Refine search Expand filter

Audit progress

- Any -

Sector

- Any -

Year

- Any -

Report type

- Any -

Topic

- Any -

Reports

Published

Therapeutic programs in prisons

Justice
Management and administration
Service delivery

Corrective Services NSW should ensure eligible prisoners receive timely programs to reduce the risk they will reoffend on release.

This report found that in 2015−16, 75 per cent of prisoners who needed a prison-based therapeutic program did not receive one before the earliest date they could be released. Timely access to prison-based therapeutic programs can be a factor in parole refusal and can potentially exacerbate overcrowding in the prison system. The audit looked at a selection of moderate and high intensity programs that aim to reduce reoffending by addressing addiction, violence, domestic abuse, sex offending and general offending.

When a prisoner enters custody in New South Wales, there is an expectation that they will be offered therapeutic programs that reduce their risk of reoffending. Relative to the costs of providing them, these programs have wide-ranging benefits for prisoners and the broader community, and provide significant savings to the justice system. Corrective Services NSW has lead responsibility for ensuring relevant and effective programs are provided, and for the Premier’s Priority of reducing reoffending by five per cent by 2019.

In New South Wales, a significant majority of people convicted of an offence will eventually be reconvicted. Of those convicted of an offence in 2004, 79 per cent had been reconvicted of another offence by 2014 – half within the first year of their initial offence. The total cost to the community of reoffending is difficult to fully quantify. However, the potential to reduce costs to the prisons system alone by reducing reoffending is significant given the average costs of a prison stay is $167 per prisoner per day over an average 218 day sentence. Total prison system costs in New South Wales were $720 million in 2016.  

To help achieve its mandate to reduce reoffending, Corrective Services NSW delivers therapeutic programs in prison and the community, along with a range of vocational, education, supervision, case management and health and wellbeing general services. These programs and services contribute to the central goal of reducing the likelihood that prisoners will return to prison. This audit assessed whether selected therapeutic programs are available, accessible and effective in reducing the risk of reoffending. More detailed information on the programs selected is in Appendix 3.

Conclusion

Corrective Services NSW does not ensure that eligible prisoners receive timely programs to reduce the risk they will reoffend on release. Most prisoners who need programs do not receive one before their earliest release date. These prisoners can be released with no intervention or held in prison longer awaiting a program. Additionally, programs have not been systematically evaluated to confirm they are helping to reduce reoffending in NSW.


In 2015–16, 75 per cent of prisoners who needed programs reached their earliest release date without receiving one. These prisoners are often released with incomplete or no intervention in prison, or are refused parole and held in custody for longer than their minimum term. Corrective Services NSW prioritises prisoners for programs based on their risk of reoffending. However, the 20 per cent increase in the prison population between 2011–12 and 2015–16 has put a significant strain on program resources. While program staffing has increased by 20 per cent over the past two years, the overall proportion of prisoners receiving programs before release has not.  

Since 2015, there has been increased roll out of moderate-intensity EQUIPS programs, which reach greater numbers of prisoners. However, over the same period, the number of programs to meet the higher-intensity therapeutic needs of sex offenders and serious violent offenders has decreased or remained the same despite increased numbers of prisoners entering custody that may benefit from them. Corrective Services NSW does not collect and act on information to ensure that coverage of specific program needs among sex offenders and serious violent offenders is sufficient given the increases in these prisoner types.

Corrective Services NSW bases its programs on international evidence and has worked in partnership with independent evaluators to evaluate some programs. However, these evaluations have mostly been inconclusive due to small sample sizes and data quality issues. Further evaluations are proposed, including as a result of an additional $237 million investment in reducing reoffending, which will also see the role out of additional programs and case management initiatives.  

75 per cent of prisoners who needed programs did not complete them before the earliest date they could have been released for parole 

In 2015–16, 75 per cent of prisoners with an identified program need did not complete a program prior to the earliest date they could have been paroled. If prisoners do not complete programs before their earliest parole date, they can be released having had no, or incomplete, interventions while in prison to address their offending. They can also be refused parole by the State Parole Authority, adding unnecessary length to the time spent in jail and exacerbating overcrowding. Parole refusal data from the State Parole Authority indicates that non-completion of programs was a factor in 84 per cent of 302 parole refusals in 2015. 

