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Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Personal Development Temporary Absences

This report is also available in French. Ce rapport est également disponible en français. Veuillez vous adresser à la direction de la recherche, Service Correctionnel du Canada, 340 avenue Laurier ouest, Ottawa (Ontario) K1A 0P9. Should additional copies be required they can be obtained from the Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, 340 Laurier Ave., West, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0P9.

1998 No R-65

Brian A. Grant
and
Sara L. Johnson

PREPARED FOR

Correctional Service of Canada
in cooperation with
the National Parole Board


Research Branch
Correctional Service of Canada

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

A descriptive analysis of personal development temporary absences was initiated as part of the five year review of Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992) to determine how these temporary absences were being used and what they were being used for.

Temporary absences (TAs) for personal development were first mandated in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992) in an attempt to clarify the purposes for which TAs could be granted and to ensure consistency in their use across the country. These temporary absences (TAs) could be for up to 15 or 60 days and the 15 day absences could be with or without an escort. Personal development TAs were found to be used for the purpose indicated in the CCRA with alcohol and drug abuse treatment being the most common program specified.

Personal development TAs, unlike other types of TAs which last between one and three days, are granted for extended periods of time, either 15 or 60 days. However, most of the personal development TAs are actually taken one day at a time or several days at a time over an extended period. Many of the personal development UTAs are taken a few days at a time, but on multiple occasions, while some are taken for extended continuous periods.

Personal development UTAs often make use of additional supervision techniques such as special conditions and residency in halfway houses or treatment facilities which are not used with other types of TAs. Special conditions and residence requirements were more frequently used with 60 day UTAs.

Personal development TAs are part of a structured release plan for the majority of cases with UTAs being most likely to have relevant documentation. However, this was more likely to occur in a progress summary report prepared just prior to release rather than in the correctional plan which sets out the full reintegration plan. Therefore, personal development TAs tend to be part of a structured plan but planning appears to occur relatively close to the time of the release. The quality of the documentation in OMS varied across regions and across the types of personal development TAs. Although follow-up information was often available after the release, the offenders activities during the TA were rarely reported.

Personal development TAs were granted to offenders with a range of offences and sentences. Fifteen day ETAs were more likely to be granted to offenders with sexual offences than the 15 day UTAs or 60 day UTAs. A large proportion of offenders granted personal development UTAs had been convicted of violent non-sexual offences. In addition, approximately 20% of offenders granted personal development UTAs had life sentences.

For offenders serving determinate sentences, personal development TAs were granted six or more months after their parole eligibility date. Overall, these offenders had completed approximately 40% or more of their sentence when they departed on the TA although offenders granted 60 day UTAs had completed approximately half of their sentence. Offenders serving life sentences received 15 day ETAs and 15 day UTAs before their parole eligibility date, but received 60 day UTAs approximately 2 years after their parole eligibility date.

Regional difference in the granting rate existed across all three types of personal development TAs. Most striking was the large regional disparity for 60 day UTAs.

Offenders granted personal development TAs tended to be representative of the inmate population in terms of their gender and race. However, 60 day UTAs were granted to males only, and Aboriginal offenders were almost twice as likely to be granted 60 day UTAs than their representation in the inmate population.

Although the unique effect of personal development TAs on future conditional release cannot be determined, personal development TAs do appear to influence the rate of granting discretionary release, especially day parole. Following day parole, a majority of offenders appear to be released at their statutory release date and approximately 70% of these offenders are successful one year after their full release.

Overall, personal development TAs provide many opportunities for offenders to be released into the community in order to attend programming not available in the institutions. Personal development TAs, therefore, can provide additional help with the process of reintegrating offenders into the community that they will eventually be released to.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Considerable time and effort from other people was necessary to produce this report. The temporary absence database with which the personal development TAs were identified, was created by R. L. Belcourt, Director, Research Information Services. Chris Beal assisted in extracting data from existing databases for follow-up and related analyses David Joubert and Pam Lefaive assisted the second author in coding offender files. In addition, Colette Cousineau performed the data entry and Laura Vandette assisted with the creation of tables and graphs. All of their efforts were necessary and greatly appreciated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), which was implemented in November 1992, made a number of changes to the laws governing temporary absences from federal prisons in Canada. The temporary absence program provides opportunities for offenders in federal custody to be released into the community for relatively short periods of time, ranging from a few hours to a few days, or in special circumstances, for longer periods of time. These short periods in the community provide opportunities for the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board to determine how an offender will respond when the restrictions of the penitentiary environment are removed. In addition, temporary absences are the first steps in a process of gradual release and reintegration which eventually lead to parole or statutory release.

One of the more important changes introduced by the CCRA was the introduction of extended temporary absences for personal development for rehabilitative purposes. These temporary absences may be for up to 15 or 60 days and the 15 day temporary absences may be escorted or unescorted while the 60 day TAs are always unescorted. According to the Case Management Manual (1997) personal development TAs are designed to provide the offender with opportunities for treatment outside the institution. In particular, the Case Management Manual (1997, item 33 D) states that personal development TAs are to "facilitate attendance/ participation" in various specific personal development programs such as "substance abuse treatment, meetings to promote cultural awareness, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, sex offender treatment, general or specialized education programs, technical training programs, or family violence counseling sessions".

The authority to grant personal development TAs is shared by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the National Parole Board (NPB). In general, escorted absences may be approved by CSC, except for offenders serving life sentences. The National Parole Board has the authority to make decisions regarding unescorted temporary absences for offenders serving life sentences, indeterminate sentences, or sentences for violent (Schedule I) and drug offences (Schedule II) 1. However, the Board has delegated its authority for unescorted temporary absences to CSC for all offenders serving sentences for drug offences (Schedule II) and violent offences (Schedule I) except where the offence resulted in the death of, or serious harm to the victim, or is a sexual offence involving a child. In these latter cases, NPB must approve an unescorted absence. In many instances, after the NPB provides approval for a first absence, and if there are no serious problems during the absence, subsequent absences may be approved by CSC.

Offenders are eligible for escorted temporary absences immediately upon entry into a federal penitentiary, although absences early in the sentence would normally be for medical purposes. Eligibility for unescorted temporary absences (UTAs) for most offenders is at ½ of the period to parole eligibility date, or six months, whichever is greater. Offenders serving a life sentence are not eligible for UTAs until three years before their parole eligibility date, while offenders serving indeterminate sentences are eligible only after three years in custody. In a new provision, the Act states that offenders classified as maximum security are not eligible for UTAs.

The CCRA established a set a principles to guide decision making by the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board. One of these principles was that any decision to release an offender from incarceration must consider, first and foremost, the protection of the public. One method of ensuring this was that all release programs had to be part of an overall release plan with the objective of preparing the offender for full release. The study will attempt to determine if personal development TAs are part of a release plan.

Prior to a TA being granted, a structured plan for the absence, including objectives to be achieved by the offender, must be prepared. A Progress Summary Report must be completed within 60 days of the receipt of the application for TA. For follow-up information, a Post Temporary Absence Report must be completed for all TAs. Therefore, there must be information both before and after the TA.

The CCRA required that a review of its provisions be made five years after it came into force. The review is to be completed at the end of 1997 and this report is one of a number which address various components of the CCRA. Another report, Grant and Millson (1998), provides more information on the temporary absence program in general as well as a description of how the use of temporary absences has changed as a result of the CCRA. In addition, Grant and Millson (1998) provide a review of previous research relating to temporary absences.

The study described in this report was designed to provide answers to the following questions:

  • What are personal development TAs being used for?
  • How are personal development TAs being used? (time away from the institution, consecutive or non-consecutive days away, supervision etc.)
  • Are personal development TAs part of a structured release plan?
  • When in the sentence are personal development TAs being granted?
  • Are there regional, racial and gender differences in the use of personal development TAs?
  • What type of offenders are being granted personal development TAs?
  • What is the effect of personal development TAs on future conditional releases?
  • Do personal development TAs increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in the community after full release?

For the study, personal development TAs were divided into three groups based on the presence or absence of an escort and the length of the TA, either 15 or 60 days. This breakdown created the following groups:

  1. 15 day escorted TAs (ETA)
  2. 15 day unescorted TAs (UTA)
  3. 60 day unescorted TAs (UTA)

The most frequently used type of personal development TA is the escorted 15 day TA as shown in Table 1-1. In 1994-95 and 1995-96 there were approximately 14,000 releases on 15 day ETAs for approximately 1,500 offenders. Personal development ETAs account for about 30% of all reintegration2 ETA releases and 24% of all offenders granted reintegration ETAs. Clearly, 15 day personal development ETAs are an important component of the TA program.

Table 1-1: Number of personal development TAs in 1994-95 and 1995-961
Fiscal Year 15 day ETAs 15 day UTAs 60 day UTAs
Number Offenders Number Offenders Number Offenders
1994-95 14 882 1500 449 135 466 70
1995-96 13 338 1434 430 124 760 121
% of all reintegration ETAs (30%) (24%)        
% of all UTAs     (6%) (4%) (5%) (3%)
1 Based on results presented in Grant and Millson (1998).

Prior to the CCRA, offenders could be released on temporary absences for the purpose of socialization. This type of TA was discontinued by the CCRA in an attempt to ensure that TAs served a more rehabilitative function. Personal development TAs now provide a similar, although reduced number of release opportunities as socialization TAs did in the past.

Table 1-1 also presents the number of 15 and 60 day UTAs for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. There were slightly more than 400, 15 day UTA releases for about 130 offenders in each year. Sixty day UTAs releases were slightly more frequent, (over 500), but they were used for the same number or fewer offenders (between 70 and 121). Overall, 15 and 60 day personal development UTAs each account for only about 5% of all UTA releases.

Previous Research on Personal Development Temporary Absences

Given that personal development TAs were first implemented in the CCRA (1992) and the small number of these as UTAs, little research is available describing their use. However, general findings concerning all ETAs and UTAs provide some background information and comparison on TA use.

A report by Grant and Belcourt (1992) conducted before the implementation of the CCRA, addressed the question of who was being granted TAs. Offenders granted TAs in the fiscal year of 1990-91 had a similar rate of major admitting offences as the general inmate population. In terms of sentence type, the majority (87%) had determinate sentences while 12% were serving life sentences.

In addition, Grant and Millson (1998) found that after the CCRA was implemented 70% of offenders granted reintegration UTAs were from minimum security institutions, 26% were from medium security institutions, and 3% were from maximum security institutions3.

In contrast to the pre-CCRA findings presented above, offenders who received reintegration UTAs in Grant and Millson's (1998) study were not similar to the inmate population in terms of their major admitting offence. The most serious current offence for which the offenders granted reintegration UTAs were being incarcerated was overwhelmingly non-violent (59%), while only 27% had a violent offence , 5% had a murder offence, and 9% had a drug offence. Therefore, violent offenders were grossly under represented, and non-violent offenders were over represented among offenders granted UTAs after the implementation of the CCRA.

Grant and Belcourt (1992) found that rates of male and female offenders being granted TAs were approximately representative of the inmate population, but Aboriginal offenders were underrepresented. Similar findings were found in a later study by Grant and Millson (1998).

Three studies have addressed the association between TAs and subsequent release. Motiuk and Belcourt (1996), in their analysis of temporary absences, found that approximately half of the offenders who had received ETAs received a future discretionary release (day parole or full parole), while two-thirds of offenders who had received UTAs were subsequently granted discretionary release. Approximately 20% of offenders granted ETAs prior to release were returned to federal custody within a two year follow-up period while only 8% of offenders granted UTAs were returned (Motiuk & Belcourt, 1996). Grant and Gal (1998) report that reintegration TAs had a positive effect on the rates of success of offenders granted day parole, with approximately three-quarters of offenders with previous reintegration TAs being successful versus less than two-thirds without reintegration TAs.

Finally, LeClair and Guarino-Ghezzi's (1991) research comparing recidivism rates pre and post implementation of a TA program found that offenders granted TAs had lower recidivism rates than predicted. In fact, only 16% of offenders receiving TAs recidivated in comparison to the predicted rate of recidivism of 25%.

In summary, the research suggests that reintegration TAs appear to have a positive effect on the likelihood of being granted future conditional release, success on future conditional release, and recidivism rates after release.

1 The CCRA contains two schedules, or lists of offences. Offences listed on Schedule I are violent offences while those listed on Schedule II are drug related offences.

2 Reintegration ETAs include those for community service, family contact, parental responsibility and personal development. They exclude TAs for medial, compassionate and administrative reasons.

3 These were mostly female offenders from the multi-level Prison for Women in Kingston.

Design of the Report

The remainder of the report is divided into six chapters. The next chapter presents the methodology used for the study and this is followed by separate chapters which present results for the three types of personal development TAs: 15 day ETAs, 15 day UTAs, and 60 day UTAs. A separate chapter then provides comparative analyses between the three types of personal development TAs followed by a discussion and summary of the results.

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

Sample

Offenders granted 15 and 60 day personal development temporary absences (TAs) between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1995 were included in the study. For analysis, groups were formed on the basis of escort type and length of TA resulting in three groups: 15 day escorted TAs (ETA), 15 day unescorted TAs (UTA) and 60 day unescorted TAs.

All offenders who received either a 15 or 60 day UTA in the one year period of the study were included if sufficient information was available in OMS. For 60 day UTAs this provided 68 offenders out of a possible 68 and for 15 day UTAs it provided 111 out of a possible 116 offenders.

The most common form of personal development TA is the 15 day ETA on which 1 456 offenders were released. For the study, a random sample of 260 offenders was selected for analysis and of these, 247 had sufficient information to allow for coding. If case information could not be found or if release dates were inconsistent, then the case was not included in the sample.

Data Sources

The Offender Management System (OMS) was used to obtain the information on each of the cases. OMS is an administrative data base which contains all file information related to offenders including the correctional plan, progress summary reports, temporary absence reports and information on all admissions and releases. The correctional plan, progress summary reports and TA reports provide the most detailed descriptive information on offenders and are prepared or updated any time there is activity related to an offenders program and release plans. Additional information is available, in other documents contained in OMS, and was used when needed. Due to variations across regions and institutions, relevant information is not always available in the same place for every offender.

Most of the information used for the study is not coded in OMS, but exists as text based information. Therefore, this information must be read and coded before it can be used in an analysis. A coding manual and instruction manual are presented in Appendix 1 and was used to code information such as the purpose of the TA, the quality of the documentation both before and after the TA, and the conditions of the TA.

During development, the coding manual was tested extensively to determine if the desired information would be available in the OMS files. After confirming the availability and reliability of the information in OMS, the coding manual was finalized and used for all cases. Coders were three senior university students, who were trained by the second author using sample cases to ensure consistency of coding. All French language information was coded by a francophone, while English information was coded by an anglophone.

Additional offender information was extracted from various data bases maintained by the Research Branch. These include records of all admissions, releases, offences, TAs and biographical information. The information in these data bases comes from OMS, and already is coded for analysis purposes.

