Select Committee on Public Accounts Tenth Report


TENTH REPORT

The Committee of Public Accounts has agreed to the following Report:—

PAROLE

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Parole is the early release of prisoners into the community under the supervision of the Probation Service. It was first introduced in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and was part of a package of measures designed to "keep out of prison those who need not be there". The present system of parole is based largely on the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and is available only to those prisoners serving determinate sentences of four years or more. Prisoners become eligible for parole when they have completed half their sentence, known as their parole eligibility date.[1]

2. The Parole Board is responsible for examining applications and deciding whether or not to grant parole. It is headed by a Chairman and has two full-time members and 103 part-time members. Members are recruited from around the country although the Board sits in London. The Board's part-time members are drawn from a variety of walks of life, including barristers, solicitors, teachers and people with experience of business and industry. Parole applications are normally considered by a three member panel.

3. In reaching its decisions, the Parole Board is directed by the Home Secretary to consider primarily the risk to the public of the prisoner committing a further offence while on parole, and to balance this risk against the benefits to the public and the prisoner of early release under supervision, which might help rehabilitation and reduce the risk of re-offending.[2]

4. Unwarranted delay in the parole process places an additional strain on available prison accommodation and is also expensive - each week's delay in releasing a prisoner on parole costs in the region of £450. Ensuring that applications are considered in an efficient and effective manner requires the close co-operation of a number of organisations, particularly between the Prison Service and the Parole Board. On the basis of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Committee took evidence from the Home Office as the sponsoring Department, the Prison Service, and the Parole Board. We considered Parole Board decision-making, whether the processing of parole applications is timely, and the arrangements made for preparing prisoners for release.

5. Three main points emerge from our examination:

  • Over the last three years, more effective joint management of the parole process by the Prison Service and Parole Board has reduced delays in processing parole applications significantly. Between 1996-97 and the first six months of 2000-2001, for example, the Prison Service increased the proportion of prisoners' parole dossiers submitted to the Parole Board on time from 40 per cent to 83 per cent; whilst the Parole Board increased the number of decisions made by the due date from 43 per cent to 92 per cent. We are pleased to see this significant improvement in performance.

  • A lack of information means that the Prison Service and Parole Board are not able to demonstrate fully that parole applications are dealt with in a consistent and equitable manner, for example according to the type of offender, educational attainment and region of origin. Figures from the Parole Board suggest that parole rates vary considerably between ethnic groups. Whilst recent research conducted for the Home Office concluded that most of the variation could be explained by the type of offences committed and other relevant factors, the Parole Board and Prison Service should monitor the relative success rates of different prisoner groups on a regular basis to ensure parole applications are being handled consistently and fairly.

  • Parole plays an important part in helping prisoners resettle into the community. Participation in offending behaviour, drug and education programmes whilst in prison can be beneficial for the prisoner in obtaining parole and in reducing re-offending. Currently there are places on offending behaviour programmes for only about two thirds of suitable prisoners.

6. Our more specific conclusions and recommendations are set out below.

Parole Board Decision-making

  (i)  Around 60 per cent of applications for parole are rejected. Whilst independent research commissioned by the Home Office into the Parole Board's decision-making suggests the degree of risk posed by some prisoners may be overestimated, the Parole Board should have full regard to the need to protect the public when considering prisoners for parole. The Home Office should, however, review periodically whether the right balance continues to be struck between granting parole and keeping prisoners in prison. (paragraph 13)

  (ii)  Neither the Prison Service nor the Parole Board could provide a breakdown of the success rate of parole applicants according to category of offence, educational attainment or their regional background. To better target advice and support on parole matters, the Prison Service, in conjunction with the Parole Board, should examine the success rates of different prisoner groups in gaining parole. (paragraph 14)

  (iii)  Whilst research commissioned by the Home Office suggested that much of the variation in success rates between different ethnic groups could be explained, the Home Office and Parole Board should review the success rates of different ethnic minority groups within offender categories to demonstrate that there is no bias when considering applications from prisoners with similar criminal records. (paragraph 15)

