Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Mandatory release in Canada : a cost and manpower analysis of mandatory release in Canada Devine, S. Antoinette 1967

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1967_A5 D48.pdf [ 3.13MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0302494.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0302494-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0302494-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0302494-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0302494-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0302494-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0302494-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0302494-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0302494.ris

Full Text

MANDATORY RELEASE IN CANADA: A COST AND MANPOWER ANALYSIS OF MANDATORY RELEASE IN CANADA by S. A n t o i n e t t e D e v i n e C h a r l e s I . Maclnnes Kenneth Matsune George J . P o u l o s M a r i a L. Raymond A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1967 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an.advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and Study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by hlis r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s understood that copying' or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Depa^-ment of .3 C C \ ' VwQ^K The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date 'Ve.C . I >y (^ 7 ABSTRACT The f i e l d o f c o r r e c t i o n s i s a n t i c i p a t i n g a change i n t h e p r e s e n t system o f r e l e a s i n g inmates from p r i s o n . T h i s new d e v e l o p -ment has been d e s c r i b e d i n a v a r i e t y o f terms. However, f o r p urposes of t h i s s t u d y , i t w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as " The Mandatory R e l e a s e System". T h i s c o n c e p t i s d e f i n e d as " a system whereby t h o s e inmates who a r e n o t g r a n t e d r e g u l a r p a r o l e , have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o a c c e p t r e l e a s e , a f t e r s e r v i n g t h r e e - q u a r t e r s o f t h e i r s e n t e n c e , p r o v i d e d t h e y a c c e p t s u p e r v i s i o n f o r t h e s t a t u t o r y r e m i s s i o n p e r i o d o f t h e i r s e n t e n c e . " The most l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e t o accommodate and implement t h i s change i s t h e N a t i o n a l P a r o l e B o a r d . S i n c e t h e r e i s p r e s e n t l y a g e n e r a l l a c k o f knowledge i n t h i s a r e a , c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h i s r e q u i r e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f s u c h a p r o p o s a l . The a u t h o r s have chosen t o f o c u s upon t h e c o s t and manpower r e q u i r e m e n t s e s s e n t i a l i n p r o v i d i n g a s u p e r v i s i o n program. The s t u d y i s based on t h e p r e m i s e t h a t s u p e r v i s i o n i s a m ajor f a c t o r i n t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t h e o f f e n d e r . F u r t h e r m o r e , i t o f f e r s a d d i t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n t o t h e community by t h e r e d u c t i o n o f r e c i d i v i s m . By u t i l i z i n g p r e s e n t d a t a and knowledge a v a i l a b l e , an e s t i m a t e was made o f t h e number o f i n m a t e s who w i l l be a f f e c t e d by t h i s change. These c a l c u l a t i o n s were used t o d e t e r m i n e t h e manpower and c o s t r e q u i r e d f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l models o f s u p e r v i s i o n based on t h e number o f h o u r s s p e n t w i t h t h e r e l e a s e e . i i i Recommendations a r i s i n g o ut o f t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y were many and v a r i e d . The p r i n c i p l e recommendation b e i n g I i n o r d e r t o make b e t t e r use o f s i m i l a r programs i n e x i s t e n c e a more e f f e c t i v e g a t h e r i n g and c o - o r d i n a t i o n o f s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a i s n e c e s s a r y . T h i s s t u d y i n t e n d s t o f u l f i l a d u a l p u r p o s e : t h a t o f f u l -f i l l i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e M a s t e r o f S o c i a l Work t h e s i s as w e l l as i n t e n d i n g t o p r o v i d e u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h o s e government a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who w i l l be c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h i s new l e g i s l a t i o n . TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I . INTRODUCTION 1 R a t i o n a l e and J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Study . . 1 P r i n c i p a l A s p e c t s o f t h e P r o p o s e d Mandatory R e l e a s e System 2 Purpo s e o f t h e Study 3 Focus o f t h e Study 3 I I . STUDY DESIGN 5 A s s u m p t i o n s , V a l u e s and V a r i a b l e s . . . . . . 5 D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms 6 B a s i c S o u r c e s o f D a t a 9 Data A n a l y s i s . . . . . . . . . . 9 L i m i t a t i o n s o f Data Used . 10 I I I . A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF THE MANDATORY SYSTEM 13 E s t i m a t e o f Number o f Inmates A f f e c t e d . . . 13 Time and C o s t A n a l y s i s o f a P a r o l e O f f i c e r ' s S e r v i c e s 16 Manpower and C o s t A n a l y s i s f o r Assessments . 18 Manpower and C o s t A n a l y s i s 19 IV . SUPERVISION 22 I n t r o d u c t i o n 22 G o a l s o f S u p e r v i s i o n 23 Concept o f S u p e r v i s i o n . . . 24 CHAPTER PAGE Formu l a f o r S u p e r v i s i o n 26 Example Model o f S u p e r v i s i o n . . . . . . 27 Other F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g a G i v e n S u p e r v i s i o n M o d e l . . . . 29 J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Concept and Formula f o r S u p e r v i s i o n . . . . . . . 30 V. CONCLUSIONS 31 Summary . 31 E v a l u a t i o n . . . . . 32 Recommendations . . . . . 34 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . 37 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . 41 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would l i k e t o e x p r e s s o ur s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Mr. Bob G i l l i l a n d , S t u d e n t S u p e r v i s o r , S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work. H i s s u g g e s t i o n s and c o n s t a n t a v a i l a b i l i t y p r o v i d e d t h e needed d i r e c t i o n i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y . We a r e a l s o g r a t e f u l t o Mr. K y l e S t e v e n s o n , R e g i o n a l R e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e N a t i o n a l P a r o l e S e r v i c e and h i s Vancouver O f f i c e S t a f f f o r t h e i r generous a s s i s t a n c e t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r e p a r a -t i o n o f t h e s t u d y . To Mr. L a r r y B e l l , R e s e a r c h A d v i s o r , S c h o o l o f S o c i a l Work, our s i n c e r e thanks f o r h i s s u g g e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g o u r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . The s t e n o g r a p h i c s t a f f of t h e Vancouver O f f i c e o f t h e N a t i o n a l P a r o l e S e r v i c e d e s e r v e s p e c i a l m e n t i o n f o r t h e i r k i n d co-op-e r a t i o n . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The c o n c e p t o f mandatory r e l e a s e ( a l s o r e f e r r e d t o as mandatory p a r o l e , and c o n d i t i o n a l r e l e a s e ) i s a system whereby t h e m a j o r i t y o f inmates a r e r e l e a s e d under s u p e r v i s i o n from p r i s o n p r i o r t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e i r s e n t e n c e . The i d e a o f p a r o l e i t s e l f i s f a r from new. Throughout t h e 19 t h and 2 0 t h c e n t u r i e s i n E n g l a n d , I r e l a n d , S p a i n , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a and Canada some form o f p a r o l e has been i n t r o d u c e d a t v a r i o u s t i m e s and under d i f f e r e n t names. The c o n c e p t o f mandatory r e l e a s e as s u c h , and t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f i t i n Canada, was s p e c i f i -c a l l y advanced e l e v e n y e a r s ago i n recommendations made i n t h e Faut e u x R e p o r t ( 1 5 , p. 6 1 ) . I . RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY The mandatory r e l e a s e s y s t e m w i l l c o n t a i n a p r o v i s i o n f o r s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e r e l e a s e e i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g t h e r e l e a s e from, p r i s o n . I t i s e x p e c t e d t h a t t h i s s y s t e m o f r e l e a s e w i l l r e d u c e t h e r a t e o f r e v o c a t i o n s and r e c i d i v i s m . The p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n i s t h a t a f t e r t h e - o f f e n d e r has s e r v e d h i s f u l l s e n t e n c e i n p r i s o n he w i l l be d i s c h a r g e d t o t h e community w i t h i n s u f f i c i e n t p r e p a r a t i o n and m i n i m a l s u p e r v i s i o n . S t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d i n C a l i f o r n i a (5,24) i n d i c a t e t h a t an i n c r e a s e d f r e q u e n c y o f c o n t a c t w i t h t h e r e l e a s e e had a s i g -n i f i c a n t d e c r e a s e i n t h e p e r c e n t a g e r e t u r n i n g t o p r i s o n . The r e s u l t 2 o f s u p e r v i s i o n t h e n , i s o f c o n s i d e r a b l e b e n e f i t t o b o t h t h e o f f e n d e r and s o c i e t y . The range o f such b e n e f i t s , b o t h s o c i a l and monetary, ext e n d s beyond t h o s e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s s t u d y . I I . PRINCIPAL ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED MANDATORY RELEASE SYSTEM 1 . I n d i v i d u a l s t o be i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r o p o s e d mandatory r e l e a s e s y s t e m a r e : a l l inmates i n f e d e r a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , i . e . , s e n t e n c e s o f two y e a r s o r o v e r , w i t h t h e excep-t i o n o f t h o s e s e r v i n g l i f e s e n t e n c e s and t h o s e s e r v i n g a t e r m o f p r e v e n t i v e d e t e n t i o n - D a n g e r o u s S e x u a l O f f e n d -e r s and H a b i t u a l C r i m i n a l s . R e l e a s e t o r t h e s e l a t t e r groups o f i n d i v i d u a l s would be t h r o u g h p r e s e n t l y e x i s t -i n g a r r angements. 2. T h i s p e r i o d under s u p e r v i s i o n w i l l be the l a s t one-q u a r t e r o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s t o t a l s e n t e n c e . 3. P a r o l e t h r o u g h t h e N a t i o n a l P a r o l e Board would c o n t i n u e t o f u n c t i o n i n i t s e x i s t i n g form. 4. G e n e r a l l y , f o r t h e purpose o f t h i s s t u d y , t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f mandatory r e l e a s e would be s i m i l a r t o t h o s e under t h e p r e s e n t p a r o l e s y s t e m ( i . e . , some terms o f agreement s i m i l a r t o t h e p r e s e n t l y p r e v a i l i n g ones w i l l be s i g n e d by t h e inmate upon r e l e a s e under t h e mandatory r e l e a s e s y s t e m ) . 3 5. R e l e a s e s under t h e mandatory r e l e a s e s y s t e m may be r e v o k e d t h r o u g h t h e commission o f a new o f f e n c e o r t h r o u g h s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f man-d a t o r y r e l e a s e . I I I . PURPOSE OF THE STUDY T h i s s t u d y w i l l be c o n c e r n e d w i t h some o f t h e p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s i n i n t r o d u c i n g t h e pro p o s e d mandatory r e l e a s e s y s t e m and p o s s i b l e a r e a s f o r f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . IV. FOCUS OF THE STUDY The a u t h o r s have employed s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a a v a i l a b l e t o e s t i m a t e t h e number o f inmates who w i l l be a f f e c t e d by t h e mandatory r e l e a s e s y s t e m i n t h e y e a r 1972. T h i s s t u d y d i s c u s s e s t h e c o s t and manpower a n a l y s i s w i t h v a r i a b l e r e v o c a t i o n r a t e s , t h r o u g h t h e u t i l i z a -t i o n o f v a r i o u s t a b l e s ( s e e t h e A p p e n d i x ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , a s u g g e s t e d model f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l s u p e r v i s i o n and i n s t i t u t i o n a l a s s e s sments i s p r e s e n t e d . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e s t u d y o f f e r s a f o r m u l a w h i c h can r e a d i l y be a p p l i e d t o a d i f f e r e n t i a l model o f s u p e r v i s i o n . U n d e r l y i n g t h i s f o r m u l a i s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e c r u c i a l r e - e n t r y p e r i o d i n t o t h e community and t h e d e c r e a s i n g i n t e n s i t y o f s u p e r v i s i o n from t h e r e -e n t r y p e r i o d t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e s u p e r v i s i o n p e r i o d . I n c o n c l u s i o n , we r e c o g n i z e and acknowledge t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s l i m i t e d s t u d y does n o t p r o v i d e an a l l - e m c o m p a s s i n g s o l u t i o n t o th e a n t i c i p a t e d and unexpected e f f e c t s o f t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e 4 mandatory release system i n Canada. However, th i s study does r a i s e several recommendations to be considered. CHAPTER I I STUDY DESIGN As m e n t i o n e d i n C h a p t e r I t h e c o n c e p t o f a mandatory r e l e a s e s ystem has r e c e i v e d c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n from t h e f i e l d o f c o r r e c -t i o n s . T h i s i n t e r e s t has expanded t o t h e p o i n t where d e f i n i t e a c t i o n has been t a k e n by t h e Government o f Canada t o implement such a system i n t h e n ear f u t u r e . One o f t h e i s s u e s i n r e l a t i o n t o i m p l e m e n t a t i o n i s t h e c o s t , manpower and t y p e o f s u p e r v i s i o n r e q u i r e d . R e s e a r c h be-comes h e l p f u l t h e n t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s d e s i r e d p l a n i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e i t s optimum e f f e c t i v e n e s s . I . ASSUMPTIONS, VALUES AND VARIABLES I n a d v o c a t i n g a mandatory r e l e a s e program, c e r t a i n b a s i c a s s u m ptions have been made. I t i s f e l t t h a t t h e r e l e a s e s y s t e m o f f e r s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e o f f e n d e r t o b e n e f i t from s u p e r v i s i o n i n a n a t u r a l community. D u r i n g t h e t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d between i n s t i t u t i o n -a l i z a t i o n and t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e , s u p e r v i s i o n ( i n the. form o f s o c i a l casework and c o u n s e l l i n g ) a s s i s t s t h e o f f e n d e r by a c t i n g as a c o n t r o l . S i n c e mandatory r e l e a s e i s o n l y a p a r t o f t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l p r o c e s s i t must be seen i n c o n t e x t w i t h t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s o f t h e p r o c e s s — i . e . , c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s and i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n . These w i l l have a d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t upon each o f f e n d e r and h i s subsequent r e h a b i l i -t a t i o n . We a r e assuming t h a t h i s e x p e r i e n c e s p r i o r t o r e l e a s e have p a r t i a l l y p r e p a r e d him f o r r e t u r n t o t h e community. 6 The v a l u e o f s u p e r v i s i o n i s seen as a r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t h e o f f e n d e r i n d i c a t e d by a l o w e r r e c i d i v i s m r a t e . F u r t h e r i t i s assumed t h a t i n t e n s i v e s u p e r v i s i o n r e s u l t s i n g e n e r a l l y improved h e h a v i o u r on the p a r t o f t h e o f f e n d e r . On t h e b a s i s o f t h i s r a t i o n a l e , t h e s t u d y w i l l e s t i m a t e t h e c o s t s and manpower r e q u i r e d t o d e v e l o p a mandatory r e l e a s e s y s t e m w h i c h , i t i s hoped, w i l l be e f f e c t i v e by l e s s e n i n g t h e c o s t o f c r i m e t o t h e community. The m a j o r v a r i a b l e s c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e s t u d y a r e : 1. The number o f men who w i l l be a f f e c t e d by t h e pro p o s e d p l a n . 2. The h o u r s and manpower n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y out t h e s u p e r -v i s i o n o f s u c h a p l a n . 3. The c o s t o f s u c h a p l a n . 4. The f r e q u e n c y o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t a c t w h i c h i s p r o v i d e d f o r t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t h e o f f e n d e r . 5. The e x t e n s i v e n e s s o f a pre-mandatory r e l e a s e summary o f t h e o f f e n d e r . I I . DEFINITION OF TERMS R e g u l a r P a r o l e ( i n o p e r a t i o n p r e s e n t l y ) — a p r o c e s s whereby an inmate has t h e r i g h t t o a p p l y f o r r e l e a s e a f t e r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f one-t h i r d o f h i s s e n t e n c e . I t i s g r a n t e d on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t c e r t a i n p r o -v i s i o n s ( p r o p e r s h e l t e r , employment and adequate s u p e r v i s i o n ) o u t l i n e d by t h e P a r o l e B oard a r e met ( u n t i l e x p i r a t i o n o f s e n t e n c e ) . 7 Mandatory R e l e a s e ( t h e p r o p o s e d p l a n ) — a p r o c e s s w h i c h o p e r a t e s when an inmate i s n o t g r a n t e d r e g u l a r p a r o l e , b u t i s g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be r e l e a s e d under s u p e r v i s i o n f o r t h e s t a t u t o r y r e m i s s i o n p a r t o f h i s s e n t e n c e . T h i s a c c e p t a n c e f o r r e l e a s e w i l l be a v o l u n t a r y d e c i s i o n on h i s p a r t . Minimum P a r o l e ( i n o p e r a t i o n p r e s e n t l y ) — a p r o c e s s w h e r e i n inmates n o t s e l e c t e d f o r r e g u l a r p a r o l e may be r e l e a s e d p r i o r t o t h e ex-p i r a t i o n d a t e on t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t t h e y a c c e p t s u p e r v i s i o n f o r t h e r e -mainder o f t h e i r s e n t e n c e s as w e l l as t h e s t a t u t o r y r e m i s s i o n p e r i o d . The inmates may be r e l e a s e d one month e a r l i e r f o r e v e r y y e a r o f t h e i r s e n t e n c e up t o a t o t a l o f s i x months. S t a t u t o r y R e m i s s i o n — t h i s r e f e r s t o t h a t p a r t o f t h e t o t a l s e n -t e n c e w h i c h by s t a t u t e a l l o w s t h e inmate t o s e r v e t h e l a s t q u a r t e r o f h i s s e n t e n c e o u t s i d e t h e i n s t i t u t i o n . R e v o c a t i o n — o f a p a r o l e ( r e g u l a r o r minimum) and mandatory r e l e a s e w i l l o c c u r on t h e grounds o f a s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n o f t h e terms o f p a r o l e o r r e l e a s e agreement s u c h as commission o f a new o f f e n s e r e s u l t i n g i n a r e t u r n t o t h e P e n i t e n t i a r y . R e c i d i v i s m — t h e commission of a new o f f e n s e d u r i n g o r a f t e r t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e p a r o l e ( o r mandatory r e l e a s e ) s u p e r v i s i o n p e r i o d . A s s e s s m e n t — a p r o c e d u r e c a r r i e d o ut by t h e P a r o l e O f f i c e r on t h e r e c e i p t o f t h e r e g u l a r p a r o l e a p p l i c a t i o n t o g a t h e r e s s e n t i a l m a t e r i a l and p r e s e n t s u c h t o t h e P a r o l e Board. T h i s m a t e r i a l i s used t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i n m a t e ' s s u i t a b i l i t y f o r p a r o l e . I t i n c l u d e s community i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i n s t i t u t i o n a l a ssessments and a t t i t u d e s d i s p l a y e d by t h e inma t e . 8 P r e - R e l e a s e P l a n — p r o c e d u r e w h i c h w i l l be c a r r i e d out by t h e a s s i g n e d s u p e r v i s o r a f t e r t h e r e c e i p t o f a mandatory r e l e a s e a p p l i c a t i o n w h i c h s e r v e s t o p r e p a r e t h e o f f e n d e r f o r r e - e n t r y by t h e d i a g n o s t i c knowledge g a i n e d by t h e s u p e r v i s o r t h r o u g h i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n t a c t . I n c o n t e n t , i t i s s i m i l a r f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s t u d y t o t h e assessment o f a r e g u l a r p a r o l e . S u p e r v i s i o n — t h e p r o c e s s o f r e g u l a r c o n t a c t s between t h e p a r o -l e e o r r e l e a s e e and t h e s u p e r v i s o r w i t h t h e p u r p o s e o f r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f t h e o f f e n d e r . 9 I I I . BASIC SOURCES OF DATA The data employed i n t h i s study was gathered from the following sources: 1. The Annual Report of the Commissioner of Penetentiafies ( f i s c a l year ending March 31, 1958 to March 31, 1964) (35). 2. The Annual Report of the National Parole Board (years ending December 31, 1963 and December 31, 1965) (36). 3. The Vancouver Regional O f f i c e of the National Parole Service s t a t i s t i c s which included breakdown i n the o f f i c e r s working time and number of parolees supervised per o f f i c e r . Also included i n t h i s study i s the average s a l a r i e s of o f f i c e r s f or the year end-ing December 31, 1966, (38). 4. Studies of parole systems i n the States of C a l i f o r n i a and Washing-ton (23-29) . IV. DATA ANALYSIS 1. The Penitentiary s t a t i s t i c s (3.1;) and the Parole s t a t i s t i c s (36) were used as a c r i t e r i a i n estimating the possible number of persons e l i g i b l e f o r mandatory release at a future date. 2. The Vancouver Regional O f f i c e ' s s t a t i s t i c s (38) were involved i n s e t t i n g up the estimated cost and manpower of the future plan. 3. Practices and research projects of C a l i f o r n i a and Washington (24, 25) were seen as reference points i n terms of proposing a supervi-sion concept for Canada. C a l i f o r n i a at present has 89% of a l l inmates on parole; Washington has 97%. With the incorporation of a mandatory release 10 system i n Canada (including regular parolees) an estimated 98% w i l l be under some form of supervision. Thus i n using the above s t a t i s t i c s and information a v a i l a b l e , the plan i s to project an estimate of the cost and manpower required to develop a mandatory release system i n Canada. V. LIMITATIONS OF DATA USED Generally the value of the data used depends upon i t s consistency, r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . With regards to v a l i d i t y , i t should be remember-ed that the findings of the study are based upon recorded Penitentiary ' I • admissions, I.e., a sample of known admissions from an unknown population of offenders. Secondly, the figures presented i n the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s -t i c s can be misrepresented because of such factors as multi-steps involved i n reporting ( p o l i c e , courts, e t c . ) , inconsistencies i n areas reporting to Ottawa and each Province maintaining a d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a and adminis-t r a t i o n (despite n a t i o n a l application, of the Criminal Code). S p e c i f i c l i m i t a t i o n s include: 1. The differences i n the base year of S t a t i s t i c s obtained from the Annual  Report of The Commissioner of P e n i t e n t i a r i e s (35) and the Annual Report  of the National Parole Board (36) were due to the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of c e r t a i n governmental publications, i . e . , 1965 and 1966 P e n i t e n t i a r i e s reports and 1966 Parole Board report. Thus i t became necessary to standardize a l l three resource to one year i n order to develop compara-b i l i t y . 