Long-term prisoner release process: consultation analysis

Views on the general proposal that the point of release should be at an earlier point

Question 1. Please share any views you have on the general proposal that the point of release on non-parole licence for long-term prisoners should be at an earlier point.

This section discusses in more detail the reasons respondents gave in support of changing the release point, as well as the reasons for not supporting it. The section also discusses the operational concerns that respondents suggested ought to be considered before a change is made to the point at which a prisoner is released on NPL.

Views in support of change to point of release on Non-Parole Licence

Six main themes were identified in responses by respondents who were supportive of the principle to change the point of release on NPL to an earlier point. These responses are discussed below.

Improved Outcomes

Many respondents supportive of changing the release point to an earlier point emphasised that it becomes harder for prisoners to reintegrate into society the longer they serve in prison, and those individuals serving longer sentences require more time, supervision and support in the community to rehabilitate, reintegrate and readjust into society and reunite with their families. Effectively more time in custody requires more time in the community to minimise the detrimental and adverse impacts of prolonged imprisonment on individuals and their families, and to reduce the risk of reoffending/recall. A handful of respondents noted evidence that supervision/interventions delivered in the community, rather than in custody, can be more effective to improve outcomes.

The following quotes from organisations illustrate their belief that the change will lead to better outcomes:

“We are supportive of measures which increase opportunities and the time to work with and support people in community settings to address both issues in relation to offending behaviours and the underlying vulnerabilities which may contribute to offending.”

“This will allow the better allocation of person-centred resources required to address the underlying issues that lead to criminal behaviour such as substance abuse, mental ill health, or lack of education and skills as laid out in the SPS Strategic Objectives (2022) and the Vision for Justice in Scotland (2022).”

A number of respondents particularly emphasised that custodial sentences themselves should not just be about punishment but should focus more on rehabilitation and reintegration, and that a “rethink” in policy is needed to ensure a balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

Reduce Overcrowding and Pressures

There was a general recognition amongst some respondents who were supportive that changing the release point to an earlier point was for example, “welcomed,” “necessary” or “made a lot of sense,” to reduce overcrowding and alleviate the pressures currently being experienced by the prison service in terms of staff/ workforce capacity to deliver support, programmes and services in prisons, to provide effective and meaningful rehabilitation in custody throughout a sentence.

Respondents emphasised such pressures compromise pre-release planning as the population size “far outstrips workforces capacity,” and undermines the human rights of people in custody. For example, one respondent noted: “All these factors deny inmates their basic human rights and the regime purely amounts to one of punishment.”

Respondents who discussed this theme also thought an earlier point for release on NPL would benefit individuals who remained in custody because the prison service could focus on enhancing pre- and post-release planning and management, and focus on support, services and programmes for rehabilitation, reintegration, and reducing the risk of re-offending.

Community Supervision and Support

Ensuring the provision of appropriate and sufficient community supervision, support and programmes for rehabilitation and reintegration for prisoners on release was deemed “crucial” by many respondents if the proposed changes were to be implemented, as was the appropriate and adequate resourcing of these (see resources theme in operational issues below).

Whilst most respondents who discussed this theme thought support and supervision would be better served in the community, if appropriately and adequately resourced, a number said this because they considered prisons to be at “breaking point” and too overstretched to provide support, rehabilitation and programmes (i.e. for progression/parole) in custody, for example one individual respondent commented:

“I appreciate that these changes are, in the main, motivated by the need to alleviate the pressure created by overcrowding in Scottish prisons. Ideally, we would hope that the prison system would 'deliver' offenders back to their communities with little or no possibility of them reoffending. The resources necessary for Prison authorities to deliver the needed level of support (education, training, welfare, medical attention etc.) while prisoners are incarcerated just aren't going to happen in the short term. I firmly believe that there are more resources available to assist in the outside world. I believe that investing in making these resources work better would have a much greater impact on reducing the prison population long term.”

Another individual respondent commented:

“the current estate conditions are inadequate and inhumane due to overcrowding and deteriorating facilities. This alongside inadequate staffing, both in terms of prison staff, rehabilitation support staff and health staff are increasing the detrimental impact of long term incarceration. Reports such as, Prison-based social work thematic review.pdf (careinspectorate.com)^[6] also outline the inadequate social work services within prisons. Radical changes and developments are required to address the out of date practices and inadequate prison facilities if real improvements are to be made in terms of reducing re offending and returning to prison.”

Others were supportive because they thought an earlier point of release would reduce overcrowding and relieve pressures in prisons to improve capacity, facilities and support in custody for prisoners that remain (as highlighted in the reduce overcrowding and pressures theme above).