Analyses

Separate data analyses were completed for the three types of TAs (60 day UTAs, 15 day UTAs, 15 day ETAs). These analyses included frequency, crosstabulation, Chi-Square, and ANOVA analyses. Further, statistical comparisons between the three groups were performed. All statistical analyses were completed using SAS version 6.12 (SAS, 1997). Due to the fact that all offenders granted 15 day UTAs and 60 day UTAs were used, while only 17% of the sample of offenders granted 15 day ETAs were used, it is not appropriate to compare the raw numbers across groups, but it is however, appropriate to compare percentages, as is done in the report.

CHAPTER 3: 15 DAY ETAS

Fifteen day ETAs are the most common personal development TAs granted to offenders with approximately 17 000 releases granted to 1 500 offenders per year. They account for 30% of all reintegration ETAs granted.

Most of the results presented are based on a random sample of 17% (247) of offenders granted 15 day ETAs. Only two 15 day ETAs appeared to have consecutive days and these were excluded from the analyses. Fifteen day ETAs appear to provide multiple opportunities to participate in activities in the community. Following a summary of the characteristics of 15 day ETAs, other results including time of release, offence history, purpose of the TA, programming, special conditions, and follow-up are presented. Where data are available for all 15 day personal development TAs, this information is presented.

A summary of offender and administrative characteristics of personal development 15 day ETAs is presented in Table 3-1. Where possible these characteristics are presented for the sample data, all personal development TAs between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1995, and for the inmate population. Comparisons between the sample and all personal development 15 day ETAs are used to confirm the representativeness of the sample and comparisons with the inmate population demonstrate the relative difference in use. These results are also compared to other types of personal development TAs in Chapter 6.

Table 3-1: Characteristics of 15 day ETAs
Characteristic 15 Day ETAs Sample 15 Day ETAs Population Inmate Population1
Percent Number of Cases2 Percent Percent
 
Gender
Male 95.5 234 96.8 97.7
Female 4.5 11 3.2 2.3
 
Race
Aboriginal 13.1 32 11.7 12.3
Non-Aboriginal 86.9 213 88.3 87.7
 
Age
25 and younger 10.4 23 9.93  
26 to 35 38.7 86 37.9  
36 to 45 25.7 57 30.3  
46 and older 25.2 56 21.8  
 
Security Level
Minimum 92.2 225 83.0 17.5
Medium 2.9 7 13.3 62.7
Maximum 4.9 12 3.8 17.3
 
Authority
NPB 6.7 16    
CSC 93.3 222    
 
Region
Atlantic 17.2 42 20.8 9.9
Quebec 16.7 41 24.3 26.8
Ontario 31.4 77 24.9 27.8
Prairie 18.4 45 13.0 22.4
Pacific 16.3 40 16.9 13.1
 
Number of days
5 and under 25.3 62    
6 to 15 20.4 50    
16 and over 54.3 133    
 
Follow up documentation
No 46.9 115    
Yes 53.1 130    
 
Outcome
Negative 0 0 0.2 0.24
Positive 100.0 245 99.8 99.8
1 Basic Facts about Corrections in Canada, 1994.

2 For most variables there are 245 cases, but this may vary slightly as a result of missing values.

3 149 out of 1456 cases were missing from the age analysis

4 Grant and Millson, 1998.

Offender Characteristics

Offender characteristics including gender, race and age are presented in Table 3-1. Females account for 4% of the offenders released on 15 day ETAs, which is slightly higher than their representation in the offender population. The results also indicate that the sample adequately represents the gender distribution of all offenders granted 15 day ETAs.

Aboriginal offenders, who account for about 12% of the inmate population, represent 13% of the offenders granted a 15 day ETAs in the sample. The sample data also represent the population data in terms of racial distribution.

Offenders aged 26 to 35 accounted for almost 40% of the sample while offenders aged 36 to 45, and 46 and older each represented approximately one-quarter of the offenders of the sample who were granted 15 day ETA, while offenders 25 years of age and younger account for only 10% of the sample. This distribution is somewhat consistent with the data for all 15 day ETAs, although fewer offenders appeared to be between 36 and 45 in the sample than in the population and more offenders were 46 and older in the sample of 15 day ETAs than in the population. These differences are unlikely to unduly affect the results of the study.

Administrative Characteristics

As revealed in Table 3-1, the vast majority (83%) of offenders granted 15 day ETAs were incarcerated at minimum security institutions, while 13% were at medium security institutions and 3% were at maximum security institutions. These results suggest that 15 day personal development ETAs may be underutilized in medium security institutions, given that medium security institutions house 63% of offenders.

The sample data underrepresent releases for medium security institutions by about ten percentage points, but this difference should not have an impact on other results using the sample data.

CSC was the granting authority for 93% of the offenders sampled and the National Parole Board was the granting authority for 7% of offenders granted 15 day ETAs. This result is not surprising given that the legislated granting authority for most ETAs is CSC. Regionally, CSC was the granting authority for all offenders granted 15 day ETAs in the Atlantic region while in the Pacific region only 80% of 15 day ETAs were granted by CSC.

Regional rates of granting 15 day ETAs are also presented in Table 3-1. While the Ontario region had the highest number of 15 day ETAs granted to offenders, the Atlantic region had the highest rate of granting 15 day ETAs to offenders relative to the size of the offender population. That is, they were granted 21% of all the 15 day ETAs, but they account for only 10% of the inmate population. While Quebec, Ontario, and Pacific regions release offenders on 15 day personal development ETAs at about the same proportion as their representation in the inmate population, the Prairies region under utilizes this type of TA.

Comparing the sample data to the population of 15 day ETAs indicates that the Quebec region is underrepresented in the sample data while the Ontario and Prairie regions are overrepresented in the sample. Given these discrepancies, it may be necessary to be cautious in interpreting some results.

TA Characteristics

Attributes of the 15 day ETAs including the number of days, the existence of follow-up, and success, are also presented in Table 3-1. The actual number of days the offender spent on the ETA was difficult to ascertain because of problems in determining the start and end dates. It appears as if many of these ETAs overlap and information such as decision number, which should assist in defining one TA from another, were frequently inconsistent. Therefore, the data on the number of days may not be entirely accurate.

The 15 day ETAs are supposed to have a maximum of 15 days of participation, while more than 15 days is not appropriate for one 15 day ETA, less than 15 days is allowable. While 25% of 15 day ETAs were for five days or less and 20% were for between six and fifteen days, the data indicated that over one-half of offenders granted 15 day ETAs had spent more than 15 days on the TA, although this finding is most likely a result of errors in the recording of data.

The number of 15 day personal development TAs granted within a twelve month period was assessed by counting the number of decision numbers referring to 15 day personal development TAs. Including the current 15 day ETA, the average number of 15 day TAs was 7.2 while the median was 2. The number of 15 day TAs within twelve months ranged from 1 to 99.

Appropriate follow-up documentation was available for only 53% of offenders granted 15 day ETAs. In terms of outcome, all of the offenders in the sample granted 15 day ETAs had a positive outcome and this is consistent with the rate of positive outcome for all 15 day ETAs and the rate of positive found elsewhere (Grant and Millson, 1998).

Sentence

The mean length of determinate sentences for offenders who were granted 15 day ETAs was six years (2 199 days). The sentence length of offenders granted 15 day ETAs differed significantly across the regions with the Prairie region granting 15 day ETAs to offenders with the shortest average sentences (4.2 years or 1528 days) and the Quebec region granting 15 day ETAs to offenders with the longest sentences (9.2 years or 3364 days) (F(4, 211)=6.51, p<.001). Comparisons across regions in sentence length and other sentence related variables is presented in Table 3-2.

Sentence length was divided into four categories: four years or less, between four and ten years, more than ten years, and life sentence. Overall, 40% of 15 day ETAs were granted to offenders serving sentences of four years or less, 38% had sentences between four and ten years, 9% had sentences ten years in length or longer, and 12% had life sentences. It is particularly noteworthy that approximately one-quarter (27%) of offenders granted 15 day ETAs in the Quebec region had determinate sentences over ten years in length while in other regions offenders with sentences of over ten years in length represented between 2% and 10% of those granted 15 day ETAs. This relatively large percentage of offenders with long sentences in the Quebec region explains the long mean sentence length in that region.

Sentence length information was used to determine when the 15 day ETAs were granted in relation to the parole eligibility date and the proportion of the sentence served at the time of the release. Offenders with determinate sentences were granted 15 day ETAs on average 237 days after their parole eligibility date and had served 42% of their sentence when granted the 15 day ETA. Regionally, offenders granted 15 day ETAs in the Quebec region had to wait the longest (509 days after the parole eligibility date) while offenders granted 15 day ETAs in the Atlantic region received them, on average, within 10 days after their parole eligibility date. A regional comparison in the percentage of sentences served indicate that the Atlantic region had the lowest mean proportion of time served of 32% whereas the Ontario region had the highest mean percentage of time served of 45% of sentence (F(4, 211)=3.22, p<.05).

Offenders serving life sentences were granted 15 day ETAs an average of 182 days before their parole eligibility dates. The minimum parole eligibility date for offenders with life sentences is 10 years and can range up to 25 years.

Table 3-2: Sentence information for 15 day ETAs for offenders with determinate sentences
Region Mean
Sentence length Granting date from parole eligiblity data Percentage of sentence served
Years Days Days
Atlantic 4.4 1592 9.8 32%
Ontario 5.9 2170 200.4 45%
Quebec 9.2 3363 509.2 43%
Prairie 4.2 1528 168.0 32%
Pacific 6.6 2399 370.0 44%
 
  F(4, 211)=6.51, p<.001 F(4, 209)=2.97, p<.05 F(4, 211)=3.22, p<.05

Offence History

Offence rates of all offences prior to the departure on the ETA, the most serious offence prior to the departure on the ETA, and the most serious index offence (current offence) are presented in Table 3-3. Overall, offenders who had been convicted of at least one non-violent or drug offence in the current sentence were most likely to be granted 15 day ETAs. Approximately 25% of offenders had at least one conviction for offences ranging from break and enter to sexual and non-sexual violent offences. Almost 20% of offenders granted 15 day ETAs had been convicted either of homicide (manslaughter or murder). In terms of the most serious previous offence, sexual offences were the most common, followed by non-sexual violent offences.

For offenders granted 15 day ETAs, the most serious current offence was sexual offences for approximately one-quarter of the offenders. A regional analysis of the most serious index offence revealed some clear regional differences for offenders with sexual convictions. The Atlantic region granted over half (61%) of 15 day ETAs to offenders with sexual convictions while the rates in other regions ranged from 10% to 27%.

Needs Level

An examination of the number of needs as recorded in OMS reports indicated that on average, offenders granted 15 day ETAs had 3.5 needs identified. Almost half (46%) of the offenders granted 15 day ETAs were rated as high need offenders, while 30% were rated as low need offenders, and 25% were moderate need offenders.

Table 3-3: Previous and Current offences of offenders granted 15 day ETAs
Offence Category Previouse offences1 Most serious previous offence1 Most serious current offence
Percent2 N Percent N Percent N
Murder 11.4 28 11.6 28 11.6 28
Manslaughter 8.2 20 7.0 17 6.6 16
Sexual offence 24.5 60 24.4 59 23.2 56
Violent (non-sexual) offence 28.6 70 19.8 48 17.4 42
Robbery 24.5 60 14.9 36 14.5 35
Drug offences 35.5 87 10.7 26 12.0 29
Property 25.3 62 4.6 11 5.8 14
Break and enter 25.7 63 2.5 6 2.9 7
Other non-violent offences 57.6 141 4.6 11 5.8 14
 
Total     4.6 11 5.8 14
1 Refers to all federal offences, including the index offence, prior to release on the ETA.

2 The sum of these percentages is greater than 100 because the categories are not mutually exclusive. That is, the percentages account for all offenders who have been convicted of each offence.

Structured Plan

According to the CCRA, TAs are required to be part of a structured plan. The degree to which the 15 day ETAs were part of a structured plan is discussed in this section. Offenders were evaluated as having a structured plan when the 15 day ETA was mentioned in either the progress summary report (PSR) or the correctional plan (CP) prior to their departure on the 15 day ETA. Overall, 75% of offenders granted 15 day ETAs had either a PSR or CP that mentioned the ETA. However, of the 83% of offenders who had correctional plans available prior to the 15 day ETA, only 35% mentioned the 15 day ETA. In addition, of the 87% of offenders with PSRs prior to the 15 day ETA, only 63% mentioned the 15 day ETA. Furthermore, of the offenders with PSRs prior to the one for the 15 day ETA, only 10% mentioned the ETA. To summarize, 15 day ETAs were generally not mentioned in the correctional plans and less than two-thirds of the progress summary reports prior to the release mentioned the TA.

Documentation quality was assessed using four questions . These questions were created in order to address the degree to which the documentation before the TA was adequate in relaying the information concerning the structured plan. The specific questions used to address documentation quality are presented Table 3-4. Responses to these questions ranged from 0 (issue not addressed) to 2 (issue addressed completely). The minimum possible score was 0 and the maximum was 8.

Table 3-4: Questions used to assess documentation quality
1. Is there mention of the TA in the progress summary report and/or the correctional plan?
2. Are specific objectives of the TA mentioned in the progress summary reports?
3. Do the progress summary reports and/or the correctional plans specify the program the offender is to attend?
4. Does the purpose of the TA match the offender's needs which are mentioned in the progress summary report?

Overall, the average documentation score was 4.3. Documentation scores were compared across regions and there is clear evidence of significant variability (F(4, 236)=5.43, p<.001). For example, the Pacific region had the highest score of 4.9 while the Quebec region had the lowest score at 3.3. The scores for all regions are presented in Table 3-5.

In addition to the mean scores, the distribution of scores across regions is also presented in Table 3-5. The documentation scores were categorized with 0 to 2 being poor, 3 to 5 being fair, and 6 and higher rated as good. For 15 day ETAs, 19% of offenders had 'poor' documentation quality, 50% had 'fair' documentation quality, and 31% had 'good' documentation quality. Regionally, the Quebec region had the highest rate of 'poor' quality documentation at 39%, while the Prairie region had the highest rate of 'good' quality documentation at 49%.

Table 3-5: Documentation quality across regions for 15 day ETAs
Region Mean Poor Fair Good
Percent N Percent N Percent N
Atlantic 3.6 16.7 7 83.3 35 0 0
Quebec 4.5 39.0 16 34.2 14 26.8 11
Ontario 3.3 14.3 11 50.7 39 35.1 27
Prairie 4.8 15.6 7 35.6 16 48.9 22
Pacific 4.9 12.5 5 47.5 19 40.0 16
 
National 4.3 18.8 46 50.2 123 31.0 76

Purpose

The intended purpose of personal development TAs is to provide opportunities for offenders to participate in programs related to personal development, in the community. Table 3-6 presents an analysis of the purpose of the 15 day ETAs. Overall, 89% of the releases were for programs alone or programs in combination with work or assessment. Fully, 9% of cases did not specify the purpose of the 15 day ETA.

Table 3-6: Purpose of 15 day ETAs
Purpose Percent N
Programs only 85.7 210
Programs and work 2.5 6
Work 1.6 4
Programs and assesment 0.8 2
No purpose specified 9.4 23

Programs

The programs offenders were required to take, alone or in combination with work or assessment, are presented in Table 3-7. The overall mean number of programs specified was 1.7 and therefore many offenders granted 15 day ETAs had multiple programs specified. Significant differences were found on the number of programs indicated across regions with the Atlantic region specifying the lowest average of 1.0 program per release, while the Prairie region specified the highest average of 2.3 programs per release F(4, 213)=10.68, p<.001). In the total sample of offenders receiving 15 day ETAs, 52% had one program, 31% had two programs, and 17% had three or more programs specified.

