Part 4: Monitoring offenders released on parole

Department of Corrections: Managing offenders on parole.

4.1
In this Part, we set out our findings about how the Department:

4.2
In monitoring offenders released on parole, for the sample of offenders we examined as part of the audit, the Department had prepared sentence completion reports for almost all offenders who had completed their parole. But it needs to do this for all offenders who complete their parole. We were concerned about the variable level of detail about an offender's compliance recorded in IOMS case notes by probation officers.

4.3
Because of the potential risk to public safety, we were most concerned that service managers were not checking the IOMS records for high-risk offenders as often as they were required to, and that the Department did not always take appropriate and timely enforcement action for offenders' non-compliance. We were also concerned that one registered victim was not notified in a timely manner, and another was not notified at all.

4.4
There are six recommendations in this Part. A case study at the end of this Part shows the 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.

Overseeing high-risk offenders

The Department's service managers did not always oversee how the high-risk offenders were being managed as actively as they were required to.

4.5
Service managers are responsible for overseeing the general day-to-day management and sentence administration for offenders within their service centres. Area managers and assistant area managers are also responsible for overseeing the management of certain high-risk offenders within the area. As part of the Department's quality assurance system, service managers have to carry out regular reviews of a sample of offender files in their service centres against sentence management standards. The results of the reviews are collated, compiled, and reported to senior management.

4.6
The quality assurance system also includes the further identification and investigation of issues by a graduated system of incident reporting, case reviews, and special investigations. Case reviews identify learning opportunities from incidents and, along with special investigations, aim to improve the quality of sentence management in CPPS. During the period 1 January 2007 to 12 June 2008, 33 cases were reviewed after initial incident reports. There was also a special investigation in this period into the management of Graeme Burton, who was convicted of a murder that was committed while he was on parole.

4.7
In February 2007, all offender files (including offenders on parole) were reviewed in the Wellington/Wairarapa CPPS area (see Figure 7).

Figure 7
The Department of Corrections' Wellington/Wairarapa area review of offender files

The review of offender files came after a number of case reviews in the Wellington/Wairarapa area that highlighted deficiencies in sentence management practice, and after the Department recognised that staff were under increasing pressure. Of the 163 parole files reviewed, 136 files had deficiencies that varied from minor issues to serious shortcomings in managing the sentence.

The Department has said that all actions required to address the deficiencies were completed by 2 August 2007. Major issues identified during the review related to management of the offender warning system, management of enforcement action, lack of home visits, and inadequate offender case notes.

The Department carried out two follow-up reviews in the Wellington/Wairarapa area. The first follow-up in December 2007 concluded that sentence management had improved overall. Delays in responding to non-compliance in some circumstances were the exception and continued to be an issue.

The second follow-up in March 2008 showed little improvement, and compliance for service manager oversight and enforcement action had decreased. The Department has said that the area management team monitors the areas for improvement identified in the follow-up reviews. A further follow-up review was scheduled for January 2009.

As a separate review, the Assistant Area Manager completed a review of all parole files in the area in April 2008. The review identified sentence management and performance management issues to be addressed by service managers in the area. A follow-up of this review was completed on a sample of cases about two months after the initial review. It found that most recommendations had been acted on, and service managers were instructed to complete any outstanding remedial actions.

4.8
Service managers have to carry out weekly checks of the IOMS records for each offender on the Warning Register managed by probation officers in their service centre during the first third of the offender's parole. This is a crucial aspect of overseeing how offenders are managed. These checks ensure that information in the IOMS is accurate and up to date, and that probation officers manage offenders on the Warning Register in keeping with the Department's sentence management requirements. After the first third of an offender's parole, the service manager checks may be reduced to fortnightly if the offender's risk of re-offending is considered to be sufficiently well managed.

4.9
We looked at how the Department had oversight of management of the 52 offenders on the Warning Register who were in our sample of 100. We reviewed information in the IOMS case notes to see whether service managers carried out their checks.

4.10
For 46 of these 52 offenders, service managers had not completed checks of the offender's records at the required frequency of weekly (or fortnightly, if so authorised), but many of them had been checked at least every two to three weeks. However, for five offenders, a service manager had not checked their records for two months or more during the offenders' parole (although the area manager had checked on one of these offenders during this period). At the time of our audit, no service manager had checked any of the records in the IOMS for one offender on the Warning Register since that offender's period of parole began about six weeks earlier.

4.11
Service managers completed their checks weekly (or fortnightly, if authorised) for the other six offenders on the Warning Register in our sample of case files. For 11 offenders on the Warning Register, there was evidence of area manager supervision - checks were recorded by the area manager or assistant area manager in the IOMS case notes.

