Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Sage Choice logoLink to Sage Choice
. 2024 Jan 25;70(12):1222–1242. doi: 10.1177/0306624X231219222

The Well-Being of Older Offenders on Release in the Community

Gregory P Brown 1,✉, Christopher Greco 1
PMCID: PMC13379608  PMID: 38270097

Abstract

In Canada and internationally the number of older offenders on parole and living in the community is increasing rapidly. Older offenders in the community are a vulnerable population at high risk for lack of well-being. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with N = 64 offenders aged 50 years and older on conditional release from custody in Canada, including long-term, recidivist, and first-time older offenders. Compared to their non-offender counterparts, older offenders in the community experience many of the same problems of aging and well-being, but are at greater risk for mental health problems, traumatic injuries, and for recidivists, substance abuse. Most long-term and first-time older offenders find themselves living at or below the poverty line. One third of older offenders experience social isolation from community and family due to their criminal history and incarceration. For those with Indigenous ancestry, Indigenous communities, and cultural organizations play a significant role in supporting older offenders.

Keywords: offenders, older, health, wellbeing, Indigenous

Introduction

Rapid growth in the number of older persons in prison is a concern globally (ICRC, 2018; Maschi et al., 2013; Penal Reform International, 2019; Psick et al., 2017; Skarupski et al., 2018; Stavrou, 2017; Turner et al., 2018) and for the correctional system in Canada (Beaudette & Stewart, 2014; Iftene, 2017, 2019; Zinger, 2019). A large body of research has documented the need for specialized physical, psychological, and social supports for older prisoners on a par with services provided to seniors in the outside community including, among others, age-segregated facilities, access to geriatric health and mental health care, accommodated programs and recreational activities, and palliative care (Canada et al., 2020; Cartwright, 2016; Delveaux et al., 2017; De Smet et al., 2017; Maschi et al., 2013; Zinger & Landry, 2019).

Less attention and research effort have been devoted to the study of older persons released from prison and living in the community, though internationally (Angus, 2015; Lares & Montgomery, 2020; Penal Reform International, 2019, Wyse, 2018) and in Canada (Colibaba, 2019; Public Safety Canada, 2022) the number of older offenders on release in the community is increasing rapidly. Older offenders living in the community are a vulnerable population at a high risk for poverty, homelessness, lack of access to health care, mental health care, and addiction treatment resources, and social isolation stemming both from the public stigma of being an “ex-con,” and from prison release conditions that can restrict the kinds of employment, residence, and community activities the individual is permitted to engage in Bryson et al. (2017; Hart & van Ginneken, 2017; Lares & Montgomery, 2020; Metzger et al., 2017; Partington, 2017; Scaggs, 2017; Western et al., 2015; Wyse, 2018).

The current study contributes both to the developing research literature on the well-being of older offenders on release from prison and to supporting ongoing efforts to deliver relevant, evidenced-based correctional programs for older offenders in the community.

Older Offenders in Canada

Age 50 years is used in Canada to define an older offender (Iftene, 2016; Nolan & Stewart, 2017; Zinger & Landry, 2019), based on studies that have demonstrated a shorter lifespan by as much as 5 to 15 years among offenders compared to the general population (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2017) and a high prevalence of cognitive disorders compared to older people in the community (Combalbert et al., 2018). On the basis of their criminal history, older offenders can be divided into four groups: (1) older persons serving short-term probation or custody sentences under the supervision of provincial or territorial correctional services, (2) prisoners who have grown old in prison serving long sentences, (3) recidivists, those convicted and imprisoned earlier in life and returned to prison at older age for committing a new offence and (4) first time older prisoners with no prior criminal history (Gobeil et al., 2014; ICRC, 2018).

The majority of older offenders in Canada are under the supervision of provincial or territorial correctional services serving a short-term community or custodial sentence, maximum 2 years less a day. Older offenders serving short-term sentences under provincial or territorial supervision are likely to make use of already available supports if serving a community sentence or, if in custody, to require short-term specialized services in the custodial facility or in the surrounding community (Brown & Brozowski, 2003).

Those serving longer sentences in prison, from 2 years to life, are held under federal supervision by the Correctional Service Canada. Older offenders accounted for 25.1% or 3,441 of the 13,720 offenders held in custody in prisons under federal jurisdiction in 2019/2020, an increase in number of 45% over the past decade (Public Safety Canada, 2009, 2022). Older offenders account for an even larger proportion of those on release in the community. Of the 9,382 offenders on release from federal custody to complete their sentence in the community on parole, statutory release, or long-term supervision in 2019/2020, 3,654 or 38.9% were 50 years of age or more, an increase of 45% since 2008/2009 (Public Safety Canada, 2009, 2022).

The federal custody older prisoner population is a focus of concern for the correctional system and for public interest stakeholder groups such as the Office of the Correctional Investigator and the Canadian Human Rights Commission (Zinger & Landry, 2019), and the John Howard Society (2019), among others. This population is characterized by higher rates of both chronic and infectious disease and prescription medication use compared to younger offenders and the general public (Delveaux et al., 2017; Nolan & Stewart, 2017; Stewart et al., 2015), history of substance misuse (Gobeil et al., 2014; Ruddell et al., 2010), and growing needs for age-appropriate or accommodated programs and facilities (Zinger, 2019), capped by rapidly rising costs of institutional care (Zinger & Landry, 2019).

At the same time, there is developing interest in older offenders on release from Canadian federal custody and living in the community, given their growing numbers and important gaps in knowledge about their needs and experiences in reentering and reintegrating into the community after having been removed from society for long periods of time (Colibaba, 2019; Ruddell et al., 2010; Zinger & Landry, 2019). Parallel with a population-wide study of the health care needs of older prisoners being undertaken by Correctional Service Canada (Hirdes et al., 2020), in April 2019 a smaller study of older offenders on release and living in the community was commissioned to assess their health care needs and reentry experiences. This paper reports on the results of semi-structured interviews conducted with the participants in this smaller, community based study, comparing older offenders released from prison after serving long sentences, older recidivists, and first time older offenders on their state of well-being, defined as “the combination of feeling good and functioning well” (Ruggeri et al., 2020, p. 1) and “a holistic state of wellness” including “physical, cognitive, emotional, spiritual, economic well-being” (Maschi et al., 2013, p. 546).