11 2. The Vancouver Regional O f f i c e parole s t a t i s t i c s (38) were used as ah informal reference to the current time allotment f o r assessment and supervisory functions of the parole o f f i c e r . These figures were the r e s u l t of an informal study and as such the degree of accuracy i s questionable. I t should be noted that the work load d i v i s i o n of the Vancouver o f f i c e i s not n e c e s s a r i l y representative of the remainder of the National Parole Service. 3. I t should be mentioned that other agencies, such as, John Howard Society, Probation and S o c i a l Welfare Departments carry parole supervision. The extent of the services of these agencies varies considerably across Canada and they w i l l no doubt continue to carry some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for d i r e c t supervision both i n Regular Parole and Mandatory Release. However for ease of c a l c u l a t i o n i t has been assumed that the National Parole Service w i l l be handling a l l d i r e c t supervision. 4. The C a l i f o r n i a and Washington studies (23-29) were necessary, but of l i m i t e d use, owing to the lack of comparability between t h e i r s t a t i s t i c s and those of Canada. This was seen i n p a r t i c u l a r with the p r e d i c t i o n of mandatory release performance from c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s displayed by the offender at the time of release, e.g., age, length of sentence, previous incarcerations, etc. In the C a l i f o r n i a data (24) these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were presented as a c o n s t e l l a t i o n which was i n turn used to predict whether the inmate was a high, low or medium r i s k parolee. Canadian data (35) presented each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n d i v i d u a l l y thus making i t d i f f i c u l t to present a p r e d i c t i v e model of any accuracy comparable to the C a l i f o r n i a experience i n terms of r i s k categories. 12. In s p i t e of the above d i f f i c u l t i e s i t i s f e l t that the differences should not a l t e r appreciably the r e s u l t s of the study. In conclusion, t h i s p r e d i c t i v e study i s based on the assumption that c e r t a i n trends w i l l remain r e l a t i v e l y constant. However, since the time factor i s a p r o j e c t i v e one, consideration must be given i n applying concepts developed i n the study. These may vary i n accordance to a v a r i e t y of factors such as increasing crime, more e f f e c t i v e law enforcement and i changing economic conditions. 13 CHAPTER I I I A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF THE MANDATORY SYSTEM This chapter w i l l attempt to analyze the eff e c t of the introduc-t i o n of a mandatory system of release. I t w i l l include an estimate of the number of inmates affected, an analysis of time a v a i l a b l e to a Parole O f f i c e r and an estimation of t o t a l manpower needs and cost based on d i f f e r e n t i a l models of supervision and assessment. I. ESTIMATE OF NUMBER OF INMATES AFFECTED The sample year selected i s 1972. This was done because i t coin-cides with the end of a f i v e year plan on the part of the Parole Service, designed to meet the growing manpower requirement of t h i s Service. I t was hypothesized that the plan would go into e f f e c t on January 1, 1968. This now seems u n l i k e l y . Any projected t o t a l would therefore have to take into account changes or delays i n passing such l e g i s l a t i o n . The only f e a s i b l e method for making a projection of the number of inmates who w i l l be affected was to analyze the l a s t a v a i l a b l e admission t o t a l s to federal p e n i t e n t i a r i e s . In order to make t h i s projection useful for future release these s t a t i s t i c s must contain a breakdown of admissions according to length of sentence. The l a s t year such s t a t i s t i c s were a v a i l -able was for the f i s c a l year 1963-64. The breakdown of admissions into time i n t e r v a l s for the f i s c a l year 1963-64 i s as follows: 2-3 years, 3-4 years, 4-5 years, 5-6 years, 10-15 years, 15-20 years and 20-25 years (see Appendix, Table I ) . I t i s assumed f o r the 14 purpose of t h i s analysis that the mean length of a sentence corresponds to the mid-point of the time i n t e r v a l selected, that i s 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 8 years, etc. This mean date of the commencement of the sentence w i l l also be assumed to occur at the mid-point of the year. For example, one group receiving 2.5 years i s assumed to be sentenced June 30, 1968. The mean date of release i s set at December 31, 1970. Statutory Remission i s c a l -culated at one-quarter of the t o t a l sentence. I f the sentence i s 30 months, the statutory remission i s 7.5 months. This w i l l , as w e l l , be the period of the mandatory supervision. Earned remission i s not being taken into consideration as there i s no s t a t i s t i c a l means of measuring the percentage of inmates that a c t u a l l y receive t h e i r f u l l earned remission. Apart from that, the maximum earned remission on a two and one h a l f year sentence le s s statutory remission i s only s l i g h t l y i n excess of two months. This i s a comparatively i n s i g n i f i c a n t amount. The cumulative t o t a l of a l l releases i n a given year i s calculated by holding the admission figures from the year 1963-64 constant from 1968-1975 (see Appendix, Table I I I ) . As can be seen from t h i s table, there would be a sudden impact of t o t a l release of 2,160 i n 1970. The number would sharply increase i n 1971 to 3,153. From t h i s point there would be gradual increase to 3,525 by 1974, then a l e v e l l i n g o f f would occur. In the sample year, 1972, the t o t a l releases would be 3,402. A s i g n i f i c a n t number of these would be released under the regular parole system. The graph on Table IV i l l u s t r a t e s the v a l i d i t y of the choice of the f i s c a l year 1963-1964 as a t y p i c a l year i n regards to admissions to federal p e n i t e n t i a r i e s . This table indicates that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of sentences and the t o t a l of those sentenced has remained r e l a t i v e l y 15 c o n s t a n t from 1960 t o 1964. I t I s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t w i t h r e m a r k a b l e c o n s i s t e n c y 80% o f t h o s e a d m i t t e d t o p e n i t e n t i a r i e s were s e n t e n c e d t o p e r i o d s o f f o u r y e a r s o r l e s s ( s e e A p p e n d i x , T a b l e V ) . F o r t h i s r e a s o n t h e main impact o f mandatory r e l e a s e w i l l be e x p e r i e n c e d between one and o n e - h a l f y e a r s and t h r e e y e a r s a f t e r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e mandatory system. I t i s assumed t h a t t h e p a t t e r n o f s e n t e n c i n g w i l l n o t a p p r e c i a b l y a l t e r o v e r t h e s h o r t t e r m b u t t h a t t h e t o t a l s f o r each group s e n t e n c e d may change. W i t h r e g a r d t o t h i s , t h e c r i m e s t a t i s t i c s f o r 1965 r e v e a l t h a t the number o f t h o s e c o n v i c t e d o f a l l o f f e n c e s has d e c r e a s e d from 42, 194 t o 41, 813 (37 p. 11, 1965). T h i s i s e q u i v a l e n t t o a 2.5% d e c l i n e i n t h e c r i m e r a t e . I n c o n t r a s t , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e t o t a l number o f inmates i n F e d e r a l P e n i t e n t i a r i e s between March 31, 1964 t o March 31, 1966 d e c l i n e d 2.7%. T h i s was a c c o m p l i s h e d b o t h by a r e d u c t i o n i n a d m i s s i o n s o f 7% and an i n c r e a s e o f d i s c h a r g e s o f 7%. We u n d e r s t a n d from i n f o r m a l c o n t a c t s w i t h , t h e P e n i t e n t i a r y S e r v i c e t h a t t h e p r i s o n p o p u l a t i o n has ex-p e r i e n c e d a f u r t h e r s l i g h t d e c l i n e s i n c e t h e l a s t r e p o r t d a t e . The d e c l i n e i n a d m i s s i o n s i s i n agreement w i t h t h e d e c l i n e i n t h e c r i m e r a t e and may a l s o r e f l e c t a d i f f e r e n t s e n t e n c i n g p o l i c y by m a g i s t r a t e s . The i n c r e a s e i n r e l e a s e s i s l i k e l y due t o the more e f f e c t i v e use o f p a r o l e . I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a c t u a l number o f i n m a t e s a f f e c t e d by mandatory r e l e a s e , t h e t o t a l number of r e l e a s e e s on p a r o l e i s deducted from t h e t o t a l number o f r e l e a s e s i n t h e sample y e a r o f 1972 (see A p p e n d i x , i -T a b l e s X I and X I I ) . The l a s t a v a i l a b l e s t a t i s t i c s from t h e P a r o l e S e r v i c e showing a breakdown o f p a r o l e s g r a n t e d by l e n g t h o f s e n t e n c e was f o r t h e f i s c a l y e a r 1965. S i n c e 1965, t h e number o f p a r o l e s g r a n t e d has i n c r e a s e d 16 s i g n i f i c a n t l y and t h i s trend i s l i k e l y to continue. However, much of the increase has occurred i n the category of minimum parole, and presumably, when the mandatory system i s i n e f f e c t , minimum parole w i l l be eliminated. Thus, while there may be an increase i n numbers of paroles granted, many of these w i l l f a l l i nto the mandatory release category. I f there i s a change i n the p o l i c y i n granting regular paroles, t h i s w i l l d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the numbers coming under the mandatory system. I t should be noted that the parole s t a t i s t i c s are for the calendar year, whereas the peniten-t i a r y s t a t i s t i c s are for the f i s c a l year. This should not have any e f f e c t on the v a l i d i t y of combining these s t a t i s t i c s as the crime rate does not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from one period of the year to another (37). I I . TIME AND COST ANALYSIS OF A PAROLE OFFICER'S SERVICES The following i s an analysis of the time a v a i l a b l e per month to a Parole O f f i c e r based on a survey done with the co-operation of the Van-couver Regional O f f i c e . This information was compiled through a s e r i e s of informal contacts with aach of the f i e l d o f f i c e r s i n the Vancouver Regional Parole O f f i c e , the s t a f f Supervisor, Mr. A. Byman and the Regional Representative, Mr. K. Stevenson. The gross t o t a l i s 154 hours a month (7 hours a day—22days a month) which i s b a s i c a l l y employed i n two functions: the i n s t i t u t i o n a l and community investigations of parole a p p l i c a t i o n s , and supervision of parolees. These figures exclude coffee breaks and lunch hours. The following are the normal kind of deductions of t i n e a v a i l a b l e . Deductions per month: 3h hours - Sick leave 9 hours - Holidays 17 6 hours - Statutory holidays 4 hours - Staff meetings 1 hour - Supervision 4 hours — Duty day work _1_ hours -Conferences 29 154 - Gross Total 29 - Deductions 125 - Balance remaining for supervision and assessments. A means of documenting t h i s approximation of a v a i l a b l e time i s to c a l c u l a t e the actual time spent on supervision and assessments i n the Vancouver Regional Parole o f f i c e f o r year 1966. Table VIII indicates that 108 hours per o f f i c e r per month were spent on pre-release assessments and a t o t a l of 17 hours per month per o f f i c e r were spent on supervision (see Appendix, Table IX). The t o t a l amount of time av a i l a b l e for both assessment and supervision i s 125 hours per month. This i s equivalent to 1,500 hours per year (12 x 125). Therefore, for each 1500 man hours of assessment and supervision one a d d i t i o n a l Parole O f f i c e r i s required. The cost factor was determined by estimating the average salary of each Parole O f f i c e r at $8,500 per year (40). The researchers were unable to obtain any