Program resourcing at the prison level is inadequate to meet increased demand

Lack of availability of programs to meet demand is a key factor preventing prisoners from completing programs in time for release. The 20 per cent increase in the prison population between 2011–12 and 2015–16 has placed a significant strain on resources. While more programs are being delivered, the overall proportion of prisoners receiving them before release has not. Prisoner case management is not performed in a timely and consistent way, resulting in prisoners missing opportunities to be referred to programs, particularly if they have shorter sentences. For example, 27 per cent of prisoners with more than six months to serve had not completed an assessment required to determine eligibility for an EQUIPS program in the past four years.

The mix of available programs may be out of step with the needs of some prisoners

Since 2012, Corrective Services NSW has increased the number of moderate-intensity EQUIPS domestic violence and aggression programs provided and more prisoners overall are now able to participate in programs. Over the same period, the number of intensive programs delivered for sex offenders has decreased and the number of intensive programs for serious violent offenders has remained the same. This is despite increasing proportions of prisoners sentenced for sexual assault and related offences, and serious violent offences.

Corrective Services NSW uses a risk-assessment model to determine which prisoners are eligible for existing programs, but does not regularly review whether there are gaps or insufficient program coverage of some therapeutic needs.

Corrective Services NSW does not collect robust and comparable information on program quality and outcomes 

Program performance reporting at the prison level focuses on program throughput, such as the number of programs delivered and the number of prisoners participating. Corrective Services NSW does not routinely collect information on program implementation that would provide insights at the prison level into whether programs are being run effectively, and are achieving their intended goals.

Corrective Services NSW has not systematically evaluated its therapeutic programs to confirm they are effective in reducing reoffending

Programs being delivered in New South Wales prisons are based on international evidence about the success of the specific methods and approaches used. This is a good foundation, but Corrective Services NSW is unable to show that its programs are effective in the New South Wales context, and that they are having an impact in achieving the Premier’s target of reducing reoffending by five per cent. Evaluations of some programs have been conducted, but these were mostly inconclusive because of challenges with data collection, such as developing significant enough sample sizes. A lack of consistent forward planning has also affected the rigour of some evaluations.  

With the roll out of an additional $237 million investment in reducing reoffending, Corrective Services NSW proposes to focus efforts on evaluating the effectiveness of its programs by engaging external experts and increasing resourcing in its own evaluation unit. A systematic forward program for independent evaluation, which identifies solutions to existing data gaps and builds on past studies, is needed to support this.  

Challenges for Corrective Services NSW

Corrective Services NSW, a division of the Department of Justice, operates 34 custodial correctional centres across New South Wales, including two that are managed by private companies. It is responsible for delivering correctional services and programs that reduce reoffending and enhance community safety. Corrective Services NSW has lead responsibility for the Premier’s Priority of reducing adult reoffending by five per cent by 2019. To assist in achieving this target, Corrective Services NSW delivers therapeutic programs in prisons that aim to reduce the likelihood that prisoners will reoffend once released.  

Prison overcrowding

Prior to 2011, the prison population had been decreasing, which resulted in the closure of Berrima, Parramatta and Kirkconnell Correctional Centres, the downsizing of Grafton Correctional Centre, and a reduction in total capacity of 900 beds. However, since 2011–12 the prison population has increased by approximately 30 per cent, reaching a record of around 12,900 prisoners in March 2017 (latest available data).  

Corrective Services NSW should by December 2017:

1.  Implement a systematic approach to the use of convictions, sentencing and case management data to ensure that gaps in program offerings can be identified and addressed.

By June 2018:

2.  Clearly establish program delivery staff resourcing benchmarks, based on individual prison profiles, that would meet demand and ensure prisoners receive timely assessments, comprehensive case management and relevant programs before the earliest date they can be released.

3.  Establish consistent program quality and outcomes performance indicators at the prison-level, and monitor and respond to these quarterly.

4.  Develop and implement a detailed forward program of independent evaluations for all prison-based therapeutic programs, that includes identified data requirements for prisons to collect and provide.

