I notice that the Prison Reform Trust are continuing the fight over the disgraceful parole changes brought in by Dominic Raab and have discovered the shocking results already:-
Parole reforms see fewer people getting chance to prepare for releaseNearly three months after we asked for them, the Ministry of Justice has still not released any statistics about the impact of the changes Dominic Raab ordered on parole — in particular the change in criteria for people to get to open conditions. But the Parole Board promptly answered a letter we sent them asking for any numbers they could provide.
What those numbers show is shocking.
Until the change to Parole Board directions on 6 June, 94% of recommendations by the board that someone should progress to an open prison were accepted by the ministry. Since 6 June, 87% of such recommendations have been rejected.
We have gone from a system where the vast majority of decisions were effectively taken by a panel of three independent experts considering a full parole dossier and hearing evidence in person, to a system where an anonymous official in an office in Whitehall simply says no in nearly nine out of 10 cases.It’s shocking but not unexpected. This is what Dominic Raab wanted to achieve, setting tests for progression to open which he could interpret any way he liked. But it’s profoundly unfair and, crucially, works against the goal of public protection which he claims to have been the motivation for the changes. If more people come to be released directly from closed conditions, with less opportunity to acclimatise to life outside prison, and with less opportunity to get used to a high level of trust being placed in them, it will make it harder for people to succeed on release. Far from reducing risk, this approach increases it.
The Parole Board’s letter also included statistics about the number of positive release decisions. These decisions continue to be made by the board, not ministers — at least for now. It’s not clear why, but the number of release decisions has fallen this year. That may just be about the throughput of cases overall. But it’s likely that the exclusion of people from open prisons will lead to fewer release decisions in due course. We calculate that the drop in release decisions described by the Parole Board already represents a requirement for 1,000 additional prison cells — over and above the ministry’s current projections.
We’ve written to the new justice secretary highlighting the figures and asking him to meet us to discuss how he could adjust his predecessor’s approach.
Later today (18 October), in the House of Lords, Baroness Prashar — a former Chair of the Parole Board will lead a debate asking new ministers to think again about the changes Dominic Raab introduced. These numbers show that the need to do so is urgent — the progression of hundreds of people is being needlessly interrupted. It’s a self-defeating and unfair policy.
Peter Dawson
Director
--oo00oo--
10 October 2022
Thank you for your letter of 26 August seeking data on the impact on the new criteria for moves to open conditions on Parole Board decision-making and whether those recommendations are accepted by the Secretary of State.
Background
By way of context, it might be helpful to clarify that in all cases apart from pre-tariff cases referred to the Parole Board; it is asked to consider whether the statutory test for release is met namely “whether a prisoner’s continued detention remains necessary for the protection of the public”. This is a judicial decision and, subject only to the right of parties seek reconsideration, is final. In the majority of indeterminate cases, the Board will also be asked for advice on whether, if the test for release is not met, the prisoner is suitable for a move to open conditions. These recommendations are not binding on the Secretary of State, and the final decision rests with him. The Board must also take account of directions from the Secretary of State when deciding whether a prisoner is suitable for a move to open conditions.
There are some categories of prisoner such as terrorist offenders who will not ordinarily be considered for a move to open conditions. Traditionally the Parole Board has found that a period of testing in open conditions can provide vital evidence to inform the decision on whether a prisoners risk to the public can be managed upon release, because it better prepares a prisoner for release and provides the opportunity for temporary release in the community to seek employment etc. There is strong published evidence from the Ministry of Justice that release on temporary licence prior to release reduces the chances of a prisoner reoffending and the risk to the public. Testing in open conditions prior to release, can also signal areas of risk that have not been identified in closed conditions.
In the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System the Government signalled:
In the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System the Government signalled:
“Current policy in relation to the Parole Board’s role to recommend that a prisoner moves to open conditions, states that the Parole Board’s recommendation should be accepted unless there are exceptional reasons to reject it. These are currently considered by officials acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.
