Correctional Service Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada
Skip to content | Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Home > Research > Research Reports

Institutional links

Research Reports

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Case Management Preparation for Release and Day Parole Outcome

Brian A. Grant and Marlo Gal
Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada
in co-operation with
the National Parole Board

February 1998

This report is part of a series of 24 research/evaluation reports (listed below) that were prepared as background to the Consolidated Report of the Working Group studying the provisions and operations of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and related Consultation Paper.

The Working Group is composed of representatives from the following agencies:

  • Correctional Service Canada
  • National Parole Board
  • Correctional Investigator
  • Justice
  • Department of the Solicitor General

Research/Evaluation Reports:

  • Information about Offenders
  • Security Classification of Inmates
  • Judicial Determination
  • The Temporary Absence Program: A Descriptive Analysis
  • Personal Development Temporary Absences
  • Work Release Program: How it is used and for what purposes
  • Day Parole: effects of the CCRA (1992)
  • Case Management: Preparation for Release and Day Parole Outcome
  • Accelerated Parole Review
  • Statutory Release and Detention Provisions
  • Community Supervision Provisions
  • Provisions Relating to Victims
  • Observers at National Parole Board Hearings
  • The National Parole Board Registry of Decisions
  • CSC Human Resources
  • Administrative Segregation
  • Search, Seizure and Inmate Discipline
  • Offender Grievance System
  • Urinalysis Testing Program<
  • Inmate's Input in Decision-making
  • Information to Offenders
  • Aboriginal Offenders
  • Health Services
  • Women Offenders

Executive Summary

The report addresses the impact of the requirement in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992) that day parole be used to prepare offenders for full parole and statutory release. This study also provides a description of the planning process used to prepare offenders for day parole and activities pursued during the day parole period which facilitate reintegration. Analyses of the relationship between the various aspects of institutional preparation and day parole outcome are presented. In addition, a two year follow up comparing full release outcome for offenders who did not complete their day parole to offenders who completed day parole is presented.

Less than a third of offenders released on day parole between January and June 1994 had a correctional plan in their Offender Management System (OMS) files, and of these less than half (47%) mentioned day parole. All of the progress summary reports had mentioned day parole. Some of the missing documentation may have been due to the introduction of OMS coinciding with the year that the offenders were obtained for the study.

Prior to day parole, most offenders (98%) were referred for at least one program with an average of four program referrals per offender. The programs that offenders were most commonly referred to were: substance abuse, cognitive skills and self help groups (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous). On average, offenders only completed about two thirds of the programs they were referred for. The primary reason for offenders not completing a recommended program was the lengthy waiting lists. A large percentage of offenders recommended for Cognitive Skills (23%) and Anger and Emotions Management (12%) were unable to attend the programs because of waiting lists.

Of offenders released on day parole, approximately equal percentages were classified as high risk (39%) and low risk (45%), while the balance of offenders were in the moderate risk group. This result demonstrates that day parole is used for offenders at all risk levels, but additional evidence indicated that high risk offenders have a high probability of a negative outcome both during the day parole period and after release on full parole and statutory release.

Most offenders (92%) were required to achieve prescribed goals in order to receive positive support for their day parole application. The most common of these goals was the completion of a program(s) (85%), followed by regular CMO meetings and abstinence from alcohol and drugs. Approximately 15% of the offenders received unconditional positive support for their day parole application.

The files for most offenders (77%) made reference to future release on full parole (81%) and statutory release (19%). In general, success on day parole was indicated as a condition for full parole or statutory release. The results demonstrate that day parole was being used to prepare offenders for full parole and statutory release.

The release plans indicated that most offenders (94%) were required to attend rehabilitation programs in the community and approximately half were to secure a job (48%). Only a small number of offenders (18%) were released to attend educational/vocational programs.

During the day parole period most offenders (96%) resided at halfway houses, while a small percentage of offenders resided at institutions. During the day parole, most offenders (87%) attended the recommended programs or secured a job (87%). Unfortunately, educational/vocational programs had lower participation rates with only 55% of the offenders recommended actually participating.

Two thirds of the sample successfully completed day parole, a quarter of the offenders had technical violations which resulted in revocation and seven percent committed a new offense. There were some regional differences in the proportion of successful completions. Ontario region had the highest successful completion rate at 85% while Quebec region had the lowest successful completion rate at only 55%. However, most of the offenders (81%) in the Quebec region were returned for technical violations rather than a new offense. Pacific region had the highest reoffense rate at 12% while Ontario and Atlantic regions had the lowest recidivism rate at only 4%.

The best predictors of outcome on day parole were the SIR score, having a temporary absence (TA) and attendance at recommended community programs (rehabilitation programs, work, and educational/vocational programs). Approximately 90% of the low risk offenders (as identified by the SIR scale, which is a measure of criminal history risk) successfully completed their day parole while high risk offenders only had a 40% successful completion rate. High risk offenders had a 20% recidivism rate while only 1% of low risk offenders recidivated with a new offence. Over three quarters of the offenders who had TAs were successfully completed day parole, while fewer than two thirds of the offenders who did not have TAs successfully completed their day parole. Offenders who participated in recommended community programs had successful completion rates that were up to five times higher than offenders who did not attend recommended programs.

About two thirds (62%) of the sample were not readmitted to prison within two years of full release. Attendance at recommended programs was related to higher positive outcome rates and increased time spent in the community. Offenders who successfully completed day parole had lower rates of readmission, technical violations, recidivism and violent recidivism after full release. Offenders who did not successfully complete day parole were more than three times as likely to commit a new offense within two years of their release than offenders who completed day parole successfully. Similar results were obtained by Grant and Gillis (1997).

Based on available case documentation, it appears that day parole is being used to prepare offenders for full parole and statutory release as required by the CCRA. While the CCRA limited the scope of day parole by requiring it to be preparation for full parole and statutory release, it had always been used for this, so the impact of the CCRA was minimal in terms of how it is used. However, other research has shown a dramatic decline in day parole use since the CCRA (Grant , 1997). Other release programs, work release and personal development TAs have replaced some of the purposes day parole was formerly used for.

Overall, day parole is an effective program for assisting offenders in their reintegration into society. In part, this is due to the recommended activities (community programs/work) that the offenders participate in while on day parole. These activities in conjunction with community supervision facilitate re-adjustment to community life and subsequently successful reintegration into society.

Acknowledgments

Considerable time and effort from other people were necessary to produce this report. The day parole data base with which the day parole sample was drawn was created by R.L. Belcourt, Director, Research Information Centre. This data base was updated and cleaned by Bart Milson of Baylex Research. David Joubert coded the French cases and Laura Vandette assisted with the creation of tables, graphs and overall layout. All their efforts were necessary and greatly appreciated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

List of Figures

Chapter 1 : Introduction

There are three possible levels of supervision for offenders released from custody into the community. The least desirable of these is no supervision which occurs when the offender is released at the end of the sentence. This results in no support systems being available to assist the offender with change from prison to life in the community. The next level of supervision is either full parole or statutory release. This type of release provides the correctional system with the opportunity to more closely monitor the behavior of the offenders while at the same time providing services which meet their needs, and hopefully reduce the likelihood of a return to prison. The third level of supervision occurs with a release to a halfway house. This form of release provides for the greatest level of supervision and also provides a transition from the highly controlled prison environment to life in the community. In Canada, federal inmates released to a halfway house are generally released on day parole.

Offenders released to a halfway house on day parole can be divided into groups based on the level of risk they pose to the community. For low risk offenders, day parole provides an early release, prior to their full parole eligibility date or early in the parole eligibility period. Early release benefits the offender because less time is spent in the prison environment and also benefits the correctional system because there is lower cost associated with sentences served in a halfway house without an increase in risk to the community. Release on day parole is available six months before the parole eligibility date.

For higher risk offenders, release to a halfway house provides for a gradual release to the community with additional safeguards associated with the residential requirement. The halfway house provides structure and a somewhat controlled setting from which to look for work, participate in treatment and educational activities and search for accommodation which will be needed once full parole is granted, or the statutory release date is reached.

The National Parole Board is responsible for determining if offenders can be released safely on day parole. Institutional case management staff from the Correctional Service of Canada prepare the offender's documentation for the National Parole Board to review and provide recommendations, but the Parole Board makes the final decision on whether or not to release the offender.

A halfway house could be a Community Correctional Centre operated by the Correctional Service of Canada or a Community Residential Centre operated privately on a fee for service basis for the Correctional Service. Some offenders may continue to reside at a correctional institution, but are released daily for work or other activities. In exceptional cases, other residential locations may be used where no halfway house exists.

Day parole has been a release option for federally sentenced offenders in Canada since 1969. During the period from 1969 to 1992 the use of day parole increased as its definition and function was broadened. In particular, the introduction of automatic review for day parole during 1986 resulted in a steady increase in day parole use (Grant et al., 1996). However, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992) made a number of changes to day parole including a more precise definition of its purpose.

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) (1992) replaced the Penitentiary Act (1985) and the Parole Act (1985). It made a number of significant changes to the operation of Canadian prisons and the National Parole Board (NPB). Included in the Act were three major changes to day parole:

  1. The CCRA changed the purpose for which day parole could be used. While previous legislation had permitted a variety of purposes for day parole, including community work, the CCRA required that day parole be used to prepare offenders for full parole or statutory release.
  2. The CCRA changed the eligibility date for day parole from one-sixth of the sentence to six months prior to parole eligibility. Since parole eligibility is at one-third of the sentence, offenders with sentences longer than three years, are eligible for day parole at a later date now than before the CCRA.
  3. The CCRA discontinued the automatic review by the National Parole Board for day parole. Therefore, offenders must apply in writing to have a day parole hearing.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the effect of the changes made by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992) to day parole. In particular, the study focuses on the change identified in item (1) above, which required that day parole be used as a preparation for other forms of full release such as parole and statutory release. The study makes use of information collected from approximately 500 case files of offenders released on day parole, reports on the preparation of the offender for release and the outcome of the day parole.

The CCRA required a review five years after its implementation and this report is one of a number of studies prepared for the review. In terms of day parole, this study is one of a pair of studies evaluating the effects of the CCRA. The other study (Grant, 1998) provides information on the trends in day parole use and is an analysis of all day parole releases in the past five years including a follow-up of cases to the end of their sentence.

Previous Correctional Service of Canada Research

Two recent reports (Grant et al., 1996; Grant and Gillis, 1998) provide some background to the questions being studied in this report. These studies analyzed offenders released on day parole in 1990-91 from Correctional Service of Canada institutions and followed them until March 31, 1994 to determine factors associated with day parole release, the outcome of the day parole, and the outcome of the release period after the day parole.

Grant et al. (1996) reported that prior to the CCRA only 8% of offenders released on day parole were released earlier than six months before their parole eligibility date. This represents about 250 offenders who were released earlier than would be permitted under the CCRA. Risk analyses indicated that most of these offenders were low risk suggesting that concerns about releasing offenders too early in their sentence may have been unjustified. However, the study did suggest that some higher risk offenders were being released early and these could be eliminated by the use of risk and need assessments which identify cases that should not be released early.

Another important finding from these studies is that day parole outcome is associated with full release outcome. That is, offenders released on day parole, and who successfully complete their day parole, are more likely to have a positive outcome after their release on full parole or statutory release than offenders who did not complete day parole. An additional finding in Grant and Gillis (1998) is that offenders released after their parole eligibility date do not vary a great deal in terms of successful completion of their sentence. That is, those offenders released early, in preparation for full parole, are about as successful in their release as offenders released later, in preparation for statutory release.

Day Parole in Other Jurisdictions

Other jurisdictions operate day parole programs, however, the purpose behind the release varies. Many jurisdictions in the United States have programs similar to day parole which require offenders to reside at a halfway house. Historically, the halfway house movement in the U.S. expanded in the 1950s with the expansion of parole (Latessa & Allen, 1982). At that time, its primary function was to help offenders find jobs. In the early 70's, the function of the halfway house expanded to include education, work release, furloughs, after-care residential and support services, including specialized programs. Wilson (1985), describes the halfway house as a facility that provides specific and substantial support and assistance to the offender during the period of readjustment to the community. During residency at the halfway house, offenders are still serving their sentences and residing at the house serves as a test of their readiness for parole and release in the community (Latessa and Allen, 1972).

Offenders released to halfway houses in the United States have similar characteristics to Canadian offenders released on day parole. These offenders are less likely to be serving time for violent crimes, and very few are high risk (Latessa & Allen, 1982).

In terms of effectiveness of the halfway houses, Seiter et al. (1977) concluded that halfway house programs may reintegrate prisoners returning to the community more effectively than direct release to parole. In addition, based on a review of 14 studies, Latessa and Allen (1982) concluded that the halfway houses operated at a daily cost less than most institutions, but higher than parole and probation. Therefore for some offenders, release to a halfway house may be very cost effective by reducing the length of time in custody, while for the lowest risk offenders, use of a halfway house may actually cost more than full parole release.

Structure of the Report

The remainder of this report is organized into three sections. Chapter 2 provides a description of the methodology used to obtain the day parole sample and the file review. Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the components of the correctional planning process involved in preparing an offender for condition release. Chapter 4 provides a description of the activities the offenders were involved in during the day parole period and the factors associated with success or failure on day parole. Chapter 5 provides a description of a two year follow up. Chapter 6 discusses the results in relation to the day parole program.

Chapter 2: File Review Methodology

Although the Correctional Service of Canada maintains basic demographic and offense history information in electronic data bases, these do not provide sufficient information for a detailed review of an offender's progress in the institution nor do they allow for a detailed review of the correctional planning process in relation to conditional releases. Therefore, in order to understand how day parole is utilized in the correctional planning process, a review of the offender's institutional file is required. To prepare this information for analyses it must be reviewed and coded. Chapter 2 describes the method used to code the data as well as the method used to select the sample.

Sampling and Samples

As noted in the introduction, the purpose of the study was to investigate a number of factors associated with day parole following the introduction of the CCRA in 1992. While a random sample of cases released from November 1992 to April 1996 would have provided the best sample, the need for a reasonable follow-up period and the need to use the electronic version of paper files made such a sample impossible.