4.12
In our view, probation officers' compliance with the Department's requirements will improve if service managers regularly check how high-risk offenders are managed. Regular checks will help to ensure that high-risk offenders are appropriately managed and supervised. The Department has said that it will implement refresher workshops for all service managers to ensure that they fully understand and implement the requirements for Warning Register checks.

Recommendation 15
We recommend that the Department of Corrections regularly check how probation officers are managing high-risk offenders.

Reviewing offender compliance

It was not always clear whether probation officers had checked all the relevant details when offenders were reporting to them. The Department did not always review offender plans in a timely manner.

4.13
Probation officers have to monitor an offender's employment status, their address, and their progress against their offender plan, and be aware of any current or emerging issues.

4.14
Probation officers are also required to keep records of all their monitoring and assessment activities up to date, including:

  • any changes to the offender's details or any new information; and
  • case notes in the IOMS recording all contacts associated with the offender, including their employer, their programme facilitator, their sponsors, groups or people providing services to the offender, and any other contacts.

4.15
For the 100 files in our sample, we looked at the information in the IOMS recording what occurred or was discussed when offenders on parole reported to their probation officer.

4.16
For almost all offenders, the notes in the IOMS varied in the amount of detail they contained, particularly about the offender's employment, accommodation, and current or emerging issues.

4.17
If another agency is dealing with an offender (for example, when the offender is taking part in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation programme), the probation officer has to liaise with that agency to make sure that any special conditions for the offender are met. In the cases we examined, probation officers had maintained contact with programme providers or facilitators and other agencies involved in managing the offender's parole.

4.18
In our view, the Department needs to enter case notes for reporting in the IOMS that clearly cover the offender details that probation officers have to monitor. This will help to ensure that IOMS information is kept up to date and that all staff involved in managing offenders are aware of changes to an offender's information.

Recommendation 16
We recommend that the Department of Corrections enter case notes in the Integrated Offender Management System that clearly cover the offender details that probation officers have to monitor.

Reviewing offender plans

4.19
Reviews of the offender plan are the primary mechanism for measuring an offender's progress with their parole. Probation officers have to review the offender plans every three months, and when there is a significant change in an offender's circumstances.

4.20
The purpose of the review is to:

  • determine and record the offender's progress against the objectives and activities outlined in the offender plan;
  • update the offender plan with any new information or details about managing their parole;
  • ensure that any interventions are achieving the aim of lowering the offender's risk level; and
  • establish what should be achieved during the next review period.

4.21
For the 100 files in our sample, we looked at the frequency of the reviews of the offender plans, to check whether the Department reviewed the plans in a timely manner and whether the offender plans covered the relevant details.

4.22
For 35 offenders, the Department had not reviewed the offender plans every three months. In many of these cases, the Department had either completed the offender plan reviews one to two months late, or the reviews were outstanding by at least one month at the time of our audit. However, the Department had not reviewed the plans of three offenders at all. In 10 cases, the probation officer had not recorded any comments at the offender plan review.

Recommendation 17
We recommend that the Department of Corrections review offender plans as frequently as required and address all relevant matters relating to an offender's progress with their parole.

Taking enforcement action for non-compliance

The Department did not always take appropriate and timely enforcement action for non-compliance, such as sanctions, breach action, or applying to recall offenders to prison.

4.23
Any failure by an offender to comply with a requirement of their parole is considered to be non-compliance. For example, failure to report to their probation officer as instructed, failure to attend a counselling session or programme, or failure to advise a probation officer of a change of address.

4.24
A sanction is any form of action taken in response to non-compliance that does not involve legal enforcement. Sanctions are used when an offender commits a minor infringement that is not serious enough to warrant a breach of parole, or a recall application to the Board. Sanctions can include:

  • issuing formal warnings;
  • requiring an offender to return to, or remain in, an earlier sentence management phase; and
  • withdrawing approval for absences for offenders on parole with residential restrictions.

4.25
Breach action involves laying a charge against an offender for a breach of the conditions of their parole. It is taken in response to specific actions of non-compliance when an offender fails (without a reasonable excuse) to comply with any condition of their parole, and when an offender fails (without a reasonable excuse) to report when required to do so.

4.26
An application to the Board to recall an offender to prison to resume serving their sentence of imprisonment is usually applied for after an offender fails to comply with their release conditions, commits further offences, or their behaviour deteriorates, or they pose a significant increased risk to the community.

4.27
If an offender breaches their parole conditions, or any other grounds for recall are met, a probation officer may make an application for recall. If the Department takes breach action, all information about the breach has to be presented to the court within two weeks of the breach, or one week if the offender is on the Warning Register.

4.28
For offenders on the Warning Register, the Department must start some form of enforcement action within one week of the non-compliance. The Department prescribes specific enforcement action for offenders on the Warning Register for failing to report (with or without a reasonable excuse, and with or without telephone contact), and failing to comply with either the special or standard conditions of their parole without providing a reasonable excuse. If an offender on the Warning Register is non-compliant then, under normal circumstances, the Department should take both breach and recall action.