Appendix One - Response from Department of Justice

Appendix Two - Response from the Audit Office

Appendix Three - About the audit

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #283 - released 3 May 2017

Published

Assessing major development applications

Planning
Compliance
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Risk
Shared services and collaboration

The Planning Assessment Commission (the Commission) has improved its decision-making processes for major development applications in recent years. The Commission has improved how it consults the public and manages conflicts of interest, and now also publishes records of its meetings with applicants and stakeholders.

The Planning Assessment Commission (the Commission) is an independent body established in 2008 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act). It makes decisions on major development applications in New South Wales. Along with the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department) and the Land and Environment Court, it is one of three bodies that have a role in making decisions on these applications.

The Department refers development applications to the Commission where 25 or more objections have been received from the community, a local council objects to the proposal, or the applicant has donated to a political party.

These applications are often complex and controversial, and can attract a high level of public interest. This may mean that, regardless of the process, not all stakeholders are satisfied with the outcome.

The Commission is required to take into account section 79C of the EP&A Act when making decisions. Section 79C includes consideration of the likely environmental, social and economic impacts of the development.

This audit assessed the extent to which the Commission’s decisions on major development applications are made in a consistent and transparent manner. To assist us in making this assessment, we asked whether the Commission:

  • has sound processes in place to help it make decisions on major development applications that are informed and made in a consistent manner
  • ensures its decisions are free from bias and transparent to stakeholders and the public.

Conclusion

Over the last two years, the Commission has improved its decision-making process. It has improved how it consults the public and manages conflicts of interest, and now also publishes records of its meetings with applicants and stakeholders.

However, there are still some vital issues to be addressed to ensure it makes decisions in a consistent and transparent manner. Most importantly, the Commission was not able to show in every decision we reviewed how it met its statutory obligation to consider the matters in section 79C of the EP&A Act.

Despite improved probity measures put in place by the Commission, there is a perception among some stakeholders that it is not independent of the Department. The reasons for some of these concerns are outside of the Commission’s control. For example, the Commission becomes involved after the Department has prepared an assessment report which recommends whether a development should proceed. This creates the perception that the Commission is acting on the recommendation of the Department. The Department’s assessment report should state whether an application meets relevant legislative and policy requirements, but not recommend whether a development should be approved or not.

More can also be done to improve transparency in decision-making and the public’s perception of the independence of Commissioners. The Commission should continue to improve how it communicates the reasons for its decisions and also publish on its website a summary of Commissioners’ conflict of interest declarations for each development application.

Decision-making processes have improved but some key aspects need to be addressed

Although not articulated in one document, there is a framework in place to assist Commissioners make decisions on major development applications. This includes setting out the information to be considered, who to consult, and that a report is to be prepared. The Commission has recently improved how it conducts public meetings and the level of support provided to Commissioners to ensure they understand the decision-making process. The Commissioners we interviewed all showed a good understanding of their role.

As a consent authority, the Commission is required to consider the matters in section 79C of the EP&A Act when making a decision. However, it was not able to show how it met this requirement in every decision we reviewed. We found some evidence of these considerations in six of the nine cases we reviewed, for example in meeting notes or in its report on a decision. Of these six cases, the degree to which the Commission considered all matters under section 79C varied considerably. The larger, more complex applications were more likely to address these considerations. To demonstrate compliance with the EP&A Act, the Commission must be able to show how it considers all matters in section 79C for each decision it makes.

We found that the Commission has access to relevant information to make a decision and consults stakeholders for their views of the development. The level of consultation depends on the size and complexity of an application. If Commissioners decide they need more information to make a decision, they consult local councils, the community, other government agencies and experts as needed.

The Commission’s public meetings are a valuable part of the decision-making process, where new perspectives or issues are often raised. However, some aspects could be improved. For example, many stakeholders thought the five minutes allowed for individual speakers was insufficient. The Commission could be more flexible with this timeframe. Identifying new ways to notify the public of its meetings, other than advertisements on its website and in newspapers, would also ensure it reaches as many interested parties as possible.