The Offender Management System (OMS), which provides electronic access to most offender documentation from anywhere in the country, was used to obtain the file information. Using OMS eliminated the need to travel across the country obtaining paper files and the disruption this causes for institutions where researchers must use active files. However, the use of OMS introduced some limitations in the sampling. OMS only became active in October 1993 and case information was only available electronically after that date. In addition, the three month period from October to December 1993 was expected to be less reliable as case management officers learned to use the new system.

Therefore, the period from January to June 1994 was selected for sampling to ensure that there was a minimum follow up period of two years for all cases.

There were approximately 1,500 offenders released on day parole during the period and from these 686 released offenders were randomly selected using the SAS random procedure (SAS, 1990).

Of the 686 offenders selected, 80% (546) had files in OMS that could be coded. The remaining 20% (140) were deemed non-codable for one of four reasons. Sixty nine percent of the cases had insufficient information in the offender's OMS file; 23% had multiple consecutive day paroles (3 or more), most of whom were serving a life sentence; 6% were released on non-ordinary day parole which does not require the offenders to reside at the designated facility seven days a week and two percent were deceased.

The minimum information required for inclusion in the sample was: at least one progress summary report before the day parole which contained information about (1) programs, (2) where the offender was to reside and (3) the activities that the offender was to pursue while on conditional release. Of the cases with insufficient information, most (69%) had no information in OMS prior to their release on day parole, 27% did not have one or more of the required pieces of information, and 4% did not appear to have been released on day parole.

Some of the missing information occurred because OMS was implemented in October 1993. Prior to this date all offender information was recorded in paper files. These documents were not transferred to OMS. In addition there was a phase-in period while case managers learned to use the new system.

Female offenders were excluded from the case file review, however data on female offenders granted day parole since the enactment of the CCRA are presented in a report by Grant (1998). There were two reasons for the exclusion of female offenders. First, our review of the OMS data indicated that there was little information for female offenders prior to 1995. Second, while it may have been possible to use paper files for female offenders, problems with this option existed because female offenders residing at the Prison for Women were being transferred to the new institutions throughout Canada at the time of the study.

National and Regional Samples

Two samples were created for the study. The first provides a balanced national sample and the second includes over-sampling of cases from the Atlantic region. The national sample includes 463 offenders released on day parole between January and June 1994. The regional distribution for the national sample is fairly representative of all the offenders released on day parole between January and June 1994, as shown in Table Chapter 2 -1 with Quebec slightly underrepresented in the national sample. However, this is due in part to the higher percentage of cases where the files could not be coded from the Quebec region. All of the other regions are within two percentage points of the population.

Table Chapter 2 -1. Regional distribution of all offenders released on day parole and the national sample
  All day parole releases between January and June 1994 National sample
Atlantic 15.9 17.9
Quebec 34.7 28.5
Ontario 19.6 21.0
Prairies 21.8 21.8
Pacific 11.8 10.8

The regional sample consists of 546 offenders. Over-sampling occurred in the Atlantic region, but for comparisons across regions, this does not affect the results.

In order to ensure the representativeness of the sample, current offenses of the national sample were compared to the non-coded sample as well as the institutional population for fiscal year 92-93 and these results are reported in Table Chapter 2 -2. Results show that the non-coded cases had a higher percentage of homicide offenders. The explanation for this is that most offenders serving life sentences were admitted prior to OMS and therefore there is little electronic documentation for these offenders. In addition, offenders serving life sentences are more likely to receive multiple day paroles, and these cases were excluded from the sample. Overall, the non-coded sample did not differ significantly, in terms of offense, from the coded cases.

Given that the national sample adequately represents the regions and given that the files which could not be coded did not differ from those in the sample on the basis of type of offense, it may be concluded that the sample is an accurate representation of all day parole cases.

Table Chapter 2 -2. Percentage of cases with each type of offense
Conviction Day parole sample 1 Non-coded Institutional population 2
Homicide 10.6 18.6 16.1
Attempted murder 4.5 4.3 1.8
Sexual offense 5.9 9.3 14.2
Robbery 37.2 35.7 23.9
Drug 21.3 24.3 8.9
Property 42.0 41.4 13.6
Other3 68.3 70.0 21.7
Violent (non-sexual) 40.0 42.0 N/A
Number of cases 460 140 14,500

1 Percentages exceed 100% because there are multiple offenses.

2 Numbers obtained from Basic Facts about Corrections in Canada: 1993 Edition.

3 These tend to be less serious offenses.

File Review

File reviews provide information about the institutional process used to prepare an offender for conditional release. The file review addressed three areas, institutional preparation, day parole planning and the day parole period.

Institutional preparation involved examining facets of the correctional planning process used in preparing offenders for day parole. These include the use of :

  • Correctional plans (presence or absence, number of correctional plans)
  • Progress summary reports
  • Programs (referrals, completed programs)
  • Temporary Absences (escorted temporary absences, unescorted temporary absences ; purpose of the temporary absences)
  • General Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR)
  • Correctional goals

The review of day parole planning involved examining the components of the correctional planning process that were directly related to day parole. These components include:

  • goals to achieve on day parole (e.g., attend community programs, finding a job
  • direction to achieve those goals
  • the relationship of day parole to other conditional releases

Finally, the review of the day parole period involved examining what was occurring during the day parole period. The components examined include:

  • Time of release within the sentence
  • Type of day parole facility (CCC/CRC/ institution)
  • Purpose of day parole
  • Accomplishment of goals on day parole
  • Day parole outcome (successful completion of day parole/return to custody)

Coding

A coding manual was developed to ensure consistency in extracting the information from the files and is presented in Appendix A. The coding manual was designed to obtain forced choice responses and reduce subjectivity in coding.

The coding manual was finalized after extensive testing. A two day training session was developed for the coders. During the training session, coders were shown how to access file information from OMS, where to locate the specific information to complete the coding manual, and they also practiced accessing information from OMS and coding. Two graduate students coded the files. A francophone coded the files written in French.

Follow up Period

Offenders were followed for approximately two years after their index day parole release. The average follow up period was 21 months and the range of the follow up was from 1 month to 34 months. Most cases (86%) had follow periods greater than twelve months.

Processing of Data.

Data from the coding manuals were entered into the computer using the FSEDIT procedure from Statistical Analyses System (SAS, 1990). Some error checking was done automatically during the data entry and data cleaning was also performed using frequency and crosstabulation tables. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS Version 6.11 (SAS,1996).

Chapter 3: Preparation for Conditional Release

Introduction

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) requires that day parole be used as preparation for full parole (FP) or statutory release (SR). In order for day parole to be preparatory for subsequent conditional releases, an effective correctional planning process should be initiated in the institution.

Preparing an offender for conditional release is one domain in which case management may have the greatest opportunity to influence the offender's risk to reoffend via effective correctional planning. The purpose of this chapter is to examine elements of the correctional planning process used in the preparation of offenders prior to their release on day parole. The components examined were the use of correctional plans, the setting of correctional goals for offenders to achieve while incarcerated, programs, temporary absences, and General Statistical Index of Recidivism Scores(SIR)(Nuffield, 1982).

In addition, components of the release plan were examined. The release plan compliments the programming, work and other activities which the offender was involved in while incarcerated. The release plan should include destination and accommodation plans, educational and employment plans and other requirements, such as programs to be completed in the community. This section examines the elements of the release plan as well as the follow up of the release plan.

The relationship between day parole, full parole and statutory release, are examined to determine if day parole is used as preparation for conditional releases as required by the CCRA.

Do offenders have a correctional plans?

The correctional plan is a tool that provides a framework for both the case manager and the offender about what is required during the period of incarceration to prepare the offender for release. When used, "the correctional plan allows the case manager to identify the best approach for managing the offender throughout the entire sentence so that intervention can be logical, sequenced and most effective" (Case Management Manual, 1996).

Since the CCRA requires day parole to be preparation for full release, there should be evidence of day parole in the correctional plan. The correctional plan, which is produced shortly after admission to prison, identifies the needs of the offenders, how the needs can be addressed through programs and what is required of the offender prior to conditional release. This section examines the percentage of offenders who had correctional plans and if the correctional plan mentioned day parole.

Overall, it was found that 31% (144) of offenders released on day parole between January and June 1994 had a correctional plan in OMS. There were considerable regional differences in the proportion of offenders who had a correctional plan in OMS. As shown in Figure Chapter 3 -1, the Pacific region had the lowest percentage of offenders with correctional plans in OMS while Ontario and Atlantic had the highest proportion, at about 40% of cases. These differences may reflect OMS usage rather than correctional plan usage and should be interpreted cautiously.

Figure Chapter 3 -1. Percentage of offenders with a correctional plan in OMS prior to release on day parole by region.

Do correctional plans mention day parole. Examination of all available correctional plans revealed that 47% (68/144) of the correctional plans mentioned day parole. Generally, when day parole was in the correctional plans it was mentioned in the context of what the offender was required to do in order to receive support for their day parole application. In 87% (59) of the cases where day parole was mentioned, support for day parole was contingent upon completion of programs and/or compliance with conditions (e.g., remain incident free). In approximately 12% (8) of the cases, day parole was recommended for the offender without any conditions.

Do progress summary reports mention day parole? As a result of the small number of offenders who had correctional plans in OMS (31%), progress summary reports were also examined to determine if day parole was mentioned as part of the ongoing correctional planning process. Review of the progress summary reports revealed that day parole was mentioned in at least one progress summary report before day parole.

Correctional Goals to be Achieved in Order to Get Day Parole

In both correctional plans and progress summary reports, most case managers suggested goals that offenders should achieve in order to receive support for day parole. These goals ranged from participation in programs to meeting with the case manager on a regular basis and a summary is presented in Table Chapter 3 -1. Approximately 92% of the offenders had at least one goal to achieve. The most common of these goals was to complete programs.

Table Chapter 3 -1. Recommended goals to achieve in the institution
Goal Percentage1 (n)
Complete programs 90.3 (418)
Remain alcohol and drug free 25.5 (118)
Remain incident free 9.1 (42)
Meet with case manager regularly 9.3 (43)
Work to best of ability 8.6 (40)
Move to lower security institution 1.7 (8)

1Percentage total is greater then 100 because most offenders had more than one goal.

Although most offenders (92%) had at least one goal to achieve while incarcerated, the percentage of offenders required to achieve the specific types of goals varied from region to region. Prairies region had the highest percentage (93%) of offenders who had completing programs as a goal, while Atlantic had a lower rate of 86%. Quebec had the highest percentage of offenders (53%) who had the goal to remain alcohol and drug free, while Ontario had the lowest percentage at 7%. Atlantic, Quebec and Ontario region had less than 15% of their offenders with the goal to work to the best of their ability and to remain incident free. Atlantic region had the highest percentage of offenders (24%) who had the goal to meet with their case manager regularly, followed by Ontario region at 11% and Quebec at 5%.

Table Chapter 3 -2. Recommended goals by region
  Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairies Pacific
  % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Complete programs 85.5 (142) 91.7 (121) 87.6 (85) 93.1 (94) 92.0 (46)
Refrain from drugs & alcohol 21.1 (35) 53.0 (70) 7.2 (7) 11.9 (12) 14.0 (7)
Work to best of ability 10.2 (17) 11.4 (15) 12.4 (12)        
Remain incident free 9.0 (15) 12.9 (17) 14.4 (14)        
Meet with CMO regularly 23.5 (39) 4.6 (6) 11.3 (11)        
Total 254 229 129 106 53

Note: Blank cells have insufficient information

1 The goal `move to a lower security institution' was not included in this table because there was insufficient regional information

Programs

Programs should address the needs of the offenders and thereby reduce the overall risk to reoffend. Ninety eight percent of offenders released on day parole were recommended to take at least one program. In this section, the number of programs offenders were referred to, the number of programs completed and the types of programs taken are examined. Table Chapter 3 -3 displays the national results for program referrals and the outcome of those referrals.

Most offenders (98%) were referred for at least one program. On average, offenders were referred to four programs with a range from zero to nine. Programs for substance abuse (66%) and cognitive skills (53%) were most commonly recommended. Case management officers and program facilitators agreed to offenders' program participation in 98% of the cases.

Although referred for an average of four programs, most offenders only completed about three programs. Overall, only 65% of the programs referred to were completed. Approximately 6% of those referred for programs did not complete any programs prior to being released on day parole. There are two reasons for not starting programs. First, the offenders may be on a waiting list, that is, the offender has been interviewed by the program facilitator and accepted (deemed suitable), however, there is no space in the program. Second, the referral is in progress, but the offenders has not been interviewed by the facilitator for the program when the release occurs.

Completion rates for programs ranged from less than 65% (cognitive skills) to over 95% (religious programs). Programs were grouped into six categories as shown in Table Chapter 3 -3. Program types also varied in their completion rates. On average, psychological treatment had an 86% completion rate as did personal development programs.

Substance abuse programs had the second lowest completion rate, which is a serious problem considering that over 70% of the offender population has a serious enough substance abuse problem to merit treatment (Millson, Weekes & Lightfoot, 1995) and given that substance abuse violations were the most common cause for being returned to custody during day parole (see Chapter 4 for outcome on day parole) .

Table Chapter 3 -3. Percentage of offenders referred to programs and outcome of referral process
  Referral Outcome of referral in percentage
Program/ treatment Percentage Number Completed Referral in progress Waiting list Incomplete
Substance abuse  
Alcohol 66.3 307 78.9 7.8 9.4 2.9
Drugs 66.1 306 77.4 8.8 9.8 2.9
Psychological  
Sex offender treatment 5.0 23 86.9 4.4 4.3 4.3
Psychologist/ psychiatrist 29.6 137 82.5 5.8 9.4 6.6
Mental health 7.3 34 88.2 0 2,9 8,8
Cognitive/behavioral  
Cognitive skills 53.3 247 64.7 11.1 22.7 1.2
Anger & emotions management 20.1 93 79.5 8.6 11.8 0
Educational and vocational  
Adult basic education 9.5 44 84.1 13.6 2.3 0
GED 27.9 129 72.9 16.8 <1 7.0
Vocational training 11.0 51 80.4 9.8 7.8 2.0
Employment Skills training 12.1 56 83.9 10.7 5.4 0
Personal development  
Self help2 48.8 226 91.1 4.9 2.2 <1
Religious programs 10.2 47 95.7 2.1 2.1 0
Healthy relationships 3.9 34 66.7 33.3 0 0
Breaking barriers 15.3 71 90.1 2.8 7.0 0
Violence  
Living without violence 9.5 44 81.8 11.4 4.5 2.3
Family violence 3.7 17 82.3 11.8 5.9 0

Note: 1N=463

2 Self help refers to programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.

The percentage of offenders whose referral was in progress at the time of release ranged from 2% to 33%. Referrals in progress were most likely for educational programs, including Adult Basic Education, GED, vocational training and employment skills training. Approximately 9% of offenders were still being considered for substance abuse programs when they were released.