Method

Research Design

An embedded mixed-methods design (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017) combining both quantitative and qualitative measures was chosen for the study, reflecting the exploratory, descriptive purpose of the research (Hunter et al., 2019), and to support the reliability and validity of the research results (Creswell, 2018; Timans et al., 2019). The Nipissing University Research Ethics Board (NUREB) reviewed and approved the study.

Sampling Strategy and Participants

A nonproportionate quota sampling strategy was used to ensure as broad a regional distribution as possible, and representation from women and persons with Indigenous ancestry (Creswell, 2018; Hoover et al., 2019; Morrow et al., 2007; Robinson, 2014). All offenders on conditional release from federal custody aged 50 years or older and living in the community during the study recruitment period July 2019 to December 2019 were eligible to participate in the study. Parole offices with a sufficient number of potential participants were targeted for the sample recruitment. Interviews took place at the parole office in a room set aside for that purpose or by telephone at the request of the participant.

A total of N = 64 older offenders participated in the study, with representation from each of the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairie, and Pacific regions of Canada, and men (87.7%) women (12.3%), Indigenous (30.8%), and non-Indigenous (69.2%) older offenders.

Instruments and Procedures

A semi-structured interview instrument was developed to collect data for the study based on questions used in the population-wide study of the health care needs of older prisoners undertaken by CSC (Hirdes et al., 2020), combined with additional questions derived from a review of the research literature on older offenders. The interview instrument was composed of a number of preliminary, open-ended questions about participants’ perceptions and experiences of older age and questions on demographic background and incarceration history, followed by a combination of closed-ended, numerically-scored and open-ended questions spanning offenders’ perceptions and experiences on the topics of Health and Wellness, Family, Friends and Social Relationships, Housing and Community, Avoidance of Substance Misuse, Personal/Emotional, and Connection to Culture/Spirituality.

Two members of the research team were present at each interview to ensure consistency in administration of the instrument, and recording of responses.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data on the sample participants’ demographic and criminal history characteristics and the numerically-scored interview data were entered into SPSS Statistics 27 (IBM Corporation, 2020) and chi-square analyses were conducted to identify statistically significant differences between the three older offender groups in response to the numerically-scored interview questions. Sample participants’ verbal responses to the open-ended interview questions were transcribed and entered into NVivo 12 Pro (QSR International, 2018) for the purposes of coding, classifying, and reporting responses.

Results

Participants self-identified as a long-term, recidivist, or first-time older offender in response to the interview item “How would you answer this question?”

I have grown older in custody as a result of a lengthy sentence

imposed when I was younger

I have had multiple admissions and have served much of my adult life in custody

I was incarcerated for the first time in my 50’s or 60’s

Participants’ age and criminal history characteristics, and responses to the close-ended, numerically-scored interview questions on the topics of Health and Wellness, Family Friends and Social Relationships, Housing and Community, Avoidance of Substance Misuse, Personal/Emotional, and Connection to Culture/Spirituality, by older offender group (long-term, recidivist, and first time), are shown in Tables 1 through 5, along with chi-square tests of statistical significance. Participants’ open-ended verbal responses to questions asked under each topic are reported in the accompanying analysis of results. Owing to the quantitatively small sample size, subgroup comparisons for gender or Indigenous ancestry are not presented, and chi-square significance tests should be interpreted with caution, as indicative of potential relationships.

Table 1.

Age and Criminal History Characteristics, by Offender Group (N = 64) a .

Theme/question/response Long term % (n) Recidivists % (n) First time % (n) χ2 df
Current age (years) (study midpoint)
 50–64 60.6 (20) 100 (11) 45.0 (9) 9.307 4
 65–74 33.3 (11) — 45.0 (9)
 75 or older 6.1 (2) — 10.0 (2)
Age when admitted for most recent offence (years)
 Less than 30 21.2 (7) 10.0 (1) — 12.150* 4
 30–49 42.4 (14) 40.0 (4) 15.8 (3)
 50 or older 36.4 (12) 50.0 (5) 84.2 (16)
Offence type
 Homicide 63.6 (21) 36.4 (4) 15.0 (3) 24.901** 8
 Sexual offence 15.2 (5) 9.1 (1) 35.0 (7)
 Other violent 15.2 (5) 36.4 (4) 5.0 (1)
 Drug offence 3.0 (1) — 15.0 (3)
 Property/other nonviolent 3.0 (1) 18.2 (2) 30.0 (6)
Age most recently released from prison (years)
 Less than 50 33.3 (11) 18.2 (2) 5.0 (1) 16.264* 6
 50–64 45.5 (15) 81.8 (9) 40.0 (8)
 65–74 18.2 (6) — 45.0 (9)
 75 or older 3.0 (1) — 10.0 (2)
Time on release (years) (study midpoint)
 Less than 1 24.2 (8) 27.3 (3) 50.0 (10) 6.764 4
 1–5 45.5 (15) 54.5 (6) 45.0 (9)
 More than 5 30.3 (10) 18.2 (2) 5.0 (1)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

a

Missing data <5%.

Table 2.

Sample Participants’ Responses to Close-Ended, Numerically-Scored Interview Questions, By Health and Wellness, and Offender Group (N = 64) a .

Theme/question/response Long term % (n) Recidivist % (n) First time % (n) χ2 df
Any physical conditions limit activities?
 No 27.3 (9) 27.3 (3) 45.0 (9) 1.960 2
 Yes 72.7 (24) 72.7 (8) 55.0 (11)
Do you take any medications?
 No 12.1 (4) 9.1 (1) 15.0 (3) 0.235 2
 Yes 87.9 (29) 90.9 (10) 85.0 (17)
Do you have a family doctor?
 No 18.2 (6) 27.3 (3) 25.0 (5) 0.565 4
 Yes 81.8 (27) 72.7 (8) 75.0 (15)
Do you have a dentist?
 No 51.5 (17) 63.6 (7) 70.0 (14) 1.864 2
 Yes 48.5 (16) 36.4 (4) 30.0 (6)
Do you have mental health professional you see?
 No 54.5 (18) 63.6 (7) 70.0 (14) 1.290 2
 Yes 45.5 (15) 36.4 (4) 30.0 (6)
Have you had any issues with substance misuse?
 No 45.5 (15) 27.3 (3) 65.0 (13) 4.287 2
 Yes 54.5 (18) 72.7 (8) 35.0 (7)
Do you have addiction treatment specialist you see?
 No 63.6 (21) 63.6 (7) 90.0 (18) 4.728 2
 Yes 36.4 (12) 36.4 (4) 10.0 (2)
How well do you think your health needs are met?
 Not well 21.2 (7) 0.0 (0) 5.3 (1) 5.183 4
 Somewhat 30.3 (10) 45.5 (5) 31.6 (6)
 Very well 48.5 (16) 54.5 (6) 63.2 (12)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

a

Missing data <5%.