4.29
The probation officer has to involve their service manager immediately if an offender on the Warning Register is non-compliant, and if the probation officer is considering a breach or recall action. If a probation officer considers a breach and/or recall action for an offender on the Warning Register, a service manager has to advise the New Zealand Police immediately. An area manager must approve any deviation from the required enforcement action for offenders on the Warning Register.

4.30
In our sample of 100 files, there were 64 offenders (including 35 offenders on the Warning Register) who had failed to comply with the conditions of their parole. We examined the enforcement action that the Department took for these offenders to check whether it had been carried out in all instances where action was necessary, and whether the action was appropriate and timely.

4.31
For 18 offenders (including nine offenders on the Warning Register), there was no evidence of enforcement action in response to all instances of non-compliance. Most of these instances of non-compliance were that the offender had failed to report to their probation officer. For three of these offenders, the probation officer had recorded a case note fault within the IOMS (meaning that information might not have displayed on the correct screen or might have disappeared). It is possible in these three cases that the offender had reported in and that no enforcement action was needed.

4.32
For nine offenders (including three offenders on the Warning Register), the Department took enforcement action in some, but not all, instances of non-compliance. For two of these offenders, the probation officer had recorded a case note fault within the IOMS.

4.33
For 11 offenders, the Department took enforcement action in all instances of non-compliance, but the action taken was not timely and/or appropriate. Figure 8 outlines two examples of offenders who failed to comply with the conditions of their parole and either the Department took no enforcement action or the action taken was not timely.

4.34
For the rest of the offenders (including 15 offenders on the Warning Register), the Department took appropriate and timely enforcement action (most commonly breach action and written warnings) in all instances of non-compliance.

Figure 8
Two examples of offenders where the Department did not take enforcement action or the action taken was not timely

Offender 1 – Example of no enforcement action taken

Offender 1 was released on parole in June 2007 in Auckland and is listed on the Warning Register. At the time of our audit, this offender had failed to report to a probation officer as required on two occasions during their parole. The Department did not record any enforcement action in response. (The case study at the end of Part 2 has more information about how this offender's parole was managed.)

Offender 2 – Example of enforcement action taken that was not timely

Offender 2 was released on parole in October 2007 in Christchurch and is listed on the Warning Register. This offender re-offended in February 2008 (being in a building with intent). Although this required the Department to take some form of enforcement action within one week, the offender's probation officer waited until returning from holiday to complete a recall application to the Board. No other enforcement action was taken in the interim. The recall application was lodged with the Board more than one month later, in March 2008. The probation officer discussed the decision to delay enforcement action with the service manager, but there was no evidence that the area manager had approved the delay.

4.35
The most common reasons for the Department taking enforcement action were:

  • offenders failing to report to their probation officer;
  • offenders failing to attend psychologist appointments or other treatment programme appointments;
  • offenders moving address without notifying their probation officer; and
  • offenders failing to comply with other special conditions of their parole.

4.36
In our view, the Department needs to take enforcement action for all offenders who have either breached their parole conditions or re-offended. The enforcement action needs to be both appropriate and timely as matters of priority to ensure that public safety is not put at risk and that offenders are held accountable for their actions. This is one of the most important aspects of monitoring offenders. The Department has said that it will emphasise the importance of taking timely and appropriate enforcement action to all staff.

Recommendation 18
We recommend that the Department of Corrections take appropriate and prompt enforcement action for all offenders who have breached their parole conditions or have re-offended.

Notifying registered victims about non-compliance

In some cases, registered victims were not notified of enforcement action at all or not in a timely manner.

4.37
The victim notification system is a database that links information about offenders to information about their victims. The Department set up the victim notification system in 1987 as a result of the Victims of Offences Act 1987.

Staff responsible for the victim notification system

4.38
The Department has a victims information manager, who is responsible for maintaining registered victims' contact details at a national level, the systems used to store that information, and relationships with other agencies. The Department also has area co-ordinators who are responsible - as well as their other roles and responsibilities - for administering victim notification records for offenders in their prison or area, and providing information to registered victims.

4.39
Apart from the national co-ordinator, there are no staff working full-time on victim notification tasks. Area co-ordinators we met with during the audit held positions within CPPS that ranged from a service manager to an administration officer.

4.40
The Department provides training to area co-ordinators on an "as required" basis. The Department said that it has reviewed the training and support provided to area co-ordinators to ensure that it is adequate for them to carry out their functions appropriately, and this review will inform training for new area co-ordinators when they are appointed.

4.41
All new probation officers receive an overview of the victim notification system from the Department's curriculum training programme. The Department has said that it will review the content of this overview to ensure that it provides sufficient detail.