The percentage of offenders on waiting lists to enter into a program ranged from zero (Healthy relationships) to 23% (Cognitive Skills). Approximately 10% of offenders referred to substance abuse programs were on a waiting list. Personal development programs and violence programs had a small percentage (approximately 5%) of offenders on waiting lists.

Most offenders completed a program once they began one. The percentage of offenders who did not complete a program ranged from none (Personal Development programs and Anger Management) to about 9% (Mental Health programs). Offenders were most likely to have not completed GED (upgrade to graduate 12) and psychological treatment programs.

Figure Chapter 3 -2 presents the number of programs referred and number of programs completed per region. Overall, Prairie region refers offenders for the largest number of programs (4.6) while Ontario refers offenders for the fewest programs (3.3). Differences in the number of programs referred by region were statistically reliable (F (5,541)=24.92, p< .001)

Figure Chapter 3 -3 presents the percentage of programs completed by offenders for each region. Offenders in the Pacific region completed the most programs at 79% of the programs that they were referred to while Quebec had the lowest percentage of completed programs (60%).

Figure Chapter 3 -2. Number of program referrals and completions by region

Figure Chapter 3 -3. Percentage of referred programs completed by region

SIR Scale Scores

The Statistical Index on Recidivism (SIR) (Nuffield, 1982) is used to predict recidivism to the end of the sentence. The SIR scale combines measures of demographic characteristics and criminal history in a scoring system that produces estimates of the chances of recidivism for different groups of offenders. In 1988, the NPB endorsed the SIR as a component of the Pre-Release Decision Policies and the SIR became part of the normal case management documentation prepared for individuals being considered for release (Research and Statistics Branch, 1989). To date, the SIR has not been validated for Aboriginal offenders and therefore the following results apply to non-Aboriginal offenders only.

Approximately 75% of offenders for which the SIR was applicable had a SIR scale score in either their correctional plan or their progress summary reports. SIR scores can range from -27 to +30 , with lower scores associated with higher risks of recidivism. The SIR scores for the day parole sample ranged from -20 to +22. As illustrated in Table Chapter 3 -4, approximately one third of the offenders released on day parole were at a low risk to reoffend, while a quarter of the offenders released on day parole were at a high risk to reoffend according to the SIR. The remaining 45% were in the moderate risk range. One might expect that most offenders released on day parole would be classified in the low risk categories, however, the results suggest that there was approximately an equal number of offenders in the high risk range (high risk and moderate high risk)(39%) as there were in the low risk range (low risk and moderate low) (45%).

Regional differences were noted in the availability of SIR scale information. Both Prairies and Pacific regions reported SIR scores for only 50% of their non-Aboriginal offenders. Atlantic region only reported SIR scores for only 62% of their non-Aboriginal offenders while Quebec had SIR scores for 93% of their Non-aboriginal offenders and Ontario had SIR scores for 86% of their non-Aboriginal offenders.

Table Chapter 3 -4 presents the regional differences in the risk level of offenders being released on day parole. The Ontario region appears to have released the highest percentage of high risk offenders (42%); while Prairies region released the highest percentage of low risk offenders (44%). The Quebec region released the highest percentage of combined low risk (low risk & moderate low risk combined) offenders (55%). Atlantic region released an almost equal distribution of offenders at each risk level, except for the moderate high group.

Table Chapter 3 -4. Percentage of offenders at each risk level (SIR scale) by region
  Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairies Pacific National
SIR risk level % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Low 20.3 (21) 29.8 (36) 22.2 (18) 43.8 (14) 37.5 (9) 28.8 (90)
Moderate-low 25.2 (26) 25.6 (31) 7.4 (6) 3.1 (1) 8.3 (2) 16.3 (51)
Moderate 21.4 (22) 15.7 (19) 12.3 (10) 15.6 (5) 25.0 (6) 16.3 (51)
Moderate-high 7.8 (8) 21.4 (15) 16.0 (13) 15.6 (5) 16.7 (4) 13.1 (41)
High 25.2 (26) 16.5 (20) 42.0 (34) 21.9 (7) 12.5 (3) 25.6 (80)
% of cases 62.4 (103) 93.1 (121) 86.,2 (81) 50.1 (32) 50.0 (24) 75.2 (313)
Number of cases1 165 130 94 63 48 416

1 Does not include Aboriginal offenders

Recommendations and Conditions for Receiving Day Parole

Case managers prepare a progress summary report for the National Parole Board with a recommendation for day parole. Based on the last progress summary report or correctional plan, day parole was recommended in 17% of the cases, recommended with programs completed1 for 79% of cases and not recommended for 4% of the cases. Table Chapter 3 -5 presents the regional distribution of recommendations and conditions for receiving day parole. Atlantic region had the highest percentage of cases (26%) in which day parole was recommended unconditionally, while for the other regions about 15% of the recommendation were unconditional.

Table Chapter 3 -5. Type of support for day parole in last progress summary report or/ correctional plan by region
Region Recommended Recommend if programs completed Not recommended
Atlantic 25.9 72.9 1.2
Quebec 14.4 76.5 9.1
Ontario 16.5 82.5 1.0
Prairies 13.9 85.2 1.0
Pacific 18.0 78.0 4.0

Most positive recommendations required that programs be completed before the day parole release. Completion of programs is frequently a requirement because the day parole hearing may be held while the offender is participating in a program. While in three regions, only 1% of cases did not carry a recommendation for day parole supported by case management, 9% of cases in Quebec and 4% in Pacific were not recommended. Only a small number of offenders granted day parole had a negative recommendation from their case managers.

Goals to Achieve on Day Parole and Direction to Achieve Those Goals

Correctional planning involves setting of goals for offenders to achieve while on conditional release. Most offenders (98%) had a set of goals to achieve during the day parole period. Goals were frequently treatment oriented, such as attending programs and abstaining from alcohol. Other goals were related to education, work and associates. More detailed information is presented in Table Chapter 3 -6.

In addition to setting goals, it is useful to provide concrete directions on how to achieve the goal(s). To quantify the quality of the directions for achieving goals, the goals were rated as good, some and none. For example, the direction for "find a job" was ranked as `good' if the offender had job interviews and job club participation were pre-arranged while the offender was in the institution or a job was already in place. Directions for "find a job" was ranked as `some' if the report mentioned going to unemployment offices to find employment. The direction for find a job was ranked as `none' if all the report stated was that "while on day parole the offender should find a job".

Table Chapter 3 -6 presents the level of direction given for each type of goal outlined and indicates there is considerable variability in the level of direction given. The goals for which the best direction was provided were, meeting with the parole officer, maintaining sobriety and attending community programs. Unfortunately, other goals such as refraining from associating with known criminals and finding a job did not appear to get the same type of attention.

Table Chapter 3 -6. Goals to be achieved on day parole and quality of direction to achieve the goals
    Quality of direction (%)
Goals to achieve on day parole Percentage who had the goal listed Good Some None
Complete programs 84.9 94.9 5.1 0.0
Maintain sobriety 68.5 84.3 14.2 1.6
Find a job 35.6 53.7 36.0 10.4
Refrain from associating with other criminals 23,5 24.0 73.2 2.7
Complete education or vocational training 15.1 77.1 21.4 1.4
Attain a positive community network 3.5 64.7 34.3 0.0
Meet with parole officer on a regular basis 3.5 100.0 0.0 0.0

Note: N=463.

Reference to Full Parole or Statutory Release

Given that the CCRA requires that day parole be used to prepare the offender for full parole (FP) or statutory release (SR), it would be expected that case management documentation would mention this. This section examines whether case management made reference to either full parole or statutory release. Reference to other releases was rated as present if information about full parole or statutory release (e.g., what the offender would have to do during the day parole period to get FP; what the offender would do on subsequent release; where the offender would reside;) was made in a progress summary report or correctional plan. The results are presented in Table Chapter 3 -7.

On the national level, 77% of cases made reference to either full parole or statutory release, with 62% referring to full parole and 15% referring to statutory release. Regional differences in the percentage of cases with reference to full parole or statutory release are also presented in Table Chapter 3 -7. There were regional differences in the proportion of offenders who had reference to other conditional releases. About three-quarters of progress summary reports mentioned either full parole or statutory release in the Quebec, Ontario and Prairies regions, while 85% mentioned full parole or statutory release in the Atlantic and Pacific regions. In most cases the day parole was described as being in preparation for full parole.

Table Chapter 3 -7. Percentage of cases with reference to other conditional releases by region
  Reference to full parole (n) Reference to statutory release (n) No reference to subsequent conditional releases (n)
Region % (n) % (n) % (n)
Atlantic 70.5 (117) 12.7 (21) 16.8 (28)
Quebec 53.8 (71) 18.9 (25) 27.2 (36)
Ontario 56.7 (55) 15.5 (15) 27.8 (27)
Prairies 67.3 (68) 7.9 (8) 24.8 (25)
Pacific 66.0 (33) 20.0 (10) 14.0 (7)
National 62.2 (288) 14.5 (67) 23.3 (108)

Day Parole as a Trial for Other Conditional Releases

In some cases, day parole is mentioned as a trial for either full parole or statutory release which may reflect some degree of reluctance on behalf of the case manager to release the offender on a less structured release, such as full parole or statutory release. Day parole provides an opportunity to closely monitor the progress of the offender and to determine suitability for a less structured release.

Specific reference to day parole being used as a trial period for subsequent releases did not occur frequently. On the national level, reference to day parole being used as a trial for full parole occurred less than 15% of the time and only 4% of the time for statutory release. Case management officers' in the Quebec region were most likely to suggest that day parole be used as a trial for other forms of release.

Summary

Only a small number of offenders (31%) had correctional plans in OMS. Of these, approximately half mentioned day parole. When day parole was mentioned in the correctional plans, it generally specified what the offender was required to accomplish while incarcerated in order to receive positive support for their day parole application.

Most offenders (92%) had at least one correctional goal specified in their case management documentation. Practically all offenders (98%) were referred for at least one program, with an average of four program referrals. However, on average, offenders only completed 65% of the programs that they were referred to. The most common reason for not completing a program was that the offender was on a waiting list to get into the program.

For the most part, support for day parole was contingent upon the successful completion of a program(s). However, some case managers provided support for the day parole application without programs. A small number of offenders (4%) did not have support from their case managers for their day parole application.

It was expected that most offenders released on day parole would be classified in the low risk categories on the SIR. However, there was almost an equal distribution of offenders in the high (high and moderate high risk) and low risk (low and moderate low risk) classifications of the SIR. Ontario region released the highest percentage of high risk offenders, while Quebec region released the highest percentage of low risk offenders.

Most offenders (98%) had specific goals to achieve while on day parole and in most cases these were treatment oriented. Examination of the quality of the direction of the goals to be achieved revealed that the best directed goals were those that were treatment oriented (e.g., attending programs).

The files for most offenders (77%) in the sample included reference to either full parole or statutory release, with 62% referring to full parole while the remaining 15% made reference to statutory release.

Chapter 4: The Day Parole Period and Factors Related to Outcome

The previous chapter examined aspects of the correctional planning process that were developed to prepare the offender for conditional release. This chapter is divided into two parts. The first part examines the day parole period from when offenders are released on day parole, where offenders reside while on day parole and the activities offenders engaged in during the day parole period. The second part identifies those variables that are the best predictors of outcome on day parole and sentence completion and is divided into two sub-sections. The first discusses the overall outcome of the day parole, and the second discusses the individual components of the correctional planning process and their relationship to outcome on day parole.

Although outcome on day parole is frequently measured as a dichotomy of success or return to custody, this study collected more detailed information on the reasons for technical violations. Four reasons for return to custody were defined: substance abuse violation, unlawfully at large (UAL), other technical violations and new offenses.

The Day Parole Period

When Do Offenders Get Released on Day Parole?

The introduction of the CCRA in 1992 brought about changes in the eligibility date for offenders to receive day parole from one sixth of their sentence to six months before their full parole eligibility date. The current study examined the time of release for a sample of offenders released on day parole between January and June 1994, the findings are presented in Table Chapter 4 -1.

Approximately, 30% of offenders released on day parole were released before their full parole eligibility date. This is about 35% fewer offenders being released on day parole before their full parole eligibility date compared to the 1991 sample obtained by Grant et al. (1996) in which 46% of day parole offenders were released before their full parole eligibility date.

Table Chapter 4 -1 displays the regional differences in the time of release. The regions that released the highest percentage of offenders before their full parole eligibility date were Ontario (46%) and Atlantic (45% ). The Prairies region released 32% of their day parole cases before the parole eligibility date. The Quebec (13%) and Pacific (6%) regions released the fewest offenders before their parole eligibility date.

The regional distribution is somewhat different for the percentage of offenders released before serving 50% of their sentence. Atlantic region was the highest at 81 %, followed by Prairies (73%) and Ontario region (67%). In the Pacific region, only 24% of the day parole releases occurred before offenders served 50% of their sentence. In terms of offenders released after serving 50% of their sentence, Pacific region was highest at 76%, followed by Quebec region (55%). These results suggest that Pacific and Quebec region are more likely to use day parole as preparation for statutory release than the other regions.

Overall, the change to the eligibility date for day parole appears to have resulted in a larger number of offenders being released later into their sentence (e.g. after their parole eligibility date) than pre-CCRA. Similar findings regarding when offenders are being released on day parole were obtained by Grant (1998).

Table Chapter 4 -1. Time of release by region
Region Pre-parole eligibility Before 50% of sentence served After 50% of sentence served
  % (n) % (n) % (n
Atlantic 44.5 (73) 36.5 (60) 18.9 (31)
Quebec 13.6 (18) 31.1 (41) 55.0 (73)
Ontario 46.3 (44) 21.0 (20) 32.6 (31)
Prairies 31.7 (32) 41.6 (42) 26.8 (27)
Pacific 6.0 (3) 18.0 (9) 76.0 (38)
National 29.4 (135) 29.9 (137) 40.7 (187)

Residency

The case manager must determine the suitability of an offender for the halfway house in which the offender is to reside. An offender can reside at either a Community Correctional Center (CCC), or Community Residential Centers (CRC). Alternatively, an offender may reside in a institution for the day parole period.

