisions and Clemency Recommendations, the third program activity of the Board, involves the review of pardon and clemency applications, the issuing of pardons and the rendering of pardon decisions and clemency recommendations.

Internal Services, although a separate program activity, exists to support the Board's main activities by providing procurement, accommodation and financial management services.

Commencing in 2010/11, the Performance Monitoring Report is structured to reflect the Board's four program activities¹.

In addition, the report is presented in a new format with user-friendly features making up the main body of the report. Detailed statistical tables are found in the Appendix and are linked to their appropriate sections in the main body of the report.

The Year at a Glance

Context

The Parole Board of Canada worked in a challenging environment in 2010/11. The Board needed to respond to new and prepare for upcoming legislative changes in the field of criminal justice, as well as to take into account the increasing risks of a more diverse offender population. Offenders' needs have been escalating because of a changing criminal profile, increased mental health issues, more frequent gang affiliations and longer histories of violence.

Crime Rates

In 2010², police-reported crime in Canada continued its declining trend: crime rates decreased five percentage points in comparison with the previous year, reaching its lowest level since the 1970s³. Decreases in property crime accounted for the majority of the decline. A downward trend was also observed for violent crime, including homicide, attempted murder, robbery and assault.

While violent crime rates decreased across the country in 2010, some violent offences, such as sexual assault, criminal harassment, firearm offences and child pornography offences increased. The highest rates of sexual assault were reported in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, however, the rates also increased significantly in Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba. Firearm offences in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta accounted for the majority of firearms offences.

Non-violent crime rates decreased in Canada, with the exception of drug offences, which continued to increase in comparison with previous years.

The crime severity index, a measure of the severity of offences, decreased six percentage points in 2010. The decline was observed in the majority of provinces and territories, with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, where the crime severity index increased. The majority of Canada's census metropolitan areas reported a decline in crime severity; however Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg continued reporting the highest rates.

The violent crime severity index declined six percentage points across Canada in 2010, however different trends were observed at the regional level. The Canadian territories remained the most violent place in Canada, while the Atlantic provinces remained the least violent. The highest drops in the violent crime severity index were observed in Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.

The rate and severity of youth crime decreased in 2010, including the severity of violent crime committed by youth. Robbery was one of the few crimes, which increased in 2010 for youth offenders.

Public Confidence in the Criminal Justice System

In addition to the Uniform Crime Survey measuring police-reported crime, the Government of Canada administers the General Social Survey collecting information on self-reported victimization on a calendar year basis. The 2009 General Social Survey concluded that the rates of victimization remained relatively stable in comparison with the previous findings in 2004⁴. Just over one quarter (26%) of Canadians over 15 years of age reported being a victim of crime in 2009, theft of personal property being the most common offence⁵. Three out of ten self-reported victimizations were violent in nature. Younger Canadians reported higher rates of violent victimization than older Canadians.

While the survey remarked on fluctuations in the rates for different types of offences, the majority of the public, 93%, felt satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their personal safety from crime. Specifically, feeling safe meant not being afraid when walking alone at night in their neighbourhood, or using public transportation including waiting for the bus or a train after dark. Most Canadians also stated that they felt safe at their homes at night.

However, the rates of self-reported victimization among Aboriginal people continued to exceed those of non-Aboriginal population⁶. In 2009, 37% of Aboriginal people self-reported being the victim of crime compared to 26% of the non-Aboriginal population. Sexual assaults accounted for approximately one-third of all violent incidents, and Aboriginal women were three times more likely than non-Aboriginal women to report being a victim of spousal abuse. More than 67% of all violent incidents reported by the Aboriginal population were related to alcohol or substance abuse.

The 2009 survey concluded that on average about one-third of violent incidents had been reported to the police.

While the 2009 General Social Survey demonstrated that in general Canadians were satisfied with their safety in their own neighbourhoods, public trust, confidence and respect in the criminal justice system remained relatively low, particularly the trust in correctional programs. In relation to the Parole Board of Canada, social perceptions continued to be that the system had released the wrong individuals, and conditional release programs remained a controversial issue for at least a third of Canadians.

Legislative and Policy Changes

In 2010/11, the Government of Canada continued fulfilling its commitment of promoting a peaceful and just society by focusing on cracking down on crime, as reflected in the Government's agenda and its vision of a Strong Canada (Speech from the Throne, 2010). As in the previous year, 2010/11 was characterized by a series of legislative reforms in the area of criminal justice with a special emphasis on offender accountability and responsibility, getting tough on drug offences, a special effort to tackle crimes committed against children and a newly amended process of pardon and parole review.

Emphasis on offender accountability and responsibility was launched by the CSC Transformation Agenda in 2008, largely focusing on key aspects of an offender's correctional and rehabilitation capacities to be balanced with the provisions to keep Canadian communities safe and secure. Special provisions were made in relation to interventions for First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders⁷.

In 2010/11, the Parliament of Canada passed the following bills.

Bill C-23A – An Act to amend the Criminal Records Act (Limiting Pardons for Serious Crimes Act).The bill received Royal Assent and came into force on June 29, 2010. This bill extends the ineligibility periods for certain applications for pardon: a) changes the waiting periods from 3 to 5 years for summary offences; b) changes the waiting period from 5 to 10 years for indictable offences. The Bill also allows the Board a greater discretionary power to deny a pardon.

Bill C-59 – An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Abolition of Early Parole Act). The bill received Royal Assent on March 23, 2011 and came into force on March 28, 2011. This enactment amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by eliminating accelerated parole review on a retrospective basis and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bill S-2 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts (Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act).The bill received Royal Assent on October 7, 2010 and came into force on April 15, 2011. This enactment amends the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the National Defence Act, by enhancing police investigation of crimes of a sexual nature and allowing police services to use the national database proactively to prevent crimes of a sexual nature.

Bill C-21 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud) (Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act). The bill received Royal Assent on March 23, 2011⁸. This enactment amends the Criminal Code by providing mandatory minimum sentences for fraud exceeding one million dollars, creating discretionary prohibition orders for offenders convicted of fraud from having authority over the property of others, requiring consideration of restitution for victims of fraud and providing additional aggravating factors for sentencing.

Bill C-22 – An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service (Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act).The bill received Royal Assent on March 23, 2011⁹. This enactment imposes reporting duties on persons who provide an Internet service to the public if they are advised of an Internet address where child pornography may be available to the public, or if they have reasonable grounds to believe that their Internet service is being used to commit a child pornography offence.

Bill C-30 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker Act). The bill received Royal Assent on March 23, 2011¹⁰. This enactment amends the Criminal Code to allow a court to require that an offender or defendant provide a sample of a bodily substance on the demand of peace officers, probation officers, supervisors or designated persons, or at regular intervals, in order to enforce compliance with a prohibition on consuming drugs or alcohol imposed in a probation order, a conditional sentence order or a recognizance.

Bill C-31 – An Act to Amend the Old Age Security Act (Eliminating Entitlements for Prisoners Act). This bill received Royal Assent and came into force on December 15, 2010.This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to preclude incarcerated persons from receiving benefits under this Act while maintaining entitlement to benefits for, and avoiding a reduction in the amounts payable to, their spouse or common-law partner.

Bill C-48 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to the National Defence Act (Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act). The bill received Royal Assent on March 23, 2011¹¹. This initiative would allow judges to impose consecutive parole ineligibility periods on individuals convicted of more than one first or second-degree murder. Under the current system, individuals convicted of multiple murders serve their parole ineligibility periods concurrently. The only current exception to the single parole ineligibility period rule occurs when a convicted murderer commits another murder while in prison.

Bill S-6 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code and another Act (Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act). The bill received Royal Assent on March 23, 2011¹². This enactment amends the Criminal Code with regard to the right of persons convicted of murder or high treason to be eligible to apply for early parole by way of judicial review (repeal of the "faint hope clause").

Bill S-9 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime) (Tackling Auto Theft and Property Crime Act). The bill received Royal Assent on November 18, 2010 and came into force on April 29, 2011. This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create offences in connection with the theft of a motor vehicle, the alteration, removal or obliteration of a vehicle identification number, the trafficking of property or proceeds obtained by crime and the possession of such property or proceeds for the purposes of trafficking, and to provide for an in rem prohibition of the importation or exportation of such property or proceeds.

Bill C-268 –An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentences for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). The bill received Royal Assent and came into force on June 29, 2010. This enactment amends the Criminal Code to include a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years.

Bill C-464 – An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody). The bill received Royal Assent and came into force on December 15, 2010. This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide that the pre-trial/pre-sentencing detention of an accused in custody may be justified where it is necessary for the protection or safety of the accused's minor children.