The types of programs and the frequencies with which they were specified are presented in Table 3-7. The most common program was alcohol abuse treatment (52%) followed by religious services (29%), and drug abuse treatment (29%). Other reintegration activities, self-help groups, and cultural awareness activities each accounted for between 12% and 16% of the TA programs. Recreation, such as athletics, was mentioned for 5% of offenders granted 15 day ETAs.

Table 3-7: Programs taken while on 15 day ETAs
Purpose Percent N
Alcohol abuse 51.8 105
Religious services 29.0 63
Drug abuse 28.9 63
Reintegration related 16.5 36
Other self help groups 15.6 34
Meetings to promote cultural awareness 12.4 27
Education / vocational / employment skills 6.0 13
Violence related 5.0 11
Recreation 4.6 10
Psychological / psychiatric counseling 3.2 7
Sex offender treatment 2.3 5
Other 5.0 11
Note: The sum of these percentages is greater than 100 because the categories are not mutually exclusive.

Time on Activities

Documentation following the 15 day ETA was reviewed for information concerning the offenders' activities during 15 day ETAs. The number of hours engaged in programs was available for only 12% of offenders who had a specific program mentioned. Where this information was available, the mean number of hours engaged in the program was 5.9 with values ranging from 1 to 12. ETAs do not provide opportunities for other types of activities.

Special Conditions

The main condition required for offenders on 15 day ETAs was they remain 'supervised by the escort'. Only 2% had any other condition, specifically 'abstain from intoxicants' and 'a restraining condition'.

Follow-up

The next conditional release after the last return date on the index TA was examined and is presented in Table 3-8. Overall, day parole was the most common type of release following 15 day ETAs, with over half (66%) of offenders receiving day parole. The average number of days after the ETA to the next conditional release was 140 days or approximately four and a half months.

The next full release (full parole or statutory release) after the offenders' return from the 15 day ETA is presented in Table 3-8. Approximately 61% of offenders were eventually released at their statutory release date, most of whom had a day parole release prior to their full release.

Analyses of whether the 15 day ETA was mentioned as preparation for each type of conditional release were performed. Overall, only 2% of reports mentioned day parole, less than 1% each mentioned full parole or statutory release.

Table 3-8: Next release type after 15 day ETA
Release type First Release Full Release
Percent1 N Percent2 N
Day parole 65.9 143    
Full parole 11.5 25 39.4 67
Statutory release 22.6 49 60.6 103
Other 3      
 
Total 100.0 217 100.0 170
1 Percentage is based on 15 day personal development ETA offenders who were granted a release after completion of the ETA. In 11% (27 cases) offenders had not been released by the end of the study period.

2 Percentage is based on number of offenders who received a full parole or statutory release after the ETA. 37 offenders released on day parole did not have a full release at the end of the study period.

3 Insufficient number of cases.

A one year follow-up of offenders granted 15 day ETAs who were later granted full parole or statutory release was performed. Overall, only 37% (92) of offenders granted 15 day ETAs were included in the follow-up group. Of the offenders included, only 26% had a new admission after the release. Overall, 10% of offenders included in the follow-up were readmitted for a new offence, 16% were readmitted due to a revocation, and 74% had not been readmitted. On average, the next admission after full parole or statutory release for offenders granted 15 day ETAs occurred 240 days after the full release.

Summary and Discussion

Offenders granted 15 day ETAs were similar to the general inmate population in terms of gender and race. This suggests that 15 day ETAs are granted equivalently across gender and race. In terms of age, offenders in the age range of 26 to 35 accounted for the largest proportion of offenders granted 15 day ETAs

Almost all (93%) of offenders granted 15 day ETAs had CSC as the decision authority. Regionally, Ontario granted 15 day ETAs to the most offenders but, in comparison to their proportion of the inmate population, offenders in the Atlantic were overrepresented while offenders in the Quebec region were underrepresented in the granting rate of 15 day ETAs. Fifteen day ETAs tended to be granted to offenders incarcerated at minimum security institutions, suggesting the 15 day ETAs are being under utilized in medium security institutions.

Analyses of the characteristics of the 15 day ETAs themselves revealed that the majority exceeded fifteen days in actual participation. This is most likely an artifact of the quality of the data. Efforts are needed to correct the inaccurate recording of information.

Rates of positive outcome of 15 ETAs revealed that all offenders had positive outcomes consistent with previous research (Grant and Millson, 1998).

Offenders serving determinate sentences were granted 15 day ETAs approximately eight months after their parole eligibility date while offenders serving life sentences were granted 15 day ETAs approximately six months before their parole eligibility date. For offenders serving determinate sentences, approximately 42% of their sentences had been served when they were granted 15 day ETAs. Regional comparisons indicated that offenders in the Atlantic region were granted 15 day ETAs after approximately 32% of their sentences had been completed while offenders in the Ontario region had completed 45% of their sentences. Therefore, 15 day ETAs are not granted at the same point in the offenders' sentences across the regions.

Offenders serving determinate sentences and granted 15 day ETAs had an average sentence length of 6.0 years. Regionally, offenders granted 15 day ETAs in the Prairie region had the shortest sentences (4.2 years) while offenders granted 15 day ETAs in the Quebec region had the longest sentences (9.2 years). This finding reveals that 15 day ETAs appear to be granted to different types of offenders across different regions.

Analyses of the most serious offences revealed that the largest proportion of offenders had sexual offences or violent non-sexual offences. Needs of offenders granted 15 day ETAs were usually in the high or moderate level with approximately one-quarter having a low needs level. These findings reveal that 15 day ETAs are being granted to more serious, high need offenders who require TAs that are well monitored (escorted) and address needs.

Release planning was short term for most offenders, with reference to the 15 day ETA found in the PSR prepared just prior to the release rather than in the correctional plan or an earlier PSR. Less than one third (31%) of the cases had documentation rated as good. Regionally, the Prairie region most often had more complete documentation, while Quebec was more likely to have incomplete documentation. The relative lack of good documentation and the regional inconsistency of release planning is a concern and is being addressed. Similarly, follow-up documentation was often incomplete since slightly less than half of the offenders granted 15 day ETAs had appropriate follow-up documentation available. However, follow-up information is critical to understanding how the offender is progressing.

Analyses of the specified purpose of the 15 day ETAs revealed that most were being used for their intended purpose. The specified purpose of the 15 day ETAs were most often programs, however almost 10% of cases had no purpose recorded. The programs most often indicated were alcohol abuse treatment, religious services, and drug abuse treatment.

Follow-up of offenders granted 15 day ETAs revealed that more than half were released on day parole after the 15 day ETA (not necessarily immediately). For offenders for whom follow-up data were available after full release, almost three-quarters completed their first year in the community. Although it is difficult to ascertain the degree to which 15 day personal development ETAs affected the rate of positive outcome of offenders, it is worthwhile noting that this rate of positive outcomes compares favourably with rates of success of other populations. However, future research should use longer follow-up periods.

CHAPTER 4: 15 DAY UTAS

According to the preliminary analyses later described in Chapter 6, 15 day UTAs are the second most common type of personal development TA, but were used substantially less than 15 day ETAs. A summary of the offender characteristics, administrative characteristics, and TA characteristics of 15 day UTAs is provided in Table 4-1. These results will be discussed in relation to the other personal development TAs in Chapter 6.

Offender Characteristics

Table 4-1 presents characteristics of the offenders granted 15 day UTAs such as gender, race, and age. Females were granted 15 day UTAs at almost triple the rate of their representation in the inmate population while Aboriginal offenders were granted 15 day UTAs at a rate similar to their representation in the inmate population. Offenders granted 15 day UTAs were mostly in the 26 to 35 (43%) or 36 to 45 (30%) age categories.

Administrative Characteristics

Administrative characteristics including region in which 15 day UTA was granted, the granting authority, and the institutional security level are presented in Table 4-1. Overall, the Quebec region granted nearly one-third of 15 day UTAs while the Atlantic region granted less than 5%, but relative to the number of inmates, the Pacific region granted the most 15 day UTAs, while the Atlantic region granted the least.

Table 4-1: Summary of 15 day UTAs characteristics
Characteristic 15 Day UTAs Sample1 Inmate Population2
Percent Number of Cases3 Percent
 
Gender
Male 93.5 101 97.7
Female 6.5 7 2.3
 
Race
Aboriginal 9.3 10 12.3
Non-Aboriginal 90.7 98 87.7
 
Age
25 and younger 15.0 15  
26 to 35 43.0 43  
36 to 45 30.0 30  
46 and older 12.0 12  
 
Security Level
Minimum 68.5 74 17.5
Medium 23.1 25 62.7
Maximum 8.3 9 17.3
 
Authority
NPB 42.7 27  
CSC 56.4 62  
 
Region
Atlantic 3.6 4 9.9
Quebec 32.4 36 26.8
Ontario 22.5 25 27.8
Prairie 14.4 16 22.4
Pacific 27.0 30 13.1
 
Number of days
5 and under 45.0 50  
6 to 15 29.7 33  
16 and over 25.2 28  
 
Consecutive days
Nonconsecutive 56.8 63  
Consecutive 43.2 48  
 
Follow up documentation
No follow-up 27.0 30  
Follow-up 73.0 81  
 
Outcome
Negative 10.8 12 1.54
Positive 89.2 99 98.5
1 Sample includes all cases from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995 but is a sample relative to all 15 day UTAs since the CCRA was implemented in 1992.

2 Basic Facts about Corrections in Canada, 1994.

3 For most variables there are 111 cases, but this may vary slightly as a result of missing values.

4 Grant and Millson, 1998.

The granting authority for 15 day UTAs was CSC for more than half (56%) of the UTAs. Granting authority appeared to be related to the level of offender needs since moderate (53%) or high (43%) need offenders more likely to be granted 15 day UTAs by the National Parole Board than low need offenders (38%). Regionally, the Atlantic region was least likely to have the National Parole Board as the granting authority of 15 day UTAs (25%) while the Quebec region was the most likely to have the National Parole Board as the granting authority (49%).

Most offenders granted 15 day UTAs (69%) were at minimum security institutions. In comparison to the inmate population, offenders incarcerated at minimum security institutions were overrepresented and offenders incarcerated at medium security institutions were underrepresented. A small percentage of offenders were released from maximum security institutions but these were primarily females who are housed at the maximum security Prison for Women institution, a multi-level institution housing offenders at all security levels.

TA Characteristics

Characteristics of 15 day UTAs are presented in Table 4-1. Although no minimum number of days exists, the maximum allowable number of days on 15 day UTAs is 15, but the results indicated that one-quarter of offenders granted 15 day UTAs had spent more than 15 days on the UTA. This is most likely a problem with the data used in the study, but demonstrates a need for changes in the way that these TAs are recorded. The most common actual amount of time the offenders spent on the 15 day UTA was 5 days or less (45%).

An analysis of the number of 15 day TAs, including the current 15 day UTA, granted to offenders within twelve months revealed that the mean number of 15 day TAs was 2.5 while the median was 2. The number of 15 day personal development TAs within twelve months ranged from 1 to 20.

Personal development TAs may be taken either in one block of days or as a combination of single and multiple days. When a TA is taken as a block of time, it is called a consecutive day TA. For a personal development TA to have consecutive days the days the offender was away from the institution are consecutive without any returns to the institution within the TA period. Conversely, for nonconsecutive day TAs offenders return to the institution between each departure but there may be periods when the offenders remains away from the institution for multiple days. For example, a nonconsecutive day 15 day UTA may be taken on 15 Mondays with a departure and a return each Monday. Another example of a nonconsecutive day 15 day UTA is where the offender is released on a Sunday and return on the Tuesday then be released again the next Sunday and return again on Tuesday. One day TAs, with no other departures, are considered nonconsecutive day TAs. For 15 day UTAs, slightly more releases had consecutive days (57%) than nonconsecutive days (43%).

The degree to which follow-up information was available in the documentation after the UTA was examined. Rates of follow-up were quite good for 15 day UTAs with almost three-quarters (73%) having mentioned the UTA in the documentation.

The rate of positive outcome was relatively poor with 11% (12) having breaches of conditions, UALs or suspension of TAs. In comparison, Grant and Millson (1998) found that only 1.5% (54) of reintegration UTAs had negative outcomes for a similar time period. The offenders who had negative outcomes were incarcerated at minimum (7%) and medium security (4%) institutions.

Sentence

The average sentence length for offenders with determinate sentences was 5.0 years (1 816 days). Offenders granted nonconsecutive 15 day UTAs had significantly longer sentences than offenders granted consecutive day 15 day UTAs: 6.0 years (2 196 days) versus 4.0 years (1 454 days) respectively (F(1, 88)=7.67, p<.01).

Almost half of the offenders (47%) had a sentence of four years in length or less, 26% had sentences between four and ten years, 8% had determinate sentences of ten years or more, and 19% had life sentences. Offenders with longer sentences were more likely to be granted nonconsecutive day 15 day UTAs while offenders with shorter sentences were more likely to have been granted consecutive day UTAs (c2(3)=20.34, p<.01). Most (90%) offenders with life sentences received nonconsecutive day 15 day UTAs.

The time in the sentence when offenders received 15 day UTAs was calculated in relation to their parole eligibility date. On average, 15 day UTAs were granted 252 days (8 months) after the parole eligibility date to offenders serving determinate sentences. Offenders serving life sentences tended to be granted 15 day UTAs approximately 273 days (9 months) before their parole eligibility dates. Offenders with determinate sentences had served approximately 43% of the their total sentence when they were granted 15 day UTAs.

Offence History

The offence history of offenders including all previous offences and admitting offences is presented in Table 4-2. Approximately 20% of offenders released on 15 day UTAs had been convicted of murder. Offenders convicted of manslaughter or sexual offences were rarely granted 15 day UTAs, with these offenders accounting for approximately 5% of offenders granted 15 day UTAs. More than half of offenders granted 15 day UTAs had a previous conviction for drug offences, or other non-violent offences (excluding property offences or break and enter).

Table 4-2: Previous and Current offences of offenders granted 15 day UTAs
Offence Category Previouse offences1 Most serious previous offence1 Most serious current offence
Percent2 N Percent N Percent N
Murder 17.1 19 18.1 19 17.7 18
Manslaughter 5.4 6 4.8 5 4.9 5
Sexual offence 4.5 5 4.8 5    
Violent (non-sexual) offence 19.8 22 14.3 15 14.7 15
Robbery 22.5 25 13.3 14 10.8 11
Drug offences 50.5 56 9.5 10 7.8 8
Property offences 38.7 43 15.2 16 17.7 18
Break and enter 37.8 42 10.5 11 14.7 15
Other non-violent offences 65.8 73 9.5 10 9.8 10
 
Total     100.0 105 100.0 102
Note: Blank cells indicate insufficient number of cases

1 Refers to all federal offences, including the index offence, prior to release on the UTA.

2 The sum of these percentages is greater than 100 because the categories are not mutually exclusive. That is, the percentages account for all offenders who have been convicted of each offence.

