2014-2015 Performance Monitoring Report

List of Figures

Acronyms Used in this Report

APR

Accelerated Parole Review

APRI

Accelerated Parol Review-Initial

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

IDS

Integrated Decision System

LTSO

Long-Term Supervision Order

OMS

Offender Management System

PBC

Parole Board of Canada

RCMP

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

SR

Statutory Release

TA

Temporary Absence

UAL

Unlawfully-at-Large

UTA

Unescorted Temporary Absence

WED

Warrant Expiry Date

Note to the Reader:

Data and information for this report came from numerous sources:

• Conditional release data was extracted from PBC, PBC CRIMS, IDS and OMS.
• The Clemency and Record Suspension Division provided record suspension and clemency information.
• Financial information was provided by the Finance and Planning Division.
• The Human Resources Section provided human resources information on staff and the Board Member Secretariat provided information on Board members.

Minor variances may occur when presenting percentage statistics as a result of rounding.

The snapshot of the offender population was taken on April 19, 2015, to ensure all year-end data had been entered into OMS.

Highlights of 2014/15

1.0% decrease in the federal offender population (the federal incarcerated population decreased 3.3% (to 14,337), and the federal conditional release population increased 2.9% (to 8,830).

17,879 reviews conducted by the Board, a decrease of 9% compared to the previous year. The number of federal reviews decreased 9% (to 17,135) and the number of provincial reviews decreased 11% (to 744).

5,196 day parole release decisions rendered by the Board. The number of federal day parole release decisions increased 6% (to 4,698), while the number of provincial day parole release decisions decreased 10% (to 498).

71% grant rate for federal (regular) day parole, a 1.5 percentage point increase compared to 2013/14.

57% grant rate for provincial day parole, an increase of 4.2 percentage points compared to 2013/14.

3,894 full parole release decisions rendered by the Board. The number of federal full parole release decisions increased 5% (to 3,605) and the number of provincial full parole release decisions decreased 22% (to 289) compared to 2013/14.

30% grant rate for federal (regular) full parole, a 0.4 percentage point increase compared to 2013/14.

32% grant rate for provincial full parole, a 1.8 percentage point increase compared to 2013/14.

2,171 residency conditions imposed on statutory release, an increase of 5% compared to 2013/14.

372 offenders with long-term supervision orders in the community (as of April 19, 2015).

99.1% of federal day parole supervision periods completed without reoffending, a 0.4 percentage point increase compared to 2013/14;

0 violent reoffending on federal day parole supervision periods in 2014/15.

97.3% of federal full parole supervision periods (for offenders serving determinate sentences) completed without reoffending, a 1.3 percentage point increase compared to 2013/14;

0 violent reoffending on federal full parole supervision periods in 2014/15.

92.2% of statutory release supervision periods completed without reoffending, an increase of one percentage point compared to 2013/14.

99.1% of statutory release supervision periods completed without violent reoffending.

27,191 PBC contacts with victims, an increase of 22% compared to 2013/14.

4,173 observers at PBC hearings, an increase of 4% compared to 2013/14.

231 presentations made by victims at PBC hearings, 33 fewer presentations than in 2013/14.

6,803 decisions sent from the decision registry, a decrease of 5% compared to 2013/14.

6,316 pardon decisions rendered by the Board: 89% pardons granted and 11% pardons denied.

9,169 record suspension decisions rendered by the Board: 92% record suspensions ordered and 8% refused.

107 clemency cases being processed.

Introduction

The Parole Board of Canada (PBC or "the Board"), as part of the criminal justice system, makes independent, quality conditional release and record suspension decisions and clemency recommendations. The Board contributes to the protection of society by facilitating, as appropriate, the timely reintegration of offenders as law-abiding citizens.

The Board makes conditional release decisions for federal offenders, as well as for provincial offenders in provinces and territories that do not have their own provincial boards. Only the provinces of Ontario and Quebec currently have their own parole boards that make parole decisions for offenders serving sentences of less than two years.

The PBC has four programs: Conditional Release Decisions, Conditional Release Openness and Accountability, Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations, and Internal Services.

Conditional Release Decisions is the Board's largest program. It includes: the review of offenders' cases and the making of quality conditional release decisions, including appeals; the provision of in-depth training on how to assess the risk of reoffending; and the 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 at the Board. It 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 PBC hearings, providing assistance to victims in preparing their victim statements and providing access to the Decision Registry.

Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations, the third program at the Board, involves the review of record suspension and clemency applications and the rendering of record suspension decisions and clemency recommendations. The Record Suspension program, formerly the Pardon program, underwent substantial changes between 2010/11 and 2011/12.

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

Since 2010/11, the Performance Monitoring Report has been structured to reflect the Board's four programs.

The report presents information using easy to read graphs as well as text and provides links to detailed statistical tables which are found in the Appendix.

To review the Board's performance summary by strategic outcome and financial expenditures, please consult the Department Performance Reports.

The Year at a Glance

Context

The Parole Board of Canada operated in a dynamic environment in 2014/15 following a number of significant legislative changes. In addition, the Board faced an increasingly diverse offender population with increasingly violent criminal histories, more complex mental health needs and more frequent gang affiliations.

Crime Rates

In 2014, the police-reported crime rate in Canada declined 3% from the previous year and represented the 11th consecutive decrease, reaching the lowest rate since 1969^{Footnote 1}. Between 2013 and 2014, a downward trend was reported for most offences, with the exception of child pornography (+41%), terrorism (+39%), extortion (+16%), identity fraud (+8%), sexual violations against children (+6%), abduction (+4%), fraud (+2%) and motor vehicle theft (+1%).

Both, the crime severity index (CSI), a measure of the severity of offences, and the crime rate decreased in most of the provinces and territories. Compared to the previous year, the CSI increased in the Yukon (+11%) while its crime rate remained stable. In British Columbia, both the CSI (+3%) and the crime rate (+2%) increased last year. The largest decrease was recorded in Prince Edward Island with both the CSI (-17%) and the crime rate (-20%) decreasing between 2013 and 2014. The territories are still reporting higher CSI values and crime rates than the provinces. Despite having declines in both its CSI and crime rate, Saskatchewan registered the highest values in both measures. Ontario had the lowest CSI in 2014, while Quebec had the lowest crime rate.

Police reported about 369,500 violent incidents in 2014, approximately 15,000 fewer than the previous year. Violent crimes continued to account for about one-fifth of all police reported Criminal Code offences (excluding traffic) in 2014. Both the violent CSI and the violent crime rate decreased by 5% in 2014, representing the eighth consecutive annual decline for both measures of police reported violent crime. Coinciding with the overall drop in violent crime, rates for most violent crimes decreased in 2014. However, the number of overall homicides increased from 512 in 2013 to 516 in 2014. Despite the slight increase in homicides, the homicide rate (1.45 homicides per 100,000 population) was virtually unchanged from the previous year.

The number of police-reported sexual violations against children rose in 2014 representing one of the few categories of violent incidents to increase from the previous year. This resulted in a rate increase of 6%. The increase in sexual violations against children was primarily the result of incidents of luring a child via a computer. Various factors could account for the increase in sexual violations against children, such as specialized units within a police service to proactively investigate this type of crime.

In 2014, most crime reported by police continued to be non-violent in nature. Police reported approximately 1.4 million non-violent incidents in 2014, of which 1.1 million were property crimes. The non-violent CSI decreased 2% from the previous year to 65.2 in 2014. While the rates for most non-violent Criminal Code violations (excluding traffic) decreased in 2014, increases were recorded for certain forms of property crime, including identity fraud (+8%), fraud (+2%) and motor vehicle theft (+1%).

In addition, among the violations that fall under the category of other Criminal Code offences, significant increases were recorded in the rate of child pornography (+41%), as well as violations related to terrorism (+39%).

Victimization rates

In addition to the Uniform Crime Survey measuring police-reported crime, the Government of Canada administers the General Social Survey (GSS) every five years, collecting information on self-reported victimization on a calendar year basis. The 2009 General Social Survey, examining self-reported victimization of Canadians in 10 provinces, concluded that the rates of victimization remained relatively stable in comparison with the previous findings in 2004^{Footnote 2}. Just over one quarter (26%) of Canadians over 15 years of age reported being a victim of crime in the year preceding the survey, with theft of personal property being the most common offence. Three out of ten self-reported victimizations were violent in nature.

Younger Canadians (15-24 years of age) reported higher rates of violent victimization than older Canadians (over 55 years of age), despite being more satisfied with their personal safety from crime. Older Canadians, on the other hand, were more likely to report a violent incident to the police than young Canadians (46% and 28% respectively)^{Footnote 3}.

The 2009 survey also reported that 39% of Canadians used a crime prevention method to protect themselves from crime. The majority of Canadians who used a crime prevention method had been previously victimized.

Almost a quarter of Canadians reported living in neighborhoods, where issues of social disorder, including vandalism, drug use, prostitution and public intoxication were reported as problems.

While the survey remarked on fluctuations in the victimization rate based on offence type, age, sex and geographical location, the majority of the public across these demographics (93%)  reported feeling 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 in their homes at night.

The rates of victimization of Aboriginal people in Canada were examined separately for Aboriginals living in the Canadian provinces from those living in the territories. According to the 2009 GSS, the rates of self-reported victimization among Aboriginal people living in the Canadian provinces continued to exceed those of the non-Aboriginal population: 37% of Aboriginal people reported being victims of crime compared to 26% of the non-Aboriginal population⁴.

Forty-one percent (41%) of all the incidents self-reported by Aboriginal people living in the Canadian provinces were violent; sexual assaults accounted for approximately one-third of all violent incidents. Aboriginal women were three times more likely than non-Aboriginal women to report being a victim of sexual violence. Incidents involving violent spousal abuse involving an Aboriginal woman were more likely to be reported to the police compared to incidents involving a non-Aboriginal victim, partly due to a higher frequency of spousal abuse in the Aboriginal communities and more severe forms of violence and injuries (Ibid.). The findings also indicated that the severity of spousal violence had been increasing with the frequency of incidents.

The majority of all violent incidents reported by Aboriginal people living in the Canadian provinces were more likely to be related to alcohol or substance abuse and less likely to involve a weapon compared to violent incidents involving the non-Aboriginal population. On average, about one-third of violent incidents had been reported to the police.