Others considered a change in the release point to an earlier point of a sentence to be beneficial to allow for a longer period (i.e. more than 6 months) of support and supervision in the community on release for successful rehabilitation and reintegration into society, and with families, as highlighted by an organisation:

“Six months under the present system is not always long enough to identify real risks and for people to effectively resettle. We would be supportive of this proposal and view it as an opportunity to carry out meaningful work over a longer period of time in the community to ensure public protection and reintegration into the community are supported and successful.”

A few respondents, whilst supportive, commented that additional facilities should have been in place beforehand to accommodate the rising prison population.

Prior to 2016: Return to rules that applied prior to 1 February 2016

Prior to 1 February 2016, all long-term prisoners served at least one-third of their sentence in the community (i.e. they were released at the two-thirds point of their sentence). This was changed to the minimum period of 6 months by the Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Act 2015.^[7]

Respondents considered a change in the release point to an earlier point of a sentence to have important benefits, not only to reduce the prison population and prevent reoffending, but also to allow for a longer period (more than 6 months) of support and supervision in the community on release for successful rehabilitation and reintegration into society, and with families.

A number of respondents were therefore supportive of reverting back to the position prior to 1 February 2016, and questioned why the legislative amendment made by the 2015 Act had been implemented. This view is illustrated by a comment from one organisation:

“When this was originally changed many questioned the wisdom of such a move. There were cogent arguments put forward concerning lack of reintegration, short sighted populist penal policy making and a forecast increase in overcrowding - keeping people in for longer is always going to increase the population.”

An individual respondent also stated they thought it would correct the unfairness in the system, as follows:

“[reverting back to the pre-2016 situation]...will also correct the unfairness of the system that has existed for those incarcerated post-2016. With the obvious exception of those mentioned in the proposal, it is important that the two-thirds is applied equally across all other categories of inmates with no discrimination.”

However, another individual respondent critical of the 2015 Act commented that “the arrangements governing the sentencing and release of prisoners were far from satisfactory” prior to the Act, and “the 2015 Act succeeded in making an unsatisfactory position even worse and completely unsustainable.” They emphasised that it was “predictable (and predicted)” that the Act would result in an increased prison population to unsustainable levels, and reversing the legislation “will return us to a situation in which there is still an urgent need for fundamental reform.” They critiqued:

“It is ironic that the 2015 Act chose to attack the one part of the release system which is more defensible: long-term prisoners. A mandatory period of monitoring, support and supervision in the community, rather than little or none on release. A regime of conditional supervision and support of prisoners upon release has repeatedly been found by commissions and by research to be beneficial. Regrettably, the 2015 Act reduced this to just 6 months which tends to be too short a period within which to do meaningful work, especially in relation to individuals incarcerated for many years. It also meant that, by definition, those considered by the Parole Board to be too risky to release earlier would be monitored for less time and given even less supervision and support – thus compromising public safety.”

Families

A number of respondents with a family member/close friend affected by the proposal highlighted the adverse and negative impacts prolonged imprisonment has on families, prisoners and children of those imprisoned, for example they noted deteriorated family ties, loss of stable housing, diminished employment prospects, eroded financial stability, and risk to children’s long-term wellbeing and health the longer a parent is in prison.

Echoing the improved outcome theme, respondents were supportive because they emphasised that increasing the period served on NPL in the community would “significantly” improve family welfare, health and wellbeing, reduce childhood adverse experiences, and reduce social stigma; therefore minimising the adverse and negative impacts of prolonged imprisonment, which is what the Justice system – they stated - should be seeking to do, as recognised in the Scottish Government’s Vision for Justice.^[8]

Respondents emphasised that the “long-term impact of imprisonment on the lives of the prisoner and their family must be given due consideration.” Further emphasising that parental imprisonment is 1 out of 10 Adverse Childhood Experiences, and longer imprisonment, particularly adversely impacts on children with a parent in custody with lasting effects into adulthood: “The longer a parent is in prison, the longer a child must live with this adversity.” They also highlighted that family members are “hidden victims in the justice system”, who experience trauma and negative impacts on health, wellbeing and finances as a result of a family member’s imprisonment. For example, they commented:

“Family members report depression, frustration, secondary trauma, shame, guilt, PTSD, loss of income, change of residence, as well as a range of social, psychological and work-related difficulties during the imprisonment. These negative effects endure for the very long period of their family member’s imprisonment.”

Policy Alignment with the Rest of the UK

A number of respondents considered the different policy positions of the other UK countries for the release of long-term prisoners on NPL, and stated that Scotland’s policy should align with that of other UK countries. For example, respondents with a family member/close friend affected by the proposal were supportive of release at an earlier point to address the disadvantage experienced by long-term prisoners, their families and children in Scotland compared to their peers in the rest of the UK, which they viewed “all have non-parole licence of 50% or 66.67% of the sentence for long-term prisoners.”