data from the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s with respect to s a l a r i e s of Parole O f f i c e r s . There was also no data 18 a v a i l a b l e from w h i c h an e s t i m a t e c o u l d be made o f a d d i t i o n a l a d m i n i s -t r a t i v e c o s t s . The U n i t e d Community S e r v i c e s i n Vancouver has done a number o f s t u d i e s i n t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s o f community a g e n c i e s . I t was found t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s have been w i t h i n a few p o i n t s o f 55% o f s a l a r i e s r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s i z e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the a g e n c i e s ( 3 9 ) . I t wou l d n o t be s u r p r i s i n g i f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s o f t h e P a r o l e S e r v i c e were somewhat h i g h e r i owing t o c e n t r a l i z e d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n Ottawa and i f t h e expenses f o r t h e members o f t h e N a t i o n a l P a r o l e B oard and t h e c o m p a r a t i v e l y h i g h e r s a l a r i e s p a i d t o a d m i n i s t r a t i o n were i n c l u d e d . However, t h e r e s e a r c h e r s d e c i d e d t o use t h e 55% f i g u r e as a b a s i s f o r t h e c a l c u l a t i o n o f c o s t . I I I . MANPOWER AND COST ANALYSIS FOR ASSESSMENTS The manpower r e q u i r e m e n t f o r assessments i s d e t e r m i n e d by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e t o t a l number o f assessments by t h e man-hours r e q u i r e d f o r e ach assessment. A rough e s t i m a t e o f t h e p r e s e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l a s s e s s m e n t s based on an i n f o r m a l s t u d y o f t h e Vancouver O f f i c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 70% o f an o f f i c e r ' s t ime was s p e n t i n t h i s a r e a . By o b t a i n i n g t h e t o t a l number o f assessments done i n 1966 and t h e t o t a l s t a f f complement f o r t h a t y e a r , i t was e s t i m a t e d t h a t 7.7 h o u r s were s p e n t on e a c h assessment ( see A p p e n d i x , T a b l e V I I I ) . A f t e r an i n f o r m a l s u r v e y c o n d u c t e d among s t a f f members i t was f e l t t h a t t h i s f i g u r e was a l i t t l e or. t h e h i g h s i d e . T h i s may be t h e c a s e as t h e R e g i o n a l R e p r e s e n t a t i v e , S u p e r v i s o r and S o c i a l Work 19 students each did a small number of assessments i n the year 1966. Thus, the actual time spent on an assessment may only average 7.0 hours or perhaps s l i g h t l y l e s s than t h i s . Presently, the assessment i s used to determine a man's s u i t a b i l i t y for parole. With the introduction of the mandatory system the de t a i l e d assessment presently u t i l i z e d should not be required f o r obvious reasons. A shorter pre-release summary would seem to be more appropriate. Since, under the mandatory system the focus w i l l be d i f f e r e n t , the1 purpose of the assessment should be redefined, Table XVII gives a breakdown of manpower and administrative costs based on a d i f f e r e n t i a l c a l c u l a t i o n of the hours required to complete the i n s t i t u t i o n a l assessment f o r inmates e l i g i b l e f o r mandatory release. For example, i f s i x hours were required, a t o t a l s t a f f addition of 10.1 parole o f f i c e r s would be required at a cost of $133,331. On the other hand, i f only four hours were required only 6.7 parole o f f i c e r s would be needed at a cost of $88,800. IV. MANPOWER AND COST ANALYSIS The man-month requirement f o r supervision i s estimated by analyzing the following v a r i a b l e s : number of parolees a f f e c t e d , revocation rates and hours of supervision per month, required. Table XII i l l u s t r a t e s that 2,770 inmates to be supervised i n 1972 w i l l require 21,840 months of supervision. The manpower requirements and cost involved i n supervision w i l l be dependent on the number of hours per month of supervision a l l o t t e d . 20 P o t e n t i a l revocations w i l l have a bearing on the manpower requirements f o r supervision. In order to estimate the e f f e c t of t h i s v a r i a b l e , two factors must be considered. The f i r s t i s that of the inmate's average length of time on supervision p r i o r to revocation and the second, the actual revocation rate a f t e r the average length of time on supervision i s deducted. The researchers estimated that revo-cations w i l l occur a f t e r an average period of f i v e months of supervision. This i s based on the experience of C a l i f o r n i a where the average was f i v e months on parole before revocation took place (24). The amount of time required to process the revocation (writing l e t t e r s , interview of revokee i n prison, court appearance) w i l l c o n stitute the equivalent of a further month of supervision. An estimate of the man-months of supervision affected by revocation appears on Table XIII. For those groups receiving l e s s than s i x months supervision i n i t i a t e d i n 1972, there i s no theoretic number of man-months of supervision affected by revocation. For the other three groups, the number of months affected by revocation i s 1.5, 4.5 and 7.5 months r e s p e c t i v e l y . The expected range of the revocation rate once the mandatory system i s i n e f f e c t i s between 20-50%. At the present time, the revo-cation rate on ordinary parole i s approximately 10%. This rate w i l l most c e r t a i n l y be exceeded as the r i s k population w i l l be higher. The'actual rate w i l l depend on a number of v a r i a b l e s , the most im-portant of which w i l l be the q u a l i t y and quantity of supervision. Table XV i l l u s t r a t e s how revocation a f f e c t s the reduction of man-months of supervision required. The t o t a l deduction ranges from 21 1,300-3,250 man-months or from 6%-15% of the man-month requirements. Based on a one hour a month model of supervision/ t h i s would mean a reduction of between .9 and 2.2 o f f i c e r s required. I f a f i v e hour a month supervision model i s used, t h i s would imply a reduction of between 4.3 and 10.8 o f f i c e r s . I t should be pointed out that re-releases of revokees are not being con-sidered. Despite the fac t that a s u b s t a n t i a l proportion of revokees w i l l r e s u l t because of the committal of new offences, there may s t i l l be a sub s t a n t i a l number returned to the penitentiary f o r te c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n s . This could increase the manpower requirement f o r supervision depending on how t h i s group i s handled. Table XVI i l l u s t r a t e s the manpower needs and costs of d i f f e r e n t i a l models of supervision varying from one to eight hours a month. The revoca-t i o n rate i s held as a constant at 30%. I f two hours per month i s used as a model, the manpower need w i l l be 26.5 Parole O f f i c e r s and t o t a l cost $349,138. I f a model of f i v e hours per month of supervision i s used, the number of O f f i c e r s required increases to 66.3 O f f i c e r s and the costs increase to $873,503. The following chapter w i l l deal with the question of a model and i t s manpower needs and costs i n greater d e t a i l . 22 CHAPTER V SUPERVISION I. INTRODUCTION Parole and Mandatory Release have a dual purpose, namely, the reformation and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of the inmate and the protection of s o c i e t y . In t h i s chapter, 'Parole' and 'Mandatory Release' w i l l be used interchange-ably. Therefore the term supervision w i l l be applied s i m i l a r l y to the terms parolee and releasee unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d . In the foregoing chapter the term 'Parole' was used for the purpose of analysis. Since nearly a l l those sentenced to the Federal P e n i t e n t i a r i e s w i l l return to the community, i t i s incumbent upon the National Parole Service as one agency i n the community to a s s i s t those inmates being paroled to achieve a successful re-entry i n t o the community. With the increasing use of pre-sentence reports which often r e s u l t s i n increased use of pro-bation, only the more serious and persistent offenders are incarcerated. Therefore the method of handling these people when they return to the community must be c a r e f u l l y examined. One way of dealing with t h i s problem i s through a varied supervision technique. Optimally, supervision o f f e r s the releasee the s e t t i n g and guidance he requires to help him work out h i s problems. Supervision i s the c o r r e c t i o n -a l and protective treatment aspect of the Mandatory Release program and i t i s the ultimate objective of the i n v e s t i g a t i v e and s e l e c t i v e process which precedes i t . The i n v e s t i g a t i v e and s e l e c t i v e process, or what t h i s study w i l l r e f e r to as the i n s t i t u t i o n a l assessment of the inmate, i s an i n t e g r a l part 23 of the t o t a l c o r r e c t i o n a l process. The assessment process can to some de-gree psychologically prepare the inmate f o r re-entry into the community as well as to provide the parole o f f i c e r (who w i l l eventually supervise the releasee) with ah intimate understanding and knowledge of the releasee's developmental h i s t o r y and past behaviour patterns. I I . GOALS OF SUPERVISION The goals of supervision are to provide the kind of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d r e h a b i l i t a t i v e program, based on the problems, capacities and l i m i t a t i o n s of the releasee, that w i l l enable the releasee to become a s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g , law-abiding and contributing member of society. The parole o f f i c e r ' s function, then i s to: (1) f o s t e r and d i r e c t to the degree that the releasee can grow and develop i n character; (2) counsel the releasee about how he may learn to carry h i s own burden i n a manner that w i l l be sanctioned by h i s society. Inadequate supervision can r e s u l t i n a higher revocation rate as was shown i n some studies which w i l l be referred to l a t e r . Criminal behaviour i s related i n a great part to personal and s o c i a l pathologies which can be treated to some degree by the imposition of external controls and influence, through s u r v e i l l a n c e and guidance. Many criminals have some form of characterological disorders, defects i n personality development or s i t u a t i o n a l maladjustments. Lake of supervision may also prevent the parole o f f i c e r from moving i n on a preventative b a s i s , j u s t because he was not aware of the releasee's current s i t u a t i o n . 