The rate of victimization of Aboriginal people living in the territories was 34%, slightly lower than the rate of victimization of Aboriginal people living in the Canadian provinces, 37%. However, more incidents in the territories involved violence (46%) compared to the incidents in the Canadian provinces (41%).

Similarly to the victimization rates of Aboriginal people living in the Canadian provinces, the majority of self-reported violent incidents of Aboriginal people living in the territories were related to alcohol or drug use^{Footnote 4}.

Public confidence in the criminal justice system

The 2009 General Social Survey demonstrated that while Canadians were satisfied overall with their safety in their own neighbourhoods, public trust and confidence in the criminal justice system remained relatively low. Over half of Canadians (62%) believed that the level of crime in their neighbourhoods had remained the same in the last five years, while 26% believed that crime had increased.

General perceptions were that the police, the courts and the prison system were doing a generally good or average job.

Aboriginal people living in the Canadian provinces and territories had generally favourable perceptions of the local police services in relation to the aspects covered by the 2009 survey. However, they were less likely than non-Aboriginal Canadians to state that the police treated people fairly and responded promptly to calls. When compared to non-Aboriginal Canadians, Aboriginal people were less likely to have favourable opinions of the police, the courts and the prison system.

Aboriginal people across Canada, as well as the non-Aboriginal population, had less favourable opinions of the criminal courts than of the local police, particularly in relation to the duration of the process, as well as helping victims of crime.

Previous contacts with the criminal justice system had a significant impact on how Canadians perceived the services provided by the criminal justice partners. Overall, those who had contacts with the police or the criminal courts at some point in their lives prior to the survey were more critical of them than those without personal experience.

In relation to the Parole Board of Canada, social perceptions identified in the 2009 General Social Survey were that the system had released the wrong individuals, and conditional release programs remained a controversial issue for at least a third of Canadians. Sixty percent (60%) of Aboriginal people living in the Canadian provinces, 58% of Aboriginal people living in the territories, as well as 62% of non-Aboriginal Canadians stated that the prison and parole system did a good job of releasing offenders who will not commit a new crime. Slightly fewer of them agreed that the system was doing a good job supervising offenders under supervision.

Legislative and Policy Changes

Over the course of 2014/15, several bills amended the legislation governing Canada's criminal justice system. The following bills were the ones that had a greater impact on the operations of the Parole Board of Canada.

On June 19, 2014, Bill C-489 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act) (Restrictions on Offenders) received Royal Assent and came into force on September 20, 2014.

The amendments to the Criminal Code require the courts to consider making an order prohibiting certain offenders from being within a distance of up to two kilometers of a victim's residence or other place, and from communicating with the victim or other individuals identified in the order.

The amendments to the CCRA require that when a victim statement has been provided, the releasing authority shall consider imposing any condition it considers reasonable and necessary on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence in order to protect the victim.

On November 6, 2014, Bill C-36 (Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act) (An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts) received Royal Assent and came into force on December 6, 2014 (with the exception of a few sections).

The changes to the Criminal Code were as follows:

• A series of new offences were created that prohibit purchasing sexual services,  communicating and advertizing sexual services in any public place, as well as receiving material benefits from sexual services.
• The definition of weapon, for the purpose of certain offences, was expanded to include anything used or intended for use in binding or tying a person against their will.

The amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act modified the definition of 'sexual offence involving a child' in Schedule I.

On December 16, 2014, Bill C-483 (An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (escorted temporary absence) received Royal Assent and came into force the same day. The bill limited the authority of the institutional heads to authorize escorted temporary absences for offenders serving life as a minimum sentence for murder. The Board must approve the first escorted temporary absences for these offenders until the first ETA for community service, family contact or personal development has been successfully completed on or after the offender's day parole eligibility date. Institutional heads may authorize subsequent escorted temporary absences. In cases where an offender's ETA was cancelled due to a breach of conditions, the subsequent ETA may only be authorized by the Board. CSC retains the authority to grant ETAs for medical reasons, to attend judicial proceedings or a coroner's inquest for these offenders.

Implications for the Board

New legislation is likely to impact the Board's workload in two areas: the conditional release decisions program and the conditional release decisions openness and accountability program.

With the implementation of Bill C-483, the Board is now required to conduct all ETA reviews for federal offenders serving life minimum sentences until the first ETA for community service, family contact or personal development has been successfully completed on or after the offender's day parole eligibility date. Previously, some of these reviews were under the authority of the Correctional Service Canada (CSC) institutional heads. Before an offender's day parole eligibility date, CSC could authorize ETAs for administrative, medical purposes or to attend judicial reviews or coroner's inquests, while PBC approval was required for all other cases for these offenders. After an offender's day parole eligibility date, whether it was the first ETA review or not, PBC approval was not required. Following the implementation of Bill C-483, PBC will now be conducting ETA reviews for these offenders until the first ETA is successfully completed after the offender's day parole eligibility date. It is anticipated that the Board will see an increase in the number of ETA reviews it conducts.

In relation to the openness and accountability program, the Board is implementing new victim services and modifying existing practices to ensure full and comprehensive implementation of the legislative provisions pertaining to An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (Bill C-489).

Overall, the bill will likely cause an increase in the PBC information services provided to victims, including but not limited to, greater disclosure of information to victims, arranging their attendance at PBC hearings and providing assistance with victim statements. Victim information services workload has also increased due to more public awareness of victims' rights, as evidenced by the increase in the number of victims who registered with PBC and CSC to receive information services in 2014/15.

Program Delivery Context

Offender Population

(Tables 1-15)

Offender Population Trends

The Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada 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)^{Footnote 7}.

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

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 increased over the same period. This pattern indicates that there are more complex events at play, which the crime rates analysis alone cannot sufficiently explain. Introduction of minimum mandatory sentencing, longer sentences for certain offences, and variances in admissions and releases due to legislative changes all play a role.

Figure 1. Federal Offender Population

• On April 19, 2015, the total federal offender population decreased 1.0% compared to the previous year (the snapshot of April 13, 2014). The federal incarcerated offender population decreased 3.3%, while the federal conditional release population increased 2.9%.
• The annual increases in the federal incarcerated and conditional release populations usually mirror each other. In the 1990s, the increases in the federal incarcerated offender population as a rule were followed by similar increases in the federal conditional release offender population approximately three years later. In the 2000s, the increases in the federal incarcerated offender population were followed by increases in the federal conditional release population two years later. This difference is possibly related to shorter average sentences when compared to 20 years ago.

In the three years between 2011/12 and 2013/14, annual increases in the incarcerated offender population were larger than those in the conditional release offender population. This was in part related to the abolition of accelerated parole review (APR) in 2010/11. Significant proportions of non violent offenders were released later in their sentences, resulting in a higher than usual increase in the federal conditional release population at the end of the transition period in 2014/15.

Figure 2. Annual Changes in the Federal Offender Population

• The federal incarcerated offender population decreased in all regions in 2014/15, most notably in the Pacific (-7%) and Atlantic (-7%) regions, followed by decreases in the Ontario (-3%), Quebec (-3%) and Prairie (-1%) regions when compared to the previous year.
• In 2014/15, all regions reported increases in their federal conditional release offender populations: the Atlantic (+5%), Quebec (+4%), Pacific (+4%), Prairie (+2%) and Ontario (+1%) regions.

It is important to note that annual changes vary from region to region. This is in part attributed to the offence profile of the regional offender population. The Pacific region, for example, has the largest proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for murder in 2014/15 (31%), while the Prairie region, the smallest (14%). The Ontario and Prairie regions reported the highest proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (both 19%), while the Pacific region, the smallest (11%). The largest proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I non-sex offences was reported in the Prairie region (40%) in 2014/15.

• Across Canada, an overall increase in the federal conditional release population was driven by the federal day parole population, which increased 10% in 2014/15, and to a lesser degree, by the federal full parole population, which increased 3%. The number of federal offenders on statutory release increased slightly (+1%) in 2014/15 when compared to the previous year.
• However in the Quebec region, the federal day parole offender population decreased in 2014/15 (-5%), the federal full parole population remained relatively unchanged ( 0.3%), while the statutory release population increased significantly (+16%) compared to the year before.
• As for the provincial conditional release population in 2014/15, it increased by one offender on day parole and decreased by 18 offenders on full parole compared to 2013/14.

While traditionally the federal full parole population has been larger than the statutory release population, this was reversed in 2011/12 and the statutory release population remained larger than the full parole population for the next two years. However, in 2014/15, the federal full parole population again surpassed the statutory release population.

In 2010/11, five years ago, federal offenders on full parole accounted for 47% of all federal offenders on conditional release. In 2014/15, their proportion had decreased to 40%. The proportion of offenders on statutory release, on the other hand, increased (from 37% in 2010/11 to 40% in 2014/15).

Figure 3. Federal Full Parole and Statutory Release Offender Populations

• While the federal incarcerated offender population decreased overall in 2014/15, it increased for Aboriginal offenders (+3%), while it decreased for other races. Aboriginal offenders accounted for 24% of all federal inmates and for 17% of offenders on federal conditional release in 2014/15.
• In 2014/15, the highest proportion of Aboriginal offenders was in the Prairie region: 47% of federal male inmates and 64% of federal female inmates in the Prairie region were Aboriginal. By comparison, 33% of federal male offenders on conditional release and 42% of federal female offenders on conditional release in the Prairie region were Aboriginal.
• Overall, males represented 95% of all federal inmates in 2014/15, while they represented 94% of the federal conditional release population. Females represented 5% of the federal inmate population and 6% of federal offenders on conditional release.

Large decreases in the full parole population in 2011/12 (-9%) and 2012/13 (-7%) led to a significant change in the profile of the federal conditional release population. In 2012/13, for the first time in the last 20 years, the statutory release population surpassed the full parole population. In 2013/14, despite a two percent increase in the full parole population, the number of federal offenders on statutory release still exceeded the number of federal offenders on full parole.

Figure 4. Offence Profile of the Total Federal Offender Population

• On April 19, 2015, 21% of federal offenders were serving sentences for murder, 12% were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 36% were serving sentences for schedule I non sex offences, 18% were serving sentences for schedule II offences and 14% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
• Except for federal offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences, the changes in the proportions in 2014/15 were not significant, less than half a percentage point compared to the year before. The proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for non scheduled offences decreased 0.7% in 2014/15.