Timely processing of parole applications

  (iv)  In 1998-99, the Parole Board's target for parole decisions to be notified two weeks before the prisoner's parole eligibility date was met in only 58 per cent of cases, leading to extra costs for the Prison Service, estimated at some £2.5 million in 1998-99. Additionally, keeping parolees in custody longer than is legally necessary can be less than fair to the individuals concerned and their families. (paragraph 25)

  (v)  By the first six months of 2000-01 92% of prisoners were notified of the parole decision by the target date, and we are pleased to recognise the efforts made by the Prison Service and the Parole Board to reduce delays. To maintain the momentum of recent improvements, the Prison Service should monitor the release dates of parolees against their parole eligibility dates, and publish the results in its Annual Report together with an estimate of the cost of releasing prisoners late. For lifers, who have no entitlement to parole but who may be released on licence if assessed as safe, there is scope for the Prison Service to further improve performance by increasing the proportion released within three months of the expiry of their tariff. (paragraph 26)

  (vi)  Currently some 20 or more documents are often required for the prisoner's dossier sent to the Parole Board to inform their review. Whilst improvements have been made in the process for compiling dossiers, the Prison Service, in conjunction with the Parole Board, should consider whether all the reports and documents are necessary, such as separate reports on the prisoner by both the Probation Service and the Prison Officer. (paragraph 27)

  (vii)  Transfer of a prisoner to another prison while under consideration for parole can seriously delay the process. The Prison Service should consider whether more prescriptive guidance is needed for prisons, based on good practice, in handling the transfer of prisoners during the parole process. (paragraph 28)

  (viii)  The establishment of a specialist deportation unit within the Prison Service has increased the proportion of foreign nationals notified of their parole application results by the due date, from 27 per cent in 1998-99 to 59 per cent in the first nine months of 2000-01. However, it is still well below the figure of 91 per cent for prisoners in general. The Prison Service should give due priority to the timely processing of applications for parole from foreign nationals subject to deportation. (paragraph 29)

  (ix)  Prison governors should notify the Immigration Service promptly when they receive into custody a prisoner recommended for deportation by the courts, to provide the Immigration Service with the maximum time to make preparations for deportation. The Prison Service should also monitor the effectiveness of communications between its deportation unit and the Immigration Service in achieving timely deportation of such prisoners. (paragraph 30)

Preparing prisoners for release

  (x)  The Prison Service's programmes aimed at tackling a variety of prisoners' educational and other needs are evolving with emerging findings suggesting a positive impact in reducing reconviction rates. The Prison Service should monitor the number of prisoners who cannot be accommodated on relevant programmes, and review its planned programme provision in the light of this information. (paragraph 36)

  (xi)  Prisoners' sentence plans, which are intended to provide a programme of action to help prepare prisoners for their release, do not fully reflect the criteria used to judge prisoners' suitability for parole. The Prison Service should monitor the quality of sentence plans through reviews by the Prison Service's Standards Audit Unit. Prisoners who are eligible to apply for parole should, periodically, be given a written assessment of their performance against the targets in their sentence plans so that they can make informed decisions about their parole application. (paragraph 37)

  (xii)  The Prison Service's plans to address a lack of awareness of parole criteria amongst prisoners by means of a booklet on parole are helpful. The Prison Service should consider whether other initiatives are also needed, particularly as the levels of literacy amongst many prisoners are low. (paragraph 38)

PAROLE BOARD DECISION-MAKING

7. In 1999-2000, 41 per cent of applicants for parole were successful, broadly the same level as in previous years. In measuring the quality of their decision-making the Parole Board and Prison Service consider the number of parolees recalled to prison because of breaches in their licence conditions or re-offending. In 1999-2000, 10 per cent of parolees had to return to prison: 6.2 per cent because they had breached one or more of their licence conditions or behaved in a way which suggested that there was a risk of them re-offending; and 3.8 per cent because they had committed a further offence.[3]

8. The Home Office told us that research carried out on its behalf by Professor Hood of the University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research and Dr Stephen Shute of Birmingham University, published in May 2000, had compared the Parole Board's decisions against an actuarial calculation of prisoners' re-offending. This work had suggested that the Parole Board had tended to err on the side of caution in granting parole.[4]