Needs Level

Analyses of the needs of offenders granted 15 day UTAs indicated that on average, offenders had 3.3 needs identified. Overall, 43% had low needs, 16% had moderate needs, and 41% had high needs. As indicated in Table 4-3, lower need offenders were more likely to be granted consecutive day 15 day UTAs while higher need offenders were more likely to be granted nonconsecutive day 15 day UTAs.

Table 4-3: Needs level of offenders granted consecutive day and nonconsecutive day 15 day UTAs
Needs level Consecutive Nonconsecutive
Percent Frequency Percent Frequency
Low 54.2 26 45.8 22
Moderate 27.8 5 72.2 13
High 40.0 17 63.0 29

Structured Plan

The degree to which the 15 day UTAs were addressed in progress summary reports (PSR) and correctional plans (CP) prior to the offenders departure on a TA was assessed. All offenders had a PSR before the TA, and 78% of these made reference to the TA, however, only 23% of the preceding PSRs referred to the 15 day UTA. Ninety-one percent of offenders granted 15 day UTAs had a Correctional Plan available in OMS prior to the TA but only 17% of these offenders had the 15 day UTA mentioned in the Correctional Plan.

To evaluate the degree to which the 15 day UTA was part of a structured plan, the correctional plan (CP) and progress summary report (PSR) prior to the TA were evaluated. Most (81%) 15 day UTAs were referred to in the PSR or CP. The Prairie region was least likely to mention the 15 day UTA as part of a structured plan (31%), while both the Atlantic and Ontario regions referred to the TA in all cases, either in the PSR or CP.

Documentation quality was assessed using the documentation score which rated four items and was discussed in Chapter 4 (see items in Table 3-4). Out of a maximum potential score of 8, the average score was 4.4. Regional differences indicate that the Atlantic region had the highest mean score of 6.3, while the Quebec region had the lowest mean score of 4.0. The mean scores of the Prairie, Ontario, and Pacific regions were 5.1, 4.6, and 4.2 respectively.

The documentation scores were divided into three categories 'poor', 'fair', and 'good', as discussed in Chapter 4. Overall, 21% of documentation was rated as poor, 40% was rated as fair, and 40% was rated as good.

Table 4-4 presents the distribution of the documentation categories across regions. In general, the Quebec region appears to have the highest concentration of poor quality documentation while the Atlantic, Prairie, and Pacific regions appear to most frequently have good quality documentation. Caution should be used in interpreting the Atlantic region scores and categories due to the small number (4) of 15 day UTAs granted in the region.

Table 4-4: Documentation Quality by Region for 15 day UTAs
Region Mean1 Poor Fair Good
Percent N Percent N Percent N
Atlantic 6.3         75.0 3
Quebec 4.6 25.0 9 41.7 15 33.3 12
Ontario 4.0 16.0 4 52.0 13 32.0 8
Prairie 5.1 18.8 3 31.3 5 50.0 8
Pacific 4.2 23.3 7 33.3 10 43.3 13
 
National 4.4 23 20.7 44 39.6 44 39.6
Note: Blank cells indicate insufficient number of cases

Scores range from 0 to 8

1 F(4,106)=1.61, p=ns.

Purpose

The purposes for which personal development TAs were used are presented in Table 4-5. In total, 77% of all UTAs had programs as a purpose of the TA either alone or in combination with assessment. For 9% of cases, assessment was the main purpose. Two offenders (2%) had work as a purpose for the UTA while 13% of the cases had no purpose specified in the documentation.

Table 4-5: Purpose of 15 day UTAs
Purpose of TA Percent N
Programs only 59.5 66
Programs and assesment 17.1 19
Assessment only 9.0 10
Work only 1.8 2
No purpose found 12.6 14

Programs

Offender participation in programs is presented in Table 4-6. Overall, 51% had one specified program, 34% had two programs and 14% had three or more programs.

The most common program for 15 day UTAs was alcohol abuse treatment (52%) and drug abuse treatment (45%) while the attendance at programs for violence reduction, and self help groups were least common. Sex offender and recreation programs were not specified for any of the releases. Education and vocational training, and counseling were the purpose for approximately 15% of releases.

Table 4-6: Programs taken while on 15 day UTAs
Program Percent N
Alcohol abuse 51.8 44
Drug abuse 44.7 38
Education / vocational / employment skills 16.5 14
Psychological / Psychiatric counseling 15.3 13
Reintegration related 11.8 10
Meetings to promote cultural awareness 5.9 5
Religious services 5.9 5
Other self help groups    
Violence related    
Recreation    
Sex offender treatment    
Other 8.2 7
Note: Blank cells indicate insufficient number of cases.

The sum of these percentages is greater than 100 because the categories are not mutually exclusive.

Time on Activities

Information on the number of hours per day the offender spent in programs was rarely available with only 8% of cases specifying the number of hours in programming. For those offenders where the number of hours in programming was available, the values ranged from 2 to 12 hours, with the average being 7 hours. Similarly, whether or not offenders spent time on other activities while on the TA was assessed. Overall, the rates of reporting offenders activities were quite low with anywhere from 54% to 73% being unknown. The activity that occurred most often outside the offender's hours in programs was visiting friends and family (34%), followed by leisure time (20%) and looking for work (19%).

Special Conditions

The largest number of conditions found for 15 day UTAs was five while the fewest was zero. The majority of 15 day UTAs had between one and two conditions (46%), while three or more conditions were imposed for 37% of offenders, and 18% had no conditions. A statistically reliable difference across regions was found in the mean number of conditions for offenders granted 15 day UTAs with the Prairie region imposing the fewest conditions (1.5) and Ontario region imposing the most conditions (2.8) (F(4, 105)=3.56, p<.01).

Table 4-7 presents the distribution of specific conditions. Overall, 'abstain from intoxicants' was the most common condition imposed (71%). Other conditions include 'report to police/ parole office', 'avoid contact with known offenders' and 'avoid certain locations' with just over 20% of offenders having these conditions. Urinalysis/ breathalyzer testing was required for just under 20% of releases.

Table 4-7: Conditions of 15 day UTAs
Program Percent N
Abstain from intoxicants 71.2 79
Report to police / parole office 27.0 30
Avoid contact with known offenders 22.5 25
Avoid certain locations 21.6 24
Submit to urinalysis / breathalyzer 18.0 20
Community supervision required 14.4 16
Restraining condition 8.1 9
Avoid victim of offence 5.4 6
Refrain from driving 5.4 6
Other conditions 4.5 6
No contact with children    
Avoid other people not specified 8.2 7
Note: Blank cells indicate insufficient number of cases.

The sum of these percentages is greater than 100 because the categories are not mutually exclusive.

Offenders on 15 day UTAs must reside at a specified location when they remain away from prison overnight. In fact, of offenders granted 15 day UTAs, 75% had overnight stays outside of the institution. Presented in Table 4-8 are the frequencies at which offenders reside at various types of residences. Overall, it appears that supervised residences such as halfway houses, especially Community Residential Centres (CRC) (63%), are the most common location for offenders while they are on 15 day UTAs. Community Correctional Centres (CCC), treatment facilities and the home of friends or family were reported less frequently at a rate of close to 10% for each type of residence.

Table 4-8: Residence of offenders on overnight1 15 day UTAs
Residence Percent N
CRC (halfway house) 63.3 55
Treatment facility 9.6 8
CCC (halfway house) 8.4 7
Home of family or friends 8.4 7
Other 4.8 4
Unknown - not specified 2.4 2
 
Total 100.0 83
1 Some offenders did not have overnight stays.

Follow-up

The type of release granted after the 15 day UTA is presented in Table 4-9. Of offenders with a release after the 15 day UTA, almost two-thirds (63%) were granted day parole. In comparison, only 26% were granted full parole and 11% were granted statutory release as the next release following the 15 day UTA. On average, offenders granted 15 day UTAs received their next release almost four months (112 days) after the 15 day UTA.

The relationship between whether the documentation regarding the 15 day UTA mentioned the UTA as preparation for each type of release and the next release granted was analyzed. Out of the offenders for whom day parole was mentioned in the documentation, 74% had been granted day parole as the next release. For full parole, only 14% (16 offenders) of case files made mention of the 15 day UTA as preparation for full parole, and of these offenders only 25% had received full parole as the next release. Finally, only 11% (12 offenders) of offenders granted 15 day UTAs had the UTA mentioned as preparation for statutory release and 42% of these offenders received statutory release as the next release type.

The first full release type (full parole or statutory release) was slightly more likely to be statutory release than full parole.

Of the 48 offenders available for the one year follow-up period, less than one third (31%) had a new admission following their full release. Overall, 10% of offenders included in the one year follow-up had been readmitted for a new offence, while 21% had been readmitted due to a revocation. Readmission took place an average of approximately 6 months (186 days) after the full release date.

Table 4-9: Release type after TA for offenders granted 15 day UTAs
Release Type First Release Full Release
Percent1 Number of Cases Percent2 Number of Cases
Day parole 63.0 63    
Full parole 26.0 26 42.7 32
Statutory release 11.0 11 57.3 43
 
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 75
1 Percentage is based on 15 day personal development UTA offenders who were granted a release after completion of the UTA. In 10% (11 cases) offenders had not been released by the end of the study period.

2 Percentage is based on number of offenders who received a full parole or statutory release after the UTA. 22 of the offenders released on day parole did not have a full release at the end of the study period.

Summary and Discussion

Analyses of the gender and race of offenders granted 15 day UTAs indicated that females were more likely than expected to receive a 15 day UTA, and Aboriginal offenders were slightly less likely to receive a 15 day UTA than expected. In terms of age, offenders in the age groups 26 to 35 and 36 to 45 together accounted for almost three-quarters of the offenders granted 15 day UTAs.

Offenders at minimum security institutions comprised 69% of the offenders granted 15 day UTAs while 23% were at medium security institutions. For more than one-half of offenders given 15 day UTAs the granting authority was CSC. Regionally, rates of granting 15 day UTAs were inconsistent across the country. Most striking was the high rate of 15 day UTAs being granted in the Pacific region, and the low rate in the Atlantic region.

Analyses of the characteristics of the 15 day UTAs revealed that the majority of 15 day UTAs were five days in length or less, and had nonconsecutive days. The rate of positive outcome of offenders granted 15 day UTAs was poorer than observed in other studies with 11% having a negative outcome in the current study while other studies have indicated a negative outcome rate of 1.5% (Grant and Millson, 1998). This high rate of negative outcome may be an artifact of the selection of the TA departures examined. Future research should address this issue more completely.

Offenders serving determinate sentences were granted 15 day UTAs after their parole eligibility dates and after they had completed approximately 43% of their sentences. In terms of sentence length, offenders granted nonconsecutive day 15 day UTAs were more likely to have longer sentences than consecutive day 15 day UTAs. Offenders with shorter sentences may be considered to be lower risk and therefore require less supervision than is provided with nonconsecutive day TAs.

Analyses of the current and previous offences of offenders granted 15 day UTAs indicated that approximately 20% had a current or previous conviction for murder. Offenders with manslaughter and sexual offences as their most serious offences (current or previous) were rarely granted 15 day UTAs. Therefore, 15 day UTAs appear to used as opportunities for indeterminately sentenced offenders to be released into the community for single day visits to assist in the reintegration process, and for less serious offenders to be released for somewhat longer periods of time.

Needs levels of offenders granted 15 day UTAs were concentrated in the low (43%) and high (41%) needs categories. Offenders granted 15 day UTAs with nonconsecutive days were more likely to have moderate or high needs than offenders granted 15 day UTAs with consecutive days. This finding is difficult to interpret since high need offenders may experience the most benefit from personal development TAs, but may pose the most concern for security while low need offenders, while less of a security concern, may not benefit as much from programming.

Overall the documentation before and after the 15 day UTA was adequate. Although PSRs tended to mention the 15 day UTAs at a high rate, CPs rarely make any reference to the TA. In addition, follow-up information was available for the majority of offenders granted 15 day UTAs. In terms of the quality of the preparatory documentation, the Quebec region rated poorly while the Atlantic, Prairie and to a lesser degree Pacific regions rated well. Personal development TAs are required to be part of a structured plan but seldom have long term planning as reflected in the infrequent mention of 15 day UTAs in the Correctional Plans. This if particularly problematic in regions where the overall documentation was rated as poor, such as the Quebec region.

Fifteen day UTAs appear to accomplish the purpose set out in the CCRA. Most 15 day UTAs are granted for specific programs with alcohol abuse treatment being the most frequent.

Little information is available on the amount of time offenders spent in programs and other activities while on 15 day UTAs. This lack of information on offenders while on TAs is of concern and is being investigated.

Additional supervision of offenders through the use of special conditions and residency conditions were quite common for 15 day UTAs. The vast majority of offenders had at least one condition attached to the 15 day UTA with the most often mandated condition being to 'abstain from intoxicants'. For overnight stays, offenders on 15 day UTAs were often required to reside at halfway houses, especially CRCs.

Follow-up of offenders granted 15 day UTAs indicated that 63% of offenders were granted day parole as the next conditional release type after the TA, while slightly more offenders were granted statutory release than full parole as the next full release type. Of the 48 offenders granted 15 day UTAs who were able to be followed up for a one year period, 10% were readmitted for a new offence, and 21% were readmitted as a result of a technical violation of their conditional release.

CHAPTER 5: 60 DAY UTAS

Analyses indicate that 60 day UTAs are the least common of the personal development TAs, with only 68 offenders receiving this type of TA between July 1, 1994 and June 30, 1995. Offender and TA characteristics for 60 day UTAs, are presented in Table 5-1. Information concerning offence history, sentence information, follow-up is also included. Comparisons between the three types of personal development TAs are presented in Chapter 6.

Offender Characteristics

Characteristics of offenders granted 60 day UTAs are presented in Table 5-1. Sixty day UTAs were only granted to male offenders. In terms of race, Aboriginal offenders received 22% of 60 day UTAs, almost double the rate of their representation in the inmate population. In terms of offenders age, one-third of offenders granted 60 day UTAs were between the age of 26 and 35, with the next largest group being between ages of 36 and 45.

Administrative Characteristics

Administrative characteristics including institutional security level, granting authority and region are presented in Table 5-1. Most (69%) offenders granted 60 day UTAs were incarcerated at minimum security institutions, while the remaining offenders were incarcerated at medium security institutions.

Table 5-1: Summary of 60 day UTAs characteristics
Characteristic 60 Day UTAs Sample1 Inmate Population2
Percent Number of Cases3 Percent
 
Gender
Male 100.0 68 97.7
Female 0 0 2.3
 
Race
Aboriginal 22.1 15 12.3
Non-Aboriginal 77.9 53 87.7
 
Age
25 and younger 9.5 6  
26 to 35 33.3 21  
36 to 45 31.8 20  
46 and older 25.4 16  
 
Security Level
Minimum 68.7 46 17.5
Medium 29.9 20 62.7
Maximum     17.3
 
Authority
NPB 64.7 44  
CSC 35.3 24  
 
Region
Atlantic 19.1 13 9.9
Quebec 26.5 18 26.8
Ontario 1.5   27.8
Prairie 45.6 31 22.4
Pacific 7.4 5 13.1
 
Number of days
5 and under 20.6 14  
6 to 15 22.1 15  
16 to 60 50.0 34  
61 and over 7.4 5  
 
Consecutive days
Nonconsecutive 44.1 30  
Consecutive 55.9 38  
 
Follow up documentation
No follow-up 26.5 18  
Follow-up 73.5 50  
 
Outcome
Negative 5.8 4 1.54
Positive 94.1 64 98.5
Note: Blank cells in the 60 day UTA number of cases and percent columns indicate an insufficient number of cases.