Another individual respondent commented that Scotland should follow the 40% release point proposed in England and Wales.^[9]

Views not supportive of change to point of release on Non-Parole Licence

Four main themes were identified in responses by respondents who were not supportive of the principle to change the point of release on NPL to an earlier point. These responses are discussed below.

Serve Full Sentence/Deterrent

Many respondents who were not supportive emphasised that individuals should serve their court sentence in full, that sentences are too lenient and should be tougher to act as a deterrent, in the main for public and victim protection and safety. Several respondents did not agree that the high prison population warranted releasing prisoners early. A few respondents even suggested that poorer conditions in custody due to the high population was an added deterrent.

Resources/Improve Infrastructure and Provision

Respondents not supportive of a change to NPL raised two points around prison infrastructure and operation. Firstly, they suggested that rather than take measures to reduce the prison population, the prison estate should be invested in to increase capacity and improve conditions. Secondly, they suggested a change to NPL is not possible to implement and deliver due to a lack of provision of programmes in prisons and in community supervision and support services (also see resources theme in operational issues below).

Many respondents who were not supportive remarked that the point of release should not be changed just because prisons are overcrowded. They suggested that instead of early release, investment should focus on building more prisons, upgrading existing infrastructure/facilities, investing in and improving rehabilitation support/programmes in custody and the parole process, and improving staff/ workforce capacity to manage the prison population, instead of “shifting the burden of responsibility” onto existing stretched services in the community. Respondents wanted investment in provision of programmes within prison to enable more prisoners to be ready for release, and granted parole, rather than being released prematurely.

Many respondents also particularly raised concerns about the lack of resources to respond to and meet the demands of early release on NPL if implemented, particularly the increased demand this would place on already stretched services to monitor and provide more support and supervision for individuals released rehabilitation and reintegration into their communities.

A number of respondents re-emphasised their concern for victims (particularly women and children) and public/community safety if individuals were released without any planning or support.

Exclusions and Risk

Many respondents mentioned that category/severity of offence is important to consider when making decisions on changing the release point to an earlier point. Respondents thought that early release should only be considered for low-risk non-violent offenders, and they would be opposed to the earlier release of offenders who had committed serious and violent crimes and offenders who had a long history of violence. Crimes specifically mentioned were domestic abuse, violence against women, child abuse, sex offences and murder. Respondents mentioned what they thought to be low-risk non-violent offences that could be served in the community (i.e. through some sort of community service and/or fine) rather than in custody, for example petty crimes, first offender non-serious crimes, and fraud and financial crimes.

A handful of respondents thought that older people (aged over 70) should be considered with leniency. Another handful of respondents said, to be considered for earlier release on NPL offenders should have taken responsibility for their crime/admitted their guilt and have completed a process of rehabilitation and/or reparation and restorative justice, for example one respondent suggested:

“It would be good for individuals to show what they have learned through their time in prison and what they intend to do to ensure they don't offend again. Letters or meeting people impacted by their crime might go some way for the victims to understand the behaviour. It might also help individuals to understand the impact that their crime had on people and perhaps they might take some responsibility for it.”

Justice for Victims

Some respondents particularly expressed the view that the proposal for earlier release on NPL would not provide justice for victims, “raising questions around the justice aspects of sentencing,” with perpetrators only serving a minimum sentence or a part of their sentence. For example, one individual respondent commented:

“I understand that this is being considered as the majority of the sentence has been served, however, victims and witnesses will have mentally prepared themselves for the accused to be in prison for a specific length of time, allowing them time to possibly flee, create a safe space, recover from trauma etc. Releasing someone before they have served their full sentence will have a detrimental effect on their mental health. I am also concerned that victims and witnesses will feel they have been cheated by the criminal justice system as a full sentence has not been served, making them feel as though their crime is not as important.”

Women’s Aid organisations stated that “consideration of the human rights of prisoners cannot be done to the detriment of, or take precedence over, the human rights of victims; victims’ rights also cannot be subjugated to financial and other imperatives to reduce the prison population.”

This was also stated by a few individual respondents, for example one respondent strongly conveyed their concerns for the safety, protection and human rights of victims of gender-based violence (GBV), as follows:

“Failure to take these matters [victims protection and safety] into account would constitute a wholesale failure to protect victims of GBV and represent a breach of their human rights.”

Respondents were very concerned that the proposal would cause emotional distress/trauma and undermine victim (and their families) safety (and public safety), and impact negatively on the health and mental wellbeing of victims. One individual respondent also expressed the view that earlier release on NPL would result in increased harm to witnesses.

Operational Issues

As discussed above, whilst the majority of respondents were supportive in principle of a proportionate and earlier release point on NPL for long-term prisoners, they did raise a number of issues around the practicalities of operationalising this. Respondents identified operational issues which they felt had to be addressed in order for a change in release point to be implemented effectively.

