Part 2: Preparing to release offenders on parole
2.1
In this Part, we set out our findings about how the Department:
- assesses the risk of offenders eligible for parole;
- checks for issues related to registered victims;
- arranges for the release of offenders; and
- identifies high-risk offenders.
2.2
In preparing to release offenders on parole, the Department provides detailed information to the New Zealand Parole Board about the risk of offenders re-offending. For the sample of offenders we examined as part of the audit, the Department had allocated offenders to probation officers before their release from prison and had completed Warning Register assessments for the majority of offenders. But it needs to do this with all offenders. We were concerned that, in two cases, it was not clear that the Department's Prison Service and CPPS were working closely to ensure that all relevant staff were aware of the travel arrangements for offenders released to an area outside where they were imprisoned.
2.3
Because of the potential risk to the safety of victims, we were most concerned that the Department did not always check, before an offender was released on parole, how near the offender's proposed accommodation might be to the address of registered victims.
2.4
There are six recommendations in this Part. A case study at the end of the Part shows gaps and omissions in how the Department managed one of the offenders in our sample. Those gaps and omissions occurred at each stage in the offender's parole.
Assessing the risk of offenders eligible for parole
Assessment reports provided to the New Zealand Parole Board by the Department were not always as clear or consistent as they could have been.
2.5
The Department's basic risk measure for general re-offending is called RoC*RoI - the risk of conviction (RoC) and the risk of imprisonment (RoI). The RoC*RoI measure represents a statistical estimate of the probability that an offender will be convicted and imprisoned again within a five-year period. It provides a computer-generated probability score for all offenders. The scores range from 0.0 (which means there is no chance of an offender being convicted and imprisoned again) to 1.0 (which means that it is certain that an offender would be convicted and imprisoned again within a five-year period).
2.6
The Department has to prepare a parole assessment report for all offenders who appear before the New Zealand Parole Board (the Board). If the Board requests it, the Department also has to prepare a psychological assessment report. The parole assessment report provides the Board with information about the offender, including their RoC*RoI category,1 progress made during their prison sentence, a release proposal, and proposed special conditions for their release. Sentence planning staff in the Prison Service prepare parole assessment reports with the help of probation officers in CPPS.
2.7
When the Board requests a psychological assessment report for an offender, a psychologist from CPPS interviews the offender. The Department also applies its RoC*RoI measure and a range of other tools and measures to assess the risk of re-offending for specific types of offending, such as sexual offending and serious violent offending.
2.8
For sexual offenders, the Department uses the Automated Sexual Recidivism Scale, and Stable 2007 (a risk assessment tool specifically for sexual offenders). The combined scores for these measures produce a risk rating on a five-category scale ranging from low to very high.
2.9
For serious violent offenders, the Department uses the Violence Risk Scale and the Psychopathy Checklist - Screening Version. The Violence Risk Scale creates a "checklist" of risk factors associated with an offender that contribute to a high risk of violent re-offending (such as violent lifestyle and emotional control). The Psychopathy Checklist - Screening Version provides a probability of the risk of serious violent re-offending.
2.10
After the interview, a psychologist from CPPS prepares the psychological assessment report. A psychological assessment report provides the Board with:
- observations of how the offender presented to the psychologist;
- information about the offender's background and factors related to their offending;
- a description of the treatment provided;
- an assessment of the offender's potential to re-offend (based on the sorts of measures outlined above); and
- comments and recommendations on the offender's release plan.
Providing information to the New Zealand Parole Board
2.11
We examined the parole assessment reports, and 35 psychological assessment reports requested by the Board, for offenders in our sample. The parole assessment reports and psychological assessment reports generally provided detailed information on the risk of offenders re-offending.
Parole assessment reports
2.12
In some parole assessment reports, information from the Prison Service and CPPS within the release proposal section was not well structured. This made it difficult at times to understand what the major risks were because the most up-to-date and relevant information, which the Board needed to be aware of, was not clearly stated.
2.13
The Department has said that it introduced a new format for parole assessment reports in June 2008. The new format presents the RoC*RoI scores instead of RoC*RoI categories. The Department also said that it has provided the Board with information about how to understand and interpret RoC*RoI scores.
Psychological assessment reports
2.14
In some of the psychological assessment reports requested by the Board, the level of risk of re-offending was not as clear as it could have been (particularly for those that did not have a "summary" section). For some reports that did not have a summary section, an overall statement about the offender's potential to re-offend was difficult to find within the text. Some reports did not have an overall statement. In others (particularly those referring to the assessments of previous reports), it was not clear which measures were used to identify and assess the offender's risk of re-offending.
