Parole Board Corporate Plan 2007-2010

The Parole Board publishes three year Corporate Plans, following a process of consultation not only with its own members and staff, but also with its immediate partners in the criminal justice community and with those who have a special interest in the decisions taken by the Board on whether or not prisoners should be released.

These three year plans set the strategic context for the Business Plans which are produced each financial year ands which contain measurable performance targets agreed by Ministers.

• Introduction
• 1. Background and Context
• 2. Mission and Core Value
• 3. Aims and Actions
• 4. Risks and Uncertainties
• 5. Budget Implications
• 6. Corporate Governance

Introduction

This Corporate Plan covers the period 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2010. In preparing the plan the Board consulted not only with its own members and staff, but also with its immediate partners in the criminal justice community and with those who have a particular interest in the decisions taken by the Board on whether or not prisoners should be released.

Accordingly, the Board held a number of meetings with Board members, Secretariat staff and a wide range of stakeholders during the consultations which led to the development of the plan. Stakeholders who attended included victims' groups, legal representatives, the National Offender Management Service, the Home Office, the National Probation Service, the Department for Constitutional Affairs, HM Courts Service, HM Inspectorate of Probation and prisoners' groups. All of these meetings proved to be very valuable and the views expressed in them have been incorporated into the plan. We will continue to involve both internal and external stakeholders throughout its duration.

The next three years will see a transformation of the work and workload of the Board as the changes brought in by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 begin to take effect. One of the key challenges facing us as a Board will be to respond effectively to the implications of the new indeterminate public protection sentences, especially where the tariff is a very short one.

We will need to consider the profile of the Board's membership as we move towards an increasingly oral hearing based system. Maintaining high quality risk assessment must remain our top priority and we will continue to focus on this with progressive plans for member development and accreditation.

A major change at the beginning of this three year plan is the transfer of the Board's sponsorship from the Home Office to the newly created Ministry of Justice on 9 May 2007. We look forward to the opportunities offered by the move and will commit ourselves to ensuring the change is a positive one.

The Board is proud of its independence and we will work to ensure that the Board continues to be, and is perceived to be, properly independent. At the same time we recognise our interdependence on others for the effective delivery of our mission to protect the public and we will continue to work closely with our partners in the criminal justice system to do just that.

Sir Duncan Nichol CBE
Chairman

Christine Glenn
Chief Executive

March 2007

1. Background and Context

Legal framework

1.1 The Parole Board for England and Wales was established by the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to advise on the early release of prisoners. In 1996 the Board was established as an Executive Non-Departmental Public Body under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

1.2 Under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1998, the Parole Board has delegated authority to decide on applications for parole from prisoners serving from four to less than fifteen years. For those serving fifteen years or more the Board makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State. The 1991 Act, as amended by the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, and the Criminal Justice Act 2003, also gives authority to the Board to decide on the release of life sentence prisoners, those detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure and those serving sentences for public protection. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the Board considers whether the recall to prison of determinate sentence prisoners by the Secretary of State was justified, considers representations from these prisoners and determines whether re-release is appropriate.

1.3 In considering these cases the Board is guided by Directions issued by the Secretary of State.

Types of cases and method of consideration

1.4 The Board has responsibility for considering the following types of cases:

• Indeterminate for public protection (IPP), mandatory life, discretionary life and automatic life sentence prisoners and Her Majesty's Pleasure detainees - a sift process with the possibility of an oral hearing.
• Discretionary conditional release (DCR) prisoners serving between 4 and 15 years and prisoners given extended sentences for public protection (EPP) - paper hearings that may direct release.
• Discretionary conditional release prisoners with sentences of 15 years and over - paper hearings that make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
• Life sentence recalls - considered either on paper as a recommendation to the Secretary of State, or subsequently at an oral hearing to consider representations against recall.
• Determinate sentence recalls - initially paper panels to consider whether the recall by the Secretary of State was justified and to determine whether re-release is appropriate. May subsequently be considered at an oral hearing.

What we have achieved

1.5 Since the last Corporate Plan, the Board has achieved a great deal in improving its organisational structure and implementing its quality agenda. Some of the key areas of progress include:

• The creation of a new corporate governance structure under the direction of a Management Board.
• The appointment of a Director of Quality and Standards and a Director of Performance and Development.
• Improved risk assessment training for members.
• A full-time member given responsibility for Victim Liaison to ensure that members have a strong awareness of victim issues.
• Increased video-link hearings to speed up the hearings process and to reduce costs in an environmentally friendly way.
• A greater focus on the need to demonstrate appropriate independence in the light of its changed and changing role.
• The promotion of diversity with the aim of building a group of staff and members who reflect the composition of the society which the Board serves.
• The implementation of a plan to ensure much greater assurance of the quality of member decisions through a system of more formal selection and accreditation followed by a more robust system of review and feedback.
• A strengthening of the Review Committee by the recruitment of two external members and by clarifying and categorising its decisions about the reasonableness or otherwise of panel decisions where prisoners have been recalled to custody accused of violent or sexual offences.