For some respondents addressing these issues were seen as good practice that would enable more successful implementation. For others, their support for a change in release point appeared to be entirely conditional on certain operational issues being resolved. For others still, the lack of clear plans or additional investments to support implementation were cited as reasons for opposing a change in release point.

Twelve thematic operational issues were identified amongst the consultation responses which relate to issues that respondents said needed to be considered in relation to a change to the NPL release point. Each of these themes are discussed in turn below.

Risk

Risk assessment and risk management was a recurring theme throughout the organisation responses, and in a number of individual responses. Paramount here were concerns about high-risk individuals being released, including an increased risk of releasing people who are unmanageable in the community.

Respondents in general were supportive of individuals being released earlier on NPL if the risks to public safety could be appropriately managed. As one organisation stated:

“We agree with the proposal that the point-of release on non-parole licence for long-term prisoners should be at an earlier point, as long as the safety of victims and the wider community are of the utmost importance.”

Some respondents’ support for the proposal seemed to be contingent on satisfactory risk assessments being conducted before individuals were released from custody. Respondents also said that early release may not be appropriate for all individuals and that an individual risk-based approach is needed. One suggestion made was that a graded approach could be used to releasing individuals based upon their risk profiles.

Women’s Aid organisations stated that release should be predicated on risk and were opposed to NPL release which was automatic and not risk based.

Respondents also suggested that the time a person requires to spend in the community as part of their sentence is particular to each individual. Accordingly, these respondents favoured the point of release being determined on an individual basis rather than being a uniform point for all prisoners.

A number of individual respondents, mainly with a family member/close friend affected by the proposal commented that “the risk to the public must be assessed on statistics, not public sentiment,” with reference to the Criminal Proceedings in Scotland and the Reconviction Rates in Scotland statistics, to challenge perceptions that people convicted of sexual offences pose significantly higher risk of offending. They said:

“People convicted of sex offences, serving over 4-year sentences, are all subject to notification requirements for an indefinite period. They are also subject to management through MAPPA. An earlier release point does not reduce this level of supervision in the community, and instead provides a meaningful trial period in the community. Courts decide, based on the evidence of the case and individual information, which people pose a high risk of serious harm, and impose extended sentences where further supervision is required to protect the public. People not given extended sentences did not meet those criteria and therefore, do not pose the highest risk to our communities. Therefore, it is correct for all people without extended sentences to be included in this proposal."

Progression

Many respondents mentioned that the progression that individuals make in their rehabilitation should be a consideration in their release.

Some respondents stated that current provision is failing and that problems in progression should be fixed to ensure that prisoners are at an appropriate point in their progression before they are released. These respondents said that the lack of provision of programmes for those in custody meant that many individuals would not have had access to or have received sufficient support prior to their release. Long waiting lists for programmes were cited, alongside the limited availability of programmes across prison establishments (i.e. not all programmes are available in all establishments). Further, family/children contact, and visits are disrupted in the event of a prisoner transfer to another establishment to access and participate in programmes.

As noted above, the availability of better programmes and support in the community rather than in custody was cited by some respondents as a reason for supporting an earlier release point.

In contrast, other respondents suggested that completion of progression should be a condition of release and that individuals should only be released if they have engaged with the system, completed programmes, rehabilitated and shown contrition. Restorative justice was also mentioned and the need to incorporate a restorative justice action plan.

A few respondents also suggested that having an earlier release point on NPL had the potential to lessen engagement with programmes amongst some individuals. These respondents said that if individuals knew that their release was imminent or guaranteed regardless of whether they engaged in progression activities, then they would have less incentive to complete the programmes.

A number of individual respondents remarked on the parole process, particularly the lack of parole programmes within and across prison establishments because of stretched resources and overcrowding. As progression is often dependent on a course being completed in prison, they commented that prisoners miss early release opportunities as a result, and then end up returning to the community without completing a course.

Respondents highlighted the “worryingly low” parole release rates in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK and Europe, as detailed by one individual respondent who said:

“Parole release rates are worryingly low in Scotland, compared to the rest of the UK and Europe. For example, in the year 2022/23 almost 32% of parole hearings in England and Wales resulted in the direct release of the offender, compared to less than 10% north of the border. This forms part of a wider picture where Scottish prisoners and their families are already disproportionately affected compared to their peers in the rest of the UK, where most long-term prisoners are automatically released after serving half or two-thirds of their sentence.”