Table 3.

Sample Participants’ Responses to Close-Ended, Numerically-Scored Interview Questions, By Family, Friends, and Social Relationships, and Offender Group (N = 64) a .

Theme/question/response Long term % (n) Recidivist % (n) First time % (n) χ2 df
Currently receive support from family members?
 No 36.4 (12) 27.3 (3) 30.0 (6) 0.414 2
 Yes 63.6 (21) 72.7 (8) 70.0 (14)
Involved in intimate relationship now or at some point during your release?
 No 60.6 (20) 54.5 (6) 60.0 (12) 0.130 2
 Yes 39.4 (13) 45.5 (5) 40.0 (8)
Do you have any children?
 No 33.3 (11) 54.5 (6) 10.0 (2) 7.180* 2
 Yes 66.7 (22) 45.5 (5) 90.0 (18)
Do you socialize with friends often?
 No 21.2 (7) 36.4 (4) 60.0 (12) 8.139* 2
 Yes 78.8 (26) 63.6 (7) 40.0 (8)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

a

Missing data <5%.

Table 4.

Sample Participants’ Responses to Close-Ended, Numerically-Scored Interview Questions, By Housing and Community, and Group (N = 64) a .

Theme/question/response Long term % (n) Recidivist % (n) First time % (n) χ2 Df
Does your older age limit your ability to function in the community?
 No 66.7 (22) 81.8 (9) 65.0 (13) 1.027 2
 Yes 33.3 (11) 18.2 (2) 35.0 (7)
Has criminal record limited ability to function in community?
 No 39.4 (13) 18.2 (2) 50.0 (10) 3.021 2
 Yes 60.6 (20) 81.8 (9) 50.0 (10)
Where you are living now, is it a safe and stable living arrangement?
 No 6.1 (2) 9.1 (1) 5.0 (1) 0.207 2
 Yes 93.9 (31) 90.9 (10) 95.0 (19)
Do you see a time when you will be living in a supported living situation?
 No 60.6 (20) 54.5 (6) 55.0 (11) 0.219 2
 Yes 39.4 (13) 45.5 (5) 45.0 (9)
What is your current employment status?
 Working f.t./p.t. 42.4 (14) 81.8 (9) 30.0 (6) 11.389 8
 Unemployed 21.2 (7) 9.1 (1) 35.0 (7)
 Unable to work (disability) 12.1 (4) 9.1 (1) 5.0 (1)
 Retired 21.2 (7) — 20.0 (4)
Do you have sources of income other than job?
 No 21.2 (7) 81.8 (9) 20.0 (4) 15.818*** 2
 Yes 78.8 (26) 18.2 (2) 80.0 (16)
What would you estimate your annual income to be?
 Less than $30,000 per year 78.8 (26) 36.4 (4) 73.7 (14) 6.482* 2
 $30,000 per year or more 18.2 (6) 54.5 (6) 26.3 (5)
Following release enrolled in or completed any programs?
 No 21.2 (7) 9.1 (1) 40.0 (8) 4.137 2
 Yes 78.8 (26) 90.9 (10) 60.0 (12)
Do you continue to see a parole officer on a regular basis?
 No — — — — —
 Yes 100 (33) 100 (11) 100 (20)
Is your parole officer sensitive to any limitations you may have based on your age?
 No 33.3 (11) 50.0 (5) 50.0 (10) 1.801 2
 Yes 66.7 (22) 50.0 (5) 50.0 (10)
Are you able to access leisure activities you would like to be a part of?
 No 24.2 (8) 18.2 (2) 15.0 (3) 0.694 2
 Yes 75.8 (25) 81.8 (9) 85.0 (17)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

a

Missing data <5%.

Table 5.

Sample Participants’ Responses to Close-Ended, Numerically-Scored Interview Questions, By Personal/Emotional/Spiritual, and Offender Group (N = 64) a .

Theme/question/response Long term % (n) Recidivist % (n) First time % (n) χ2 df
Do you feel safe in the community?
 No 3.1 (1) — 5.0 (1) 0.578 2
 Yes 96.9 (31) 100 (11) 95.0 (19)
Have you been a victim of bullying or abuse?
 No 87.5 (28) 81.8 (9) 100 (20) 3.391 2
 Yes 12.5 (4) 18.2 (2) —
Do you have someone you can reach out to if you need help?
 No 6.1 (2) — 5.0 (1) 0.685 2
 Yes 93.9 (31) 100 (11) 95.0 (19)
Do you think you spend too much time on your own?
 No 75.8 (25) 63.6 (7) 78.9 (15) 0.911 2
 Yes 24.2 (8) 36.4 (4) 21.1 (4)
Is loneliness a problem for you?
 No 84.8 28) 72.7 (8) 78.9 (15) 0.857 2
 Yes 15.2 (5) 27.3 (3) 21.1 (4)
Do you consider yourself connected to your culture?
 No 27.3 (9) 18.2 (2) 60.0 (12) 7.612* 2
 Yes 72.7 (24) 81.8 (9) 40.0 (8)
Do you consider yourself a religious or spiritual person?
 No 24.2 (8) — 20.0 (4) 3.212 2
 Yes 75.8 (25) 100 (11) 80.0 (16)
If you are an Indigenous person, do you use any cultural resources in the community?
 No 46.2 (6) 20.0 (1) 50.0 (1) 1.122 2
 Yes 53.8 (7) 80.0 (4) 50.0 (1)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

a

Missing data <5%.

There is a statistically significant difference in age admitted for most recent offence χ2 (4, n = 62) = 12.150, p = .016), offence type χ2 (8, n = 64) = 24.901, p = .002), and age most recently released from prison (χ2 (6, n = 64) = 16.264, p = .012), with long-term offenders younger on admission, more likely to have been convicted of homicide or other violent offences and, consequently, slightly older age at release; recidivists are older at admission for most recent offence, more likely (55%) to be convicted of other violent or property/nonviolent offences carrying shorter sentences, and younger in age at release. First time older offenders are the oldest group at admission, are more likely to be convicted of sexual offences, drug, or property or other nonviolent offences, and are the oldest group at release. Most of those interviewed had been on conditional release for 5 years or less.