Figure 5. Offence Profile of the Federal Incarcerated Population

• On April 19, 2015, 20% 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, 14% were serving sentences for schedule II offences and 13% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
• In 2014/15, the proportion of federal incarcerated offenders serving sentences for non scheduled offences decreased 0.9% compared to 2013/14, mirroring the overall decrease for this offender group. Annual changes in the proportions for the other offender groups were minimal.
• While the proportions appeared the same for federal incarcerated offenders serving sentences for murder, schedule I-sex offences, schedule I-non-sex offences and schedule II offences in 2014/15, the actual numbers of offenders decreased in each of these groups compared to the previous year. A larger decrease in the proportion of federal incarcerated offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences offset relatively small decreases for the other offender groups.

Figure 6. Offence Profile of the Federal Day Parole Population

• On April 19, 2015, 20% of federal offenders on day parole were serving sentences for murder, 7% were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 26% were serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, 32% were serving sentences for schedule II offences and 15% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
• In 2014/15, the largest change in the proportion of federal offenders on day parole was reported for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences, which increased 3.7% from the previous year. The increase in the proportion of these offenders on day parole followed a slight increase in the proportion of federal admissions within the last two years (+1.7% in 2013/14 and +1.1% in 2014/15), which resulted in a larger proportion of these offenders released on federal day parole (+2.3%) in 2014/15. These offenders were also more likely to have their day parole supervision periods continued than to graduate from day parole to full parole. This increase was also compounded: smaller proportions of offenders of other groups were released on day parole in 2014/15, thus inflating the proportion of offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences on day parole.
• Compared to the previous year, there were no significant changes in the numbers on day parole for offender groups other than those serving sentences for schedule II offences. However, their proportions were deflated in 2014/15 because of a significant increase in the number of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences.

To better analyse the offence profile of the federal offender population, a more detailed review is provided below.

Figure 7. Offence Profile of the Federal Full Parole Population

• On April 19, 2015, 44% of federal offenders on full parole were serving sentences for murder, 5% were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 14% were serving sentences for schedule I non sex offences, 27% were serving sentences for schedule II offences, and 11% were serving sentences for non-scheduled offences.
• Decreases in the proportions of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences on full parole between 2011/12 and 2013/14 were related to the abolition of the APR process, when smaller proportions of these offenders were released on full parole compared to pre-APR years. In 2014/15, after the APR trends stabilized, their proportion on full parole increased 1.1% when compared to the previous year. This was a much smaller increase compared to their proportion on day parole, which increased 3.7% in 2014/15 from the year before due to a larger proportion of these offenders having their day parole supervision periods continued than graduating from day parole to full parole.
• In 2014/15, the proportion of federal offenders on full parole serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences decreased 0.7% compared to 2013/14. The actual number of these offenders only decreased by 10.
• There were no significant changes in 2014/15 for other offender groups when compared to 2013/14.

Figure 8. Offence Profile of the Federal Statutory Release Population

• On April 19, 2015, 14% of federal offenders on statutory release were serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, 49% were serving sentences for schedule I non sex offences, 18% were serving sentences for schedule II offences, and 19% were serving sentences for non scheduled offences.
• In 2014/15, the proportion of federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences decreased 1.9% on statutory release in comparison with the previous year. The decrease in the proportion follows a decrease in the total number of these offenders admitted to federal custody two to three years earlier. Given that federal offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences are far more likely to be released on statutory release than discretionary release, changes in the statutory release population mirror very closely changes in the total federal offender population for this offender group.
• In 2014/15, the proportion of federal offenders on statutory release serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences increased 1.8% compared to 2013/14. The increase follows an increase in the proportion of federal admissions of these offenders two years earlier (+1.3% in 2012/13). Much smaller proportions of these offenders were released on discretionary release prior to 2014/15, resulting in a larger proportion of these offenders on statutory release in 2014/15.
• There were no significant changes in 2014/15 for non-violent offenders on statutory release when compared to the previous year.

Federal Admissions

(Tables 16-23)

There are two types of admissions to federal custody: admissions on warrants of committal (new federal sentence) and admissions due to revocations (same sentence). Admissions that do not fall strictly into these two categories, such as federal-provincial transfers, interprovincial exchange of service, transfers from foreign countries etc, are placed into the category 'Other'.

Figure 9. Federal Admissions to Institutions

• The total number of federal admissions decreased in 2014/15 (to 7,456; -8%) when compared to 2013/14.
• Federal admissions on initial warrants of committal decreased 5% (to 3,658) in 2014/15, while federal admissions on repeat warrants of committal decreased 12% (to 1,117) compared to the previous year.
• Federal admissions due to revocations decreased 9% (to 2,594) in 2014/15.
• In 2014/15, the Quebec and Ontario regions reported decreases in federal admissions on warrants of committal (-18%; -7%) and admissions due to revocations (-20%; -11%). The Atlantic and Prairie regions reported small increases in federal admissions on warrants of committal (+5%; +2%) and decreases in federal admissions due to revocations (-15%; 3%). In the Pacific region, federal admissions on warrants of committal decreased (-17%), while federal admissions due to revocations increased (+2%).
• In the last five years (between 2010/11 and 2014/15), Asian offenders were the most likely to be admitted on initial warrants of committal and White offenders were the most likely to be admitted on repeat warrants of committal. Aboriginal offenders were the most likely to be admitted to federal custody on all types of revocations.
• During the same time period, female federal offenders were more likely to be admitted on initial warrants of committal than male federal offenders, while less likely to be admitted on repeat warrants of committal and on all types of revocations.
• In 2014/15, the proportion of federal admissions of offenders serving sentences for non scheduled offences decreased 2.2% compared to the previous year, which followed a decrease from the year before. The proportions of federal admissions increased slightly for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (+1.2%) and those serving sentences for schedule II offences (+1.0%). The proportions of federal admissions were relatively stable for offenders serving sentences for murder and schedule I-sex offences.
• In 2014/15, 46% of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal (first time federal offenders) were for offenders between 18-29 years of age, and 26% were for offenders between 30-39 years of age. By comparison, ten years ago (2004/05), first time federal offenders between 18-29 years of age represented 49% of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal, and those between 30-39 years of age represented 27% of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal.
• In the last five years (between 2010/11 and 2014/15), for offenders between 18 to 29 years of age, Black offenders accounted for the largest proportion of federal admissions on initial warrants of committal (63%), while White offenders, the smallest (40%).

Federal Releases

(Tables 24-38)

This section discusses federal releases of offenders directly from institutions and graduations of offenders to subsequent federal supervision periods. Federal releases directly from institutions include releases on federal supervision periods, as well as releases upon completion of the offender’s sentence: 1) federal releases from institutions on day parole; 2) federal releases from institutions on full parole; 3) federal releases from institutions on statutory release; 4) federal releases at warrant expiry; 5) federal releases at warrant expiry with a long-term supervision order; 6) other types of federal releases such as transfers to foreign countries, releases when the offender died etc.

Graduations to subsequent federal supervision periods include: 1) day parole continued; 2) graduations from day parole to full parole; 3) graduations from day parole to statutory release; 4) graduations from federal supervision periods to long-term supervision orders upon warrant expiry.

In this section, federal releases and graduations are discussed together to demonstrate how the Board uses discretionary release to facilitate the gradual reintegration of offenders into society. As a result, the data was merged for some charts and tables to show a complete picture of releases.

Figure 10. Federal Releases from Institutions and Graduations to subsequent Federal Supervision Periods

• In 2014/15, federal releases directly from institutions decreased 2% (from 8,047 to 7,867) compared to the previous year. Graduations to subsequent federal supervision periods increased slightly 0.4% (from 2,810 to 2,821).

A decrease in federal releases on statutory release was responsible for the overall decrease in federal releases in 2014/15, offsetting increases in federal releases on discretionary release (day and full parole). Federal releases on statutory release decreased 5% when compared to the previous year (releases from institutions decreased 5%, as did graduations from day parole to statutory release, also 5%). This could be explained, in part, by a 6% decrease in federal admissions on warrants of committal three years earlier (in 2011/12). Given the average sentence length of about four and a half years for federal offenders serving determinate sentences, some of these offenders were released on statutory release in 2014/15 after having served two-thirds of their sentences (or three years). Moreover, the majority of offenders released on statutory release were incarcerated until their statutory release dates: 85% of federal releases on statutory release in 2014/15 were releases where there was no prior parole release.

• By region, federal releases from institutions decreased in the Atlantic (-3%), Ontario (-6%) and Prairie (-3%) regions, increased in the Pacific (+4%) region, and remained relatively unchanged in the Quebec region in 2014/15.
• Federal releases on day parole increased 4% in 2014/15, as did federal releases on full parole, which increased 4% as well. These increases were driven primarily by offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences.

In 2014/15, the number of day parole supervision periods continued increased 2%, graduations from day parole to full parole increased 2% as well, while graduations from day parole to statutory release decreased 5% when compared to the previous year.

Three years after the abolition of APR, there were no substantial changes in the proportions of graduations associated with non-violent offenders in 2014/15 when compared to 2013/14.

Figure 11. Graduations from Federal Supervision Periods

The following subsection discusses federal releases from institutions on statutory release in relation to prior consideration for discretionary release.

• The five-year data indicate that the proportion of offenders who had no parole review prior to their release on statutory release has increased significantly in the last five years:
  1. The proportion of federal releases from institutions to statutory release where parole was previously granted/directed decreased from 21% in 2010/11 to 15% in 2014/15.
  2. The proportion of federal releases from institutions to statutory release where parole was previously denied/not directed decreased from 32% in 2010/11 to 27% in 2014/15.
  3. The proportion of federal releases from institutions to statutory release with no prior parole decision increased from 48% in 2010/11 to 58% in 2014/15.

Figure 12. Federal Releases on Statutory Release in Relation to Prior Consideration for Parole

Such substantial inccreases in the number of releases on statutory release where there were no prior parole decisions were driven by federal non-violent offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences, who prior to the abolition of the APR were automatically reviewed and usually directed to parole. In 2011/12, many of these offenders applied for parole but were denied discretionary release following a risk assessment based on general reoffending. In the following years, 2012/13 and onward, more of these offenders waived their legislative reviews and were released on statutory release.

