ARCHIVED - National Parole Board

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Section I: Overview

1. Chairperson’s Message

Public safety is the National Parole Board’s primary objective. The Board achieves this objective through quality conditional release and pardon decisions that result in the safe reintegration of offenders in the community. Our pursuit of quality decision-making is challenged constantly by critical factors in our work environment.

For example, the federal offender population has become more difficult, characterized by a greater prevalence of violence, longer criminal histories, more frequent gang affiliations and more serious substance abuse problems. This trend has added complexity to our conditional release decision-making responsibilities. Greater complexity in decision-making for a "harder" offender population has been accompanied by heavy workload pressures in all areas of conditional release. Workloads related to pardon applications have also risen sharply. In addition, the Board must operate in an environment of zero-tolerance for error - an environment in which no offence by parolees is considered acceptable. This perspective is understandable, given the serious consequences of re-offending for victims and the community. In this challenging environment, quality decision-making in support of public safety demands a commitment to continuous improvement in all aspects of program delivery. Measures for continuous improvement ensure that NPB has:

• quality information for decision-making;
• quality decision policies and processes; and
• quality decision-makers.

The Board’s Performance Report (DPR) for 2006/07 documents both program results and efforts for continued improvement. Data in the report indicate that each year one in one hundred releases on parole result in a new violent offence. In fact, over the past decade, the annual member of convictions of parolees for violent offences has declined by more than 70%. Information for pardons illustrates similar results, with the vast majority of pardon recipients (96%) remaining crime free in the community.

With respect to continuous improvement, the DPR provides information on lessons learned for each of NPB’s three program activities. This information identifies issues and outlines action plans that will integrate improvements with ongoing operations. Plans for improvement propose wide-ranging action, including measures to:

• strengthen information on mental health issues for offenders as it relates to risk assessment and parole decision-making;
• provide victims with a more effective voice in corrections and conditional release processes; and
• establish sustainability for the pardon program by increasing efficiency and effectiveness in the processing of pardon applications.

I am confident that the Board’s commitment to rigorous performance monitoring and continuous improvement will ensure that it continues to produce solid results and strengthen its commitment to public safety.

__________________________

Mario Dion

Chairperson, National Parole Board

2. Management Representation Statement

I submit, for tabling in Parliament, the 2006/07 Departmental Performance Report (DPR) for the National Parole Board. This document has been prepared based on the reporting principles contained in the Guide for the Preparation of Part III of the 2006-2007 Estimates: Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports:

• It adheres to the specific reporting requirements outlined in Treasury Board Secretariat guidance;
• It uses Strategic Outcomes and Program Activity Architecture that were approved by Treasury Board
• It presents consistent, comprehensive, balanced and reliable information;
• It provides a basis of accountability for the results pursued and achieved with the resources entrusted to NPB; and
• It reports finances based on approved numbers from the Estimates and Public Accounts of Canada.

___________________________

Mario Dion

Chairperson, National Parole Board

 

3. Reason for Existence

The National Parole Board is an independent administrative tribunal responsible for making decisions about the timing and conditions of release of offenders to the community on various forms of conditional release. The Board also makes pardon decisions, and recommendations respecting clemency through the Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM).

Legislation governing the Board includes the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), the Criminal Records Act (CRA),and the Criminal Code. The CCRA empowers the Board to make conditional release decisions for federal offenders and offenders in provinces and territories without parole boards. In addition, the Board has extensive legislated responsibilities related to openness and accountability, including information for victims of crime, observers at hearings, access to NPB’s registry of decisions, public information and investigation of tragic incidents in the community. The CRA authorizes the Board to grant or revoke pardons for convictions under federal acts or regulations. The Governor General or the Governor in Council approves the use of the RPM for those convicted for a federal offence, following investigations by the Board, and recommendations from the Minister of Public Safety.