1 Sample includes all cases from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995 but is a sample relative to all 60 day UTAs since the CCRA was implemented in 1992.

2 Basic Facts about Corrections in Canada, 1994.

3 For most variables there are 68 cases, but this may vary slightly as a result of missing values.

4 Grant and Millson, 1998.

Rates of granting 60 day UTAs were highly variable across regions. The Ontario region granted almost no 60 day UTAs during the study period while both the Atlantic and Prairie regions made the greatest use of these releases. The Atlantic region granted 19% of 60 day UTAs and the Prairie region granted 46%. The percentage of use for these two regions is double that of their proportion of the inmate population.

Almost two-thirds of the 60 day UTAs granted to offenders had the National Parole Board as the granting authority. Regional differences appeared to exist in granting authority such that CSC was most likely to be the granting authority in the Atlantic region (62%) and least likely to be the granting authority in the Quebec region (11%).

TA Characteristics

As indicated in Table 5-1, 7% of offenders granted 60 day UTAs appear to have been released longer than 60 days but this is most likely a problem with the way the information is recorded in OMS. Half of the offenders spent between 16 and 60 days on the TA, while 43% spent less than 16 days away from the institution. Slightly more than half (56%) of the 60 day UTAs included consecutive days away from the institution.

The average number of 60 day UTAs granted to offenders within a twelve month span including the current one was 1.6 and the median was 1. The maximum number of 60 day UTAs with twelve months was 6.

Follow-up information regarding the 60 day UTA was available in almost three-quarters (74%) of the cases.

The rate of negative outcomes was 1.5% for 60 day UTAs. This rate is equivalent to the rate of all reintegration UTAs (1.5%) for a similar time period (Grant and Millson, 1998).

Sentence

The average sentence length of offenders granted 60 day UTAs was 5.8 years (2 113 days). Overall, 49% of offenders granted 60 day UTAs had sentences of four years or less, 21% had sentences between four and ten years, 10% had sentences of 10 years in length or longer, and 21% were serving life sentences. In general, offenders granted consecutive day 60 day UTAs had shorter sentences than offenders granted nonconsecutive day 60 day UTAs. Twenty-seven percent of 60 day UTAs granted to offenders serving sentences of four years or less in duration were nonconsecutive day UTAs, while 86% of 60 day UTAs granted to offenders serving life sentences had nonconsecutive days. In comparison, 73% of offenders serving sentences of 4 years or less who had 60 day UTAs had consecutive day UTAs while 14% of offenders serving life sentences who had 60 day UTAs had consecutive day UTAs.

In relation to the parole eligibility date, offenders serving determinate sentences were granted 60 day UTAs 389 days (13 months) after their parole eligibility dates. Offenders serving life sentences were granted 60 day UTAs 754 days (25 months) after their parole eligibility dates. Nonconsecutive 60 day UTAs were granted to offenders later in their sentence (698 days after their parole eligibility dates) than consecutive day UTAs (248 days after their parole eligibility dates), although this difference was not statistically reliable. Offenders serving determinate sentences had completed an average of 49% of their sentences when they departed on 60 day UTAs.

Offence History

Offence history including offences for previous and current sentences is presented in Table 5-2. Approximately 30% of offenders granted 60 day UTAs were serving sentences for homicide (murder or manslaughter). An additional 40% were serving sentences for other violent offences (sexual and non-sexual) while the remaining offenders were serving sentences for non-violent offences. For all previous offences, drug offences, property offences, and other non-violent offences (excluding drug, property, and break and enter offences) occurred most frequently.

Table 5-2: Previous and current offences of offenders granted 60 day UTAs
Offence Category Previouse offences1 Most serious previous offence1 Most serious current offence
Percent2 N Percent N Percent N
Murder 19.1 13 19.4 13 18.2 12
Manslaughter 13.2 9 10.5 7 10.6 7
Sexual offence 8.8 6 7.5 5 7.6 5
Violent (non-sexual) offence 27.9 19 20.9 14 18.2 12
Robbery 23.5 16 13.4 9 12.1 8
Drug offences 45.6 31 4.5 3    
Property 42.7 29 13.4 9 13.6 9
Break and enter 30.9 21     7.6 5
Other non-violent offences 69.1 47 7.5 5 10.6 7
 
Total     100.0 67 100.0 66
Note: Blank cells in the indicate an insufficient number of cases.

1 Refers to all federal offences, including the index offence, prior to release on the UTA

2 The sum of these percentages is greater than 100 because the categories are not mutually exclusive. That is, the percentages account for all offenders who have been convicted of each offence.

Needs Level

Analyses of the needs of offenders indicated that offenders granted 60 day UTAs had an average of 3.1 needs. In terms of categories, 32% had low needs, another 32% had moderate needs level, and 35% had high needs.

Structured Plan

The degree to which 60 day UTAs were part of a structured plan was evaluated by examining whether a correctional plan (CP) or a progress summary report (PSR) mentioned the 60 day UTA. Overall, 93% of 60 day UTAs had either a CP or a PSR prior to the 60 day UTA that mentioned the 60 day UTA.

The degree to which the documentation addressed the 60 day UTA was evaluated using CPs and PSRs. Of the 91% of offenders with CPs prior to the TA, only 24% mentioned the 60 day UTA. All of the offenders had a PSR in OMS prior to the TA and 93% of PSRs specifically mentioned the 60 day UTA. Furthermore, 32% of offenders who had a report that specifically mentioned the 60 day UTA had a PSR previous to it that also mentioned the TA.

Documentation scores rating the quality of documentation as described in Chapter 4 were generated for 60 day UTAs. The documentation scores can range from 0 to 8 and 5.6 was the mean for 60 day UTAs. Comparisons across regions for documentation scores could not be performed due to the small sample size in some regions.

Documentation scores were grouped into 'poor', 'fair', and 'good' categories, as explained in Chapter 3. Overall, only 4% of 60 day UTA documentation was 'poor', 34% of documentation was 'fair' and 62% of documentation was 'good'. A higher rate of good documentation was found for 60 day UTAs than was found for other types of personal development TAs

Purpose

The specified purpose of the 60 day UTA, as found in the Progress Summary Report(s) and Correctional Plan, was programs for 91% of releases. In 6% of cases the purpose of the UTA was assessment. These results are presented in Table 5-3.

Table 5-3: General purpose of 60 day UTA
Purpose of TA Percent N
Programs only 91.1 62
Programs and assesment    
Assesment only 5.9 4
Work only    
Note: Blank cells in the indicate an insufficient number of cases.

Programs

The mean number of programs specified for the releases was 1.8. Forty-four percent had one type of program specified, 35% had two programs specified, and 21% had three or four programs specified.

The frequencies and percentages of cases for each program type are presented in Table 5-4. The most common program was for alcohol abuse treatment (64%) followed by drug abuse treatment (40%). Education/vocational, counseling, and cultural programs were specified as the purpose for between 11% and 14% of cases, respectively.

Table 5-4: Programs taken while on of 60 day UTAs
Purpose Percent N
Alcohol abuse 63.5 40
Drug abuse 39.7 25
Education / vocational / employment skills 14.3 9
Psychological / psychiatric counseling 12.7 8
Meetins to promote cultural awareness 11.1 7
Violence related 9.5 6
Religious services 9.5 6
Self help groups 7.9 5
Sex offender treatment    
Reintegration related    
Recreation    
Other 8.0 5
Note: Blank cells indicate insufficient number of cases.

The sum of these percentages is greater than 100 because the categories are not mutually exclusive.

Time on Activities

The amount of time an offender spent on various activities during an average day was assessed. However, only 25% of offenders on 60 day UTAs had the number of hours in programming indicated in their file. The information that was available indicated that the number of hours spent in programs ranged from 1 to 10 hours, with an average of 5.8 hours per day.

Other activities, including attending school, working, looking for work, visiting with family and friends, and leisure activities that offenders participated in while on their 60 day UTAs were also coded. The most common secondary activity was attending school (32%). Looking for work, and leisure activities were reported for 13% of cases.

Special Conditions

Special conditions imposed on offenders granted 60 day UTAs generally provide restrictions to the offenders' range of activities while in the community. The number of conditions per offender ranged from 0 to 5 with the mean number of conditions being 2.1. In terms of categories, 6% of offenders received no conditions, 62% received between one and two conditions, and 32% received three or more conditions.

The frequency at which individual conditions were imposed is presented in Table 5-5. According to the table, 'abstain from intoxicants' (82%) and 'report to police/ parole office' (37%) conditions were the most frequent conditions.

Table 5-5: Conditions of 60 day UTAs
Conditions Percent N
Abstain from intoxicants 82.4 56
Report to police / parole office 36.8 25
Avoid certain locations 19.1 13
Avoid contact with known offenders 16.2 11
Restraining conditions 14.7 10
Community supervision required 10.3 7
Submit to urinalysis / breathalyzer 8.8 6
Refrain from driving 5.9 4
Avoid victim of offence 4.4 3
No contact with children    
Avoid other people not specified    
Other conditions 5.9 4
Note: Blank cells indicate insufficient number of cases.

The sum of these percentages is greater than 100 because the categories are not mutually exclusive.

Additional control over some offenders on 60 day UTAs is imposed with the requirement to reside in a halfway house or other residential facility. Overall, 60% of offenders granted 60 day UTAs had overnight stays. Table 5-6 presents the frequency at which each type or residence was mandated for offenders while on overnight UTAs. Treatment facilities are the most common place of residence while halfway houses (CRC's or CCC's) accounted for 37% of cases. Residency with family or friends was used very rarely.

Table 5-6: Residence of offenders on overnight1 60 day UTAs
Residence Percent N
Treatment facility 46.3 19
CRC (halfway house) 26.8 11
CCC (halfway house) 9.8 4
Home of family or friends    
Other 9.8 4
Unknown - not specified 4.8 2
 
Total 100.0 41
Note: Blank cells indicate insufficient number of cases.

1 Some offenders did not have overnight stays.

Follow-up

The offenders first release type after the 60 day UTA and the first full release (full parole or statutory release) are presented in Table 5-7. Of the 65 offenders who had been granted a conditional release following the 60 day UTA, most (69%) had received day parole as their first release type. On average, the first release occurred approximately five months (154 days) after the 60 day UTA. The first full release type for offenders granted 60 day UTAs was primarily statutory release, for those offenders who received a full release in the study period.

Documentation regarding the 60 day UTA may mention conditional release preparation as an aim of the UTA. Of the 37 offenders where the 60 day UTA was indicated as preparation for day parole, 70% in fact did receive day parole as the next release. Only 3% of offenders with 60 day UTAs had full parole mentioned, and none of these offenders were, in fact, granted full parole as the next release. Statutory release preparation was indicated for 19% of the offenders with 60 day UTAs and only 15% of these offenders did receive statutory release as the first release.

Offenders granted 60 day UTAs were followed one year after full release. Only 24 offenders were able to be included in follow-up analyses. Of the included offenders, 71% were not readmitted, 4% were readmitted for a new offence, and 25% were readmitted due to a revocation. Readmissions occurred, on average, five and a half months (167 days) after the full release.

Table 5-7: Release type after TA for offenders granted 60 day UTAs
Release Type First Release Full Release
Percent1 Number of Cases Percent2 Number of Cases
Day parole 69.2 45    
Full parole 13.8 9 38.6 17
Statutory release 16.9 11 61.4 27
 
Total 100.0 65 100.0 44
1 Percentage is based on 60 day personal development UTA offenders who were granted a release after completion of the UTA. In 3.4% (3 cases) offenders had not been released by the end of the study period.

2 Percentage is based on number of offenders who received a full parole or statutory release after the work release. 19 of the offenders released on day parole did not have a full release at the end of the study period.

Summary and Discussion

Use of 60 day UTAs was clearly unrepresentative in terms of the gender and race of offenders. All of the offenders granted 60 day UTAs in the study period were male and Aboriginal offenders were granted 60 day UTAs at a rate almost double their representation in the inmate population.

Administratively, more than two-thirds (69%) of offenders released on 60 day UTAs were incarcerated at minimum security institutions while almost one-third (30%) of offenders were from medium security institutions. The decision authority for 60 day UTAs was primarily the National Parole Board with only one-third of offenders being granted 60 day UTAs by CSC.

Clear regional differences existed such that the Prairie region was overrepresented and the Ontario region was greatly underrepresented in the use of these TAs. This regional difference in the use of 60 day UTAs will be addressed more completely.

Sixty day UTAs tended to contain between 16 and 60 days and the majority included consecutive days (56%). In terms of outcome, the rate of negative outcome (1.5%) for offenders released on 60 day UTAs was equal to that of a previous study (1.5%) (Grant and Millson, 1998).

Offenders serving determinate sentences granted 60 day UTAs received their TAs approximately 13 months (389 days) after their parole eligibility date while offenders serving life sentences departed on their TAs approximately 2 years (754 days) after their parole eligibility date. Offenders serving determinate sentences serve an average of 49% of their sentence prior to release on 60 day UTAs. Similar to offenders granted 15 day UTAs, offenders with shorter sentences are more likely to receive consecutive day 60 day UTAs than offenders serving longer sentences. This difference could be explained by the differential level of supervision for consecutive versus nonconsecutive day 60 day UTAs.

Violent offenders received a relatively large proportion of 60 day UTAs. An analysis of the offence history of offenders granted 60 day UTAs revealed that almost 20% had murder as a current and/ or prior offence. Similarly, offenders with violent non-sexual offences accounted for approximately 20% of the sample of offenders granted 60 day UTAs.

The quality of documentation prior and following the 60 day UTA was quite good. A majority of offenders granted 60 day UTAs had the TA discussed in either a PSR or CP prior to the TA. In terms of documentation quality, more than half of the offenders granted 60 day UTAs had good documentation. Adequate follow-up documentation was available for most (74%) of offenders granted 60 day UTAs.

The intended purpose of personal development TAs appears to have been achieved in 60 day UTAs since the purpose of the 60 day UTAs was for programming in the majority of cases. Most offenders granted 60 day UTAs had one or two programs indicated. The most common types of programs were alcohol abuse treatment and drug abuse treatment.

The amount of time offenders spent on specific activities was rarely available in the documentation. For offenders with specific programs, only 25% had the number of program hours specified and the most common other activity, attending school, was only reported for 32% of offenders granted 60 day UTAs.

Additional supervision through the use of conditions and residences was very common for 60 day UTAs. Most offenders had at least one condition attached to the 60 day UTA. Similarly, for offenders remaining outside of the institution overnight, treatment facilities were most frequently specified while halfway houses were also commonly specified as required places of residence. These residences often have internal regulations which assist in the supervision of offenders released into the community.

