Part 3: Supervising offenders released on parole
3.1
In this Part, we set out our findings about how the Department:
- sets expectations for offenders on parole;
- prepares offender plans to manage offenders on parole;
- maintains regular contact with offenders on parole;
- provides support to offenders on parole;
- records sentence management information;
- provides training for probation officers; and
- guides and supports probation officers.
3.2
In supervising offenders released on parole, for the sample of offenders we examined as part of our audit, the Department had carried out sentence inductions and completed re-integration checklists for most offenders. But it needs to do this for all offenders. We were concerned that individual sentence plans were not prepared on time for many offenders, and that probation officers were experiencing difficulties in using the CPPS operations manual and the IOMS, and did not receive customised and specific training on the IOMS.
3.3
Because of the potential risk to public safety, we were most concerned that the Department's probation officers had not always visited offenders' homes within the required time frame or as frequently as required. In nine cases, we saw no evidence that home visits had occurred.
3.4
There are eight recommendations in this Part. A case study at the end of the 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.
Setting expectations for offenders on parole
The Department did not always complete required tasks within the first week of an offender's parole.
3.5
An offender has to report to their probation officer within 72 hours of their release from prison. An "initial induction" has to be carried out at the first reporting meeting, usually by a probation officer. The purpose of the initial induction is to:
- check that the Department has a correct record of the offender's details;
- explain the requirements of the offender's parole (including reporting to the probation officer) and the consequences of not complying; and
- identify whether the offender is at risk of harming themselves or others or has any immediate needs.
3.6
A sentence induction can also occur at the first reporting meeting or at the next scheduled reporting time. At the sentence induction, the probation officer outlines the specific requirements of an offender's parole, completes the re-integration checklist, describes the phases of parole to the offender and how often home visits will occur, and organises any immediate referrals to other agencies. All the induction tasks have to be completed in the first week of the offender's parole period.
3.7
We checked whether the offenders in our sample of 100 case files had reported to a probation officer within 72 hours of their release from prison, and whether induction tasks had been completed within the first week.
3.8
Four offenders did not report to a probation officer within 72 hours of their release from prison.1 For six offenders who had reported within 72 hours of release from prison, the induction tasks had not been completed within the required period.
| Recommendation 7 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections complete offender induction tasks within a week of an offender's release on parole. |
Preparing plans to manage offenders on parole
The Department did not always prepare individual plans in a timely manner, and some plans did not contain all the relevant information.
3.9
The Department requires a probation officer to work with the offender to prepare a plan for the offender's parole. These "offender plans" provide the basis for managing and monitoring an offender. They also ensure that the offender's needs and the requirements of their parole are addressed. The Department's requirements state that an offender plan has to be prepared within four weeks of the start of the offender's parole.
3.10
Offender plans have to contain:
- the offender's details;
- important sentence dates;
- specially imposed conditions;
- major rehabilitation and re-integration activities;
- reporting requirements;
- objectives;
- comments when the plan is reviewed; and
- the signatures of the probation officer, offender, and service manager.
3.11
For the 100 case files we looked at, we checked whether the Department had prepared offender plans in a timely manner, and if the plans contained all the required information.
3.12
The plans for 46 offenders were not prepared on time. Many of these plans had been completed within the second month of the offender's parole, but some were not completed until three or more months after the start of the offender's parole.
3.13
For 30 offenders, the plans did not contain all the required information. The information most often missing was about re-integration and rehabilitation activities.
3.14
For 63 offenders, the plans did not contain all of the three signatures required - those of the probation officer, offender, and service manager. The signature most often missing was that of the service manager.
3.15
The Department has said that it will change the offender plans to enable a simpler format and more streamlined approach to sentence planning.
3.16
In our view, the Department needs to prepare plans containing all the required information in a timely manner for all offenders on parole, to ensure that there is a clear framework in place to manage offenders and to address the offender's needs from the beginning of the offender's period on parole.
| Recommendation 8 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections prepare plans for managing offenders that contain all the required information, and complete those plans within the required time frame. |
Maintaining regular contact with offenders on parole
Probation officers were not always conducting home visits regularly. It was not always clear if the reporting requirements for offenders living in secure facilities in the community had been approved.
