Transcript Transforming Parole Together - Probation Chiefs Association

Transforming Parole
Together
Martha Blom-Cooper, Director, Business Development
&
Ian Clewlow, Deputy CEO, Devon & Cornwall
Probation Trust
The Parole System: Key Features
 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
• 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
• LASPO Act: 2012
• Parole Board Rules Amendments:
2009 and 2011
 Legal Aid Provisions: 2011
 Transforming Justice Agenda: 2012
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 cases
878
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 cases
at a cost of
£1.6m per year
Approx costs of prison visits for one
Probation Trust is £37k per year
Learning from Deferrals Analysis
Other
Reason
17%
Logistics
19%
Other
witness
6%
Probation
Witness
13%
Reports
Outstanding
12%
Total Prehearing
deferrals
Prisoner
Rehabilitation
16%
Quarters 1-2
2012-13
Prison
Witness
12%
Adverse
developments
4%
Learning from Deferrals Analysis
Other
reason
Logistics
5%
22%
Other
Witness
6%
Probation
Witness
9%
Total On the
day
deferrals
Quarter 1-2
Prison
Witness
9%
Reports
Outstanding
30%
Prisoner
Rehabilitation
16%
Adverse
developments
2%
ot
d
rv
e
se
po
rt
s
re
)
or
or
la
la
te
la
te
te
di
(
pr
sc
is
lo
on
su
Ad
er
re
)
di
o
Ps
tio
ut
Re
st
yc
na
le
an
h
l
ol
as
r
di
ep
og
e/
ng
o
y
R
r
ts
or
is
k
re
p
M
sy
qu
an
ch
ire
ag
ia
d
t
em
ri
c
en
re
t
po
Pl
rt
an
s
in
co
m
pl
et
e
ch
ct
ed
di
re
di
ng
nd
in
g
st
a
st
an
10
Ps
y
(n
ou
t
ou
t
20
N
on
or
ts
io
ns
:
ct
io
ns
:
ct
D
ir
e
D
ir
e
Re
p
M
ha
ir
IC
C
Number of cases deferred/ adjourned
Evidence origin
90
80
81
70
60
50
40
30
22
10
13
13
Type of evidence
23
14
3
0
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