Improved transparency and probity but the Commission is not seen by some as impartial

The Commission has sound processes in place to ensure that its decisions are impartial and transparent to the community. It has improved its probity measures over the last two years, following a review by the NSW Ombudsman in 2014. We found that the Commission:

  • has probity policies and procedures which are available on its website
  • has improved its record keeping of some processes, such as meetings with applicants and stakeholders
  • publishes its decision and supporting documentation, such as meeting notes, on its website.

Conflicts of interest are a significant risk for the Commission because they could lead to corruption, abuse of public office, and affect the public’s view of its independence. The Commission manages this risk well. It has a policy in place to address potential, perceived or actual conflicts. Commissioners update their conflicts of interest records annually, and declare any conflicts when the Commission assigns them to a development application. Unlike the Commission’s probity polices, Commissioners’ conflict of interest declarations are not available on its website. Providing a summary of this information on its website when Commissioners are allocated to a development application would further improve transparency around conflicts of interest.

The Commission has been improving how it communicates its decisions to the public. It now produces fact sheets for its decisions on matters that attract a high level of public interest. Its reports on decisions for complex applications also discuss issues raised by the community. However, the level of detail varied in the decisions we reviewed, and it was not always clear how conditions placed on a development would resolve identified issues. Similarly, the reports did not clearly address the matters under section 79C of the EP&A Act. Reporting this would further improve the transparency of its decisions, and clearly demonstrate compliance with the EP&A Act.

While we did not find any issues that would make us question the integrity or independence of Commissioners, there remains a perception among some stakeholders that the Commission is not impartial. Some of these concerns are within the Commission’s control to fix, such as allowing individual speakers at public meetings extra time to discuss their issues, therefore avoiding perceptions of bias.

Other perceptions, such as the Commission being part of the Department and not an independent decision making authority, are outside the Commission’s immediate control. For example, the Commission receives applications at the end of the assessment process, after the Department has prepared an assessment report recommending whether the application should be approved. This means there are effectively two reports on an application; the Department’s assessment report and the Commission’s report on its decision. However, there is only one decision-maker: the Commission. This may cause community confusion about the roles of the Department and the Commission in the decision-making process. Clearer separation of their roles in assessing applications and preparing reports is needed.

To minimise the perception that the Commission is simply ‘rubber stamping’ the Department’s recommendations, assessment reports should not recommend whether or not a project be approved. Instead, they should provide the Department’s views on whether a project meets relevant legislative and policy requirements. The Commission should also be involved earlier in the process, so it can establish key facts and identify relevant issues sooner. It should request that the Department’s assessment report covers matters Commissioners consider particularly important when assessing projects under section 79C. Earlier referral of applications should also help the Commission to plan its work in assessing applications, and may reduce the time taken to reach a decision.

Unless these issues are addressed, stakeholders will continue to believe the Commission does not act in a transparent and impartial manner, which could erode public confidence in the Commission.

The Planning Assessment Commission

The Planning Assessment Commission (the Commission) is a planning authority established in 2008 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act). One of its functions is to make decisions on major development applications.

The Commission is independent of the Department of Planning and Environment (the Department) and the Minister for Planning. This means its decisions are not subject to the direction or control of the Department or the Minister.

The Department refers applications for major development to the Commission, including state significant development and infrastructure applications. These projects are generally initiated by the private sector. Applications are referred to the Commission when one or more of the following criteria are met:

  • more than 25 objections are received about the proposal
  • the local council objects to the proposal
  • the applicant has donated $1,000 or more to a political party or member of parliament.

These applications are often controversial and may attract a high level of public interest. Of the 29 development applications the Commission received in 2015–16, almost 40 per cent were in the mining and energy sectors, and another 40 per cent related to urban development.

Section 79C of the EP&A Act outlines the matters the Commission must consider when making decisions about major development applications. These include:

  • any relevant environmental and planning instruments
  • likely environmental, social and economic impacts of the development
  • suitability of the site for the development
  • submissions received about the application
  • the public interest.

In addition to making decisions about major development applications, the Commission also reviews major developments as part of the planning process, and provides independent expert advice to the government on planning and development matters. Since the Commission’s inception, it has provided advice on 76 matters, conducted 39 reviews, and made 444 decisions on development applications.