• Federal releases at warrant expiry have been stable in the last five years: 98% of releases at warrant expiry were releases where there was no prior parole release.

Overall, in 2014/15, a total of 7,246 offenders were released from institutions and 2,089 offenders graduated from one federal supervision period to another.

Reviews

(Tables 39-44)

Figure 13. Federal and Provincial Reviews

• In 2014/15, the Board conducted 17,135 federal reviews and 744 provincial reviews. Compared to the previous year, the number of federal reviews decreased 9%, while the number of provincial reviews decreased 11%. (Caution should be exercised when comparing these numbers with the previous year, as they refer to a different definition of workload.) Comparisons over the last five years are presented below.
  • When compared to 2010/11, federal reviews increased 7% (from 16,859 in 2010/11 to 17,135 in 2014/15). By region, the number of federal reviews increased in the Quebec (+17%), Prairie (+9%) and Pacific (+10%) regions; and decreased in the Atlantic (-5%) and Ontario (-3%) regions.
  • When compared to five years ago, the number of provincial reviews decreased 12% (from 848 in 2010/11 to 744 in 2014/15), primarily driven by a decrease in the Prairie region (-34%). The numbers also decreased in the Atlantic (-12%) and Pacific (-4%) regions.
  • Hearings with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor (or Elder-assisted hearings) decreased 25% over the last five years (from 491 in 2010/11 to 368 in 2014/15). The overall decline in hearings following the change in December 2012 from a hearing to a review on file for post-suspension reviews has been in part responsible for the smaller numbers of Elder-assisted hearings since that time.
• In 2014/15, federal reviews for discretionary release (reviews for release on day and/or full parole) increased 4% (from 5,560 in 2013/14 to 5,797 in 2014/15) compared to the previous year. The largest increases in the number of reviews were reported for federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (+9%) and those serving sentences for murder (+11%). Reviews for discretionary release increased 4% for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences and 4% for those serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, while the number decreased for offenders serving sentences for non scheduled offences (-8%).

Increases in the numbers of reviews for offenders serving sentences for murder are usually explained by the fact that the number of these offenders in federal custody is cumulative. As indeterminate sentences never expire, the Board conducts reviews periodically for these offenders, for example, to continue day parole, or to review an offender for a full parole release. Federal admissions of these offenders have been generally stable.

A 9% increase in the number of reviews for discretionary release for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences can be attributed to at least two factors: a 1.3% increase in federal admissions of these offenders two years earlier and an increase in the number of reviews for these offenders following the abolition of APR.

A decrease in the number of federal reviews for discretionary release for offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences followed a decrease in federal admissions of these offenders each year since 2011/12.

• In 2014/15, having conducted 17,879 federal and provincial reviews, the Board rendered 25,224 decisions.
• When controlling for delays and cancellations, which were removed from the workload in November 2014, the Board rendered 21,881 decisions in 2014/15. This constitutes a decrease of 2% when compared to 2013/14.

Following the abolition of APR in 2010/11, the Board has been rendering fewer decisions related to discretionary release and more decisions related to statutory release, as well as more decisions related to UTA.

In 2014/15, 46% of all federal decisions were decisions related to discretionary release (day/full parole), while statutory release decisions accounted for 44% of PBC decisions. By comparison, in 2010/11, federal decisions related to discretionary release accounted for 53% of all decisions, while statutory release decisions accounted for 39% of the Board’s workload.

Figure 14. Federal Decisions

The Board’s workload is also affected by the number of waivers and withdrawals, as well as postponements.

It should be noted that the data for 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 includes reviews as well as decision statuses where the final decision was to accept postponement of a scheduled review.

Figure 15. Federal and Provincial Reviews Delayed

• In 2014/15, the Board registered 4,368 waivers and 2,628 postponements of federal reviews, as well as 904 withdrawals of applications for federal release reviews. The Board also registered six waivers and 35 postponements of provincial reviews, and 344 withdrawals of applications for provincial parole.
• Compared to the previous year, the number of waivers increased 4% (by 175 waivers). Part of the increase was waivers submitted by first-time federal offenders serving determinate sentences. A larger proportion of these offenders waived their parole reviews and was released on statutory release.
• The number of postponements decreased 16% (or 501 postponements) in 2014/15 when compared to the previous year. This decrease is to a large extent related to the smaller workload in 2014/15, particularly to the decrease in reviews on file.
• In 2014/15, the number of cases where an offender withdrew an application for a parole review decreased 8% (or 110 withdrawals) compared to the previous year. Withdrawals of applications for federal reviews decreased 0.4% (or 4 withdrawals), and the number of withdrawals of applications for provincial parole decreased 24% (or 106 withdrawals).

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.

Temporary Absence

(Tables 45-49)

This section contains information on the temporary absence decisions rendered by the Board.

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 the authority to authorize unescorted temporary absences (UTAs) for 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. 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.

Since December 2014, PBC must approve/authorize all ETAs for offenders serving life as a minimum sentence until the first successful ETA after day parole eligibility. CSC retains the authority to grant ETAs for medical reasons, to attend judicial proceedings or coroner’s inquests for these offenders. CSC has a delegated authority for ETAs for other offenders.

Figure 16. Temporary Absence Decisions

Figure 17. Approval/Authorization Rates

• In 2014/15, the Board rendered 176 ETA decisions, an increase of 18% compared to 2013/14. The Board rendered 476 UTA decisions, a decrease of 21% compared to the previous year. The number of ETA decisions rendered by the Board increased in all regions, except the Quebec region, where it decreased slightly. The number of UTA decisions rendered by the Board decreased in all regions, except the Ontario region, where it increased slightly.
• The ETA approval/authorization rate increased to 80% in 2014/15 from 77% in 2013/14.
• Over the last five years, the Quebec region reported the highest ETA approval/authorization rate (84%), while the Prairie region, the lowest (68%).
• The UTA authorization rate decreased to 76% in 2014/15 from 82% in 2013/14.
• Over the last five years, the Quebec region reported the highest UTA authorization rate (86%), while the Pacific region, the lowest (54%).
• The five-year average ETA approval/authorization rate for male offenders was lower than for female offenders (79%; 83%), as was the five-year average UTA authorization rate (73%; 83%).
• There were no substantial differences in ETA approval/authorization rates between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders over the last five years (79%; 80%). The UTA authorization rate was somewhat higher for Aboriginal offenders in the last five years than for non Aboriginal offenders (77%; 73%).
• Over the last five years, 99% of ETA decisions rendered by the Board were decisions for offenders serving life sentences with an average ETA approval rate 80%. UTA decisions for lifers represented 74% of all UTA decisions rendered by the Board over the last five years, with an average UTA authorization rate of 76%.

Day Parole

(Tables 50-63)

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 to an institution or a half-way house, each night or at another specified interval 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 one-sixth of the sentence for offenders who, according to the law, were entitled to be considered for accelerated parole review.

On March 28, 2011, Bill C-59 abolished the APR process, which resulted in fewer day and full parole reviews in 2011/12, for first-time federal non-violent offenders (those serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences), who in the previous years would have been eligible for an APR review. The number of reviews for these types of offenders rebounded in the following years.

As a result of court challenges, the abolition of APR has had a smaller affect in the Pacific and Quebec regions. Since 2012, the Pacific region has been processing active APR cases for offenders sentenced or convicted prior to the abolition of APR. In 2013/14, the Quebec region started processing their active APR cases.

Following the Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling decision on March 20, 2014, the accelerated parole review process was reinstated across all regions for offenders sentenced prior to the abolition of APR.

• In 2014/15, the Board rendered more federal day parole release decisions compared to the previous year (4,698; +6%). This included 45 day parole release decisions following an APR.
• The number of day parole release decisions increased in the Quebec (+14%), Atlantic (+7%) and Prairie (+6%) regions, decreased in the Ontario (-3%) region and remained relatively unchanged in the Pacific region (+0.4%).
• The number of provincial day parole release decisions rendered by the Board in 2014/15 decreased (to 498; -10%) when compared to the previous year.
• In 2014/15, the number of federal and provincial day parole release decisions rendered following a hearing with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor decreased to 266 (-7%) compared to 2013/14.
• In 2014/15, the average proportion of sentence served before the first federal day parole release for offenders serving determinate sentences remained relatively unchanged from the previous year (at 38%). Aboriginal offenders had the highest proportion of their sentence served before their first federal day parole release (at 41%), while Asian offenders reported the lowest (at 32%).

Figure 18. Day Parole Grant Rates

• In 2014/15, the federal day parole grant rate increased one and a half percentage points, to 71%, compared to the previous year.
• The federal regular day parole grant rate increased from 70% in 2013/14 to 71% in 2014/15. The federal APR day parole grant rate increased from 83% in 2013/14 to 84% in 2014/15.
• The provincial day parole grant rate increased 4.2 percentage points from 53% in 2013/14 to 57% in 2014/15.
• By region, the federal day parole grant rate increased in the Atlantic (to 80%; +5%), Ontario (to 76%; +6%) and Prairie (to 73%; +8%) regions, decreased in the Quebec region (to 63%; -6%) and remained the same in the Pacific region (at 76%).
• In 2014/15, offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences reported the highest federal regular day parole grant rate (83%), as well as the highest provincial day parole grant rate (71%), while offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences reported the lowest grant rate for federal regular day parole (46%), and offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences had the lowest provincial day parole grant rate (54%).
• In 2014/15, Aboriginal offenders reported the lowest federal regular day parole grant rate (68%), while Asian offenders reported the highest grant rate (78%). The provincial day parole grant rate was the highest for White offenders (62%) and the lowest for offenders in the ‘Other’ category (43%).
• Female offenders had a much higher grant rate for federal regular day parole (85%) and provincial day parole (73%) than male offenders (70%; 56%) in 2014/15.
• In 2014/15, federal offenders serving determinate sentences accounted for 81% of all day parole grant decisions (with a grant rate of 73%), while lifers accounted for 18% of grants (with a grant rate of 82%), and offenders with other indeterminate sentences accounted for one percent of grants (with a grant rate of 11%).
• While the federal day parole grant rate for lifers was 82% in 2014/15, it should be noted that 75% of those were decisions to continue day parole. The day parole grant rate for lifers who were granted federal day parole for the first time was 20%.
• Over the last five years (between 2010/11 and 2014/15), Asian offenders reported the highest federal (regular) day parole grant rate and the highest provincial day parole grant rate (74%; 53%), while Black offenders reported the lowest federal and provincial day parole grant rates (61%; 31%) during the same time period.
• In 2014/15, the federal day parole grant rate following hearings with an Aboriginal Culture Advisor was 65%, an increase of seven percentage points compared to the previous year.