The government has decided that this approach will be changed to provide for direct ministerial oversight in cases where the prisoner is serving a sentence for murder, other homicide, rape or serious sexual offence against a child/child cruelty. A new threshold will be applied, such that the prisoner must not only be assessed as low risk of abscond, but that a specified and clear purpose for a time in open conditions must be articulated, including an explanation of why that purpose cannot be met in a closed prison. Equally, we will also consider the extent to which placing the prisoner in an open prison would undermine public confidence in the system of open prisons.”
This change of approach was brought forward in new directions to the Parole Board which now provide that:
“Before recommending a transfer to open, the Parole Board must consider:
i. all information before it, including any written or oral evidence obtained by the Board;
ii. the extent to which the ISP has made sufficient progress during the sentence in addressing and reducing risk to a level consistent with protecting the public from harm, in circumstances where the ISP in open conditions may be in the community, unsupervised, under licensed temporary release;
iii. whether the following criteria are met:
- the prisoner is assessed as low risk of abscond; and
- a period in open conditions is considered essential to inform future decisions about release and to prepare for possible release on licence into the community.
The Parole Board must only recommend a move to open conditions where it is satisfied that the two criteria as described at (iii) are met.”
Data
The Parole Board publishes data on the number of recommendations it makes for open conditions in its annual report and accounts we also monitor outcomes through our Management Information systems.
• In 2021-22 the Board made 568 recommendations for open conditions (an average of 47 recommendations a month). The Parole Board also directed the release of 4,139 prisoners over the same period.
• In the first four months of 2022-23 the Board made 139 recommendations for open conditions (an average of 35 recommendations a month). The Parole Board also directed the release of 1,209 prisoners over the same period.
The Parole Board also monitors Management Information data on whether the Secretary of State accepts the Parole Board recommendations. According to that data:
• In 2021-22 94% of Parole Board recommendations were accepted (515 of 549 recommendations processed in the period).
The data for 2022-23 is not yet complete as we are only part way through the year and a number of applications await the Secretary of State’s decision. However, the data we have seen to date is as follows:
• In the period April to August 2022 13% of Parole Board recommendations were accepted (11 of 83 recommendations processed in the period).
I hope that is helpful.
Yours sincerely
Martin Jones CBE
Chief Executive
The Parole Board for England and Wales
To the reader who left a comment regarding the Morning Star article - thanks very much and as you suggest is more
ReplyDeleteappropriate for another post - I very much hope it can be expanded upon.
Actually I prefer not having to make a recommendation. Takes the pressure off us because for years parole board oral hearings have been a free for all for solicitors to cross-examine probation officers, sometimes quite aggressively and abusively and parole board members sometimes join in too. Then if you recommend and there’s a complaint for not recommending release or you do recommend release and they reoffend, you get cross-examined by the probation complaints and SFO team.
ReplyDeleteNo recommendation = no pressure.
Anon 08:21 If this is a widespread view amongst Probation Officers, then the job is as good as finished - there is no point to it in my view. Having a professional view and arguing the case in front of a Judge, Magistrates or Parole Board is fundamental to the role.
DeleteThe job was finished when the stopped calling us Probation Officers, paired us with prisons and the Civil Service, got us doing police work and eroded pay and conditions. Let’s not fool ourselves to think a “professional opinion” carries any weight when we are the lackys of the CJS.
DeleteJim, the stark reality is that where I work PSO’s are the ones presenting in Courts, many colleagues report being rarely respected at Oral Hearings because cases being discussed have been reallocated so many times due to staffing and the person presenting and report author is usually different. Partner agencies such as the police have been given the message that probation officer are there to serve them, while sub-standard charities routinely tell us how they do “offender management” for us “because you are too busy”. We have no resources, we have no staff, and the recent HMIP results for London could be any probation offices across England and Wales. Where is the professional opinion in all that, and where is the professional registration and associations we were promised?
DeleteI agree we should retain our professional opinion in all formal settings but HMPPS have run probation into the ground to the extent it is not fit for purpose. This is an intentional act of vandalism in my book, started by Chris Grayling’s Transforming Rehabilitation and now furthered by Amy Rees and Jim Barton’s One HMPPS.
https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/09/act-vandalism-based-ideology
From UNISON police and justice conference.