An analysis of the release type that followed 60 day UTAs revealed that most offenders received day parole as the first conditional release type and more offenders who had a full release were granted statutory release than full parole. A one-year follow-up of eligible offenders indicated that more than two-thirds were successful following full release.

CHAPTER 6: COMPARATIVE ANALYSES

The purpose of this chapter is to compare the three types of personal development temporary absences on a variety of variables. These comparisons show the degree to which the use of the three types of personal development TAs differ. Chapter 3, 4, and 5 presented individual findings for the 15 day ETAs, 15 day UTAs, and 60 day UTAs respectively.

Cases within each type of personal development TA represents offenders rather than TAs. Therefore, the numbers reflect the number of offenders granted each type of personal development TA, rather than the number of releases on personal development TAs. It is possible that one offender may have had more than one type of personal development TA within the study period, and therefore would be included more than once in the data.

Offender Characteristics

Offender data, such as gender, race, and age were evaluated. Female offenders represent between 2% and 3% of the federal inmate population. They receive approximately 4% of the 15 day ETAs and 6% of the 15 day UTAs. However, there were no female offenders granted 60 day UTAs during the study period. The distribution of gender across the different types of personal development TAs is presented in Table 6-1.

Table 6-1: Percentages of males and females granted each type of personal development TA
Gender 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA Offender Population
Male 95.6 93.5 100.0 97.7
Female 4.5 6.5 0 2.3

Aboriginal offenders account for about 12% of the offender population, but 13% of offenders granted 15 day ETAs and 9% of offenders granted 15 day UTAs and 22% of offenders granted 60 day UTAs. The percentage of 60 day UTAs for Aboriginal offenders was almost double their percentage than in the inmate population. These data suggest that Aboriginal offenders are treated equally in terms of 15 day personal development TAs. These results are summarized in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2: Percentages of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders granted personal development TAs
Race 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA Offender Population
Aboriginal 13.8 9.3 22.1 12.3
Non-Aboriginal 87.0 90.7 77.9 87.7

The age of offenders was analyzed to determine how age was associated with the type of personal development TA granted. In the entire sample of personal development TAs the largest percentage of offenders were between the ages of 26 and 35, while the smallest percentage were 25 years of age or younger. Of particular interest is the relatively higher percentage of older offenders (over 45 years old) who were granted 15 day ETAs and 60 day UTAs as compared to 15 day UTAs. In contrast, younger offenders (25 years old and younger) were granted 15 day UTAs at a higher rate than 15 day ETAs or 60 day UTAs. Offenders over the age of 35 were overrepresented in offenders granted 60 day UTAs than the inmate population. Figure 6-1 presents the age categories of offenders granted personal development TAs.

Figure 6-1: Percentage offenders in age categories granted personal development TA's
Figure 6-1: Percentage offenders in age categories granted personal development TA's

Offenders' need levels differed significantly between the three types of personal development TAs (c2(4)=10.59, p<.05). As indicated in Figure 6-2, of offenders granted 15 day ETAs, almost half were high need offenders, indicating that escorted TAs are probably more appropriate for these offenders who are high risk. Approximately equal percentages of low and high need offenders were granted 15 day UTAs while a relatively low percentage of moderate need offenders received these TAs. This difference may reflect the different use of consecutive and non-consecutive day TAs, that is, 15 day UTAs for moderate or high need offenders are more likely to be nonconsecutive releases than those granted to low need offenders. Need level was not associated with the use of 60 day UTAs.

Figure 6-2: Percentage of offenders at each need level by type of personal development TA
Figure 6-2: Percentage of offenders at each need level by type of personal development TA

In terms of consecutive versus nonconsecutive TAs, as need level increases the likelihood of being granted consecutive day TAs decreases (c2(2)=6.07, p<.05). For example, 27% of low need offenders were granted consecutive TAs, 19% of moderate need offenders were granted consecutive TAs, and only 16% of high need offenders were granted consecutive TAs.

A significant difference was found between the offence history of the offenders granted each type of personal development TA (c2(16)=55.83, p<.01) as indicated in Table 6-3. For example, offenders granted 15 day ETAs were much more likely to have a sexual offences as a prior conviction than offenders granted 15 or 60 day UTAs which suggests that greater control is used with these offenders. Offenders convicted of murder are more likely to be granted 15 day UTAs or 60 day UTAs but since these TAs are granted within three years of parole eligibility these offenders have served a significant portion of their sentence. Offenders convicted of property offences and other non-violent offences appeared to more frequently be granted 15 day UTAs or 60 day UTAs than 15 day ETAs.

Table 6-3: Most serious offences of offenders granted personal development TAs prior to the release
Most Serious Previous Offences1 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA
Murder 11.9 18.2 19.4
Manslaughter 7.0 4.8 10.5
Sex offences 24.6 4.8 7.5
Violent offences 19.7 14.3 20.9
Robbery 14.8 13.3 13.4
Drug offences 10.7 9.5 4.5
Property offences 4.5 15.2 13.4
Break and enter 2.5 10.5 3.0
Other non-violent offences 4.5 9.5 7.5
Note: Eleven offenders had missing data, three from 15 day ETAs, six from 15 day UTAs, and one from 60 day UTAs.

1 Refers to all federal offences, including index offences prior to release on the TA.

The following findings on sentencing information are based upon the entire population of offenders granted personal development TAs. It is important to note that in the population of offenders granted personal development TAs, offenders granted 15 day ETAs accounted for 84% (3 227 offenders) of all offenders granted personal development TAs, while offenders granted 15 day UTAs represented 9% (353), and offenders granted 60 day UTAs accounted for 7% (263) of the population of offenders granted personal development TAs.

The mean sentence length and the time in the sentence at which personal development TAs were granted for all offenders granted personal development TAs is presented in Table 6-4. Offenders granted 15 day UTAs had the longest determinate sentences (6.6 years), while offenders granted 15 day ETAs and 60 day UTAs had sentences of about 5.8 years.

When in the sentence personal development TAs were granted appeared to differ across the three types of TAs. Fifteen day ETAs occurred earliest in the sentence, while 60 day UTAs occurred latest in the sentence and 15 day UTAs fell between the two extremes. In addition, offenders granted 60 day UTAs had completed the largest proportion of their sentence (45%) when they were granted the TA while offenders granted 15 day ETAs or 15 day UTAs had completed approximately 38% of their sentences.

In the population of offenders granted personal development TAs, 11% of offenders granted 15 day ETAs had life sentences while 16% of offenders with 15 day UTAs were sentenced to life, and 14% of offenders granted 60 day UTAs had life sentences (c2(2)=11.13, p<.01). For indeterminate sentences, a clear progression in the time at which the TAs were granted appeared, such that offenders granted 60 day UTAs received their TA an average of 925 days after their parole eligibility date while offenders received 15 day ETAs at approximately their parole eligibility date.

Table 6-4: Sentence variable means for the population of offenders granted personal development TAs
Determinate Sentences 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA
Sentence length in days1 2106 2408 2073
Days after parole eligibility2 237 292 351
Percentage of sentence served3 37.5% 38.8% 45.4%
 
Indeterminate Sentences      
Percentage of offender with life sentences 10.8% 16.4% 13.7%
Days after parole eligibility2 0.3 235 925
1 F(2, 3397)=3.39, p<.05

2 Refers to the number of days after the parole eligibility date at which the first release on a personal development TA occurred.

3 F(2, 3393)=13.73, p<.001

Administrative Characteristics

The remaining analyses were performed on the sample of offenders granted personal development TAs in the period of July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995. This sample includes all offenders granted 15 day UTAs and 60 day UTAs within the specified time period and a sample of offenders granted 15 day ETAs.

Security level of the institution at which offenders were being incarcerated was compared across the types of personal development TAs as shown in Table 6-5. While offenders classified as maximum security are not eligible for unescorted TAs, Table 6-5 shows that some offenders granted UTAs were incarcerated at a maximum security institution. This occurs because some offenders who are not classified as maximum security reside in a maximum security institution. In particular, all female offenders who were incarcerated at the maximum security Prison for Women, which houses offenders at a variety of security levels, were included.

Almost all (92%) of 15 day ETAs were granted to offenders residing in minimum security institutions while about 68% of 15 day UTAs and 60 day UTAs were granted to offenders in minimum security institutions. Personal development UTAs are more likely to be granted to offenders in medium security institutions than personal development ETAs.

Table 6-5: Percentage of offenders at each institutional security level granted personal development TAs
Security Level 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA
Minimum 92.3 68.5 68.7
Medium 2.9 23.2 29.9
Maximum 4.9 8.3 1.5

The percentage of each type of personal development TAs granted in each region is presented in Figure 6-3. Relative to their representation in the inmate population the Atlantic and Ontario regions made the greatest use of 15 day ETAs. For the personal development UTAs, the Quebec and Pacific regions made the most use of 15 day UTAs, while the Atlantic and Prairie regions were most likely to use 60 day UTAs. Under use of 15 day UTAs was evident in the Atlantic region while 60 day UTAs were seldom used in the Ontario region. Overall, these results suggest regional preferences for different types of personal development TAs rather than consistent usage across the country.

Figure 6-3: Percentages of each type of personal development TA within each region
Figure 6-3: Percentages of each type of personal development TA within each region

The granting authority for 25% of the personal development TAs was the National Parole Board (NPB), while 73% were granted by CSC through the Institutional Head. UTAs are more likely to be the responsibility of the National Parole Board as shown in Table 6-6. The majority of 60 day UTAs (65%) were granted to offenders by NPB and NPB granted 43% of 15 day UTAs. However, most (91%) personal development 15 day ETAs were granted by CSC.

Table 6-6: Percentage of each type of TA by the granting authority
Authority 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA
National Parole Board 6.5 42.7 64.7
Correctional Services Canada 90.7 56.4 35.3
Unknown 2.8 0.9 0

TA Characteristics

To determine if the selected TA was part of a consecutive or nonconsecutive set, all TAs preceding and following the selected TA were examined. Results in Table 6-7 indicate that most 15 day ETAs have nonconsecutive days (99%). While 15 day UTAs are more likely to be nonconsecutive day TAs (57%), 60 day UTAs are more likely to have consecutive days (56%). Interestingly, 16% (38 out of 245) of the nonconsecutive day 15 day had only one release of one day; that is, there were no prior or subsequent ETAs. Similarly, 11% of 15 day UTAs with nonconsecutive days and 7% of 60 day TAs with nonconsecutive days appeared to be one day in duration. Of offenders with nonconsecutive day TAs, 9% of 15 day ETAs, 56% of 15 day UTAs, and 20% of 60 day UTAs had overnight stays outside of the institution. That is, for some of their releases there were multiple days away from the institution, although frequently they left and returned the same day. Those with overnight stays were in the community overnight, but returned and were released again under the same TA.

Table 6-7: Percentage of offenders with consecutive and nonconsecutive day personal development TAs
Consecutive Days 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA
Non-consecutive 99.2 56.8 44.1
Consecutive 0.8 43.2 55.9

The actual number of days the offenders spent away from the institution on the TA was compared across the groups. Based on these analyses, offenders on 60 day UTAs were away from the institution on average for 28 days, while offenders on 15 day UTAs were away on average for 16 days, and offenders on 15 day ETAs were away from the institution an average of 33 days. Therefore, on average, the 15 day ETAs involved more days away than 60 day UTAs. Tracking the number of days for a TA was done by using TA decision numbers. Therefore, the results may include overlapping personal development TAs, rather than unusually long TAs granted to offenders. These results suggest that there may be a need to improve OMS information on TAs.

In order to clarify the relationship between the different types of personal development TAs and the number of days the offender spent on the TA, the number of days were divided into categories. Overall, 30% of offenders had personal development TAs that were 5 days in duration or less, 23% had TAs between 6 and 15 days, 38% had TAs between 15 and 60 days in duration, and 10% of offenders had TAs that lasted more than 60 days. The percentage of personal development TAs that were longer in duration than the maximum number allowed were found for the three different types of TAs and the 15 day ETAs had the highest rate of exceeding the maximum allowable number of days, although these findings may reflect an error in the data. Further information is presented in Table 6-8.

Table 6-8: Percentage of cases for each TA length by the type of personal development TA
Number of Days 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA
Five or less 25.1 45.1 20.6
Six to fifteen 20.2 29.7 22.1
Sixteen to sixty 40.1 24.3 50.0
More than sixty 14.6 0.9 7.4

Another issue concerning the time of the personal development TAs concerns the span of time during which nonconsecutive day TAs with more than one departure took place. There was a significant difference found between the three types of personal development TAs such that escorted 15 day ETAs had the longest span of time while unescorted 60 day UTAs had the shortest span of time (F(2, 287)=14.73, p<.001). Specifically, on average, 15 day ETAs spanned seven and a half months (235 days), 15 day UTAs spanned four months (123 days), and 60 day UTAs spanned approximately two and a half months (85 days). A comparison between the three types of personal development TAs in the span of time in which nonconsecutive day TAs occur is presented in Table 6-9. In general, 15 day ETAs are the most likely to span between six and twelve months and more than twelve months, while most 60 day UTAs extend over three months or less.

Table 6-9: Percentage of cases for each span of time for nonconsecutive day personal development TAs
Span of time 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA
3 months or less 26.2 50.0 67.9
Between 3 and 6 months 29.1 28.6 28.6
Between 6 and 12 months 22.3 16.1 0
More than 12 months 22.3 5.4 3.6

The number of personal development TAs offenders receive in a one year period (including the present one) were compared. Offenders granted 15 day ETAs had an average of 7.2, 15 day ETAs in twelve months while the median was 2.0. For 15 day UTAs, offenders had an average of 2.5, 15 day UTAs and a median of 2, 15 day UTAs within one year. Offenders granted 60 day UTAs had a mean of 1.6, 60 day UTAs and a median of 1.0 60 day UTA with a 12 month span of time. Overall then, offenders granted 15 day ETAs had the largest number of personal development TAs within one year while offenders granted 60 day UTAs had the fewest.

The frequency at which offenders depart for nonconsecutive day TAs is presented in Table 6-10. Offenders granted 15 day ETAs most often departed on nonconsecutive day TAs two to five times a week, while offenders most often departed on 15 day UTAs once every month or once every two months and offenders granted 60 day UTAs most often had no pattern to the departures (departures were on an as needed basis, or there was a changing pattern).

Table 6-10: Percentage of offenders granted nonconsecutive day TAs departing at each frequency
Frequency of departure 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA
Once a week 23.4 12.7 25.0
2 to 5 times a week 34.6 18.2 21.4
Multiple times a month 10.7 12.7 7.1
Once a month or once every two months 3.4 29.1 7.1
As needed, changing patter, other 27.8 27.3 39.3

Whether or not follow-up documentation existed in OMS was assessed and compared between the three groups. Follow-up documentation was assessed as existing when there was relevant text in either the progress summary report following the TA or text in the debriefing sections of the post TA report. Overall, 62% of offenders had some follow-up information documented in OMS, while 38% had no such documentation. According to Table 6-11, offenders granted 60 day UTAs were most likely to have follow-up information while offenders granted 15 day ETAs were least likely to have follow-up information available in OMS. It appears that personal development UTAs had a higher likelihood of having follow-up information available than personal development ETAs.

