The Parole Board. Working with others to protect the public.
Policy and guidance
The Race Action Plan adopted by the Parole Board to help eliminate any institutional racism, cultural stereotyping and exclusion and to promote a culture of inclusiveness which embraces and respects diversity.
The Parole Board for England and Wales is an executive non-departmental public body (NDPB), sponsored by the Prison Service, established under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and continued under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It became an NDPB on 1 July 1996 under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The Board exists to make risk assessments to inform decisions on the release and recall of prisoners with the ultimate aim of protecting the public. Its overarching aim is
Protection of the public and successful reintegration of prisoners into the community through a just, open and efficient process.
The Board has three strategic aims, set out in its Corporate Plan 2001/4. They are:-
The duty of the Parole Board under the Act in the carrying out of its functions is to meet the general statutory duty to:
eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.
This general duty is supported by a number of specific duties. The Parole Board is committed to complying with the Act by 31 May 2002 or working towards compliance in accordance with a timed action plan.
The Parole Board has already taken a number of steps to improve race equality which go towards satisfying some of its duties under the Act. This action plan will enable the Board to make further progress and to do so in a structured and timely way.
The Action Plan aims:
The plan also
The Board welcomes constructive contributions about how we can improve and ensure that in all we do we are promoting equality and doing all that we can to eliminate discriminatory practices and institutional racism.
If you wish to comment on, or make a complaint about, possible failure by the Parole Board to meet its duty to promote racial equality, please write to Terry McCarthy, Head of Policy and Casework, The Parole Board, Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2DX.
Chris Glenn
Chief Executive
August 2002
To implement an action plan that will help to eliminate any institutional racism, cultural stereotyping and exclusion. To make a public commitment to achieving that objective. To promote a culture of inclusiveness which embraces and respects diversity.
The Parole Board accepts the definition of "institutional racism" given in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report as "the collective failure to provide a professional and appropriate service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people."
The report went on to say:
"Furthermore, our conclusions as to Police Services should not lead to complacency in other institutions and organisations. Collective failure is apparent in many of them, including the Criminal Justice System. It is incumbent upon every institution to examine their policies and the outcome of their policies and practices to guard against disadvantaging any section of our communities."
Although the Inquiry examined the actions and procedures of the Metropolitan Police it has been widely accepted by the other agencies comprising the criminal justice system, and elsewhere, that a similar scrutiny would reveal common problems and that a proactive approach to tackling institutional racism is a priority. The Human Rights Act 1998 places a duty on public authorities to act in a manner which is consistent with human rights which prohibits discrimination on any grounds such as race, colour, language, religion, birth or other status. The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 makes it unlawful for all the agencies within the criminal justice system to discriminate, either directly or indirectly, on racial grounds. The Act also makes it a duty on all public authorities in the carrying out of their functions to promote racial equality.
Immediate and ongoing.
To improve public confidence in the parole system by ensuring that every aspect of the process is transparent and demonstrably fair.
The Parole Board is responsible for making decisions on the release of prisoners. It is therefore important that the Board is able to demonstrate that cases are treated with fairness.
Decisions include the release of Discretionary and Automatic lifers, those detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure and prisoners sentenced to between 4 and under 15 years. The Board also makes recommendations to the Secretary of State in relation to Mandatory lifers and discretionary conditional release prisoners sentenced to over 15 years. The Board also considers the recall of prisoners and representations against recall.
There is a need to ensure fairness, particularly in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Race Relations legislation. It is important to give reasons for decisions and to be open and transparent about the decision making process. Annual Reports and other publications including any consultation documents should be made widely available. It is essential for the integrity of the Criminal Justice System that all criminal justice agencies give priority to meeting this aim and work together to achieve a consistent approach.
Immediate and ongoing
To enhance the openness and accessibility of the Parole Board through two-way channels of communication and accountability and increased awareness of its activities. To build effective partnerships with others including ethnic minority groups.
Parole Board hearings are not held in public and for paper hearings the prisoner is not present. However, the Board does provide written reasons for all its decisions and these are open to judicial review. Observers are allowed to sit in on hearings and information is provided about both the paper and oral hearing processes. In order to comply with the Freedom of Information and Data Protection legislation the Board has provided more information on its website.
Immediate and ongoing.
To ensure that ethnic minority groups are not discriminated against, whether directly or indirectly, when they are interviewed by a Parole Board member or when their cases are considered by a Parole Board panel.
The Parole Board considers in the region of 10,000 cases a year. 97% of the cases are dealt with on the papers and include decisions on the release of prisoners and the recall of those prisoners who are in breach of their licence. Prisoners applying for parole are interviewed at the prison by a member of the Parole Board. Three different members later meet to consider a dossier of papers including the interview report before deciding on whether to grant parole. Members are trained to act impartially throughout the process and recent studies have confirmed that the Board is achieving its aim of reaching decisions fairly regardless of a prisoner's ethnic origin. Members also interview prisoners liable to deportation and although not involved in making the final decision in these cases, still have to act and report fairly. Where necessary the Prison Service arrange for an interpreter to be present at interviews.