A number of individual respondents with a family member/close friend affected by the proposal suggested that “Prison Based Social Work (PBSW) does not always meet the standards set by the RMA to complete risk assessments used to identify intervention requirements and to inform the GPA process.” They suggested the following:

• “Review Social Work practices ensuring adherence to the RMA Standards, so that overly risk-averse assessments are not being made. (Parole rates of c.12% for determinate sentences may indicate this).
• Offending behaviour courses must be available in the community, including the Open Estate, or as a condition of parole or non-parole licence.
• All prisons should offer offending behaviour courses. Waiting lists for courses must never exceed one year.”

Another individual respondent viewed the perspectives of families to be “under-represented” and “not sufficiently considered” in parole application decisions/outcomes, they commented:

“...the perspectives of families are currently underrepresented and not sufficiently considered within both risk assessment and release planning. A noteworthy example is provided by the Parole Board, which will consider victim's representations but not those of the family when deciding a parole application outcome and establishing license conditions. We need decisive action to ensure families have both a voice and greater influence throughout sentence and pre-release planning.”

Support and Supervision in the Community

Many respondents emphasised that support in the community needs to be in place for individuals released from custody. Without appropriate support there was concern that individuals would not successfully reintegrate into the community.

Respondents also expressed concern that there was potential for unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved in the community. Particularly as they recognised that there will likely be an increase in release of people with outstanding treatment needs, and that support needs to be based on need rather than sentence length.

Respondents stated that there needs to be clear throughcare plans for individuals before they are released, and that time is needed for pre-release planning. There was concern that early release of individuals without adequate planning and support would be setting people up to fail. Respondents contended that a high rate of recall would undermine the scheme and that a revolving door which quickly brought individuals back into custody would make things worse. Sufficient support in the community was therefore cited as essential to a change in release point on NPL.

Respondents recognised that risks around successful reintegration are highest immediately post release which is why plans for support ought to be in place before any release. With a potential retrospective change in the release point there was a concern that some individuals may not be ready to be released earlier than they are currently expecting to be.

Respondents considered that there could be an increased risk that individuals are released before they are ready which would make it harder for them to reintegrate and mean that they required more support.

Housing

The need to provide housing for those released was consistently mentioned by organisation respondents, and several individual respondents. Respondents recognised that without adequate housing people were less likely to successfully reintegrate into the community and more likely to return to custody.

Respondents cited existing pressures on housing provision and were concerned that there would not be enough to meet the additional demand created by earlier release of long-term prisoners.

Organisations and individuals representing victims, particularly support for victims and survivors of domestic abuse, raised the issue of housing provision in relation to women’s safety. They were concerned that without alternative accommodation there was an increased likelihood of abusers returning to their home which would put women at risk.

An individual respondent raised concerns that early release is not a “workable solution” without a “reliable protocol in place to ensure perpetrators have a roof over their head (confirmed and in place prior to release)”, without this, they emphasised, women and children would be subjected to further risk. In this context, they noted the Scottish Government’s declaration of a national housing emergency at the end of June and the high number of open homelessness cases in Scotland, and the high numbers of people living in Temporary Accommodation.

Victims

A number of respondents made comments around the impact on victims of changes to release on NPL. In particular, the impact on victims of gender-based violence (GBV) and domestic abuse (DA), and the need to protect victims of GBV was referred to by Women’s Aid groups and a few individual respondents. In the main, concerns around the impact on victims (women and children) were cited as reasons for opposing changes to the release point. However, a number of points were raised in relation to mitigating the impact on victims were a change to be made. Some of these suggestions relate to exclusions (see below).

Respondents emphasised that the existing process of early release, the use of parole and non-parole licences and decisions must be made more transparent, understandable and accessible for victims, especially why perpetrators are released early.

Respondents wanted improved notification for victims ahead of individuals being released from custody. This included both improvements to the Victim Notification Scheme (VNS) (i.e. that it needs to be standardised and easily accessible for both victims and support services), and support for victims not on the VNS. Women’s Aid organisations stated that “release pre-planning, notification, information to and engagement with, victims is an absolute necessity and must happen considerably far in advance of release at the same time as the statutory agencies are informed.”

They also stated that improved communication and engagement by community justice services with victims and support services is needed to monitor perpetrators’ behaviours along with a clear pathway for alerting the police and community justice social work (CJSW) to breaches. These organisations and an individual respondent suggested that lack of information around release and exact dates is a risk and a hindrance to effective and timely safety planning.

A number of respondents stated that the VNS is not fit for purpose and wanted the recommendations that have been proposed to improve the scheme to be implemented, ahead of any change to release on NPL. Women’s Aid organisations contended that women who have not signed up to the VNS still need support and are entitled to know that the offender is being released. They also recognised that GBV and DA perpetrators may not be in custody for these offence types but can still pose a danger to women and their families on release.