The relationship between the seriousness of their offence, time served, and difficulty adjusting to release in the community was a common theme among long-term offenders in the open-ended interviews, expressed “as an older offender there’s no leniency for you” or,

Well when I first got out I mean trying to find work and I mean I’m a sex offender and so right away that’s harder than a regular offender and so but mostly just right away they’re like no way not a chance.

For first-time older offenders, the nature of their offence and related conditions of release were often cited as the most significant barrier affecting their successful release “because it was an accounting [related offence] I can’t work with other people’s money so there’s a lot of restrictions.”

Sample participants’ responses to the close-ended interview questions concerning health and wellness, by offender group, are shown in Table 2. Long-term older offenders and recidivists are proportionately more likely (>70%) to report having a physical condition that limits their activities, possibly related to their length of imprisonment or criminal lifestyle (Reimer et al., 2021; Testa & Semenza, 2020), while only about half (55%) of first-time older offenders report having a physical limitation on activity.

Most older offenders (>80%) in the community take some form of prescribed medication, and most (>70%) report having a family doctor, though fewer than half reported having a dentist. In response to the open-ended interview questions, long-term older offenders generally expressed the feeling that their physical condition and health care needs were just a natural consequence of growing old, “I have a good life I’ve got access to things I mean our healthcare could be improved but you know that’s for everybody not just me you know” and first-time older offenders reported a similar perspective on their physical condition “the usual, you know, the effects of aging - I suppose health, lifestyle.” Recidivists were more likely than the other two groups to express frustration with trying to access health care resources in the community, as explained one older recidivist:

When it comes to being an ex-offender there is no healthcare other than what anybody else living in the community has so you’re not hooked up with a doctor you’re not hooked up with mental health you’re not hooked up with an addictions counsellor you’re sent to organizations and agencies and put on waiting lists but there’s nothing immediately available to address whatever issue you might be dealing with so you’re coming out with an issue that hasn’t been dealt with no place to go and nobody to turn to and you’re on your own.

Fewer than half of older offenders in the community reported having a mental health or addiction treatment specialist. Nearly three-quarters (72.7%) of recidivist older offenders report having issues with substance misuse while on release, but only about a third (36.4%) reported seeing an addiction treatment specialist. The link between substance misuse and recidivism is well established in the research literature (Goodley et al., 2022; McKendy & Ricciardelli, 2019; Ternes et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2015). According to one member of the recidivist group:

It [substance abuse] is and probably will be [an issue for me] for the rest of my life I have to stay on top of it.

For long-term older offenders, substance misuse could still be a risk, though their perspective was more hopeful:

Let’s put it this way: the last time I drank was 20 years ago the last time I used heroin was 14 years ago and I’ve been clean and sober since those dates . . . I mean no triggers no urges nothing like that.

First-time older offenders were least likely to report issues with substance misuse while on community release.

Most older offender participants reported the quality of health care services they received in the community was much better than in prison with better access to health care and related treatment services, as well as more specialized treatment:

Totally different. I mean, you have access to everybody out here, right? It’s just a matter of which one you wanna go to, a doctor, dentist, psychologist, psychiatrist, whatever, so you have much more access out here right.

Still, for some long-term older offenders, the experience of accessing health care services was different:

Well if I needed hearing aids on the inside I would have had them and there wouldn’t have been any questions asked. But because I’m in the community and on parole, CSC doesn’t want to pay for them.

Participants’ responses to the close-ended interview questions on the topic of family, friends, and social relationships, by offender group, are shown in Table 3. Overall, two-thirds (66.2%) of older offenders report receiving support from family members while living in the community, though long-term older offenders are somewhat more likely to report receiving no support (36.4%): “my mother’s died my father’s died no there’s nobody” and “no, I have no more family left.” For some, friends replaced family as the main source of support “I have really, really good friends that I get my support from. They’re like family.”

Only 40% of those interviewed report being in an intimate relationship either currently or in the recent past, and for those currently in a relationship many of these were longstanding: “I don’t know where I would be if I didn’t have my husband to be honest with you . . . he’s been there one hundred percent so he’s a good man.” Others spoke about the difficulty of pursuing an intimate relationship while on parole:

Well I got married on my release. When he left he said he wanted his old life back, I guess corrections really, you know, affected his lifestyle kind of thing. I won’t do it again I’ll tell you that.

There is a statistically significant difference (χ2 (2, n = 64) = 7.180, p = .028) in whether or not those interviewed report having children, with recidivists (45.5%) least likely to have children, followed by long-term offenders (66.7%), while almost all (90%) of first time older offenders report having children. There is also a statistically significant difference between the older offender groups in socialization with friends while on release in the community (χ2 (2, n = 64) = 8.139, p = .017), with less than half (40%) of first-time older offenders reporting that they socialize with friends often.

Though most of those interviewed reported that their relationships with their children were “good” or even “excellent,” still for long-term older offenders the negative impact of their incarceration on their relationships with their children was a consistent theme:

I think right now the best relationship I have or the best way of being a father is not being a father. She grew up. . .my ex-wife remarried so she had a father that she grew up with so it was better for me to step away . . . the best way of me being a father is not being a father right now I choose that.

Socializing with friends was generally recognized by older offenders as a positive influence and a strong source of support in adjusting to life in the community on release, though some of those interviewed recognized the risk that old friendships posed “the only people that I know are cons or ex-cons right so if I want to change my life I would have to make new friends I guess.” For others, in particular first-time older offenders, finding new friends could be a struggle “They say when you make friends . . . be transparent . . . but then they end the relationship.”

Results of interview questions pertaining to older offenders’ experiences of housing and community while on release are shown in Table 4.

Less than one-third (30.8%) of older offenders expressed the belief that their older age limited their ability to function in the community, but nearly two-thirds (61.5%) reported that their criminal record did limit their ability to function in the community, with recidivists (81.8%) most likely to experience such a limitation. For those who did experience limitations based on age or criminal record, these were usually framed in relation to finding employment: “You need to find work and if you’re older, you’re pretty well SOL.” According to one long-term offender,

I’m a sex offender and so right away that’s harder than a regular offender and so but mostly just right away they’re like no way not a chance it doesn’t matter how well you’ve done even if your crime didn’t really or has nothing to do with what you’re going to be doing it’s just that stigma. Of all the crimes I mean you’re better off to be a murderer. I mean truthfully they’re more likely to get a job then someone like myself.