Bill C-475 – An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy). The bill received Royal Assent on March 25, 2011¹³. This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prohibit a person from possessing, producing, selling or importing anything knowing it will be used to produce or traffic in methamphetamine or ecstasy.

Bill S-215 –An Act to amend the Criminal Code (suicide bombings).The bill received Royal Assent on December 15, 2010¹⁴. This enactment amends the Criminal Code to clarify that suicide bombings fall within the definition of "terrorist activity" for the purpose of the application of s.83.01 of the Criminal Code.

Implications for the Board

The federal government's agenda of tackling crime and strengthening the security of Canadians has important implications for the PBC. Newly introduced bills will have either an immediate or gradual impact on the Board's workload.

Bill C-23A, which limited pardons for serious crime, will result in an increased workload for the Board for the transition period. To a greater degree, the impact will be procedural. While some cases with serious offences have become ineligible for a pardon, others will produce a workload where more exhaustive and time consuming research is required in order to prepare a more detailed case for or against the granting of a pardon.

Bill C-59, will have a significant impact on the Board, as all initial parole applications will now require a panel hearing. As the bill came into force at the end of the fiscal year 2010/11, the impact is expected to occur over the next three years.

Bill S-6 (Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act), once it comes into force, will result in a small reduction in the number of reviews due to the elimination of judicial reviews for these cases.

Bills that impose mandatory sentencing minimums will naturally impact the Board's workload, especially during the transition periods, as new admissions will eventually result in an increase in the number of reviews.

In addition, certain bills from previous years impacted the Board's workload in 2010/11. Bill C-25, for example, which came into force in February 2010, limited the amount of credit a judge might allow for time spent in pre-sentencing custody. This resulted in an increase of admissions in 2010/11 of first-time federal offenders who will now have to serve their sentences in federal institutions instead of provincial facilities. This explains, in part, why the Parole Board of Canada witnessed a slight increase in 2010/11 in the number of reviews for first-time federal offenders (with APR eligibility), serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences. However, Bill C-25 not only resulted in an increase in admissions to institutions, it also increased the amount of time these offenders would spend in incarceration.

Program Delivery Context

Offender Population

(Tables 1-14)

Offender Population Trends

The Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada have agreed to use the following definitions in reporting offender population information to ensure consistency:

Incarcerated includes: offenders serving federal sentences in penitentiaries and in provincial facilities, those housed as inmates in Community Correctional Centres (as distinguished from conditionally released offenders), and those temporarily absent from the institution on some form of temporary release (Temporary Absence or Work Release)¹⁵.

Conditional Release includes: those federal offenders conditionally released on day parole, full parole and statutory release and those on long term supervision orders including those paroled for deportation and temporary detainees whether detained in a penitentiary or a provincial jail¹⁶.

Federal Offender Population (as of April 10, 2011)

[full description of Federal Offender Population (as of April 10, 2011)]

• On April 10, 2011, the total federal offender population had increased to 22,863 (+ 3%) from the previous year. This was the result of a small increase in the federal incarcerated population (+688) and a negligible decrease in the federal conditional release population (-65).
• Over the last five years, the total federal offender population had increased in the Ontario (+11%), Prairie (+7%), Atlantic (+4%) and Quebec (+4%) regions, and decreased in the Pacific region (-1%).

It is important to note that the offender population usually mirrors trends in crime rates and the crime severity index with the effect being seen approximately two years later. While the crime rates and the crime severity index have been decreasing over the past five years, the offender population has slightly increased. This pattern points to the fact that there were more complex events at play, which the crime rates analysis alone could not sufficiently explain. Introduction of minimum mandatory sentencing, longer sentences for certain offences, and variances in admissions and releases due to such legislative changes all play a role.

Federal Conditional Release Population (as of April 10, 2011)

[full description of Federal Conditional Release Population (as of April 10, 2011)]

• The federal conditional release population decreased 1% in 2010/11. The day parole population decreased (-8%) as did the statutory release population (-1%), while the full parole population increased (+1%) in comparison with the previous year. The long-term supervision population increased (+11%).
• The provincial conditional release population declined 19% (or 37 offenders) in 2010/11; the day parole population decreased 9% (or 6 offenders), while the full parole population decreased 25% (or 31 offenders).

Usually mirroring trends in federal admissions to institutions about two years earlier, the federal conditional release population decreased in 2010/11 as a result of the decrease in the number of federal admissions seen in 2008/09.

• Over the five-year period between 2006/07 and 2010/11, the federal conditional release population increased slightly for Aboriginal offenders and all races, except White offenders. The incarcerated population during the same time period demonstrated similar trends, but the increase was more robust for Aboriginal offenders (+18%) and Black offenders (+46%).

[full description of Federal Incarcerated Population by Aboriginal and Race (as of April 10, 2011)]

• As a proportion of the federal offender population, Aboriginal and Black offenders were more likely to be incarcerated than on conditional release in 2010/11, whereas White and Asian offenders were more likely to be on conditional release rather than incarcerated.
• In 2010/11, male offenders represented 96% of the federal incarcerated population and 94% of the federal conditional release population; whereas female offenders represented 4% of the incarcerated population and 6% of the conditional release population.

Federal Offender Profiles

Offence Profile of the Federal Incarcerated Population

[full description of Offence Profile of the Federal Incarcerated Population]

• On April 10, 2011, 19% of federal incarcerated offenders were serving sentences for murder, 14% were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 39% were serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, 11% were serving sentences for schedule II offences and 17% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
• While the proportions have remained relatively stable for the past five years for incarcerated offenders serving sentences for murder, schedule I-sex and schedule II offences, two noticeable changes of key importance were observed for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences and for those serving sentences for non-scheduled offences:
  1. the proportion of the incarcerated population serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences has decreased 4% over the last five years;
  2. the proportion of the incarcerated population serving sentences for non-scheduled offences increased three percentage points in 2010/11.

The changes in the two offender population groups were reflected in the profile of the incarcerated population as well as in the profile of the conditional release population in 2010/11.

1. the proportion of the federal conditional release population serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences decreased in 2010/11 by two percentage points on day parole, full parole and on statutory release;
2. the proportion of the federal conditional release population serving sentences for non-scheduled offences increased by seven percentage points on day parole, increased by five percentage points on full parole, and increased by two percentage points on statutory release in 2010/11.

Offence Profile of the Federal Day Parole Population

[full description of Offence Profile of the Federal Day Parole Population]

Offence Profile of the Federal Full Parole Population

[full description of Offence Profile of the Federal Full Parole Population]

Offence Profile of the Statutory Release Population

[full description of Offence Profile of the Statutory Release Population]

• The proportions of offenders on conditional release serving sentences for murder as well as those serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences have remained relatively stable over the past five years.
• The proportion of offenders on conditional release serving sentences for schedule II offences decreased by one percentage point on day parole and by three percentage points on full parole in 2010/11

Federal Admissions

(Tables 15-20)

Federal Admissions to Institutions

[full description of Federal Admissions to Institutions]

• Federal admissions to institutions in 2010/11 decreased by a negligible 0.5% (to 8,336) in comparison with the previous year, however admissions on warrants of committal increased 4% (to 5,434), while admissions for revocations declined 9% (to 2,769).
• In comparison with 2009/10, an increase in admissions on warrants of committal was observed in the Prairie (+11%), Quebec (+4%) and Ontario (+4%) regions whereas a decrease was observed in the Atlantic region (-9%). The numbers remained relatively stable in the Pacific region (-0.6%).
• Admissions as a result of a revocation declined in four regions in 2010/11: Quebec (-13%), Ontario (-9%), Prairie (-13%), Pacific (-7%), but increased in the Atlantic region (+6%).
• Over the five-year period between 2006/07 and 2010/11, Aboriginal offenders were the least likely to be admitted on initial warrants of committal, and were the most likely to be admitted on all types of revocation.
• During the same time period, female offenders were more likely to be admitted on initial warrants of committal and on revocation for a breach of condition than male offenders, and were less likely to be admitted on revocation with a charge or an offence.
• By offence type, the year 2010/11 witnessed an increase in admissions of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex (+1%) and non-scheduled offences (+4%), and decreases in admissions for offenders serving sentences for murder (-6%), schedule I-sex offences (-4%) and schedule II offences (-5%).