Table 6-11: Percentage of offenders with complete follow-up for each type of personal development TA
Follow-up 15 day ETA 15 day UTA 60 day UTA
No follow-up completed 47.0 27.0 26.5
Follow-up completed 53.0 73.0 73.5

The outcome of personal development TAs for offenders with TA releases was compared across the three personal development TA types. Negative outcomes included UAL's and suspended TAs. Overall, the rate of positive outcome of offenders granted personal development TAs was very good at 97%. Across the three types of personal development TAs, the 15 day UTAs had the highest rate of negative outcome at 11%, while only 1% of offenders granted 60 day UTAs had a negative outcome, and all of the offenders granted 15 day ETAs had a positive outcome. This 11% (4% UAL, 7% TA suspended) rate of negative outcome for 15 day UTAs is high in comparison to the overall non-completion rate of less than approximately 1.5% for unescorted temporary absences (Grant & Millson, 1998).

Summary and Discussion

Analyses of gender indicated that the percentage of offenders granted personal development TAs were similar to the general inmate population for the males and females except for 60 day UTAs where all of the releases were for male offenders.

While Aboriginal offenders were granted 15 day ETAs and 15 day UTAs at a rate similar to their representation in the general inmate population, 60 day UTAs were more likely to be granted to Aboriginal offenders than their representation in the offender population.

The age of the offender also had an effect on the likelihood of being granted a personal development TA. Overall, 26 to 35 year old offenders were the most likely to be granted a personal development TA while offenders under 26 years of age were the least likely to be granted a personal development TA. Offenders under the age of 26 had a particularly low probability of being granted a 60 day UTA.

Analyses of the need levels of offenders granted personal development TAs revealed that 15 day ETAs were primarily granted to high need offenders, 15 day UTAs were granted to mostly low or high need offenders, and 60 day UTAs were granted equally to offenders of all three levels of need. Interestingly, as the need level increased, the likelihood that offenders were granted consecutive day personal development TAs decreased.

Offenders granted different types of personal development TAs differed in their most serious previous offences. Offenders granted 15 day ETAs were more likely to have sex offences and less likely to have murder offences than offenders granted 15 day UTAs or 60 day UTAs. Offenders with property offences, or other non-violent offences as their most serious offences were more likely to be granted 15 day UTAs or 60 day UTAs than 15 day ETAs.

Comparisons between the three types of personal development TAs in this sample found that Ontario tended to grant the largest percentage of personal development TAs, particularly 15 day UTAs. In contrast, the Pacific region appeared to grant the lowest percentage of personal development TAs overall. It is interesting, that 60 day UTAs were used frequently in the Prairie region, while the Ontario and Pacific regions granted few 60 day UTAs. Granting authority for TAs was primarily CSC, while NPB was the granting authority for about half of the 60 day UTAs.

The security level of the institution granting the TA was overwhelmingly minimum. Surprisingly, offenders incarcerated at medium security institutions were more likely to be granted personal development UTAs than ETAs. This surprising result may be explained to some degree by the large percentage (80%) of offenders granted 15 day ETAs who were housed in minimum security institutions being included in group ETAs. Due to the larger inmate to escort ratio, offenders incarcerated at minimum security institutions may be considered to be less of a risk for group ETAs than offenders incarcerated at medium security institutions.

The length of personal development TAs varied with 15 day ETAs including the most days, followed by 60 day UTAs, and 15 day UTAs. The length of 15 day personal development TAs is of concern since they appear to have exceeded the length permitted in the CCRA. However, this may indicate a problem with OMS and the recording of decision numbers.

Analyses of the span of time elapsed between the first departure and the last return on nonconsecutive day personal development TAs revealed that 15 day ETAs spanned the longest period of time. Specifically, on average 15 day ETAs spanned seven and a half months, while 15 day UTAs occurred over four months and 60 day UTAs extended over two and a half months. This may be due to the proportion of offenders with consecutive day TAs in the 15 day UTAs and 60 day UTAs since consecutive day TAs concentrate the release days to a shorter period of time.

In terms of the number of personal development TAs granted to offenders within a twelve month period, offenders with 15 day ETAs had the most and 60 day UTAs had the fewest although the medians did not appear to differ. This difference may have occurred largely because of the recording problems encountered with personal development TAs, especially with the 15 day ETAs.

Analyses of the frequency of the departure on nonconsecutive day personal development TAs revealed that differences existed between the three types of personal development TAs. Offenders granted 15 day ETAs most frequently departed two to five times a week, while offenders granted 15 day UTAs most often departed once a month or once every two months and offenders granted 60 day UTAs most often had an inconsistent pattern of departures.

Overall, results indicated that offenders granted personal development ETAs were less likely to have follow-up information in OMS than offenders granted personal development UTAs.

The rates of negative outcomes of offenders granted personal development 15 day ETAs and 60 day UTAs were similar to the overall rates of negative outcomes. However, 15 day UTAs had a much higher rate of negative outcome, at 10%, than the overall rates of negative outcome for unescorted TAs.

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION

The introduction presented eight issues to be addressed concerning personal development TAs. The discussion that follows reiterates these questions and provides responses.

What are personal development TAs being used for?

Most personal development TAs are being used to allow offenders to attend programs in the community as required in the CCRA. Work was indicated for less than 5% of offenders granted all of the different types of personal development TAs. Assessment in the community was somewhat more common in the personal development UTAs with 9% of 15 day UTAs for assessment, and 6% of 60 day UTAs for assessment.

When programs were indicated as the purpose of the TA, the most common programs were alcohol abuse treatment and drug abuse treatment for all three types of personal development TAs. For 15 day ETAs, religious services were often reported as the program.

How are personal development TAs being used? (time away from the institution, consecutive or non-consecutive days away, supervision etc.)

The number of days the offenders spent away from an institutions was compared across the different personal development TAs. In terms of mean number of days on the TA, 15 day ETAs had the highest number of days (33), followed by 60 day UTAs (28), and 15 day UTAs (16). Median scores, which are more appropriate when extreme scores exist, showed that 15 day ETAs had a median of 19 days, 15 day UTAs had a median of 8 days, and 60 day UTAs had a median of 27 days. It is interesting that for 15 day ETAs, both the mean and median number of days exceed the maximum allowable days away from the institution. For 15 day ETAs, the largest percentage of offenders had spent more than 15 days on the TA, while offenders on 15 day UTAs were most likely to be away 5 days or less, and 60 day UTAs were most likely to be between 16 and 60 days. These results need to be interpreted with caution since they are most likely an artifact of errors in the data.

Analyses of the percentage of offenders who were granted consecutive versus nonconsecutive personal development TAs indicated that 15 day ETAs were predominantly nonconsecutive, 15 day UTAs had slightly more nonconsecutive than consecutive releases, and 60 day UTAs had slightly more consecutive than nonconsecutive releases. Personal development TAs appear to be used to provide approval for multiple releases in conjunction with a program or multiple programs rather than as a single multiple day release.

The amount of supervision available for offenders on personal development TAs is determined by two issues: conditions of the TA, and residence on overnight stays Probably due to the fact that all 15 day ETAs are escorted, a small percentage had other conditions. Most offenders granted 15 day UTAs and 60 day UTAs (82% and 94% respectively) had at least one special condition imposed. For offenders released on 15 day UTAs or 60 day UTAs the most common conditions were 'abstain from intoxicants' and 'report to police/ parole office'.

The residence at which offenders reside on overnight stays while participating in personal development TAs also provide supervision. For offenders who are away from an institution overnight, the most common residence was a CRC for offenders on 15 day UTAs, while treatment facilities were the most common residence for offenders on 60 day UTAs. These residence often have their own set of regulations which assist in the supervision of offenders on personal development TAs.

Are personal development TAs part of a structured release plan?

Personal development TAs are mentioned in terms of a structured release plan for a majority of cases with UTAs being most likely to have relevant documentation. However, this was more likely to occur in a progress summary report than a correctional plan. Therefore, personal development TAs tend to be part of a structured plan but planning appears to occur relatively close to the time of the release, being mentioned in the progress summary report rather than the correctional plan. The quality of documentation was either 'fair' or 'good' for most cases although a larger proportion of documentation is 'poor' in 15 day ETAs. Regionally, the Quebec region has the highest concentration of poor documentation, especially for 15 day ETAs.

The availability of follow-up information after offenders' release on personal development TAs was compared across the three types of TAs. In general, approximately half of 15 day ETAs had adequate follow-up information available while approximately three-quarters of 15 day UTAs and 60 day UTAs had adequate follow-up. Therefore, in general, 15 day ETAs had the poorest level of documentation both before and after the release.

When in the sentence are personal development TAs being granted?

Personal development TAs are granted to offenders at different times in their sentence depending on the type of personal development TA and the type of sentence. In comparison to the ETAs, the UTAs had a higher proportion of offenders serving life sentences. In general, offenders sentenced to life had their personal development TA granted before their parole eligibility date, while offenders serving determinate sentences were granted personal development TAs after the parole eligibility date. The number of days after the parole eligibility date for offenders sentenced to determinate sentences was similar for 15 day ETAs and 15 day UTAs at approximately eight months after the parole eligibility date. However, 60 day UTAs were granted to offenders serving determinate sentences later than 15 day TAs (13 months). For offenders sentenced to life, 15 day UTAs and 15 day ETAs occurred several months before the parole eligibility date, while 60 day UTAs were granted an average of 2 years (754 days) after the parole eligibility date.

The percentage of the sentence served before the personal development TA varied across the three types. Specifically, offenders granted 15 day ETAs and UTAs had completed approximately 40% of their sentences when granted the TA, whereas offenders granted 60 day UTAs had completed approximately half of their sentence.

Are there regional, racial and gender differences in the use of personal development TAs?

Regional differences did exist between the three types of personal development TAs. The Ontario region was most likely to grant a 15 day ETA, the Quebec region was most likely to grant a 15 day UTA, and the Prairie region was most likely to grant a 60 day UTA. Compared to the general inmate population, 15 day UTAs were granted at a very low rate in the Atlantic region and 60 day UTAs were granted at a comparatively low rate in Ontario. Higher granting rates for personal development TAs occurred in the Pacific region for 15 day UTAs and the Prairie region for 60 day UTAs.

Similar to the findings of Grant and Belcourt (1992) on ETAs and UTAs, 15 day ETAs and 15 day UTAs were granted to offenders at a rate similar to their representation in the offender population. However, only males were granted 60 day UTAs.

Racial representation of offenders granted 15 day ETAs and 15 day UTAs was similar to the racial representation in the offender population. However, aboriginal offenders were almost twice as likely to be granted 60 day UTAs than expected given their representation in the inmate population. These findings differ from an earlier study where Aboriginal offenders were found to have been underrepresented (Grant and Belcourt, 1992).

What type of offenders are being granted personal development TAs?

The offence history of offenders granted personal development TAs differed between the three types of TAs. Specifically, offenders granted 15 day ETAs were more likely to have sex offences and less likely to have murder offences than offenders granted 15 day UTAs or 60 day UTAs. Offenders granted 60 day UTAs had a very high rate of murder related offences with approximately 30% having a murder or manslaughter conviction in their current or previous sentence. In comparison, only 5% of offenders who received reintegration TAs in Grant and Millson's (1998) study had murder as their major admitting offence. This suggests that 60 day personal development TAs may be meeting the special reintegration needs of these offenders who have spent extended periods of time in custody.

Given the high percentage of offenders in the sample granted 60 day UTAs with murder related offences, it is not surprising that 21% of these offenders were currently serving life sentences. In comparison, approximately 19% of offenders granted 15 day UTAs and 12% of offenders granted 15 day ETAs were serving life sentences. Earlier studies found that only 12% of those granted all types of TAs were serving life sentences (Grant and Belcourt, 1992).

For those serving determinate sentences, offenders granted 15 day UTAs were serving the longest current sentence, at approximately five years, than offenders granted 15 day ETAs or 60 day UTAs. Offenders serving longer sentences were more likely to receive nonconsecutive day TAs than consecutive day TAs for both the 15 day and 60 day UTAs.

Overall, offenders granted UTAs tended to have longer sentences and were more likely to have been convicted of a serious violent non-sexual offence. In contrast, offenders granted 15 day ETAs were more likely to have a sex offence in their criminal history.

What is the effect of personal development TAs on future conditional releases?

Day parole was the most common type of release given to offenders following the personal development TA. For the three types of personal development TAs day parole was the next release type for approximately two-thirds of the offenders. In comparison, Motiuk and Belcourt (1996) found that approximately half of offenders who had received ETAs received a discretionary release (day parole or full parole), while two-thirds of offenders who had received UTAs were subsequently granted a discretionary release. If full parole and day parole releases are considered, 77% of offenders receiving 15 day ETAs, 89% of offenders receiving 15 day UTAs and 83% of offenders receiving 60 day UTAs received a discretionary release which followed the personal development TAs.

The first full release type (full parole or statutory release) was statutory release for approximately 60% of offenders with personal development TAs. From this information, it appears that most of the offenders granted personal development TAs receive day parole releases followed by a full release at their statutory release date.

Do personal development TAs increase the likelihood of a positive outcome in the community after full release?

Because the data collected for this study contained quite recent information, readmission rates following full release were available only for a one year period and did not include all cases. Due to the small sample size, and the potential for other factors to influence the outcome, the follow-up results should be viewed as preliminary.

The rate of readmission for all three types of personal development TAs was approximately 30%. The 15 day UTA offenders had the highest rate of readmission at 31%, while offenders granted 15 day ETAs had a readmission rate of 26% and the 60 day UTA offenders had a readmission rate of 29%. The readmission rate with a new offence was 10% for 15 day ETAs and 15 day UTAs, and 4% for the 60 day UTA offenders.

The readmission and reoffence rates appear to be relatively low. In comparison, Grant (1996) found that offenders with full parole release had a readmission rate of approximately 15% and a reoffence rate of approximately 10% within one year of release while offenders released on statutory release had a readmission rate of approximately 40% and a reoffence rate of approximately 30%. Therefore, the readmission and reoffence rates of offenders released following personal development TAs compares favourably with offenders released on statutory release but is higher than that found for offenders released on full parole. Given that approximately 60% of offenders who received personal development TAs were later released at their statutory release date, the readmission and reoffence rates for offenders released at their statutory release date may be most relevant for comparisons.

Considering the lower readmission and reoffence rates for offenders receiving personal development TAs, it would appear that these TAs may be beneficial. However, without much more extensive analyses, it is impossible to conclude that personal development TAs increase the likelihood of successful outcome although there appears to be a correlation.

Other Issues

The majority of offenders granted personal development TAs were in minimum security institutions. Approximately 80% of offender granted 15 day ETAs were at minimum security institutions, while two-thirds of offenders granted 15 day UTAs and 60 day UTAs were at minimum security institutions. The higher percentage of offenders incarcerated at minimum security institutions granted 15 day ETAs rather than 15 day UTAs or 60 day UTAs may be explained by the greater use of group ETAs in minimum security institutions, which allows multiple lower risk offenders to be released with one escort. Group TAs do not occur for the other two types of personal development TAs. However, the limited use of 15 day ETAs at medium security institutions suggests a failure to take advantage of the unique opportunities these TAs offer.

