The Jo hn Ho ward S ociety of O ntario Ontario Provinc ial Parole May 20041

#20

in a series of fact sheets that examine questions frequently asked about

the criminal justice system

Fact Sheet

Chart 1

Average Count of Persons onOntario Provincial Parole

1987/88 to 2002/03

Source: Ontario Board of Parole and OntarioMinistry of Correctional Services

A Pub lication of th e John How ard Soc iety of On tario May 2004

Provincial Parole in Ontario: The case for renewal

Under Canadian law, every personsentenced as an adult to a term ofimprisonment is eligible for parole,regardless of the length of the sentence.Both federal prisoners (those servingtwo years or more) and provincialprisoners (those serving a sentence ofless than two years) may be grantedparole, a form of conditional releasewhich permits them to serve a portionof their sentence in the communityunder supervision.

Generally, there is more attentionpaid in the media and by the public toparole of federally-sentenced offenders,especially in cases of those servinglengthy sentences and for seriouscrimes. While more people aresentenced to provincial terms ofincarceration and, therefore, eligible forparole, little is known about the role ofparole in the provincial correctionalsystem and how it operates with respectto provincially-sentenced offenders.

What is the legislation whichgoverns provincial parole in Ontario?What body oversees Ontario provincialparole decisions and how does itoperate? What are the trends withrespect to the use of provincial parolein Ontario? Are there other paroling

bodies in Canada and do they operatedifferently? What role can and shouldparole play in the provincial correctionssystem? This Fact Sheet will presentan overview of the history, legislativeauthority, purpose and currentoperation of provincial parole inOntario, with a particular focus onrecent trends.

The origins of provincial parole inOntario

Parole has its origins in the Ticket ofLeave Act, enacted in 1899, whichauthorized the Governor General togrant a licence to any convict in aCanadian penitentiary or provincialprison to be at large during such aportion of his term of imprisonment onsuch conditions as the GovernorGeneral saw fit. The granting ofTickets of Leave was managed by theFederal Department of Justice.Conditions were few (regular reportingto the police and the requirement tonotify of change of address or traveloutside of the area) and supervision wasminimal.

Parole as we know it today cameabout with the passage of the Parole Actby the Federal Parliament in 1959. TheAct set out new criteria for parole andcreated the National Parole Board as anindependent body with the soleauthority to grant parole. Thislegislation was replaced in 1992 by theCorrections and Conditional ReleaseAct (CCRA). The CCRA is thelegislation that governs parole - bothfederal and provincial - to this day and

The Jo hn Ho ward S ociety of O ntario Ontario Provinc ial Parole May 20042

What the law says . . .

Purpose of conditional release100. The purpose of conditionalrelease is to contribute to themaintenance of a just, peaceful andsafe society by means of decisionson the timing and conditions ofrelease that will best facilitate therehabilitation of offenders andtheir reintegration into thecommunity as law abiding citizens.

Criteria for granting parole102. The Board or a provincialparole board may grant parole toan offender, if in its opinion,a) the offender will not, by

re-offending, present an unduerisk to society before theexpiration according to law ofthe sentence the offender isserving; and

b) the release of the offender willcontribute to the protection ofsociety by facilitating thereintegration of the offenderinto society as a law-abidingcitizen.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

any provincial legislation with respectto provincial parole cannot conflictwith the CCRA.

The National Parole Board is thebody with the authority to grant paroleto all federal prisoners and to thoseprovincial prisoners in provinces whodo not have their own parole boards.Only three provinces, Ontario, BritishColumbia and Quebec, have their ownparole boards. In 1978, Ontario optedto assume jurisdiction over full parolefor its provincial prisoners and theOntario Board of Parole was designatedas the body with the authority to grantthese paroles under provinciallegisla t ion, the Minis try ofCorrectional Services Act. In 2001, theOntario Board of Parole was renamedthe Ontario Parole and Earned ReleaseBoard to recognize additionalresponsibilities it was given withrespect to releasing decisions.

How Ontario provincial paroleworks

Provincial prisoners are eligible forparole at one-third of their sentence.Prisoners serving a sentence of lessthan six months must apply, whilethose serving six months or more willautomatically have a hearing scheduledunless they waive (in writing) the rightto a hearing.

The hearing takes place in thecorrectional facility where the prisoneris incarcerated, with two members ofthe Board reviewing all availableinformation that is relevant to the case,interviewing the prisoner and makingthe decision to grant or deny parole orto defer the decision. The prisoner mayhave an assistant and the victim maysubmit a written submission and/orpresent an oral submission at thehearing. The Board must providereasons for its decision (in writing) tothe prisoner.