3.17
The Department manages parole in phases. At the time of our audit, there were three phases.2 Each phase generally requires a different level of reporting by an offender and monitoring by a probation officer. Progressing through the phases depends on the offender's compliance with, and response to, the requirements of their parole. Figure 6 shows the reporting and home visit requirements for each phase of parole.
Figure 6
Reporting and home visit requirements for each phase of parole
| Phase | Usual length of phase | Reporting requirement | Home visit frequency* |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I | First 4 weeks | Twice weekly | Once |
| Phase II | 9 weeks | Weekly | Once |
| Phase III | Remainder of parole | Fortnightly | Every two months |
*Home visit requirements for offenders on parole with residential restrictions (staying at a specified address and being subject to electronic monitoring) are weekly during phase I and II, then fortnightly during phase III.
3.18
Reporting requirements for all offenders on the Warning Register are either the same as those outlined in Figure 6, or weekly for the first third of their parole and (if approved) fortnightly for the remainder of their parole - whichever is the most restrictive. The Department expects offenders on the Warning Register to progress through these phases more slowly.
3.19
For the 100 case files in our sample, we looked at the approval of reporting requirements, whether offenders were reporting to their probation officer, and whether probation officers were carrying out home visits.
Approving reporting requirements
3.20
Since 1 October 2007, an area manager may approve less frequent reporting requirements for offenders (including offenders on the Warning Register) who attend a residential rehabilitation programme or live in a secure facility in the community.
3.21
For five offenders residing in a psychiatric institution or residential rehabilitation centre3 who started their parole after 1 October 2007, it was not clear whether the relevant area manager had approved the reporting requirements (which included monthly telephone calls and fortnightly visits by the probation officer).
Reporting to the probation officer
3.22
Fifty-seven offenders did not meet their ongoing reporting requirements. In Part 4, we discuss the enforcement action that the Department takes in response to such non-compliance.
Visiting an offender's home
3.23
For all offenders on the Warning Register, a probation officer has to visit the offender's home within 48 hours of their release from prison. After that, probation officers must visit the offender's home every two months.
3.24
A probation officer has to visit an offender's home to follow up certain instances of non-compliance, when the offender changes address, or before an offender moves if a probation officer has to approve the address as a condition of the offender's parole. For offenders on the Warning Register, a probation officer has to visit the home within 48 hours of a change of address or transfer from another CPPS service centre.
3.25
For offenders not on the Warning Register, a probation officer has to visit the home within two weeks of a change of address or a transfer from another CPPS service centre. This is in addition to required scheduled home visits within each phase.
3.26
For 16 of the 52 offenders on the Warning Register, the probation officer did not visit the offender's home within 48 hours of the offender's release from prison. After that, for 52 of the 100 offenders (including 23 offenders on the Warning Register), a probation officer did not visit their home as frequently as required. The mid-point of offenders' parole was the most common period where homes were not visited. We saw no evidence that probation officers had visited the homes of nine offenders while they had been on parole (the nine offenders were not on the Warning Register).
3.27
For 16 offenders on the Warning Register, enforcement action in response to the offender not complying with their parole conditions meant that a probation officer was required to visit the offender's home. For six of these offenders, probation officers had not carried out a home visit.
3.28
Eight offenders had temporarily or permanently transferred to another CPPS area while they were on parole. For two of these offenders (including one offender on the Warning Register), a probation officer either did not visit the offender's home after the transfer or did so but not within the required time frame.
3.29
Thirty-four offenders changed their address while they were on parole. For 20 of them (including 12 offenders on the Warning Register), the probation officer either had not always carried out the home visits or did not visit the home within the required time frame.
3.30
In our view, the Department needs to carry out the regular visits to offenders' homes that the Department's procedures require. Home visits are one of the basic safeguards in the parole system. Regular visits provide probation officers with the opportunity to assess if the offender's residence is appropriate, identify any potential high-risk situations, and involve the offender's family or support people in the sentence management process. The Department has said that it will design and implement processes to ensure that scheduled home visits are completed.
