Long-term prisoner release process: consultation analysis

Consultation Events

Introduction

Two virtual workshops were held to accompany the public consultation exercise on changing the release point for long-term prisoners. The purpose of the workshops was to provide attendees with another opportunity to share their views on the proposals.

The workshops were held virtually on 26 July and 6 August 2024. The workshops were attended by representatives from organisations including;

• Justice Social Work
• Scottish Prison Service
• Police Scotland
• Community Justice Scotland
• Victim support organisations
• Parole Board for Scotland
• Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS)
• Community Justice Partnerships
• COSLA
• Risk Management Authority
• Health and Social Care Partnerships
• Third sector support organisations.

Both workshops had the same format and agenda. They included a presentation on the policy proposals and impact modelling, opportunities for questions and answers and breakout sessions focused on the questions posed by consultation as well as the delivery of any changes. Facilitators ran the breakout sessions and scribes captured the key points of the discussion.

This overview was prepared through analysing the notes taken by scribes at each workshop to present a summary of the key themes.

Overview

In terms of the purpose of the proposed policy, overall, there was general recognition of the negative impacts of a high prison population and the need to take action which will reduce the prison population in the medium to long-term. There was acceptance that bringing forward the release point for long-term prisoners could reduce the prison population.

There was support from many for finding a better balance between time spent in custody and time spent in the community before the end of a person’s sentence in recognition that a longer period of supervision in the community can improve reintegration and reduce reoffending.

A common theme throughout discussions was that the success of the proposed changes would be dependent on having sufficient resources in place and ensuring people are prepared for release. Several issues were raised in relation to the impact of the proposed changes on the delivery of services in the community. Issues around progression in custody were also highlighted.

Some participants felt the focus should be on action to prevent people from entering custody in the first place rather than release processes. Others were generally not supportive of early release in principle and questioned the consistency of the policy with the Scottish Government’s Vision for Justice. Participants highlighted potential impacts for confidence in the justice system among victims and the wider public and stressed that should any change be brought forward in this area this would require clear communication.

Aside from the specific proposal, participants also expressed more general points about a lack of understanding of existing release processes and that the timing of these proposals in relation to other measures including emergency release has the potential to cause confusion. There was also a desire expressed for a fuller explanation as to why the changes made in 2016 were being revisited.

The key themes identified during the discussions at the events were:

• Support in the community
• Risk management
• Preparation for release
• Implementation
• Resourcing and impact on services
  • Prison Services
  • Throughcare
  • Justice Social Work
  • Third Sector Services
  • Housing and Accommodation
• The rights and needs of victims
• Communicating change.

These are each explored in more detail below.

The discussions also encompassed wider justice system issues such as sentencing, progression, the resourcing of Justice Social Work and other partners and the VNS, amongst others, and there was general agreement that a wider more holistic review of the use of imprisonment and release would be beneficial.

There was also brief discussion of other actions which could mitigate the issues raised by a high prison population, including increased use of supervised bail to reduce levels of remand, mandatory throughcare for short-term prisoners, consideration of release being based on risk rather than length or proportion of sentence served, and furthering the use of alternatives to custodial sentences.

Support in the Community

There was recognition that release on NPL for only 6 months (as is currently the case) may not be long enough to successfully reintegrate people back into society, particularly those with more complex needs who have been in prison for the longest time. Additional time in the community may facilitate greater access to and engagement with services such as drug and alcohol treatment, preparatory work for employment, offence-focused work and support services.

Participants also discussed that a reduction in the long-term prisoner population may benefit those who remain in custody through, for example, freeing up access to offending behaviour programmes, progression opportunities such as testing in more open conditions and contributing to a more rehabilitative regime within prisons which is beneficial for progression and release preparedness. It was commented that currently the high number of people entering prison can divert resource away from risk reduction. Some participants felt that this policy may present an opportunity to restructure and reframe sentence management, which could potentially enable prisons to identify and address risk at an earlier stage.

However, there were concerns raised that pre-release planning would be essential to this process and that if access to support and services are not available in the community this would undermine the success of the policy proposal. This is discussed in more detail in subsequent sections below.

Risk Management

There was discussion around the risk profile of the cohort targeted in these proposals, i.e. those who have not been granted parole. It was discussed that some of these individuals can be the most challenging to effectively manage in the community. This is often reflective of their willingness to engage, their complex needs or other risk factors. How this would be appropriately managed in the community over the longer period suggested in the proposals was discussed, with licence conditions, recall and MAPPA arrangements being assessed in relation to public protection.