Table Chapter 4 -2 presents the number of facilities contacted by case mangers prior to the offender being released on day parole. Most case managers (84%) only needed to contact one facility to obtain residential accommodations for the offender. The remaining cases required two or more contacts with residential centres.

Table Chapter 4 -2. Number of halfway houses contacted by case managers
Number of facilities contacted Percentage (n)
One 84.4 (313)
Two 10.5 (39)
Three or more 5.1 (19)
Total1   371

1 For 92 of the cases, the progress summary reports did not indicate the number of facilities contacted by the case manager.

Table Chapter 4 -3 presents the national and regional percentages of offender's residence type during the day parole period. Most (74%) offenders resided at CRCs. Approximately one quarter (23%) of offenders stayed at CCCs while 4% resided in an institution. None of the offenders in Atlantic or Ontario regions resided at an institution during the day parole period. Although Quebec had the highest proportion of offenders residing at an institution, the number is reflective of the fact that one of Quebec region's prisons had a special facility for day parole releases. Ontario had the highest percentage of day parole offenders residing at CRCs, while both Atlantic and Quebec regions had the lowest percentage of day parole offenders residing at CRCs.

Table Chapter 4 -3. Percentage of offenders by type of halfway house and region
  Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairies Pacific National
  % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
CCC 30.7 (51) 21.2 (28) 16.5 (16) 23.8 (24) 24.0 (12) 22.7 (105)
CRC 69.3 (115) 69.7 (92) 83.5 (81) 73.3 (74) 74.0 (37) 73.9 (342)
Institution     9.1 (12)             3.5 (16)

Note: Blank cells have insufficient information.

Activities to Pursue on Day Parole

Activities to be pursued by offenders while on day parole are specifically outlined by case management in the last progress summary report submitted to the National Parole Board as part of the release plan. The activities are divided into three broad categories: work, rehabilitation and education/vocational training. Rehabilitation refers to specific treatment programs that are to be taken in the community (e.g., cognitive skills; seeing a psychologist, etc.). The three broad categories were then divided into 7 combinations and the results are presented in Table Chapter 4 -4.

Table Chapter 4 -4. Activities to be pursued on day parole
Activity(ies) Percentage (n)
Rehabilitation 51.0 (236)
Work and rehabilitation 29.4 (136)
Education and rehabilitation 7.1 (33)
Work, rehabilitation and education/vocational training 6.7 (31)
Work 3.2 (15)
Work and education/vocational training 1.9 (9)
Education/ vocational training 1.0 (3)

The results indicated that the most common activity to pursue while on day parole was rehabilitation (90%), followed by work (40%) and educational pursuits (17%). These results suggest that there was an effort to continue the rehabilitative process from the institution to the day parole period in the community. The results also suggest that educational pursuits are not perceived to be as important as finding a job or continued rehabilitation.

Table Chapter 4 -5 presents the number of offenders who were to pursue specific activities while on day parole and the actual number and percentage who did. Most offenders required to participate in community programs did attend programs (87%). Work related activities (e.g., looking for a job or actual work) also had a high compliance rate with 87% of offenders required to engage in work related activities actually participating. Only half (55%) of offenders who were supposed to engage in educational and vocational training actually did. Unfortunately, as mentioned in chapter 2, approximately 20% of parole offices did not use OMS, and therefore for approximately 20% of offenders, information regarding their activities on day parole was unavailable.

Table Chapter 4 -5. Percentage of offenders pursuing recommended activities on day parole
Activity Number supposed to engage in activity1 Information available on Engaged in activity Did not engage in activity
  % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Work 47.7 (221) 81.2 (181) 87.3 (158) 12.7 (23)
Rehabilitation 94.4 (437) 82.4 (360) 86.7 (312) 13.3 (48)
Educational/ vocational 18.1 (84) 69.1 (58) 55.2 (32) 44.8 (26)

1 An offender required to participate in more than one activity would be counted more than once.

Summary

The preceding section examined when offenders were released on day parole and what activities they participated in during the day parole period. Most offenders (70%) were released after their full parole eligibility date and resided at a CRC (74%) during the day parole period. The most common activities offenders participated in were rehabilitation programs in the community and work. Of those referred for rehabilitation and work, most offenders (87%) participated in these activities. Only a small number of offenders were referred for education/vocational training (18%), and of those referred, only 55% participated in education pursuits.

Factors Associated with Day Parole Outcome

Approximately two thirds of the sample successfully completed their day parole. Offenders were returned to custody mostly for violation of conditions (25%) and new offenses (7%). Violations of conditions included: substance abuse violations (44%), being unlawfully at large (UAL) (44%) from the day parole facility, and other technical violations (12%).

There was considerable variability in the percentages of offenders who successfully completed day parole across the regions as illustrated in Table 4-10. Ontario had the highest rate of successful completions at 84%, while Quebec had the lowest rate of successful completions at only 55%. However, most of the returns to custody in Quebec were the result of technical violations. Offenders from the Pacific region had the highest rate of reoffending at 12%, while Atlantic and Ontario region had the lowest rate of reoffending at less than 4%. With regard to type of technical violation, Quebec region had the highest rate of substance abuse violations at 18% and Ontario region had the lowest at just under 4%. Prairies region had the highest percentage of offenders who went UAL during the day parole period (15%), while Ontario region was the lowest at 7%. Quebec region had the highest percentage of offenders with other technical violations (9%) (e.g., not participating in programs, etc.) while the remaining regions were all under 5%.

Table Chapter 4 -6. National and regional day parole outcomes
  Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairies Pacific National
Outcome % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Completed day parole 69.4 (86) 55.0 (72) 83.7 (72) 67.5 (56) 68.3 (28) 67.0 (267)
Committed a new offense 3.2 (4) 8.4 (11) 3.5 (3) 7.2 (6) 12.2 (5) 7.0 (28)
All technical violations 27.4 (34) 36.6 (48) 12.8 (11) 25.3 (21) 19.5 (8) 26.3 (105)
Types of technical violations  
Substance abuse 15.3 (19) 17.6 (23) 3.5 (3) 7.2 (6) 7.3 (3) 10.8 (43)
Unlawfully at large 8.1 (10) 9.9 (13) 7.0 (6) 14.5 (12) 12.2 (5) 10.5 (42)
Other 4.0 (5) 9.2 (12) 2.3 (2) 3.6 (3) 0 (0) 5.0 (20)

Aspects of the Correctional Planning Process Related to Day Parole

The CCRA specifies that day parole be used to prepare offenders for full parole or the statutory release. This section specifically examines the individual components identified earlier (e.g., correctional plans, TAs, programs etc.) that are part of the structured correctional planning process and their relationship to outcome on day parole.

Correctional Plans. Correctional plans provide the framework for the rehabilitative process and in theory, if properly structured, should be related to outcome. Table Chapter 4 -7 indicates that having a correctional plan in OMS was not directly related to day parole outcome. However, as noted in chapter 3, only 31% of the offenders in the sample released on day parole had a correctional plan in OMS and therefore the results may not accurately reflect the relationship.

Additional analyses were conducted to examine the reasons for return to custody, and revealed that offenders who did not have a correctional plan were almost 2.5 times more likely to commit a new offense (26%) as those offenders who had a correctional plan (10%). In addition, of those who had a correctional plan 90% were returned to custody for technical reasons, while only 73% of those who did not have a correctional plan were returned for technical reasons. (χ2=4.91, p<.03).

Table Chapter 4 -7. Presence of correctional plans and day parole outcome
  Completed day parole Technical violations1 New offense Number of cases
Had a correctional plan 64.4 32.2 3.4 118
Did not have a correctional plan 67.4 24.0 8.6 279

1Technical violations include substance abuse violations, other technical violations and UAL from the day parole facility.

Recommendations for Day Parole. Case management officers have more opportunity to observe offenders than does the National Parole Board. Therefore, their day parole recommendations are important in the release decision. Table Chapter 4 -8 reveals that 68% of offenders recommended for day parole by case management staff successfully completed their day parole while those offenders who were not recommended had a lower completion rate at 56%. The completion rate for offenders who were recommended for day parole without programs (61%) was also lower than for those who were recommended for release with programs, however, these differences are not statistically reliable (χ2=5.35, p<.ns).

However, follow up analyses comparing new offense rates to completion rates across levels of recommendation reveal that, offenders who were recommended for day parole with programs were less likely to commit a new offense (7.6%) than offenders released without programs (17.4%) and offenders who were not supported for day parole (18.2%), however this result should be interpreted cautiously as the chi-square only approached significance (χ2=5.18, p<.07).

Table Chapter 4 -8. Level of support for day parole and day parole outcome
  Completed day parole Technical violation1 New offenses Number of Cases
Recommended 61.3 25.8 12.9 62
Recommended with programs 68.0 26.3 5.6 319
Not supported 56.3 31.3 12.5 16

1 Technical violations include substance abuse violations, other technical violations and UAL from the day parole facility.

Number of Previous Federal Offenses

The number of previous offenses shows a negative relationship with day parole outcome. As shown in Table Chapter 4 -9, offenders who had no previous offenses had a completion rate of 73% while offenders who had 11 or more previous offenses had a completion rate of only 54%. There was no difference in the overall completion rate for offenders who had one to three previous offenses (57%) and four to ten previous offenses (58%).

Some interesting differences emerge with the number of previous offenses and reason for being returned to custody during the day parole period. Results in Table Chapter 4 -9 show that offenders with no previous offenses and one to three previous offenses had a similar rate of substance abuse violations at under 8%-9% but this percentage more than doubles to 16% when the number of previous offenses is above three and reaches 22% when the number of offenses is greater than 10. The rate of being unlawfully at large increased from 9% for offenders with no previous convictions to 15% or more for offenders with one or more previous convictions. There was no clear pattern of variation for the other technical violations which accounted for about 5% of all offenders being returned to custody.

The recidivism rate during the day parole period increased with the number of previous offenses an offender had. The rate increased from a low of 5% for offenders with no previous offenses to a high of 17% for offenders with 11 or more offenses.

Table Chapter 4 -9. Number of previous offenses and outcome on day parole
Number of previous offenses Completion of day parole Reason for return to custody Number of cases
Substance abuse Other technical Unlawfully at large New offense
None 72.7 8.2 5.3 9.0 4.9 245
1-3 57.1 8.9 7.1 19.6 7.1 56
4-10 58.1 16.4   14.6 9.1 55
11 or more 53.7 22.0     17.1 41

Chi square 29.51**

* p< .01

1 A correlation was conducted between the number of previous offenses and outcome on day parole. The results indicated there was a negative relationship (r =-.15, p < .01) suggesting that the more previous offenses an offender had the more likely they were to be returned to custody during day parole.

The SIR Score

As discussed earlier, the SIR scores provides a measure of risk to reoffened and therefore should be a good predictor of outcome on day parole. Table Chapter 4 -10 and figure 4-1 demonstrates that the SIR is an excellent indicator of outcome on day parole.

Table Chapter 4 -10. Risk level (SIR) by outcome on day parole
SIR risk level Completion of day parole
%		 Substance abuse
%		 UAL
%		 Other technical violations
%		 New offense
%		 N
Low 87.3 7.0 2.8 1.4 1.4 70
Low moderate 86.1 2.8 5.6 5.6 0 36
Moderate 62.5 16.7 14.6 4.2 2.1 48
Moderate high 56.5 8.7 15.2 13.0 6.5 46
High 41.6 19.5 14.3 7.8 16.9 77
Missing1 70.4 7.4 9.9 2.5 9.9 81
Overall 66.3 10.9 10.3 5.3 7.2 359

1 Missing refers to those cases who should have had a SIR score but didn't have one in their case documentation

Table Chapter 4 -10 displays outcome on day parole by risk level of the offender. Low risk offenders had the highest completion rate of 87% while high risk offenders had the lowest completion rate at 42% suggesting a strong linear relationship between risk level and completion of day parole. Offenders classified as high risk had the highest rate of substance abuse violations at 20%, while offenders classified as low-moderate risk had a rate of less than 3%. In terms of other violations, the SIR showed a moderate linear trend, with the lower risk offenders having a smaller percentage of other violations than the higher risk offenders. The SIR was a good predictor of UAL violations, with the high risk offenders going UAL at a rate of 14% and the low risk offenders going UAL at a rate of 3%. The SIR was also a good predictor for offenders who committed new offenses. Of offenders classified as low risk only 1% committed a new offense on day parole while among offenders classified as high risk, 17% committed a new offense. The results for new offense need to be interpreted cautiously as the numbers are quite low. Overall, the SIR is a good predictor of technical violations, new offenses and the successful completion of day parole.

Figure 4-1 shows that as the risk level to reoffend increases so does the percentage of offenders who commit a new offense. A similar trend was obtained for technical violations (substance abuse, other violations and UALs). These results suggest that, as expected, the SIR was an excellent predictor for new offenses, and it is also a good predictor of technical violations.

Figure 4-1. Risk level (SIR) and outcome during day parole

Programs

Programs should help to reintegrate offenders, however the number of programs an offender completed prior to being released on day parole was not related to outcome ( F (2,396=.12, p<ns). This result may reflect a lack of matching offenders with the program(s) that meet their needs and where multiple needs are identified, programming that meets one or two needs may not be sufficient to reduce the likelihood of being returned to custody. In addition, as Grant et al. (1996) stated, participation in a program does not ensure that the offender will achieve the goals of the program. Nor does it guarantee that the offender will incorporate the behavior taught in the program into his lifestyle.

This first explanation appears to be substantiated by the fact that the number of programs completed by offenders does not vary with the risk level of the offender. Table Chapter 4 -11 reveals that most offenders participated in two or more programs regardless of their risk level. This finding is consistent with the Auditor General's report (1996) which found that in a sample of 50 low risk/ low need offenders, there was an average of three program referrals.

