The Scottish Government

Social Work and Criminal Justice: The Impact of Policy

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. These Findings draw on the results of 6 studies which make up the first 2 phases of a social research programme designed to evaluate policy implementation. The individual studies assess how the policy has been implemented in relation to different aspects of social work services. They cover early arrangements; the national and local context; advice to the courts and the Parole Board; and probation and throughcare [ Community Service was not included as it had been studied earlier. Services relating to supervised attendance orders, bail and diversion, which have been included in 100% funding since 1992, either permanently or on a pilot basis, are the subject of separate research.] .

FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN POLICY OBJECTIVES

Use of custody

The first main objective of the policy relates to the use of custody:

to reduce the use of custody in the criminal justice system by increasing the availability, improving the quality and targeting the use of community based court disposals and throughcare services on those most at risk of custody, especially young adult repeat offenders;

The research found that:

• There was mixed information about the impact of the policy on reducing the use of custody. Nationally, the use of custody increased slightly from 11% of all sheriff court sentences in 1991 to 15% in 1994. However, during the same period the proportion of custodial sentences given for 3 months or less fell from 61% to 53%.

• Social workers were generally providing efficient servicing of probation orders and the courts had more confidence in making this disposal.

• The courts viewed the information provided in social enquiry reports (SERs) as useful. The Parole Board were less positive about the information provided in prison social work and home circumstance reports and key information, such as release plans, was often missing.

• Problems with social work access to and use of verified information about offending behaviour limited the content and impact of social work reports.

• In some areas social workers were successfully directing services towards the main target group for the policy - young offenders at high risk of custody. However, young offenders were less likely than adults to be highly motivated to address offending and other problems, less likely to have reduced their risk of re-offending and more likely to breach their probation orders.

Reducing re-offending

The second main objective of the policy relates to reducing re-offending:

to enable offenders to address their offending behaviour and make a successful adjustment to law-abiding life.

The research on probation and throughcare found that:

• Both social workers and offenders thought that there had been some success in addressing the risk of re-offending, at least in the short term.

Longer term follow up of the samples in these studies, which will be undertaken in the third and final phase of this research programme, will provide information on how far effectiveness in addressing the risk of re-offending has been achieved.

FINDINGS FOR INTERMEDIATE POLICY OBJECTIVES

In addition to its longer term objectives, the policy had seven intermediate objectives which were evaluated by the research.

Court-focused intermediate objectives

There were 3 court-focused objectives:

to improve and strengthen the quality and credibility of community based disposals available to the courts by setting out and securing the implementation of clearly stated standards and priorities for the provision of these services;

to ensure that the needs of the court are met in terms of an adequate supply of community based disposals of the required quality;

to ensure liaison arrangements exist between the social work department and the courts which are capable of meeting the court needs for social work services;

Findings

• The policy has had a positive effect on the judiciary's view of social work services.

• Sentencers were satisfied with the standards to which SERs were written and now express greater confidence that community disposals will be thoroughly administered and supervised.

• The National Standards for SERs require social workers to draw clear links between individual offending and social circumstances. The research found that these links were very rarely made.

• Risk of re-offending was rarely assessed in social work reports and this affected the credibility of proposals for services which could contribute to reducing that risk.

• Inadequate access to verified information about the offence often created difficulties for social workers preparing social enquiry reports. However, difficulties with social enquiry reports were also, on occasion, associated with resistance on the part of social workers to the offence focus which the Standards promote.

• The National Standards relating to probation promote a focus on addressing offending and, overall, probation practice was found to be being re-focused in this way. However, elements of effective probation practice set out in the Standards, such as action plans, were not always being fully used.

• The policy has encouraged the development of specialist criminal justice social work services. However, specialisation within criminal justice social work was less apparent. There is scope for greater development of specialist resources and, particularly in rural areas, for the development of models of service delivery which will take account of the small numbers and variable levels of demand.

