Australia Prisoners Recommended For Parole Dropped 71 Per Cent
Refusal to grant parole and the cancellation of parole had increased the WA prison population by over 700 at an estimated cost of about $115, 950 per day.
Taxpayers are footing an extra $116, 000 a day to keep prisoners inside jail and not grant them parole, according to a new report tabled in Parliament.
Figures outlined in the report show that since 2009, the number of offenders released on parole in Western Australia had fallen significantly, dropping from 92 per cent to 21 per cent, and there had been a significant increase in the rate of cancelled parole orders, which almost doubled to about four parolees out of 100 having their orders cancelled. Report by The Sydney Morning Herald.
This means WA now has a lower rate of offenders on parole and a higher rate of offenders in prison compared to the Australian average.
In March 2011, the rate of offenders on parole was 27.6 per 100,000 individuals in WA and 69.5 per 100,000 in Australia. In contrast the rate of imprisonment in the state is 213.6 per 100,000, compared with the Australian average of 125.
Auditor-General Colin Murphy found that most of this could be attributed to the Department of Corrective Services’ stricter approach to parolee non-compliance with parole conditions, resulting in a big increase in the rate of cancelled parole orders.
Mr Murphy said the department had responded to the findings of several internal reviews of its management of parolees and over the last two years had made significant changes in both policy and practice.
“There is no doubt parole is a controversial issue and there is ongoing debate about the best way to ensure the community remains safe,” he said.
“Minimising the risks and maximising the benefits of parole relies on the effective and consistent supervision and monitoring of parolees, making sure that offenders comply with parole conditions, and when they do not, appropriate action is taken.
“Stricter enforcement of parole conditions by DCS has meant that breaches are more often resulting in consequences for the parolee, such as the cancelling of their parole.”
Mr Murphy said the department’s refusal to grant parole and its cancellation of parole had increased the prison population by over 700 at an estimated cost of about $115, 950 per day.
“Parole carries a short term crime risk, but it is also a cost effective way to supervise some offenders, and can help reduce the long term risk of reoffending by providing controlled reintegration into the community,” Mr Murphy said.
“Even though DCS’s policy framework has been improved there is inconsistency in the management of parolees and the monitoring of some parole conditions.
“If parole conditions are not monitored effectively then some parolees may be breaching conditions without DCS knowing and some parolees may return to the behaviours which contributed to their initial imprisonment.
“Unapproved changes in accommodation, the way DCS uses drug tests and the manner in which they ensure program attendance are examples of conditions that can be better and more consistently monitored.
“DCS has made significant changes to its management of parolees, but there is more to be done if it is to minimise the risks and maximise the benefits of parole.”
In recent years the Adult Community Corrections philosophy has moved from a “welfare based” model to one which ensures compliance with all community orders, according to the department.
“[It] provides a robust, contemporary and credible system of supervision of offenders which focuses on risk assessment, risk management and public protection as the priority,” they said.
This resulted in the development of the Enforcement Policy in 2009, which addressed the response by staff and stakeholders to non-compliance by parolees to order requirements.
But the report’s key findings suggested that:
- The introduction of the Enforcement Policy by DCS has not yet led to consistent supervision of offenders. Despite efforts by DCS to communicate policy changes, understanding and application of the policy is variable.
- Changes to the Enforcement Policy have reduced the discretion of community correctional officers to deal with breaches of parole conditions and requires all breaches to be reported to the parole board. It is not yet clear if this change will reduce the frequency that offenders breach parole or if the increased cancellation of parole will have a negative impact on long term reoffending rates.
- Issues identified in DCS internal professional standards reviews – such as a lack of senior staff oversight, not adequately using assessment tools that help determine a parolee’s supervision level and reporting frequency and not always explaining to a parolee their obligations – were still evident despite DCS taking a proactive approach to identify them.
- Because DCS is not monitoring all parole conditions, and for some conditions relies on parolees to self-report non-compliance, some parolees may be breaching their orders without DCS knowing. This is because some conditions such as “not to enter licensed premises” or “not to have contact with females under 16″ are impractical to monitor. The stricter enforcement of parole conditions reduce the incentive for parolees to self-report issues that could result in cancellation of their parole.
- Better monitoring of some parole conditions is needed. The use of drug tests and the monitoring of program attendance are inconsistent; reducing the effectiveness of both conditions. There was no evidence that DCS had confirmed program attendance for over 55 per cent of parolees. Similar inconsistencies were evident with parolees requiring drug testing. Not checking these conditions often enough may enable a parolee to return to high risk behaviours without DCS addressing the increased risk.
The report has recommended that the effectiveness of parole should be improved by:
- Ensuring staff have a consistent understanding of its parole policies.
- The department conduct regular reviews of staff compliance and suitability of monitoring methods, including parolee’s accommodation, drug testing and attendance at programs.
- Examine the impact and effectiveness of the Enforcement Policy and other parole initiatives.
- Improve the integration of offender information so that correctional officers have better access to up-to-date, comprehensive documents.
The department has welcomed the report and the recommendations, saying that it had already commenced a significant body of work into addressing a number of concerns highlighted by this review as well as other internal directed reviews.
“The review undertaken by the Office of the Auditor-General has highlighted the department’s need to not only ensure that a sound communication strategy is in place for the dissemination of policy and procedural change, but that the information communicated is embedded in operational practice,” it said in the report.
“This issue has previously been identified by the Division and a number of strategies have been implemented which already show very positive improvement in enforcement.
“The key focus for DCS is to contribute to community safety by upholding the integrity of custodial and non-custodial sentences and by positively influencing offender behaviour to reduce reoffending.
“The department acknowledges the need for continuous improvement in compliance with policies and procedures governing the management of parolees in the community and will use the Auditor General’s report to inform future developments.”
A company expected to bid for contracts to operate two jails in Australia has backed facilities in which inmates have keys to their cells and are on a first-name basis with their jailers. Gary Sturgess, research director of the U.K.-based Serco Group, will tell a New South Wales, Australia, parliamentary inquiry Friday that decency, not efficiency, is the main reason to privatize jails. 
The Government of western Australia, faced with an overcrowded prison system, have blamed the previous administration for doing nothing,