9. On whether there was a risk of bias in the parole process, particularly between different ethnic groups, the Home Office told us that its analysis of parole decisions in 1999-2000 showed a wide range in the success rates of different ethnic groups (Figure 1). Professor Hood and Dr Shute found a similar variation amongst their sample of 400 cases. Their analysis indicated that Asian prisoners were more likely to be in the lowest risk band because they had, on average, less serious criminal histories; were more likely to have no adjudications against them; were more likely to have finished any courses started; and, in consequence were more likely to be recommended for parole by their probation officers. The researchers concluded that the different success rates of the various ethnic groups reflected the extent to which the prisoners in those groups met the criteria for parole used by the Parole Board.[5]

fig1

10. We also sought information on the success rates amongst different social groups and the type of offence. However, the Prison Service could provide no reliable breakdown. The Director General of the Prison Service told us that in his experience white-collar criminals were probably more likely to gain parole, probably because of the nature of their offence, the greater likelihood of them having a home to go to, and possibly a job as well. Educational background might also be a factor, particularly in enabling prisoners to understand the parole process.[6]

11. The Home Office believed that there were a number of safeguards against institutionalised bias in approving parole applications. It was unlikely that a particular parole panel of three members would meet together more than once. Each panel considered 24 cases but the cases were not allocated by prison or prison area. Whilst it would not be practicable to collect data on individual Board members' decisions, it would become apparent if a panel member consistently went against the views of colleagues.[7]

12. The Parole Board looks at whether prisoners have shown, by attitude and conduct, that they are willing to address offending behaviour. We asked about the prospects of parole for those prisoners who refuse to admit guilt. The Parole Board said that it had to assume that the prisoner had been properly convicted, but acknowledged that a prisoner who refused to admit their guilt might be less likely to get parole. For some prison programmes, particularly sex offender programmes, admission of guilt is an important pre-requisite for getting a place on a course, and where offending behaviour had not been addressed the Board would almost certainly conclude that the prisoner was still dangerous.[8]

Conclusions

13. Around 60 per cent of applications for parole are rejected. Whilst independent research commissioned by the Home Office into the Parole Board's decision-making suggests the degree of risk posed by some prisoners may be overestimated, the Parole Board should have full regard to the need to protect the public when considering prisoners for parole. The Home Office should, however, review periodically whether the right balance continues to be struck between granting parole and keeping prisoners in prison.

14. Neither the Prison Service nor the Parole Board could provide a breakdown of the success rate of parole applicants according to category of offence, educational attainment or their regional background. To better target advice and support on parole matters, the Prison Service, in conjunction with the Parole Board, should examine the success rates of different prisoner groups in gaining parole.

15. Whilst research commissioned by the Home Office suggested that much of the variation in success rates between different ethnic groups could be explained, the Home Office and Parole Board should review the success rates of different ethnic minority groups within offender categories to demonstrate that there is no bias when considering applications from prisoners with similar criminal records.

TIMELY PROCESSING OF PAROLE APPLICATIONS

16. The parole process starts with the prison compiling a dossier of reports and documents on the prisoner, which is used by the Parole Board in reaching its decision on the application for parole. The parole timetable requires the dossier to be with the Parole Board 10 weeks before the prisoner is eligible for release on parole, and for the Parole Board to notify its decision at least two weeks before that date. These timescales should ensure that successful applicants are released on time.[9]

17. In 1998-99, prisons submitted just 49 per cent of dossiers to the Parole Board on time. As the Parole Board cannot always make up delays arising from the late submission of dossiers, it notified only 58 per cent of its decisions by the due date in 1998-99. The National Audit Office reported that late notification had occurred in 853 (39 per cent) out of the 2,214 cases where parole was granted. The late release of prisoners resulting from these delays was estimated by the National Audit Office to have cost the Prison Service some £2 million.[10]

18. Since 1998-99, the Prison Service and Parole Board have reported a significant improvement in performance. Between April 2000 and September 2000, the latest figures available at the time of our inquiry, the percentage of dossiers arriving at the Parole Board on time had risen to 83 per cent and the percentage of decisions made by the Parole Board by the due date was 92 per cent (Figure 2).[11]