Full Parole

(Tables 64-81)

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

On March 28, 2011, Bill C-59 eliminated the APR process, which resulted in fewer day and full parole decisions in 2011/12, for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences, who in the previous years would have been eligible for an APR review. The number of reviews for these offenders rebounded in the following years, resulting in an increase in the number of full parole release decisions rendered by the Board in 2014/15.

As noted in the previous section, as a result of court challenges, the Pacific and Quebec regions have been processing APR cases for offenders who met APR eligibility criteria. The Pacific region has been processing these cases since 2012/13 and the Quebec region, since 2013/14. Following the Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling decision on March 20, 2014, accelerated parole review was reinstated across the other regions for offenders who were sentenced prior to March 28, 2011.

• The number of federal full parole release decisions in 2014/15 increased to 3,605 (+5%) compared to the previous year. The total included 137 full parole release decisions following accelerated parole reviews.
• In 2014/15, the number of full parole release decisions rendered by the Board increased in the Quebec (+11%), Ontario (+14%) and Prairie (+6%) regions and decreased in the Atlantic (-8%) and Pacific (-15%) regions.
• In 2014/15, the Board rendered fewer provincial full parole release decisions (289; -22%) compared to the previous year. All regions reported decreases: the Atlantic (-17%), Prairie (-27%) and Pacific (-23%) regions.
• The number of federal full parole release decisions following a hearing with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor increased in 2014/15 to 243 (+31%).
• The proportion of sentence served prior to first federal full parole release for federal offenders serving determinate sentences decreased in 2014/15 one percentage point to 46% when compared to the previous year. The decrease was driven by offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences (-1.8% for each group). The proportion increased for offenders serving sentences for schedule I non-sex offences (+1.5%) and stayed relatively unchanged for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences.
• Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders served the highest proportion of their sentences prior to their first federal full parole release (46%), while Black offenders served the lowest proportion (42%).
• Over the last five years, male offenders served slightly higher proportions of their sentences before being released on their first federal full parole (43%) than female offenders (42%).
• In 2014/15, federal full parole grant rates increased negligibly to 33% when compared to the previous year (from 32.4% in 2013/14 to 32.6% in 2014/15). The federal regular full parole grant rate remained the same (at 30%) and the federal APR grant rate decreased to 87% from 89%.

Figure 19. Full Parole Grant Rates

• The provincial full parole grant rate increased to 32% in 2014/15 from 30% in 2013/14.
• By region, federal full parole grant rates decreased in the Atlantic (to 55%; -0.5%), Quebec (to 22%; -3%) and Pacific (to 32%; -12%) regions. The large decrease in the Pacific region was attributed to the smaller number of APR cases in 2014/15 than in the previous years, which inflated the federal full parole grant rates in 2012/13 and 2013/14.
• Federal full parole grant rates increased in the Ontario (to 47%; +8%) and Prairie (to 30%; +3%) regions. Increases in grant rates in these two regions were attributed to the addition of APR cases in 2014/15, following the Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling decision on March 20, 2014.
• In 2014/15, the federal regular full parole grant rate increased for offenders serving sentences for murder (to 38%) and those serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (to 17%), while it decreased for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (to 41%) compared to the previous year. The rate remained the same for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (at 23%) and those serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (at 29%).
• Over the last five years, federal offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences continued reporting the highest federal full parole grant rate (36%), while offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, the lowest (16%).
• The federal full parole grant rate following a hearing with an Aboriginal Cultural Advisor decreased to 13% in 2014/15 from 15% in 2014/15.
• Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders had the lowest federal and provincial full parole grant rates (17% and 20%), while Asian offenders, the highest (35% and 41%).
• Over the last five years, female offenders reported higher federal and provincial full parole grant rates (39% and 43%) than male offenders (25% and 29%).
• In 2014/15, federal offenders with determinate sentences accounted for 91% of all full parole grants with a grant rate of 35%. Lifers accounted for 9% of all full parole grants with a grant rate of 38%. No offenders serving other indeterminate sentences were granted federal full parole in 2014/15.
• In 2014/15, the number of residency conditions imposed on federal full parole increased from 25 to 30 in the pre-release category and from 29 to 32 in the post-release category compared to the previous year. Offenders released on full parole APR accounted for almost half of pre-release residency conditions (14 out of 30).

Statutory Release

(Tables 82-90)

All federal offenders serving determinate sentences are entitled to statutory release after serving two-thirds of their sentences, 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.

Figure 20. Proportion of Federal Releases on Statutory Release Compared to the Incarcerated Population Serving Determinate Sentences

• Federal releases on statutory release directly from institutions decreased 5% (from 5,633 in 2013/14 to 5,336 in 2014/15), while the number of incarcerated offenders serving determinate sentences (on April 1, 2014) remained practically unchanged. As a result, the proportion of federal releases on statutory release compared to the number of federal offenders entitled to statutory release (i.e. incarcerated offenders serving determinate sentences) decreased to 47% (from 50% in 2013/14).
• By region, the Prairie region reported the highest proportion of federal releases on statutory release compared to the number of incarcerated offenders entitled to statutory release in 2014/15 (58%), while the Quebec region reported the lowest proportion (40%).
• By offence type, federal offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences reported the highest proportion of federal releases on statutory release compared to the number of incarcerated offenders entitled to statutory release in 2014/15 (61%), while offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences, the lowest (33%).
• By race, the proportion was the highest for Aboriginal offenders (65%) and the lowest for offenders in the ‘Other’ category in 2014/15.
• Female offenders reported a higher proportion of federal releases on statutory release compared to their incarcerated population entitled to statutory release in 2014/15 (51%) than male offenders (47%).
• The number of residency conditions imposed on statutory release increased 5% (from 2,062 in 2013/14 to 2,171 in 2014/15). The numbers increased in the pre-release category (from 2,045 to 2,155) and decreased in the post-release category (from 18 to 17).

Increases in the number of residency conditions imposed on statutory release in the last three years can be attributed to the abolition of APR. The decreases in the number of residency conditions imposed on federal full parole APR for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non‑scheduled offences mirrored increases in the number of residency conditions imposed on statutory release for these offenders during the same time period. The numbers seemed to have stabilized in 2014/15.

Figure 21. Residency Conditions for Federal Non-Violent Offenders

Detention

(Tables 91-99)

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.

• As of April 19, 2015, 275 offenders were detained (45 fewer than in 2013/14), and 67 had a detention order but had not yet reached their statutory release dates (11 more than in 2013/14).
• In 2014/15, the number of referrals for detention decreased to 174 (-16%) compared to 2013/14. The numbers decreased in all regions, but the Pacific region, where it increased.
• The detention referral rate (ratio of detention referrals against the total offender population entitled to statutory release in a given year) decreased to 3.1% in 2014/15 from 3.5% in 2013/14.
• The number of offenders detained as a result of a detention review decreased to 164 ( 18%) compared to the previous year, as did their proportion (to 94% from 96% in 2013/14). Two percent (2%) were released on statutory release and 4% were released on one-chance statutory release following a detention review in 2014/15.
• In 2014/15, the Quebec and Prairie regions reported the highest initial detention rates (97% each), while the Pacific region, the lowest (86%). The Atlantic and Ontario regions both reported a 92% initial detention rate.
• In 2014/15, 94% of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences and 98% of offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences who were referred for detention were detained. Three offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences and nine offenders serving sentences for non scheduled offences were referred for detention and all were detained in 2014/15.
• Slightly fewer Aboriginal offenders were referred for detention and detained in 2014/15 (68 out of 73) than the previous year (85 out of 89). Two Aboriginal offenders were released on statutory release and three were released on one-chance statutory release in 2014/15.
• Of the 77 White offenders referred for detention in 2014/15, 73 were detained, one was released on statutory release and three were released on one-chance statutory release. Ten (10) Black offenders were detained following a detention review in 2014/15, and one was released on a one-chance statutory release. Three Asian offenders and 10 offenders in the ‘Other’ category were referred for detention and all were detained in 2014/15.
• In 2014/15, 94% of male offenders referred for detention were detained, 2% were released on statutory release and 4% were released on one chance statutory release. Six women were referred for detention in 2014/15 and all were detained.
• In 2014/15, the Board conducted 270 annual and subsequent detention reviews and confirmed detention in 97% of cases. In the last five years, the Board conducted 1,557 annual and subsequent detention reviews, confirming detention in 96% of cases.

Long-Term Supervision

(Tables 100-104)

The court, upon application by the crown prosecutor, may impose a long-term supervision order (LTSO), 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 a failure to comply with one or more conditions.

Since 2000, when the first offender was released on a long-term supervision order, the long-term population has been constantly increasing reaching 388 in 2013/14. The long-term supervision population decreased to 372 in 2014/15 ( 4%) suggesting that it has stabilized after 15 years. Forty-two (42) offenders were released at warrant expiry onto long term supervision orders in 2014/15 and 20 were released on long-term supervision orders after reaching warrant expiry on conditional release.

Figure 22. Long-Term Supervision Population

• The long-term supervision population increased in the Prairie (+3) and Pacific (+2) regions and decreased in the Atlantic (-5), Quebec (-14) and Ontario (-2) regions in 2014/15 compared to the previous year.
• The proportions of Aboriginal and Asian offenders on long-term supervision orders increased in 2014/15 (+2%; +1%), while they decreased for Black and White offenders, when compared to the previous year. The proportion remained the same for offenders in the ‘Other’ category.
• In 2014/15, offenders serving sentences for schedule I offences represented 98% of offenders on long-term supervision orders, while offenders serving sentences for non scheduled offences represented 2%.
• The Board rendered 658 decisions for offenders on long-term supervision orders in 2014/15, a 1% increase compared to the previous year.
• In 2014/15, the number of residency conditions imposed and prolonged on offenders with long-term supervision orders increased to 406 (+ 8%) compared to 2013/14. The increases were reported in the pre-release (+20) and post-release (+11) categories.