Table Chapter 4 -11. Number of programs completed by risk level of offender
SIR risk level No programs completed
%		 One program
%		 Two- three programs
%		 Four or more programs
%		 Number of Cases
Low 6.3 25.0 51.3 17.5 80
Moderate-Low 12.2 17.1 43.9 26.8 41
Moderate 11.8 17.7 39.2 31.4 51
Moderate-high 5.9 21.6 54.9 17.7 51
High 9.0 19.1 40.5 31.5 89

Temporary Absences

TAs provide an opportunity for CSC to assess potential outcome on other forms of conditional releases and provide the offender with opportunities for gradual release. Approximately 25% of the day parole offenders received ETAs and 20% received UTAs prior to their day parole. The most common purpose for receiving either an ETA or UTA for these offenders was to attain a positive community network. Outcome on day parole with and without TA experience are presented in Table Chapter 4 -12.

Individuals who had ETAs were more likely to complete day parole (77%) than those who did not (63%) (χ2 (397) =6.03, p <.05 ). Similarly, those who went on UTAs were also more likely to complete day parole (76%) than those who did not (64%), however the statistical test only approached significance (χ2 (397) =4.02, p <.13). In terms of reasons for return to custody, offenders who had TAs were less likely to have technical violations and were somewhat less likely to have committed a new offense. These results provide support for the usefulness of TAs in providing insight for outcome on conditional release and their value in aiding the gradual release of offenders.

Table Chapter 4 -12. Temporary absences experience and outcome on day parole
ETA Completed day parole Technical violations New offenses Number of cases
Yes 76.8 17.9 5.3 95
No 63.3 29.1 7.6 302

©2= 6.03 p <.05

UTA Completed day parole Technical violations New offenses Number of cases
Yes 75.6 18.3 6.1 82
No 64.1 28.6 7.3 315

©2= 4.02 p < ns

Time of Release

Although one would expect that offenders released earlier would be the most likely to successfully complete day parole, Figure Chapter 4 -2 illustrates that this is not always the case. Table Chapter 4 -13 which examines SIR scores and time of release, provide additional evidence related to time of release.

Offenders released between their full parole eligibility date and 50% of their sentence served had the lowest completion rate at around 58%. Interestingly, those released before PE and those who were released after 50% of their sentence served had a similar completion rate at approximately 70%.

Offenders released before their full parole eligibility date were more likely to have technical violations, and were also equally likely to reoffend as offenders released just after their PE date. Surprisingly, offenders released before statutory release had the lowest rate of new offense during the day parole period.

Figure Chapter 4 -2. Day Parole Outcome and Time of Release

Table Chapter 4 -13 displays the risk level of offenders released on day parole by time of release. Surprisingly, over 25% of the low risk offenders were released late, after serving 50% of their sentence, and over 20% of the offenders released early, before their parole eligibility date, were classified as high risk, while 36% of the offenders released between their parole eligibility date and fifty percent of their sentence served were also high risk.

Previous results indicated that the offenders released between the PE date and 50% of their sentence were the most likely to be returned to custody while on day parole. The risk results presented in Table Chapter 4 -13 indicate that this probably occurred because over 55% of the offenders in this group were either high or moderate-high risk, whereas in the early and late release groups only 32% were high or moderate-high risk cases.

Table Chapter 4 -13. Risk level (SIR) by time of release
  Pre-PE Before 50% of sentence After 50% of sentence
SIR risk level % (n) % (n) % (n)
Low 43.1 (44) 11.6 (10) 27.4 (20)
Moderate-low 13.7 (14) 9.3 (8) 19.2 (14)
Moderate 10.8 (11) 22.1 (19) 20.5 (15)
Moderate-high 10.8 (11) 20.9 (18) 16.4 (12)
High 21.6 (22) 36.0 (31) 16.4 (12)
Total1 102   86   73  

1 Missing or not applicable scores are not included in this total.

Another set of analyses was conducted to determine if the percentage of offenders who completed day parole would vary by risk level and time of release. Table Chapter 4 -14 shows that only about 50% of high risk offenders successfully complete their day parole regardless of when they are released. Whereas 92% of low risk offenders released early (pre-PE) successfully completed their day parole and this declined to about 80% for offenders released later. These results clearly point to the fact that risk level, as measured by the SIR, is a good predictor of success and should be used consistently as part of an overall risk/needs assessment.

Table Chapter 4 -14. Percentage of offenders who completed day parole by risk level and time of release.
  High Risk Number of Cases Low Risk Number of cases
Pre- PE 52.8 36 92.0 50
Between PE and .50 50.8 63 80.0 15
After 50% of sentence 51.4 72 83.3 42

Security Level of the Releasing Institution

Offenders released from lower security institutions have higher completion rates while on day parole than offenders from higher security institutions as shown in Table Chapter 4 -15. Chi square analyses revealed that the differences in day parole completion rates among the security level of the releasing institutions were statistically reliable (χ2 (2) 29.52, p<.001).

Table Chapter 4 -15. Security level of releasing institution and outcome on day parole
  Minimum security Medium security Maximum security
  % (n) % (n) % (n)
Completed day parole 77.5 (113) 63.2 (141) 41.9 (13)
Substance abuse 7.5 (11) 13.0 (29) 9.7 (3)
UAL 8.2 (12) 11.2 (25) 16.1 (5)
Other violations 3.4 (5) 5.8 (13) 6.5 (12)
New offenses 3.4 (5) 6.7 (15) 25.8 (8)
Total   146   223   31

Offenders released on day parole from minimum security institutions had the highest completion rate at 77%, while offenders released from maximum security institutions had the lowest completion rate at approximately 42%. In terms reason for return to custody, offenders released from minimum security institutions tend to have more technical violations (e.g., substance abuse) and fewer number of new offenses (3%) than offenders released from medium or maximum security institutions.

Offenders released from medium security institutions have slightly more new offenses (7%) and UALs (11%) than minimum security offenders. Surprisingly, the rate for substance abuse violations among offenders released from medium security institutions (13%) was higher than both the minimum security and maximum security offenders.

Of particular concern is the relatively high percentage of offenders released from maximum security institutions who reoffend with a new offense (26%) or who are reported UAL from the day parole facility (16%). However, these numbers need to be interpreted cautiously because there are only a small number of maximum security inmates released on day parole. These numbers indicate a problem with the selection of releases from maximum security institutions.

Day Parole In Relation to Other Conditional Releases

As mentioned earlier, the CCRA requires that day parole should be used to prepare offenders for subsequent conditional releases. Mentioning other conditional releases establishes long term goals beyond the day parole. The establishment of these long term goals may enhance the chances for successful completion of day parole, by providing the incentive of a less structured release if the day parole is completed. This section explores the relationship between day parole as preparation for subsequent releases and outcome on day parole.

Table Chapter 4 -16 shows that offenders who had progress summary reports that made reference to full parole were more likely to complete day parole, less likely to commit an offense on day parole and also less likely to have a technical violation while on day parole. These results were statistically reliable ( χ2 (397)= 10.4, p<.006). In addition, a higher percentage of offenders who had reference to statutory release (73%) completed day parole than offenders who did not have reference to statutory release (66%), however the results were not statistically reliable ( χ2 (397)= .963, p<ns).

These results suggest that when day parole is used as part of a structured plan for subsequent conditional releases, the probability of completing day parole increases. In contrast, when there appears to be no mention of subsequent conditional releases, there is a significant drop in the completion rate on day parole. The results support the notion that the more structure provided to an offender, the more likely he will successfully reintegrate into society.

Table Chapter 4 -16. Case management reference to other conditional releases and outcome on day parole
    Completion of day parole Technical violations1 New offense χ2
  N % (n) % (n) % (n)
Reference to FP                
Yes 247 72.5 (180) 21.7 (53) 5.7 (14) 10.4 p.<. 006
No 153 56.9 (87) 34.0 (52) 9.2 (14)  
Reference to SR                
Yes 51 72.6 (37) 21.6 (11) 5.9 (3) .963 NS
No 349 65.6 (227) 27.1 (94) 7.16 (25)  

1 Technical violations refer to substance abuse violations, other violations and offenders who went UAL.

The Release Plan

As mentioned previously, the preparation involved in releasing an offender on day parole requires that a release plan be developed. The components of the release plan are: finding a facility where the offender will reside during the day parole period and the setting of day parole goals to be accomplished. This section examines the relationship between the components of the release plan and outcome on day parole.

Type of Facility. Table Chapter 4 -17 presents the outcome on day parole for offenders at different types of facility. The results indicate that offenders residing at CRCs were more likely to complete day parole (70%) than offenders residing at CCCs (59%) or institutions (37%) (χ2 (397) =11.75 p<.02).

Table Chapter 4 -17. Type of halfway house and day parole outcome
  Completion of day parole Technical violations New offenses
  % (n) % (n) % (n)
CCC (88) 59.1 (52) 30.7 (27) 10.2 (9)
CRC (296) 70.3 (206) 24.2 (71) 5.4 (16)
Institutions (16) 37.5 (6) 43.8 (7) 18.8 (3)

One possible explanation for the differential completion rates among community based facilities may be the risk level of the offenders residing at the facility. Table Chapter 4 -18 presents the risk level of offender by day parole residential facility. More than 35% of offenders residing at CCCs were classified as being in the moderate-high to high risk categories and only 15% were in the low risk categories. In contrast, the CRCs have just over 25% of their offenders in the high risk categories and over 30% who are in the low risk categories. Over 55% of the offenders residing at institutions were in the high risk categories and only 5% were in the low risk categories. The differential completion rates appear to be accounted for by the risk level of the offender, rather than the type of facility where the offenders are residing. To further test this hypothesis, a partial correlation, controlling for level of risk between facility type and day parole outcome was conducted. The results indicated that when level of risk was controlled for, there was no relationship between facility type and outcome on day parole (r=.05, p< ns).

Table Chapter 4 -18. Risk level of offender and type of halfway house
  CCC CRC
SIR risk level % (n) % (n)
Low 9.5 (10) 20.7 (70)
Moderate-low 5.7 (6) 10.0 (34)
Moderate 16.2 (17) 9.7 (33)
Moderate-high 14.3 (15) 9.1 (31)
High 21.9 (23) 18.3 (62)
Aboriginal1 11.4 (12) 9.7 (33)
Missing 21.0 (22) 22.4 (76)

1The SIR score does not apply to Aboriginal offenders.

Activities Pursued While On Day Parole

The previous chapter examined whether or not the activities set out for offenders were actually being participated in. This section examines the relationship between completing a specific activity and outcome on day parole. Given that the sample size were extremely small (e.g., pursuing education), all of the reasons for being returned to custody categories were collapsed into one .

Table Chapter 4 -19 clearly displays the effect of ensuring that an offender engages in the activities that they are supposed to pursue. When education and work were pursued the completion rate was double that of offenders who did not engage in educational and work pursuits. Attending programs led to a three-fold increase in the percentage of offenders who completed day parole. These results were statistically reliable. Overall, these results suggest that ensuring that offenders participate in the activities that were outlined in their release plans contributed to successful completion of day parole.

Table Chapter 4 -19. Recommended activities pursued during day parole and outcome on day parole
  Completed day parole Return to custody N χ2
Activity recommended % (n) % (n)
Work            
Participation 78.2 (115) 21.8 (32) 147 16.93
No participation 36.4 (8) 63.6 (14) 22 p<.001
Rehabilitation            
Participation 76.2 (214) 23.8 (67) 281 62.62
No participation 17.4 (8) 82.6 (38) 46 p <.001
Education            
Participation 83.3 (25) 16.7 (5) 30 9.33
No participation 44.0 (11) 56.0 (14) 25 p. <.002

Summary

Most day parole releases (70%) occurred after the offenders' parole eligibility date. Compared to releases in a 1991 sample obtained by Grant et al. (1996), 35% fewer offenders were released before their full parole eligibility date. In part this is likely due to the changes in day parole resulting from the CCRA. The CCRA discontinued automatic review for day parole, changed the eligibility date from one-sixth of the sentence to six months before parole eligibility and required that day parole be used as preparation for subsequent releases.

Most case managers (67%) contacted only one facility to obtain a residence for the offender for the day parole period. Most offenders (96%) resided in the community at either a CRC or CCC, while the remaining 4% resided in an institution. Higher risk offenders were more likely to reside at a CCC than a CRC.

Most offenders (94%) were required to continue with their rehabilitation programs in the community during the day parole period. Approximately half (48%) of offenders were required to work or look for work and 18% were to attend educational/vocational training. While on day parole, most offenders (87%) did attend rehabilitation and work, however only 55% attended education or vocational training. Ensuring that an offender participates in the activities set out by case managers, is related, to as much as, a three-fold increase in the rate of successful completions of day parole. This was true for work, rehabilitation and educational pursuits.

In terms of outcome, two thirds of the sample successfully completed day parole. The two most common reasons for being returned to custody were violating substance abuse conditions and the offender going UAL from the day parole facility. A small percentage were returned to custody for other technical violations. Seven percent of the offenders committed a new offense. Regionally, Ontario region had the highest completion rate (85%) while Quebec region had the lowest completion rate (55%).

Numerous factors were related to outcome on day parole. Among the best predictors were the SIR score, with the lowest risk offenders having a 90% completion rate and the highest risk offenders only having a 40% completion rate. Another factor related to completion of day parole was having a TA before release. Offenders who had a TA had a higher completion rate and fewer technical violations as well as a somewhat lower new offense rate. In addition, being recommended for day parole with programs was also related to a higher success rate and lower new offense rate. However, regardless of the recommendation for day parole, the rate of technical violations was the same. Having a correctional plan and correctional goals were associated with lower new offense rates, however they did not contribute to the overall completion rate.

With regard to time of release, offenders released early in their sentence have a higher completion rate than offenders released later into their sentence. Surprisingly, offenders released after serving 50% of their sentence fared better than offenders released in the middle of their sentence. In part, this may be explained by the risk level of the offenders being released at the different times. Offenders released in the middle of their sentence were classified as being higher risk according to the SIR than the other two groups. Although most of the offenders released before their full parole eligibility date (57%) were classified as low risk, over 20% were classified as high risk offenders. Similarly, over a quarter of the offenders released after serving 50% of their sentence were classified as low risk. The rationalization for releasing offenders at a particular time appears to be based on a combination of factors and not consistently in the use of standardized measures of risk.

The security level of the releasing institution was also related to completion of day parole, with offenders released from minimum security institutions being more likely to complete day parole than offenders released from either medium or maximum security institutions. Interestingly, the rate of substance abuse violations was similar across the security levels of the releasing institutions. This suggests that substance abuse is a persistent problem at all levels of institutional security.