24 I I I . CONCEPT OF SUPERVISION Afte r perusing various l i t e r a t u r e on the supervision of releasees, i t became s i g n i f i c a n t l y evident that there was no consistent or c l e a r l y defined pattern on what constitutes minimum adequate supervision. There are various ways of determining what i s adequate supervision. I t can be based upon releasee's needs, the protection of society or even upon the funds and manpower av a i l a b l e for the Mandatory Belease program. In view of the fact that i t i s d i f f i c u l t to define minimum adequate supervision, a model for supervision cannot be proposed. The C a l i f o r n i a Parole Work Unit Program (23) u t i l i z e s a maximum, regular, minimum super-v i s i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n but t h i s model cannot be applied i n Canada because of the d i f f e r e n t method of s t a t i s t i c a l compilation. Parole-outcome p r e d i c t i v e factors as used by both C a l i f o r n i a and Washington to determine parolees' need for the degree of supervision cannot be used, once again, because the a v a i l a b l e Canadian s t a t i s t i c a l data cannot be correlated to the C a l i f o r n i a or Washington studies. We can, however, propose a concept of supervision based upon theore-t i c a l knowledge a v a i l a b l e . B a s i c a l l y two concepts w i l l be used. F i r s t , the importance of the re-entry of the releasee into the community and second, the gradual process of decreasing the i n t e n s i t y of supervision. Upon re-entry i n t o the community, the releasee faces an abrupt change from a very subserviant r o l e , to one which expects him to assume f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; and from a highly structured s e t t i n g of a prison where regimented l i f e p r e v a i l s to a l e s s structured s e t t i n g of the community where a reasonable degree of mobility i s allowed. The parole process allows the releasee to gradually assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y u n t i l he can achieve t o t a l independence from the super-25 v i s i o n o f a p a r o l e o f f i c e r . E l l i o t S t u d t (33, p. 3), s p e a k i n g about t h e r e - e n t r y o f t h e o f f e n d e r i n t o t h e community s t a t e s t h a t t h e f i r s t t h r e e months i n t h e com-m u n i t y i s t h e most c r u c i a l p e r i o d : a p e r i o d when th e r e l e a s e e r e q u i r e s g r e a t -e s t a s s i s t a n c e . The r e l e a s e e may have t o make a d e c i s i o n as t o whether o r n o t t o make t h e a d j u s t m e n t o r r e t u r n t o h i s f o r m e r c r i m i n a l p a t t e r n o f be-h a v i o u r . The p a r o l e p r o c e s s c a n ' a l s o be s e e n as h a v i n g a n o t h e r p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s i n c e from t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e r e l e a s e e t h e s t a k e t o r e m a i n i n t h e community g e t s h i g h e r t h e l o n g e r he r e m a i n s on s u p e r v i s i o n , t h e r e f o r e t h i s i n i t s e l f a c t s as a d e t e r r e n t t h e l o n g e r he i s on s u p e r v i s i o n . The a c t u a l number o f c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e r e l e a s e e p l u s c o l l a t e r a l c o n t a c t s , i . e . , f a m i l y members, r e l a t i v e s , e m p l o y e r s , e t c . , have shown i n some s t u d i e s t o have a d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on p a r o l e - o u t c o m e . The C a l i f o r n i a Y o u t h A u t h o r i t y (5,p. 459) showed i n i t s p i l o t p r o j e c t t h a t a 36-man c a s e -l o a d w h i c h a l l o w e d f o r an a v e r a g e o f 5 c o n t a c t s p e r month p e r r e l e a s e e and a 72-man c a s e l o a d , w h i c h a l l o w e d o n l y one c o n t a c t p e r month p e r r e l e a s e e had a v i o l a t i o n r a t e o f 11% and 50% r e s p e c t i v e l y . The C a l i f o r n i a Work U n i t Program (24, p. i v ) showed a n 8 . 1 % r e t u r n t o p r i s o n w i t h a 36-man c a s e l o a d where r e l e a s e e s r e c e i v e d 1 t o 6 h o u r s o f s u p e r v i s i o n p e r month. S t i l l i n C a l i f o r n i a , t h e S.I.P.U. ( S p e c i a l I n t e n s i v e P a r o l e U n i t ) program (5, p. 458) b r o u g h t out a s i g n i f i c a n t a s p e c t i n showing t h a t w i t h t h e medium poor r i s k group o f r e l e a s e e s , 35% r e t u r n e d t o p r i s o n whereas 45% o f t h e c o n t r o l group i n t h e r e g u l a r c a s e l o a d ( r e c e i v i n g % t o 1 hour o f s u p e r v i s i o n p e r month) r e -t u r n e d t o p r i s o n . 26 IV. FORMULA FOR SUPERVISION As m entioned e a r l i e r , p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s o f s u p e r v i s i o n models c a n -no t be d i r e c t l y a p p l i e d t o Canada f o r v a r i o u s r e a s o n s , t h e r e f o r e a f o r m u l a i s p r e s e n t e d w h i c h can be r e a d i l y adapted t o a v a r i e t y o f s u p e r v i s i o n models. T h i s f o r m u l a w i l l p r oduce t h e c o s t and manpower r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r any g i v e n c o m b i n a t i o n o f s u p e r v i s i o n h o u r s w i t h one f a c t o r r e m a i n i n g c o n s t a n t , i . e . , t h a t t h e degree o f s u p e r v i s i o n be c a l c u l a t e d on 6-month i n t e r v a l s . The c o n s t a n t s used i n t h e f o r m u l a a r e t h e t o t a l man-months o f s u p e r v i s i o n r e q u i r e d as c a l c u l a t e d i n T a b l e X V T I I a ( s e e A p p e n d i x ) . X, y, z, a r e t h e man-hours o f s u p e r v i s i o n p e r month p e r r e l e a s e e f o r t h e f i r s t 6 months, t h e second 6 months and t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e s u p e r v i s i o n p e r i o d , r e s p e c t i v e l y . 'R' i s t h e r e v o c a t i o n r a t e i n p e r c e n t a g e . Thus, t h e f o r m u l a i s : 15435x - (6633y - 6633yR) - (330z - 330zR) = man-hour r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r s u p e r v i s i o n . Man-hour r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r s u p e r v i s i o n - 1500 See C h a p t e r I I I — t o t a l w o r k i n g h o u r s a v a i l a b l e p e r y e a r p e r p a r o l e o f f i c e r ) = manpower need t o s u p e r v i s e 2,770 r e l e a s e e s d u r i n g t h e y e a r 1972 (see A p p e n d i x T a b l e X I I ) . Assuming an a v e r a g e s a l a r y o f $8,500.00 p e r y e a r p e r p a r o l e o f f i c e r ( s e e C h a p t e r I I I ) , t h e r e f o r e 8,500 x manpower need = c o s t o f s a l a r i e s . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t i s e s t i m a t e d a t 55% (see C h a p t e r I I I ) o f t h e s a l a r i e s , t h e r e f o r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t + s a l a r i e s = t h e t o t a l c o s t t o s u p e r v i s e 2,770 r e l e a s e e s i n 1972. Where t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e from t h e assumed f i g u r e s u s e d , i . e . w o r k i n g h o u r s , s a l a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s , an a d j u s t m e n t can be 27 made a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p e r c e n t a g e i n c r e a s e o r d e c r e a s e o f t h e assumed f i g u r e s . F o r example, k e e p i n g i n mind t h e b a s i c c o n c e p t s i n s u p e r v i s i o n , t h a t i s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e r e l e a s e e ' s r e - e n t r y p e r i o d i n t o t h e community, when he r e q u i r e s t h e g r e a t e s t h e l p and t h e c o n c e p t o f g r a d u a l l y moving t h e r e l e a s e e from t h e dependent phase i n t o an i n d e p e n d e n t phase, t h e f o l l o w i n g example model o f s u p e r v i s i o n o f manpower r e q u i r e m e n t s and c o s t a n a l y s i s can be shown. V. EXAMPLE MODEL OF SUPERVISION 5 hours p e r r e l e a s e e p e r month f o r t h e f i r s t 6 months on s u p e r v i s i o n 3 h o u r s p e r r e l e a s e e p e r month f o r t h e second 6 months on s u p e r v i s i o n 1 h o u r p e r r e l e a s e e p e r month f o r t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e s u p e r v i s i o n p e r i o d . F o r example, a 40% r e v o c a t i o n r a t e w i l l be u s e d , t h u s t h e f o r m u l a i s : (15435 x 5) - (6633 x 3) - (6633 x 3 x .4) (330 x 1 ) - (330 x 1 x .4) = 89,312.4 man-hours o f s u p e r v i s i o n (see T a b l e X V I I I b ) 89,312.4 - 1500 = 5 9 . 5 p a r o l e o f f i c e r s 59.5 x 8500 = $505,750.00 = s a l a r i e s 55% o f $505,750 = $278,162.50 = a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s . T h e r e f o r e i t w i l l r e q u i r e 59.5 p a r o l e o f f i c e r s a t a c o s t o f $783,912.50 i n t h e y e a r 1972 t o s u p e r v i s e 2,770 r e l e a s e e s c o n s i d e r i n g a 40% r e v o c a t i o n r a t e and u s i n g t h e s u g g e s t e d model. T h i s f o r m u l a and s u g g e s t e d model does not t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e h o u r s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l assessment. To o b t a i n the manpower r e -q u i r e m e n t and t o t a l c o s t f o r t h i s , T a b l e X V I I may be r e f e r r e d t o . 28 With this suggested model then, a parole o f f i c e r who has 154 hours per month (see Chapter III) exclusive of lunch and coffee time can supervise a maximum caseload of 25 releases requiring minimum supervision of 5 hours per month per parolee. This 5 hours per month would include any work related to the s p e c i f i c case, such as actual case contact, i n person, by telephoning or correspondence, c o l l a t e r a l contacts, t r a v e l l i n g time, report writing and record keeping. For th i s study we are deducting 29 hours (see Chapter I I I , Time and Cost Analysis of a Parole O f f i c e r ' s Services) from the 154 hours per month f or time not chargeable to any s p e c i f i c case. This f i g u r e i s very close to the time study done by Wahl and Glaser (12, p. 21) where they found that non-chargeable time to any s p e c i f i c case to be 30.9 hours per month. Of course with a mixed caseload, i . e . , cases requiring d i f f e r i n g time of supervision, which seems more r e a l i s t i c i n most o f f i c e s across Canada, the caseload w i l l be greater than 25. This suggested model for supervision does not allow for i n s t i t u -t i o n a l assessment cases. I f the o f f i c e r has both supervision and i n s t i t u -t i o n a l assessment cases i n h i s caseload an appropriate adjustment w i l l have to be made by assigning a c e r t a i n weight to the i n s t i t u t i o n a l assessment case i n terms of a supervision case. This formula with the suggested model or other models using' l e s s e r or greater number of hours for supervision can be put to a tes t f o r i t s ' v a l i d i t y , i n terms of the rate of revocation, by implementing t h i s i n the d i f f e r e n t regional o f f i c e s . 29 V I . OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING A GIVEN SUPERVISION MODEL I n o r d e r t o a l l o w f o r t h e o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s u c h as p r e v i o u s p e n a l r e c o r d , age, t y p e o f o f f e n c e , e t c . , i t i s acknowledged t h a t some a d -j u s t m e n t w i l l have t o be made w i t h c e r t a i n groups o f r e l e a s e e s . I t i s a l s o acknowledged t h a t c e r t a i n numbers o f r e l e a s e e s may change i n t h e i r b e -h a v i o u r from t i m e t o t i m e r e q u i r i n g an a d j u s t m e n t i n t h e degree o f s u p e r -v i s i o n g i v e n . T h i s c o n c e p t o f s u p e r v i s i o n can b e s t be d i r e c t e d t o t h e l a r g e s t group o f r e l e a s e e s who a r e between t h e e x t r e m e s , i . e . , t h o s e p r e d i c -t a b l e as good p a r o l e r i s k s who may r e f o r m w i t h minimum s u p e r v i s i o n and t h o s e p r e d i c t a b l e as poor p a r o l e r i s k s who p r o b a b l y w i l l n o t r e s p o n d t o i n t e n s i v e s u p e r v i s i o n . W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e o t h e r f a c t o r s w h i c h r e l a t e t o p a r o l e - o u t c o m e , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e h e r e t h a t p r e v i o u s p e n a l r e c o r d , age on a d m i s s i o n , t y p e o f o f f e n c e , e t c . , a r e i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s w h i c h may i n f l u e n c e t h e a n a l y s i s o f manpower needs. I f we a r e t o use t h e p r e v i o u s p e n a l r e c o r d as ari i n d e -pendent f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g p a r o l e - o u t c o m e , we can r e a d i l y see t h a t 23% (see A p p e n d i x , T a b l e V I I ) who have had no p r e v i o u s p e n a l r e c o r d a r e good p a r o l e r i s k s , t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e l e s s s u p e r v i s i o n , 4.2% o f t h e a d m i s s i o n s a r e o v e r 50 y e a r s ( T a b l e VI) and t h i s age group i s a good p a r o l e r i s k t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r i n g l e s s s u p e r v i s i o n . On t h e o t h e r hand, 1,048 ( 3 5 , T a b l e V, 1963) o r 27.5% o f t h o s e a d m i t t e d t o p r i s o n i n 1963 were committed on a B r e a k i n g and E n t e r i n g o f f e n c e and had p r e v i o u s p e n a