Appeals

(Tables 105-112)

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 the law and the 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

• In 2014/15, the Appeal Division received a total of 645 applications to appeal federal and provincial conditional release decisions. Five hundred and eight (508) applications, or 79%, were accepted for review.
• In comparison with 2013/14, the number of federal appeal applications received decreased by 18 applications (from 636 to 618). Decreases were reported in the Atlantic (-7), Ontario (-12) and Prairie (-33) regions and increases were reported in the Quebec (+27) and Pacific (+7) regions.
• The number of provincial appeal applications received in 2014/15 decreased in the Atlantic (-2), Prairie (-1) and Pacific (-3) regions compared to 2013/14.
• Of the 486 federal appeal applications accepted in 2014/15, 28 were cancelled and seven were withdrawn, leaving 451 federal applications to be processed. The Board accepted 22 provincial appeal applications for processing in 2014/15.

Appeal Decisions

• In 2014/15, the Appeal Division rendered 688 decisions on 531 cases.
• The Appeal Division modified the decision in 68 appeal cases which resulted in a new hearing ordered in 32 cases, a new review ordered in 25 cases, a new in-office review ordered in nine cases and a modified special condition in two cases. The grounds for modifying these 68 cases fall into the following categories:

Appeal Decision Trends

• In 2014/15, the number of the federal appeal decisions rendered by the Board increased to 658 (+37%), while the number of the provincial appeal decisions increased to 30 (from 27) when compared to the previous year.
• In 2014/15, the Board rendered substantially more day parole (+39%), full parole (+45%) and statutory release (+31%) appeal decisions. The Board also rendered three more detention decisions, as well as five more ETA and five more UTA appeal decisions in comparison with the previous year.
• Proportionately more day parole and full parole appeal decisions were rendered by the Board in 2014/15. Federal day parole appeal decisions accounted for 36% of all federal appeal decisions. The proportion increased one percentage point compared to 2013/14. Federal full parole appeal decisions accounted for 29% of all appeal decisions, an increase of two percentage points from 2013/14.
• In 2014/15, provincial day parole appeal decisions accounted for 63% of all provincial appeal decisions, while provincial full parole appeal decisions accounted for 37%.
• Compared to the previous year, the proportion of federal appeal decisions increased in 2014/15 for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences (to 17% from 12% in 2013/14) and for offenders serving sentences for murder (to 15% from 14% in 2013/14). The proportions of federal appeal decisions decreased for offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences (to 36% from 38% in 2013/14), offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences (to 14% from 16% in 2013/14) and for those serving sentences for non-scheduled offences (to 18% from 19% in 2013/14).
• Of the 658 federal appeal decisions rendered in 2014/15, 88% of the initial decisions were affirmed, in 11% of cases, a new review was ordered and in two cases (0.5%) a change of condition was ordered. By comparison, in 2013/14, 85% of federal initial decisions appealed were affirmed and a new review was ordered in 15% of cases.
• Of the 30 provincial appeal decisions rendered in 2014/15, 25 initial decisions were affirmed (83%), and a new review was ordered in five cases (17%).
• In 2014/15, 78% of all federal decisions rendered by the Board were appealable. By comparison, 71% of federal decisions in 2013/14 were appealable. The number of appealable decisions in 2014/15 decreased negligibly 0.3% (to 18,954).
• In 2014/15, the federal appeal rate increased a percentage point to 3.5% from the previous year’s rate of 2.5%. Detention and ETA decisions remained the most likely to be appealed, while statutory release decisions remained the least likely to be appealed.
• Among provincial appeals, day parole decisions were slightly more likely to be appealed than full parole release decisions.

Conditional Release Decisions: Performance

According to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, s.102, the Parole Board of Canada may grant parole based on two key considerations: 1) the offender will not, by reoffending, present an undue risk to society before the expiration according to law of the sentence the offender is serving; and 2) the release of the offender will contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the reintegration of the offender into society as a law-abiding citizen^{Footnote 8}. In the determination of all cases, the protection of society is the paramount consideration for the Board (CCRA, s.100.1).

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 or non‑violently, before and after warrant expiry. When compared with offenders who were released on statutory release, parole is considered the most effective form of conditional release. This section provides information on the performance of offenders on conditional release and after sentence completion based on the following indicators:

1. time under supervision,
2. rates of conviction,
3. outcome rates, and
4. post-warrant expiry readmissions.

Time Under Supervision

(Tables 113-119 )

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.

• Over the last five years, the average length of federal day parole supervision periods for federal offenders serving determinate sentences was 4.7 months. The average length of federal full parole supervision periods was 23.6 months, and the average length of statutory release supervision periods was 7.0 months.
• Aboriginal offenders serving determinate sentences had the shortest supervision periods (day parole, full parole and statutory release), while Asian offenders had the longest federal day parole and statutory release supervision periods, and offenders of the ‘Other’ category had the longest federal full parole supervision periods in the last five years.
• Over the last five years, female offenders had shorter federal supervision periods than male offenders. They also had their supervision periods revoked earlier than male offenders on all types of conditional release, either for a breach of condition or with offence.
• Given the differences in the average lengths of federal supervision periods, it takes longer for offenders to successfully complete full parole rather than day parole or statutory release. Over the last five years, 87% of day parole supervision periods and 50% of statutory release supervision periods were successfully completed in the first six months (that is, completed without any revocation) compared to only 1% of full parole supervision periods that were successfully completed within six months of release. The majority of federal full parole supervision periods that were successfully completed (90%) were over a year long.
• Fifty-one percent (51%) of statutory release supervision periods revoked with a violent offence in the last five years were revoked within six months of release compared to 21% of federal full parole supervision periods revoked with a violent offence in the same time frame.

Convictions

(Tables 120-123 )

Rates of conviction are 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 conviction accordingly.

Figure 23. Convictions for Violent Offences on Federal Conditional Release

Note: The year 2014/15 is shown but not used in calculations, because 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.

• Over the last ten years (between 2004/05 and 2013/14), the number of convictions for a violent offence decreased 60% on federal conditional release (from 269 in 2004/05 to 107 in 2013/14). The number of convictions decreased on federal day parole (from 32 to 6), federal full parole (from 36 to 6) and on statutory release (from 201 to 95).
• Over the last ten years (between 2004/05 and 2013/14), convictions for violent offences on statutory release accounted for 82% of all convictions on federal conditional release.

A look at the rates of conviction for violent offences per 1,000 supervised offenders provides a more comprehensive picture of offenders’ performance on conditional release.

Figure 24. Rates of Conviction for Violent Offences per 1,000 Supervised Offenders

Note: The year 2014/15 is shown but not used in calculations, because 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.

• Over the last ten years (between 2004/05 and 2013/14), offenders on statutory release were almost ten times more likely to commit a violent offence during their supervision periods than offenders on full parole, and four times more likely to commit a violent offence than offenders on day parole.
• Over the past five years (from 2009/10 to 2013/14), offenders serving sentences for schedule I non-sex offences were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence on each type of conditional release, whereas offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences were the least likely.
• Over the same five-year period, Aboriginal offenders were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence on full parole and statutory release, while White offenders were the most likely to be convicted of a violent offence on day parole. Asian offenders were the least likely to be convicted of a violent offence on any type of conditional release.
• The number of convictions for violent offences by offenders on conditional release in 2013/14 was 45% lower than the ten-year average (between 2004/05 and 2013/14). In fact, the total number of convictions in each of the last five years was below the ten-year average.
• In the last five years (2009/10 to 2013/14), convictions for violent offences on conditional release decreased in all regions. The Quebec and Prairie regions accounted for the majority of all convictions in the last five years.

Outcome

(Tables 124-157 )

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

• Successful completion^{Footnote 9} – supervision periods that are completed without a breach of condition or a new offence;
• 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 conviction^{Footnote 10}.

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 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.

Figure 25. Successful Completion Rates on Federal Conditional Release

Note: Full parole includes determinate sentences only.

• In 2014/15, the successful completion rates improved on federal day parole (to 91%), federal full parole (for offenders serving determinate sentences) (to 87%) and on statutory release (to 63%) compared to the previous year.
• When compared with the successful completion rates of full parole supervision periods, the successful completion rates of statutory release supervision periods were not only significantly lower, but the statutory release supervision periods were shorter. Over the last five years, 50% of all successfully completed statutory releases were less than six months compared with one percent of successfully completed full parole supervision periods. The majority of successfully completed supervision periods on full parole (90%) were for periods of more than one year.
• Over the last five years, the successful completion rate on APR full parole was two percentage points lower than the rate on regular full parole.
• During the five-year period (2010/11 to 2014/15), the difference between successful completion rates of regular day parole and APR day parole was on average less than two percentage points.

Figure 26. Revocation for Breach of Condition Rates for Federal Conditional Release

Note: Full parole includes determinate sentences only.

• Over the last five years, revocation for breach of condition rates on federal day and full parole have been generally decreasing. The revocation for breach of condition rate on statutory release increased in 2011/12 and 2012/13, then declined in 2013/14, and remained unchanged in 2014/15.
• Offenders released on statutory release were far more likely to have had their releases revoked because of a breach of conditions than offenders on day parole or full parole during each of the last five years.

Figure 27. Total Revocation with Offence Rates for Federal Conditional Release

Note: Full parole includes determinate sentences only.

• Total revocation with offence rates decreased for all federal conditional release supervision populations. Over the last five years, the rates for statutory release were on average almost six times higher than the rates for day parole and twice the rates for full parole.

Figure 28. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates for Federal Conditional Release

Note: Full parole includes determinate sentences only.

• Over the last five years, the revocation with violent offence rates were, on average, nine times higher for offenders on statutory release than for offenders on day parole and three times higher than for offenders on full parole. The rates of revocation with a violent offence for federal day and full parole and statutory release have been generally declining in the last five years.
• When comparing the rates, it should be noted that the revocation with violent offence rates on statutory release were not just higher than those for full parole supervision periods, they also occurred earlier. Thirteen percent (13%) of statutory release supervision periods revoked with a violent offence between 2010/11 and 2014/15 were revoked in the first three months, while no full parole supervision period was revoked with a violent offence in the first three months during the same time period.
• Of the federal day parole supervision periods that had been revoked with a violent offence in the last five years, 13% were revoked in the first three months. The average length of day parole supervision periods in the last five years was under five months.

