Voices in Justice: Parole Reform in Scotland: Consultation Analysis

10. Progress review hearings (Q18–21)

Key points from Chapter 10

¨ There was support, mainly from individuals (including those with experience of custody), for giving the Parole Board the power to conduct post-release progress hearings. However, organisations – including those who supported the idea in principle – raised a range of concerns, seeing it as potentially duplicating the role of justice social work.

¨ If post-release progress hearings are introduced, respondents were most in favour of the Parole Board being able to vary licence conditions. Those with experience of custody and a range of other individuals thought the Board should relax conditions for those making good progress and that recall to prison should be seen as a last resort.

¨ There was a range of views about how long after release a progress hearing should be held and how frequent they should be. However, it was common for respondents to say that such hearings should only be held if needed, on a case-by-case basis, and / or that they should be held less often if a person is doing well.

10.1 In response to the findings of a consultation carried out in 2019,^[13] the Scottish Government proposed the introduction of review hearings to allow the Parole Board to monitor an individual’s compliance with licence conditions in the months following release. Such a procedure is in place in other jurisdictions including New Zealand. However, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on prison, parole, policy and social work resources prevented further development of this type of approach, and the current consultation indicated the intention of revisiting this topic.

10.2 The consultation contained four questions inviting views on the principle of introducing post-release progress hearings and how these might operate.

Question 18: In principle, do you support the idea of giving the Parole Board for Scotland the power to require post-release progress hearings, at which they can take action based on the person’s progress while in the community on parole?

Question 19: If progress hearings were introduced, what changes do you think the Parole Board should have the power to make, based on the person’s progress while in the community on parole?

Question 20: If progress hearings were introduced, how long after someone is released on parole should the Board have the power to call a progress hearing for them?

Question 21: If progress hearings were introduced, how frequently should the Board have the power to call a progress hearing for someone on parole in the community?

10.3 Respondents’ views on these questions are presented below. The views of organisations and individuals with no experience of custody are discussed first, followed by the views of individuals with experience of custody.

Organisations and individuals with no experience of custody

The power to require post-release progress hearings

10.4 Question 18 asked respondents if they supported giving the Parole Board the power to require post-release progress hearings. The purpose of these hearings would be to monitor progress and take appropriate action following the release of an individual on parole. Table 10.1 shows that:

• Overall, 58% of respondents said ‘yes’, and 25% said ‘no’.
• A relatively high proportion of respondents said ‘other’ or ‘not sure / no opinion’.
• The overall pattern of response was similar among organisations and individuals, although organisations were more likely than individuals to say they were ‘not sure’.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

10.5 The 21 campaign respondents said ‘yes’ at Question 18.

10.6 The groups most in favour of giving the Parole Board the power to require post-release progress hearings were victim support organisations (all of which said ‘yes’), and justice professionals (around three-quarters of whom said ‘yes’). There was less consensus among other respondent groups.

10.7 Those who supported the proposal thought post-release progress hearings would:

• Identify problems early and enable more support to be put in place if required
• Recognise progress and provide positive feedback
• Help keep individuals motivated and accountable after release
• Reassure victims about the ongoing monitoring of an individual released from prison.

10.8 These respondents thought post-release progress hearings had the potential to reduce reoffending and recalls. However, some who supported the idea in principle also had questions or concerns, and these are discussed below together with the views of respondents who did not support, or were unsure about, the idea of post-release progress hearings.

10.9 Those who did not support the proposal – and those who were unsure – expressed uncertainty about the benefits of post-release progress hearings, given that community-based social workers already have responsibility for monitoring the progress of paroled individuals. There were concerns about duplication of effort, increased administrative burden and costs, and the potential to undermine the role of frontline professionals who are (they thought) best placed to monitor risk, and support an individual’s reintegration.