Federal Releases

(Tables 21-33)

• Federal releases from institutions decreased 7% (to 7,644) in 2010/11. This was the second year that federal releases from institutions decreased.
• In 2010/11, federal releases decreased on day parole (-4%), full parole (-14%) and statutory release (-8%) but remained the same for releases at warrant expiry. There were six more releases on long-term supervision orders in 2010/11 than the previous year.
• In 2010/11, federal releases decreased in the Atlantic (-2%), Ontario (-7%), Prairie (-8%) and Pacific regions (-18%) and remained relatively stable in the Quebec region (-0.6%).
• The year 2010/11 registered a slight increase in graduations from day parole to full parole (+6%), and a decrease in graduations from day parole to statutory release (-2%).
• Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders, in comparison with other groups, were the least likely to be released on day parole, full parole and statutory release. Black and Aboriginal offenders were more likely than other groups to be released at warrant expiry.

Conditional Release Decisions

Conditional Release Decisions: Decision Trends

This section provides information on the following operational areas of the Board: 1) temporary absence; 2) day parole; 3) full parole; 4) statutory release; 5) detention; 6) long-term supervision; 7) appeals.
The section also provides a summary of the number of reviews conducted by the Board.

Temporary Absence

(Tables 34-38)

Temporary absences (TAs) are used for several purposes, such as: medical, compassionate and personal development for rehabilitation. Under the CCRA, the Parole Board of Canada has authority to authorize unescorted temporary absences (UTAs) to offenders serving: a life sentence for murder, an indeterminate sentence, or a determinate sentence for an offence set out in schedule I or II. CSC has authority for all other UTAs and most escorted temporary absences (ETAs). The CCRA also allows the Board to delegate its UTA authority to the Commissioner of CSC or to institutional heads. This has been done for all scheduled offences, except where the schedule I offence resulted in serious harm to the victim, or was a sexual offence involving a child. As well, PBC approval is required for ETAs for offenders serving life sentences prior to their day parole eligibility dates except for ETAs for medical reasons or in order to attend judicial proceedings or a coroner's inquest.

Temporary Absence Decisions

[full description of Temporary Absence Decisions]

• The Board made decisions on 612 applications for temporary absences in 2010/11, a decrease of 8% from the previous year. Temporary absence decisions decreased in the Quebec (-65), Ontario (-11) and Pacific (-9) regions, while they increased in the Prairie (+46) and Atlantic regions (+4).
• The national approval rate for ETAs in 2010/11 remained the same as the previous year at 87%, while the authorisation rate for UTAs decreased by three percentage points to 77%. The decrease in the UTA authorisation rate was within its normal variance for the past 5 years (77%-80%).
• In 2010/11, the five-year average approval/authorisation rates for Aboriginal offenders for ETAs and UTAs were lower than the national averages, while the approval/authorisation rates for White offenders were slightly higher than the national averages¹⁷.
• By sentence type, the five-year average approval/authorisation rates for lifers were 89% for ETAs and 81% for UTAs, however in 2010/11, the UTA authorisation rate for this offender group decreased slightly.

Day Parole

(Tables 39-52)

Day parole is a type of conditional release which allows offenders to participate in community-based activities in preparation for full parole or statutory release. The conditions require offenders to return nightly to an institution or a half-way house, unless otherwise authorized by the Board.

In this section, the number of day parole grants includes not only those for whom day parole has been directed or granted but those for whom day parole has been continued. A day parole is continued to allow the offender additional time to further prepare for full parole. It should be noted that the Board must conduct an assessment of risk before each day parole grant/directed decision as well as each day parole continued decision.

The day parole population changed significantly when Bill C-55, which came into force on July 3, 1997, reinstated automatic day parole review and day parole eligibility at the one-sixth of the sentence for offenders who, according to the law, were entitled to be considered for accelerated parole review (APR). On March 28, 2011, Bill C-59 eliminated the APR process.

• The number of federal day parole release decisions increased (to 4,769; +4%) in 2010/11, as did the number of provincial day parole release decisions ( to 496; +3%).
• An increase in federal day parole release decisions was observed in four regions: the Atlantic (+5%), Quebec (+3%), Ontario (+9%) and Prairie (+4%) regions in 2010/11. The Pacific region registered a decrease in the number of federal day parole decisions (-5%).
• The number of federal day parole release decisions following a hearing with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor increased from the last year's five-year low of 234 to 306 (+31%).
• In 2010/11, the average proportion of sentence served before the first federal day parole release for offenders serving determinate sentences decreased to 31%, a decline of 2 percentage points from the previous year.
• Over the last five years, offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences served approximately 24% of their sentence prior to first day parole release, the lowest, while schedule I-sex offenders served 45% of their sentence prior to their first federal day parole release, the highest.
• In 2010/11, Aboriginal offenders served 37% of their sentences before being released into the community on their first federal day parole release, the highest proportion of time served before release, while Asian offenders were released on their first day parole having served 25% of their sentences, the lowest.
• Over the last five years, male offenders served 32% of their sentences before being released into the community on their first federal day parole release, and female offenders served 29%.

Grant Rates for Federal and Provincial Day Parole

[full description of Grant Rates for Federal and Provincial Day Parole]

• In 2010/11, grant rates for federal and provincial day parole continued to decline in comparison with the previous year. Grant rates for federal day parole fell to 62% (-4%) and for provincial day parole to 43% (-4%)¹⁸.
• In 2010/11, the Ontario region registered the highest drop in the federal day parole grant rate (-7%), followed by the Quebec (-5%), Atlantic (-4%) and Prairie (-3%) regions. An increase in the federal day parole grant rate was noted in the Pacific region (+1%).
• By offence type, grant rates for federal day parole declined for all groups in 2010/11: murder (-3%), schedule I-sex (-9%), schedule I-non-sex (-5%), schedule II (-3%), non-scheduled (-3%).
• In 2010/11, offenders with determinate sentences accounted for 81% of all federal day parole reviews with a grant rate of 62% (-4%). Lifers accounted for 18% of federal day parole reviews with a grant rate of 80% (-1%), while those with other indeterminate sentences accounted for 1% with a grant rate of 7% (-4%).
• Over the last five-year period, Asian offenders were the most likely to be granted federal day parole, while Black offenders were the least likely.
• Female offenders were far more likely to be granted federal day parole than male offenders.
• The national grant rate for accelerated day parole decreased to 61% (-3%) from the previous year, while the grant rate for regular day parole reviews decreased to 63% (-5%). APR day parole decisions constituted 41% of all federal day parole decisions in 2010/11.

Full Parole

(Tables 53-70)

Full parole is a type of conditional release which allows the offender to serve the remainder of the sentence under supervision in the community.

• The number of federal full parole release decisions in 2010/11 increased to 3,804 (+4%), while the number of provincial full parole release decisions decreased to 456 (-5%).
• An increase in federal full parole release decisions was observed in four regions: the Prairie (+8%), Quebec (+7%), Ontario (+7%) and Atlantic (+2%) regions. The Pacific region saw a decrease in the number of federal full parole release decisions (-15%).
• The number of federal full parole release decisions following a hearing with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor increased to 233 (+37%).
• Between 2006/07 and 2010/11, the average proportion of sentence served prior to first federal full parole release for offenders serving determinate sentences was 38%. Schedule I-sex offenders and schedule I-non-sex offenders served 48% of their sentences before their first federal full parole release, while schedule II offenders served 35% and non-scheduled offenders served 36% of their sentences.
• Over the same time period, from 2006/07 to 2010/11, Aboriginal offenders served 41% of their sentences prior to their first federal release on full parole, a stable rate over the last five years. White offenders served 39% of their sentences before their first federal full parole release, Asian offenders served 35 % and Black offenders served 37%.
• Over the same time period, from 2006/07 to 2010/11, the five-year average proportion of sentence served before the first federal full parole release was 38% for men and 37% for women.