Black and Asian people represent a far higher proportion of the prison population than their population in England and Wales. The Parole Board has a duty to ensure that the arrangements and processes within the parole process do not constitute any direct or indirect racial discrimination against prisoners from the ethnic minority populations.
All action to be initiated within six months.
To ensure that ethnic minority prisoners, witnesses and others involved in the oral hearing process are treated fairly.
It is important that all those involved in an oral hearing before the Board are aware of the procedure. The Board has therefore issued a guide to the way in which an oral hearing is conducted which is aimed at all participants. This includes the prisoner, the prisoner's representative, the Secretary of State's representative as well as any witnesses or observers. It is important that adequate information is provided in a format which is understandable and accessible. Where necessary, arrangements are made for an interpreter to attend the hearing if the prisoner has difficulty understanding or speaking English.
Action point to be initiated within six months.
To develop good practice in all communications which promote positive, inclusive messages and images and avoid negative stereotypes and assumptions. Working toward establishing a two-way dialogue.
It must be recognised that good communication is essential to support race equality measures. There is a need to be open and accessible and the language used at interviews or hearings must avoid stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes and be inclusive. When issuing reasons for decisions, statements or publications connected with the Board's work it is important to think about message, contents and images portrayed and to ensure that explanations and contexts are provided. Among the initiatives already in place aimed at improving communication is the Parole Information Booklet which provides helpful advice about the parole process. This was produced by the Prison Service and the Prison Reform Trust in consultation with the Parole Board. Following a request from the Board the booklet was translated into 21 different languages.
To make better use of the Board's website to publish information
Publish on the website the Parole Information Booklet in different languages
Consider publishing other documents in other languages
Audit existing communication systems, including use of technology e.g. websites, e-mail etc and consider new ways of communicating
Immediate and ongoing.
To ensure that a comprehensive complaints procedure exists within the Parole Board which deals effectively with race equality issues, both internally and externally.
The Board currently has a procedure for dealing with request/complaints from prisoners and also letters received from prisoner representatives, relatives and victims. However, there is no formal record kept of complaints of a racial nature. Although these have been rare there is a need to devise a procedure that can handle complaints more effectively. It also needs to comply with the Charter Standard that requires all central government departments and their agencies to have a complaints procedure in place, to publicise its existence and to provide details of the procedure if asked. Any procedure will need to monitor whether a complaint is of a racial nature.
Within six months.
To demonstrate an open, inclusive and participative culture which values diversity and to eliminate institutional barriers both formal and informal to employment or selection. To promote mentoring and other support mechanisms.
The Board has the following Equal Opportunities statement:
The Parole Board is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all members and staff, regardless of ethnic origin, religious belief, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability or any other irrelevant factor. It will also provide guaranteed interviews to candidates who qualify under the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 who meet the criteria for jobs in the Secretariat. The appointment of members is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the same criteria apply.
The Board is a small organisation, comprising a Chairman, 2 full-time members and 107 part-time members and 44 staff. It recognises the importance of recruiting people from ethnic minority backgrounds but this in itself will not change the organisational culture and may not produce long term changes. New recruits cannot be expected to thrive in a hostile or excluding culture. Senior officers therefore need to think about culture and how to include people and encourage a culture where challenging inappropriate behaviour is acceptable. This will include consideration of social settings as well as the work place.
Within six months of publication of recommended action.
To work with the Home Office, the Prison Service and others in the Criminal Justice System to develop and implement race equality policies and practices.
The Home Office Race Equality Scheme is made up of an overarching scheme which sets out principles and practices that apply throughout the Department together with associate schemes for each of the constituent parts including the Prison Service. The Board is most closely linked with the Prison Service which provides its Grant-in-Aid. The Board will work closely with the Prison Service and in particular the Sentence Enforcement Unit (SEU) to ensure that the objectives are achieved.
Immediate and ongoing.
To enable members to consider cases in a fair and impartial manner.
When new members join the Board they are trained to act fairly when interviewing prisoners or considering cases. The content of new members' training is continually reviewed to ensure that it meets the required standard. Where necessary further training is provided. For example in 2000 all members received training in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998. The Board's decisions are regularly monitored and recent studies show that the Board is achieving its aim of reaching decisions fairly (see Annex A - Ethnicity and Parole). However, there can be no room for complacency. A training needs analysis (TNA) will therefore be undertaken to see what additional or different training is required and how it should be delivered. This will inform the training strategy for Board members.
TNA to be undertaken - 6 months.
Long-term: plan and implement the training strategy.
To ensure that appropriate training is given to all employees by an accredited/appropriate race equality trainer or facilitator.
Most staff employed by the Board are seconded from the Prison Service. In line with Prison Service policy, all staff received equal opportunities training in 1999 and Human Rights training in 2000. However, current training provision tends to be fragmented and lacking in consistency. A training needs analysis (TNA) has therefore been commissioned in order to identify what training is required and how it should be carried out. This will inform the Board's future training strategy for Secretariat staff.