As an overview, representatives from social work and community justice sector backgrounds emphasised the anticipated complex needs of some of this cohort. They discussed that this group generally needs more intensive support, and that level of supervision and engagement has a resource impact should it be required to be in place for a longer period of time. It was also recognised that a significant proportion of those released would be subject to MAPPA processes which are also resource intensive.

Some of these representatives welcomed a move to an earlier point of release, as this would take some pressure from prisons where the opportunity to rehabilitate is limited and allow more time to enhance partnership working. However, others raised concerns about the availability of resources to support and effectively manage additional higher risk individuals in the community at this time.

As an overview, representatives from Victim Support Organisations highlighted that those serving long-term sentences could have more serious offending histories, and the impact on the victim from an earlier than expected release point may raise legitimate safety concerns. In response to discussions around there being no offence-based exclusions, these organisations sought reassurance around risk assessment prior to release. There was a concern expressed towards a general lack of confidence in the ability of licence conditions and engagement with throughcare to provide sufficient public protection to people released under this measure who have not been previously granted parole.

Many participants raised the possibility of offence-based exclusions as these would provide assurance around public safety. Some Victim Support Organisations felt exclusions for certain categories of offences such as those used for emergency release could support confidence that these offences will be taken seriously and those who commit them will be punished.

Other participants instead advocated for a risk-based approach to release. There was further discussion as to whether a governor veto, like that which was applied to the emergency release of short-term prisoners could apply to this policy. Some participants were in favour of this as it could aid in risk management as an additional assessment method or ‘safety net’, but another participant noted they disagreed with the veto power as it created a role for governors in the release process that had not previously been in place.

Participants also considered that increasing the time spent on NPL could potentially result in an increase in the number of individuals recalled to custody. Should this occur, this would have a resource impact for justice social work and the Parole Board for Scotland, as well as potentially undermine efforts to reduce the prison population.

Preparation for Release

Participants at the workshops were able to give insight as to the preparations that would be needed prior to releasing individuals should these proposals come into force. It was expressed that early notification of those to be released including their assessed risk level, summary of identified needs, if MAPPA is required and to what level and which geographical area they will be returning to, would be beneficial to allow adequate preparations to be made.

There was agreement that pre-release planning meetings would be required, with Justice Social Work, housing, addiction and other services.

It was noted that there is a risk that earlier than originally anticipated release could interrupt offence-focussed work underway but not completed as well as affecting prisoners who are yet to participate in offence-focussed work/programmes. This could present a risk, especially in relation to those convicted of sexual offences.

Similarly, how prepared for release an individual in prison felt was discussed – someone who is serving a long sentence and whose NPL release date is brought forward may have concerns or worries about returning to the community and these should be addressed as far as possible prior to release.

Implementation

Participants were keen to understand how a phased release of the initially eligible cohort will work in practice including how many individuals would be released at once and what the period between release tranches would be. This would be important to aid in preparations for release from custody and for accommodating and supporting individuals in the community.

There was also some discussion around the retroactive application of the policy proposal with some participants suggesting that there would be more time for agencies to adequately prepare and have multi-agency planning in place to support release should proposals not have retroactive application. There was a suggestion that pre-release meetings could be more streamlined in order to facilitate the retroactive application.

Resourcing and Impact on Services

There was a general view that should these proposals be put in place, there will be a need for additional MAPPA meetings for those under that supervision which would require attendance from multi-agency partners including Justice Social Work, housing representatives and police.

It was also noted that the ageing demographics of the prison population should be a relevant consideration in analysing the impact of these proposals on services as the targeted cohort may have additional health, social and personal care needs that will need to be met in the community over a longer period. Health and social care partners will need to be engaged to ensure access to prescriptions and other treatments.

Some participants in the workshops considered that the impact will be different for smaller and larger local authorities, suggesting that remote, rural, and island communities will be particularly impacted due to existing challenges in recruiting and retaining qualified staff in these areas.

Prison Services

To implement the proposals the SPS would be required to make changes which may involve additional workforce or a refocus of priorities. There was an awareness of the considerable pressure on the prison service but also recognition that without a change to how imprisonment is used more generally, the pressures will continue to increase.

Justice Social Work

It was noted that throughcare will be provided on a statutory basis for those leaving a long-term prison sentence. It was generally agreed that a phased approach to release was a sensible approach to mitigate the impact from any initial upsurge in those being released and to allow support services to plan effectively for reintegration into communities.

The first 72 hours following initial release from custody are critical, and individuals benefit from being supported to access services (housing, GP, etc.) during this time. One suggestion was that more use of digital solutions would be useful to ensure continuity between prison and community.