10.10 There were also concerns about the impact of post-release progress hearings on individuals on parole. Family / friends of individuals with experience of custody and a range of organisations thought post-release progress hearings could be perceived as a form of ongoing punishment and surveillance, creating uncertainty and stress for people on parole, and making reintegration harder. These respondents said rehabilitation would be better supported by access to community services (housing, employment and health), not repeated appearances before the Parole Board – unless there is evidence of an increasing risk of reoffending. If a person is doing well in the community, it was unclear what purpose such hearings would serve. There were also concerns that this proposal would result in more frequent recalls.

The role of the Parole Board in post-release progress hearings

10.11 Question 19 asked respondents what changes they thought the Parole Board should be able to make to someone’s parole (based on their progress in the community) if post-release progress hearings were introduced. Table 10.2 shows that:

• Overall, 71% of respondents said the Parole Board should be able to vary the detail of existing licence conditions, 47% said it should be able to impose new licence conditions, and 47% said it should be able to recall the person to custody.
• The overall pattern of response was similar among organisations and individuals. However, compared with individuals, a relatively large proportion of organisations (7 out of 17) said ‘other’.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

** This is the number of respondents who selected at least one option. Total percentages are not shown as respondents were able to select more than one option.

10.12 The 21 campaign respondents said ‘other’ in response to Question 19.

10.13 It was common for respondents to select all three main options at Question 19 (around half of all respondents did this) and to say that all the suggested options were ‘logical’ and would give the Parole Board flexibility, depending on a person’s progress.

10.14 Some respondents, however, selected only one option, and in most cases, this was ‘vary the detail of existing licence conditions’. These respondents said that the Parole Board should have the ability to either relax existing conditions if a person is doing well in the community, or strengthen conditions if their risk is increasing.

10.15 In general, respondents who said ‘other’ at Question 19 restated their views that they did not support the Parole Board having the power to require post-release progress hearings. Most of these did not tick any of the three options offered. However, some noted that the Parole Board already has all the powers mentioned and can use these when a social worker submits a breach / ‘change to licence’ report to the Board.

The timing of progress hearings

10.16 Question 20 asked respondents how long after someone is released on parole should the Parole Board be able to call a post-release progress hearing (if such hearings are introduced). Table 10.3 shows that:

• Overall, 30% of respondents said ‘one year’, 11% said ‘less than one year’, 5% said ‘a set time period longer than one year’, and 20% said ‘the full length of the person’s parole’.
• The most common option selected by individuals was ‘one year’; however, none of the organisations selected this option. Half of organisations (8 out of 17) said ‘other’.

* Individuals with no experience of custody

10.17 The 21 campaign respondents said ‘other’ in response to this question.

10.18 Those (nearly all individuals) who thought progress hearings should be introduced at specific times (‘one year’, ‘less than one year’ or ‘a set time period longer than one year’) said their chosen timeframe ‘seems about right’, and would give an individual time to reintegrate and build their life again. Those in favour of longer timeframes (one year or more) thought that if the individual had not re-offended in this time, they were unlikely to do so at all, and therefore the time between progress hearings could be lengthened. Those who supported a shorter timeframe (less than one year) saw the initial months after release from prison as a time of high risk and thought a progress hearing in this period would help identify any issues at an early stage.

10.19 Respondents who thought the Parole Board should be able to call hearings over the full length of a person’s parole said that if a person’s circumstances changed, or their risk in the community appeared to be increasing, a progress hearing should be called. Some in this group suggested that an initial early review (e.g. within a year of release) should be held, but thereafter, review hearings could be arranged annually – or as needed – for the full length of a person’s parole.

10.20 Many respondents who answered ‘other’ or ‘don’t know’ at Question 20 had said ‘no’ or ‘not sure’ at Question 18 and were either not in favour of introducing progress hearings or were uncertain about their purpose. This group thought a clear, evidence-based rationale was needed to justify their introduction and determine their timing. Some said that, if such hearings are introduced, their timing should be flexible – determined by need (i.e. based on sentence type and / or evidence of increasing risk) – and not set at specific timescales. An alternative suggestion was that progress hearings could be scheduled to coincide with the review timescales set for specific sentences in the national throughcare guidance.