If granted parole, the person will besupervised by a parole officer and mustabide by conditions set down by the

Board upon release. Some conditionsare standard as set down in regulation,such as to keep the peace and be ofgood behaviour, to report to the policeand parole supervisor as required andto obtain consent for change of addressor employment. As well, the Board canset special conditions, such as toabstain from alcohol and to attend atreatment program.

When granted parole, the personwill be on parole under supervision inthe community for remainder of the full

term of his/her sentence. If a conditionis breached, the person on parole couldbe returned to prison to serve theremainder of the sentence.

Further information is available onthe website of the Ontario Parole andE a r n e d R e l e a s e B o a r d a t :

http://www.operb.gov.on.ca Why provincial parole is important

Many view parole merely as a formof clemency to be given only to thosewho are “deserving”. However, athoughtful understanding of paroleshows that it is an essential part of thestrategy to reduce the risk of re-offending after release from prison.

Parole allows for the supervision ofthe activities of the individual in thecommunity during the critical time afterrelease. Also, it permits the impositionof conditions. Such conditions not onlycan restrict the person’s activities (nodrinking, no criminal associations) but,more important, can engage theindividual in services and programs toassist them to become law-abidingcitizens (substance abuse treatment,assistance with housing andemployment).

In contrast, provincial prisoners notgranted parole will generally bereleased at two-thirds of their sentence(less any remission time for goodbehaviour not earned), at which pointthey are considered to have completedtheir sentence and, therefore, not subjectto any form of supervision. They donot have to report to the police or to aparole officer or abide by otherconditions which may be connectedwith involvement in criminal behaviourand may lose access to specializedservices or treatment programs, such assex offender treatment. Without anyform of early release, we lose theopportunity to monitor the person’sw h e r e a b o u t s a n d p e r s o n a lcircumstances and to intervene withsome form of remedial action whenproblems are brewing.

It is important to note that, becauseprovincial prisoners are servingrelatively short sentences (maximumtwo years less a day) and with remissiontime, the impact of denying parole islimited to keeping the person in jail and

The Jo hn Ho ward S ociety of O ntario Ontario Provinc ial Parole May 20043

Granted

Chart 2

Number of Grant/Deny DecisionsOntario Provincial Parole Board

1987/88 to 2002/03

Denied

Granted

Source: Ontario Parole and Earned ReleaseBoard

out of circulation for, at most, a fewmonths. There is no research evidenceto suggest that this additional period injail actually rehabilitates and is likelyto reduce the risk that the person poseson release. In fact, there is growingevidence that it does the opposite. Arecent meta-analytic review of theresearch literature found that more vs.less prison time was associated with anincrease in recidivism (Smith, Gogginand Gendreau 2002).

In contrast, research is confirmingthat appropriate programs and servicesdelivered in the community areassociated with reduced recidivism,particularly with the group assessed ashigher risk of re-offending (Andrewsand Bonta, 2003).

One study which compared re-offending of a sample of Ontarioparolees and those not released onparole, found that “over a two yearperiod after release, paroled offendersare far less likely to commit newoffences than offenders who arereleased after serving their sentence incustody”. In the five years under study,the re-offence rate ranged from 23% to32% for parolees and 56% to 60% fornon-parolees. (Sepejak, 1998).

Parole makes sense not because theoffender deserves supervised andsupported reintegration into thecommunity but because the offenderand the community need it.

Trends in Ontario Provincial Parole

From 1985/86 to 1993/94, activitywith respect to parole (number ofparole candidates, paroles granted andgrant rates) was relatively stable.Beginning in 1994/95, the trend inactivity has shown a steady anddramatic decline.

Data from the Ontario Parole andEarned Release Board show that, from1993/94 to 2002/03 (Chart 2):• the number of parole candidates

(based on total grant/deny

decisions) declined from 6,497 to1,208;

• the number of paroles granteddeclined from 3,833 to 361; and,

• the grant rate fell from 59% to 30%(28% in 1999/00 and 2001/02).As a result, the average number of

individuals on provincial paroledeclined dramatically (by 88%) from1,773 in 1993/94 to 210 in 2002/03(Chart 1).

The Provincial Auditor of Ontario,in his 2002 Annual Report, looked atwhat factors might be responsible forthe sharp reductions in the number ofparole hearings. The impact ofdeclining number of persons beingsentenced to provincial prison termsover these years (due to declining crimerates and the use of conditionalsentences which allow offenders toserve their sentence in the community)was examined but the report concludedthat “a more important factor is that asignificant number of offenders is noteven interested in parole”.