Grant Rates for Federal and Provincial Full Parole

[full description of Grant Rates for Federal and Provincial Full Parole]

• Over the past five years, grant rates for federal and provincial full parole have declined. In 2010/11, the grant rate for federal full parole declined by 2 percentage points to 39%, while the grant rate for provincial full parole declined by 6 percentage points to 31%.
• In 2010/11, grant rates for federal full parole were the lowest for schedule I-sex offenders (15%) and the highest for schedule II offenders (64%).
• By sentence type, from 2006/07 to 2010/11, offenders with determinate sentences accounted for 94% of all full parole decisions to grant or direct full parole. Offenders with life sentences accounted for 6% of all full parole decisions. There were only 5 full parole grants in the last five years for offenders with other indeterminate sentences.
• Between 2006/07 and 2010/11, Asian offenders had the highest five-year average grant rate for federal and provincial full parole, while Aboriginal offenders had the lowest for federal full parole, and Black offenders had the lowest for provincial full parole.
• Female offenders had significantly higher grant rates for federal and provincial full parole in 2010/11 than male offenders.
• The national grant rate for accelerated full parole in 2010/11 remained the same at 99% in comparison with the previous year, while the grant rate for regular full parole decreased by one percentage point to 17%. APR full parole decisions constituted 34% of all full parole decisions in 2010/11.
• The number of pre-release residency conditions imposed on federal full parole in 2010/11 did not change significantly (180 in 2010/11 from 184 in 2009/10), however the number of post-release residency conditions imposed on federal full parole increased by 20 to 63, and the number of residency conditions prolonged on federal full parole increased by 8 to 38.
• In 2010/11, the Quebec region imposed the highest proportion of pre-release residency conditions on federal full parole (63%), followed by the Ontario (16%), Pacific (12%), Atlantic (8%) and Prairie regions (1%). The Quebec region also imposed the highest proportion of post-release residency conditions on federal full parole in 2010/11 (70%).

Statutory Release

(Tables 71-79)

All federal offenders serving determinate sentences are entitled to statutory release after serving two-thirds of their sentence, unless it is determined that they are likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person, a sexual offence involving a child or a serious drug offence before the expiration of their sentence. Offenders with indeterminate sentences are not entitled to statutory release.

Incarcerated Population Serving Determinate Sentences Compared to the Number of Releases on Statutory Release

[full description of Incarcerated Population Serving Determinate Sentences Compared to the Number of Releases on Statutory Release]

• Annual releases on statutory release decreased in number and also as a proportion of the incarcerated population in 2010/11. The proportion of incarcerated offenders serving determinate sentences released on statutory release decreased to 49% (-5%).

• Over the last five years, the Prairie region had the largest proportion of federal offenders released on statutory release (59%) and the Quebec region the lowest (49%) as compared with the other regions.
• Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders were the most likely to be released on statutory release than any other group, and Asian offenders were the least likely. This in turn points to the reverse relationship for releases on day and full parole, where Asian offenders were the most likely to be released on day and full parole, while Aboriginal offenders were among those who were the least likely to be granted or directed to either type of parole.
• By offence type, the proportions of federal offenders released on statutory release who were serving sentences for schedule I-sex and schedule I-non-sex offences decreased to 29% (-1%) and to 49% (-3%) respectively. The proportions of offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled and schedule II offences who were released on statutory release in 2010/11 decreased more significantly: 72% (-12%) of non-scheduled offenders and 43% (-8%) of schedule II offenders.
• In 2010/11, the proportion of male offenders serving determinate sentences released on statutory release decreased by five percentage points from 54% to 49%. Female offenders demonstrated a relatively stable proportion of releases on statutory release at 55%.
• The number of residency conditions imposed and prolonged by the Board on statutory release increased 7% (to 1,757) in 2010/11 after being on the decline in 2009/10.
• In 2010/11, the number of residency conditions imposed or prolonged on statutory release increased in the Atlantic (+9%), Ontario (+34%) and Prairie regions (+17%), while it decreased in the Quebec (-9%) and Pacific regions (-12%).

Detention

(Tables 80-88)

Before an offender's statutory release date, CSC can refer the case to the Board for a detention review if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offender is likely to commit an offence causing death or serious harm to another person, a sexual offence involving a child or a serious drug offence before the expiration of the offender's sentence. If the Board determines that the offender is likely to reoffend, then a detention order is issued, and the offender is detained.

• In comparison with the previous year, as of April 10, 2011, 366 (+6) offenders were detained, and 82 (-2) had a detention order but had not yet reached their statutory release dates.
• Referrals for detention declined to 252 (-10%). All regions, except the Pacific region, registered a decline in the number of referrals for detention. In the Pacific region, the number of referrals for detention grew slightly.
• The detention referral rate (ratio of detention referrals against the total offender population entitled to statutory release in a given year), has remained relatively stable over the past five years with a fluctuation of less than one percentage point.
• While the detention referral rate remained relatively stable, the number of offenders detained in 2010/11 fell slightly to 238 (-24), as did the number of offenders released on statutory release 3 (-7), while the number of releases on one chance statutory release increased to 11 (+4).
• Over the last five years, schedule I offenders were overrepresented as a proportion of offenders referred for detention and detained, compared with other groups.
• In comparison with the previous year, the number of schedule I-sex offenders detained decreased 21%, and no schedule I-sex offenders were released on statutory release in 2010/11, but six schedule I-sex offenders were released on one-chance statutory release in 2010/11. The detention referral rate for schedule I-sex offenders remained unchanged in comparison with the previous year¹⁹.
• The number of Aboriginal offenders detained in 2010/11 increased 12%. As a proportion of all offenders who were referred for detention and subsequently detained, Aboriginal offenders were the most likely to be detained. This is the first time since 2006/07 that the number of Aboriginal offenders referred for detention was greater than the number of White offenders referred for detention.
• Over the last five years, 22 women have been referred for detention and all were detained. Among male offenders referred for detention in 2010/11, 94% were detained, one percent were released on statutory release, and four percent were released on a one-chance statutory release.
• In 2010/11, initial detention rates increased in the Atlantic (+4%), Ontario (+2%) and Prairie (+2%) regions, decreased in the Pacific region (-8%) and remained unchanged in the Quebec region.
• Over the ten-year period (2001/02-2010/11), the Pacific region had the lowest detention rate, while the Quebec region had the highest detention rate.

Long-Term Supervision

(Tables 89-93)

The court, upon application by the prosecution, may impose a long-term supervision order, not exceeding ten years, if it is satisfied that it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of two years or more for the offence of which the offender had been convicted, there is substantial risk that the offender will reoffend, and there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community.

The Board may establish conditions for the long-term supervision of an offender that are considered reasonable and necessary in order to protect society and to facilitate the successful reintegration of the offender into society. A long-term supervision order, unlike other forms of conditional release, cannot be revoked by the Board. However, the Board can recommend that charges be laid under the Criminal Code if the offender has demonstrated by his/her behaviour that he/she presents a substantial risk to the community because of failure to comply with one or more conditions.

• The long-term supervision population reached 299 in 2010/11 and is expected to increase. In 2010/11, 39 offenders were released from the institutions with a long-term supervision order upon reaching warrant expiry, and 15 offenders went onto a long-term supervision order after reaching warrant expiry on a supervision period.
• The number of Aboriginal, Asian and White offenders on long-term supervision orders increased slightly in 2010/11. The proportion of the long-term supervision population comprised of Aboriginal offenders has been growing over the past five years, while the proportion comprised of White offenders has shown a decrease for the third consecutive year.
• In 2010/11, 70% of all federal and provincial offenders on long-term supervision orders were schedule I-sex offenders; schedule I-non-sex offenders represented 25% and non-scheduled offenders represented 5% of all offenders on long-term supervision orders.
• The number of decisions for offenders on long-term supervision orders increased in both the pre-release (+19) and post-release categories (+35). It is expected that this workload will increase in the coming years as more offenders become subject to long-term supervision orders.
• The number of pre-release residency conditions imposed on long-term supervision orders increased (to 56; +15), as did the number of post-release residency conditions which were imposed (to 238; +15).

Appeals

Within the Board, the Appeal Division is responsible for re-examining, upon application by an offender, certain decisions made by the Board.

The Appeal Division's role is to ensure that law and Board's policies are respected, that the rules of fundamental justice are adhered to, and that Board decisions are reasonable and based upon relevant and reliable information. It reviews the decision-making process to confirm that it was fair and that procedural safeguards were respected.

Appeal Applications

• The Appeal Division received 602 federal and 57 provincial applications to appeal conditional release decisions in 2010/11. Four hundred and eighty-nine (489) applications were accepted for review and 170 were rejected.
• In comparison with 2009/10, the number of federal appeal applications received increased in the Atlantic (+6) and Ontario (+14) regions and decreased in the Quebec (-70), Prairie (-1) and Pacific (-1) regions.
• The number of provincial appeal applications received in 2010/11 increased in the Prairie region (+11) and decreased in the Atlantic (-4) and Pacific (-11) regions.
• Of the 446 federal appeal applications accepted, 28 were cancelled and 8 were withdrawn, leaving 410 federal applications to be processed. Of the 43 provincial appeal applications accepted, one was cancelled and two were withdrawn, leaving 40 provincial appeal applications to be processed.