2.15
Community safety is the most important consideration for the Board in deciding whether to release an offender on parole. The Board must decide that the offender does not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community before the offender can be granted parole. Therefore, the Board must consider both the likelihood of further offending and the likely nature and seriousness of any re-offending. To make informed decisions about the release of offenders, the Board needs clear and consistent information from the Department on the risk of re-offending.
| Recommendation 1 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections continue to work with the New Zealand Parole Board to improve the clarity and consistency of information in parole assessment reports and psychological assessment reports about an offender's risk of re-offending. |
Checking for issues related to registered victims
The Department did not always check the proximity of the registered victim's address to the offender's proposed accommodation.
2.16
Before an offender is released on parole, the Department has to enquire into any potential issues related to the victims of the offender. This responsibility includes checking whether there are victims listed on the Victim Notification Register (we discuss this further in relation to notifying victims about non-compliance in paragraphs 4.37 to 4.46). If there are registered victims associated with an offender, probation officers have to contact area victim notification co-ordinators (referred to in this report as "area co-ordinators") to check whether the location of the offender's proposed accommodation will cause concern.
2.17
In 14 of the 100 case files that we looked at, there were registered victims associated with the offenders. In three of these 14 case files, there was either no evidence in the parole assessment reports that probation officers had contacted the area co-ordinators or no evidence that the area co-ordinator had checked the address and responded to the probation officer.
2.18
In our view, the Department needs to place greater priority on enquiring into the proximity of registered victims to the offender's proposed accommodation before offenders are released. Any potential risks posed by the offender to the victim need to be identified and strategies put in place to mitigate those risks and ensure that victims are kept safe. The Department has said that it will issue reminders to staff about the importance of completing these enquiries.
| Recommendation 2 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections always enquire into the proximity of registered victims to an offender's proposed accommodation, and take appropriate mitigation action, before the offender is released from prison. |
Making arrangements for the release of offenders
The Department did not always allocate a probation officer to an offender before an offender was released. It was not always clear whether Department staff were aware of the travel arrangements from prison for some offenders.
2.19
From October 2007 (when the Department changed some of its sentence management requirements), the Department's service managers were expected to allocate probation officers to offenders before offenders are released from prison.
2.20
Other Department staff, based in prisons, are allocated to offenders with complex re-integration needs2 to work with the offenders before they are released on parole. Figure 2 provides an overview of these re-integration workers.
Figure 2
Overview of the Department of Corrections' re-integration workers in prisons
| For offenders with complex re-integration needs requiring specialist support, the Department allocates re-integration workers to work with offenders while they are still in prison, providing intensive re-integration services before they are released. The Department set up regional re-integration teams in October 2006 to work with case officers in the Prison Service and other Department staff.Five re-integration teams are based in prisons throughout the country. The teams include a team leader, re-integration workers, social workers, and whanau liaison workers. The objective of re-integration services is to manage the transition of offenders into the community so that all identified re-integration needs are addressed, and that positive changes made during the sentence or order are maintained. The activities of the re-integration workers include assessment, planning, referral to appropriate agencies where necessary, and liaising with other agencies providing services in the community where offenders will live after they are released. |
2.21
The Department has also set up "high risk, high profile forums" across the country to help with arranging the release of some specific offenders from prison. Figure 3 provides more detail about the Department's high risk, high profile forums.
Figure 3
The Department of Corrections' high risk, high profile forums
| The purpose of the Department's high risk, high profile forums is to plan for, and share relevant information about, the release on parole of those offenders deemed to be of greatest risk to the community. The forums specifically discuss operational matters about all high-risk, high-profile prisoners eight months before either their next appearance in front of the Board or their confirmed date of release from prison. The Department holds eight of these forums across the country and sends local Prison Service and CPPS staff to attend. Local representatives from the New Zealand Police also participate in the forums. |
2.22
We checked whether probation officers had been allocated to offenders in our sample of 100 case files. Service managers had allocated probation officers to 28 offenders after - rather than before - their release on parole from prison. Of these 28, the time taken to allocate a probation officer after the offender was released ranged from one to 22 days. Most offenders were allocated a probation officer within one week. For 11 offenders, service managers had allocated probation officers after the offender's release on parole, but this was before the Department changed its sentence management requirement. For the other 61 offenders, service managers had allocated probation officers either before or on the same day as the offender's release from prison on parole.
| Recommendation 3 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections allocate all offenders to individual probation officers before each offender is released from prison. |
Making travel arrangements
2.23
If an offender is released on parole to an area outside the CPPS area of their prison, Prison Service staff are required to either ensure that the offender has made appropriate travel arrangements, or make those arrangements if the offender is not able to do so. The allocated probation officer in the CPPS area where the offender is to live does not have any direct responsibility for making travel arrangements, but should be aware of the arrangements that have been made.