Families

The impact on families and children of changes to the release point for NPL was also mentioned by respondents. Respondents recognised that the release of individuals from custody and serving a greater proportion of a sentence in the community can have both positive and negative impacts on families and children.

In terms of operational issues relating to families to be considered before release, respondents asked for greater consideration of the needs and impacts on families before release. It was suggested that family impact assessments be embedded early into planning processes to release people to ensure the wider impacts on families are considered and supported accordingly. Child impact assessments to prepare for an adult’s release could also be used to ensure that children’s views are incorporated into any decision which affects them.

An individual respondent commented that family involvement in sentence planning, risk assessment, and Integrated Case Management (ICM) was an area of concern that needs to be addressed. They commented:

“Families and friends serve as the strongest source of support as offenders transition back into the community. Their roles span from supporting psychological wellbeing to providing informal supervision, financial assistance, and housing support. The latter holds particular significance as over half of prisoners report losing their housing during their custodial sentences, with many being released straight into homelessness, significantly increasing their risk of re-offending.”

An organisation which supports children and families affected by imprisonment stated that “families are reliant entirely upon the person in prison to give them information about release dates and outcomes of electronic monitoring assessments. This can cause a great deal of worry and uncertainty for families.” It was noted that the return of a family member from custody is not always a positive experience for families. The organisation contended that consideration and involvement of families should inform any support required as well as any licence conditions that may be imposed.

In relation to the theme on support discussed above, the organisation suggested that families have concerns about family members being released without completing courses or having appropriate support and that individuals may be released without appropriate support and be ‘set up to fail’. They suggested that this eventuality could negatively impact the wider family including children. Engagement with families could identify opportunities for appropriate and more effective support.

Concerns about availability, access and completion of courses was also discussed by some individual respondents, particularly with a family member/close friend in custody (see the progression theme above).

Respondents also suggested that families of those in custody are often subjected to harm from media reporting. This issue is discussed in more detail in the media and communications theme below.

Exclusions

A number of respondents suggested that there should be exclusions to an earlier release point for some prisoners. Respondents gave the example of exclusions that had applied to the emergency early release of short-term prisoners and contended that these exclusions ought to apply for long-term prisoners as well.

Respondents suggested that exclusions be based on offence type and that whilst non-violent offenders may be suitable for release violent offenders may not (for example serious offences such as murder and sexual offences). In particular, respondents representing women victim/survivors believed that people convicted of domestic abuse or gender-based violence offences should be excluded from any early release.

A number of respondents with a family member/close friend affected by the proposal particularly commented on historic offences, suggesting the following:

• “People convicted of historic offences, with a long period in the community offence-free should not be assessed for intervention courses.
• People convicted of historic offences, with a long period offence-free in the community before conviction, and with a good prison record, should be automatically released on licence at 50%, and prior to that, progressed to the Open Estate at the earliest opportunity.
• People convicted of historic offences and first-time offenders should be eligible for parole at an earlier point in the sentence, for example, 1/3.”

A few individual respondents conveyed other considerations on offence type/ convictions. For example, a handful commented that an earlier release point should be proportionate not only to the length of sentence but also to the crime committed. They regarded this as important to ensure prison is considered a deterrent.

Conversely, a handful of individual respondents commented on the need to review convictions of people who are in custody to ensure they should be there, and to consider the background of individuals more prudently regarding their category of crime and risk of reoffending.

One individual respondent commented that although they thought the general proposal to be “acceptable”, the profile and “propensity to reoffend” of individuals must also be considered. Another suggested that the point of release should be different for different sentence lengths, that those serving less than 10 years should be released at the halfway point, and those serving 10 years or more should be released at the two-thirds point.

A handful also thought the proposal to be appropriate and acceptable only if the individual being considered for early release had served a “reasonable part of their sentence” and had “accepted responsibility for their offence.” Another respondent commented that early release is “publicly acceptable” if the court adjudicated this decision.

A governor veto was also suggested as a mechanism for ensuring that prisoners who were unsuitable for early release be kept in custody. However, a few individual respondents viewed a governor veto not to be appropriate for automatic release.

A handful of individuals suggested that consideration should also be given to a wider range of sentences, particularly mentioning extended sentences. However, a number of respondents with a family member/close friend affected by the proposal stated that “widening of the exclusions further than proposed must be avoided.”

Media and Communications

Several organisations were concerned that there may be criticism from some media outlets for a change to the release point for long-term prisoners on NPL. Organisations felt that factual and evidence-based information was needed to support the narrative around the policy change. They contended that a communication strategy would be needed for explaining that this is a progressive positive policy and not just one being implemented to manage prison overcrowding. In the words of one organisation:

“a government-led initiative to emphasise that people sent to prison never formally cease to be citizens and should be accepted as such upon release, would be a helpful counter to the many negative stereotypes that impede re-integration.”