Figure 2: Performance against key targets in the parole timetable 1996-2001



1996-97
%

1997-98
%

1998-99
%

1999-2000
%

2000-20013
%
Percentage of parole dossiers arriving at the Parole Board on time
401
2
49
72
83
Percentage of Parole Board decisions made by due date
43
46
58
84
92

Notes:
1No reliable data available but estimated by Prison Service at around 40 per cent

2No reliable data available

3 April to September only

Source: Prison Service

19. The Prison Service acknowledged that parole had not been well managed in the mid-1990s. This had partly reflected management's focus at that time on maintaining security following some high profile escapes, possibly at the expense of other prison activities. The Prison Service had put in place a number of initiatives to improve performance. Area Managers now received monthly data on the performance of their prisons against the parole timetable. A central help desk for staff involved in parole had been established. Annual conferences were held to discuss parole issues and a quarterly parole newsletter issued. The Prison Service's Standards Audit Unit audited the parole process. Of the seven prisons audited last year all had passed the standards set for parole, including that for providing complete dossiers to the Parole Board on time.[12]

20. The prisoner's parole dossier comprises at least 14 and frequently 20 or more reports and papers. Difficulties in obtaining these documents can cause serious delay in processing the parole application. On whether all the documents were necessary, the Director General of the Prison Service told us that, in his view, the report from the Prison Officer was generally not of a good quality, duplicated some information already reported elsewhere and was probably not very useful to the Parole Board. The Prison Service was working with the Probation Service to produce an offender risk assessment system and expected this system to provide a continuous log of the prisoner's progress through their sentence. In time this would make it possible to combine at least two of the current reports required for the dossier.[13]

21. In response to the National Audit Office survey, 90 per cent of prison parole clerks said that they had problems obtaining police reports, 84 per cent in obtaining the field probation officer's report, 82 per cent in obtaining relevant papers from the sentencing court and 51 per cent in obtaining a list of previous convictions. Part of the difficulty had been poor communication between the Prison Service and other parts of the criminal justice system. The Home Office said that it had taken steps to bring together the different partners at national and local level to identify and remove blockages in the passage of information; and to raise awareness that achieving the different objectives of the criminal justice system was a shared responsibility. For example, the Prison Service had now established links with the Police National Computer to enable lists of previous convictions to be downloaded to prisons immediately. However, the Prison Service acknowledged that its own Inmate Information System, which supports the parole process was under pressure. It had recently agreed an information technology partnership with EDS, known as Quantum, which should enable it to link it up electronically with other criminal justice agencies, including the Probation Service.[14]

22. Delays in processing a prisoner's application for parole can be due to their transfer to another prison during the parole process. The receiving prison may have to wait for reports on the prisoner to arrive from the prisoner's previous establishment, and the interview between the prisoner and a Parole Board member may be delayed. In the eight months ended June 1999, prisoner transfers accounted for nearly half of cancelled interviews. Different prisons adopted different policies towards the transfer of prisoners during the parole process, and the Prison Service does not monitor the number of transfers, or whether they are justified. However, some transfers were necessary to relieve overcrowding or to maintain security. A new Parole Standard, issued by the Prison Service, required prisons to put in place their own systems for managing transfers. Performance against the Standard would be audited.[15]

23. The National Audit Office reviewed the arrangements for early release of prisoners serving life sentences. Lifers have no entitlement to parole, but may be released on licence which remains in force for life. The overall aim of the lifer review system is to ensure that as many life-sentenced prisoners as possible are released on or shortly after the expiry of their tariff, the minimum period they must serve to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence. Only a minority of prisoners who are assessed as safe are released on the expiry of their tariff or within a few months of it (Figure 3). The Home Office told us that as the Home Secretary's changes to the timetable for lifer reviews take effect, it should be possible for all lifers judged safe to be released within three months of their tariff expiry.[16]

