| Social Work Research Findings No. 19 Social Work and Criminal Justice: Community-Based Throughcare National Objectives and Standards for Social Work Services in the Criminal Justice System and the 100% funding initiative (`the policy') were introduced in l991 [ National Standards for Community Service had been introduced in l989.] in order to secure the provision of services which have the confidence of both criminal justice decision-makers and the wider public. This study is part of the social research programme designed to evaluate policy implementation. The aim of this study is to examine the process and outcomes of community-based throughcare. Main findings • Whilst offending behaviour was the issue most often identified as being significant by social workers, ex-prisoners were thought most likely to attach importance to accommodation and employment. • Social workers believed that they had made greatest progress in relation to addressing alcohol use, the provision of general practical support and helping ex-prisoners to resettle in the community. • Social workers believed that two-thirds of ex-prisoners in the study sample were unlikely to reoffend, a quarter were thought fairly likely to reoffend and in one in nine cases, further offending was considered very likely. • Community-based throughcare was viewed as less helpful than it might be by released prisoners and was acknowledged by social work managers to be the least well developed of the 100 per cent funded services. Introduction The National Objectives and Standards (the Standards, 1991) set out in a framework within which social work are required to provide services where costs are met by the 100 per cent funding initiative (initially, social enquiry reports and associated court services, community service, probation, parole and other aspects of throughcare). Prior to the development of the Standards, local authorities had to fund most social work services out of their general income. Criminal justice services were, therefore, in competition for resources with other local authority services and as a result were not always of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the requirements of the courts. The main aims of the policy are: • to reduce the use of custody by increasing the availability, improving the quality and targeting the use of community-based court disposals on those most at risk of custody, especially young offenders; • to enable offenders to adress their offending behaviour and make a successful adjustment to law-abiding life. The purpose of this study was to examine the process and outcomes of community-based throughcare. Four social work authorities were selected for study, to reflect areas with urban centres, those which were predominantly rural and to represent both specialist and more generic forms of organising social work criminal justice services. The research focused upon all throughcare cases from these authorities which closed between 1 July 1994 and 30 April 1995. Also included were life licencees who, though still subject to statutory supervision, had been released from custody since April 1992. Information was obtained from 60 social work files from 48 questionnaires completed by social workers and from interviews with 31 ex-prisoners. Community-based throughcare Most ex-prisoners on statutory supervision were seen by their supervising social worker within 24 hours of their release and ex-prisoners who received voluntary assistance made contact, on average, six weeks after being released from custody. However, Standards for contact beyond the initial meeting were not always met for ex-prisoners on statutory supervision. The majority of services provided both at the pre-release stage and following release focused upon practical issues such as accommodation, financial matters and employment. The majority of work was undertaken on an individual basis and, with the exception of employment services and services for offenders with alcohol or drugs problems, most work was undertaken by the supervising social worker. Social workers' views Whilst offending behaviour was the issue most often identified as being significant by social workers, ex-prisoners were thought most likely to attach importance to accommodation and employment. Objectives which were related to helping ex-prisoners resettle in the community, offending behaviour and addressing alcohol abuse were most often achieved. Social workers had least success in dealing with problematic drug use, helping prisoners to obtain accommodation and providing them with emotional support. Two-thirds of ex-prisoners in the sample were believed unlikely to reoffend, a quarter were thought fairly likely to reoffend and in one in nine cases, further offending was considered very unlikely. Younger offenders and offenders subject to voluntary supervision were thought more often to present a risk of continued offending. Risk of reoffending was indicated by: continued offending during the period on throughcare; the existence of problematic alcohol or drug use or other factors associated with offending; or by general instability in ex-prisoners' lives. Forty-four per cent of the sample were considered by their social workers to be less at risk of reoffending on termination of supervision compared with when they were released from custody. In two-thirds of these cases, it was suggested that ex-prisoners had gained further insight into their offending behaviour and its consequences since being released from prison. Ex-prisoners' views Just over two-thirds of ex-prisoners had received one or more visits from their community-based social worker in prison; and just over a third recalled having had a three-way meeting with the prison-based and community-based social workers. Nine prisoners interviewed believed that their situation had improved as a direct result of social work advice or intervention but the remaining interviewees thought that their circumstances had not improved or, if they had, that they themselves had achieved the change on their own. The majority of ex-prisoners in the sample thought it unlikely that they would reoffend and only six believed that reoffending was likely. Throughcare was perceived to have had some impact on the likelihood of reoffending by 42 per cent of the sample. Conclusion Community-based throughcare was viewed as less helpful than it might be by released prisoners and was acknowledged by social work managers to be the least well developed of the 100 per cent funded services. What appears to be required to improve the quality and effectiveness of throughcare is: • greater clarity about the objectives of throughcare practice; • an adequate level of resourcing; • a clearer distinction between the role of prison-based and community-based social work staff in the period prior to release; • improved communication and co-ordination between prison-based and community-based social workers; • a longer time lapse between prisoners' notification of parole being granted and their release date; • a more consistent emphasis upon the practical needs of prisoners on release. The study was carried out by the Social Work Research Centre at Stirling University as part of the programme of research to evaluate social work criminal justice policy. The research programme was conducted by The Scottish Office Central Research Unit in collaboration with the Social Work Research Centre at Stirling University and with Edinburgh University. It was funded by the Home Department of The Scottish Office. Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 7: 'Community-Based Throughcare'; the report of the research programme summarised in this Research Findings is published by The Stationery Office. It may be purchased from The Stationery Office, price £14 per copy. Gill McIvor and Monica Barry Reports of Individual Studies on this programme are also available: Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 1: 'The Impact of Policy'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 2: 'Early Arrangements'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 3: 'The National and Local Context'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 4: 'Sentencer Decision-Making'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 5: 'Parole Board Decision-Making'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 6: 'Probation'. Cheques should be made payable to The Stationery Office and addressed to: The Stationery Office Ltd,
Mail Order Department,
21 South Gyle Crescent,
Edinburgh, EH12 9EB. Telephone: 0131-479-3141 or Fax 0131-479-3142. The following Research Findings for other studies on this programme are also available: Findings 13: 'The Impact of Policy'.
Findings 14: 'Early Arrangements'.
Findings 15: 'The National and Local Context'.
Findings 16: 'Sentencer Decision-Making'.
Findings 17: 'Parole Board Decision-Making'.
Findings 18: 'Probation'. Research Findings may be photocopied, or further copies may be obtained from: The Scottish Office Central Research Unit
Room 53
James Craig Walk
Edinburgh EH1 3BA Telephone: 0131-244-5397 or Fax: 0131-244-5393 |