Several individual respondents also commented on the importance of raising public/ media awareness on the custodial and community aspects of a sentence, to respond to “allegations of prisoners getting out early”. One respondent suggested “informed debate” is required to “explain the case for changing the release point to an earlier point and ensuring that happens is the responsibility of the Government and its agencies.”

A number of respondents with a family member/close friend affected by the proposal emphasised the importance to communicate and illustrate how early release measures/community-based measures are part of the bigger picture of the Government’s Vision for Justice, and that measures are factual and evidence-based.

To reduce stigma experienced by prisoners, their families and children they also emphasised the importance of accurate media reporting and raising public awareness to challenge the perception that a sentence is solely for punishment. They emphasised “a sentence is for punishment AND rehabilitation, on which our society relies.”

Another individual respondent emphasised the importance, particularly when reporting in the media that release from custody is not a release from a sentence, they commented:

“...there could also be a case for considering where people can be released on non-parole-licence earlier than this [two-thirds of sentence]. Again, with an assessment of need, it may be the case that people could safely serve the remaining sentence in the community. Whilst this may be a release from custody, it is important to recognise (particularly in reporting in the media) that people are not released from their sentence. People continue to live without full control of their lives, and must live in a way that restricts their freedom, autonomy and ability to reintegrate fully (e.g. curfews that prevent employment). It should not be viewed as a ‘soft option’, as often balancing the constraints of a licence with the greater demands of community living are extremely challenging, particularly after a prolonged period removed from the community.”

Licence Conditions

Respondents raised issues around the conditions that individuals would be subject to upon release and whilst they serve their remaining sentence in the community. Several respondents suggested that licence conditions need to be supportive rather than onerous in order to encourage successful reintegration and rehabilitation and to reduce the chances of reoffending/recalls. Other respondents made mention of home detention curfew and electronic monitoring and the potential for it to be used as part of parole/non-parole conditions and supervision and to support community safety.

A handful of individual respondents mentioned that licence conditions should involve robust monitoring of individuals released early to prevent reoffending and ensure their safe rehabilitation and community reintegration, and public safety. For example, one respondent commented that individuals released early should be “monitored through a strong system of parole” to prevent reoffending and ensure safety in the community. They further noted that the views of and impact on victims should be taken into consideration, when a crime is violent in nature.

Another individual respondent stressed that only:

“RESPECT and SAPOR accredited domestic-abuse offender programmes should be made a condition of parole/non-parole licences... [and that] third sector or non-statutory offender support organisations and services must not be used to deliver post-release supervision work in the community for offenders of GBV.”

Reoffending and Recall

A number of organisations and a handful of individual respondents made comments around how to deal with reoffending or breaches of licence that may occur. Respondents suggested that with people spending longer in the community as part of their sentence it was likely that there would be an increase in the number of breaches occurring. An organisation further noted that without adequate supervision and reintegrative support there is a risk that more prisoners may be subject to avoidable recall.

Respondents expressed concern that a potential increase in the number of recalls could ultimately influence the size of the long-term prison population. Respondents suggested that any punishment for breaches should be aligned with the overall objective of reducing use of custody and the size of the prison population.

One individual respondent noted the consultation to be unclear on how compliance and adherence with licencing conditions would be managed to prevent reoffending, they stated:

“While the notion of monitoring offenders in the community may seem an appropriate response to reducing the prison population, it creates an additional need for remedies should the person re-offend or in some way contravene the conditions of their early release. In turn this means a very strict monitoring regime needs to be in place to ensure adherence and compliance. It is unclear from the consultation exactly how this will be managed.”

Evaluation

Respondents suggested that it was important to evaluate the impact of any change to the point of automatic early release. It was suggested that an evaluation to understand the change could include monitoring of sentencing patterns and recall rates. A lengthy period of monitoring was suggested in order to understand the effects of the change in release point over time.

Resources

The final theme identified around operational issues, and the one that occurred most frequently in responses, is operational resources. This is a cross-cutting theme that relates to the investment and resources available to justice partners to deliver a change to the point of release on NPL and manage issues identified in the other themes surrounding operational issues. Many respondents made comments in their response about the resources that would be required to support a change to an earlier automatic release point. This is encapsulated in the comment from one local authority:

“There will be more individuals subject to community supervision and for longer, creating a community population that will be unsustainable to manage given current staffing levels. The demands placed on community justice services are currently unrivalled: this coupled with a recruitment and retention difficulty places community based services in a highly vulnerable position to achieve both robust and support supervision for those released.”

