Transforming Parole Together

Martha Blom-Cooper, Director, Business Development

& Ian Clewlow, Deputy CEO, Devon & Cornwall

Probation Trust

Evolved from an advisory body to become a court making judicial decisions on the release of prisoners

Human Rights – Art 5(4) those deprived of liberty entitled to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court

Panels make their own assessment of risk and decide whether the level of risk is acceptable for release and under what conditions

The Parole System: Key Features

• Principles of natural justice apply – the offender is entitled to see all of the evidence

which the Parole Board are considering and the right to legal representation

The Role of Offender Managers

Vital role providing expert risk assessments to inform decision-making

Significant improvements in recall reviews including quality of reports

MoJ Research on parole decision-making for Lifers and IPPs (2012):

1. Correlation between OM recommendation and panel decision

2. Weight attached to RMPs

When the process works well Offender Managers

Have a good understanding of the case and good working relationship with the offender

Provide good quality, evidence-based, reasoned assessments and risk management plans and clear recommendations

Understand the process and what is required of OMs including the legal test which the Parole Board has to apply and the Secretary of State’s referral

Make best use of PPUD to access information and support effective communication with PPCS and PB case managers e.g. about hearing dates

Confidently explain their assessment and responding to reasonably robust questioning at oral hearings

Consult important sources e.g. within MAPPA but “own” their assessment and understand how to handle sensitive information

When the process works well the Parole Board and PPCS:

Ensure effective communication with OMs for example regarding hearing dates

Provide adequate notice of deadlines for reports or attendance at a hearing

Provide clear directions setting out the information or oral evidence which a panel requires from an OM

Ensure that OMs are treated with the respect which their professional status deserves

Provide clear and timely guidance on the process and tests for release including changes to these

Criminal Justice Arena

Legal Aid Provisions: 2011

Transforming Justice Agenda: 2012

• LASPO Act: 2012

• Parole Board Rules Amendments: 2009 and 2011

Criminal Justice Arena

Intensive Case Management (ICM): 2008

Generic Parole Process (GPP): 2009

Probation Service Consultation: 2012

Public Protection Unit Database (PPUD)

Current state of play

Approx. 90 staff including case managers

Supporting over 240 members

Considered 26,414 cases in 2011/12

14,997 Determinate sentence recall cases

4,965 Indeterminate sentence cases878 Determinate sentence cases

In just over one year, we have doubled the number of oral hearings we hold and listed a record number in January 2013, this equates to 496 cases across 274 panels. However…

….we conclude far fewer oral hearing cases on the day.

From April 2012 to September 2012 we listed on average 1.78 cases per day

but only concluded

0.98 casesat a cost of

£1.6m per year

Approx costs of prison visits for one Probation Trust is £37k per year

Learning from Deferrals Analysis

Total Pre-hearing

deferrals

Quarters 1-2 2012-13

Prison Witness 12%

Probation Witness 13%

Other witness 6%

Other Reason 17%

Logistics 19%

Prisoner Rehabilitation 16%

Adverse developments 4%

Reports Outstanding 12%

Learning from Deferrals Analysis

Total On the day

deferrals

Quarter 1-2

Probation Witness

9%

Other Witness 6%

Logistics 5%

Prisoner Rehabilitation 16%

Prison Witness 9%

Other reason

22%

Adverse developments 2%

Reports Outstanding 30%

Evidence origin

310

13 13 14

22 23

81

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Chair

Direct

ions

: out

stan

ding

or l

ate

ICM D

irectio

ns: o

utstan

ding

or l

ate

Repo

rts (n

ot d

irected

) ser

ved

late

Psyc

h re

ports

(pris

oner

)

Non d

isclo

sure

out

stan

ding

Additio

nal r

epor

ts re

quire

d

Psyc

hology

or p

sych

iatric

repo

rts

Releas

e/ R

isk M

anag

emen

t Pla

n in

com

plet

e

Type of evidence

Nu

mb

er

of

cases d

efe

rred

/ a

djo

urn

ed

Witness Attendance

Witness attendance

Prison Witness

37%

Other Witness

25%

Probation Witness

38%

Proposals for Transforming the Parole Process

Review of the GPP process and targets to streamline and ensure value added at each stage e.g. PB take over responsibility for booking witnesses

Fundamental review of case management model

Digital Strategy: Realise benefits of PPUD, extend use of video and telephone conferencing

Tighten up policies on referrals of cases to the Parole Board

Explore new models for Probation staff to support parole work

Next steps

How can we maintain the quality of Probation practice and Senior Manager commitment throughout the changes?

How can we best work together to reduce the rate of deferral and save costs?

What can we commit to today via the PCA and the Parole Board Director?

Opportunities:

Streamlining Parole Processes Together – consultation and project delivery

Parole Board User Groups; PCA representation

Improve Probation Trusts knowledge of the Parole Board processes through Senior Manager observations

Local initiatives to support the Programme objectives