Begin the TNA by 31/7/02.
Long-term: plan and implement the training strategy.
To monitor, evaluate and review all race equality initiatives/action undertaken by the Parole Board.
The Parole Board will review, record progress and update this scheme on a regular basis, initially annually, so that it can properly reflect how we are doing. We will tie the review process into our business planning cycle and will ensure that our review is published both in our annual report and on our website.
The Board will build on its principles, policies and structures to develop, monitor and review its targets especially as they relate to service delivery. When forming and developing policies, the Board will consider the likely impact on race equality. Where available, the Board will make use of relevant historical information, research, statistics, comparative data, survey findings and any specially commissioned research. Where appropriate, the Board will consult its members, staff and other stakeholders in order to inform policy development.
The Board will review its monitoring systems and ensure that they are sufficiently robust. The Board will make use of statistics, complaint analysis, satisfaction surveys, focus groups and interviews. The monitoring arrangements will test levels of participation and satisfaction, the relevance to the needs of specific ethnic groups and the appropriateness of the way the service is delivered.
If proposed policies are likely to have an adverse impact on those from minority ethnic communities, consideration will be given to:
To begin immediately.
On 29 March 2001, the Public Accounts Committee published a report about parole. One of the issues raised in the report was whether the parole system operates fairly as between prisoners from different ethnic groups. This is an issue to which the Board attaches great importance. It is committed to fairness in the way that it deals with prisoners, and training for new members includes training in race equality issues to ensure that members do not act unfairly when interviewing prisoners or considering cases. Each year the Board publishes statistics in its Annual Report which shows the success rates of parole applications for various ethnic groups. The statistics for 2000/01 shows broadly similar parole rates for White and Black prisoners (45.4% and 47.5% respectively) and markedly higher rates for South Asian (59.4%) and Chinese and other ethnic groups (53.3%).
Two pieces of research in 2000/01 looked at the different success rates of parole applications from different ethnic groups. In both cases the studies concluded that the higher parole success rate for Asian prisoners than for White or Black prisoners was due to factors which it was entirely proper for the Board to take into account; eg the type of offence, previous convictions, number of adjudications or completion of offending behaviour work.
In their study of the Board's decision-making, Hood and Shute developed a predictive model of parole decisions based on seven variables, all of which are proper for the Parole Board to take into account - actuarial risk of reconviction of a serious offence during the parole period (itself based on the prisoner's sex, age at conviction, number of previous convictions and category of offence), the prisoner's security category, completion of offending behaviour courses, seconded and home probation officers' recommendations, number of adjudications in prison and previous convictions of a sexual and violent nature. They then used this model to explore whether the different parole rates observed in their sample of 428 prisoners could be attributed to legally relevant factors.
| Ethnic group | Proportion with variables associated with probability of release on parole of more than 60% | Proportion with variables associated with probability of release on parole of less than 40% | Predicted parole rate | Actual parole rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 26% | 63% | 33% | 32% |
| Black | 19% | 69% | 27% | 27% |
| Asian | 68% | 27% | 65.5% | 73% |
Overall, the predicted parole rate for Asian prisoners was 65.5%, compared with an observed rate of 73%. This difference was not statistically significant given the small number of Asian prisoners in the sample (22). Hood and Shute were able to conclude that the different parole rates were explained by the different extent to which members of each ethnic group met the criteria used by the Board.
The second study, carried out by the Research Development and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office, built on Hood and Shute's work by analysing a much larger sample of 4,746 prisoners considered for parole in 1999/2000. Preliminary analysis was carried out to determine what factors are related to the decision to grant parole and whether ethnic groups differ in respect of these factors.
This analysis found:
The second stage was to develop a predictive model which included: number of adjudications, whether the prisoner was a sex offender and, if so, had attended a sex offender treatment programme, risk of reconviction of a serious offence, category of prison, offence type and whether the prisoner had breached a probation or community service order. This model correctly predicted the actual outcome in 76% of cases. The model correctly predicted the variations in release rates between ethnic groups, suggesting that these variations can be explained in terms of factors properly taken into account by the Board.
| Ethnic Group | Actual release rate | Predicted release rate |
|---|---|---|
| White | 39.3 % | 40.0 % |
| Black | 41.7 % | 39.2 % |
| South Asian | 63.4 % | 58.9 % |
| Chinese/other | 56.1 % | 53.5 % |
| Total | 40.9 % | 40.9 % |
These studies have confirmed that the Board is achieving its aim of reaching decisions fairly, regardless of a prisoner's ethnic origin. However, the Parole Board's decision comes at the end of a long process. The Board considers that there is a need for further work by the Prison Service to identify whether there are issues of fairness at earlier stages which may affect the factors taken into account by the Board and which need to be addressed - for example, why there are different numbers of adjudications as between ethnic groups, or whether all ethnic groups have equal access to offending behaviour programmes.
Among the documents reviewed in connection with the preparation of this action plan are the following:-
Grenadier House, 99-105 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2DX
Telephone 0845 251 2220