Appeal Decisions

• In 2010/11 the Appeal Division rendered 537 decisions on 401 cases.
• The Appeal Division modified the decision in 27 appeal cases which resulted in: a new hearing ordered in 17 cases, a new review ordered in 7 cases, the special conditions were modified in 2 cases, and a special condition was removed in 1 case. The grounds for modifying the decisions in the 27 cases fell into the following categories:

Duty to Provide Reasons

• In 3 cases, the Board failed to provide adequate written reasons to justify its decision and to show an assessment of the offender's risk.
• In 1 case, the Board's written reasons were insufficient and did not properly show how the Board reached its decision. Furthermore, it seemed that a significant amount of file information was not considered in the decision.

Erroneous and Incomplete Information

• In 1 case, the Board imposed a special condition which was not reasonable, not supported by relevant, reliable and persuasive information and was not consistent with the law and Board's policy.
• In 1 case, the Board based its decision on erroneous information by misinterpreting information found in the file.

Duty to Act Fairly

• In 1 case, the Board breached its duty to act fairly by considering information that was not shared with the offender or discussed at the hearing.
• In 1 case, the Board did not act fairly by reaching unfair and unsupported negative conclusions, despite the offender's responses and file information to the contrary. Furthermore, the Board failed to provide sufficient written reasons to justify its decision.
• In 1 case, a Board member's conduct was unfair and disrespectful towards the offender. His right to be heard and to respond was not respected.
• In 1 case, the Board was presented with new information at the beginning of the hearing and gave the offender the option to proceed with the hearing without considering the new information. However, the new information was considered in the Board's decision.

Sharing of Information

• In 1 case, the Board considered several key documents which were not shared with the offender prior to the hearing. Further to this, there was no indication on file that the offender was given an opportunity to provide written representations.
• In 1 case, the Board failed to provide a rationale to support a CSC decision to withhold all of the information contained in a Protected Information Report. In addition, the Board based its decision on erroneous information, and did not provide sufficient written reasons to justify its decision.
• In 1 case, the Board considered information that was not shared in its entirety with the offender. The Protected Information Report was shared as a gist, and the Board considered more information than what was shared with the offender. The information provided to the offender was not sufficient to give the offender a fair opportunity to respond.

Clear and Concise Wording

• In 1 case, the Board's wording of the special condition was too broad and exceeded the intent of the condition.
• In 1 case, the Board failed to include a section in the special condition to give the Parole Officer the authority to allow contact with the victim, although it was stated correctly in the written reasons.

Error of Law

• In 2 cases, the Board erred in law and failed to apply the correct legal test for the offender's release.
• In 1 case, the Board erred in law and failed to apply the correct legal test to impose a residency condition on statutory release. Furthermore, a reasonable apprehension of bias existed since the same panel reviewed the decision within 30 days, and they failed to provide sufficient written reasons to justify their new decision.

Apprehension of Bias

• In 3 cases, the Board did not provide a fair and impartial hearing, and the conduct of one Board Member led to the belief that reasonable apprehension of bias existed.

Right to be Heard

• In 3 cases, the Board failed to acknowledge the offender's written representations in their Reasons for Decision. Furthermore, in one of these cases, it acted on erroneous or incomplete information, specifically by not considering the most recent Addendum to Assessment for Decision which contained information contradicting the original Assessment for Decision.

Jurisdiction

• In 1 case, the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by presuming an offender's guilt in relation to a US charge that has yet to be tried. Furthermore, the Board failed to adequately test and verify the allegations against the offender at the hearing.

Reviews: Waiver

• In 1 case, the Board violated the offender's right to a hearing, since it had received the written notice of revocation for the waiver that was initially completed.
• In 1 case, the Board misinterpreted the written representations and did not notice the offender's intention to waive the review of his case.

Appeal Decision Trends

[full description of Federal Appeal Decisions by Decision Type in 2010/11]

• In 2010/11, federal day parole appeal decisions accounted for 41% of all federal appeal decisions made. The number of day parole decisions appealed saw a decrease of 5% from the previous year. In fact, all types of appeal decisions decreased in number, except for ETA appeal decisions, which grew by 9 applications. The number of full parole appeal decisions decreased 7%, statutory release appeal decisions decreased 49%, detention appeal decisions decreased 55% and UTA appeal decisions decreased 26%.
• In 2010/11, provincial day parole appeal decisions accounted for 58% of all provincial appeal decisions, while full parole appeal decisions comprised 42%.
• In 2010/11, schedule I-non-sex offenders accounted for 29% of all federal appeal decisions, followed by non-scheduled offenders 25%, schedule II offenders 18%, offenders serving sentences for murder and schedule I-sex offenders both at 14%.
• Among provincial appeal decisions, schedule II offenders were responsible for 35% of all appeal decisions, followed by non-scheduled offenders 27%, schedule I-non-sex offenders 27% and schedule I-sex offenders 10%.
• Of the 489 federal appeal decisions made in 2010/11, 93% of the initial decisions were affirmed and in 7% of cases a new review was ordered, while in two cases a change of condition was ordered. In comparison with the previous year, 96% of federal appeal decisions were affirmed and in 4% of cases a new review was ordered.
• Of the 48 provincial appeal decisions made in 2010/11, 44 of the initial decisions were affirmed, in three cases a new review was ordered, and in one case a change of condition was ordered.
• In 2010/11, 85% of all federal decisions made by the Board were appealable. The number of appealable decisions in 2010/11 decreased by less than a percentage point to 19,591.
• Overall, the appeal rate in 2010/11 decreased to 2.5% from the previous year's rate of 3.1%. Statutory release decisions remained the least likely to be appealed, and ETA and UTA release decisions were the most likely.
• Among provincial appeals, day parole decisions were more likely to be appealed than full parole release decisions.

Reviews

(Tables 102-107)

In addition to looking at the number of decisions and decisions trends, it is also useful to look at the number of the Board's reviews, especially when discussing the workload.

Federal and Provincial Reviews

[full description of Federal and Provincial Reviews]

• In 2010/11, the number of federal and provincial reviews conducted by the Board decreased to 16,845 (-1%): the Board conducted 50 fewer reviews at the federal level, and 99 fewer reviews at the provincial level than the previous year.
• By region, decreases were observed in the Prairie (-6%) and Pacific (-6%) regions, and increases were observed in the Atlantic (+9%), Ontario (+2%) and Quebec (+1%) regions.
• In 2010/11, the number of federal pre-release reviews decreased to 12,758 (-1%) and the number of federal post-release reviews decreased to 4,932 (-4%). Provincial pre-release and post-release reviews declined as well, to 756 (-11%) and to 94 (-7%) respectively.
• The number of detention reviews, however, increased slightly in 2010/11 to 635 (+2%).
• In 2010/11, the Board experienced an increase in federal and provincial panel reviews with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor (to 492; +15%).

Typically, an increase or decrease in the number of federal warrant of committal admissions leads to an increase or decrease in the Board's workload one to two years later. As the number of warrant of committal admissions decreased 2% in 2007/08 and then 3.5% in 2008/09, this explains the decrease in a number of reviews in 2010/11. However, as the number of warrant of committal admissions increased (+8.3%) in 2009/10 and again (+3.9%) in 2010/11, it is expected that the number of reviews will increase in the coming years.

In addition to the expected increase in the number of reviews in the next two years due to the increase in the number of warrant of committal admissions in 2009/10 and 2010/11, the elimination of the APR process at the end of the 2010/11 will also contribute to an increase in the number of reviews, as one accelerated parole review will result in two regular parole reviews.

The number of waivers, postponements and withdrawals also has an effect on the Board's workload.

Federal and Provincial Reviews Delayed: Waivers, Postponements and Withdrawals

[full description of Federal and Provincial Reviews Delayed: Waivers, Postponements and Withdrawals]

• In 2010/11, the Board registered 3,369 waivers of federal reviews and four waivers of provincial reviews; 2,736 postponements of federal reviews and 35 postponements of provincial reviews, as well as 673 withdrawals from federal reviews and 487 withdrawals from provincial reviews.
• Full parole reviews were responsible for the majority of the total reviews delayed (65%) in 2010/11, followed by day parole reviews (28%), statutory release reviews (3%), detention reviews (3%), and reviews for UTAs (1%).

Conditional Release Decisions: Performance

According to the CCRA, the Parole Board of Canada may grant parole based on two key considerations: 1) the release of an offender will not, by reoffending, present an undue risk to society before the expiration of the offender's sentence; and 2) the release of an offender will contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the reintegration of the offender into society as a law-abiding citizen²⁰.

The Board's performance indicators measure whether offenders, who have been granted parole, successfully complete their supervision periods in the community and do not reoffend, violently and non-violently before and after warrant expiry. When compared with offenders who were released on statutory release or as a result of accelerated parole review, parole is considered the most effective form of conditional release. This section provides information on the performance of offenders on conditional release based on the following indicators: 1) time under supervision, 2) rates of convictions, 3) outcomes, and 4) post-warrant expiry readmissions.

