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 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 Total Pre- hearing deferrals Quarters 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%

Witness Attendance

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