2.24
We checked the travel arrangements made for offenders within our sample of 100 who were released to an area outside the CPPS area of their prison. For two offenders (both on the Warning Register), Prison Service and CPPS staff were unclear about the offenders' travel arrangements or release destinations. In both cases, the offenders did not report to their probation officer as required after leaving prison (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
Two examples of offenders transferred to another Community Probation and Psychological Services area after release from prison
| Offender 1 Offender 1 (an offender on the Warning Register) was released from Rimutaka prison in early October 2007 to start parole in Taitokerau. The offender was dropped off on the same day to catch a bus to Wellington airport with a plane ticket to Kaitaia. At the time of our audit in 2008, the offender had not reported to a probation officer. The Department said that an application for an interim recall to prison was granted four days after the offender's release, and a warrant for the offender's arrest was issued near the end of October 2007. The case notes in the Integrated Offender Management System indicate that the probation officer may not have had a clear understanding about the offender's release details. A case note from CPPS the day after the offender's release asks for clarification from the prison that the offender had been released, and what actions had been taken to get the offender to the airport. |
| Offender 2 Offender 2 (also on the Warning Register) was released from Waikeria prison in December 2007 to start parole in Waiariki. The offender breached parole conditions by failing to report to a probation officer within 72 hours of release from prison. The probation officer laid a charge for the breach six days after the offender's release. The offender had paperwork allowing them to proceed to Tauranga (in the Waiariki CPPS area), but there was confusion about where the offender was to be released. The offender travelled by bus from the prison to Hamilton, where supported accommodation had been arranged for one night. It was not clear whether Hamilton or Tauranga was to be the final release destination. It was unclear whether Prison Service staff and CPPS staff were aware of the offender's travel arrangements. The case notes in the Integrated Offender Management System noted confusion between CPPS and the prison about the offender's release conditions. |
| Recommendation 4 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Prison Services group and the Community Probation and Psychological Services group within the Department of Corrections work in close consultation so that relevant staff are aware of the travel arrangements for all offenders when they are released to an area outside the area where they were imprisoned. |
Identifying high-risk offenders
The Department did not always fully complete the required assessments to identify high-risk offenders, or the basis of the assessments was unclear or inconsistent.
2.25
Service managers assess, before the offender is released from prison, whether an offender should be included on the Warning Register. The Warning Register identifies offenders who present a significant risk to the public, to CPPS staff, or to themselves.
2.26
The decision whether to include an offender on the Warning Register is based on 12 assessment criteria. The 12 criteria are that the offender:
- is included on the Highest Risk Offender List, which is maintained by the Department;
- has been sentenced to more than two years' imprisonment for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, wounding or injury with intent, use of a firearm, robbery, or any sexual offence;
- has been sentenced to more than seven years' imprisonment for any offence;
- has active psychiatric or psychological conditions that give rise to safety concerns;
- has been classified to maximum or high-medium security at the time of release from prison;
- has been charged with, or is suspected of, serious violent offending while on a community-based sentence, order, or while in prison;
- has a RoC*RoI score greater than 0.9 (indicating a very high risk of re-offending);
- poses a threat of serious violence to any specific person or group;
- has a high public profile at the time of sentencing or release from prison;
- has a gang affiliation in circumstances that are, or were, relevant to any form of violent offending;
- has caused significant serial offending or recidivism for any crime (other than those relating to dishonesty); or
- caused the CPPS or the Board to raise any concerns requiring close supervision.
2.27
Each criterion is given a separate weighting score. If the offender matches the assessment criterion, and the weighting scores assigned to the offender for the criteria they meet total four or more, they are included on the Warning Register.
2.28
In some circumstances, service managers can override the assessment criteria to either include or exclude offenders. For every decision to override assessment criteria, the service manager has to enter a case note in the Integrated Offender Management System (IOMS), stating the reasons for the decision and who approved it.
2.29
The service manager can also add an offender to the Warning Register at any time if changes in circumstances justify doing so. If an offender is transferred to another CPPS area while on parole, the service manager in the receiving service centre has to complete a Warning Register assessment after the transfer.
