Toward a "Just, Peaceful and Safe Society:" How Risk Factors and Criminogenic Needs Align with Parole Decisions

Abstract

Board members (BMs), as gatekeepers between continued imprisonment and freedom, decide upon the potential release of incarcerated individuals considered for parole in Canada. Although a focal concern of BMs is community protection, annual Canadian government reports do not contain information on parole populations' criminogenic needs. Literature provides little insight into what factors might relate to parole decisions. In addition, prior research has not compared the risk profiles and release decisions of those who applied for day parole (DP) or full parole (FP) exclusively to those who applied simultaneously. The current dissertation addresses these gaps in two studies using an archival sample of federally sentenced individuals (N = 3,613). The sample includes conditional release and detention decisions made by the Parole Board of Canada between 2010 and 2017 (age at decision: M = 39 years old, SD = 12.80). Study 1 showed that risk/need scores and some institutional (e.g., CSC recommendation) and parole factors (e.g., decision type) predicted conditional release. CSC recommendations predicted release probability for DP (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 35.33), FP (AOR = 18.83), and SR (men at a detention review; AOR = 43.94). Moreover, Study 1 found that among those who reoffended on FP (10-32% at one and two-year fixed follow-up) or men who reoffended on statutory release after a detention review (44-80%; at one and two-year fixed follow-up), most revocations (72-75%) first occurred for breaches as opposed to new crimes. Study 2 showed that BMs often imposed special conditions concerning alcohol, avoiding certain persons, drugs, reporting and disclosures, and treatment. Study 2 also found that after accounting for risk/need, the number of special conditions imposed on FP did not predict revocations for any breaches or crimes on FP at one-year (AOR = 1.11) or two-year (AOR = 0.82) fixed follow-up. Future research is required to untangle the potential overlapping variance that unmeasured variables (e.g., prior conditional release successes or revocations) may share with CSC recommendations. Overall, findings support the assertion that BMs use risk/need information to inform decisions and that the number of special conditions imposed does not influence revocation rates after accounting for risk/need.