The Provincial Auditor observed

that those serving six months or morewere increasingly waiving their right toa parole hearing. The Board’s ownstudies were noted which found that:• the majority of inmates noted on

their waiver forms that they were“either not interested in parole orthat parole was a waste of time”;

• the proper parole information wasnot provided to inmates in theinstitutions or that “parole was oftenpresented in a negative light andparole hear ings were notencouraged”;

• many did not want to go through themotions of a hearing because “theyhad little chance of having a fair andunbiased parole hearing ”. Certainly, the dramatic decline in the

parole grant rate since 1993/94 wouldhave had a chilling effect. Theknowledge that the Board was lesslikely to grant parole wouldunderstandably discourage many fromundertaking the effort that it takes toprepare for a hearing.

Further, the Provincial Auditor foundthat less than one percent of short-terminmates who would have to apply forparole (as opposed to beingautomatically scheduled for a hearing)had received hearings in recent years.

Overall, the Provincial Auditorconcluded that “the Board’s mandate ofprotecting society by effectivelyreintegrating offenders into thecommunity was hindered by thedramatic reduction in the number ofeligible inmates being considered forparole”. Since this report, the use ofprovincial parole in Ontario hascontinued to decline.

Most successfully complete paroleand the percentage of successfulcompletions to those that are revokedhas been quite consistent over time,even during those years when thenumber of paroles granted was 10 timeswhat they are today (Chart 3). Of thosethat are revoked, most are for violationsof conditions. In the past decade, only

The Jo hn Ho ward S ociety of O ntario Ontario Provinc ial Parole May 20044

Chart 3

Outcome Rate Ontario Provincial Parole

1987/88 to 2002/03

Source: Statistics Canada and Ontario Paroleand Earned Release Board

Effective, just and humane responses to crime and its causes

For more information, please contact us at:

John Howard Society of Ontario123 Edward St., Suite 701Toronto, OntarioM5G 1E2Tel: (416) 408-4282Fax: (416) 408-2991E-mail: jhsont@johnhoward.on.ca

between 2% and 4% of parolees havebeen revoked for new charges and thevast majority of these were categorizedas Level 2 (less serious) offences.

Parole in other jurisdictions

Despite the fact that the samelegislated criteria are used for all paroledecisions in Canada, Ontario’s parolegrant rates are significantly lower thanfor other paroling bodies in thiscountry.

The National Parole Board, in itsdecisions on parole applications byprovincial inmates in provinces withouttheir own parole boards, had aprovincial full grant rate of 56% in2002/03. Even the National ParoleBoard’s full parole grant rate forfederal inmates, who are deemed to begenerally higher risk than provincialinmates, was substantially higher(43%) than the rate granted in Ontarioin that year.

Recent figures from the provincialparole boards in Quebec and BritishColumbia, the only other provinces tohave their own parole boards, alsoshow higher grant rates than Ontario.In 2000/01, the British Columbia Boardof Parole reported a grant rate of 62%.The Commission québécoise deslibération conditionelles (Quebecparole board) reported a grant rate of48% in 2001/02.

Available data indicate that thehigher grant rate of boards in other

jurisdictions has not resulted in higherrates of re-offending while on parole.The costs

There are significant human, socialand economic costs attached to thedramatic decline in provincial parole inOntario.

Remaining in prison not only exertsa toll on the prisoner by virtue of theconditions and restrictions ofimprisonment but also keeps thatperson from working, going to school,paying taxes or playing a part in the

health and well-being of his/her family.Community safety is compromised

when we continue to do “what doesn’twork” and do not effectively use thoseprograms and services that research hasshown reduce re-offending.

Keeping people in jail is expensive.The cost of incarcerating an inmate inan Ontario provincial correctionalinstitution was $137.47 per day in2001/02, according to Statistics Canada.In 1993/94, there were over 1,500 morepeople on provincial parole on anygiven day than there were in 2002/03.That number of people, who would haveotherwise been occupying prison beds,exceeds the capacity of the new super-jail in Penetang, the Central NorthCorrectional Centre. That facility coststhe Ontario government $34 million ayear to operate.

Renewal process needed

Parole serves an important purpose -to facilitate the rehabilitation andreintegration of offenders. However,the decision-making of the provincialparoling authority in Ontario over thepast number of years has compromisedthe extent to which parole for offenderssentenced to a provincial term inOntario can achieve its purpose. Clearly, what is needed now is the kindof critical review and corrective actionby the Ontario government that wouldlead to the renewal of provincial parole.

SuccessfullyCompleted

Revoked