Mission and Values

The National Parole Board, as part of the criminal justice system, makes independent, quality conditional release and pardon decisions and clemency recommendations. The Board contributes to the protection of society by facilitating, as appropriate, the timely integration of offenders as law-abiding citizens.

The Mission establishes four core values:

• dedication to the attainment of a just, peaceful and safe society;
• respect for the dignity of individuals and the rights of all members of society;
• commitment to openness, integrity and accountability; and
• belief that qualified and motivated individuals are essential to achieving the Mission.

Total Financial Resources 2006/07

Planned	Authorities	Actual
$43,057,000	$45,313,122	$43,346,026

Total Financial Resources 2006/07

Planned	Actual	Difference
465	416	49

 

4. Performance Summary

Accountability Framework

Strategic Outcome: Quality conditional release decisions which contribute to public protection through the safe reintegration of offenders in the community
Program Activity: Quality Conditional Release Decisions

Spending 2006/07

Planned Spending  $ 33,131,000

Actual Spending  $ 33,962,013

Variance  $ (831,013)

FTE used  314

2006/07 Priorities / Commitments

• Effective management of legislative responsibilities related to conditional release decision-making. Key indicators include:
•  
  • outcomes of release on parole;
  • numbers/rates of convictions for violent offences for offenders on parole;
  • post-warrant expiry re-offending and return to a federal penitentiary.
• Support for the development of legislative and policy proposals to strengthen the effectiveness of corrections and conditional release in contributing to public safety.
• Improve information management in support of NPB’s conditional release responsibilities through development and implementation of the Conditional Release System (CRS).

Results

• Completion of 17,949 conditional release reviews (federal and provincial offenders):
•  
  • 94% of parole releases – no new offence. 99% - no new violent offence;
  • Annual convictions for violent offences by parolees down 72% since 1996/97;
  • 9 in 10 offenders who reach warrant expiry on full parole do not return to a federal penitentiary.
• Preparations completed for NPB to assume responsibility for parole decision-making for provincial offenders in British Columbia .
• NPB assessed proposals for reform of the CCRA and sentencing practices and participated in discussions regarding the impacts and effects of potential changes.
• NPB reached an agreement with CSC in which the Board will set direction and identify user needs for the system and CSC will lead the technical development.
• 
  
• Performance status: successfully met.

Accountability Framework

Strategic Outcome: Open and accountable conditional release processes that ensure active involvement and engagement of victims and the public before and after conditional release decisions are made.
Program Activity: Conditional Release Openness and Accountability

Spending 2006/07

Planned Spending  $ 7,668,000

Actual Spending  $ 6,561,010

Variance  $ 1,106,990

FTE used  64

Note: actual spending was $1.1 million less than planned spending primarily as a result of funding related to victims of crime that was placed in a frozen allotment pending changes to the CCRA.

2006/07 Priorities / Commitments

• Effective management of legislative responsibilities, related to open and accountable conditional release processes. Key indicators include: the timeliness and quality of information and assistance provided and client satisfaction as measured by surveys of clients and stakeholders.

Results

• NPB dealt with 21,434 contacts with victims and 2,055 observers at hearings, and distributed 5,871 decisions from the decision registry. Feedback from victims indicates that the vast majority (over 90%) are satisfied with the quality and timeliness of information and assistance provided by NPB.
• To provide victims with a more effective voice in the justice system, NPB developed plans to enhance victims’ access to information about parole and related matters; improve voice amplification equipment for victims who wish to observe or read a statement at NPB hearings; provide simultaneous translation for victims at hearings; increase outreach to victims, particularly in Aboriginal and northern communities; and establish a national training plan for NPB staff involved with victims.
• 
  
• Performance status: successfully met.