3.31
The Department's area managers need to approve the reporting and visiting requirements for offenders residing in psychiatric institutions or residential rehabilitation centres. This would increase the likelihood that the offender and probation officer have regular contact at a level that is appropriate to the offender's risk of re-offending.
| Recommendation 9 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections regularly visit the homes of offenders on parole. |
| Recommendation 10 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections approve reporting and visiting requirements for offenders who reside in a psychiatric institution or residential rehabilitation centre. |
Providing support to offenders on parole
The Department did not always identify the re-integration needs of offenders early. Some internal referrals for psychological assessments and rehabilitation programmes did not meet the appropriate criteria, and some referrals that met the criteria were not scheduled in a timely manner.
3.32
As part of an offender's induction to their parole, a probation officer has to complete a checklist of the offender's re-integration needs to assess the needs and determine what action to take to address them.
3.33
We looked at the re-integration checklists in the sample of 100 case files that we examined. For 19 offenders, the Department did not fully complete the checklists. For 30 offenders, probation officers had not determined actions to address the re-integration needs that had been identified.
3.34
After identifying and assessing re-integration and rehabilitation needs, the Department seeks to manage those needs by giving offenders access to:
- agencies in the community that provide social services;
- specific psychological assessment or treatment;
- the Department's rehabilitation programmes; and
- rehabilitation programmes run by other agencies.
3.35
In our view, the likelihood of a person re-offending is reduced if barriers to their re-integration into society have been identified and mitigated as much as possible. The Department needs to complete its re-integration checklists for offenders during the induction process to ensure that re-integration needs are identified and support can be accessed to address those needs early in the offender's parole.
| Recommendation 11 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections complete the required re-integration checklist during the first week of an offender's period on parole. |
Access to support services
3.36
The Department has relationships with a number of government departments, agencies, and community organisations that provide social services to offenders. These services include accommodation, employment advice, accessing benefit support, and counselling. The Department has formalised some of these relationships in memoranda of understanding.
3.37
The accessibility and availability of some social services in the community varied in the four areas we visited. Staff noted that it was difficult to identify who to contact within some of the agencies the Department has memoranda of understanding with. However, staff we spoke to commented that working relationships with other agencies and organisations were generally either good or improving.
3.38
Psychologists in CPPS provide specialist advice, assessment, and treatment to reduce the risk of re-offending. This is generally targeted at the highest-risk offenders. Probation officers make referrals for psychological assessment in the first instance. The psychologists determine the appropriateness and timing of treatment after the initial assessment.
3.39
In the sample of case files we examined, probation officers had referred 37 of the 100 offenders for psychological assessment. Two of these referrals were declined because they were assessed as unsuitable for treatment or because they had been assessed and treated in the past. For 35 offenders whose referrals were accepted, the waiting time for an assessment appointment with a psychologist ranged from one week to 11 months. For many of these 35 offenders, the waiting time for an assessment appointment with a psychologist was between one and two months.
Providing support services
3.40
The Department runs a range of rehabilitation programmes in the community that aim to modify behaviour and reduce re-offending for targeted higher-risk offenders. Probation officers make requests for offenders to attend rehabilitation programmes. CPPS head office assesses these requests against the inclusion criteria for each programme. The criteria include factors such as age, the offender's RoC*RoI score, and the offender's commitment to participating in the programme.
3.41
The rehabilitation programmes managed and delivered by the Department in the community are:
- a short programme that aims to increase the offender's motivation to address their offending;
- a medium-intensity rehabilitation programme for male offenders at medium risk of re-offending that emphasises relapse prevention skills;
- a short rehabilitation programme for male offenders at medium risk of re-offending who live in areas where the medium-intensity rehabilitation programme is not offered, or who are otherwise ineligible to attend it; and
- a short rehabilitation programme for female offenders that aims to address similar issues to the rehabilitation programmes for men.
3.42
The Department also runs maintenance programmes and rehabilitation programmes in community residential centres. Community residential centres are community-based facilities that provide rehabilitation programmes for high-risk male offenders who stay at the centre after their release from prison or as a condition of a community-based sentence. The Department runs ongoing maintenance programmes for offenders who have completed any of the rehabilitation programmes.