Figure 3: Release of life sentence prisoners in relation to tariff
Release date in relation to tariff
Releases in 1996-97
Releases in 1997-98
Releases in 1998-99
Releases in 1999-2000
On tariff expiry 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 5 (4%)
Within 3 months 10 (11%) 3 (3%) 15 (15%) 10 (8%)
Within 6 months 9 (9%) 5 (5%) 12 (11%) 14 (10%)
Between 6 and 12 months 16 (17%) 23 (21%) 15 (15%) 27 (20%)
Over 12 months1 58 (61%) 77 (70%) 61 (59%) 78 (58%)
Total released in year 95 (100%) 109 (100%)103 (100%) 134 (100%)
  (i)  Note1 These figures include prisoners who have made insufficient progress to be assessed as suitable for either a move to open conditions or release on licence, therefore taking them beyond their tariff.

Source: Lifer Review Unit

24. The National Audit Office also found that in 1998-99 only 27 per cent of applications for parole from foreign nationals subject to deportation were notified of the result of their application on time, and that delays had cost in the region of half a million pounds. Around 8 per cent of parolees spent an additional 100 days in custody. The Prison Service had set up a specialist deportation unit to tackle the problem of delays, and the proportion of decisions notified to the prisoner on time had since increased to 59 per cent. However, in some cases the Prison Service was still not informing the Immigration Service of a potential release until the start of the parole process, which was often too late to make arrangements for deportation by the release date.[17]

Conclusions

25. In 1998-99, the Parole Board's target for parole decisions to be notified two weeks before the prisoner's parole eligibility date was met in only 58 per cent of cases, leading to extra costs for the Prison Service, estimated at some £2.5 million in 1998-99. Additionally, keeping parolees in custody longer than is legally necessary can be less than fair to the individuals concerned and their families.

26. By the first six months of 2000-01 92% of prisoners were notified of the parole decision by the target date, and we are pleased to recognise the efforts made by the Prison Service and the Parole Board to reduce delays. To maintain the momentum of recent improvements, the Prison Service should monitor the release dates of parolees against their parole eligibility dates, and publish the results in its Annual Report together with an estimate of the cost of releasing prisoners late. For lifers, who have no entitlement to parole but who may be released on licence if assessed as safe, there is scope for the Prison Service to further improve performance by increasing the proportion released within three months of the expiry of their tariff.

27. Currently some 20 or more documents are often required for the prisoner's dossier sent to the Parole Board to inform their review. Whilst improvements have been made in the process for compiling dossiers, the Prison Service, in conjunction with the Parole Board, should consider whether all the reports and documents are necessary, such as separate reports on the prisoner by both the Probation Service and the Prison Officer.

28. Transfer of a prisoner to another prison while under consideration for parole can seriously delay the process. The Prison Service should consider whether more prescriptive guidance is needed for prisons, based on good practice, in handling the transfer of prisoners during the parole process.

29. The establishment of a specialist deportation unit within the Prison Service has increased the proportion of foreign nationals notified of their parole application results by the due date, from 27 per cent in 1998-99 to 59 per cent in the first nine months of 2000-01. However, it is still well below the figure of 91 per cent for prisoners in general. The Prison Service should give due priority to the timely processing of applications for parole from foreign nationals subject to deportation.

30. Prison Governors should notify the Immigration Service promptly when they receive into custody a prisoner recommended for deportation by the courts, to provide the Immigration Service with the maximum time to make preparations for deportation. The Prison Service should also monitor the effectiveness of communications between its deportation unit and the Immigration Service in achieving timely deportation of such prisoners.

PREPARING PRISONERS FOR RELEASE

31. Prisoners' failure to address their offending behaviour is often a reason for a parole application failing. The Prison Service runs a variety of programmes designed to tackle educational needs, drug misuse and offending behaviour. Successful completion of an appropriate course can enhance a prisoner's chance of gaining parole and assist their resettlement into the community. For example, prisoners who complete an appropriate offending behaviour programme are more than twice as likely to get parole than those who do not. However, the programmes required to meet an individual prisoner's needs are not always available. We were told that in 2001-02 there will be 6,000 places available on offending behaviour programmes whereas the Prison Service estimates that demand for these programmes is probably closer to 9,000.[18]