Frequency of progress hearings

10.21 Question 21 asked respondents how frequently the Parole Board should be able to call a post-release progress hearing for someone on parole, if such hearings were introduced. Table 10.4 shows that:

• Overall, 23% of respondents said ‘no more than every 3 months’, 9% said ‘no more than every 6 months’, and 4% said ‘no more than annually’. In addition, 27% said ‘only when a specific reason arises’ and 14% said ‘as often as the Board sees fit’.
• Half of organisations (8 out of 16) selected ‘other’ in response to this question.
• Individuals were most likely to favour flexible options – ‘only when a specific need arises’ or ‘as often as the Board sees fit’ (29 out of 62 selected one or other of these).

* Individuals with no experience of custody

10.22 The 21 campaign respondents said ‘no more than every 3 months’.

10.23 In general, respondents who supported the introduction of post-release progress hearings thought the frequency of hearings should be flexible – determined by the sentence a person had been given, or by the ongoing assessment of their risk in the community – and not set at fixed intervals. Some said hearings should be scheduled at ‘meaningful’ intervals, not continually, routinely or excessively. The timing of each hearing should be tailored to the needs of the individual and focused on public safety.

10.24 Respondents who favoured more frequent progress hearings or regular fixed intervals for hearings thought this would provide a focus for rehabilitation / reintegration efforts and help keep a person on track. Some thought it would be unmanageable to hold progress hearings more often than every three (or six) months. Some also said more frequent hearings could be held in the months / year immediately after a person’s release, but that these could be reduced over time if the person was making good progress.

10.25 Some respondents restated their lack of support for post-release progress hearings by the Parole Board, referring back to their comments at Question 18. This group generally answered ‘other’ or ‘don’t know’ at this question. (See paragraphs 10.9 and 10.10.)

Individuals with experience of custody

10.26 Questions 18 to 21 in the prison questionnaire were similar (but not identical) to the online questionnaire.

Question 18: Do you think the Parole Board should be allowed to check how someone is doing after they leave prison and take actions based on the person’s needs?

Question 19: If we had meetings to check how someone is doing on parole, what should the Parole Board be allowed to change? (Select all that apply.)

Question 20: After someone leaves prison on parole, how long after that should the Parole Board be allowed to check how this person is doing?

Question 21: If progress hearings were introduced, how often should the Board be able to do them?

Should the Parole Board be allowed to check how someone on parole is doing?

10.27 At Question 18, most individuals with experience of custody supported the idea that the Parole Board should be able to check how someone is doing after they leave prison and take actions based on the person’s needs. Of the 124 respondents who replied:

• 81 said ‘yes’
• 26 said ‘no’
• 7 said ‘other’
• 10 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

10.28 Individuals with experience of custody who supported the idea of Parole Board check-ups after release from prison highlighted a range of possible benefits. They thought that having the Parole Board involved in this way would:

• Be an opportunity for the person on parole to get guidance, additional support and encouragement – some said this was the role of the supervising social worker, but thought social workers were failing in this
• Allow the person to show that they are ‘sticking to the rules’ (i.e. the conditions of their parole), perhaps allowing for a reduction in licence conditions as a result
• Address any relationship difficulties the person is having with their social worker which, some said, can have a significant impact on the success of their reintegration
• Allow the Parole Board to assess ongoing risk and provide reassurance to victims.

10.29 In general, these respondents saw the purpose of the proposed Parole Board check-ups as providing people on parole with continued support and encouragement. Note also that some within this group suggested that these proposed check-ups should be required only for people on parole whose risk is increasing, or who are struggling and need additional support. They thought such check-ups should not be necessary for people who are doing well in the community.

10.30 Individuals with experience of custody who answered ‘no’, ‘other’ or ‘not sure’ at Question 18 often made the same point: that it was the responsibility of social work to monitor the progress of a person on parole in the community. It is unnecessary, intrusive, and potentially very resource intensive for the Parole Board to be involved in this way too.

