Parole Board publishes Annual Report and Accounts for 2006/07

29/10/2007

The Parole Board today published its Annual Report and Accounts for 2006/07, reporting on its performance against business plan targets, statistics for determinate sentence and indeterminate sentence prisoners and accounts for the year. The report records the work carried out by the Board last year to maintain its high standards of risk assessment during a year in which it faced considerable financial pressures and increases in workload.

Statistics

The key statistics for 2006/07 are:

25,436

The number of cases handled during the year. This compared with 19,402 in 2005/06, up by more than 31%. This huge increase in overall cases is largely down to an additional 5,373 recall cases. Resource intensive oral hearings have also risen by an extra 605 cases.

2,505

The number of oral hearings that took place during the year. This compared with 1,900 in 2005/06, up by over 31%. This continues the steep rising trend in the number of such hearings and includes the first 50 Indeterminate Sentances for Public Protection cases, a category which is set to grow rapidly over the next few years.

7,857

The number of determinate sentence cases considered by paper panels during the year. This compared with 7,528 in 2005/06, up 4%. The number of Determinate Sentence (DCR) cases fell and will continue to fall in coming years as these sentences are phased out under the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. However, there were 934 EPP cases, which accounted for the small rise in cases considered by three member panels.

14,669

The number of recall cases considered during the year. This compared with 9,296 in 2005/06, up a staggering 58%. This may be due to a more proactive recall policy being exercised by the probation service for reasons other than further offences, which actually fell for parolees during the year.

35.8%

The percentage of DCR cases where parole was granted. Down from 49.4% in 2005/06 and the lowest release rate since 1996/97. The falling release rate appears to continue and accelerate the trend in the last couple of years of a more cautious approach by panels to recommending release.

246

The number of determinate sentence prisoners recalled from parole during the year following an allegation of a further offence. This fell by an encouraging 18% from 302 such recalls in 2005/06. This is out of an average of 4,285 such prisoners on parole during the year or 5.7%, which compares to a recall following allegation of further offending rate of 6.4% for 2005/06.

15%

The percentage of life sentence cases considered by oral hearing where life licence was granted. Down from 23% in 2005/06 and the lowest release rate since 2001/02, when the figures included extended sentence prisoners.

97

The number of prisoners on life licence who were recalled during the year following allegations of further offences. This is out of a total of 1,622 life sentence prisoners under active supervision in the community during the year, or 6%. This is a small rise on the figure for 2005/06 of 87 recalls for further offending out of 1,495 prisoners in the community, or 5.8%.

Performance

A detailed report on the Boards performance against business plan targets for 2006/07 shows that most targets and strategic aims were met or exceeded. These include:

• Considering 97% of parole applications within 25 workings days of receipt against a target of 95%.
• Notifying recall decisions within 2 working days of the panel in 100% of cases against a target of 90%
• Holding 96% of oral hearings to consider recall representations within 55 working days of being referred by the Home Office against a target of 90%.
• Replying to 96% of post-panel correspondence, including complaints from prisoners, within 20 days against a target of 95%.

The areas where targets have not been met include:

• Considering recall cases within 6 working days of receipt, which was only achieved in 22% of cases against a target of 90%. However, this did follow a 60% increase in the recall workload for which the matching funding was delayed, so leading to a backlog.
• Considering of deferred cases within 25 days from re-referral letter, which was only achieved in 68% of cases against a target of 95%. The number of deferrals having to be considered increased significantly.

Another area of concern, although not a Business Plan target, was the number of life sentence prisoners whose oral hearings had to be deferred. This rose from 202 cases in 2005/06, or 17% of those considered, to 384 cases in 2006/07, or 27% of those considered. A sampling exercise carried out in April/May 2007 suggests that up to 80% of deferrals on the day of a hearing are because of incomplete reports provided to the Parole Board or the non-attendance of key witnesses.

Commenting on the report, Parole Board Chairman, Sir Duncan Nichol, said:

"One of the key challenges facing us as a Board will be how to respond effectively to the implications of the new IPP sentences, especially where the tariff is a very short one. We will also need to consider the profile of the Boards membership and the way we do our work as we move towards an increasingly oral hearing based system.

Maintaining high quality risk assessment must remain our top priority and we have continued to focus on this with progressive plans for member development and accreditation. At the heart of our core responsibility is public safety and public protection and we retain our objective of making risk assessments which are rigorous, fair and timely, with the primary aim of protecting the public."

Parole Board Chief Executive, Christine Glenn added:
"At the same time as our caseload has risen we have also faced the beginnings of a transformation of the nature of our workload as the changes brought in by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 have begun to take effect. The nature of the Board has moved from being primarily an executive body making administrative decisions on the papers to being a court, making decisions in the cases of the most dangerous offenders at an oral hearing.

Amidst all this change we will need to stay focused on our performance in the coming year and ensure that the improvements in quality of decision-making and case management that we have seen recently are not lost. Continuing to deliver performance to the highest standards possible is the best way to safeguard what we have already achieved."

Quality agenda

The Board has continued to make high quality risk assessment its top priority and during the year has sought to maintain the quality of its work by:

• Introducing new training programmes for its members along with the assessment and accreditation of members for specific roles.
• Developing a system of intensive case management that can fully support members in their deliberations and can meet face-to-face with offenders where this would assist in a robust risk assessment.
• Opening the doors of our Review Committee to distinguished external members and tightening up the deliberations of the Committee.

Victim issues

One chapter in the report is devoted to the Boards increasing victim perspective, including the new NOMS public protection advocates, training for Board members on victim issues and work with victims groups. The chapter features a thought provoking contribution from Wendy Crompton, whose son was the victim of murder and who has been working closely with the Board in helping members to understand the perspective of victims and their families.

Accounts

 On 9 May 2007 the Boards sponsor changed from the Home Office to the Ministry of Justice.  The Boards only source of income is grant-in-aid, provided by the Home Office during 2006/07, and this was £6,640,825, for the year. This was an increase of £880,825 (14.9%) on 2005/06 and this reflects the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and compliance with the House of Lords judgement in the case of Smith and West.

The estimated unit costs (excluding notional costs) to the Board for processing each category of case are as follows:

The increase in cost of DCR cases is due to the relatively small increase in volume and also the increased cost incurred in post panel work as fewer prisoners are granted parole.  The fall in the cost of oral hearings and single member recall panels is due to the increased volume of cases over which overheads are absorbed.  The comparatively high cost of the single-member recall panels for the hearing of representations against recall for determinate sentence prisoners reflects the fact that usually only one case is heard on a sitting day.

Notes to Editors

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 safely be released into the community.

The Parole Board Annual Report and Accounts 2006/07 have been formally laid before Parliament today. Copies of the Report can be downloaded in PDF format from www.paroleboard.gov.uk

For further information please call Tim Morris, Head of Communications for the Parole Board, on 020-7217 0564 during office hours, or on 07725-927954 out of hours, look on the Parole Board website at www.paroleboard.gov.uk , or e-mail tim.morris5@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

ENDS

PR/2/2007

The Parole Board for England and Wales

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

Telephone 0845 251 2220