Parole board-focused intermediate objective

A further objective was focused on the concerns of the Parole Board:

to improve the quality of statutory supervision of released prisoners so as to encourage earlier release on licence and compliance with licence requirements. To improve the quality of voluntary supervision provided to released prisoners by social work departments.

Findings

• Overall there was mixed evidence about the extent to which National Standards were being implemented in relation to the provision of information to the parole board and services for throughcare. This means that the impact of the policy on performance and outcome in these areas has not been fully tested.

• Communication could be improved between Parole Board members, community social workers and prison social workers. Members of the Parole Board generally wanted more information about social work policy and services and social workers wanted more specific feedback about the outcomes of parole considerations.

• No arrangements were found to be in place for liaison between community and prison based social workers across local authorities. This limited communication about the preparation and content of reports and about responsibility for developing release plans; fewer than half of the reports in the sample had release plans.

• Parole Board members, offenders, and social workers had different understandings about the role of social work. The Parole Board and ex-prisoners thought that the issue of offending had been addressed by or within prison. The Parole Board saw the role of social work as being to supervise ex-prisoners and assist with re-integration into the community. Ex-prisoners thought that social work concerns about re-offending after release were irrelevant.

• Prison social work and home circumstances reports to the Parole Board had a minimal impact in part because of patchy information on risk of re-offending and the tendency to describe rather than to assess the significance of the information provided.

• The research found that the framework for throughcare set out in the Standards was less well used than was the framework for probation. Most ex-prisoners were not aware of release plans and the Standards for contacts with prisoners following release were met in only around half of the sample.

Offender-focused intermediate objective

One objective was targeted at a specific group of offenders:

to ensure the development of services specifically aimed at those at increased risk of custody, especially young adult offenders.

Findings

• The development of services specifically aimed at young offenders was uneven across the study areas.

• The target group for the policy - young offenders at high risk of custody - posed particular difficulties for probation. They were less likely to have been motivated to address offending, slightly less likely to have demonstrated some reduction in risk of re-offending, and 3 times as likely as adults to have been breached. This indicates that, to the extent that there is effective targeting of offenders at whom the policy is directed, a higher level of breach needs to be anticipated.

Organisation-focused intermediate objectives

The last 2 objectives were concerned with social work organisation:

to ensure that organisation, management and delivery of services is efficient and effective;

to ensure that the provision and use of services are monitored to establish the extent to which the initiative's objectives are being met.

Findings

• The main forum for national consultation, the Main Consultation Group, set the tone for policy implementation. While the MCG has been effective in promoting communication with the courts, communication with the Parole Board and Scottish Prison Service, who are not represented on the MCG, has been less effective.

• At a local level relationships between sentencers, the independent sector and social workers were thought to be good.

CONCLUSION

The National Objectives and Standards and the 100% funding initiative are informed by an understanding of what constitutes effective practice with offenders and mark a significant shift in the approach of social work to offending. This involves a process of refocusing the contribution of social work from the welfare of individual offenders to the requirements of criminal justice, in particular to the reduction of offending. Most of the major structural changes to organisation and management necessary to facilitate specialist criminal justice social work services have been set in place. However, it will take longer to change social work practice so that it can consolidate the progress which has been made to date in establishing effective criminal justice social work services focused on reducing offending.

The report on which these Findings are based was prepared by The Scottish Office Central Research Unit. 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 1: 'The Impact of Policy'; 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 £10 per copy.

Fiona Paterson and Jacqueline Tombs

Reports of Individual Studies on this programme are also available:

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'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 7: 'Community-Based Throughcare'.

Cheques should be made payable to The Stationery Office and addressed to:

The Stationery Office Ltd,
Mail OrderDepartment,
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 14: 'Early Arrangements'.
Findings 15: 'The National and Local Context'.
Findings 16: 'Sentencer Decision-Making'.
Findings 17: 'Parole Board Decision-Making'.
Findings 18: 'Probation'.
Findings 19: 'Community-Based Throughcare'.

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