32. On educational needs, currently 65 per cent of prisoners have literacy levels below that of a 14 year old, thereby seriously impairing their chances of employment. In 1999-2000 42,000 prisoners achieved a basic qualification in literacy and numeracy.[19]

33. The Prison Service told us that these programmes were still quite new, would take time to set up and needed to be properly delivered with the help of specialist support. Emerging findings on the impact of programmes was encouraging, with reductions in reconviction rates of between 10 and 14 per cent for prisoners classed as medium risk.[20]

34. The Prison Service acknowledged that parole was not yet fully integrated into the sentence planning process. An assessment of prisoner needs is normally made when they are first inducted into prison life. An important part of this process is the preparation of a sentence plan, which should set out the prisoner's targets for addressing his needs. The National Audit Office found little evidence of the actions needed to meet parole requirements being set out clearly in the plans. The Prison Service expects that a planned prison-probation offender assessment system should provide a better basis for planning a prisoner's time in prison.[21]

35. Research conducted by the Home Office suggests that prisoners' awareness of the parole system is poor, including awareness of factors taken into account by the Parole Board in assessing a prisoner's suitability for parole. As a result, prisoners may develop an optimistic view of their chances of parole, and react badly if applications are rejected. The Prison Service has been working with the Prison Reform Trust to produce a booklet on parole for prisoners, due to be published in early 2001. However, the Prison Service acknowledged that this project in itself would not wholly overcome prisoners' lack of understanding of the parole process.[22]

Conclusions

36. The Prison Service's programmes aimed at tackling a variety of prisoners' educational and other needs are evolving with emerging findings suggesting a positive impact in reducing reconviction rates. The Prison Service should monitor the number of prisoners who cannot be accommodated on relevant programmes, and review its planned programme provision in the light of this information.

37. Prisoners' sentence plans, which are intended to provide a programme of action to help prepare prisoners for their release, do not fully reflect the criteria used to judge prisoners' suitability for parole. The Prison Service should monitor the quality of sentence plans through reviews by the Prison Service's Standards Audit Unit. Prisoners who are eligible to apply for parole should, periodically, be given a written assessment of their performance against the targets in their sentence plans so that they can make informed decisions about their parole application.

38. The Prison Service's plans to address a lack of awareness of parole criteria amongst prisoners by means of a booklet on parole are helpful. The Prison Service should consider whether other initiatives are also needed, particularly as the levels of literacy amongst many prisoners are low.


1  C&AG's Report, HC 456, 1999-2000, para 1.1 Back

2  ibid, paras 1.2, 1.22 Back

3  Evidence, Qs 64, 71 Back

4  Evidence, Q2 Back

5  C&AG's Report, paras 1.21-1.22 and Evidence, Appendix 1, pp 14-17 Back

6  Evidence, Qs 99-103 and Evidence, Appendix 1, pp 14-17 Back

7  Evidence, Qs 80-82 and Evidence, Appendix 1, pp 14-17 Back

8  Evidence, Qs 11, 44-50 Back

9  C&AG's Report, paras 1.15, 2.5 Back

10  ibid, paras 2.6, 2.8, 2.10 Back

11  Evidence, Appendix 1, pp 14-17 Back

12  Evidence, Qs 3, 16, 87-88 Back

13  Evidence, Qs 13, 24 Back

14  Evidence, Qs 1, 39-43, 59-63, 91 Back

15  Evidence, Qs 105-106; C&AG's Report, paras 2.21-2.26 and Figures 11 and 12 Back

16  Evidence, Q9; C&AG's Report, paras 2.13 and 24; Evidence, Appendix 1, pp 14-17 Back

17  Evidence, Q5; C&AG's Report, para 2.55 and Figure 15; Evidence, Appendix 1, pp 14-17 Back

18  Evidence, Q11 Back

19  Evidence, Qs 103-104, 107; C&AG's Report, paras 3.4-3.5 Back

20  Evidence, Qs 11, 37 and Appendix 1, pp 14-17 Back

21  Evidence, Qs 37, 62; C&AG's Report, para 3.10 Back

22  Evidence, Qs 92-96 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2001
Prepared 29 March 2001