3.43
Intensive rehabilitation programmes for high-risk offenders are provided in three community residential centres. These centres are Montgomery House in Hamilton, Te Ihi Tu in New Plymouth, and Salisbury Street Foundation in Christchurch.
3.44
Nine of the 100 offenders in our sample had been referred to the medium-intensity and short rehabilitation programmes. CPPS head office declined five of the referrals to the medium-intensity rehabilitation programme because the offender's RoC*RoI scores were too high or the circumstances made it difficult for the offender to attend the programme at that time. The Department said that it had referred two of these offenders for psychological assessment instead. CPPS accepted four of these referrals for programmes, and the offenders' waiting time to begin the programmes ranged from three weeks to six months.
3.45
The Department had significant difficulties with delivering the medium-intensity and short rehabilitation programmes for the year ending 30 June 2008. Only 387 offenders attended the programmes during the year when the target was for 508 places to be available. The Department had to cancel some of the short rehabilitation programmes because of unsuitable referrals or a lack of programme facilitators. The Department has said that it has worked on these problems during 2007/08 to improve the delivery of the programmes. It has recruited and trained additional programme facilitators, consolidated the programme schedule, and revised the referral and selection process.
3.46
Offender referrals for psychological assessment and rehabilitation programmes need to meet appropriate criteria to ensure that probation officers are referring only those offenders who are eligible for the treatment or programme. The Department needs to schedule appropriate offender referrals for psychological assessment and rehabilitation programmes in a timely manner to ensure that rehabilitation support is provided to offenders as soon as possible.
| Recommendation 12 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections refer only offenders who meet the appropriate criteria for psychological assessment and rehabilitation programmes, and schedule appropriate referrals as soon as possible. |
Recording sentence management information
Most of the Department's staff we spoke to experienced problems with accessing information in the Integrated Offender Management System.
3.47
The Department records information about offenders on parole in an information system called the Integrated Offender Management System (the IOMS). The Department also records information about offenders in individual hard copy files, which it keeps in the service centre that the offender reports to.
3.48
The IOMS is the Department's primary storage system for offender information. For each offender, the IOMS contains basic parole information, personal details, and administrative information about the offender's parole. Probation officers are responsible for maintaining all offender information in the IOMS and preparing case notes to provide a record of information about how an offender is managed.
3.49
The IOMS is accessed by all Department staff in service centres throughout the country. Since it was implemented in 1999, the Department has progressively modified the IOMS to support changes in legislation and business processes, and updates to the underlying technology.
3.50
Most Department staff we spoke to during the audit said that the IOMS was difficult to use. They experienced significant problems with the system - in particular, with accessing all relevant case notes for offenders on parole on one screen when notes had been entered into different screens. We were told that case notes would "disappear".
3.51
Staff said that they had problems in gathering all relevant information and evidence for preparing parole assessment reports, breach or recall actions, and carrying out case management checks and reviews. Staff also said that they experienced problems with using the IOMS to issue instructions about when and how offenders on parole had to report to their probation officer. Some service managers and senior probation officers we met during the audit acknowledged the frustrations that probation officers were experiencing with accessing case notes in the IOMS.
3.52
We examined information contained in the IOMS and hard copy files for the 100 offenders in our sample. For 13 offenders, probation officers noted faulty case notes (including duplicate case notes, case notes not displaying on the correct screen, and instances where case notes had disappeared). Incorrect sentence termination dates in the IOMS posed another problem for the Department's staff.
3.53
For all offenders, the relevant service centre held a hard copy file that contained documentation for each offender. Five hard copy files for offenders on the Warning Register were not put into the appropriately colour-coded folder, which meant that it was not immediately obvious to staff that these offenders were on the Warning Register.
3.54
The Department said that it has upgraded the IOMS functionality to make it more user-friendly. A change to allow staff to access all notes in one screen was made in October 2007. The Department said that it made further changes to improve case note functionality in November 2008, and that it issued improved guidance to staff on how to complete case notes in January 2009.
3.55
In our view, the Department should communicate regularly with staff to ensure that any changes it makes to the IOMS improve staff's ability to complete and access offender case notes.