l r e c o r d s . I t i s a l s o n o t e d t h a t 1,101 ( 3 5 , T a b l e V, 1963) i n m a t e s charged on t h e B r e a k i n g and E n t e r i n g o f f e n c e were s e n t e n c e d t o 2-4 y e a r s . T h i s group i s c o n s i d e r e d a poor p a r o l e r i s k ( 2 9 ) , and t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d r e q u i r e more s u p e r v i s i o n . The r e l e a s e e ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 30 m e ntioned above and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o p a r o l e - o u t c o m e was e x t e n s i v e l y s t u d i e d i n t h e S t a t e o f Washington ( 2 9 ) . T h e i r s t u d y s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r f i n d i n g s were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r e v i o u s s i m i l a r s t u d i e s done i n C a l i f o r n i a and W i s c o n s i n . V I I . JUSTIFICATION OF THE CONCEPT AND FORMULA FOR SUPERVISION P r e v i o u s s t u d i e s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s p a p e r have i n d i c a t e d t h a t c l o s e r and more i n t e n s i v e s u p e r v i s i o n , i n terms o f number o f c o n t a c t s and t i m e s p e n t on each, r e l e a s e e , does r e s u l t i n a l o w e r p a r o l e f a i l u r e r a t e . The v a l u e o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e p t o f t h e i n t e n s i t y o f s u p e r v i s i o n d u r i n g t h e i n i t i a l few months on s u p e r v i s i o n and a g r a d u a l d e c r e a s e i n t h e i n t e n -s i t y o f s u p e r v i s i o n as t h e s u p e r v i s i o n p e r i o d e l a p s e s have been d e l i n e a t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r . T here i s a l s o a c t u a l monetary s a v i n g s . T h i s , o f c o u r s e , i s based o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d o f t i m e s i n c e i n s t i t u t i o n a l c o s t s do n o t v a r y s i g n i f i -c a n t l y when i t c o v e r s a s h o r t p e r i o d o f t i m e o r a s m a l l d e c r e a s e i n inmate p o p u l a t i o n because o f c e r t a i n l a r g e f i x e d c o s t s such as t h e p h y s i c a l p l a n t , s t a f f s t r e n g t h s , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and o p e r a t i o n a l c o s t s . I t c o s t s $2,000.00 (36, p. 17, 1963) p e r y e a r t o keep an i nmate i n an i n s t i t u t i o n whereas i t c o s t s $527.00 p e r y e a r t o s u p e r v i s e a p a r o l e e (based on 25-man c a s e l o a d and f i x e d s a l a r y and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s ( s e e C h a p t e r I I I , S e c t i o n I I ) . There w i l l be an a d d i t i o n a l c o s t o f $60.00 p e r i nmate t o p r e p a r e t h e p r e - r e l e a s e p l a n (based on 7 h o u r s p e r inmate - s a l a r y and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s as a b o v e ) . These a r e j u s t b a r e c o s t s and do n o t i n c l u d e v a r i o u s o t h e r s a v i n g s as o u t -l i n e d e l s e w h e r e i n t h i s p a p e r . 31 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS I . SUMMARY Through t h e use o f s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a o b t a i n e d from t h e A n n u a l R e p o r t  o f t h e Commissioner o f P e n i t e n t i a r i e s and t h e N a t i o n a l P a r o l e Board a p r o -j e c t i o n ' o f t h e number o f inmates a f f e c t e d by t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a mandatory r e l e a s e s y s t e m has been made. 1972 was s e l e c t e d as a sample y e a r i n d e t e r -m i n i n g manpower and c o s t r e q u i r e m e n t s . These e s t i m a t e s o f c o s t and o f i n -mates a f f e c t e d i s based on t h e p r e m i s e t h a t t h e sys t e m would be i n e f f e c t by J a n u a r y 1, 1968. As t h i s now appears u n l i k e l y , any e x t e n s i o n o r d e l a y w i l l mean t h a t t h e s e p r o j e c t i o n s must be a d j u s t e d a c c o r d i n g l y . The f i n a l c o s t o f t h e sys t e m w i l l depend p r i m a r i l y on t h e model o f s u p e r v i s i o n adopted. The r e s e a r c h e r s a t t e m p t e d t o a p p l y p r e v i o u s p r o j e c t s and s t u d i e s from t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , where t h e mandatory r e l e a s e system i s a l r e a d y i n e f f e c t . I t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o make use o f t h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s i n p r o p o s i n g a model b e -cause o f t h e l a c k o f any u n i f o r m method o f s t a t i s t i c a l r e p o r t i n g and o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f p e n a l and p a r o l e s y s t e m s . I n s o f a r as t h e whole q u e s t i o n o f s u p e r v i s i o n i s s t i l l open t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a wide v a r i e t y o f p o s s i b l e models, t h e r e s e a r c h e r s i l l u s t r a t e d t h e range o f manpower needs and c o s t s t h r o u g h a s e r i e s o f t a b l e s w h i c h a r e p l a c e d i n t h e Ap p e n d i x . The r e s e a r c h e r s b e l i e v e t h a t i f any emphasis i s t o be p l a c e d on a s s e s s m e n t s , i t s h o u l d be w i t h t h e o b j e c t i v e o f a more e f f e c t i v e p r e - r e l e a s e p l a n i n mind. I t w o u l d have the g o a l o f h e l p i n g t h e inm a t e s t o a c c e p t l i m i t s on t h e i r b e h a v i o r . The r e l e a s e e ' s a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s i n a d j u s t i n g t o t h e o u t s i d e w o r l d s h o u l d be d i s c u s s e d . F u r t h e r m o r e , i f t h e same o f f i c e r i s t o p r e p a r e t h e assessment f o r p a r o l e e l i g i b i l i t y as w e l l as s u p e r v i s e t h e same inmate 32 upon h i s release one of the purposes of the assessment inter/views should be towards est a b l i s h i n g a continuing r e l a t i o n s h i p with the inmate. Supervision, on the other hand, i s the key to any successful and wel l administered program. Some consideration could be given to the use of rough models such as the uniform one-to-eight-hours-per month per inmate. On the other hand, i t i s worthwhile to attempt to r e f i n e the model despite the d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n t h i s and t h i s should be done based on the d i f f e r e n t i a l needs of inmates. Thus the goals of supervision of the i n d i v i d -ual inmates have to be kept c l e a r l y i n mind i f supervision i s to be e f f e c t i v e . There i s some confusion here insofar as many parole o f f i c e r s are i n c l i n e d to view success only or pr i m a r i l y i n terms of keeping the supervisee out of prison. The goals should take into account the o v e r a l l needs of the inmate, his d i f f i c u l t i e s i n r e l a t i n g to others at home, at work, etc. Thus the im-provement of the inmate's o v e r a l l behaviour and functioning should be the prime objective. In r e l a t i o n to t h i s , the c r i t i c a l periods of adjustment occur during the f i r s t s i x months a f t e r release, and r e a l i s t i c a l l y i t would be sensible to devote the most e f f o r t possibly to supervision during t h i s time. Thereafter, the amount of time devoted to supervision per month could be gradually reduced. As the period of mandatory supervision draws to a close, p r o v i s i o n should be made, i f the releasee so wishes, for the transfe r of supervision to another agency such as the. John Howard Society. I I . EVALUATION I t i s d i f f i c u l t to assess the e f f e c t s of the introduction of any change as encompassing as the mandatory system before i t s introduction, without 33 i n c u r r i n g t h e r i s k o f a high, m a r g i n o f e r r o r . As w e l l , t h e r e s e a r c h e r s have been u n a b l e t o o b t a i n c u r r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a w h i c h f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e s t h e p o t e n t i a l m a r g i n o f e r r o r s . Thus t h i s s t u d y must be e v a l u a t e d more i n terms o f an e x p l o r a t i o n i n t o a new c o n c e p t i n c o r r e c t i o n s . As s u c h , t h i s p r o j e c t poses more q u e s t i o n s t h a n i t c o u l d p o s s i b l y answer. D e s p i t e t h i s , a r o u g h g u i d e l i n e has been p r e s e n t e d t h a t may be used i n making f u t u r e c o s t s and manpower p r e d i c t i o n s . I f more r e c e n t s t a t i s t i c a l i n f o r -m a t i o n becomes a v a i l a b l e , a d j u s t m e n t s c o u l d be made a c c o r d i n g l y . As w e l l , w i t h a c c e s s t o a c c u r a t e and d e t a i l e d d a t a on average s a l a r i e s and a d m i n i s -t r a t i v e c o s t s a f u r t h e r r e f i n e m e n t s h o u l d t a k e p l a c e . The t i m e a n a l y s i s o f a p a r o l e o f f i c e r i s a l s o s u b j e c t t o f u r t h e r r e f i n e m e n t . I n t h i s r e g a r d i t would be q u i t e advantageous i f an e f f i c i e n c y s t u d y c o u l d be done i n t h i s a r e a so t h a t a r e a l i s t i c and a c c u r a t e a n a l y s i s would be a v a i l a b l e t o f a c i l i -t a t e more e f f e c t i v e p l a n n i n g i n use o f manpower. A p a r t f r o m t h e above c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , some q u e s t i o n s t h a t c o u l d be r a i s e d a r e as f o l l o w s : What w i l l be t h e e f f e c t o f t h e mandatory r e l e a s e s y s t e m on t h e p e n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ? What w i l l be t h e e f f e c t on t h e f u n c t i o n -i n g o f o t h e r community a g e n c i e s i n v o l v e d i n c o r r e c t i o n a l work? The e n t i r e c o n c e p t o f assessment and s u p e r v i s i o n s h o u l d a l s o be r e v i e w e d . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , t h e p u r p o s e o f assessment and s u p e r v i s i o n i s r e l a t e d t o s u c c e s s o r r e h a b i l i -t a t i o n o f t h e i n m a t e . The a c t u a l c o s t s , however, would r e a c h a p o i n t where f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e s i n s t a f f c o u l d n o t be j u s t i f i e d by s a v i n g s t o t h e com-m u n i t y . A t p r e s e n t , t h e r e i s no means o f d e t e r m i n i n g what t h i s p o i n t a c t u a l l y i s . T h i s c o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d t h r o u g h t r i a l and e r r o r , p i l o t p r o j e c t s , r e -s e a r c h , e t c . i l l . RECOMMENDATIONS F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e how a p a r o l e o f f i c e r ' s t i m e i s used a t p r e s e n t , and c o u l d be used i n th e f u t u r e . The r e s e a r c h e r s f e l t t h a t t h e emphasis s h o u l d be p l a c e d on d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n w i t h t h e inmate and t h a t a v a r i e t y o f t e c h n i q u e s c o u l d be employed such as group s u p e r v i s i o n and day s u p e r v i s i o n from t h e p e n i t e n t i a r i e s . D e s p i t e t h e recommendations o f t h e Fau t e u x R e p o r t t h a t t h e c e n t r a l i z e d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n from Ottawa be r e t a i n e d , t h e r e s e a r c h e r s f e e l t h a t t h i s q u e s t i o n m e r i t s f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e s e t t i n g up o f r e g i o n a l u n i t s c o u l d e x p e d i t e t h e p r o c e s s o f d e c i s i o n making w i t h o u t s e r i o u s l y e n d a n g e r i n g t h e u n i t y o f t h e syst e m as a whole. T h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s t h e f a c t t h a t u s e f u l and c u r r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l d a t a i s o f t e n n o t a v a i l -a b l e . The r e s e a r c h e r s recommend t h a t a more u n i f o r m method o f d a t a c o l l e c t i o n be employed. I t woul d be h e l p f u l as w e l l , i f a more u n i v e r s a l a p p r o a c h were t a k e n i n t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f s t a t i s t i c a l m a t e r i a l , n o t o n l y between t h e p r o v i n c e s and j u r i s d i c t i o n s b u t i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e methods used i n o t h e r c o u n t r i e s . Thus, i n t h e c a s e o f a s t u d y i n t o mandatory r e l e a s e s u c h as t h i s , t h e r e s u l t s o f o t h e r p i l o t p r o j e c t s o r e x p e r i m e n t a l programs c o u l d be u t i l i z e d . 