Accountability Framework

Strategic Outcome: Quality pardon decisions and clemency recommendations which contribute to public protection and support the process of rehabilitation.
Program Activity: Pardon Decisions, Clemency Recommendations

Spending 2006/07

Planned Spending  $ 2,258,000

Actual Spending  $ 2,823,003

Variance  $ (565,003)

FTE used  38

2006/07 Priorities Commitments

• Effective management of legislative responsibilities related to the processing of pardon applications, including measures to enhance productivity. Key indicators include the average time required to process pardon applications and the numbers and rates of pardons revoked annually.

Results

• 14,851 pardon applications processed. Average process time 13 months, (cases involving summary convictions - 5 months).
• 96% of all pardons awarded remain in force.
• 
  
• Performance status: partially met.

Accountability Framework

The following priority supports all three of NPB’s strategic outcomes and program activities

Spending 2006/07

During the year, NPB expended approximately $200,000 and 1 FTE on this priority. Those costs have been accounted for in the Board’s three strategic outcomes and related program activities.

2006/07 Priorities Commitments

• Integrated human resource and business planning to support effective program delivery and modernization of human resource management.

Results

• In 2006/07, NPB developed a human resource plan that identified potential employee departures as a result of retirement for a 5 year period beginning in 2006. The Board then identified critical positions for which succession planning was required to ensure proper knowledge transfer and mentoring for incoming employees. Succession plans also address issues related to diversity, employment equity, official languages, and continuous learning.
• 
  
• Performance status: successfully met.

 

5. Link to Government of Canada Outcome Areas

The federal government has identified “safe and secure communities” as a key outcome area. NPB contributes to federal efforts for sustaining safe and secure communities through all aspects of its program delivery. Public safety is the Board’s primary objective, as specified in the CCRA and reinforced in the Board’s Mission, policies, training and operations. In this context, the Board’s strategic outcomes, program activities, performance measures, plans and priorities are designed to strengthen and report on the Board’s capacity for quality conditional release and pardon decisions, leading to the safe reintegration of offenders in the community.

 

6. Overall Description of NPB Performance

Information in this report demonstrates that the National Parole Board satisfactorily achieved the commitments and objectives identified in its Plans and Priorities for 2006/07. Data in the report illustrate that parole continues to contribute to public safety. More than 90% of all parole releases do not result in a new offence and 99% do not result in a new violent offence. Information on re-offending after completion of sentence illustrates that 88% of offenders who reach the end of their sentence on parole do not return to a federal penitentiary. It should be noted, however, that rates of re-offending for these offenders would be higher if provincial offences were also considered. NPB does not have the capacity to track provincial re-offending after warrant expiry. Similarly, information on pardons indicates that 96% of all pardons awarded remain in force, demonstrating that most pardon recipients remain crime free in the community.

Feedback from victims, observers at hearings and those who seek access to the Board’s registry of decisions indicate that most of these individuals (e.g. over 90% of victims) were very satisfied with the timeliness and quality of information and assistance that NPB provided. This does not mean that they always agreed with the Board’s decisions on conditional release; however, it illustrates that they were treated with respect by NPB and that they recognize the professionalism and thoroughness that Board members and staff bring to their work.

In the area of pardons, the Board did encounter a backlog of 20,000 of pardon application as a result of sudden and sharp increases in the volume of pardon applications received. In response, the Board developed a detailed business plan to eliminate the backlog of applications and create long-term sustainability for the pardon program.

 

7. Operating Environment and Context

NPB works in a complex environment, demanding effective support for government priorities, careful assessment of issues across the justice system, thoughtful consideration of public concerns in a dynamic community context, and rigorous pursuit of innovation and improvement to meet heavy workloads. The Board delivers two legislatively based programs – conditional release and pardons and clemency. NPB also manages a range of internal services that provide critical support for program delivery. The conditional release area is, by far, the most complex and resource intensive, accounting for more than 90% of annual program expenditures. Program delivery is labour-intense. Salary costs amount to about 80% of program expenditures each year. Most of the remaining expenditures cover essential costs such as Board member travel to parole hearings. The high proportion of resources devoted to legislative responsibilities seriously constrains resource flexibility. Management of heavy and increasingly complex workloads within budget, consistent with the principle of public safety, presents a constant challenge.