It appeared in the data, that in some cases, the granting of a 15 or 60 day UTAs provided cases managers with a block of approved TA releases. With this block of releases case managers controlled the frequency and duration of UTAs to manage the offenders' exposure in the community by providing increasingly long periods of release while monitoring the offender to ensure that behaviour in the community remained acceptable. With this approach, it was unnecessary to obtain new UTA grants as offenders demonstrated their ability to function safely in the community. This could be an effective strategy for managing personal development UTAs.

It was anticipated that 60 day UTAs would normally be used for extended periods away from the institution for participation in longer term residential treatment programs, while 15 day UTAs would be used for programming requiring multiple releases over an extended period of time, or multiple day short term releases. However, only 56% of 60 day UTAs consisted of single blocks of consecutive days away. In addition, 40% of offenders granted 60 day UTAs were released only one day at a time, while only 25% of offenders granted 15 day UTAs were released one day at a time. These results suggest a lack of differentiation between 15 and 60 day UTAs.

There is some evidence in the study that the documentation being maintained for personal development TAs is not as complete as it should be. Follow-up evaluations are frequently missing for personal development ETAs and are sometimes missing for 15 and 60 day UTAs. Yet, this follow-up information is important for monitoring changes in offenders' behaviour that impacts on the likelihood for future releases. Pre-release documentation was also not always complete, sometimes lacking important information, and did not give the sense of a well planned program of gradual release. Further analysis will determine the impact of these factors on correctional outcome.

Overall, personal development TAs provide many opportunities for offenders to be released into the community, either with or without supervision. Because they provide opportunities for offenders to attend programs that are not available in the institution and to interact in the community, they provide additional help with the process of reintegrating offenders into the community they will eventually be released to.

REFERENCES

Case Management Manual (1997). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

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

Correctional Service of Canada (1994).Basic facts about corrections in Canada. Ottawa: The Communications Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.

Grant, B. A. (1996).Inmates Referred for Detention (1989-90 to 1993-94): A Comparative Analysis. Research Branch Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada

Grant, B. A., and Gal, M. (1998).Case Management Preparation for Release and Day Parole Outcome. Research Branch. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

Grant, B. A., and Millson, W. A. (1998).The Temporary Absence Program: A Descriptive Analysis. Research Branch. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

LeClair, D., and Guarino-Ghezzi, S. (1991). Does incapacitation guarantee public safety. Lessons from the Massachusetts furlough and pre release programs.Justice Quarterly, 8(1), 9-36.

Motiuk, L. L., and Belcourt, R. L. (1996).Temporary Absence Program Participation and the Release of Federal Offenders. Research Branch. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

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

SAS Institute Inc. (1997).SAS Version 6.12, Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.

APPENDIX 1

Coding Manual for 15 / 60 day Personal Development TA Study
FPS:
________________
 
 


Electronic Index Data
OMS Data


TA Permit Number:
________________
 
 

Departure Date:
________________
Departure Date:
________________

Return Date:
________________
Return Date:
________________

Completion4:
________________
Completion:
________________

  • Does all the information match

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No

  • If Yes, go to START

  • If No, What is the reason for the mismatch?

    • 1. the completion code was "did not participate" in OMS
    • 2. the completion code was "TA suspended" in OMS
    • 3. there is no information available in the "Individual TA Permit", "Group TA Permit" or "Post TA Report" in OMS
    • 4. other (specify) _______________________________

If the reason for the mismatch is number 1, 2 or 3 then use another TA for the coding (i.e. before or after the TA) that has the same decision number as the current TA and go to START. Otherwise, if the explanation for the mismatch is reasonable , record new dates and go to START.

If there is no explanation, verify and go to next offender.

START
A. Basic TA Information

  1. What is the type of TA5

    • 1. escorted 15 day
    • 2. unescorted 15 day
    • 3. unescorted 30 day

  2. Which authority gave clearance for the TA

    • 1. National Parole Board
    • 2. Institutional Head (CSC)
    • 3. Unknown

  3. What is the date the current sentence commenced? _____________ (yymmdd)

  4. What is the region6 of the institution from which the TA was granted?

    • 1. Atlantic
    • 2. Quebec
    • 3. Ontario
    • 4. Prairies
    • 5. Pacific

  5. Are the TA days consecutive7?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No

    • If Yes complete Consecutive TA's section
    • If No complete Nonconsecutive TA's section

Consecutive TA's
  1. Is the post TA report completed?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No
    • 2. Partially

    1. 1.1. Is there information in the debriefing section of the post TA report?

      • 1. Yes, useful8
      • 2. Yes, not useful
      • 0. No

  2. Is there information concerning TA outcome in the progress summary report after the departure date of TA?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No
    • 3. No PSR after TA

    Go to Section B

Nonconsecutive TA's
  1. Within the TA set9, how many departure dates were there from the institution? _____________

  2. What is the decision number of the TA set? _____________

  3. What is the first departure date of the TA set? _____________ (yymmdd)

  4. What is the last return date of the TA set? _____________ (yymmdd)

  5. What is the actual number of days the offender spent on the TA10? _____________

  6. How often does the offender depart for the TA?

    • 1. once a week
    • 2. two to four times a week
    • 3. five times a week
    • 4. multiple times a month (but less than once a week)
    • 5. once a month
    • 6. once every two months
    • 7. as needed (no consistent pattern)
    • 8. other (specify): _______________________________

  7. Is the post TA report completed for the current TA11?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No
    • 2. Partially

    1. 7.1. Is there information in the debriefing section of the post TA report for the current TA?

      • 1. Yes, useful12
      • 2. Yes, not useful
      • 0. No

  8. Is the post TA report completed for the last TA in the TA set?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No
    • 2. Partially

    1. 8.1. Is there information in the debriefing section of the post TA report for the last TA?

      • 1. Yes, useful
      • 2. Yes, not useful
      • 0. No

  9. Is there information concerning TA outcome in the progress summary report(s)13 after the TA's?

    • 1. Yes, useful
    • 2. Yes, not useful
    • 3. No PSR after TA
    • 0. No

B. Documents

Sections B through E should be completed regardless of whether the TA14 is Consecutive or Nonconsecutive.

  1. Is there a correctional plan prior to the TA in electronic form?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No

    1. 1.1. If Yes, is it the first correctional plan

      • 1. Yes
      • 0. No

    2. 1.2. If Yes to question 1, does the correctional plan mention the personal development TA?

      • 1. Yes
      • 0. No

    3. 1.3. If No to question 1, is there a paper form of the correctional plan mentioned in other documentation?

      • 1. Yes
      • 0. No
      • 3. Unknown

  2. Is there a progress summary report prior to the TA in electronic form?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No

    1. 2.1. Is there a progress summary report that applies to the current TA?

      • 1. Yes
      • 0. No

      1. 2.1.1. If Yes to question 2.1, is the current TA specifically mentioned in the progress summary report(s) previous to the progress summary report that applies to the current TA?

        • 1. Yes
        • 0. No
        • 3. No previous PSR


    2. 2.2. The recommendation for the 15 or 60 day personal development TA as expressed in the progress summary report(s) was:

      • 1. very encouraging
      • 2. encouraging
      • 3. neutral
      • 4. guarded
      • 5. other (specify): _____________


  3. What is the GSIR score of the offender15? _____________

C. Quality of Documents regarding the structured plan

  1. Rate the following statement on the 3 point scale.

    1. 1.1. Is there mention of the TA in the progress summary report and / or the correctional plan?

      • 0. no mention of TA in any of the documents
      • 1. TA mentioned in one of the documents
      • 2. TA mentioned in two or more of the documents

    2. 1.2. Are specific objectives of the TA mentioned in the progress summary reports

      • 0. no objectives for TA indicated
      • 1. general objectives
      • 2. objectives indicated with specific goals

    3. 1.3. Do the progress summary reports and/ or the correctional plans specify the program the offender is to attend?

      • 0. no program(s) mentioned
      • 1. general program type mentioned (e.g. substance abuse)
      • 2. a specific treatment program indicated (e.g. substance abuse at Anchorage Addiction)

    4. 1.4. Does the purpose of the TA match the offender's needs which are mentioned in the progress summary reports.

      • 0. program/ purpose of TA not related to identified needs, or, needs not addressed
      • 1. one need addressed
      • 2. more than one need addressed
      • 9. needs unknown or purpose unknown - not found in record

D. TA Characteristics

  1. What is the specified treatment purpose of the TA? (If no treatment, go to D2)

    alcohol abuse treatment
    1. Yes
    0. No

    drug abuse treatment
    1. Yes
    0. No

    violence related treatment programs16
    1. Yes
    0. No

    psychological / psychiatric counseling
    1. Yes
    0. No

    sex offender treatment
    1. Yes
    0. No

    cognitive skills training
    1. Yes
    0. No

    meetings to promote cultural awareness
    1. Yes
    0. No

    educational / vocational training
    1. Yes
    0. No

    cognitive skills training
    1. Yes
    0. No

    employment skills training
    1. Yes
    0. No

    other17 (specify):__________________
    1. Yes
    0. No


    1. 1.1. If a treatment program is a specified purpose of the TA, how many hours per day does the offender spend in treatment? ___________ hours18

    2. 1.2. Where does the offender spend the remaining hours of the day?

      school
      1. Yes
      0. No
      3. Unknown

      work
      1. Yes
      0. No
      3. Unknown

      looking for work
      1. Yes
      0. No
      3. Unknown

      leisure
      1. Yes
      0. No
      3. Unknown

      visit family / friends
      1. Yes
      0. No
      3. Unknown

      other (specify):__________________
      1. Yes
      0. No
      3. Unknown



  2. Is the current TA specified purpose working?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No
    • 3. Unknown

    1. 2.1. If Yes, is it an ongoing job or a variety of tasks?

      • 1. ongoing job
      • 2. variety of tasks
      • 3. unknown

    2. 2.2. If Yes, specify the type of work performed: __________________


  3. Is the current TA's specified purpose the assessment of the offender for programming in the community?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No
    • 3. Unknown

  4. Is there specific mention of preparation for

    (a) day parole
    1. Yes
    0. No

    (b) full parole
    1. Yes
    0. No

    (c) statutory release
    1. Yes
    0. No


  5. What are the conditions of the TA?

    to abstain from the use of intoxicants
    1. Yes
    0. No

    to submit to urinalysis or breathalyzer
    1. Yes
    0. No

    to refrain from going to certain locations
    1. Yes
    0. No

    to not have contact with the victim of the offence
    1. Yes
    0. No

    to not have contact with known offenders
    1. Yes
    0. No

    to report to police / parole office
    1. Yes
    0. No

    to refrain from driving
    1. Yes
    0. No

    to not have contact with children
    1. Yes
    0. No

    to be supervised by an escort or another person
    1. Yes
    0. No

    other (specify):_______________________
    1. Yes
    0. No


  6. On the current TA are there overnight stays outside of the institution?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No

    1. 6.1. If Yes, where does the offender reside19?

      • 1. CCC
      • 2. CRC or CRF
      • 3. treatment facility
      • 4. different correctional institution
      • 5. CCC / CRC / CRF and treatment facility
      • 6. home of family or friends
      • 7. unknown
      • 8. other (specify): _______________


  7. What were the offender's identified needs?

    academic and vocational skills
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    alcohol usage
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    behavioural and emotional stability
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    companions and significant others
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    drug usage
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    employment pattern
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    financial management
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    health
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    living arrangements
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    marital and family relationships
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    mental ability
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    sexual behaviour
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown

    values/ attitudes
    1. Yes
    0. No
    3. Unknown


E. Conditional Release from Current Offence

  1. Previous to the current personal development TA, how many 15 day personal development TA permits has the offender had in the current sentence? _______

  2. Previous to the current personal development TA, how many 60 day personal development TA permits has the offender had in the current sentence? ________

    Complete question E3 if the TA is a 15 day TA, and question E4 if the TA is 60 day TA.


  3. Including the current 15 day personal development TA, how many 15 day personal development TA's has the offender had within 12 months20? _______

  4. Including the current 60 day personal development TA, how many 60 day personal development TA's has the offender had within 12 months? _______

    Complete questions E5, E5.1, E6, E6.1 if the current TA is consecutive.


  5. Are there any consecutive 15 or 60 day personal development TA's prior to the current personal development TA?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No

    1. 5.1. If Yes, how many days were there between the previous and current personal development TA?

      • 1. 0 to 6 days
      • 2. 7 to 30 days
      • 3. More than 30 days

    2. 5.2. If Yes to question 5, what is the relationship between the previous personal development TA and the current TA?

      • 1. no relationship
      • 2. same purpose
      • 3. continuation of program21


  6. Are there any consecutive 15 or 60 day personal development TA's subsequent to the current personal development TA?

    • 1. Yes
    • 0. No

    1. 6.1. If Yes, how many days were there between the current personal development TA and the subsequent TA?

      • 1. 0 to 6 days
      • 2. 7 to 30 days
      • 3. More than 30 days

    2. 6.2. If Yes to question 6, what is the relationship between the current personal development TA and the subsequent TA?

      • 1. no relationship
      • 2. same purpose
      • 3. continuation of program


4 Code completion from the COMPCOCE variable as follows: 1=on time, 2=extension, 3=late, 4=UAL, 5=detained by police, 6=TA suspended, 7=intoxicated/ possession of contraband, 8=breach of conditions, 9=objectives not met...

5 Code as escorted 15 day (1) if TATYPE=1 and PURPOSE=7, code as unescorted 15 day (2) if TATYPE=2 and PURPOSE=7, code as unescorted 60 day (3) if TATYPE=2 and PURPOSE=8.

6 Refer to the list of geographic region of all institutions across Canada.

7 See "Instructions" for proper method of classifying as Consecutive or Nonconsecutive.

8 The information in the debriefing section should be coded as useful if the actual activities the offender was involved in during the TA and/ or the outcome of the TA is provided.

9 A TA set refers to multiple TA's that pertain to the granting of one 15 or 60 day TA.

10 To find actual days count the number of days between each departure and return date and add those number of days together for each departure date with the TA set.

11 To find this use the TA permit number for the index TA.

12 The information in the debriefing section should be coded as useful if the actual activities the offender was involved in during the TA and/ or the outcome of the TA is provided.

13 The progress summary report(s) can be after any of the TA's but may not be before the first TA in the set.

14 For the remaining questions TA refers to the actual TA for consecutive TA's and TA set for nonconsecutive TA's.

15 Enter 99 if no GSIR score is provided, and 98 if the offender is aboriginal.

16 Violence related treatment programs refer to anger management, family violence, violent offender and similar treatment programs.

17 "Other" category should not include work (employment), assessments, or other activities that are not oriented towards personal development or treatment.

18 If number of hours per day spent in treatment is unknown, enter 99.

19 Refer to the list of CCC's and CRC's

20 The 12 month interval of time can be before or after the current TA, depending upon when other TA's occur in relation to the current TA.

21 "Same purpose" refers to TA's which are continued in order to treat the same basic need whereas "continuation of program" is specific to the continuation of a certain treatment program.
Date Modified: 2015-03-05

Top of Page
Important Notices