35 4. F u r t h e r s t u d y i n t o t h e use o f community r e s o u r c e s i n t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f inmates i s i n d i c a t e d . E s t a b l i s h -ment o f s p e c i a l i z e d r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s s u c h as h a l f -way homes; t h e use o f n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l h e l p ; g r e a t e r use o f Canada Manpower s e r v i c e s , e t c . s h o u l d be k e p t i n mind, w i t h t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f a g r e a t e r degree o f i n v o l v e m e n t by t h e community i n t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f i n m a t e s . 5. The f u n c t i o n and p u r p o s e o f minimum p a r o l e w i l l no doubt r e q u i r e r e a s s e s s m e n t w i t h t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e mandatory r e l e a s e s y s tem. 6. I t i s recommended t h a t t h e f o r m u l a p r o p o s e d i n C h a p t e r I V be c o n s i d e r e d w i t h a number o f p o s s i b l e models o f s u p e r -v i s i o n . The j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e model u l t i m a t e l y s e l e c t e d can be t e s t e d t h r o u g h t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f s e v e r a l p i l o t p r o j e c t s o r e x p e r i m e n t a l programs i n v a r i o u s r e g i o n a l o f f i c e s . 7. As p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d , t h e c o n d i t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Mandatory R e l e a s e agreement have been assumed t o be s i m i l a r t o R e g u l a r P a r o l e . However, s i n c e t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e between Mandatory R e l e a s e and P a r o l e c o n c e p t u a l l y and f u n c -t i o n a l l y t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s may have t o be r e v i e w e d . 8. I f t h e mandatory r e l e a s e s y s t e m i s t o be m a x i m a l l y e f f e c t i v e , t h e n t h e e f f o r t s o f t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s and t h e a f t e r c a r e programs need t o be b e t t e r i n t e g r a t e d . By t h i s , t h e r e s e a r c h e r s a r e s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i f a more e f f e c t i v e 36 r e h a b i l i t a t i v e service was developed i n the i n s t i t u t i o n s , the supervision would s i m i l a r l y be more e f f e c t i v e . In add-i t i o n , as there i s a r e l a t i v e l y short time period on mandatory supervision, there w i l l be a greater need to provide follow-up contacts or continual counselling. This service could well be provided through after-care agencies such as the John Howard Society. BIBLIOGRAPHY 37 1. Canadian Journal of Corrections. The Canadian Welfare Council, v o l . 2, i9 6 0 . 2. Case, John D. "Doing Time i n the Community." Federal  Probation. (March, 1967), pp. 9-1?. 3. Czaykoski, Eugene. "The Need for Philosophical D i r e c t i o n i n Probation and Parole." Federal Probation. (September, 1965), pp. 24-28. 4. G i a r d i n i , G. The Parole Process. S p r i n g f i e l d I l l i n o i s , Charles' C. Thomas, 1959. 5. Glaser, Daniel. The Effectiveness of a Prison and  Parole System. New York, The Bobbs^Rerril Co . , T 9 6 4 . 6. Margolin, Reuben J . "Post-Institutional R e h a b i l i t a t i o n of the Penal Offender: A Community E f f o r t . " Federal  Probation. (March, 1967), pp. 46-50. 7. M i l l e r , Frank. "Parole." Crime and Its Treatment i n  Canada. Edited by W. McGrath. Toronto, MacMillan of Canada, 1965, pp. 326-383. 8. Ohlin, Lloyd. Selection for Parole: A Manual of Parole Prediction. New York, Russel l Sage FouncTation, 9. Polansky, Norman A. (ed.) S o c i a l Work Research. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, I960. 10. Richmond, Mark S. Prison P r o f i l e s . New York, Oceana Publications Inc., 1965. 11. Tappan, Paul. Crime, Justice and Correction. Toronto, McGraw H i l l , 190O. 12. Wahl, A and Glaser, Daniel. " P i l o t Time Study of the Federal Probation Officer's Job." Federal Probation. V o l . 27, No. 3, (September, 1963). 13. Young, Pauline. S c i e n t i f i c S o c i a l Surveys and' Research. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1966. 38 REPORTS AND PAMPHLETS 14. B e l l , Marjorie (ed.). Parole i n P r i n c i p l e . New York, National Conference on Parole ,~T957. 15. Department of Justice of Canada. Fauteux Report. Ottawa, Queens Pr i n t e r , 1956. 16. Friedland, M. L. and Mohr, J . W. Canadian Crime  S t a t i s t i c s . A Report on the Third Criminal Law Conference. Reprinted from: Criminal Law Quarterly, v o l . 7, No. 2, August, 1964. 17. Glaser, Daniel, et a l . Parole Decision-Making: The  Sentence and ParoTe~P~rocess. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C., 1966. 18. John Howard Society of Ontario. Parole. A Report to the Chairman of the Canadian Committee on Corrections dated March 1, 1967. 19. M i l l e r , F. P. Paroles for R e c i d i v i s t s As An E f f e c t i v e  Social Defence. Member, National Parole —Board, 1964. 20. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Standard  Probation.and Parole Act. New York, Revised E d i t i o n , 19b4. 21. National Probation and Parole Association. Parole i n Practice and P r i n c i p l e . New York, The National Conference on Parole, 1957. 22. Report by the President's. Commission' on Law Enforcement and Administration of J u s t i c e . The Challenge of Crime  i n a Free Society. Washington, D.C., • U.S. Government P r i n t i n g - O f f i c e , 1967. 23. State of C a l i f o r n i a . Parole Work Unit Program. Sacramento, Department of Corrections, June, 1965• 24. State of C a l i f o r n i a . Parole Work Unit Program. Sacramento, Department of Corrections, December, 1966. 25. State of Washington. A B r i e f Analysis of Washington  State Adult Correctional I n s t i t u t i o n s , No. 20. ; Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s , October, I966. 26. State of Washington. Adult Parole Study. Section of Research and Program Analysis, Department of Prison Terms and Paroles, August, i 9 6 0 . 3 9 2 7 . State of Washington. An Analysis of the Academic  Educational Program in~~W"ashington ?£ate . Adult ~ Correctional"~lnstituT7fons.. June, 1 9 5 5 . 2 8 . State of Washington. An Analysis of the Various  Factors A f f e c t i n g Washington StaTe Adult Correctional  Programs"^ Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s , Bureau of Research and Program Analysis, September, 1 9 6 6 . . 2 9 . State of Washington. Factors Related to Parole  Outcome. The State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles and Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s , Section of Research and Program Analysis, March, 1 9 6 4 . 3 0 . State of New York. Follow-Up From Date of Release i n 1959 to December 3 1 , 1903 of 4 , 5 9 1 Releases to Or i g i n a l Parole Supervisor. D i v i s i o n of ParoTe, Bureau of Research and S t a t i s t i c s . Published 1§64. 3 1 . State of New York. Who Absconds and Why. Executive Department, D i v i s i o n of Parole, Bureau of Research and S t a t i s t i c s . Published 1 9 6 5 . 3 2 . Street, George T. Canada,1 s Parole System. Ontario, Kingston Penitentiary. Revised E d i t i o n , 1 9 6 6 . 3 3 . Studt, E l l i o t . The Re-entry of the Offender Into The  Community. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1 9 6 7 . 3 4 . U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Personal Characteristics and Parole Outcome. Washington, D.C., I96S: STATISTICAL REPORTS 3 5 . Annual Report of the Commissioner of Pe n i t e n t i a r i e s . Ottawa, Queen1 " P r i n t e r , 1 9 5 » - 1 9 b 4 . 3 6 . Annual Report of the National Parole Board. Ottawa, Que en's P r i n t e r . For the Calender Years Ended December 3 1 , 1 9 6 3 - I 9 6 5 . 3 7 . Crime S t a t i s t i c s . Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Ottawa, Queen's Prin t e r , I 9 6 3 - I 9 6 5 . 3 8 . Vancouver Regional Office S t a t i s t i c s , 1 9 6 6 . Personal Communications. 40 39• School of Soc i a l Work. Personal Consultations with Mr. Larry B e l l , Research Advisor. September -November 30, 196?'. 40. Informal interviews with Mr. Kyle Stevenson, Regional Representative, Mr. A. Byman, Staff Supervisor and eight parole o f f i c e r s . APPENDIX TABLE I ADMISSIONS TO PENITENTlARIES BASED ON LENGTH OF SENTENCE L e n g t h o f s e n t e n c e 2 - 3 Years 3 - 4 Years 4 - 5 Years 5 - 6 Years 6 - 1 0 Years 10-15 Years 15-20 Years 20-25 Years Assumed mean s e n t e n c e 2.5 Years 3.5 Years 4.5 Years 5.5 Years 8 Years 12.5 Years 17.5 Years 22.5 Y e a r s Number s e n t e n c e d 2160 745 248 249 123 77 17 12 Date s e n t e n c e d June 30, 1968 June 30, 1968 June 30, . 1968 June 30, 1968 June 30, 1968 June -30, 1968 June 30, 1968 June 30, 1968 Date o f r e l e a s e Dec. 30 1970 Dec. 30 1971 Dec. 30 1972 Dec. 30 1973 Dec. 30 1976 Dec. 30 1980 Dec. 30 1985 Dec. 30 19S0 Date of r e l e a s e minus S t a t u t o r y Remiss i o n Feb. 15 1970 May 15 1971 Nov. 15 1971 Aug. 15. 1972 June 30 1974 Nov. 15 1977 Aug. 15 1981 May 15 1984 * Annual R e p o r t of Commissioner of P e n i t e n t i a r i e s , P u b l i s h e d by Queen's P r i n t e r s , Ottawa, F i s c a l Year e n d i n g Month 31/64, T a b l e IV, p. 53. TABLE 2 G r a p h I l l u s t r a t i n g t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Number o f I nma tes i n Terms o f L e n g t h o f S e n t e n c e number s e n t e n c e d '2,+00 2,200 2,000 1800 1600 1+00 1200' 1000 800 600 +00 200 Y e a r s 2-3 +-5 5-6 6-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 • C a l c u l a t e d f r o m : A n n u a l R e p o r t o f C o m m i s s i o n e r o f P e n i t e n t i a r i e s P u b l i s h e d by Queens P r i n t e r , O t t a w a , F i N s c a l y e a r e n d i n g , M a r c h 3-L» 196+, T a b l e I V , p . 53-TABLE I I I 43 CUMULATIVE TOTALS OF EXPECTED RELEASES Year Released Deducting Cumul-Year Year Statutory at i v e Sentenced Released Remission Total Total Year June 30/68 (2.5) Dec.30/70 Apr.15/70 2160 2160 1970 June 30/69 (2.5) Dec.30/71 Apr.15/71 2160 June 30/68 (3.5) Dec.30/71 Feb ,.15/71 745 June 30/68 (4.5) Dec.30/72 Nov. 15/71 . 248 3153 1971 June 30/70 (2.5) Dec.30/72 Apr.15/72 2160 June 30/69 (3.5) Dec.30/72 Feb.15/72 745 June 30/68 (5.5) Dec.30/73 Aug.15/72 249 June 30/69 (4.5) Dec.30/73 Nov.15/72 248 3402 1972 June 30/71 (2.5) Dec.30/73 Apr.15/73 2160 June 30/7 0 (3.5) Dec.30/73 Feb. 15/73 . 745 June 30/69 (5.5) Dec.30/74 Aug.15/73 249 June 30/70 (4.5) Dec.30/74 Nov.15/73 249 3402 1973 June 30/72 (2.5) Dec.30/74 Apr. 15/74 2160 June 30/72 (3.5) Dec.30/74 Feb. 15/74 745 June 30/68 ( 8) Dec.30/76 June 30/74 123 June 30/74 (5.5) Dec.30/75 Aug.15/74 249 June 30/71 (4.5) Dec.30/75 Nov.15/74 248 3525 1974 June 30/73 (2.5) Dec.30/75 Apr.15/75 2160 June 30/72 (3.5) Dec.30/75 Feb.15/75 745 June 30/69 ( 8 ) June 30/77 June 30/75 123 June 30/71 (5.5) Dec.30/76 Aug.15/75 249 June 30/72 (4.5) Dec.30/76 Nov.15/74 248 3525 1975 June 30/74 (2.5) Dec.30/76 Apr.15/76 2160 June 30/73 (3.5) Dec.30/76 Feb.15/76 745 June 30/7 0 ( 8 ) June 30/78 June 30/7 6 123 June 30/74 (5.5) Dec.30/77 Aug.15/76 249 June 30/74 (4.5) Dec.30/77 Nov.15/7 6 248 3525 1976 June 30/75 (2.5) Dec.30/77 Apr.15/77 2160 June 30/74 (3.5) Dec.30/77 Feb.15/77 745 June 30/71 ( 8 ) June 30/7 9 June 30/77 123 June 30/73 (5.5) Dec.30/78 Aug.15/77 249 June 30/74 (4.5) Dec.30/78 Nov.15/77 248 June 30/68 (12.5) Dec.30/80 Nov.15/77 77 3602 1977 43 (a) EXPLANATORY NOTES ON TABLE NO. I l l 1. P e n i t e n t i a r y a d m i s s i o n f i g u r e s a r e f i s c a l y e a r 1963-64 h e l d as c o n s t a n t . 2. T a b l e a r r a n g e d i n o r d e r o f d a t e o f r e l e a s e a f t e r s t a t u t o r y r e m i s s i o n deducted from t o t a l s e n t e n c e . 3. A s s u m p t i o n i s t h a t the mid p o i n t o f s e n t e n c e s from 2 - 3 y e a r s and 3 - 4 y e a r s e t c . - 2.5, 3.5 y e a r s e t c . , mean of t h i s c l a s s . 4. A f u r t h e r a s s u m p t i o n i s t h a t the s e n t e n c e o c c u r s a t t h e m i d - p o i n t of the ye a r on an a v e r a g e , t h a t i s on June 30 on any g i v e n y e a r . 5. Some examples o f how t h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r the t a b l e were a r r i v e d a t a r e as f o l l o w s : a) a s e n t e n c e o f 4 - 5 y e a r s i s t r e a t e d as 4 - 5 y e a r s o c c u r r i n g a t t h e mid p o i n t o f 1968 or June 30. T h e o r e t i c a l l y he would be due f o r r e l e a s e Dec. 30/72. D e d u c t i o n 1/4 of s e n t e n c e as s t a t u t o r y r e m i s s i o n , t h i s removes one y e a r , one and one h a l f months. T h i s r e l e a s e d a t e i s November 15/71. d) S e n t e n c e o f 6 - 10 y e a r s t r e a t e d as 8 y e a r s a g a i n a t mid-p o i n t o f y e a r 1969. R e l e a s e d a t e i s June 30/77 1/4 o f r e m i s s i o n deducted o r 2 y e a r s . Thus he i s r e l e a s e d June 30/75. TABLE IV GRAPH ILLUSTRATING THE DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF INMATES 'IN TERMS OF LENGTH OF SENTENCE. Number o f Inmates 2000 1500 1000 500 11 \^ III $ ! % k til f \> 1 k ' V 1 In: \\ \-\ I Legend: Year ending March Jl I 9 6 0 1961 1962 196 3 fff/Of&fi&tttiar/irm 196k — Scale: V e r t i c a l : - 1 ° - 500 inmates Horizontal: 3 / 1 0 " - lyear ' ~ i - L -.12.5 17.5 f ; • 2 2 . 5 1 2 . 5 5 . 5 8 10 L e n g t h o f S e n t e n c e i n y e a r s . • S o u r c e : A n n u a l R e p o r t o f -the Co mm 1 s s l o n e r - o f P e n i t e n t i a r i e s I960 - 19&fr Queen* s " P r r n t e r , " dttavw,19o5^ ' 25 L i f e TABLE V TERM OF SENTENCE OF INMATES FROM 1958-64 Year Ending March 31 Total Admissions 2 - 3 Years 3 - 4 Years 4 - 5 Years 5 - 6 Years Over 6 Years No. No. 7o No. 7o No. No. 7o No. 1958 100 2906 62.0 1801 16.7 486 6.0 174 6.1 177 9.2 268 1959 100 2963 61.8 1831 17.9 529 6.1 180 6.1 182 8.1 241 1960 100 3289 61.2 2013 17.9 540 - 5.9 193 6.9 228 8.1 265 1961 100 3224 60.8 1960 18.1 584 6.0 192 6.5 210 8.6 278 1962 100 3215 63.3 2036 16.9 544 6.4 205 6.2 200 7.2 23C 1963 100 3537 56.7 2007 20.9 738 6.9 245 6.4 225 9-1 322 1964 100 3631 5:9.5 2160 20.5 745 6.8 248 6.9 249 6.3 229 Mean 100 3272 60.7 1972 18.4 602 6.3 205 6.4 210 8.1 262 * Commissioner of Penitentiaries Report for year 1958 - 60 i n c l u s i v e , Table 3; for years 1961 - 64 i n c l u s i v e Table 4. TABLE V I AGE ON ADMISSION TO PENITENTIARY 1958-64 Year E n d i n g March 31 T o t a l Admiss i o n s Under 18 Y r s . 18 - 24 Y r s . 25 - 34 Y r s . 3 5 - 4 9 Y r s . Over 50 Y r s . No. No. 7„ No. 7. No. 7o No. 7o No. 1958 100 2974 6.9 204 37.1 1102 33.7 1002 18.4 548 4.0 118 1959 100 3045 6.0 183 36.9 1122 34.2 1040 19.1 582 3.9 118 1960 100 3403 6.1 209 38.7 1317 32.8 1116 18.1 615 4.3 146 1961 100 3334 6.2 205 39.4 1313 32.5 1085 17.9 598 4.0 133 1962 100 3395 5.5 188 37.7 1281 33.1 1122 •19.5 661 4.2 143 1963 100 3739 4.2 158 39.4 1474 32.4 1213 19.0 712 4.9 182 1964 100 3885 4.0 154 41.1 1597 31.6 1228 19.0 739 4.3 167 Mean 100 7796 5.6 186 38.6 1315 32.9 1115 18.7 636 4.2 144 Commissioner of P e n i t e n t i a r y R e p o r t s * T a b l e 6. TABLE V I I CHARACTERISTIC OF INMATE POPULATION BASED. ON PREVIOUS PENITENTIARY RECORDS Year E n d i n g March 31 T o t a l A d m i s s i o n s No P r e v i o u s Records 1 P r e v i o u s R e c o r d 2 o r more P r e v i o u s R e c o r d s 1 No. No. % No. % No. 1958 100 2975 21.3 635 14.0 417 64.7 1923 1959 100 3041 23.0 699 16.5 503 60.5 1839 1960 100 3403 24.4 829 16.6 565 59.0 2009 1961 100 3338 22.8 761 16.9 563 60.3 2014 1962 100 3395 23.3 792 15.9 540 60.7 2063 1963 100 3742 23.3 873 17.0 637 59.6 2232 1964 100 3888 22.7 883 16.3 633 61.0 2372 Mean 100 3397 23.0 782 16.2 571 60.8 2065 Commissioner o f P e n i t e n t i a r y R e p o r t , 1958 - 64, f o r y e a r s 1958 - 1960 i n c l u s i v e Table 34, f o r years 1961 - 1964 i n c l u s i v e T a b l e 5. CALCULATION OF MAN-HOURS PES. ASSESSMENT TABLE NO. VIII Calc u l a t i o n of Man-Hours per parole o f f i c e r for Assessments * 1002 i n s t i t u t i o n a l assessment i n 1966 * 6 parole o f f i c e r s on s t a f f i n 1966 * From a study of time sheets, i t is estimated that 70% of t o t a l time was spent on i n s t i t u t i o n a l assessments. Calculation of number of assessments per o f f i c e r - number of assessments per o f f i c e r per year 1002 f 6 = 167 - number of assessments per month 167 s. 12 = 14 Time spent on each assessment = 70% of 154 hours ( t o t a l working hours per month.) or , (70 x 154) 108 hours per o f f i c e r per month on i n s t i t u t i o n a l assessment. Since there are 14 assessments done per month, i t would take 7.7 hours per assessment based on 108 hours per month allocated to doing assess-ments . * Vancouver Regional Parole O f f i c e S t a t i s t i c s 49 TABLE NO. IX CALCULATION OF MAN-HOURS PER PAROLE OFFICER FOR SUPERVISION - 1222-man months of supervision i n 1966 - One hour per month spent on d i r e c t supervision per parolee (Vancouver O f f i c e study shows this as average) .". 1222 = t o t a l man hours of supervision i n 1966 - Man hours per month/office is 1222 «• 12 months = 102 hours/month 102 hours per month * 6 O f f i c e r s - 17 hours/Officer/month * Vancouver Regional Parole O f f i c e S t a t i s t i c s 50 TABLE NO. X Number of Paroles granted i n 1965 i n r e l a t i o n to length of sentence Length of Sentence Number of paroles granted 2 - 3 Years 580 3 - 4 Years 91 4 - 5 Years 90 5 - 6 Years 29 6 - 1 0 Years 65 1 0 - 1 5 Years 9 15 - 20 Years 7 2 0 - 2 5 Years 0 TOTAL 871 National Parole Board S t a t i s t i c s , 1965, Queen's Printer of Ottawa, 1967, Extraction from Table 17. 51 TABLE NO. XI NUMBER OF INMATES AFFECTED BY MANDATORY RELEASE Years of Sentence Number re c e i v i n g t h i s term (Table 1) Number o r d i n a r i l y r e c e i v i n g parole froin this group (Table IX) Balance to be affected by mandatory system 2.5 Years 2160 580 1580 3.5 Years 745 91 654 4.5 Years 248 90 158 5.5 Years 249 29 220 8 Years 123 65 58 12.5 Years 77 9 68 17.5 Years 17 7 10 22.5 Years 12 0 12 52 TABLE NO. X I I Man month requirements for sample year 1972 Date of Sentence Length of Sentence Date Released Date of end of mandat-ory parole Total months super-vised i n 1972 Number of Paroles Affected Months Required June 30/70 2.5 Years Apr.15/72 Dec.30/72 7.5 1580 11,850 June 30/69 3.5 Years Feb. 15/72 Dec.30/72 10.5 654 6,867 June 30/68 5.5 Years Aug.15/72 Dec.30/73 4.5 220 990 June 30/69 4.5 Years Nov.15/72 Dec.30/73 1.5 158 237 June 30/68 4.5 Years Nov.15/71 Dec.30/72 12 158 1,896 T O T A L 2770 21,840 53 TABLE XIII REVOCATION AS A FACTOR IN SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS Total Months Supervised 1971 and 1972 Less f i v e month average on parole for revokees * Man month require-ments re-quired for process ing revocation Months of Supervision affected by pot e n t i a l revocation ** Number of Parolees Man months affected by revocations 7.5 2.5 1 1.5 1580 2370 10.5 5.5 1 4.5 654 2943 4.5 -- 1 -- 220 1.5 ' -- 1 -- 158 --13% 8.5 1 7.5 ; 158 1185 * I t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t r e v o c a t i o n w i l l o c c u r a f t e r an ave r a g e p e r i o d o f f i v e months. ** The a d d i t i o n a l t i m e r e q u i r e d t o p r o c e s s i s c a l c u l a t e d i n terms o f man-months . TABLE NO. XIV ESTIMATE OF REDUCTION OF FMAN MONTH REQUIREMENT BASED ON REVOCATION RATE Man Months of Supervision Affected by possible revocation 20% 30% 40% 50% 2370 474 711 948 1185 2943 589 883 1177 1472 1185 737 356 474 593 Total 6498 1300 1950 2599 2350 * For the purposes of this study re-release upon revocation of manda-tory release is not being included; TABLE NO. XV Man months of s u p e r v i s i o n l e s s months deducted based on 20 - 50% r e v o c a t i o n r a t e R e c i d i v i s m Rate Man months of s u p e r v i s i o n from T a b l e V I I Less man months deducted from T a b l e X Man months o f s u p e r v i s i o n l e s s r e c i d i v i s m 20% 21,840 1,300 20,540 30% 21,840 1,950 19,890 40% 21,840 2,599 19,241 50% 21,840 3,250 18,590 56 TABLE XVI COST AND MANPOWER ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISION BASED ON A 30% REVOCATION RATE Hours of supervis ion per month Total Man Hours Number of parole o f f i c e r s required Cost of s a l a r i e s of parole o f f i c e r s ** Cost of s a l a r i e s and administration costs 1 19,890* 13.3 $113,050 $175,228 2 39,780 26.5 225,250 349,138 3 59,670 39.8 338,300 524,365 4 79,560 53.0 450,iJ00 698,275 5 99,450 66.3 563,550 873,503 6 119,340 79.6 676,600 1,048,730 7 139,230 92.8 788,800 1,222,640 8 159,120 106.1 901,850 1,397,868 * Table XV ** Estimated at $8500 *** Estimated at 557« of s a l a r i e s 57 TABLE XVLL COST AND MANPOWER ANALYSIS BASED ON HOURS OF ASSESSMENT OF INMATES REQUIRED Hours per Assessment Number of Assessments Man hours required Manpower require-ments Cost of manpower re-quirements Cost of Adminis-t r a t i o n & manpower 8 hours 2531 20,248 13.4 $113,900 $177,600 7.5 hours 2531 18,982 12.6 107,440 166,533 7.0 hours 2531 17,718 11.8 100,300 155,465 6.5 hours 2531 16,452 11.0 93,500 144,925 6.0 hours 2531 15,186 10.1 86,020 133,331 5.5 hours 2531 13,921 9.3 78,880 122,264 5.0 hours 2531 12,655 8.4 ' 71,655 111,065 4.5 hours 2531 11,390 7.6 64,600 100,130 4.0 hours 2531 10,124 6.7 57,290 88,800 3.5 hours 2531 8,859 5.9 50,150 77,733 TABLE XVIII (a) ESTIMATE OF SUPERVISION REQUIRE-MENTS FOR A POSSIBLE MODEL OF SUPERVISION Sroup r e -leased Table 1 Date re-leased Date of. end of parole Number of parolees Mon @ 5 hrs. per month ths Supervi @ 3 hrs. per month sed @ 1 h r . per month; Man Months Supervision per month 5 h r s . |3 hrs. j 1 hr. t ! Those sentenced 2.5 y r s . in 197 0 Apr.15, 1972 Dec.30, 1972 1580 6 1.5 ; 1 6 x 1580 !15 x 1580 = 9480 != 2,370 --3.5 yrs . in 1969 Feb.15, 1972 Dec.30, 1972 654 6 4.5 6 x 645 |4.5 x 654 = 3924 != 2,943 j • • — .. 5.5 yrs . i n 1968 Aug.15, 1972 Dec.30, 1972 158 4.5 — 4.5 x 1581 — = 711 i . — 4.5 yrs . in 1969 Nov. 15., 1972 Dec.30, 1973 220 1-5 i ! 1.5 x 220! --= 330 j -- --4.5 y r s . in 1968 Nov.30, 1971 Dec.30, 1972 220 4.5 6 i ! 1.5 i 4.5 x 2201 6 x 220. =990 | = 1320 1.5 x 220 = 330 Total for each catagory of supervision 15,435 6633 i 330 * Sample c a l c u l a t i o n of man month requirement for 5, 3 and one hour supervision f o r group sentenced to 4.5 years i n 1968, Date of release is Nov. 15/71. 1% months on parole served i n 1972. Balance of 4.5 months to be served @ 5 hours per month. There is a further 6 months of supervision @ 3 hours per month and 1% months @ 1 hour per month. 58 59 TABLE XVIII (b) CALCULATION OF MAN HOURS OF SUPERVISION LESS DEDUCTION FOR REVOCATION Man hours of supervis ion on basis of supervision per month To t a l Man Hours Less r e c i d i v i s m estimated at 40% Balance of man hour require-ments Man hours of supervision of group r e c e i v i n g 5 hrs. per month 77,175 * 0 77,175 Man hours of supervision of group r e c e i v i n g 3 hrs. per month 19,899 ** 7,960 11,939 Man hours of supervision of group r e c e i v i n g 1 hour per month 330 132 198 Tot a l 97,404 8,092 89,312 * Obtained by mu l t i p l y i n g man months of supervision (15,435) by hours per month (5) ** Obtained by mu l t i p l y i n g man months of su f p e r v i s i o n (6633) by hours per month (3). 'TABLE XVIII(c) TOTAL COST OF MODEL Supervision Assessment Man hour requirements 89,312 12,655 No. of parole officers required 59.5 8.4 Cost of parole officer's salaries $505,750 $71,400 Administration costs 278,162 39,270 Tot a l costs of s a l a r i e s and adminis t r a t ion 783,913 110,670 Tot a l cost of model $894,580 * Supervision - 5 hours for f i r s t s i x months 3 hours for second s i x months 1 hour for balance of time on release ** Revocation rate set at 40% * Hours required for assessment set at 5 hours per assessment 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0302494/manifest

Comment

Related Items