Process for approving major development applications

The Commission is one of three bodies that have a role in the planning and approval process for major development applications in New South Wales, as seen in Exhibit 1. The other two bodies are the Department of Planning and Environment, and the Land and Environment Court.

The Department determines the outcomes of major development applications. When an application meets one of the criteria listed above, it refers these to the Commission to make the decision. In certain circumstances, the Land and Environment Court hears appeals against decisions made by either the Department or the Commission.

A Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission and the Department sets out timeframes the Commission must meet when making a decision, specifically:

  • two weeks where no stakeholder meetings are required
  • three weeks where stakeholder meetings are required
  • six weeks when a public meeting is required.

The Planning Assessment Commission should:

By July 2017:

  1. improve transparency by publishing on its website a summary of the Commissioners’ conflict of interest declarations for each development application referred to the Commission for determination, and how any conflicts were handled
     
  2. keep better records of how it considers each matter under section 79C of the EP&A Act for all decisions it makes on major development applications
     
  3. improve the public’s involvement in public meetings by:
    1. identifying and implementing additional mechanisms to notify the community of public meetings to ensure as many interested parties are advised as possible
    2. allowing the chair of decision-making panels discretion to extend the time allowed for individual speakers beyond five minutes
  1. continue to improve how it communicates the reasons for its decisions to the public by:
    1. including a summary in its reports of the issues raised during the consultation process and how they were considered by the Commission
    2. clearly outlining in its reports how any conditions placed on a development will address the issues raised
    3. detailing in its reports how section 79C of the EP&A Act has been addressed
    4. issuing fact sheets to accompany its reports for all decisions where public meetings were held
  1. work with the Department of Planning and Environment to:
    1. develop an agreed approach to presenting the Department’s views in its assessment reports on whether the project meets relevant legislative and policy requirements, reflecting the Commission’s status as an independent decision-maker
    2. refer applications to the Commission earlier in the process to ensure the Department’s assessment report covers matters that Commissioners consider important when assessing projects under section 79C of the EP&A Act.

Appendix one -  Response from the Planning Assessment Commission

Appendix two - Other jurisdictions’ approaches to assessing major development applications

Appendix three -  About the audit

 

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #279 - released 19 January 2017 

Published

Implementation of the NSW Government’s program evaluation initiative

Industry
Justice
Planning
Premier and Cabinet
Treasury
Environment
Financial reporting
Internal controls and governance
Management and administration
Risk
Service delivery
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

The NSW Government’s ‘program evaluation initiative’, introduced to assess whether service delivery programs achieve expected outcomes and value for money, is largely ineffective according to a report released today by NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford.

Government services, in areas such as public order and safety, health and education, are delivered by agencies through a variety of programs. In 2016–17, the NSW Government estimates that it will spend over $73 billion on programs to deliver services.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #277 - released 3 November 2016

Published

Reintegrating young offenders into the community after detention

Justice
Management and administration
Shared services and collaboration
Workforce and capability

Juvenile Justice prepares and assists young people to reintegrate into the community reasonably well, given the complex needs of young people in detention, according to a report released today by the NSW Auditor-General, Margaret Crawford.

Juvenile Justice has many processes and programs to identify and address young people’s needs while in detention and links them to relevant support services in the community. It still faces some significant barriers which make reintegration difficult. Some are within its control to fix, such as improving training and recreational activities available to young people in detention. Others relate to external factors, such as the capacity of other organisations to address their reintegration needs like housing, education and employment, and a young person’s period of detention.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #269 - released 28 April 2016

Published

Performance frameworks in custodial centre operations

Justice
Management and administration
Risk
Service delivery

The effectiveness of Corrective Services NSW’s performance framework is limited because organisational key performance indicators (KPIs) do not cascade to public correctional centres, according to a report released today by the Acting New South Wales Auditor-General, Tony Whitfield.

'As a result, individual public correctional centres could not be assessed on how well they are contributing to overall Corrective Service objectives, and it is difficult to vary performance expectations in response to changing operating environments', said Mr Whitfield. 'Its commissioning and contestability project is designed to address these issues', he added.

 

Parliamentary reference - Report number #267 - released 3 March 2016

View our audit program
View audit program
EXPLORE
upcoming audits
Have your say
CONTRIBUTE