What should the Parole Board be allowed to change at a progress hearing?

10.31 Of the 120 individuals with experience of custody who answered Question 19:

• 90 said ‘change some of the licence conditions’
• 57 said ‘give new licence conditions’
• 30 said ‘recall the person back to prison’
• 18 said ‘other’
• 12 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

10.32 Respondents made three main points in their comments:

• The Parole Board should be able to relax licence conditions for those who are doing well and complying.
• If new issues arise, the Parole Board should have the ability to add new conditions.
• If the person isn’t complying with their licence conditions, the Parole Board should find out why and put additional supports in place to help them succeed. Recalling the person to prison should be a last resort.

10.33 Some concerns were also expressed, including that a person’s progress cannot be assessed in a single meeting; that people should not be able to be recalled based on a meeting with the Parole Board if they are complying with their licence conditions; and that any decisions to recall a person should be based on evidence of a serious breach of conditions and not just the opinion of a social worker.

How long after leaving prison should a progress hearing be held?

10.34 Of the 121 individuals with experience of custody who answered Question 20:

• 48 said ‘one year (like in New Zealand)’
• 15 said ‘less than one year’
• 1 said ‘longer than one year’
• 27 said ‘the full length of a person’s parole’
• 17 said ‘other’
• 13 said ‘don’t know / no opinion’.

10.35 Respondents who thought that a progress hearing should be held one year after release from prison thought this timescale would be ‘fair’, or ‘adequate’, and would provide enough time for someone to adapt to their new life and situation outside prison.

10.36 Those who thought a hearing should be held less than one year after release said that this would be enough time to check if the person is complying with their conditions.

10.37 Those who thought a hearing (or hearings) should be held over the full length of a person’s parole gave two main reasons. They said the Parole Board should regularly check in on how a person is doing and help them if they need it, and that the Board should make sure a person is still complying with their licence conditions during the whole period of their parole.

10.38 Other views (mainly expressed by those who said ‘other’ or ‘don’t know’) were varied. Some said the timing of a hearing should be determined on a case-by-case basis (dependent on the person or their offence). Others suggested that an early hearing (at 3 or 6 months after release) might be helpful to address any issues, but that the frequency in hearings should decrease over time. Some also suggested that post-release check-ups should be left to social workers.

How often should the Parole Board be able to have progress hearings?

10.39 At Question 21, there was a preference among individuals with experience of custody for progress hearings to be held at relatively short intervals. Of the 120 who replied to this question:

• 35 said ‘no more than every 3 months (like in New Zealand)’
• 24 said ‘no more than every 6 months’
• 8 said ‘no more than annually’
• 14 said ‘only when there is a specific reason’
• 18 said ‘as often as the Board thinks is needed (i.e. no limit)’
• 11 said ‘other’
• 10 said ‘not sure / no opinion’.

10.40 Those who favoured more frequent progress hearings (e.g. no more than every 3 or 6 months) saw these intervals as ‘fair’, ‘sufficient’ but ‘not intrusive’. They gave the following reasons for supporting shorter time periods between hearings:

• It will help the person to stay on track and / or get additional support if they need it.
• It allows everyone to see the progress the person has made and help them continue to move forward in life.
• It would allow the Parole Board to form their own opinion about a person’s progress, rather than relying on social work reports.
• Any longer than 3 (or 6) months increases the risk of reoffending.

10.41 Those in favour of annual progress hearings thought this interval was adequate –particularly for those assessed as low risk – unless a specific concern had been identified. Those who selected ‘other’, or who thought that the frequency of hearings should be ‘when there is a specific reason’ or ‘as often as the Board thinks is needed’ generally made one of two comments:

• The interval between meetings should set on a case-by-case basis, depending on the person and / or the offence they had committed.
• Meetings should only be held if there is a problem or when the supervising social worker recommends one.