Chapter 5: Subsequent Releases and Two Year Follow up

Introduction

The previous chapter examined activities pursued during the day parole period, the outcome of the day parole period and factors that were related to day parole outcome. This chapter examines post-day parole period and is divided into two sections. The first part examines the number and types of releases that offenders receive after their day parole. The second part examines outcome two years after the day parole, including factors related to outcome after the day parole release.

The Next Release

The CCRA specifies that the purpose of day parole is to prepare offenders for full parole or statutory release. This section examines the type of release offenders received after their index day parole and the results are summarized in Table Chapter 5 -1. Approximately half of the offenders received a second day parole period, 22% were released on full parole and 30% were released at their statutory release (SR) date. In terms of the first full release type, approximately 50% of offenders were released on full parole after their day parole(s) and 50% were released at their SR date.

Table Chapter 5 -1. Type of release after day parole
  Release type after day parole Full release type
Release type % (n) % (n)
Day parole 45.6 (194) N/A N/A
Full parole 21.9 (93) 47.8 (186)
Statutory release 29.5 (125) 48.8 (190)

As a result of the high percentage of offenders (46%) who received a subsequent day parole as their next release, the relationship between the time of the index day parole release and number of subsequent day parole releases was examined and is presented in Table Chapter 5 -2. Only about a third of the offenders granted day parole before their full parole eligibility date had another day parole. Multiple day paroles were most common for offenders released later in their sentence. Forty three percent of offenders released between PE and 50% of their sentence and just over half (51%) of the offenders released after 50% of their sentence had multiple day paroles. These observed differences are statistically reliable.

Table Chapter 5 -2. Number of day paroles granted after index day parole by time of release
Time of first day parole None One Two Three or more
  % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Pre-parole 68.2 (92) 23.0 (31) 5.2 (7) 3.7 (5)
Between PE and 50% sentence 56.6 (77) 23.5 (32) 13.2 (18) 6.6 (9)
After 50% sentence 48.7 (91) 18.8 (34) 14.4 (27) 18.7 (35)

χ2 (df = 6, N=458)= 32.6***

*** p<.001

Table Chapter 5 -3 presents the results of time of release by first non-day parole release. The results indicated that most offenders released before their full parole eligibility date (75%) received full parole and only 25% received statutory release. Approximately 50% of the early day parole releases who were released at their SR date failed on day parole, while the remainder had multiple day paroles. Surprisingly, only a third of offenders released between the full parole eligibility date and 50% of their sentence served received full parole while the remaining 66% received statutory release. As would be expected, the majority of offenders released after serving 50% of their sentence (59%) received statutory release, while the remaining 41% received full parole.

Table Chapter 5 -3. First full release after day parole by time of releases
Time of release Full Parole Statutory Release
  % (n) % (n)
Pre-parole 74.7 (86) 25.2 (29)
Between PE and .50 sentence 34.3 (36) 65.7 (69)
After .50 sentence 41.3 (64) 58.7 (91)

χ2 (df = 6, N=3751) =43.3***

*** p<.001

1 Some offenders were not granted any type full release.

Post-Day Parole Outcome

This section examines what happened to offenders after the day parole period. Factors that showed the strongest relationship to day parole outcome were studied to determine their relationship to post-day parole outcome. The factors included: number of previous federal offenses, SIR risk scores, temporary absences, time of day parole release, activities pursued on day parole, day parole outcome, and type of first non-day parole release. Post-day parole outcome was measured using readmissions, type of readmission (violation of condition/offense),number of days in the community and time in custody during the two year follow up period.

Type of First Readmission After Index Day Parole

The data base used for the two year follow up did not contain a breakdown of the types of technical violations that offenders had, and therefore violations of conditions cannot be divided into substance abuse, UAL and others as was done in the previous section. The average follow-up period was 21 months and the range of the follow-up was from 1 month to 34 months. Most cases (86%) had follow up periods greater than 12 months Just under half of the offenders (47%) had a readmission to prison after their index day parole. Most were returned to custody for technical violations (36%) and the remainder were for the commission of a new offense (11%). While the rate of technical violations is higher in this study than the Grant and Gillis (1997) 1991 sample, the rate of new offense is the same.

Proportion of Time in the Community

Grant and Gillis (1998) suggested that an alternative measure of outcome is to examine the amount of time the offender spent in the community under supervision after the completion of the day parole. The argument being that the greater the amount of time spent under supervision in the community, the greater the likelihood of success after the sentence is completed. In addition, the less time spent in the institution, the less expensive it is to monitor and provide services to the offender.

On average offenders spent 486 days (SD=263) in the community with a range of 36 days to 1017 days. Table Chapter 5 -4 presents the potential community time from the day parole completion date until the end of the study (approximately 2 years later), the actual amount of time in the community and the proportion of time in the community. The proportion of time in the community was calculated by dividing the number of actual days in the community by the number of potential days in the community and multiplying it by 100 to produce a percentage. For example, if an offender was not returned to prison, the proportion of time in the community would be 100%.

The results indicated that offenders who successfully completed day parole spent significantly more time in the community (84%) than offenders who did not complete day parole (60%) t (392)= -8.15 p< .001).

Table Chapter 5 -4. Day parole outcome by time (days) in the community
Day parole outcome Potential community days1 Percentage of community days Number of cases
Completed 641 84% 264
Returned to Custody 691 60% 130

T-test 8.15 p<.001

1 From day parole completion to warrant expiry date or end of study.

Table Chapter 5 -5 displays the relationship between the number of previous offenses and two year outcome. Similar to the day parole outcome, offenders with no previous admissions had the lowest readmission rate at 24%, while offenders with one or more any previous offenses had an average readmission rate of 46%.

Less than one quarter of the offenders with no previous offenses had technical violations while almost half of the offenders with any previous offenses had technical violations. The new offense rate was lowest among offenders with no previous offenses and increased steadily with increasing number of previous offenses to 22%. In addition, offenders with any previous offense were, at least, twice as likely to reoffend violently as those offenders who had no previous federal sentences.

Table Chapter 5 -5. Number of previous federal admissions and post-day parole outcome
Number of previous admissions Re-admission Technical violations Any offense Violent offense Number of cases
None 24.4 24.0 8.8 2.1 283
1-3 52.2 49.3 10.1 5.8 69
4-10 38.7 37.1 17.7 8.1 62
11 or more 45.6 45.7 21.7   46
Chi square 22.9*** 22.5*** 9.2* 6.2v  

v p < .10 * p < .05 *** p < .001

SIR Score

Earlier it was demonstrated that the SIR score was an excellent predictor of day parole outcome. Not only was it predictive of successful completion of day parole and overall return to custody, it was also predictive of the reasons for return to custody, the exception being substance abuse violations. Table Chapter 5 -6 displays the results of SIR risk level and post-day parole outcome.

Table Chapter 5 -6. SIR Score and outcome
Re-admission Technical violations Non-Violent offense Violent offense Number of cases
% (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Low risk 19.0 (23) 18.2 (22) .83 (1) .83 (1) 121
Moderate risk 37.3 (19) 31.4 (16) 5.9 (3) 3.9 (2) 51
High risk 43.6 (61) 41.4 (58) 18.9 (26) 5.0 (7) 140
Chi square 18.2***   16.5***   24.5***   3.75    

* **p <.001

Overall, the results for the SIR scores produced similar results for the two year follow up as the day parole outcome. The return to custody rates increased as the risk level increased. Less than a fifth of the low risk offenders were readmitted while 44% of the high risk offenders were readmitted. Only 2% of the low risk offenders had a new offense while approximately 25% of the high risk offenders had a new offense. Although, there were differences in the level of violent recidivism, the results were not statistically reliable. However, the base rate for violent recidivism in this study was quite low (less than 4%).

Temporary Absences

In the previous chapter, it was shown that offenders who had either an ETA or UTA were more likely to complete day parole than offenders who did not have TA's. Table Chapter 5 -7 shows the relationship between ETAs and UTAs and post-day parole outcome. Experience with ETAs and UTAs was consistently associated with lower rates of recidivism (readmissions, technical violations); but the differences were not statistically reliable. However, the new offense rate among offenders who had ETAs (6%) was significantly lower than offenders who did not have TAs (13%) (©2=5.22, p<.05). The percentage improvement in the new offense rate with ETA experience is 59% (13.4-5.5/13.4). Differences in the same direction and similar magnitude are evident for UTA experience, although the results are not statistically reliable.

Table Chapter 5 -7. Temporary absence experience and post-day parole outcome
Type of TA Re-admission Technical violations Any offense Violent offense Number of cases
% (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
ETA 30.9 (34) 28.1 (31) 5.5 (6) 1.8 (2) 110
No ETA 34.0 (119) 32.9 (115) 13.4 (47) 4.3 (15) 350
Chi Square .36   .84   5.22*   1.4    
UTA 30.1 (28) 29.0 (27) 7.5 (7) 3.2 (3) 93
No UTA 34.1 (125) 32.4 (119) 12.53 (46) 3.8 (14) 367
Chi Square .52   .40   1.83   .08    

* p <.05

Although offenders who received TAs did not show any statistically reliable differences in their rates of readmission and reasons for readmission, the proportion of time in the community may be a more sensitive indicator of outcome and results are presented in Table Chapter 5 -8.

Table Chapter 5 -8. Temporary absence experience and time (days) in the community
Temporary Absences Potential community days1 Proportion of community days Number of cases
ETA 700 80.9 109
No ETA 628 73.2 347
t-test value   2.4*  
UTA 726 81.4 93
No UTA 625 73.4 363
t-test value   2.5**  

1 From day parole completion to warrant expiry date or end of study.

* p <.05 **p <.01 ***p< .001

On average, offenders who had ETAs spent approximately 19 months in the community, while offenders who did not have ETAs only spent approximately 15 months in the community. In terms of proportion of time spent in the community, offenders who had ETAs spent 81% of their potential time in the community, while offenders who did not have ETAs only spent 73% of their potential time in the community. Both of these differences are statistically reliable.

On average, offenders who had UTAs spent approximately 20 months in the community, while offenders who did not have UTAs only spent approximately 15 months in the community. In terms of proportion of time spent in the community, offenders who had a UTA spent 81% of their potential time in the community, while offenders who did not have a UTAs only spent 73% of their potential time in the community. Both of these differences are statistically reliable.

Time of Day Parole Release and Two Year Outcome

Earlier it was shown that time of day parole release was related to day parole outcome. This section presents results on the relationship between day parole and outcome within two years of full release. Approximately 30% of offenders released early (before parole eligibility) and late (after 50% of their sentence) were readmitted while 44% of offenders released during the midpoint of the sentence were readmitted. Similar results were obtained by Grant and Gillis (1998).

Table Chapter 5 -9. Post-day parole outcome by time of day parole release
Time of day parole release Re-admission
%		 Technical violations
%		 Any offense
%		 Violent offense
%		 Number of cases
Pre-full parole eligibility 29.6 27.4 19.3 6.7 135
Between PE and 50% served 43.8 40.9 14.6 3.6 137
After 50% sentence served 27.8 27.8 3.7 1.6 187
Chi-square values 10.18** 7.80* 20.26*** 5.64_  

_p < .06 *p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p <.001

A similar pattern was found for technical violations with 41% of offenders released at the midpoint of their sentence having a technical violation while 28% of the other groups were readmitted for technical violations.

Surprisingly the overall recidivism rate and violent recidivism rate was highest among the offenders released before their full parole eligibility date at 19% and 7%, respectively. The overall recidivism rate and violent recidivism rate was lowest among offenders released after serving 50% of their sentence at four percent and two percent respectively.

Overall, these results suggest that offenders released between their full parole eligibility date and 50% of their sentence had the highest rate of readmission, the highest rate of technical violations and the second highest recidivism rate and this group also had the highest SIR scores. Similar results were obtained by Grant and Gillis (1998). This finding is interesting and further analyses needs to be conducted on why this group is returned to custody more frequently than other offenders.

Activities pursued on day parole and post-day parole outcome

Most offenders released on day parole were required to participate in rehabilitation programs. Results presented in Table Chapter 5 -10 show the relationship between participation in recommended activities and post day-parole outcome.

Table Chapter 5 -10. Participation in recommended treatment programs by post-day parole outcome
Activity Re-admission Technical violations Any offense Violent offense Number of cases
% (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Rehabilitation 31.7 (98) 30.1 (93) 9.4 (29) 2.9 (9) 308
No rehabilitation 47.9 (23) 43.8 (21) 25.0 (12) 8.3 (4) 47
Chi Square value 4.9*   3.6_   9.97**   3.5_    

_p <.06 * p <.05 ** p <.01

Offenders who participated in recommended rehabilitation programs had a significantly lower overall readmission rate (32% vs 48% for non-participators), a lower rate of technical violations (30% vs 44%), lower new offense rate (9% vs 25%) and a lower rate of violent recidivism ( 3% vs 8%) than offenders who did not attend recommended programs. These results clearly show that failure to participate in recommended programs is associated with higher rates of recidivism.

Other measures of the effect of participation in recommended activities is number of days spent in the community, proportion of time in the community and number of days spent in custody after the completion of day parole is examined and the results for these are presented in Table Chapter 5 -11.

Offenders who pursued recommended community rehabilitative programs spent significantly more time in the community (approximately 17 months vs 14 months) and a larger percentage of their time (77% vs 59%) in the community, than offenders who did not participate in recommended programs In addition, offenders did not participate in the recommended programs spent significantly more time in custody following release than offenders who did participate in rehabilitative programs. All of these results are statistically reliable.

Table Chapter 5 -11. Participation in recommended programs by time (days) in the community
Activity recommended Potential community days1 Percentage of community days Time (days) in custody from day parole completion date Number of cases
Rehabilitation        
Participation 647 77 147 308
No participation 694 59 276 47
t-test value   3.6 -3.5  
Work        
Participation 687 87 87 156
No participation 734 57 320 23
t-test value   4.1*** -4.1***  
Education        
Participation 677 93 51 32
No participation 635 70 188 26
t-value   3.5*** -3.1**  

**p <.01 ***p < .001

1 From day parole completion to warrant expiry date or end of study

Offenders who pursued recommended work related activities also spent significantly more time in the community (approximately 20 months) and a greater percentage of their post-release time (87%) than offenders who did not participate in the recommended work related activities (approximately 14 months and 57% of the time). In addition, when offenders did not participate in the recommended work related activities, they spent on average four times as much time in custody than offenders who did participate. All of these results are statistically reliable.