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

Figure 29. Successful Completion Rates for Provincial Parole

• Over the last five years, the successful completion rates for offenders on provincial day and full parole have been fluctuating. In 2014/15, the successful completion rate increased two percentage points on provincial day parole (to 85%) and decreased four percentage points on provincial full parole (to 88%).

Figure 30. Revocation for Breach of Condition Rates for Provincial Parole

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

Figure 31. Total Revocation with Offence Rates for Provincial Parole

• The total revocation with offence rates for provincial parole increased in 2014/15: the total revocation with offence rate increased to 1.4% on provincial day parole and to 1.0% on provincial full parole.

Figure 32. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates for Provincial Parole

• Very few provincial offenders have had their paroles revoked because of violent reoffending during the last five years. Five offenders on provincial day parole and three offenders on provincial full parole, all males, were convicted of a violent offence in the last five years.

Outcome on Day Parole

Federal Day Parole

• In 2014/15, the successful completion rate on federal day parole increased to 91% from 89% in 2013/14.
• Over the last five years (between 2010/11 and 2014/15), the successful completion rate on federal regular day parole for offenders serving determinate sentences for non-violent offences (schedule II and non-scheduled offences) was on average 2.3 percentage points lower than the rate for federal day parole APR (88.1% and 90.4% respectively).
• In 2014/15, offenders serving sentences for murder had the highest successful completion rate on federal day parole (95%), while offenders serving sentences for non‑scheduled offences, the lowest (88%). The successful completion rate increased for all offenders, except for offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences, where it decreased half a percentage point in 2014/15 compared to the previous year.
• Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders were the least likely to successfully complete federal day parole (85%), while Asian offenders were the most likely (96%).
• Over the last five years, there was no large difference in the successful completion rate on federal day parole between male and female offenders (89.0%; 88.9%).
• In 2014/15, the successful completion rate on federal day parole increased in the Quebec (to 95%), Ontario (to 94%) and Prairie (to 87%) regions, and decreased slightly in the Atlantic (to 84%) and Pacific (91%) regions compared to the previous year.
• The rate of violent reoffending on federal day parole has been very low in the last five years, averaging 0.2%. Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences accounted for half of all revocations with a violent offence on federal day parole.
• There were no significant differences in the revocation with violent offence rate in the last five years between Aboriginal, Black or White offenders on federal day parole. No Asian offender or offender in the ‘Other’ category had their federal day parole supervision period revoked with a violent offence in the last five years.
• There were also no significant differences in the revocation with violent offence rates in the last five years between male and female offenders on federal day parole (0.2% each group).
• By region, the rates of violent reoffending on federal day parole have been fluctuating in the last five years. The Pacific region reported the highest rate (0.3%), while the Prairie region reported the lowest rate (0.1%).

Provincial Day Parole

• In 2014/15, the successful completion rate on provincial day parole increased slightly to 85% compared to the previous year. The rate improved in the Atlantic (to 78%) and Prairie (to 95%) regions and decreased slightly in the Pacific region (to 85%).
• Over the last five years (between 2010/11 and 2014/15), offenders serving sentences for schedule II offences reported the highest successful completion rate on provincial day parole (95%), while offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences, the lowest (80%).
• The rates of violent reoffending on provincial day parole have been very low in the last five years: three offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences and two offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences, all males, had their day paroles revoked because of a violent offence in the last five years.
• Provincial Aboriginal offenders reported the highest rate of violent reoffending on provincial day parole (1.7%) in the last five years, compared to White offenders (0.1%) or offenders of the ‘Other’ category (0.8%). No Asian or Black offender had their provincial day paroles revoked because of a violent offence in the last five years.

Outcome on Full Parole

Outcome on full parole is measured separately for offenders serving determinate sentences and for offenders serving indeterminate sentences. Indeterminate sentences are considered ‘successful completions’ for statistical purposes when the offender dies. For this reason, these cases are shown separately from those of offenders serving determinate sentences.

Federal Full Parole: Determinate Sentences

• In 2014/15, the successful completion rate on federal full parole, for offenders serving determinate sentences, increased to 87% from 85% in 2013/14.
• Over the last five years (between 2010/11 and 2014/15), the successful completion rate on federal full parole was on average 1.9 percentage points higher for non-violent offenders released on federal regular full parole than that for non-violent offenders released on full parole APR (82.7%; 80.8%).
• In 2014/15, the successful completion rate improved for all offence types compared to the previous year. Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-sex offences reported the highest successful completion rate (94%) and offenders serving sentences for non‑scheduled offences, the lowest (78%).
• Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders reported the lowest successful completion rate on federal full parole (73%), while Asian offenders, the highest (88%).
• Over the last five years, female offenders reported a higher successful completion rate on federal full parole (86%) than male offenders (81%).
• In 2014/15, the successful completion rate increased in all regions with the exception of the Ontario region, where it decreased slightly, primarily due to an increase in the revocation for breach of condition rate.
• The rates of violent reoffending on federal full parole have been decreasing in the last five years, staying under 1.0%. Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences accounted for the majority of revocations with a violent offence on federal full parole in the last five years.
• Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders reported the highest revocation with a violent offence rate on federal full parole (0.8%), and Asian offenders, the lowest (0.0%).
• Female offenders were less likely to be revoked with a violent offence on federal full parole (0.3%) than male offenders (0.6%) in the last five years.
• By region, the rate of violent reoffending has been fluctuating in the last five years. It has been the highest in the Quebec region (1.0%) and the lowest in the Ontario region (0.3%).
• Over the last five years (between 2010/11 and 2014/15), the rate of violent reoffending on federal full parole was higher for non-violent offenders released on full parole APR (0.4%), than those released on regular full parole (0.1%).

Federal Full Parole Indeterminate Sentences

• Between 1994/95 and 2014/15, 2,598 offenders serving indeterminate sentences had completed 3,024 federal full parole supervision periods. As of April 19, 2015, 54% of the supervision periods were still active (supervised), 20% had ended because the offender had died while on parole, 15% were revoked for a breach of condition, 7% were revoked as the result of a non-violent offence, and 4% were revoked as the result of a violent offence.
• The average length of federal full parole supervision periods for offenders serving indeterminate sentences was 12.4 years.
• Over the last 21 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 decreases afterward. Thus, the likelihood of having a supervision period revoked drops significantly the longer the offender is on full parole.
• Over the last 21 years, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were 1.8 times more likely to have died than to have had their supervision periods revoked for having committed a new offence.
• Over the last 21 years, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were 4.7 times more likely to have died than to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a violent offence. The ratio almost doubles for those offenders who were on full parole over five years (8.3).

Figure 33. Revocation Rates on Federal Full Parole for Offenders Serving Indeterminate Sentences (between 1994/95 and 2014/15)

Figure 34. Comparison of Revocation Rates on Federal Full Parole (between 1994/95 and 2014/15)

• Compared to offenders serving determinate sentences on full parole, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were 10% less likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a breach of condition, and 40% less likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a new non-violent offence for federal supervision periods completed between 1994/95 and 2014/15.
• However, offenders serving indeterminate sentences on full parole were twice as likely to have had their supervision periods revoked because of a new violent offence than offenders serving determinate sentences during the same time period.
• In the last five years (between 2010/11 and 2014/15), the majority of federal full paroles revoked with violent offence were revoked within two years for offenders serving determinate sentences and within ten years for offenders serving indeterminate sentences.
• Over the last 21 years (between 1994/95 and 2014/15), 127 federal full parole supervision periods were revoked with a violent offence for offenders serving indeterminate sentences, compared to 649 federal full paroles revoked with a violent offence for offenders serving determinate sentences during the same time period.

Provincial full parole

• In 2014/15, the successful completion rate on provincial full parole decreased to 88% from 92% in 2013/14, which had been one of the highest rates in the last ten years.
• The successful completion rate on provincial full parole increased in the Prairie region (to 96%) in 2014/15 and decreased in the Atlantic (to 86%) and Pacific (to 83%) regions compared to the previous year.
• Very few provincial offenders have had their full paroles revoked because of a violent offence. Over the last five years, one offender serving a sentence for a schedule I non sex offence and two offenders serving sentences for non-scheduled offences, all males, had their provincial full paroles revoked with a violent offence.
• Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders reported the highest revocation with violent offence rate on provincial full parole (4.3%), while no Asian or Black offenders had their provincial full paroles revoked because of a violent offence. The revocation with a violent offence rate on provincial full parole for White offenders averaged 0.2% in the last five years.

Outcome on Statutory Release

• In 2014/15, the successful completion rate on statutory release increased to 63% from 62% in 2013/14.
• The successful completion rate on statutory release increased for offenders of all offence types: schedule I-sex (to 76%), schedule I-non-sex (to 58%), schedule II (to 72%) and non-scheduled offences (to 62%).
• Over the last five years (between 2010/11 and 2014/15), Aboriginal offenders reported the lowest successful completion rate on statutory release (53%) and Asian offenders, the highest (77%).
• Female offenders were much more likely to successfully complete their statutory releases in the last five years (68%) than male offenders (61%).
• In 2014/15, the successful completion rates increased in the Atlantic (to 65%), Quebec (to 70%) and Ontario (to 71%) regions, decreased slightly in the Pacific region (to 60%) and remained the same in the Prairie region (at 54%).

Figure 35. Revocation with Violent Offence Rates on Statutory Release

• The revocation with violent offence rates on statutory release have been fluctuating in the last five years for offenders serving sentences for schedule II and non-scheduled offences, usually under one percent.
• Offenders serving sentences for schedule I-non-sex offences had the highest revocation with violent offence rates in each of the last five years. They accounted for 73% of all revocations with violent offence on statutory release in the last five years.
• Over the last five years, Aboriginal offenders had the highest revocation with violent offence rate (2.1%), and Asian offenders, the lowest (0.2%).
• Male offenders were more likely to be revoked with a violent offence on statutory release in the last five years (1.8%) than female offenders (0.7%).
• Over the last five years, the revocation with violent offence rates were above the national average of 1.8% in the Quebec (2.4%), Prairie (1.9%) and Pacific (2.3%) regions, and below the national average in the Atlantic (1.4%) and Ontario (1.0%) regions.