Overall, 94% of those interviewed reported that their living arrangement was safe and stable, and most (59%) did not foresee living in a supported living situation in the future, though fear of ending up in a nursing home was a common theme:

Well the only thing that worries me is infirmity you know like to end up in the nursing home right you know I really don’t . . . you know I hope that doesn’t happen in my case.

Most recidivist older offenders (81.8%) reported being employed full-time, while fewer than half of long-term and first-time older offenders were working full-time, with about 20% of these reporting being retired. There is a statistically significant difference between the three groups in sources of income other than from a job (χ2 (2, n = 64) = 15.818, p = .000), and in estimated annual income (χ2 (2, n = 61) = 6.482, p = .039), with recidivist older offenders more likely to report having income only from a job and to report an income of $30,000 or more annually: “I make 90” and “It would be more. But what I tell everybody is I’m a man of little money but I have an awful lot of assets.” Most long-term and first-time older offenders reported that pension income was their main source of income, including CPP, QPP, OAS, GIS, military pension and pension from previous employment, and some reported receiving a disability pension “I have a federal Disability Pension yep and that’s because of the years I worked I put into it” or for some of those with Indigenous ancestry “I get money from my band.”

A majority (75%) of older offenders reported being enrolled in or having completed programs while on release, offered by CSC itself or by other agencies, with recidivists (90.9%) most likely to participate. For many, enrollment in CSC programs was perceived as mandatory, or at least an expectation concerning their conditional release, though most agreed the programs were beneficial “it’s been positive . . . it helps you analyze when you’re going to go and do and like your past and your future.” Non-CSC delivered programs, including AA, NA, Indigenous programs, Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA), and resume and job skills courses, were likewise often seen as something you had to do “the only reason I’m doing that [NA course] is it shows that there is no problem there” though again among those who completed programs, the assessment was positive “that [place] helped me out a lot you know because they do the PTSD thing right.” All of those interviewed (100%) see their parole officer on a regular basis, and more than half (57%) reported that their parole officer was sensitive any limitations they might have because of their older age “Oh yes, yes she is she checks with me you know to see if I can come into the office or if she should come over or whatever you know.” Others expressed ambivalence about the role of the parole officer itself:

All they’re looking for is to make sure that I’m not screwing up. That’s their job I don’t see their job as being somebody that’s there to help me although he does my parole officer does but I don’t see their role as that, I see their role more as a peace officer trying to make sure that I’m not going to go astray right.

More than three-quarters (78.5%) of older offenders reported being able to access all of the leisure activities they wanted to participate in, though finances, physical limitations “Walking is about it I can do right now” and fear of breaching parole conditions were factors in choosing to avoid some activities:

I don’t go and get involved in anything I don’t even go to the fair or anything like that Just because you don’t want to go? Well no I just don’t go because I’m not going to do much of anything until I finish my warrant right the last thing I need is somebody complaining or causing issues and then I got called in on suspicion and this and that and it just gets blown out of hand really fast.

Sample participants’ responses to the close-ended interview questions, on the topic of personal/emtional/spiritual health, by offender group, are detailed in Table 5. (Almost all (95%) older offenders reported having someone they could reach out to when they needed help (95%). Only a small proportion (9%) of those interviewed reported being a victim of bullying or abuse while living in the community, with recidivists (18.2%) most likely to report having been victimized. Overall, one-quarter (25%) of older offenders reported spending too much time on their own, and about 20% reported that loneliness was a problem.

For those who did experience bullying in the community, it was most often employment-related “I did have some employment bullying.” Some did report other forms of abuse, including racial abuse, but most believed it was something they could handle themselves “Oh I can handle that part I have no problems.” When they did need help, most older offenders reported they could rely on family members, including their spouse, their children, siblings, and parents.

Others reported relying on friends, their church Pastor or, in the case of those with Indigenous ancestry, Elders “I have numerous Elders on my support network,” while still others relied on their parole officer “I would reach out to my PO” and CSC itself as a source of help;

“I have family yeah I have some people and then there’s always CSC because I’m a lifer they can’t let me go that’s the one benefit I do have as a lifer is that you know they’re stuck with me for life so.”

For those who reported spending too much time alone, and especially among long-term older offenders, this was often reported as a positive thing “After 14 years of being around 700 other men you know I’ll never be alone again right you know what I mean, I really enjoy my solitude” and “Nope I like being on my own I did 12 years on my own I’m comfortable with myself.” Loneliness, on the other hand, could sometimes be a problem, as expressed by one recidivist older offender:

Loneliness is a problem for me I could be in a crowded room and feel very alone. . . and sometimes I’m sitting there for a few minutes and I’ll start crying for no reason.

There is a statistically significant difference between the three groups of older offenders with respect to their maintaining a connection to their cultural background (χ2 (2, n = 64) = 7.612, p = .022), with the majority of long-term and recidivist older offenders reporting a connection (73% and 82%, respectively), while less than half (40%) of first-time older offenders reported being connected to their culture. For those who reported a connection with their culture, the majority of whom reported having Indigenous ancestry, this was often placed in the context of self-discovery and social support:

I guess it’s helped me quite a bit to more understand who I am and how to deal with myself living in the community and who I can contact with making friends through ceremonies basically to understand who I am I guess.

Overall, 80% of those interviewed reported that they considered themselves a religious or spiritual person. For many, especially those with Indigenous ancestry, religion, and spirituality played an important role in supporting successful reentry;

I’m not sure how to describe it all but it’s had a deep impact and I know that’s a big part of why I don’t feel stressed out I don’t feel threatened I don’t feel like I’m not worried about. . .My faith in God is complete that way and that’s what gives me the peace of mind I have about pretty well every area of my life.

Sixty percent of older offenders with an Indigenous background said they made use of cultural resources available in the Indigenous community, with recidivists (80%) most likely to use Indigenous resources in the community “Yeah, I do yep not only in the city here but all over the place.”