Finally, offenders who pursued educational activities spent significantly more time in the community (21 months) and a greater percentage of their post release time in the community (93%) than offenders who did not participate in rehabilitative programs (15 months and 70% of time). In addition, offenders who did not participate in recommended educational programs spent three times more time in custody than participators. All of these results are statistically reliable.

Day Parole Outcome and Post Day Parole Outcome

More than two thirds of the offenders (71%) who successfully completed day parole had no readmissions within two years of their release as shown in Table 5-13., while only 56% of offenders who were returned to custody during day parole had no new admissions. In addition, the negative outcome rate for offenders who successfully completed their day parole was lower than offenders who did not complete their day parole period successfully for technical violations, new offense and new violent offenses.

Table Chapter 5 -12. Day parole outcome and failure within two years of release
Day parole outcome Re-admission Technical violations Any offense Violent offense Number of cases
% (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)
Overall 34 (135) 32.5 (129) 11.5 (46) 3.5 (14) 397
Completion of day parole 28.8 (76) 27.3 (72) 6.1 (16) 1.5 (4) 264
Returned to Custody 44.4 (59) 42.9 (57) 21.8 (29) 7.5 (10) 133
Chi Square 9.6**   9.8**   21.8***   9.4**    

** p <.01 *** p <.001

Overall, these results suggest that offenders who completed day parole are more likely to have a positive outcome on other conditional releases as well. These results are similar to those reported by Grant and Gillis (1998).

Summary

Approximately half of the offenders were released on another day parole before being released on either full parole or statutory release. In terms of the first type of full release, there was an equal percentage of offenders released on either full or statutory release. Offenders released on day parole early were significantly less likely to get another day parole then offenders released after their parole eligibility date. Offenders released early were also more likely to be granted full parole at their parole eligibility date

Overall, 62% of the offenders had no new admissions. The most common reason for offenders being readmitted was for technical violations (36%). The number of technical violations in this study is significantly higher than the Grant and Gillis (1998) day parole study. However, this difference may reflect the impact of the introduction of urine analyses for suspicion of alcohol and drug use.

Approximately 12% of the offenders had a new offense. Interestingly, there was not a significant difference in the amount of time spent in custody between offenders who had technical violations and offenders who committed a new offense. This may be due in part, to the fact that most new offenses (79%) were non-violent.

A number of factors were related to post-day parole outcome. Offenders with no previous offenses were less likely to be readmitted for any reason after their index day parole than offenders who had previous offenses. Offenders with four or more previous offenses were more than twice as likely to commit new offenses than offenders with no previous offense.

The SIR score was also an excellent predictor of post-day parole outcome. Low risk offenders were less likely to be returned to custody (20% returned) and less than 1% committed a new offenses. In contrast, almost half of the offenders in the high risk category were returned to custody, with almost a fifth committing a non-violent offense and five percent committing a violent offense. Violent recidivism was the only outcome that the SIR did not predict well.

While offenders with TA releases had lower readmission rates than offenders who did not have TAs, these differences were not statistically reliable. However, examination of time spent in the community, reveals a much different picture. Offenders who had TAs were spending 4 -5 months longer in the community than offenders who did not have TAs. These results suggest that TAs may provide a benefit for other releases, however, this requires more study.

Time of day parole release was also related to outcome. Offenders released after serving 50% or more of their sentence had the lowest rate of readmission, technical violations as well as the lowest recidivism rate. Surprisingly, offenders released before their parole eligibility had the highest rate of both violent and general recidivism.

Similar to the day parole outcome, offenders who participated in recommended rehabilitation programs in the community during the day parole period did significantly better than offenders who did not participate in these recommended programs. In general, these offenders had lower readmission rates, lower rates of technical violations, and lower rates of recidivism. In addition, these offenders spent significantly more time in the community than the offenders who did not participate. Moreover, when the offenders who participated in the rehabilitation programs in the community were returned to custody, they spent significantly less time in custody than offenders who did not participate.

In terms of the relationship between day parole outcome and post-day parole outcome, most offenders (71%) who completed day parole also had positive outcome on subsequent releases (71% vs 56%) Offenders who were returned to custody during day parole had a higher rate of technical violations, and higher rate of general and violent recidivism. Offenders who completed day parole also spent significantly more time in the community than offenders who were returned to custody during day parole.

Chapter 6 : Discussion

The introduction of the CCRA brought about three major changes to the day parole program. One was the change in the date offenders are eligible for day parole from one sixth of the sentence to six months before the parole eligibility date. Another was the elimination of automatic review for day parole by the National Parole Board. The third was the specification that the purpose of day parole is to prepare offenders for full parole and/or statutory release.

An earlier day parole study (Grant et al., 1996), suggested that since most day parole periods end after the full parole eligibility date, the function of day parole, even before the CCRA, was to prepare the offender for eventual release on either full parole or statutory release. However, the purpose of day parole, imposed by the CCRA, reduced the flexibility of day parole as a release option.

The introduction stated that the purpose of the study was to determine if day parole was being used to prepare offenders for full parole and statutory releases as required by the CCRA. Based on the case documentation, it appears that day parole is being used to prepare offenders for full parole and statutory release. Evidence for this lies with a number of factors. First, reference to either full parole or statutory release occurred in 77% of the cases, indicating that case management created a plan that went beyond the day parole period. Second, the activities pursued on day parole, including treatment programs, job related and educational activities, are associated with decreased recidivism and overall success (Andrews & Bonta, 1994). In addition, the day parole period provides offenders with an opportunity to participate in programs that promote prosocial behavior while living in the community, yet they have a relatively structured environment. These programs should enhance the likelihood of successful reintegration. In fact, offenders who attended recommended programs in the community were almost five times as likely to be successful on day parole as those offenders who did not attend recommended programs. Given that successful completion of day parole is associated with positive outcome on full release, day parole is clearly preparation for full release.

This study also examined what, if any, impact limiting the purpose of day parole had for the current use of day parole. The introduction of the CCRA limited the scope of the purpose of day parole by requiring it to be preparation for full parole or statutory release. However, as Grant et al. (1996) pointed out, this appeared to be the purpose of day parole even before the CCRA. Examination of activities pursued on day parole pre-CCRA and post-CCRA reveal that there is a great deal of similarity in terms of preparation for full release.

The change in the purpose of day parole has reduced some types of activities it can be used for. In the early 1980's, The Solicitor General's Study on Conditional Release (1981) identified seven functions of day parole :

  1. a form of gradual release and testing
  2. a form of mitigation and punishment
  3. a method to employ inmates on special projects in the community
  4. an aid to the community adjustment of resourceless offenders
  5. a way to provide access to community resources or programs
  6. a way to ease socialization; and
  7. a cost effective method of sentence management

The change in the purpose of day parole introduced by the CCRA probably had no impact on how day parole was used, since most of the functions of day parole in the above list served to prepare offenders for full release. However, the use of day parole has declined since the introduction of the CCRA, (Grant,1998). To compensate for limiting the scope of day parole, two additional programs (personal development TAs and work release) were created to permit offenders access to the community without the restriction associated with day parole. It is unclear if these changes improved the gradual release process.

In addition to addressing the two preceding issues, the present study examined how day parole is used to prepare offenders for release as required by the CCRA. It also presents information on the relationship between a variety of factors and day parole outcome and post-day parole outcome.

Less than a third of the offenders had a correctional plan in OMS. Of these, only half mentioned day parole. When day parole was mentioned, it was in the context of what the offender had to accomplish while incarcerated in order to receive positive support for the day parole application. Most offenders had a least one correctional goal specified in their case management documentation and support for the day parole application was generally contingent upon the completion of programming.

Most offenders were referred for at least one program and, on average, were referred for four. However, on average, offenders only completed about three programs. Completion of recommended programs ranged from 65% (Cognitive skills) to 96% (religious programs) with an average completion rate of about 80%. Failure to complete programs is generally the result of being on a waiting list, the referral being in progress, and in a small percentage of cases, inability to complete the program (2% to 3%). Substance abuse programs were recommended for 66% of the offenders, and the completion rate for these programs was 78%.

Most of the pre-release documentation included reference to either full parole (62%) or statutory release (14%) suggesting that day parole is being viewed in the context of other releases. While statutory release was mentioned in pre-release documents for only 14% of the offenders, 50% were actually released at their statutory release date. Interestingly, about 50% of the day parole completions result in another day parole.

In terms of specific day parole planning, most offenders had specific goals to achieve while on day parole and in most cases these goals were treatment oriented. Goals such as attending programs in the community were given good direction, while goals such as attaining jobs were not given the same quality of direction. The results suggest that there may be a need to more completely address all goals specified in the day parole release plan.

The release plans indicated that most offenders (94%) were required to continue rehabilitation by attending programs in the community, approximately half of the offenders were required to look for work or work at an existing job, while less than a fifth of the offenders were required to attend education/vocational training. During the day parole period, most offenders resided at CRCs and participated in rehabilitation and work programs. Educational/vocational programs were not frequently recommended for day parole and only 55% of those who were recommended for these programs actually participated. For offenders who failed to participate in recommended programs 65% were returned to custody while those who did participate only 21% were returned to custody.

Outcome on day parole was examined in terms of successful completion and four reasons for being returned to custody including: substance abuse violations, being unlawfully at large (UAL), other technical violations and new offenses. Overall, 67% of the sample successfully completed day parole and only a small number of offenders (7%) committed a new offense while on day parole. Of the reasons for return to custody, most (79%) were technical violations (substance abuse, other violations and being UAL) while the remaining were for new offenses (21%). A breakdown of the types of technical violations shows that the most common were substance abuse violations (44%), and being UAL (44%) and other violations (12%). There were regional differences in outcome on day parole, with Ontario region having the highest successful completion rate (84%) while Quebec region had the lowest successful completion rate (55%). Pacific region had the highest rate of new offenses (12%), while Atlantic region had the lowest rate of new offenses (3%). Technical violations were highest in Quebec region (36%).

One of the best predictors of success on day parole was the SIR score, with 87% of the low risk offenders successfully completing day parole while only 42% of the high risk offenders completed day parole. High risk offenders were almost eight times as likely to commit an offense on day parole as were low risk offenders. In terms of releases on day parole, it was found that there was almost an equal distribution of offenders in the combined high (high and moderate high) and combined low risk (low and moderate low) classifications on the SIR scale, suggesting that risk level (as measured by the SIR) may not have been used in selecting some offenders for day parole release. In addition, 22% of offenders released early, before their parole eligibility date, were high risk offenders. However, the return to custody rate for high risk offenders was consistently around 50%, regardless of time of release, indicating that criminal history risk is a good predictor of day parole outcome.

Other factors which were positively related to day parole outcome were having a TA before release, the security level of the releasing institution and participation in the activities set out in the release plan. For example, approximately 77% of offenders who had temporary absence releases successfully completed day parole, while those without TA experience had a completion rate of only 64%. Interestingly, some factors (e.g. being recommended for day parole with the completion of programs and having a correctional plan) appear to be better predictors of the reason for return to custody (technical versus new offense) rather than actual successful completion.

Of particular concern is the rate of substance abuse violations and its lack of association with failure and other factors, making it difficult to predict who is likely to be returned to custody as a result of a substance abuse problem. This suggests that there is a need to ensure that all offenders' substance abuse problems are addressed effectively, both in the institution and the community.

Approximately 50% of the offenders were released on another day parole prior to a full release. There was an equal number of offenders released on full parole and statutory release as the first non-day parole release. Offenders released early on day parole were more likely to receive full parole than offenders released later into their sentence.

A two year follow up of the offenders in this day parole sample was conducted. Overall, about 40% of the offenders were readmitted, however this was primarily due to technical violations. Less than 12% recidivated (new offense) during the follow up period, and their offenses were non-violent.

Results of the two year outcome indicated that the factors associated with outcome on day parole were also influential in the two year follow up period. Offenders with no previous offenses were less likely to be readmiittted and when readmitted, were readmitted for technical violations. The SIR was also an excellent predictor of the post-day parole period with less than a fifth of the low risk offenders being readmitted for any reason and only 1% being returned for the commission of a new offense. In contrast, 44% of the high risk offenders were readmitted and 20% committed a new offense. Offenders who had TAs spent more time in the community than offenders who did not have TAs, however the rates of readmission were not reliably different. Attending recommended programs in the community was associated with lower rates of readmission, lower technical violations, and lower rates of recidivism. In addition, offenders who attended recommended community programs spent more time in the community and, when returned to prison, were in custody for shorter periods of time, than offenders who had not attended community programs.

Similar to the Grant and Gillis (1998) day parole study, offenders who successfully completed day parole also completed other releases. Only 6% of the offenders who were successful on day parole recidivated (any readmission), while over 20% of the non-successful offenders recidivated.

Day parole is an effective program for assisting offenders in their reintegration into society. In part, this is due to the activities (community programs/work) that the offenders participate in while on day parole. These activities in conjunction with community supervision facilitate re-adjustment to community life and subsequently a successful reintegration into society. Support for this comes from the fact that offenders who participated in recommended activities were not only more successful on day parole but more successful on subsequent releases as well.

Grant and Gillis (1998) demonstrated that offenders who successfully completed day parole had more positive outcome on subsequent releases. Their finding was replicated in this study. Together, these results suggest that day parole is an effective way to manage low risk offenders in the community early in their sentence and high risk offenders later in their sentence without posing a threat to the community.

Despite its success, there has been a decline in the use of day parole over the last 6 years (Grant, 1998). This is unfortunate, as not only is day parole an effective way to manage offenders risk in the community, it is also more cost effective to supervise them in the community than in the institution. Future research should focus on the specific community programs and type/amount of supervision required for specific types of offenders so that more offenders can benefit from day parole.

References

Correctional and Conditional Release Act, RSC, C-20. (1992)

Grant, B.A. (1998). Day parole: Effects of the corrections and conditional release act. Research Branch. Correctional Service of Canada.

Grant, B.A. & Belcourt, R.L (1992). An analysis of temporary absences and the people who receive them. (Report R-25). Research and Statistics Branch. Correctional Service of Canada.

Grant, B.A. & Gillis, C.A. (1998). Day parole outcome, criminal history and other predictors of successful sentence completion. Research branch. Correctional Service of Canada.