2.30
We looked at the Warning Register assessments in the 100 case files we examined, to check whether all the offenders in our sample had been assessed appropriately.
2.31
For 15 offenders, the service manager had either not completed the Warning Register assessment form or not signed it off. For nine offenders, the service manager had overridden the criteria to register them on the Warning Register. The decision to override the criteria was not clear for three of these offenders, because the service manager had not explained or provided any detail on the assessment form or in the case notes contained within the IOMS.
2.32
Four offenders had been permanently transferred to another CPPS area while on parole. For two of these offenders, it was not clear from their case notes whether the service manager at the receiving service centre had completed the Warning Register assessment after the offender had been transferred.
2.33
The weighting scores for two of the Warning Register assessment criteria were not consistently applied in the CPPS areas we visited as part of the audit. These criteria related to the presence of active psychological conditions and gang affiliations (see Figure 5).
Figure 5
Inconsistent approaches between Community Probation and Psychological Services areas to the assessment criteria for the Offender Warning Register
| Active psychiatric or psychological conditions The Department noted active psychiatric or psychological conditions as part of the Warning Register assessment for four offenders. Two of these offenders had suffered head injuries in the past - one offender in Taitokerau and one in Waiariki. The Department's staff in Taitokerau applied a weighting score for the psychological conditions criterion because of the historical head injury. There was no evidence noted that the head injury gave rise to safety concerns. The Department's staff managing the offender in Waiariki did not apply a weighting score for the criteria, even though concerns were noted that the head injury may have caused some erratic behaviour A gang affiliation relevant to violent offending The Department noted gang affiliations as part of the Warning Register assessment for two offenders. One offender was managed by staff in Taitokerau and the other in Waiariki. A weighting score for the gang affiliations criterion was applied as part of the Warning Register assessment for the offender - a Black Power gang member - managed in Taitokerau. There was no evidence noted that this gang affiliation was relevant to violent offending. In Waiariki, the Department's staff considered that, although the offender was a Black Power gang member, this was not enough evidence to determine that the gang affiliation was relevant to violent offending. |
2.34
The Department has said that it considers variations in applying some of the Warning Register criteria to be appropriate. In our view, the Department needs to apply the Warning Register assessment criteria consistently to ensure that high-risk offenders are consistently identified in all CPPS areas.
2.35
The Department also needs to complete Warning Register assessment forms for every offender released on parole, with clearly documented reasons for decisions to override the assessment criteria. This will help to ensure that offenders who pose a high risk of re-offending are identified and made subject to sentence management and enforcement requirements appropriate to their potential risk of re-offending.
| Recommendation 5 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections provide national guidance for service managers on how to apply the assessment criteria for the Offender Warning Register. |
| Recommendation 6 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections complete assessment forms for the Offender Warning Register for all offenders at all required times, and provide clearly documented reasons for any decisions to override the assessment criteria. |
| Case study - Offender A |
|---|
| Preparing to release Offender A Offender A is listed on the Warning Register. Offender A was sentenced to 11 years in prison and was released on parole in June 2007 in the Auckland area, before transferring to Taitokerau. The assessment form used to place Offender A on the Warning Register had no total weighting score and had not been signed by a service manager. A case note entered in the Integrated Offender Management System stated that this offender had a total score of four, but the assessment criteria that the offender met were not indicated. Supervising Offender A on parole The probation officer did not visit Offender A at home as often as the Department's procedures require (in this case, every two months). There were two periods where no home visits occurred - the first was for a period of more than three months, and the second was for almost five months. Monitoring how Offender A was managed The service manager did not check how Offender A was being managed as often as the Department's procedures require. There were seven periods in which there were no weekly checks by the service manager, including two periods where six weeks passed with no checks. At the time of our audit, Offender A had failed to report to a probation officer twice during their parole. The Department did not record any enforcement action in response. |
1: The RoC*RoI category descriptions used within parole assessment reports are low (scores from 0 to 0.49), medium (scores from 0.5 to 0.64), high (scores from 0.65 to 0.9), and very high (scores greater than 0.9).
2: The Department considers that an offender has a re-integration need if the need is a barrier to the offender complying with the requirements of their sentence or order, or could contribute to re-offending, and the offender does not have the ability to resolve or manage the need themselves. If an offender has a re-integration need, the support provided can involve helping the offender to deal with immediate issues such as employment, accommodation, education, and finances (for example, accessing a bank account or benefit). We discuss re-integration needs in more detail in Part 3.
page top