Timing for notifying registered victims

4.42
Once an offender is released on parole, the Department is required to notify registered victims within 72 hours in the following circumstances:

  • when an offender is convicted of breaching parole;
  • when an interim recall order is granted or quashed; and
  • when a final recall order is granted, declined, or quashed.

4.43
In the sample of files we looked at, 14 offenders had victims listed in the Victim Notification Register. We examined the IOMS case notes and victim notification correspondence for these offenders to check that registered victims had been notified in circumstances where notification was required.

4.44
Two of the 14 offenders were involved in circumstances requiring registered victims to be notified. The first offender, managed in the Christchurch CPPS area, was convicted in February 2008 for a breach of parole in December 2007. There was no evidence that the victim was notified of this breach conviction. The second offender, also managed in the Christchurch CPPS area, re-offended and an interim recall order was granted by the Board in April 2008. The Department sent a letter to the victim 14 days after the required time frame (in May 2008) advising them of the interim recall. The final recall order was quashed in May 2008 and a letter was sent to notify the victim within the required 72 hours.

4.45
The Department has said that it improved the IOMS functionality in June 2008. The IOMS now automatically triggers letters to registered victims when there has been a final recall or conviction for breach.

4.46
In our view, the Department needs to notify registered victims in a timely manner when it takes particular forms of enforcement action. It should be addressing this as a matter of priority, in keeping with the rights of registered victims to be kept informed about offenders. The Department has said that it will issue reminders to staff about the importance of notifying registered victims.

Recommendation 19
We recommend that the Department of Corrections notify registered victims within the required time frames about convictions for an offender's breach of parole or when orders recalling the offender to prison are granted, declined, or quashed.

Evaluating the progress of offenders at the end of their parole

The Department did not always complete a sentence completion report to evaluate an offender's progress at the end of their period on parole.

4.47
The Department considers it important that an offender prepares strategies to prevent a criminal relapse or maintain their progress beyond the period of their parole. This minimises the risk of the offender re-offending. The purpose of the sentence completion report is to record an offender's response to their parole and compliance with their conditions, and to identify their relapse prevention or maintenance strategies.

4.48
The sentence completion report provides:

  • a summary of the offender's response to the sentence or order;
  • comments about whether the objectives in the offender plan were achieved;
  • a description of the relapse prevention strategies;
  • a description of any remaining areas of concern;
  • a summary of non-compliance issues;
  • confirmation of other sentences or orders the offender remains subject to; and
  • comments on the likely benefit of future community-based sentences.

4.49
When it is finished, the sentence completion report has to be copied into the offender's IOMS case notes.

4.50
In our sample of 100 files, 24 offenders had completed their period of parole. We checked whether the Department had prepared sentence completion reports for these offenders.

4.51
For three offenders, the Department did not prepare a sentence completion report. For 14 offenders, the Department prepared reports that contained all the necessary information but were not copied into the IOMS case notes.

4.52
In our view, the Department needs to prepare sentence completion reports for all offenders as the end of their period on parole draws near. These reports help to ensure that an offender's progress is evaluated, and that maintenance and relapse prevention strategies are in place for all offenders.

Recommendation 20
We recommend that the Department of Corrections prepare sentence completion reports for all offenders before the end of the offender's period on parole.
Case study – Offender C
Preparing to release Offender C

Offender C was sentenced to four years in prison and released on parole in November 2007 in Waiariki. In December 2007, Offender C re-offended (a third offence for driving while disqualified) and was released on bail.

Offender C was not on the Warning Register, but there were victims associated with Offender C who were on the Victim Notification Register. According to a case note entered in the IOMS, the probation officer had contacted the local area co-ordinator to advise them of the proposed address for Offender C. There was no evidence that the area co-ordinator had checked the proximity of this address to the location of the registered victims, and no evidence that they advised the probation officer of the outcome of a check.

Supervising Offender C on parole

The probation officer did not visit Offender C's home as frequently as the Department's procedures required. Offender C was in the third phase of their parole, which required a home visit to be conducted every two months. At the time of our audit, there had been no home visit for five months.

Monitoring how Offender C was managed

Offender C was often late or erratic in their reporting, and the action in response to this was not always appropriate or timely. A warning letter was issued to Offender C in November 2007 for failing to report.

Offender C failed to report to their probation officer in January 2008 but the probation officer did not follow this up with a home visit until 12 days later. Offender C also missed reporting to their probation officer between early March 2008 and early April 2008, but this did not result in any enforcement action being taken.

Offender C was moved to the next sentence management phase with fortnightly reporting in February 2008, despite the poor reporting history. Offender C also missed two appointments for alcohol and drug rehabilitation treatment. Although Offender C was threatened with breach action, this never took place and no other enforcement action was taken.
page top