Grant, B.A., Motiuk, L., Brunet,L., Lefebvre, L, & Couturier, P. (1996). Day parole program review: Case management predictors of outcome. (Report R-52). Research and Statistics Branch. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Latessa, E. & Allen, H.E. (1982). Half way houses and parole: A national assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 153-163.

Milson, W.A., Weekes, J.R., & Lightfoot, L.O. (1995). The offender substance abuse pre-release program: Analysis of Intermediate and Post- Release Outcomes. (Report R-40). Research and Statistics Branch. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Motiuk, L.L. & Belcourt, R.L. (1996). Temporary absence program participation and the release of federal offenders. (Report R-51)Research Division. Correctional Service of Canada.

Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decision making in Canada. Ottawa. Communication Division. Solicitor General Canada.

Parole Act, RSC, C-2 (1985).

Penitentiary Act, RSC, C-5. (1985).

Research and Statistics Branch.(1989) The Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale. (Report B-01). Research and Statistics Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.

SAS Institute Inc. (1990). SAS Procedures Guide, Version 6, Third Edition. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.

SAS Institute Inc. (1990). SAS Version 6.11. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.

Seiter, R.P., Carlson, E., Bowman, H., Grandfield, H., Beran, N., & Allen, H. (1977). Halfway houses. Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice.

Wilson, G.P. (1985). Halfway house programs for offenders. In Travis L. F. III. Probation, Parole and Community Corrections. (pp. 151-164). Prospect Heights, Ill. Waveland Press, Inc.

Appendix A

Coding Manual for Day Parole Study

To code any of the information below please use both the correctional plan and progress summary report as they compliment each other.

FPS # ________________

For the purpose of this study, only ORDINARY day paroles will be used. Ordinary Day parole requires that the offender returns each evening to an institution, Community Correctional Center (CRC) or a Community Residential Center (CRC).

Is this an Ordinary Day Parole: 1. Yes 2. No

If no, go to next offender

Admission Date _______________ (yy/mm/dd)

1. Electronic Index Data: OMS DATES:

A) DPED date ____________ (yy/mm/dd)
DPED date ____________ (yy/mm/dd)

B) PE date _______________ (yy/mm/dd)
PE date _______________ (yy/mm/dd)

C) SC date _______________ (yy/mm/dd)
SC date _______________(yy/mm/dd)

D) WED ________________ (yy/mm/dd)
WED ______________ (yy/mm/dd)

E) Release Date ____________ (yy/mm/dd)
Release Date __________ (yy/mm/dd)

2.Do all of the dates match? 1. Yes ______ 2. No ______

* If yes go to start on page 2

If NO: What is the reason for the mismatch?

4. New Term _____

5. Unknown _____

If the explanation for the mismatch is reasonable record new dates and go to start. If there is NO explanation, check with research manager and go to next offender.

TMSTART:

For each question where there is an option, circle the appropriate number.

A.Documents

5. Is there a correctional plan before day parole release date? 1. Yes 2. No

6. Progress Summary Report before day parole release date? 1. Yes 2. No

7. Is there sufficient information to code? 1. Yes 2. No

If there are no documents or insufficient information, go to next offender.

B.Correctional Plan Information

8. Is the first approved2 correctional plan available in electronic form? 1. Yes 2. No

If the first correctional plan is NOT available GO TO question 10

9. Is day parole mentioned in the first approved
correctional plan? 1. Yes 2. No

10. *Number of approved correctional plans (in OMS) prior to day parole. _________

*If there is no correctional plan enter zero (0) and enter the security level of the institution at the bottom of question 11 and then go to question 14.

11. First correctional plan (in OMS) to mention day parole

________     ________________

(order)     (date:yy/mm/dd)

Security Level of Institution:

  • Minimum 1
  • Medium 2
  • Maximum 3
  • SHU 4

12. Was day parole (as noted in correctional plan for question 10):

  1. Recommended
  2. Recommended only if certain programs were completed successfully
  3. Recommended with other conditions
  4. Recommended with programs and conditions
  5. Not recommended at all
  6. Not mentioned
  7. Not applicable

13. Was the correctional plan (identified in 11 above) the most recent before day parole?

  1. Yes with others preceding
  2. Yes, but this is the first correctional plan
  3. No
  4. Not applicable

14. In the last correctional plan or progress summary report prior to day parole, was day parole?:

  1. Recommended
  2. Recommended only if certain programs were completed successfully
  3. Not recommended at all

C. Institutional Programs

15. Below is a list of programs that the case manager may have recommended that the offender take in order to receive support for his/her day parole application.

For each program, circle 1 if the program is recommended, circle 0 if it is not recommended, and circle 2 if the program is recommended by the case manager but the program facilitators disagreed.

  Recommended in correctional plan Program facilitators disagreed
  Yes No
A) Substance abuse - alcohol 1 0 2
B) Substance abuse- drugs 1 0 2
C) Sex offender treatment 1 0 2
D) Psychologist 1 0 2
E) Psychiatrist 1 0 2
F) Cognitive Skills 1 0 2
G) Employment skills training 1 0 2
H) Adult basic education 1 0 2
I) GED/ upgrade to grade 12 1 0 2
J) Vocational skills 1 0 2
K) Anger management 1 0 2
L) Other personal development- AA 1 0 2
M) Other- Religious Programs 1 0 2
N) Breaking Barriers 1 0 2
O) Living without violence 1 0 2
P) Family Violence 1 0 2
Q) Healthy Relationships 1 0 2
R) Mental Health Program 1 0 2

D. Goals

16. Were correctional goals for day parole outlined in any correctional plan (e.g., complete specific programs)?

1. Yes 2. No

17. Below is a list of potential correctional goals that case managers may have outlined for each offender. Circle yes or no for each correctional goal listed in the offender's correctional plan:

  Yes No
A) Complete programs 1 0
B) Remain drug/alcohol free 1 0
C) Work to the best of ability 1 0
D) Remain incident free 1 0
E) Move to a lower security level institution 1 0
F) Meet with case manager or COII or a regular basis 1 0

18. Are day parole goals outlined (e.g., find a job)? 1. Yes ___ 2. No ___

19. Below is a list of potential day parole goals that case managers may have outlined for each offender. Circle yes or no for each day parole goal listed in the offender's correctional plan pr progress summary report: In addition, rank the extent to which the offender received direction to achieve each of his/her goals using the following guidelines.

  1. No direction ( e.g. the goal find a job, but there is no mention of job clubs or interviews
  2. Some direction ( e.g., the goal is maintain sobriety, to do this the case manger suggest that the offender attend AA, however there is no mention to stay away from bars or peers that drink excessively).
  3. Good directions provided (e.g., the goal is to find a job and the case manager has arranged meetings at job clubs or interviews for the offender)
Goal     Rank the direction given for each goal
  Yes No None Some Good Does not apply
A) Maintain sobriety 1 0 1 2 3 9
B) Attain/maintain a positive community network 1 0 1 2 3 9
C) Refrain from associating with other criminals or others known to be engaging in criminal activity 1 0 1 2 3 9
D) Find a job 1 0 1 2 3 9
E) Non-criminal lifestyle 1 0 1 2 3 9
F) Complete school/upgrading 1 0 1 2 3 9
G) Participation or completion of community programs 1 0 1 2 3 9
H) Meet with parole officer or other CSC personnel on a regular basis 1 0 1 2 3 9

E. Actual programs that the offender completed prior to receiving day parole

20. For each program, circle the appropriate number.

  Yes No Waiting list Incomplete Removed
A) Substance abuse - alcohol 1 0 2 3 4
B) Substance abuse- drugs 1 0 2 3 4
C) Sex offender treatment 1 0 2 3 4
D) Psychologist 1 0 2 3 4
E) Psychiatrist 1 0 2 3 4
F) Cognitive Skills 1 0 2 3 4
G) Employment skills training 1 0 2 3 4
H) Adult basic education 1 0 2 3 4
I) GED/ upgrade to grade 12 1 0 2 3 4
J)Vocational skills 1 0 2 3 4
K) Anger Management 1 0 2 3 4
L) Other personal development 1 0 2 3 4
M) Other 1 0 2 3 4
N) Breaking barriers 1 0 2 3 4
O) Living without Violence 1 0 2 3 4
P) Family Violence 1 0 2 3 4
Q) Healthy Relationships 1 0 2 3 4
R) Mental Health program 1 0 2 3 4

F. Temporary Absences

Exclude TAs that were medical, compassionate and or administrative.

1. Was/ were there ETA(s) mentioned? 1. Yes 2. No

If yes, how many ETAs were there _____

* If unknown enter 99

2. For the ETAs mentioned:

A) If the day parole goal was to maintain sobriety, was there an ETA
for AA (or other substance abuse treatment)?

1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

B) If the day parole goal was to attain work, was there an ETA for
job hunting/ interviews or other work related event?

1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

C) If the day parole goal was rehabilitative (community programs),
were there ETAs for community programs or an opportunity to meet
the program(s) coordinators/facilitators?

1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

D) If the day parole goal was to attain a positive community
network, were there ETAs to attend community functions
( e.g. pow wows, AA socials, religious activities, family visit)

1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

E) If the day parole goal was school related (upgrading/ GED/ college/university), were there ETAs to register for classes or to take classes or meet with school counselor?

1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

3. Was/ were there UTA(s) mentioned? 1. Yes 2. No

If yes, how many UTAs were there _____

* If unknown enter 99

4. Of the UTAs mentioned,

A) If the day parole goal was to maintain sobriety, was there an UTA
for AA (or other substance abuse treatment)?

1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

B) If the day parole goal was to attain work, was there an UTA for
job hunting/ interviews or other work related event?

1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

C) If the day parole goal was rehabilitative (community programs),
were there UTAs for community programs or an opportunity to meet
the program(s) coordinators/facilitators?

1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

D) If the day parole goal was to attain a positive community
network, were there UTAs to attend community functions
( e.g. pow wows, AA socials, religious activities, family visit)

1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

E) If the day parole goal was school related (upgrading/
GED/ college/university), were there UTAs to register
for classes or to take classes or meet with school counselor?

1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

G. Activities to Pursue While on Day Parole

  1. Work
  2. Rehabilitative (programs)
  3. Educational/ Vocational
  4. Work and Rehabilitative
  5. Work and Educational/vocational
  6. Educational/Vocational and Rehabilitative
  7. Work, Rehabilitative and Educational/Vocational

On day parole:

( N/A means not applicable; Unknown means the data was not in the file)

Was work pursued?
1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A 4. Unknown

Was rehabilitation pursued?
1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A 4. Unknown

Was education or vocational training pursued?
1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A 4. Unknown

H. Destination / Accommodations

  1. Home with Family
  2. Half way house - CCC
  3. Half way House- CRC
  4. Other

Was the CSC or CRC halfway house recommended for the programs that they offer?

1. Yes 2. No

I. Accommodation Problems

1. Was the offender granted day parole but could not go on day
parole due to spacing problems at a facility?

1. Yes 2. No

2. How many facilities did the offender or case manager
contact before they were accepted?

* _______

* enter 9 if unknown

3. Is there any reference made to full parole? 1. Yes 2. No

4. Is there any reference made to statutory release? 1. Yes 2. No

5. Is day parole mentioned as a trial period for full parole? 1. Yes 2. No

6. Is day parole mentioned as a trial period for statutory release? 1. Yes 2. No

SIR score _______

7. Is the offender a lifer? 1. Yes 2. No

Appendix B

OMS issues (transitional period/ location of data)

OMS is a computer based system that maintains offender information used during the incarceration and supervision period of the sentence as well as decision information from the National Parole Board (NPB). While some information on offenders is available in summary data sets, text information from reports is not available in a form that can be analyzed.

This study is one of the first research projects to use OMS for retrieving file information on offenders. Therefore, the project may be viewed as trial to determine OMS's function as a research tool in the future.

The primary advantage of using the OMS system is the ability for many individuals to retrieve offender file information, on any offender, in any region, in a matter of minutes. In addition, there is no disruption to the institution because there is no removal of files. Moreover, paper files are maintained by CSC and NPB and information may be needed from both files. This requires additional effort and time as files must be reviewed at CSC sites and at NPB sites. OMS keeps all files in the electronic data system. In this respect, OMS can be viewed as being highly cost effective because researchers do not have to travel to retrieve the information and coding can be centralized to ensure consistency and control.

Unfortunately, OMS has its share of disadvantages as well. One disadvantage of OMS is the combination of lack of availability and the amount time required to retrieve an offender's file. For example, OMS is not available weekends and Monday mornings because the archive node3 is still being backed up. In addition, there is approximately a 10% down time for OMS (e.g., the archive node breaks down or some other node becomes inaccessible). Occasionally the system becomes extremely slow and it can take upwards of 15 minutes to retrieve an offender's complete file.

A second problem that arose utilizing the OMS system, relates to the number of OMS users regionally and institutionally. Since the inception of OMS in 1993, there has been a dramatic increase in its use. However, for case information in the early part of 1994 there were many offender files that did not have sufficient information for conducting research such as this project. OMS use is increasing and problems encountered as a result of missing information should be reduced for research using data samples post- 1994. Historical reviews will still encounter problems with pre-1995 data. It should also be noted that there is very little text information in OMS for cases or events which occurred prior to its implementation in October 1993.

The last problem relates to the manner in which OMS is used both between and within institutions. For example, some case managers only use progress summary reports in OMS, while others have all relevant offender correctional information in different locations on OMS (e.g., correctional plans, progress summary reports, program reports, psychological reports etc.). In summary, the location and type of information available was not consistent. A small percentage of parole offices did not use OMS to record the offender's progress while on day parole.

Overall, the major advantage of OMS is its cost effectiveness and efficiency. Should the availability and speed of OMS increase in the near future, it would be highly recommended as a research tool for access to offender file information that would otherwise be unattainable except by going to the institutions.

1 The final progress summary report is submitted to NPB 30 days before the parole hearing and therefore an offender may not be finished a program at the time that the report is submitted.

2 An approved correctional plan is one in which there are 2 people who have signed the report. Approved correctional plans tend to be longer and more detailed than non- approved plans. If you are unsure if a correctional plan was approved please see Marlo.

3 The archive node is the location of OMS that contains file on information on those offenders who have past their warrant expiry.

Date Modified: 2015-03-05

Top of Page
Important Notices