Time Under Supervision

(Tables 108-114 )

The study of the average length of supervision periods provides a useful context to the discussion of performance indicators, particularly in relation to outcomes. This section offers a more in-depth look at the length of supervision periods.

Average Length of Federal Supervision Periods for Offenders with Determinate Sentences by Race (from 2006/07 to 2010/11)

[full description of Average Length of Federal Supervision Periods for Offenders with Determinate Sentences by Race (from 2006/07 to 2010/11)]

• The five-year average length of the federal full parole supervision periods was 24 months. The five-year average length of the federal day parole supervision periods was 4.5 months, while the five-year average length of the statutory release supervision periods was 6.6 months.
• Aboriginal offenders, over the five-year period (2006/07 to 2010/11), had the shortest supervision periods on day parole, full parole and statutory release, while Asian offenders had the longest supervision periods for all three types of release.
• Women offenders required less time to successfully complete their supervision periods for day parole, full parole and statutory release. They were also revoked for a violent offence on day parole and full parole significantly earlier than men offenders. On statutory release, however, male offenders were revoked for a violent offence earlier than female offenders.
• Offenders released on APR day parole were revoked for a violent offence earlier in their supervision periods than offenders released on regular day parole supervision periods.
• Offenders released on APR full parole were revoked with a violent offence significantly earlier in their supervision periods than offenders released after a regular full parole review. APR full paroles were revoked for a violent offence at 69% of the time required to successfully complete full parole on APR, while regular full paroles were revoked with a violent offence at 92% of the time required to successfully complete the supervision period.

Convictions

(Tables 115-118 )

The study of rates of convictions is another useful indicator when assessing the performance of offenders on conditional release.

In reviewing the rates of conviction information, it should be noted that the number of convictions 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. The Parole Board of Canada adjusts its rates of convictions accordingly.

Convictions for Violent Offences by Supervision Type

[full description of Convictions for Violent Offences by Supervision Type]

• Over the ten-year period, between 2000/01and 2009/10, convictions for violent offences by offenders on conditional release decreased 49%. Convictions for violent offences fell on day parole (-54%), full parole (-74%), and statutory release (-43%).
• During this time period, offenders on statutory release accounted for 79% of all convictions for violent offences committed by offenders on conditional release, followed by offenders on full parole (11%) and offenders on day parole (10%).

Rates of Convictions for Violent Offences per 1000 Supervised Offenders

[full description of Rates of Convictions for Violent Offences per 1000 Supervised Offenders]

• Over the ten-year period, from 2000/01 to 2009/10, offenders on statutory release were nine and a half times more likely to commit a violent offence during their supervision periods than offenders on full parole, and three and a half times more likely to commit a violent offence than offenders on day parole.
• Over the past five years, offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence while on conditional release, and offenders serving sentences for murder were the least likely.
• Over the same five-year period, Aboriginal offenders were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence while on conditional release, and Asian offenders were the least likely.
• The rate of convictions for violent offences by offenders on conditional release in 2009/10 was 35 percentage points lower than the ten-year average between 2000/01 and 2009/10.
• In 2009/10, offenders in the Atlantic region had 55% fewer convictions for violent offences while on conditional release than their ten-year average, followed by the Ontario region (-47%), the Quebec region (-36%) and the Prairie region (-34%). In the Pacific region, the number of convictions for violent offences was the same in 2009/10 as the ten-year average.

Outcome

(Tables 119-150 )

Outcome rates provide information on the performance of offenders on conditional release from the start of the supervision period until the end of the period of supervision. Supervision periods end in one of three ways:

Successful completion²¹–a positive end to the supervision period;

Revocation for breach of condition–a positive intervention, which reduces the risk of reoffending;

Revocation with offence–a negative end to the supervision period, which results in a new conviction²².

Factors influencing outcomes are diverse and complex. However, there are strong and persistent indicators that offenders released on parole as a result of a rigorous risk-assessment are more likely to successfully complete their supervision periods than offenders released on statutory release.

In reviewing the outcome rate information, it should be noted that the number of revocations with offence figure 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. The Parole Board of Canada adjusts its revocation with offence rates when offenders are convicted for new offences that occurred during their supervision period.

Successful Completion Rates for Federal Conditional Release

[full description of Successful Completion Rates for Federal Conditional Release]

• Over the past five years, successful completion rates have improved for offenders on day parole (+3%), full parole (+1%) and statutory release (+1%).
• When compared with the successful completion rates of full parole supervision periods, successful completion rates on statutory release supervision periods were not only significantly lower, the statutory release supervision periods were shorter. Over the last five years, 56% of all successfully completed statutory releases were less than six months compared with 1.4% of successfully completed full parole supervision periods. It is therefore significantly easier to successfully complete statutory release than full parole, where 93% of successful completions were for periods of more than one year

Revocation for Breach of Condition Rates for Federal Conditional Release

[full description of Revocation for Breach of Condition Rates for Federal Conditional Release]

• Offenders released on statutory release were far more likely to have had their releases revoked because of a breach of condition than offenders on day parole or full parole during each of the last five years. The rates of revocation for breach of condition were relatively stable for the full parole and statutory release populations, and decreased slightly for the day parole population.

Total Revocation with Offence Rates for Federal Conditional Release

[full description of Total Revocation with Offence Rates for Federal Conditional Release]

• Total revocation with offence rates decreased for all conditional release supervision populations. The rates for statutory release were two and a half to five times higher than the rates for day parole and over one to almost two times higher than the rates for full parole during each of the last five years.

Revocation with Violent Offence Rates for Federal Conditional Release

[full description of Revocation with Violent Offence Rates for Federal Conditional Release]

• The revocation with violent offence rates were four to 13 times higher for offenders on statutory release than for offenders on day parole, and two to four times higher than for offenders on full parole during each of the last five years. The rates of revocation with violent offence for day parole and statutory release have been on the decline and continued to decline in 2010/11.

Outcomes on provincial day and full parole supervision periods demonstrated a similar picture as the outcomes of federal day and full parole.

Successful Completion Rates for Provincial Parole

[full description of Successful Completion Rates for Provincial Parole]

• Successful completion rates for offenders on provincial day and full parole have improved over the last five years.

Revocation for Breach of Conditions Rates for Provincial Parole

[full description of Revocation for Breach of Conditions Rates for Provincial Parole]

• In four of the last five years, provincial day parolees were more likely to have their parole revoked due to a breach of condition than provincial full parolees.

Total Revocation with Offence Rates for Provincial Parole

[full description of Total Revocation with Offence Rates for Provincial Parole]

• The total revocation with offence rates for provincial parole remained very low in 2010/11: total revocation with offence rates on day parole remained unchanged, while the total revocation with offence rates for full parole increased.

Revocation with Violent Offence Rates for Provincial Parole

[full description of Revocation with Violent Offence Rates for Provincial Parole]

• Very few provincial offenders have been revoked because of violent reoffending on parole during the last five years. Six (6) offenders on provincial day parole and two (2) offenders on provincial full parole have been convicted because of a violent offence in the last five years.

Outcome on Day Parole

Federal Day Parole

• In comparison with the previous year, successful completion rates on federal day parole improved for all offence types in 2010/11.
• Over the last five years, successful completion rates for offenders released on APR day parole were slightly higher (85%), than for offenders released on regular day parole (84%).
• Between 2006/07 and 2010/11, successful completion rates on federal day parole were the highest for Asian offenders (between 92% and 96%) and the lowest for Aboriginal offenders (between 76% and 88%). In 2010/11, successful completion rates improved for all groups, except Asian offenders. However, even with a slight decrease Asian offenders still had the highest day parole successful completion rate.
• In 2010/11, successful completion rates on federal day parole improved for male offenders to 89% (+3%) and for female offenders to 90% (+6%) in comparison with the previous year.
• By region, successful completion rates on federal day parole improved in the Prairie, Quebec and Ontario regions, and decreased slightly in the Atlantic and Pacific regions. The Ontario and Quebec regions have had the highest successful completion rates on federal day parole over the past five years.
• In 2010/11, the rates of revocation for breach of condition on federal day parole decreased for all offence types and for all offender groups, except Asian offenders, where it increased one percentage point.
• Revocation with offence rates on federal day parole declined across Canada, except in the Atlantic region where there was a slight increase.
• In 2010/11, revocation with violent offence rates on federal day parole continued to decline to the lowest in the last five years (0.1%).