Conditional Release

NPB’s workloads are shaped by factors beyond its control. Legislation governing the Board (CCRA) is prescriptive, specifying when and how the Board must conduct its business (e.g. when to conduct parole hearings). In addition, workloads are driven by the actions of offenders, victims and the community. In concrete terms, this means that NPB must deal with high workload volumes, involving critical issues of public safety, in tight timeframes, amid intense public scrutiny. For example, over the past five years, as the federal offender population remained relatively stable, NPB completed an average of 20,000 conditional release reviews per year for federal offenders. Recent information from CSC indicates that the federal population is increasing. As a result, the Board’s workloads and resource needs are expected to increase. Parole reviews for provincial offenders in the provinces/territories without parole boards usually range from 900 to 1,200 per year. This total will rise in 2007/08, as the Board assumes responsibility for parole decision-making for provincial offenders in British Columbia.

The Board must also deal with growing complexity in conditional release decision-making, as reflected in three important trends. The first is the “hardening” of the federal offender population characterized by longer criminal histories, greater prevalence of violence, more gang affiliations, and more serious substance abuse problems. The second trend involves the shift toward shorter federal prison sentences. A more difficult offender population with shorter sentences (and less time to benefit from programs/treatment) challenges NPB’s work to assess factors related to safe reintegration in the community. The third trend is the need for innovative and effective decision processes such as elder-assisted and community-assisted hearings which recognize the needs of Aboriginal offenders, and the increasing numbers of offenders from ethnoracial communities.

The openness and accountability provisions of the CCRA continue to present important challenges for the Board. Workloads in these areas have grown steadily since introduction of the CCRA in 1992. In 2006/07, the Board had over 21,000 contacts with victims, more than 2,000 observers at hearings and distributed more than 5,800 decisions from the decision registry. Growth is expected to continue. In addition, there has been a trend toward greater complexity in work as victims, the media, and the public have demonstrated greater interest in parole and related matters. As with conditional release decision-making, quality program delivery in this area is critical, given its implications for public safety and public confidence.

Government announcements for reform of criminal justice and corrections have important implications for NPB planning. Proposals to amend the CCRA and to reform sentencing practices (e.g. mandatory minimum sentences) would have a profound impact on NPB roles, responsibilities, resource needs and operations which must be assessed carefully.

Pardons

Workload growth has created a serious situation for the pardon program. Historically, the Board received 15,000 to 20,000 pardon applications annually. In the past two years, however, application volumes rose sharply to over 27,900 in 2005/06 and to 26,500 in 2006/07. As a result, the Board now faces a backlog of about 20,000 pardon applications. Factors contributing to growth in annual volumes of pardon applications include:

• greater scrutiny by government, private and voluntary sectors of potential employees;
• perceptions by Canadians of the increased value of a pardon for employment, and travel;
• active advertising campaigns by private sector organizations involved in pardons;
• RCMP progress in clearing the backlog of criminal records checks; and
• the increasing number of people eligible to apply for a pardon - the current estimate is 1.5 million people which grows by 60,000 annually.

The Board must clear the backlog of pardon applications and put in place measures to create long-term sustainability for the pardon program. These measures are critical, given the expectation that pardon applications will continue to grow and reach 30,000 in 2007/08.

Internal Services

The Board must ensure the provision of internal services that address the challenges of modern management, comprising sound financial processes and systems, effective human resource planning, and thorough program monitoring (management review, audit, evaluation) to support effective stewardship of resources and quality program delivery. The Board faces two key challenges in this area. The first is the need for integrated human resource and business planning that will sustain quality program delivery despite numerous retirements in key positions throughout the Board. The second involves the need for strategic use of information systems and technology to ensure effective information management as a base for quality program delivery.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page