The following services were mentioned in relation to needing sufficient resources and investment to support individuals to spend more time in the community:

• community justice teams
• housing including social housing and supported temporary accommodation
• prison and community social work/social services
• mental health services and groups
• health, including allied health professionals
• local authorities
• third sector services
• MAPPA
• police
• parole board (to cope with a higher number of release decisions/ impact on parole hearings for others)
• probation services
• victim support services
• services for safeguarding women and children
• family support
• counselling
• addiction services and programme treatment teams
• employability
• benefits.

The comments made around resourcing suggested that support for individuals on release is crucial and that it requires proper resourcing. Many respondents stated that changes to release on NPL would put extra pressure on community resources. This is illustrated in the comment from one organisation that a change to NPL will:

“require additional specialist community resources in order to manage the increased and sustained proportion of offenders who require community support and supervision.”

An individual respondent, citing published evidence, stated that sustainable funding for community services is prohibited by the current funding cycle “requiring services to work around rather than with commissioning arrangements.”

Many respondents were concerned whether there were sufficient resources to support these services and stated that a lot of the organisations and support services were already very stretched or under resourced and argued that additional resources are already required. For instance, throughcare was cited as an area which is already under resourced and that more resources are needed to address the shortcomings in the progression system. Concerns were therefore expressed about the added demand that would be placed on community organisations and services to support long-term prisoners spending more time in the community as part of their sentence.

Some respondents, however, suggested that there may be opportunities to join-up services to improve outcomes efficiencies and that better agency collaboration could help mitigate some of the pressures on resources.

An individual respondent commented that investment in multidisciplinary expertise spanning health (including allied health), social work, justice and peer support is an essential investment to support people released from custody and their communities, and without such investment there is a risk that people released at an earlier point would be set-up to fail. They further noted that historically there has been little or no involvement of Allied Health Professionals (e.g. occupational therapy, speech and language therapy) in community justice, and that there is potential to learn from pilot work in Aberdeenshire involving a model of collaboration between allied health and social work to support successful reintegration of long-term prisoners.

Respondents expressed concern that no investment in housing (or supported temporary accommodation), community services, or services for victims in the community was signified as part of the proposal. This led some to suggest that there was an unequal distribution of benefits and resources in the proposal as it would alleviate pressure on SPS through reduced prisoner numbers but increase pressure on partners in other parts of the justice system. However, without additional funds for other partners being signified in the proposal.

Respondents stated that it would take time to increase capacity to meet any additional demand placed upon community justice partners and services. Organisations require a skilled professional trauma-informed workforce and it is hard to recruit suitable staff. Respondents also noted that it takes time, and there is limited capacity, to train professionals such as social workers. As such, respondents cautioned that a period of time would be needed for community justice organisations to increase their capacity to meet any additional demand.

Another recurring theme in relation to resources was the suggestion that a phased release should be used for individuals to whom the change in release point would apply retroactively. Organisations were concerned that without a phased release a large number of individuals would be released as soon as the policy took effect. This would put a great deal of pressure on service providers to support this group of individuals. With a phased release the demand on organisations and community partners would be staggered and the process more manageable.

An individual respondent particularly commented that the initial phases of implementing a change in the point of release would require some temporary uplift in administrative capacity within prisons to process the early release of prisoners.

Respondents from third sector organisations stated that the third sector needed financial certainty to enable it to plan for ongoing provision. One organisation commented that:

“there are many examples of third sector organisations who can help deliver on this objective, but they will require funding and the removal of the financial uncertainty that pervades this sector.”

Organisations also pointed towards the resources that would be needed to support media and communications handling around a change to long-term prisoner release.

As noted earlier in the report, respondents not supportive of the proposals stated that prisons should be invested in to increase capacity, improve conditions and improve rehabilitation opportunities. For example, one respondent commented that reduced prisoner numbers should not result in a reduction of SPS resources. They stated that earlier release on NPL should:

“facilitate a re-set that allows the prison service the capacity to once again focus on duty-of-care and the important matter of rehabilitation and preparing their charges for productive re-entry into society.”

A few individual respondents particularly expressed that they thought the proposed measures “fall short” of proposing “much-needed improvements [and investment] to existing early-release routes and pre-release planning and support, including family involvement in the release process.” In particular, one respondent suggested investment should focus on improving already under utilised and under-resourced pathways to more supported early release alternatives and improving the accessibility of programmes aimed at addressing offending behaviours and facilitating community reintegration.

A handful thought the proposal would also help to reduce costs for the prison service/state.

One individual respondent said they failed to understand the “tens of millions” invested in the female estate compared to the male estate where individuals, they said, are expected to “put up with Victorian jails”. They also highlighted male suicides in custody.

Finally, in terms of resources, respondents noted that pressures are not equal across the country with some regions and local authorities likely to have more individuals to manage in the community than others. It was mentioned that rurality brings added challenges in some areas for managing people in the community, and to deliver programmes such as M2FC or the Caledonian Programme.