Most work around release would need to be carried out by qualified justice social workers (JSW) – a sector with ongoing recruitment and retention challenges. It was noted that JSW are already being asked to take on additional responsibility in other areas (including home detention curfew and diversion from prosecution), and it will be important to consider how things will work across all the affected areas.

Justice Social Work participants expressed concern over the potential lack of clarity over release into local authority areas, as there is no requirement for individuals to return to their local authority. It was suggested that, in relation to justice social work, it may take at least 3 months to prepare for the introduction of the new release point.

Further, the approach taken with emergency release – where each tranche of releases was separated by two weeks – may not be sufficient given the more intensive support arrangements required for long-term prisoners.

Third Sector Services

Participants expressed that it was felt the third sector coped well with emergency early release for short-term prisoners, however, there are different challenges for long-term prisoners.

One suggestion was that it may be possible to mitigate challenges around social work resource and free up qualified justice social worker time by supporting the third sector to take on areas of work like bail support and diversion from prosecution. There was agreement that the third sector can make a meaningful contribution, and a concern was raised that additional resource would not be provided to the third sector to accommodate this change.

Housing, accommodation and other Local Authority services

Participants stressed that public and third sector organisations are under pressure and felt that this was not recognised fully in the consultation documentation.

Issues around housing and accommodation featured throughout discussions on the implementation and delivery of these proposals but it should be noted that participants acknowledged the challenges discussed are generally broader, systemic issues that are not specific to or caused by these proposals but that more people in the community requiring housing could exacerbate these issues.

The challenges local authorities are currently facing in this area, and concerns around the availability overall of housing and of the housing needs specifically of some of the individuals potentially being released, were expressed. Participants in the workshops, that had prior experience in supporting those being released from prison, noted that suitable and secure accommodation was important to supporting a person’s reintegration into the community and could impact on their access to other services. One suggestion was that supported accommodation could be used to manage a person’s return to the community.

Participants recognised that a wide range of services are involved in a person’s release which requires considerable coordination. Rural and Island communities may be particularly impacted, in terms of provision of support and access to services, victim impact, but also potential risk to the person released into a small community.

Additional resources are likely to be required by service providers to meet the needs of those released. Early discussions with services will allow them to plan and manage budgets, including across financial years.

The Rights and Needs of Victims

Organisations representing the views of victims and survivors of crime, including sexual and domestic abuse, were generally critical of the principle of the proposed changes, raising serious concerns and expressing the view that the rights and needs of victims were omitted from the rationale of this change. More high-risk offenders could be in the community at any given time, and they highlighted the risk this could pose to victims and to women and children.

It was suggested that these proposals could lead to a decrease of reporting of violence against women and girls if victims perceive that their perpetrator will spend less time in custody. This could potentially undermine work to improve investigation, prosecution and conviction rates for these crimes.

In terms of implementation and delivery, it was suggested that the kind of provision planning being discussed for those being released from prison, such as housing, addiction and mental health support should be considered for victims as well.

Organisations were keen to understand the practicalities of how far in advance victims of those being released will be notified and whether the vehicle for notification would be the VNS. It was suggested that it would be more beneficial to have multiple available sources of communication with victims to aid understanding of the proposal and its implications and it was noted that victims themselves can provide valuable information to inform licence conditions and decisions around protective orders.

Other Stakeholder Engagement

There has been ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders throughout the development of the policy including further targeted events which followed a similar format to the workshops with the Criminal Justice Voluntary Sector Forum (CJVSF); Women’s Aid Network; and the Justice Social Work Practitioner Panel.

The CJVSF raised the importance of preparing for a person’s release and managing the impact on the delivery of services in the community in order to ensure the success of the proposals. This would involve cooperation between justice social work and third sector.

Representatives of Women’s Aid organisations strongly opposed the proposals to bring forward a person’s release point, raising concerns about the significant risk those being released posed to the safety of the victims and survivors and the ability of community services to manage that risk. They felt that the proposals would re-traumatise victims and survivors, have an impact on confidence in the justice system, and negatively affect the reporting of domestic and sexual offences. Questions were also raised about the consistency of the proposals with key aspects of existing policy in relation to relevant offences, not least the Equally Safe Strategy.

There was general agreement from the Justice Social Work Practitioner Panel that 6 months is not enough time to provide effective support to a person returning to the community, and the principle of having more time was supported. They noted that properly preparing a person for release and ensuring they had access to the services they required is essential to supporting a person’s reintegration, and this would require more resource.