Over the last ten years (between 2004/05 and 2013/14), the successful completion rate on statutory release for offenders who had a day and/or full parole supervision period prior to a statutory release supervision period on the same sentence was on average 12% higher than the rate for offenders who had no prior parole supervision period (68% v. 56%).

This finding is applicable, although to a different extent, to all offence types, races and genders.

Figure 36. Successful Completion Rates on Statutory Release With and Without a Prior Day and/or Full Parole on the Same Sentence

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 benefited from their time in the community (i.e. programs and support in the community) and are thus more likely to successfully complete statutory release.

The difference between offenders serving sentences on statutory release who had a prior day and/or full parole supervision period on the same sentence and those who did not is also significant for the revocation with violent offence rates. Over the last ten years (between 2004/05 and 2013/14), the rate of violent reoffending on statutory release for offenders who had a prior day and/or full parole supervision period prior to a statutory release supervision period on the same sentence was 2.0% compared to 3.0% for those offenders who did not have a prior day and/or full parole supervision period. While one percentage point difference seems small, it is nevertheless meaningful: it stands for 904 more violent offences that were reported for offenders on statutory release who did not have a prior day and/or full parole supervision period compared to those offenders who did.

Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission

(Tables 158-170 )

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.

Figure 37. Post-Warrant Expiry Readmission Rates

• Ten to fifteen years after sentence completion (for sentences completed between 1999/00 and 2003/04), 26% of federal offenders had returned on a federal sentence as of March 31, 2015.
• Over the long-term (for sentences completed between 1999/00 and 2003/04), offenders released at warrant expiry were over four times more likely to be readmitted on a new federal sentence than offenders who completed their sentences on full parole. Offenders released on statutory release were only slightly less likely to be readmitted on a federal sentence after their sentence completion than offenders released at warrant expiry.
• When looking at the readmission rate for a violent offence (for sentences completed between 1999/00 and 2003/04), offenders released at warrant expiry were more than ten times more likely to return to a federal institution because of a new violent offence than offenders who completed their sentences on full parole, and over one and a half times more likely than offenders who completed their sentences on statutory release.
• Over the long term (for sentences completed between 1999/00 and 2003/04), 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 and those who completed their sentences on statutory release were more likely to be readmitted for having committed a violent offence than a non violent offence.
• Over the long term (for sentences completed between 1999/00 and 2003/04), offenders serving sentences for non scheduled offences 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.
• During the same time period, offenders from the Atlantic region who completed their sentences on either full parole (12%) or statutory release (38%) had the highest rates of readmission on a federal sentence, as did offenders who were released at warrant expiry in the Quebec region (49%). The lowest rates were reported in the Pacific region for offenders who completed their sentences on full parole (6%) or were released at warrant expiry (26%), and in the Ontario region for offenders who completed their sentences on statutory release (30%).

Conditional Release Openness and Accountability

(Tables 171-176)

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.

On June 13, 2012, Bill C-10 entrenched in law the right of victims to present a statement at parole hearings, previously a matter of PBC policy. Increased public awareness and various campaigns in previous years promoting victim’s rights may have contributed to increases in the number of PBC contacts with victims, victims presentations at hearings as well as decisions requested from the Decision Registry by victims.

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 information services for victims and the public and to improve its data collection methods.

Information Services to Victims

• In 2014/15, PBC reported 27,191 contacts with victims, an increase of 22% from the previous year. The numbers increased in all regions, primarily in the Ontario region, driven by an increase in contacts through emails.
• Over the last five years (2010/11 to 2014/15), the Board reported 115,921 contacts with victims.
• As of March 31, 2015, the number of victims that had registered to receive information from the PBC and CSC was 7,929, an increase of one percent from the previous year.

Figure 40. PBC Contacts with Victims

Observers at PBC Hearings

• In 2014/15, the number of observers at PBC hearings increased to 4,173 (+4%) compared to the previous year; as did the number of hearings with observers to 1,701 (+5%).
• The numbers increased moderately in the Quebec, Prairie and Pacific regions, and decreased in the Ontario and Atlantic regions.
• In the last five years (2010/11 to 2014/15), 16,813 observers have attended 6,933 PBC hearings.

Figure 41. Observers at PBC Hearings

Victims speaking at PBC Hearings

Since July 1, 2001, victims of crime have been permitted to read prepared statements at PBC parole hearings. On June 13, 2012, the right of victims to present a statement at parole hearings was entrenched in law.

Figure 42. Victims Presentations at PBC Hearings

• In 2014/15, victims made 231 presentations at 128 hearings, 33 fewer presentations than the previous year.
• The majority of presentations were done in person (88%) followed by presentations via video conferencing (10%) and pre-recorded presentations (audiotape or videotape/DVD) (1%).
• The major offence of victimization for victims making presentations in 2014/15 was most likely to have been murder (47%), sexual assault (16%) or manslaughter (13%).

Access to Decision Registry

• In 2014/15, the number of decisions sent from the decision registry decreased to 6,803 ( 5%) compared to 2013/14. Moderate decreases were reported in the Atlantic, Quebec and Ontario regions, and moderate increases were reported in the Prairie and Pacific regions.
• In the last five years, 31,756 decisions have been sent from the decision registry.

Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations

(Tables 177-185)

The Record Suspension and Clemency program involves the review of record suspension applications, the ordering of record suspensions and the making of clemency recommendations.

Record Suspension Program

A record suspension, formerly a pardon, allows people who were convicted of a criminal offence, but have completed their sentences and demonstrated they are law-abiding citizens for a prescribed number of years, to have their criminal records kept separate and apart from other criminal records.

The Criminal Records Act (CRA) originally created in 1970 grants the Parole Board of Canada exclusive jurisdiction to order, refuse to order, or revoke record suspensions for convictions under federal acts or regulations of Canada.

On March 13, 2012, Bill C-10 amended the CRA, replacing the term “pardon” with the term “record suspension” and increasing the waiting periods for a record suspension to five years for all summary convictions and to ten years for all indictable offences. Individuals convicted of sexual offences against minors (with certain exceptions) and those who have been convicted of more than three indictable offences, each with a sentence of two or more years, became ineligible for a record suspension.

Following the implementation of Bill C-10, the Record Suspension program continued processing pardon applications received before March 13, 2012, as well as processing record suspension applications received on and after that date.

• In 2014/15, the Board received 12,414 record suspension applications and accepted 9,074 (73%) applications for processing. In the previous year, the Board received 14,253 record suspension applications and accepted 9,632 applications (or 68%).

As record suspensions are not fully comparable with pardons (the eligibility criteria for a record suspension are different than for a pardon), direct comparisons between the year-end reports would be inaccurate. It was reported that the number of record suspension applications received between 2012/13 and 2014/15 was much lower than the number of pardon applications received in the previous years, in part due to the decrease in the number of citizens eligible to apply for record suspensions (effect of C-10) and in part due to the increase in the processing fee.

Figure 43. Pardon and Record Suspension Applications

• In the last ten years of receiving pardon applications (between 2002/03 and 2011/12), the PBC had been receiving on average more than 25,000 pardon applications a year and accepting more than 20,000 for processing (or 78%).
• In 2014/15, the Board rendered 6,316 pardon decisions for applications received prior to March 13, 2012, granting a pardon in 89% cases and denying a pardon in 11% of cases.
• The average processing time of a pardon application in 2014/15 increased to 36 months.
• In 2014/15, the PBC made 9,169 record suspension decisions; 92% of record suspensions were ordered and 8% were refused.
• In 2014/15, the average processing time of a record suspension application accepted for processing was 7.3 months for those where the final decision was to order a record suspension, and 13.0 months for those where the final decision was to refuse to order a record suspension.

Figure 44. Pardon/Record Suspension Revocation/Cessation Rate

• In 2014/15, the number of pardons and record suspensions revoked and those that had ceased to exist decreased from the previous year to 1,021 (-19%). It included 430 pardons and 11 record suspensions revoked by the PBC (43%); 569 pardons and five record suspensions that ceased to exist on RCMP authority (56%); and three pardons and three record suspensions that ceased to exist on PBC authority (1%).
• Over the last 15 years, the cumulative pardon/record suspension revocation/cessation rate has remained relatively low; however it increased minimally (+0.1%) in 2014/15. Generally, the pardon/record suspension revocation/cessation rate has been relatively low, indicating that over 95% of pardoned citizens and those who received record suspensions have remained crime free.

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 of the other reasons include: perceived inequity, medical condition, immigration to Canada, compassion, financial hardship, etc.

• At the end of 2014, there were 107 active clemency cases.
• In the last five years, 14 clemency requests have been granted, four have been denied and 111 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 186-188)

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.

PBC Reference Levels

Figure 45. PBC Reference Levels

• In 2014/15, the total PBC expenditures amounted to $50.1 million, or a $0.3 million decrease compared to 2013/14.
• The Board has one strategic outcome which is “Conditional Release and Record Suspension Decisions and Decision Processes that Safeguard Canadian Communities”. The Board applies its resources to four program: Conditional Release Decisions, Conditional Release Openness and Accountability, Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations and Internal Services. Conditional release decision-making is the most resource intensive area, accounting for 74% of the Board’s expenditures in 2014/15.
• The $2.3 million in expenditures for the Record Suspension Decisions and Clemency Recommendations program is net of revenue. The fee to process a record suspension application is $631. The respendable revenue for the PBC is $470 per application. In 2014/15, PBC received revenue of $5,719,384 for 9,064 record suspension applications. The PBC portion was $4,260,080.

Human Resources Management

• As of April 1, 2015, the Board staff consisted of 433 employees, 82% females and 18% males. The highest proportion of female staff was in the Atlantic region (16:1) and the lowest proportion was at the National Office (3:1).
• For 59% of employees the first official language was English and for 41% of employees it was French. Fifty-one percent (51%) of staff were bilingual.
• As of April 1, 2015, 4% of the Board’s staff were Aboriginal and 10% were visible minorities. Employees with disabilities accounted for 6% of the Board’s staff.
• As of April 17, 2015, the Board had a total of 81 Board members (42 full-time and 39 part-time).
• Women represented 32% of all Board members.
• The first official language of 75% of Board members was English, while French was the first official language of 25% of Board members. Fifteen percent (15%) of Board members were bilingual.

• Previous
• Index
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next