Discussion

Older offenders on conditional release from federal custody and living in the community demonstrate many of the same age-related health and social functioning needs as their chronologically older (65+ years), non-offender counterparts, according to findings from studies of the older, non-institutionalized population where physical limitations on activities due to chronic ailments and fear of falls are common (Canadian Medical Association, 2016; Maresova et al., 2019; Sanmartin, 2016), where there is growing reliance on health, social services, and family for assistance with daily functioning (Ploeg et al., 2019; Statistics Canada, 2021), where feelings of social isolation and loneliness are frequent (Gilmour & Ramage-Morin, 2020; Rozanova et al., 2012; Statistics Canada, 2021), concerns about housing and finances are prevalent (Ivanova et al., 2017; Strohschein, 2012), and where ending up in a nursing home and death are significant fears (Campbell-Enns et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2018).

On the other hand, older offenders are much more likely than their older, non-offender, non-institutionalized counterparts to have a history of and current problems with substance abuse, to report mental health problems, and to have experienced traumatic head and musculoskeletal injuries during their lifetime: “It’s [substance abuse or misuse has] sent me back in a couple of times actually all the times I went back in as a result of that if I didn’t have a drinking restriction or drug using restriction I never would have went back in” and “Sometimes I see my Orthopedic for my injuries and a urologist because my bladder was punctured in the accident yeah” (Brown et al., 2018; Nolan & Stewart, 2017; Stewart et al., 2015).

Combined with low incomes and absence of family supports, long-term older offenders are especially vulnerable to a lack of well-being “the combination of feeling good and functioning well” (Ruggeri et al., 2020, p. 1) while on conditional release in the community:

Yeah cuz on full parole they leave you to your own resources and I’m a lifer so I’m on parole for the rest of my life and I’m on disability so I have really limited resources as far as finances go and yeah they don’t pay for dental they don’t pay for eyecare they don’t pay for medical premiums you know I’m dealing with all of that that’s not nice either.

For first-time older offenders, those oldest at admission to federal custody and on release, the experience of release into the community is affected by their significantly higher proportion of sexual (35%) and property-related (30%) predominantly financial offences. Restrictions on employment due to having committed a fraud-related offence, and restrictions on involvement in other activities in the community stemming from these and sexual offences are a consistent theme: “because it was an accounting I can’t work with other people’s money so there’s a lot of restrictions” and “I would like to go but I cannot . . . because of the conditions.” At the same time, compared to other older offenders, first-time older offenders are also less likely to report spending time with friends “I don’t know it’s just it could be funner if you had friends everything you do is you’re alone.” The vulnerability and trauma experienced by first-time older offenders on being incarcerated (Brown & Brozowski, 2003) is compounded on release by their social isolation, though many report still receiving support from family.

Recidivists represent another distinct group of older offenders, resulting from their greater number of criminal convictions and involvement in living a criminal lifestyle (Testa & Semenza, 2020). Recidivist older offenders are younger in age, more likely to have been convicted of “other” (non-homicide, non-sexual) violent offences, and more likely to have a substance abuse problem. Compared to other older offenders, recidivists report more support from family and are more likely to be involved in an intimate relationship, but are least likely to report having children. Recidivists are the most likely (81.8%) to report that their criminal record limits their ability to function in the community, in large part because most (81.8%) are working full-time or part-time, and their job is their sole source of income. Due to their employment, recidivists are significantly more likely to report an annual income in excess of $30,000, and consequently are least likely to report issues with low income “I have several vehicles but right now I’m having issues with my license . . . My company has a driver for me” and “It’s just that I’m doing really good and I’m working and I just moved into my own place and I’m doing really good.” Nearly half (45.5%) of the recidivist older offender group report having an Indigenous ancestry, and are consequently most likely to report being connected to their culture, to being a religious or spiritual person, and to making use of Indigenous cultural resources in the community.

Limitations of the Study

The older offender sample N = 64 is large in comparison to most qualitative studies (Kim et al., 2017; Vasileiou et al., 2018), but still both quantitative and qualitative analyses of results should be interpreted with caution, and are best viewed are exploratory and suggestive of areas requiring broader study (Hunter et al., 2019).

Only 6% of older offenders who participated in the study were 75 years of age or older, and so the study results cannot speak to the community well-being of this “older” older offender group, those most likely to experience declining health, loss of cognitive and functional capacity, and to require living supported living accommodations. Similarly, no women over the age of 70 years participated in the study and consequently, their needs are not addressed by the current study.

Conclusion and Study Implications

In Canada, a network of publicly funded health care, pension and old-age security benefits, other forms of social assistance, and publicly funded supported housing plays an important role in easing the transition to community for older offenders, though most (68%), in particular long-term and first-time older offenders, will find themselves living at or below the poverty line (Statistics Canada, 2022) and struggling to afford medications, treatments (including addiction and mental health supports) and assistive devices not covered by publicly funded health care. Nearly one-third (32%), especially long-term older offenders, will experience social isolation from community and from family due to their criminal history and lengthy incarceration. First-time older offenders are especially likely to experience challenges finding employment and engaging with friends and the community based on the nature of their offences. For those with Indigenous ancestry, Indigenous communities, and cultural organizations play a significant role in supporting older offenders.

For most older offenders, supervision of their conditional release in the community will require coordinating and supporting access to the broad range of community-based healthcare, mental health, addiction treatment, income support and employment, housing, transportation, and recreational resources to support their well-being and, consequently, their ongoing successful release. Recidivists stand out as a distinct subgroup among older offenders; younger, still employed, higher incomes, more likely to receive support from family and friends and still at high risk for involvement in criminal activity, they will require more active parole supervision to reduce the risk of reoffending.

Larger studies of the growing institutional and community populations of older offenders will be of benefit in further specifying the needs of the different groups of older offenders, including women and Indigenous offenders, and their custody, care and supervision requirements.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was funded under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Correctional Service of Canada and the Institute for Applied Social Research at Nipissing University. The conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors.