Providing training for probation officers
The Department trains probation officers through the curriculum training programme and more specialised training courses, but there is no specific training for using the Integrated Offender Management System.
3.56
The training programme for probation officers involves theoretical and practical training components. It includes topics on report writing, sentence management, interviewing skills, screening, assessment, and bicultural practice. The programme runs for about 38 days over six months in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, and Christchurch. Staff travel to and from those centres and the areas where they are based during that period.
3.57
The Department runs more specialised training courses on:
- home detention and residential restrictions;
- community work and community detention;
- reparation;
- managing threatening situations;
- motivational techniques;
- family work;
- extended supervision;
- dynamic supervision; and
- support planning meetings.
3.58
Most staff we spoke to who had completed the training programme for probation officers said that it was useful for developing basic sentence management skills. But they also said that the programme was long, that the sequencing of material covered could better reflect the needs of the staff participating, and that it did not prepare staff for managing the number of offenders they were allocated to. The Department said that, in January 2008, it changed the sequencing of the training to introduce elements of sentence management earlier in the programme.
3.59
Probation officers practise using and navigating the IOMS for 10 hours as part of the training programme for probation officers. However, they do not receive any further IOMS training. Because of feedback from staff during our audit, the Department has said that it will review the nature and extent of IOMS training.
3.60
In our view, the Department needs to provide specific IOMS training to probation officers to ensure that all probation officers know how to access and maintain information in the IOMS for the offenders on parole they are managing.
| Recommendation 13 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections provide probation officers with customised and specific training in using the Integrated Offender Management System. |
Guiding and supporting probation officers
Most of the Department's staff we spoke to had difficulty finding relevant information in the CPPS operations manual to guide them in their work. Some senior probation officers did not have time to provide support. Some staff considered that the mechanism used by the Department to allocate resources was unrealistic because of the increasing number of offenders they had to manage.
3.61
The CPPS operations manual (the manual) is the Department's guide for managing all offenders serving non-custodial sentences and orders, including offenders on parole. The manual is in four volumes covering five areas:
- reports for the courts and the Board;
- sentence management;
- managing community work;
- managing community detention; and
- risks and relationships.
3.62
The manual provides general information about managing all sentences and orders. It is organised by stages of sentence management rather than by specific sentence or order. The manual also provides general information on managing risk (including guidance on the Warning Register) and relationships with other agencies. The manual contains information and specific requirements about managing offenders on parole in various sections within three of the four volumes.
3.63
Although each service centre has hard copies of the manual, probation officers usually access it on the Department's intranet. Most Department staff we spoke to said that the manual was difficult to use. Many probation officers said that the manual was not well structured, and that it was difficult to access and search for information on the Department's intranet.
3.64
Because of these difficulties, some probation officers refer to their colleagues for information and advice rather than refer to the manual. Many service managers and senior probation officers acknowledged the difficulties that probation officers were experiencing in finding relevant information in the manual. The Department has said that it is reviewing the structure of the manual to ensure that it better meets the needs of staff.
| Recommendation 14 |
|---|
| We recommend that the Department of Corrections redesign the Community Probation and Psychological Services operations manual so that users of the manual can easily find the information they are looking for. |
Workloads of the probation officers
3.65
Service managers and senior probation officers provide support for, and manage, a probation officer's case load (the number of offenders each probation officer is responsible for managing). Service managers are responsible for managing team performance by regular performance planning and appraisal, ensuring that supervision is available for probation officers, and allocating work and duties for their teams. Supervision enables probation officers to discuss issues and concerns about their professional practice.
3.66
The focus of the senior probation officer role is to provide on-the-job training and support for probation officers, act as a mentor and role model in standards of professionalism, help new probation officers to work through the training programme, and coach staff from a technical perspective on requirements to meet sentence management standards. Some senior probation officers we spoke to during the audit had been involved in implementing training initiatives and providing specialist subject matter expertise in their areas. But other senior probation officers said that they had not had time to provide coaching and support for probation officers because of the demands of their own case loads and high staff turnover.