Looking to the future

1.6 The Board's workload has continued to increase despite projections that the number of cases referred to the Board would start to decrease in 2006/07. It is anticipated that the number of oral hearings to consider prisoners' cases will continue to rise over the next three years. There is also concern at the number of IPP sentences being handed down, particularly where there are short tariffs. Although the number of DCR cases will fall, there will be an increase in EPP cases. In the past the Board has not been given accurate estimates of the number of cases it will be expected to consider. Without accurate projections it is difficult for the Board to plan with any certainty and be sure of the funding that will be needed to meet the demand.

Social impact

1.7 A further consequence of the Board not having sufficient resources to be able to do its job is the impact it has on the prison population which is at a record level. Prisoners who may be suitable for release would remain in custody longer. In addition, the Board's contribution to the rehabilitation of those prisoners would suffer, potentially leading to an increase in their re-offending if they are released from prison without any support or supervision. The cost of keeping a prisoner in custody also has to be taken into account. The need for accurate caseload forecasting and adequate funding cannot therefore be over emphasised.

Caseload projections

1.8 The projections supplied by NOMS for the caseload over the next three years are detailed below. The steep rise forecast in IPP oral reviews highlights the challenges facing the Board in this area.

Case load projections:

(a) includes oral hearings in first review cases where a recommendation for transfer to open conditions is likely

(b) Home Office unable to provide projections

Human Resources

Members

1.9 It is difficult to determine precisely the number and category of members that will be needed over the next three years without more certainty in the caseload projections. The complement may also be influenced by changes in legislation and court judgments. However, there is no doubt that as the number of oral hearings continues to grow more judges will be needed as well as psychiatrists and psychologists. The table below shows the estimated number of members needed for 2007/08 compared with 2006/07. The estimates take into account members who will be leaving the Board having come to the end of their period of appointment.

Estimated number of members needed for 2007/08 compared with 2006/07:

Staff

1.10 Over the past 3 years the number of staff has increased by 46% from 56 in April 2004 to 82 in March 2007. In 2004 most staff members were seconded from the Home Office. By 2007 this had changed with 49% directly employed, 35% seconded and 13% temporary. This is a reflection of the Board's aim to underline its independence. The increase in staff has been necessary to meet the additional casework. However, funds are limited and the Board is committed in this plan to making best use of available resources to improve overall efficiency.

Annual Report and Business Plans

1.11 This plan will form the basis of the Business Plans which will be produced for each of the coming three financial years and which will contain measurable performance targets. The Business Plans require Ministerial approval and performance against the targets set in these plans will feed into the Annual Report which is presented to the Home Secretary and to Parliament each year. They will report on how well the Board has performed against each of its Aims.

Diversity and Respect

1.12 The Board values diversity and seeks to treat everyone as they would wish to be treated, with respect and courtesy. We draw on the full range of experience and skills of our staff and our members in promoting quality decisions, and are open to the views of all those affected by our work in coming to balanced solutions.

1.13 We work together to put this into practice by

• Ensuring the effectiveness of our equal opportunity policies.
• Articulating our values and making sure they are reflected in the way we do things.
• Listening to and learning from others as well as explaining our own mission and purpose.
• Updating and strengthening our Race Action Plan.
• Conducting a diversity audit.

2. Mission and Core Values

Mission Statement

2.1 The Parole Board is an independent body that works with its criminal justice partners to protect the public by risk assessing prisoners to decide whether they can be safely released into the community.

Values

2.2 The Board has the following core values:

Excellence in risk assessment

The Board's success in protecting the public relies heavily on the quality of its risk assessments and those provided to it by others. The Board will take active steps to keep abreast of developments in risk assessment and to review the outcomes of its decisions with the aim of improving its risk assessment practice.

Independence

The Board is proud of its independence. The Board considers it vital for public confidence that the Board is and is perceived to be properly independent.

Fairness

The Board has a duty to promote fairness for all parties involved in the cases it considers, victims, offenders, witnesses and the public whom we seek to protect. We strive to be fair, just and balanced in our decision making.

Forward thinking

We will strive to be a forward thinking organisation, dynamic, self-reviewing, learning and committed to continuous self-improvement.