Deletehttps://www-unison-org-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.unison.org.uk/news/article/2022/10/unison-police-and-justice-conference-opens-with-passionate-debates/amp/?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16662842713603&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unison.org.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle%2F2022%2F10%2Funison-police-and-justice-conference-opens-with-passionate-debates%2F
'Getafix
Hundreds of delegates gathered in Telford today for UNISON’s police and justice service group conference, in order to decide the union’s priorities for over 50,000 members working in the sector across the England, Scotland and Wales.
DeleteUNISON represents people working in policing and probation, from call handlers and community support officers probation officers, custody assistants, cleaners and canteen staff, with 60% of police staff being women.
Chaired by UNISON vice president Libby Nolan, the first day of the conference passed several motions relating to pay and the cost of living.
Cost of living crisis
One delegate, speaking in support of a motion on pay claims and mileage allowances said: “A member approached me last week to say she was making difficult decisions on whether to attend medical appointments, because she couldn’t afford the fuel costs to get to work and get to her appointments.
“My office is set up with a clothing rail for members of staff to donate clothes to others, and it’s so popular that we’ve extended it to children’s clothing too. Our force is now allocating a specific room for this.”
Speaking in support of the motion on behalf of the service group executive, Annie Powell asked delegates: “Can policing and probation maintain the staff they need to provide valuable public services?”
Cuts to the probation service
One of the most passionate motions of the day focused on UNISON’s efforts to prevent any further cuts to probation services.
Introducing the motion, Frank Radcliffe from Eastern region, said: “If they cut any more of the probation services, we’ll bleed to death. We know that Tory tactics are all about shrinking the state, and giving services to private contractors.
“We’ve seen the effect on our communities: it damages staff morale, creates more victims of crime, creates more serious offences and fails to address the vicious cycle of reoffending.”
The probation service has undergone drastic cuts and chaotic restructuring in the past decade, driven by Chris Grayling’s failed ‘transforming rehabilitation’ agenda, which sought to outsource medium and low-risk probation cases to privatised community rehabilitation centres (CRCs), leaving the government-run National Probation Service (NPS) responsible for high-risk cases.
In June 2021, all services were returned in-house to the government.
Vice-chair of UNISON national probation committee Elisa Vasquez-Walters referenced a recent HMPPS report on probation services in London, which marked several areas of London’s probation services as inadequate.
“They are in no way doing inadequate work. Many probation offices are down 50% on staff, and that sort of job cannot be done on those numbers. I do not believe that probation is in any way protected with the government we have now.”
Another delegate noted: “The probation service cannot effectively recruit staff. Those it does recruit, it struggles to retain. Many leave within the first year or two of service.
“I spoke to someone recently who said the most experienced member of staff in their office had five years service. In my region, every probation unit is working in red or amber – bare minimum offender contact, very little rehabilitation work is happening, it’s simply risk management.”
Another delegate added: “People leave because it’s not what they signed up for. People came to the service because they want to help people and rehabilitate people, but all they’re getting now is target after target, and more and more paperwork”.
“We know that Tory tactics are all about shrinking the state, and giving services to private contractors.”
DeleteThis is the problem with these left-leaning union reps. They preach to the converted like a grammar phone with it’s needle stuck. Labour actually shrunk the state too and laid the groundwork for selling off probation.
This misinformed Frank Radcliffe slanders NPS and CRC, which I was not supporter of either, but it’s starting to become very clear that unification is a worser place than TR.
When you should have spoken up Frank, is when we needed unions to oppose that recent shite pay offer you all walked us into.
No working for CRC is a wholly manipulated private arrangement and is not a real public service. The fuc,#ss# thick management structures were full of the most abusive people who knew jack shit about nothing than grabbing the cash, fraudulent use of bullshit figures and asked for more money. At one point they got the pathetic national Union leaders telling branches the poor crcs have no money let's be kinder to them. No they were a monsterous privatised theft of public money. Sacking staff and stole people redundancy money nothing worse than those shites they know it too. Tossers.
DeleteHFKCW Askew Road was always a badly run office with no car park, even when it had staff. I remember it had the same Head of Service for years that ran it into the ground and allowed his managers to do the same. That’s the truth of the matter.
ReplyDeleteThere’s is a wider problem that probation needs staff. HMPPS and NOMS caused this problem and the recent poor pay offer hasn’t helped.