3.67
Probation officers manage offenders serving a range of non-custodial sentences and orders, and only some of the offenders they manage are offenders on parole. The case loads for probation officers we spoke to varied in the four service centres that we visited. Generally, probation officers in all areas said that they had experienced an increase in their case loads since the introduction of the new community-based sentences in October 2007.
3.68
As at 30 July 2008, the average offender case load4 for each probation officer nationally was 43.8. Of the four areas we visited, Auckland had the lowest average case load of 36.5 offenders for each probation officer, and Taitokerau had the highest average case load of 54.7 offenders for each probation officer. Staff told us that, at the time of our audit, the Whangarei service centre (in the Taitokerau area) was significantly stretched because of the number of offenders its staff had to manage. Probation officer turnover rates for the 12 months to 30 June 2008 in the four areas we visited ranged from 9.8% in Taitokerau to 20.4% in Auckland.
3.69
As at 30 June 2008, there were 866.3 full-time equivalent (FTE) probation officers nationwide. According to the Department, this was about 100 probation officers fewer than the 965 FTE probation officers that the workload indicated were needed to manage the number of offenders serving community-based sentences and orders at that time.
3.70
The 2008 Budget provided additional funding for probation officers. As at 1 December 2008, the Department had 968 FTE probation officers. According to the Department, it needed another 122 probation officers to manage the numbers of offenders serving community-based sentences and orders at that time.
Mechanism to estimate workloads and allocate resources
3.71
The Department uses a mechanism called Average Product Times to estimate and allocate resources within CPPS, and to distribute funding to service centres. Average Product Times are calculated averages of the time it takes for a probation officer to carry out the main activities required to manage a sentence or an order.
3.72
The Department uses these Average Product Times to estimate and allocate the time probation officers spend with offenders. Different types of parole (that is, parole without residential restrictions and parole with residential restrictions) have different Average Product Times. Additional time is included for managing offenders on the Warning Register.
3.73
Some probation officers we spoke to during the audit said that the Average Product Times for some sentence management aspects were unrealistic, and did not reflect the time required to manage offenders. In some service centres we visited, the service managers were adapting the previous CPPS workload allocation tool to allocate offenders to staff in their teams. The Department is aware of these issues, and is working with area managers to make the Average Product Times work in practice within the service centres.
3.74
In our view, the Department should continue its efforts to make the Average Product Times work in practice and more realistically reflect probation officers' workloads.
| Case study - Offender B |
|---|
| Preparing to release Offender B Offender B is listed on the Warning Register. Offender B was sentenced to more than seven years in prison and was released on parole in September 2007 in Auckland. In April 2008, a probation officer lodged a recall application with the Board because Offender B had been involved in a burglary. An order for the interim recall was also issued in April 2008. The Warning Register assessment form for Offender B had not been filled in at all. A case note entered in the Integrated Offender Management System (the IOMS) stated that Offender B met the assessment criteria because they were on the Highest Risk Offender List, which is maintained by the Department. There was no record of a Warning Register assessment score in the IOMS or a completed assessment form on file. Supervising Offender B on parole The probation officer for Offender B did not visit Offender B's home within the required 48 hours of Offender B's release on parole. The first home visit occurred one week after Offender B was released. Monitoring how Offender B was managed The service manager had not always carried out the required weekly checks of how Offender B was being managed. There was a period of almost three months where no service manager checks were carried out. A case note in the IOMS stated that there had been no checks during this three-month period because Offender B had dropped off the Warning Register list for the Auckland area. There were four other periods where no service manager checks were carried out, including one period of five weeks. |
1: We discuss the enforcement action that the Department takes in response to non-compliance in paragraphs 4.23 to 4.35.
2: The Department has told us that, since our audit, a fourth phase has been added. It requires offenders to report monthly to a probation officer, with home visits every two months.
3: For example, the Mason Clinic and Odyssey House in Auckland; and Hillmorton Hospital, Salisbury Street Foundation, and Vincentian Recovery Centre in Christchurch.
4: The Department does not use average offender case load to estimate and allocate resources because the averages do not reflect the complexity and variety of sentences and orders that probation officers manage, or the time spent providing information to the courts and the Board, which is also a part of a probation officer's workload.
page top