Openness and accountability

The Parole Board is accountable to Parliament and the public. The Board strives to be as open as possible within the requirements of the law, while respecting legal restraints on confidentiality. By promoting better understanding of our processes and the principles underlying our decision making, the Board aims to build greater confidence in the quality of those decisions amongst the public, prisoners and our partner organisations.

3. Aims and Actions

Overarching Aim

3.1 The Board's overarching aim is

• Working with others to protect the public and contributing to the rehabilitation of prisoners.

3.2 To underpin the overarching aim there are three supporting aims:

• Aim 1 - To make risk assessments which are rigorous, fair and timely with the primary aim of protecting the public and which contribute to the rehabilitation of prisoners where appropriate.
• Aim 2 - To demonstrate effective and accountable corporate governance by maintaining strong internal control, setting clear objectives and managing corporate risk and to deliver best value by optimum use of resources.
• Aim 3 - To promote the independence of and public confidence in the work of the Board, while effectively managing change.

Efficiencies and savings

3.3 In devising these aims, the Board recognises that along with all other public service agencies, it needs to work in a more modern and efficient way making maximum use of available technology so that savings are made wherever possible. The Board will seek to achieve these efficiencies through:

• Better use of technology and the use of electronic dossiers in appropriate cases. The Board recognises that it could make significant savings in its use of paper and the postage costs.
• A greater use of regional hearings and single members, properly trained and accredited, reviewing selected dossiers at home. This would achieve efficiencies in both members' fees and travel and subsistence as well as being more environmentally friendly.
• A greater use of video conferencing for selected oral hearings to make more intensive use of member time and to reduce the costs of travel and subsistence as well as assisting witnesses and other agencies.
• A reduction in the number of deferred and abortive hearings through better listing practices and the introduction of more effective case management procedures.
• An environmental impact assessment so that the Board can develop approaches which will reduce the amount of paper being used and reduce the transportation costs of members and staff by the better use of technology.

3.4 The delivery of each of the three supporting aims will be achieved by adopting the actions detailed below:

Aim 1 - Operations and core business

3.5 To make risk assessments which are rigorous, fair and timely with the primary aim of protecting the public and which contribute to the rehabilitation of prisoners where appropriate.

Actions

3.6 Aim 1 will be achieved by:

• Negotiating and agreeing the content and quality of the information and reports provided to the Board.
• Keeping up to date with developments in risk assessment and training members accordingly.
• Reviewing and monitoring the quality of decisions made by the Board through formal appraisal and other methods of quality testing including accreditation.
• Reviewing and monitoring the standards of information provided to the Board and feeding back the results to information providers.
• Undertaking research on the outcomes of the Board's decisions.
• Contributing to the debate on how victims and other interested parties might be involved in the parole process.
• Reviewing its provision of information to victims.
• Ensuring that there is an efficient and timely output of casework which is driven and supported by stretching performance targets.
• Developing appropriate mechanisms to demonstrate the rigour, fairness and consistency of decision making processes.
• Reviewing all casework business processes ensuring that technology is used to maximum effect and implementing intensive case management.
• Reviewing the correct criteria for interviewing prisoners.
• Developing partnerships with the Criminal Justice and other appropriate agencies.
• Reviewing the content and quality of management information.
• Maintaining and improving the integrity of data that is within the Board's control including further developing the Board's Lifer Database.
• Reviewing the effectiveness of the Board's diversity statement and continuing to monitor that the Board does not discriminate on improper grounds.
• Developing the Board's Review Procedure further and ensuring issues and learning points are fed into members' training and appraisal processes.

Aim 2 - Resource Management and Accountability

3.7 To demonstrate effective and accountable corporate governance by maintaining strong internal control, setting clear objectives and managing corporate risk and to deliver best value by optimum use of resources.

Actions

3.8 Aim 2 will be achieved by:

• Effectively managing the Board's cash and other assets.
• Developing effective delegated budgets.
• Establishing, monitoring and stabilising unit costs as far as possible.
• Promptly paying the Board's members, staff and other creditors.
• Developing the Corporate Governance Framework.
• Maintaining sound procedures and controls.
• Business planning in partnership with our sponsor.
• Ensuring a smooth transition to the new sponsor department which includes harmonisation of terms and conditions.
• Applying and monitoring the Board's commitment to equal opportunities and diversity.
• Determining and implementing the most appropriate organisational structure (e.g. - relocated, regionalised, distributed).
• Improved quality and efficiency of working through improved IT systems (e.g. C-NOMIS).
• Continuing to achieve the standards of Investors in People accreditation.
• Strengthening victim awareness among members and staff.
• Continuing to develop the Board's independence in human resource management.
• Contributing to the appointments process for members to ensure the best candidates are selected.
• Reviewing the training strategy for members and staff annually and using evaluation as part of our development into a learning organisation.
• Reviewing and monitoring our corporate risk management framework.
• Developing a Business Continuity Plan.
• Providing assurance on all aspects of the Board's operation to its sponsor unit.

