Summary of the Evaluation of Offender Case Management: Readiness for Parole

About Offender Case Management and Parole

The offender case management process begins at an offender’s sentencing and continues until the sentence is complete. It includes ongoing assessments of risk and need, orientation and referral to specialized services, targeted interventions, and assessments and recommendations for the correctional decision-making process. Offender case management is carried out by Parole Officers and the Case Management Team.

Parole is a form of conditional release that allows an eligible offender to serve part of their sentence in the community. Offenders are eligible to apply or are automatically scheduled for a parole review depending on the type and length of their sentence. The Parole Board of Canada (PBC) conducts a review of the case and decides to grant or deny a release on parole.

About the Evaluation

The Evaluation of Offender Case Management: Readiness for Parole is the second of 3 evaluations of Offender Case Management. It examined the Case Preparation and Pre-release component focusing on the period from April 2018 to March 2024. It was completed as part of the requirements of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) 5-year Risk-Based Audit and Evaluation Plan 2024-2029 and in accordance with the Treasury Board Policy on Results.

The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the performance of the CSC Case Preparation and Pre-Release Framework, specifically case file preparation for parole review. The evaluation questions were:

1. To what extent does CSC enable offenders to be prepared for their PBC parole hearings?
2. How do CSC and the PBC coordinate the parole process?
3. Are there additional considerations for Gender-Based Analysis Plus populations?

Data were collected through literature and document reviews, interviews, file review of parole decisions, and administrative data.

Key Findings

• Overall, CSC enabled offender cases to be ready for parole review. CSC case management processes were considered effective with some evidence of best practices being applied.
• The evaluation could not conclusively determine the efficiency (timeliness) of the process through administrative data, specifically the extent to which parole hearings/reviews were conducted prior to full parole eligibility dates. However, indications from other sources were that processes for case preparation and establishing priority for programming were based around eligibility dates.
• There was room for improvement in providing opportunities for offenders to participate in interventions prior to parole eligibility dates in order to demonstrate progress on their Correctional Plans. Incomplete programming was a common reason offenders requested a delay of parole reviews. It is acknowledged that CSC has implemented actions that seek to improve timely access to correctional programs and that CSC monitors related results. The impact of these actions on access to correctional programs will be considered in the scoping of future evaluation planning.
• CSC offered other interventions and there were activities from community partners, although their availability varied by institution. In addition, gradual and progressive release measures were associated with positive preparation for parole release, yet their use had not returned to pre-pandemic levels and barriers to employing such measures were identified.
• Overall, the coordination and information-sharing between CSC and the PBC in preparing case files for parole review were effective. CSC and the PBC successfully worked together to coordinate the parole process, with a few areas for improvement. A key area identified for improvement was developing a shared understanding of the case development, file preparation, and procedural safeguards related to information-sharing.
• While 54% of offenders were granted parole on their first release, this rate was lower for certain groups such as men, offenders with shorter sentences, and Indigenous offenders. Indigenous offenders as a group had the lowest parole grant rates at many risk levels.
• While Section 84 release was associated with an improved chance of being granted parole and successful reintegration, uptake was low due to challenges in completing a plan for this type of release.

Recommendations

1. The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, should work with the relevant data providers and administrators to ensure reliable data are available to confirm that parole reviews and hearings are happening by parole eligibility dates and that the data fields are defined and understood within CSC.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs, should ensure that Parole Officers understand all procedural safeguard requirements and processes, and are supported in integrating social history considerations into assessments.