The Scottish Government

Social Work and Criminal Justice: Sentencer Decision-Making

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. It examines the impact of the policy on sentencer decision-making.

Main findings

• Sheriffs interviewed said that Social Enquiry Reports (SERs) had always been of a high standard. However, social work interviewees noted marked improvements since the introduction of the National Standards but recognised that reports did not always meet National Standards.

• Information on offending, identified in the Standards as important, was not always provided in the sample SERs. Where information was provided its significance was not often assessed.

• Social workers interviewed said they had problems obtaining information about offenders' previous convictions or about the current offence. This made it difficult to provide realistic recommendations for the court to consider.

• Informal liaison between sentencers and court social workers worked well. Formal liaison with social work authorities was less successful. Sentencers wanted more information about the effectiveness of community based disposals.

• An increase in the use of custody since the introduction of the policy in 1991 was identified. However, the research noted a decrease in the use of short custodial sentences and a slight increase in the use of probation, which was consistent with policy objectives.

Introduction

The National Objectives and Standards (the Standards, 1991) set out the framework within which local authorities are required to provide social work 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 address their offending behaviour and make a successful adjustment to law-abiding life.

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the policy on sentencer decision-making. Four social work authorities and a sheriff court from each authority were selected for study. These reflected areas with urban centres, those which were predominantly rural and represented both specialist and more generic forms of organising social work criminal justice services.

From the study courts, a quota sample of 212 SERs was selected to reflect the range of possible social work recommendations. These were for community service, probation, deferred sentence with social work support and no recommendation. Interviews were conducted in spring 1995 in each study area with sheriffs (7 in total), a representative of the procurator fiscal office, one court social worker and a group of social workers. Scottish Office criminal justice statistics from 1989 to 1994 were analysed.

Factors influencing sentencing decisions

Influences on sentencers' decisions to impose a custodial or a community-based disposal for borderline cases can be grouped into: characteristics of the offence; characteristics of the offender; and the quality, availability and credibility of social work services.

Sentencers said that gravity of the offence is a main consideration when sentencing offenders who are borderline for custody particularly where there was a need to protect the public. Where a community disposal was being considered then sentencers said they took account of: whether there was a problem which could be addressed through probation, the willingness of the offender to co-operate, their motivation to stop offending and whether they were repeat offenders.

Sentencers said they looked to SERs to provide information and assessments about offenders and that these influenced their decisions. It is therefore important that SERs provide the information which sentencers require.

The impact of the policy on social work practice

Sentencers thought that the quality of SERs had always been good. Social work managers and court social workers thought that the quality of SERs had improved since National Standards. However, social work interviewees recognised that reports did not always meet the Standards fully and this was supported by findings from the analysis of the sample of SERs.

Information on offending, identified as important by sheriffs, social workers and in the Standards, was not always provided in the sample SERs. Reasons given by social workers for information not being included were: the information was not thought relevant; pressure of work and administrative delays; delays in accessing other agencies; problems in accessing a full list of previous convictions, or in obtaining verified information about the offence.

Most sentencers said they were likely to follow recommendations which were realistic, based on the body of the report and took into account the gravity of the offence.

However, problems with obtaining information about offending hindered social workers in their assessment of offenders' suitability for particular disposals and increased the potential for unrealistic or inappropriate social work recommendations. This placed important limits on the impact of reports.

Some sheriffs and social workers identified a lack of available places or a gap in provision of specialist services such as supported accommodation and services for offenders with mental health problems. Erratic demand made it difficult to provide viable specialist services in rural areas.

Although informal liaison between sentencers and court social workers worked well, a need for more dialogue between the judiciary (including temporary sheriffs) and senior social work management was identified to provide feedback on the effectiveness and range of services.

The impact of the policy on sentencing decisions

Sentencing trends are one indicator of the extent to which the policy has impacted on sentencing decisions. An analysis of sentencing statistics from 1989 to 1994 identified an increase in the use of custody since the introduction of the policy in 1991, both in Scotland and in the study courts. However, there was a decrease in the use of short custodial sentences and a slight increase in the use of probation over this period, findings which are consistent with policy objectives.

Sentencers interviewed saw community based sentences involving social work services as providing credible disposals for the courts. The credibility of the social work contribution in cases at high risk of custody could be increased by more detailed completion reports on such offenders. Formal liaison meetings between local social work departments and the judiciary would provide a forum for this feedback to take place.

It was found that the factors which influenced the acceptance of the SER recommendation included: the quality of SERs; if sheriffs and social workers shared an understanding of criteria for suitability for disposals; and if the recommendation was realistic.

Conclusion

This study has shown that there has been some progress towards achieving the policy objectives which relate to sentencing decisions. However, respondents identified areas where further improvements could be made:

• the quality of services, particularly SERs;

• the range and quantity of specialist services; and;

• formal liaison arrangements between local authorities and the judiciary, including temporary sheriffs.

The study was carried out by The Scottish Office Central Research Unit 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 4: 'Sentencer Decision-Making'; 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 £13 per copy.

Louise Brown and Liz Levy

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 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 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 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