Aim 3 - Independence, Strategy, Communications and Change

3.9 To promote the independence of and public confidence in the work of the Board, while effectively managing change.

Actions

3.10 Aim 3 will be achieved by:

• Developing a strategy to promote and maintain the independence of the Board.
• Establishing a framework for managing the change of sponsor from the Home Office to the Ministry of Justice.
• Developing a comprehensive strategy to promote confidence in the work of the Board amongst its stakeholders and the general public.
• Developing the online presence of the Board through a comprehensive review of the design and functionality of the Board's website.
• Continuing to publish regular information about the plans, policies and performance of the Board through annual reports and business plans and the Board's website.
• Developing the ability of the Board to respond to changes in legislation, case law and the political environment.
• Reviewing the Board's IT needs and meeting them so far as it is within the Board's control.
• Completing the Board's research into discretionary life sentence prisoners.
• Commissioning research to inform policy and decision making.
• Ensuring that our service delivery meets Best Practice standards.
• Reviewing and developing business plan objectives.
• Delivering an efficient, timely and effective service to all its stakeholders.
• Reviewing policy and procedures and implementing any necessary improvements.

4. Risks and Uncertainties

4.1 The Board faces a number of risks and uncertainties. These need to be recognised and appropriate responses planned:

• Excessive and growing workload. The Board's workload has consistently exceeded that which was expected and indeed budgeted for. If workload continues to exceed what was predicted and budgeted for then this will lead to an unsustainable position.
• Effect of judicial decisions. Smith and West showed the potential for judicial decisions to alter the Board's workload overnight. Further possible high impact decisions can already be seen emerging in the form of the O'Connell, Brooke and Girling cases. The tendency of these is for there to be an increasing requirement for prisoners to be entitled to ask for oral hearings which are more expensive and intensive than paper panels. There is also an emerging trend for the Board's decisions to be challenged on the basis of a perceived lack of structural independence.
• Membership mix. If the Board holds more oral hearings it will need a different mix of members. Difficulty is already experienced with Judge availability and the Psychiatrist/Psychologist resources. The Board also has relatively few legally qualified members to undertake single member oral hearings.
• Support costs. At the present time the Board's support costs (accommodation, office technology, telephony and postage) are mostly met by the Home Office. With the change in sponsor from the Home Office to the Ministry of Justice, if the Board was to relocate off Government estate there would inevitably be a requirement for these costs to be met when there is no internal provision available.
• IT provision. Failure to utilise opportunities with new technology due to funding or contractual constraints will impact on the Board's operational performance.

5. Budget Implications

5.1 The Board's budget was increased to £6.64 million in 2006-07. However the costs of the Board are largely driven by workload. Members' fees and travel and subsistence represent nearly 60% of the Board's budget and expenditure. The number of hearings, and particularly the number of ineffective and deferred hearings, is a major determinant of expenditure.

5.2 The Board recognises the need to ensure that it maximises the proportion of effective hearings.

5.3 The Board has outlined a programme of quality improvement which is necessary, and realistic. It is impossible to achieve such an improvement within existing resources. The Board will seek appropriate funding for the development of a system which achieves the robustness of decision making that Ministers and the public rightly expect and demand.

6. Corporate Governance

6.1 In 2004 a root and branch review of the Board's structure and operations took place. This followed the Home Secretary's Review of the Board and the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This resulted in the formation of a new Management Board which comprises the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, the Director of Performance and Development, the Director of Quality and Standards, the Chief Executive and four non-executive members.

The role of the Management Board is to provide leadership, vision, continuity of purpose and accountability to the public. It is supported by four committees: the Audit and Risk Management Committee, the Performance and Development Committee, the Quality and Standards Committee and the Review Committee.

The new structure has helped to improve organisational processes and systems and strengthened the Board's corporate governance framework. It was reviewed in 2006 by the Home Office Audit and Assurance Unit who found that, in general, the Board had a sound suite of policies covering governance issues. However, the review identified some policies that were in need of revision and made a number of recommendations and suggestions for the enhancement of controls. These will be addressed as part of the Board's commitment to reviewing its policy and procedures during the course of this plan.

Parole Board Corporate Governance Structure:

The Management Board is reported to by:

• Audit and Risk Management Committee
• Quality and Standards Committee
• Performance and Development Committee
• Review Committee

The Parole Board for England and Wales

Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX

Telephone 0845 251 2220