ORCID iD: Gregory P. Brown Inline graphic https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7754-1812

References

  1. Angus C. (2015). Older prisoners: Trends and challenges. NSW Parliamentary Research Service. [Google Scholar]
  2. Beaudette J., Stewart L. A. (2014). Older offenders in the custody of the Correctional Service Canada (Research in Brief, No. 14-21). Correctional Service Canada. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown G. P., Brozowski K. (2003). Golden years? The incarceration of the older offender. Geriatrics Today, 6, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown G. P., Barker J., McMillan K., Norman R., Derkzen D., Stewart L. A., Wardrop K. (2018). Prevalence of mental disorder among federally sentenced women offenders: In-Custody and intake samples (Research Report R-420). Correctional Service Canada. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bryson W. C., Cotton B. P., Brooks J. M. (2017). Mental health, substance use, and socioeconomic needs of older persons paroled or placed on probation. Psychiatric Services, 68(6), 640–641. 10.1176/appi.ps.201600492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Campbell-Enns H. J., Campbell M., Rieger K. L., Thompson G. N., Doupe M. B. (2020). No other safe care option: Nursing home admission as a last resort strategy. The Gerontologist, 60(8), 1504–1514. 10.1093/geront/gnaa077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Canada K. E., Barrenger S. L., Robinson E. L., Washington K. T., Mills T. (2020). A systematic review of interventions for older adults living in jails and prisons. Aging & Mental Health, 24(7), 1019–1027. 10.1080/13607863.2019.1584879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Canadian Medical Association. (2016). The state of seniors health care in Canada. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cartwright M. E. (2016). The silver tsunami: Aging prisoners, early release, guardianship and prisoner advocate initiatives for long term care beyond the prison walls. Journal of Aging, Longevity, Law, and Policy, 1(1), 6. [Google Scholar]
  10. Colibaba A. (2019). Community reintegration of aging offenders: Gaps in knowledge report. Trent Centre for Aging & Society, Trent University. [Google Scholar]
  11. Combalbert N., Pennequin V., Ferrand C., Armand M., Anselme M., Geffray B. (2018). Cognitive impairment, self-perceived health and quality of life of older prisoners. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 28, 36–49. 10.1002/cbm.2023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Creswell J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Delveaux K., MacDonald C., McConnell A., Bradley S., Crawford A., Tse F., Luong D., Ly H., Marseille-Paquin L., McLean-McKay M., Beauchamp T., May B., Towns D., Loree E., Kambou H., Ndayubaha J., Aziaba K., White K., Lefebvre A. (2017). Evaluation of CSC’s health services. Correctional Service Canada. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/publications/092/005007-2017-eng.pdf [Google Scholar]
  14. De Smet S., De Donder L., Ryan D., Van Regenmortel S., Brosens D., Vandevelde S. (2017). Factors related to the quality of life of older prisoners. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 26(6), 1571–1585. 10.1007/s11136-017-1506-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilmour H., Ramage-Morin P. L. (2020). Social isolation and mortality among Canadian seniors. Health Reports, 31(3), 27–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gobeil R., Allenby K., Greiner L. (2014). A brief profile of incarcerated older men offenders. Research Snippet. April 2014 - Number RS-14-02. Correctional Service Canada. [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodley G., Pearson D., Morris P. (2022). Predictors of recidivism following release from custody: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 28(7), 703–729. 10.1080/1068316X.2021.1962866 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hart E. L., van Ginneken E. F. J. C. (2017). New perspectives on desistance: Theoretical and empirical developments. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hirdes J., Sinha S. K., Brown G. P., Foster N., Heurter D., MacLeod S., Garner A., Jantzi M. (2020). Use of the interRAI emergency department contact assessment final report. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo. Research sponsored and funded by Correctional Service of Canada. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoover D. S., Pappadis M. R., Housten A. J., Krishnan S., Weller S. C., Giordano S. H., Bevers T. B., Goodwin J. S., Volk R. J. (2019). Preferences for communicating about breast cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse older women. Health Communication, 34(7), 702–706. 10.1080/10410236.2018.1431026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hunter D. J., Howes D., McCallum J. (2019). Defining Exploratory-Descriptive Qualitative (EDQ) research and considering its application to healthcare. GSTF Journal of Nursing and Health Care, 4(1). 10.5176/2345-7198_4.1.202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. IBM Corporation. (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 27.0).
  23. Internal Committee of the Red Cross. (2018). Ageing and detention.
  24. Iftene A. (2016). Unlocking the doors to Canadian older inmate mental health data: Rates and potential legal responses. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 36–44. 10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.032 [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Iftene A. (2017). The pains of incarceration: Aging, rights, and policy in federal penitentiaries. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 59(1), 63–93. 10.3138/cjccj.2016.E03 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Iftene A. (2019). Punished for aging: Vulnerability, rights, and access to justice in Canadian penitentiaries. University of Toronto Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ivanova I., Daub S., Cohen M., Jenkins J. (2017). Poverty and inequality among British Columbia’s seniors. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. [Google Scholar]
  28. John Howard Society. (2019). Older prisoners face serious challenges. https://johnhoward.ca/blog/older-prisoners-face-serious-challenges/#:~:text=Older%20prisoners%20are%20a%20group,face%20extra%20challenges%20in%20obtaining
  29. Johnson S., Bacsu J., Abeykoon H., McIntosh T., Jeffery B., Novik N. (2018). No place like home: A systematic review of home care for older adults in Canada. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement, 37(4), 400–419. https://doi.org/:10.1017/S0714980818000375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim H., Sefcik J. S., Bradway C. (2017). Characteristics of qualitative descriptive studies: A systematic review. Research in Nursing & Health, 40(1), 23–42. 10.1002/nur.21768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kouyoumdjian F. G., Andreev E. M., Borschmann R., Kinner S. A., McConnon A. (2017). Do people who experience incarceration age more quickly? Exploratory analyses using retrospective cohort data on mortality from Ontario, Canada. PLoS ONE, 12(4), e0175837, 10.1371/journal.pone.0175837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lares L. A., Montgomery S. (2020). Psychosocial needs of released long-term incarcerated older adults. Criminal Justice Review, 45(3), 358–377. 10.1177/0734016820913101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Maresova P., Javanmardi E., Barakovic S., Barakovic Husic J., Tomsone S., Krejcar O., Kuca K. (2019). Consequences of chronic diseases and other limitations associated with old age–a scoping review. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–17. 10.1186/s12889-019-7762-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Maschi T., Viola D., Sun F. (2013). The high cost of the international aging prisoner crisis: Well-being as the common denominator for action. The Gerontologist, 53(4), 543–554. 10.1093/geront/gns125 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Maschi T., Morrisey M. B., Leigey M. (2013). The case for human agency, well-being, and community reintegration for people aging in prison: A statewide case analysis. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 19(3), 194–210. 