Provincial Day Parole

• In 2010/11, successful completion rates for provincial day parole improved to 83% (+2%), with increases in the Prairie and Atlantic regions, and a decrease in the Pacific region. The Pacific region also registered an increase in the revocation for breach of condition rate, while the Prairie and Atlantic regions experienced a decrease.
• No provincial offenders reoffended non-violently on day parole in 2010/11.
• The rates of violent reoffending on provincial day parole remained very low. Over the last five years, between 2006/07 and 2010/11, four offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences and two offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences had their provincial day paroles revoked because of a violent offence.

Outcome on Full Parole

Outcome on full parole is measured separately for offenders serving determinate sentences and for offenders serving indeterminate sentences. Offenders serving indeterminate sentences can never reach warrant expiry as they can only successfully complete their full parole supervision periods by dying. As death is not an indicator of behaviour, these cases are shown separately from those of offenders serving determinate sentences.

Federal Full Parole: Determinate Sentences

• Successful completion rates on federal full parole have been consistently improving over the last five years, reaching 77% (+1%) in 2010/11. However, successful completion rates on APR full parole were lower (75%) than the rates for regular full parole (80%) in 2010/11.
• In 2010/11, successful completion rates improved for schedule I-sex (+2%), schedule I-non-sex (+3%) and non-scheduled (+1%) offenders, and remained relatively stable for schedule II offenders.
• Significant improvement in successful completion rates was observed for Aboriginal (+11%), Asian (+3%) and Black (+2%) offenders who completed full parole supervision periods in 2010/11. The successful completion rates remained relatively stable for White offenders.
• In 2010/11, successful completion rates on federal full parole for both, men and women offenders were at 77%, however the rate increased for women offenders by five percentage points, while the rate for men offenders increased by one percentage point.
• Over the last five years, successful completion rates on federal full parole improved in all regions, most notably in the Prairie region, where it increased from 64% in 2006/07 to 77% in 2010/11.
• Revocation with offence rates have been continually decreasing over the past five years, and in 2010/11 it decreased to 6%.
• Revocation with violent offence rates increased slightly for federal offenders released on APR full parole to 0.5% (+0.1%) and for offenders released on regular full parole to 1.6% (+0.2%).
• In comparison with the previous year, the rates of violent reoffending on full parole decreased for Aboriginal and Asian offenders, remained virtually unchanged for Black offenders, and slightly increased for White offenders.
• In 2010/11, for the third consecutive year, female offenders demonstrated zero violent reoffending on federal full parole, while the rates of violent reoffending by male offenders on federal full parole increased slightly.
• Regionally, the rates of violent reoffending have been low over the five-year period, between 0% and 3%.

Federal Full Parole: Indeterminate Sentences

• Between 1994/95 and 2010/11, offenders serving indeterminate sentences had completed 2,649 federal full parole supervision periods. As of April 10, 2011, 60% of the supervision periods were still active (supervised), 16% of the supervision periods had ended because the offender had died while on parole, 14% of the supervision periods were revoked for a breach of condition, 6% were revoked as the result of a non-violent offence, and 3% were revoked as the result of a violent offence.
• The average length of federal full parole supervision periods for offenders serving indeterminate sentences was 11.7 years.
• Over the last seventeen years, the average length of federal full parole supervision periods for offenders with indeterminate sentences who were revoked for a breach of condition was 5 years, while the average length of federal full parole supervision periods for offenders with indeterminate sentences who were revoked with an offence was 6 years.
• The majority of revocations for breach of condition and revocations with offence for offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole occurred within the first five years of the federal full parole supervision periods, and the number of revocations gradually decrease afterward. Thus, the likelihood of having a supervision period revoked drops significantly the longer the offender stays on full parole.
• Over the past seventeen years, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were 1.7 times more likely to have died than to have had their supervision periods revoked for having committed a new offence, and 4.8 times more likely to have died than to have their supervision periods revoked with a violent offence.
• In comparison with offenders serving determinate sentences on full parole, offenders serving indeterminate sentences were 18% less likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of breach of condition; 17% less likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a new offence; but more than one and a half times as likely to have their supervision periods revoked because of a violent offence.

Comparison of Revocation for Breach of Condition and Revocation with Offence Rates for Offenders on Federal Full Parole between 1994/95 and 2010/11

[full description of Comparison of Revocation for Breach of Condition and Revocation with Offence Rates for Offenders on Federal Full Parole between 1994/95 and 2010/11]

• In comparison with offenders serving determinate sentences on full parole, offenders serving indeterminate sentences were 18% less likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of breach of condition; 17% less likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a new offence; but more than one and a half times as likely to have their supervision periods revoked because of a violent offence.

Provincial Full Parole

• In 2010/11, the successful completion rate for provincial full parole was 82%. Increases were seen in the Prairie and Pacific regions, and a decrease was seen in the Atlantic region. Conversely, revocation for breach of condition rates rates decreased in the Prairie and Pacific regions, while they increased in the Atlantic region.
• The revocation with offence rates increased in the Prairie and Pacific regions and decreased in the Atlantic region.
• The rates of violent reoffending on provincial full parole remained very low over the last five years. One offender serving a sentence for a schedule I-non-sex offence and one offender serving a sentence for a non-scheduled offence had their provincial full paroles revoked because of a violent offence.

Outcome on Statutory Release

Successful Completion Rates on Statutory Release By Offence Profile

[full description of Successful Completion Rates on Statutory Release By Offence Profile]

• In 2010/11, successful completion rates for offenders on statutory release increased slightly to 62% (+1%) in comparison with the previous year, while the revocation for breach of condition rates remained unchanged at 28%.
• Schedule I-sex offenders in 2010/11 were more likely to successfully complete their statutory release supervision periods, and schedule I-non-sex offenders were the least likely.
• Over the last five years, Asian offenders were the most likely to successfully complete their statutory release supervision periods, and Aboriginal offenders were the least likely. However, in 2010/11, successful completion rates improved for all offender groups, except Black offenders.
• Female offenders were more likely than male offenders to successfully complete their statutory release supervision periods in 2010/11, however the successful completion rate for female offenders declined to 67% (-2%), while it improved for male offenders 62% (+1%).
• In 2010/11, the successful completion rates on statutory release improved in the Atlantic (+1%), Quebec (+2%), Ontario (+3%) and Pacific (+2%) regions, and decreased in the Prairie region (-2%).
• In 2010/11, the revocation for breach of condition rates remained fairly stable for all races, except Black offenders, where the rate increased.
• The revocation with offence rate on statutory release declined to 10% (-1%) in 2010/11, and the revocation with violent offence rate declined to 1% (-1%).
• In 2010/11, the revocation with violent offence rates decreased for Asian and White offenders, and increased slightly for Aboriginal and Black offenders.
• Over the five-year period, between 2006/07 and 2010/11, the revocation with violent offence rates on statutory release decreased in all regions.

Successful Completion Rates for Statutory Release With and Without a Prior DP or FP Supervision Periods on the Same Sentence

[full description of Successful Completion Rates for Statutory Release With and Without a Prior DP or FP Supervision Periods on the Same Sentence]

• Over the last five years, the statutory release successful completion rates for offenders who had a day parole or full parole supervision period prior to statutory release supervision period was on average 13% higher than the rate for offenders who had no prior supervision period. Two possible explanations for this are:
  1. Offenders that had a day or full parole supervision period prior to statutory release are less likely to reoffend and this is part of the reason they had the prior parole supervision periods.
  2. Offenders that had a day or full parole supervision period prior to statutory release have learned from their time in the community and are thus more likely to successfully complete statutory release.

Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission

(Tables 151-163 )

The post-warrant expiry readmission analysis provides an important insight into the offender's ability in the long term to live a crime-free life in the community after completion of his or her sentence. This information is useful for strategic planning and assessment of the effectiveness of the law, policy and operations.

Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission on a Federal Sentence (as of March, 2011)

[full description of Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission on a Federal Sentence (as of March, 2011)]

• Ten to fifteen years after sentence completion (for sentences completed between 1995/96 and 2000/01), 27% of offenders had returned on a federal sentence as of March 31, 2011.
• Over the long-term (for sentences completed between 1995/96 and 2000/01), offenders released at warrant expiry were almost four times more likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence than offenders who completed their sentences on full parole. Offenders released at statutory release were only slightly less likely to be readmitted on a federal sentence after their sentence completion than offenders released at warrant expiry.
• Over the long term (for sentences completed between 1995/96 and 2000/01), offenders who completed their sentences on full parole were more likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence for a non-violent offence than a violent offence, while offenders released at warrant expiry were more likely to be readmitted for having committed a violent offence than a non-violent offence. Offenders who completed their sentences on statutory release were only slightly more likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence for a violent offence than for a non-violent offence.
• Over the long term (for sentences completed between 1995/96 to 2000/01), non-scheduled offenders who completed their sentences either on full parole, statutory release or were released at warrant expiry, were the most likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence, and schedule I-sex offenders were the least likely.
• Over the long term, of offenders who completed their sentences either on full parole, statutory release or were released at warrant expiry, Aboriginal offenders, were the most likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence, and Asian offenders were the least likely.
• During the same time period, offenders from the Atlantic region who completed their sentences on either full parole, statutory release or at warrant expiry, had higher rates of readmission on a federal sentence, and offenders from the Ontario region had the lowest.

Conditional Release Openness and Accountability

(Tables 164-169)

The Parole Board of Canada is responsible under the CCRA for the provision of information to victims of crime and assistance to those who wish to observe PBC hearings or to gain access to the decision registry. Effectiveness in these areas of service and support is a crucial part of the Board's efforts to be accountable to the public and to build credibility and understanding of the conditional release program.

In reviewing the information within this section, it should be noted that there will be some variances between regions and some significant changes within regional numbers. This is a result of different recording methods between the regions as well as the efforts the Board has made over the last few years to improve relations and contacts with victims and the public.

To improve consistency in the collection of statistical data, the forms used were reviewed and modified in consultation with the regions. The amended forms, which have been in use since April 1, 2007, have assisted in improving the consistency of statistics.

Information Services to Victims

Parole Board of Canada Contacts with Victims

[full description of Parole Board of Canada Contacts with Victims]

• In 2010/11, the Parole Board of Canada had almost 22,500 contacts with victims, the highest number since 1993/94. The Ontario and Quebec regions registered the largest increases in contacts with victims from the previous year, 19% and 11% respectively.
• As of March 31, 2011, the number of victims that had registered to receive information from the PBC and CSC was 6,594.

Observers at PBC Hearings

Observers at PBC Hearings

[full description of Observers at PBC Hearings]

• In comparison with the previous year, the Board had 2,311 (+3%) observers at 948 (+12%) hearings in 2010/11, which is the largest number since 1993/94.
• The number of observers attending PBC hearings increased in the Atlantic (+85%) and Ontario (+14%) regions, remained virtually unchanged in the Pacific region (+1), and decreased in the Quebec (-9%) and Prairie (-38%) regions.

Victims Speaking At Hearings

Since July 1, 2001, victims of crime have been permitted to read prepared statements at PBC parole hearings. Until that time, victims could only present written statements and attend hearings as observers.

• In 2010/11, victims made 237 (+3%) presentations at 137 (+8%) hearings.
• The majority of presentations (89%) were done in person, followed by audiotape presentations, presentations via video conferencing, DVDs and teleconferencing.
• The major offence of victimization for victims making presentations in 2010/11 was most likely to have been murder, manslaughter or sexual assault.

Access to Decision Registry

• In 2010/11, the number of decisions sent from the decision registry decreased slightly in comparison with the previous year to 5,689 (-0.6%).
• All regions, except the Pacific region (-21%) registered increases: Atlantic (+22%), Quebec (+11%), Ontario (+13%), and Prairies (+5%)

Pardon Decisions and Clemency Recommendations

(Tables 170-175)

The Clemency and Pardon program involves the review of pardon applications, the issuing of pardons and the rendering of pardon decisions and clemency recommendations.

Pardon Program

A pardon is a formal attempt to remove the stigma of being found guilty of a federal offence for people who, having satisfied the sentence imposed and a specified waiting period, have shown themselves to be law-abiding citizens. The Criminal Records Act (CRA) was originally created in 1970. It grants the Parole Board of Canada exclusive jurisdiction to issue, grant, deny, or revoke pardons for convictions under federal acts or regulations of Canada.

On June 29, 2010, Bill C-23A received Royal Assent and came into force. The Bill amended the Criminal Records Act by extending the ineligibility periods for certain applications for pardon: a) it changed the waiting periods from 3 to 5 years for summary offences; b) it changed the waiting period from 5 to 10 years for indictable offences.

Decision Trends

Pardon Applications Received and Accepted and Cases Processed

[full description of Pardon Applications Received and Accepted and Cases Processed]

• Over the last five years, the Board has been receiving on average more than 31,000 pardon applications a year, however it has accepted about 25,000 (or 79%).
• In comparison with the previous, year, in 2010/11, the Board received 31,965 applications (-0.4%) and accepted 16,311 applications (-34%). The applications, which were not accepted, were returned as incomplete, or as inadmissible, or because the Board did not have jurisdiction to consider the application.
• In 2010/11, the PBC made 12,379 pardon decisions resulting in 76% pardons granted (+10%), 22% pardons issued (-10%), and 2% pardons denied (0%).

Performance and Outcome

• In 2010/11, the number of pardons revoked or which ceased to exist increased to 1,126 (+22%). It included 71 pardons revoked by PBC (-63%), and 1,055 pardons that ceased to exist on RCMP or PBC authority (+45%).

Pardon Revocation/Cessation Rate: Cumulative Summary

[full description of Pardon Revocation/Cessation Rate: Cumulative Summary]

• Over the last 14 years, the cumulative pardon revocation/cessation rate remains relatively low, indicating that most pardoned citizens remained crime free.
• In 2010/11, the cumulative pardon revocation/cessation rate grew 0.15%.
• The average processing time of pardon applications in 2010/11 was 3.5 months.

Clemency Program

The clemency provisions of the Letters Patent and those contained in the Criminal Code are used in exceptional circumstances, where no other remedy exists in law to reduce exceptionally negative effects of criminal sanctions.

Clemency is requested for a myriad of reasons with employment being by far the most frequently used. Some other reasons include: perceived inequity, medical condition, immigration to Canada, compassion, financial hardship, etc.

• At the end of 2010, there were 51 active clemency cases.
• In the last five years, four clemency requests have been granted, five have been denied and 104 requests have been discontinued. The majority of requests were discontinued either because the applicant did not provide sufficient information or proof of excessive hardship to proceed with the request or the Minister determined that the clemency request did not warrant investigation as the criteria had not been met.

Internal Services

(Tables 176-178)

As the Government of Canada is committed to the continuous examination of its expenditures to ensure responsible spending, the Board must ensure that its programs are managed effectively and efficiently. Critical issues of public safety in tight timeframes and amid public scrutiny must be balanced with the modernization of human resources management and the transformation of the workforce.

PBC Reference Levels

• In 2010/11, the total funds available to the PBC amounted to $49.7 million. Of this total $1.7 million of the funds were not accessible as they were held in frozen allotments pending legislative changes. This resulted in an accessible total of $48.0 million. Against this total, the Board expended $46.0 million or approximately 96% of the funds accessible.
• The Board has one strategic outcome, which is "Conditional Release and Pardon Decisions and Decision Processes that Safeguard Canadian Communities", with four program activities: Conditional Release Decisions, Conditional Release Openness and Accountability, Pardon Decisions and Clemency Recommendations and Internal Services. Conditional Release Decisions is the most resource intensive area, accounting for 73% of the Board expenditures.
• The Board also receives revenues as a result of the user fee for the processing of pardon applications. The fee increased in December 2010 from $50 to $150. For every fee received, the split was as follows: $15 were allocated to the RCMP and $19 were allocated for Accommodations costs to Public Works and Government Services Canada and the balance of $116 were allocated to the Board. In 2010/11, the user fee generated total revenues of $1,147,900. The PBC portion was $837,621.

Human Resources Management

• As of May 9, 2011, the Board's staff consisted of 388 employees, 19% males and 81% females. The highest proportion of female staff was in the Atlantic region (33:2), and the lowest was at the National Office (93:37).
• For 61% of employees the first official language was English and for 39% of employees it was French. Forty-eight percent (485) of staff were bilingual with the percentage being 79% at the National Office.
• On May 9, 2011, five percent of the Board's staff were Aboriginal and eight percent were visible minorities.
• The Board's employees with disabilities accounted for five percent of the staff.

• As of June 21, 2011, the Board had a total of 81 Board members (43 full-time and 38 part-time).
• Women represented 36% of all Board members.
• The first official language of 77% of Board members was English and French was the first official language of 23% of Board members. Twenty-five percent (25%) of all Board members were bilingual.
• The professional background of the majority of Board members was in the field of criminal justice (78%), and 88% of all Board members had a university education.