10.1177/1078345813486445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. McKendy L., Ricciardelli R. (2019). Women offenders under community supervision: Comparing the profiles of returners and non-returners to federal prison. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 875. 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Metzger L., Ahalt C., Kushel M., Riker A., Williams B. (2017). Mobilizing cross-sector community partnerships to address the needs of criminal justice-involved older adults: A framework for action. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 13(3–4), 173–184. 10.1108/IJPH-05-2017-0024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Morrow K. M., Vargas S., Rosen R. K., Christensen A. L., Salomon L., Shulman L., Barroso C., Fava J. L. (2007). The utility of non-proportional quota sampling for recruiting at-risk women for microbicide research. AIDS and Behavior, 11(4), 586–595. 10.1007/s10461-007-9213-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Nolan A. M., Stewart L. A. (2017). Chronic health conditions among incoming Canadian federally sentenced women. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 23(1), 93–103. 10.1177/1078345816685707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Partington S. T. (2017). Age, imprisonment and social re-entry: Exploring the needs and experiences of older offenders following release and resettlement from prison [Doctoral dissertation, University of Huddersfield]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/34149/1/FINAL%20THESIS%20-%20Partington.pdf
  41. Penal Reform International. (2019). Global prison trends.
  42. Ploeg J., Canesi M., Fraser K. D., McAiney C., Kaasalainen S., Markle-Reid M., Dufour S., Baird L.G., Chambers T. (2019). Experiences of community-dwelling older adults living with multiple chronic conditions: A qualitative study. BMJ Open, 9(3), e023345. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Psick Z., Ahalt C., Brown R. T., Simon J. (2017). Prison boomers: Policy implications of aging prison populations. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 13(1), 57–63. 10.1108/IJPH-09-2016-0053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Public Safety Canada. (2009). Corrections and conditional release statistical overview 2009. Public Works and Government Services Canada, Cat. No. PS1-3/2009E.
  45. Public Safety Canada. (2022). Corrections and conditional release statistical overview; 2020 annual report. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ccrso-2020/ccrso-2020-en.pdf [Google Scholar]
  46. QSR International. (2018). NVivio 12 Pro. QSR International Pty Limited. https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products/nvivo-12-pro
  47. Reimer S., Pearce N., Marek A., Heslin K., Moreno A. P. (2021). The impact of incarceration on health and health care utilization: A system perspective. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 32(3), 1403–1414. 10.1353/hpu.2021.0140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Robinson O. C. (2014). Sampling in interview-based qualitative research: A theoretical and practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25–41. 10.1080/14780887.2013.801543 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Rozanova J., Keating N., Eales J. (2012). Unequal social engagement for older adults: Constraints on choice. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 31(1), 25–36. 10.1017/S0714980811000675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ruddell R., Broom I., Young M. (2010). Creating hope for life-sentenced offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(5), 324–341. 10.1080/10509674.2010.489464 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ruggeri K., Garcia-Garzon E., Maguire Á., Matz S., Huppert F. A. (2020). Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: A multidimensional analysis of 21 countries. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 1–16. 10.1186/s12955-020-01423-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sanmartin C. (2016). Research highlights on health and aging: Presentation to the National Statistics Council. Health Analysis Division, Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-631-x/11-631-x2016001-eng.htm [Google Scholar]
  53. Scaggs S. J. (2017). The aging inmate crisis: Institutional adjustment and post-prison outcome differences between older and younger prisoners [Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University]. [Google Scholar]
  54. Schoonenboom J., Johnson R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107–131. 10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Skarupski K. A., Gross A., Schrack J. A., Deal J. A., Eber G. B. (2018). The health of America’s aging prison population. Epidemiologic Reviews, 40(1), 157–165. https://doi.org/0.1093/epirev/mxx020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Statistics Canada. (2021). Table 13-10-0789-01. Health characteristics of seniors aged 65 and over, Canadian Health Survey on Seniors. 10.25318/1310078901 [DOI]
  57. Statistics Canada. (2022). Table 11-10-0241-01. Low income cut-offs (LICOs) before and after tax by community size and family size, in current dollars. 10.25318/1110024101 [DOI]
  58. Stavrou E. (2017). Changing age profile of NSW offenders. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. [Google Scholar]
  59. Stewart L. A., Nolan A., Sapers J., Power J., Panaro L., Smith J. (2015). Chronic health conditions reported by male inmates newly admitted to Canadian federal penitentiaries. CMAJ Open, 3(1), E97–E102. 10.9778/cmajo.20140025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Strohschein L. (2012). I want to move, but cannot: Characteristics of involuntary stayers and associations with health among Canadian seniors. Journal of Aging and Health, 24(5), 735–751. 10.1177/0898264311432312 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ternes M., Farrell Macdonald S., Cheverie M. (2019). Substance use disorder typologies of Canadian federally sentenced men: Relationships with institutional behavior and postrelease success. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(3), 457–474. 10.1177/00938548188112516 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Testa A., Semenza D. (2020). Criminal offending and health over the life-course: A dual- trajectory approach. Journal of Criminal Justice, 68, 101691. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101691 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Thompson J., Forrester T., Stewart L. (2015). Factors related to community supervision outcomes: Revocations (Research Report R-304). Correctional Service Canada. [Google Scholar]
  64. Timans R., Wouters P., Heilbron J. (2019). Mixed methods research: What it is and what it could be. Theory and Society, 48(2), 193–216. 10.1007/s11186-019-09345-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Turner M., Peacock M., Payne S., Fletcher A., Froggatt K. (2018). Ageing and dying in the contemporary neoliberal prison system: Exploring the ‘double burden’for older prisoners. Social Science & Medicine, 212, 161–167. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Vasileiou K., Barnett J., Thorpe S., Young T. (2018). Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 148. 10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Western B., Braga A., Davis J., Sirois C. (2015). Stress and hardship after prison. American Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1512–1547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wyse J. (2018). Older men’s social integration after prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(8), 2153–2173. 10.1177/0306624X16683210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Zinger I. (2019). Office of the correctional investigator annual report 2018–2019. 46th annual report of the correctional investigator. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. https://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/pdf/annrpt/annrpt20182019-eng.pdf [Google Scholar]
  70. Zinger I., Landry M.-C. (2019). Aging and dying in prison: An investigation into the experiences of older individuals in federal custody. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. oth-aut20190228-eng.pdf (chrc-ccdp.gc.ca) [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES