The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM OBJECTIVES REVIEW
PROPOSALS FOR THE INTEGRATION OF AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS IN THE SCOTTISH CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

PART III : FINDINGS FROM THE REVIEW OF SCOTTISH CJS AGENCIES

4 ORGANISATIONAL DOCUMENTS

INTRODUCTION

4.1 Most CJS agencies are required, either by statute or through an agreement with their sponsoring Department, to publish annual reports and, in some cases, strategic plans. During the research and consultation phase of the Review, copies of the reports of CJS agencies relating to the financial year 2001-2002 and plans, where they existed, were obtained and analysed. This exercise was intended to investigate three main strands:

• The extent to which, if at all, agencies explicitly saw themselves as belonging to a wider 'system'.
• Agencies' descriptions of their functions, in terms of their mission, values, aims and objectives, and whether any of these explicitly recognised relationships and common interests with other parts of the CJS.
• Agencies' targets or performance indicators in support of aims and objectives, and the extent to which these could be said to work either in harmony or in conflict with those of other organisations.

4.2 As noted above, the remit of this Review is concerned with the CJS from offence to disposal and the principal agencies are the police, prosecution and court services. Therefore the documentation of those agencies was of most relevance to this Review and is described here. Plans and reports of other agencies' and bodies in the CJS or associated with it were also considered in order to assist overall understanding of the system. During the period of the Review new plans became available from some of the agencies and this was taken into account where possible. Material from published documentation is summarised in Annex B, covering agencies' organisational status, mission/purpose/aims, values/operating principles, objectives and targets. [ Documentation analysed consisted of what had been published by the end of October 2002.]

TERMINOLOGY

4.3 The reports and plans contain statements of what might be described as 'first and second order' commitments, as well as supporting targets or performance indicators. There is no consistency of use of terminology, even in organisations in the same part of the system (e.g. the police), with statements of vision, purpose, aim or mission at the top level ('first order') and objectives, priorities or goals at the second order. Comparison across the system and assessment of the extent to which there is any current integration of aims and objectives is not assisted by the differences of approach.

THE SCOTTISH POLICE SERVICE

Mission, purpose and aims

4.4 It is only in recent years that the mission, purpose and aims of Police Forces have begun to be defined explicitly in Chief Constables' Annual Reports, Policing Plans and similar documents published to inform stakeholders. [ Historically, such reports have been addressed to the Convener of the local Police Committee or Joint Police Board, reflecting accountability towards the local communities served by the forces. In recent years, a number of forces have produced Public Performance Reports alongside or instead of Chief Constables' Annual Reports.] In the publications dated 2000-2001, only two forces set out their mission, purpose or aims, but a survey of the 2001-2002 tranche of reports and Police Force websites shows that seven of the eight forces have published statements of mission, purpose or aims.

4.5 All seven emphasise a strong relationship between forces and their local community, for example citing community policing and community safety as key aims. Two forces refer to partnership working, though the partners are not explicitly defined. Four are somewhat aspirational in tone, aiming to 'tackle those activities which erode the quality of life and general well-being of the public', 'to make a positive contribution' to the area covered by the force, 'to deliver the highest standard of policing', and 'to be the leader in providing excellent policing services'. One also seeks to increase public confidence in the force, and to develop the force as an organisation. Only one makes explicit reference to more 'traditional' policing activities such as crime prevention, keeping the peace, upholding the law and pursuing and identifying criminals.

4.6 Taken together, forces' purpose and aims evoke a number of qualities. Many are aspirational; most are, at present, framed with reference to key stakeholders within local communities; but few explicitly recognise the shared interests of other agencies and key stakeholders in a joined-up criminal justice system.

4.7 The plans of national police services recognise their wider roles. For example, the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) mission is to provide "quality information to the Scottish Police Service, wider Criminal Justice Community and relevant agencies to assist in the prevention and detection of crime." Similarly, the Scottish Drug Enforcement agency (SDEA) mission is "to drive and co-ordinate a substantially multi agency response to combat the threat from drug trafficking" and is supported by four strategic aims.

Objectives and targets

4.8 While objectives, priorities and goals vary from force to force (and in two of the geographically larger forces they vary to some extent for each Command Area, indicating a measure of devolved management), they are broadly consonant with the agreed national priorities (some of which are set out in Building a Better Scotland [ Building a Better Scotland , Scottish Executive Spending Proposals 2003-2006: What the Money Buys, September 2002.] ) for which 11 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) have been developed. [ It is understood that an additional two KPIs are in use in some forces.] Areas most frequently cited in police publications are reducing road deaths and casualties (by 7 forces), drug misuse (7), anti-social behaviour/disorder (5), quality of service (5), crime prevention (4), crime reduction (4), high profile policing/police visibility (4), housebreaking (4) and victim and witness support (4).

4.9 From the available documentation it appears that six forces have published targets that are specifically related to each of their goals, objectives or priorities. One of the other two forces has reported on their performance using KPIs. The targets of the other force seem to be a mixture of national KPIs and local priorities. One force has recently introduced a 'supporting strategy' (seemingly equivalent to an objective) to "improve the quality of police reporting through the criminal justice system". Two forces now have targets of submitting charge reports to Procurators Fiscal within 21 days from offences being reported, and submitting charge reports involving juveniles to the Children's Reporter within 14 days from offences being reported.

4.10 The SCRO Annual Report contains 16 objectives for 2001-2002, and updates them for 2002-2003, while the SDEA was launched with five objectives. Neither organisation appears as yet to have set targets.

THE CROWN OFFICE AND PROCURATOR FISCAL SERVICE

Mission, purpose and aims

4.11 The mission or aim of the COPFS is "To provide an independent, modern prosecution service which is committed to professional excellence, pursues cases fairly and consistently in the public interest and is responsive to the public's needs." [ Building a Better Scotland , page 19.]

4.12 This statement emphasises the independence of COPFS and seems to have been tailored to highlight its role as, first and foremost, a public service. Again, no mention is made of other agencies. The issue of independence of agencies and reconciling this with joined-up working features elsewhere in this report.

4.13 It is interesting to compare the above statement with earlier COPFS statements, in particular the aim in its Strategic Plan for 2000-2003 "to play a pivotal role in the achievement of the purpose of the criminal justice system of maintaining the security and confidence of the people of Scotland by providing just and effective means by which crimes may be investigated and offenders brought to justice." This is one of the rare examples found during this Review of explicit recognition of the wider criminal justice system.

Objectives and targets

4.14 The COPFS spending proposals for 2003-2006 contained in Building a Better Scotland ( BBS) set out six objectives supported by ten targets relating to crime and death investigation. Whereas the objectives in the COPFS Strategic Plan 2000-2003 were tied in with activities (e.g. prosecution, deaths investigation and police complaints) the more recent BBS objectives have a different focus. Though still functional, they talk of "improv[ing] the delivery of justice" and "secur[ing] public confidence" [ Building a Better Scotland , page 20.]

4.15 The COPFS crime-related targets [ Objective 5 is a death-related target] in BBS involve both quantitative and qualitative measures (the comparable Strategic Plan targets all involved process and timescales), and are as follows:

Objective 1: To improve the delivery of justice by timely, efficient and effective investigation and prosecution of crime:

• To agree by December 2002, targets covering the progress of cases through the criminal justice system.
• To take action in 75% of crime reports within six weeks by 31 March 2005 and within five weeks by 31 March 2006.

Objective 2: To secure public confidence, including that of ethnic minorities, in the prosecution system:

• To conduct a public survey to monitor trends in public confidence in the prosecution service, commencing in 2003-2004, with improvement targets to be implemented by 31 March 2004.
• The new Inspectorate to conduct an independent review and report on the prosecution of racial crime to be published by 31 December 2005 and recommendations to be implemented during the following Spending Review period.

Objective 3: To give priority to the prosecution of serious crime, including drugs trafficking and persistent offenders:

• To implement recommendations of Quality and Practice Review Unit Review of High Court prosecution relating to investigation and preparation of High Court cases by 31 March 2005 and implement fully those relating to the management of High Court cases at Court, which will be relevant to the Review by Lord Bonomy, in the next Spending Review period.
• To serve indictments in 80% of Sheriff and Jury cases that involve bail within nine months of first appearance on petition by 31 March 2005.

Objective 4: To provide services which meet the information needs of victims, witnesses and next of kin, in co-operation with other agencies:

• To communicate court bail decisions within 24 hours to 90% of victims in cases in which the accused has appeared from custody.
• To develop a customer service satisfaction survey for the Victim Information and Advice Service by 31 March 2004 and achieve 85% satisfaction levels amongst those surveyed by 31 March 2005.

Objective 6: To provide thorough, timely, and independent investigation of complaints of criminal conduct by police officers:

• To complete investigation of complaints of criminal conduct by police officers and advise complainer of outcome within 10 weeks of report to Procurator Fiscal in 60% of cases and within 12 weeks in 90% of cases by 31 March 2006.
• To achieve a 100% approval level of the quality of investigation and decision making in a random selection of complaints against the police cases annually by the Inspectorate by 31 March 2006.

THE SCOTTISH COURT SERVICE

Mission, purpose and aims

4.16 "Our purpose is to help secure ready access to justice for the people of Scotland, delivering a high quality service to all who use the courts. Our principal task is to provide the administrative, organisational and technical services required to support the judiciary in the delivery of justice". [ SCS Corporate Plan 2002-2005, page 2.]

4.17 This statement is an expansion of the original SCS aim in the Framework Document of April 1995. It suggests a fairly passive, facilitating role for the SCS and recognises the importance of working with the judiciary in the administration of courts. It does not differentiate between criminal and civil justice.

Objectives and targets

4.18 The SCS Corporate Plan 2002-2005 lists four strategic themes ('delivering ever better service', 'using technology', 'working with others' and 'engaging the team') by which main activities and performance targets are grouped. [ ibid ., page 5.] The activities listed under 'working with others' involve:

• Contributing to three current Reviews (High Court, Summary Justice and CJS Aims and Objectives)
• Working with the SPS and the police on the contracting out of prisoner escort services
• Extending electronic data transfer to DVLA to all Sheriff Courts
• Liaising with Crown Office on the operational implications of the Pryce/Dyer Management Review. [ ibid ., page 13.]

4.19 The SCS Corporate Plan 2002-2005 lists 13 performance targets for 2002-2003, including four for the High Court and six relating to criminal cases in the Sheriff Courts, as follows:

High Court:

• Average waiting period for solemn sentence appeals from date leave granted - five weeks
• Average waiting period for solemn conviction and sentence appeals from date leave granted - ten term weeks
• Average waiting period for summary sentence appeals from date leave granted - five weeks
• Average waiting period for summary stated case appeals from date leave granted - six term weeks.

Sheriff Courts:

• 85% of summary criminal cases disposed of within 20 weeks
• 95% achievement of the administrative standards set by the Lord President and the Lord Justice General for the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary
• 96% achievement of the administrative standards agreed with Sheriffs Principal for the Sheriff Courts
• 88% of courthouses meeting the 'Coming to Court' standards
• To meet the anticipated demand for sitting days of 31,500
• 75% customer satisfaction as measured by annual survey. [ SCS Corporate Plan 2002-2005, page 18.]

DISTRICT COURTS

4.20 As has been noted above, [ At paragraph 3.32.] there is no national court service or central administration for the District Courts. However, there is a target set by the Central Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace [ The Central Advisory Committee is a non-statutory body, chaired by the Lord Justice Clerk, with a remit to "advise and where necessary make recommendations to Ministers as to problems arising in relation to the appointment and distribution of Justices of the Peace and the work of Justices in general and of the District Court in particular".] that the interval between the pleading and first trial diet in the District Court should be no more than ten weeks.

'TYPOLOGY' OF TARGETS

4.21 A number of different types of target have been set by the CJS agencies.

Targets about crime numbers

4.22 These are typically to reduce the number of certain types of recorded crime, and to increase detection rates (Police). They may also involve increasing the number of recorded offences, where this is dependent on police activity. They may be regarded as effectiveness indicators. They are set for one part of the system, but even on paper it is clear that they may affect business levels and throughput in the system more widely. They may result in the generation of large numbers of arrests or reports that may feed more cases or bursts of cases into the system, affecting the subsequent workloads of COPFS, SCS, prisons and CJSW services.

4.23 Targets to reduce certain types of offending activity may be, to some extent, a measure of the success of the police in the crime prevention field, but comments in this research suggest a possibility that the figures may be capable of being influenced through crime recording practices.

4.24 Although probably intended to be qualitative these targets may in fact not be meaningfully qualitative. For example, increasing drug seizures by 25% does not take account of any change in the volume of drug availability. If drug availability has remained constant, achievement of the target would suggest better performance, but if availability has risen by 50%, even if the target is achieved it may be a reflection of poorer performance.

Targets about satisfaction levels

4.25 These are typically to increase public satisfaction with aspects of service delivery (Police, COPFS and SCS).

4.26 It can be very useful for an organisation to receive feedback from service users about how well it has performed. Poor satisfaction levels may trigger policy changes designed to provide better service, and this is certainly resonant with the Best Value ethos with which the police have been engaged for the last few years. The relevant SCS target relates to satisfaction of court users, potentially an extremely heterogeneous group including jurors, witnesses, and accused.

4.27 Satisfaction targets carry risks that ought to be borne in mind. If a survey reveals a significant drop in public satisfaction, it may be tempting to make policy changes to address the perceived problem, but given the inability of most large surveys to probe reasons for public opinion it may be difficult to establish a definitive causal link between the lower satisfaction level and the aspect of service delivery responsible without more careful, qualitative assessment being carried out.

Time targets

4.28 These are mainly process targets, e.g. to process x% of activities within a given timescale (Police, COPFS and SCS).

4.29 Many of the COPFS targets are temporal process targets (for example, to take action in 75% of crime reports within six weeks…etc.), as are SCS targets for appeals and disposal of summary criminal cases, and a number of police targets relating to quality of service (for example, to answer 999 calls within 10 seconds in 90% of emergencies). Speedy response and disposal of business are generally to be commended, but it is necessary to recognise that speed in itself does not equal quality. Temporal targets may create perverse incentives and may in some circumstances have a negative impact on quality. Such targets for individual agencies may cause difficulties for other agencies and 'target clashing'. It is also unclear how the residual percentage of activities not included in the target are subsequently dealt with.

4.30 Targets for staff to maintain a given proportion of their time on specific duties, such as community policing or patrolling (Police), are a rather different type of time target, relating more to activity than process.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

4.31 Many first order statements are aspirational, general and vague, while others reflect much more clearly and directly statutory functions or those set out in other foundation documents. Unsurprisingly, the aims and objectives of an Executive Agency such as the SCS reflect the agency's Framework Document. There is no such basic document for COPFS and the approach there has varied, recently shifting from the simple statement of activities as objectives (to accommodate government accounting demands) to more aspirational or qualitative commitments. There is no national statement or set of aims and objectives for the Scottish Police Service. The statutory foundation is the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, which sets out the general functions and duties of the police in Scotland. Its statement of functions and duties is not, however, generally reflected in individual forces' plans.

4.32 Many first order statements are framed in terms of the place of the organisation in the community, but only one has been identified which specifically placed the organisation in the context of the criminal justice system, as such - namely the Strategic Aim stated in the COPFS Strategic Plan 2000-2003. This has, however been superseded by the Building a Better Scotland plan for the COPFS.

4.33 Although a few references were to be found to co-operation and working in partnership, these have tended to be vague and unspecific, and overall there has been little or no evidence from the higher-level statements of an integrated approach to the delivery of justice across the criminal justice system and little explicit recognition of other stakeholders and shared interests in a 'joined-up' system. Very recently, though, some organisational plans have started to include clearer and more specific recognition of and proposals for better joined-up working, as for example the SCS Corporate Plan 2002-2005.

4.34 At the level of targets and performance indicators there has also been little evidence from the documentation of an integrated approach. Temporal, process and quantitative targets are more common than quality and outcome targets, but there is little apparent recognition of cross-system implications. Very recently, though, proposals have emerged from the prosecution and court services for joint, cross-cutting, overall process targets.

4.35 Some targets reflect foundation or framework documents which set out CJS functions. It is of interest to this Review to note that certain of the statutory functions or duties of the police that appear relevant to the criminal justice process or system do not seem generally to be covered by specific targets or performance indicators either of individual forces or of national application. For example, only two forces were found to have a target for reporting cases to the Procurator Fiscal [ Police (Scotland) Act section 17 (b).] and there are apparently none relating to execution of warrants. [ Police (Scotland) Act section 17 (c).]

4.36 It may or may not be apparent from the documents themselves that some targets of individual parts of the system may in practice be dependent for their achievement - or perhaps achievement of the underlying purpose of the target - on the actions of other agencies, over which the target-setting agency may have little or no control or influence. The same point may be made as regards the possibility that some targets may in fact have an adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to achieve their own targets. The following chapters provide information about practical experience in that connection, and about attitudes and approaches to more integrated working.

5 MEETINGS WITH SENIOR OFFICIALS

5.1 Meetings were arranged with the most senior officials or officers of the principal agencies in order to obtain information about the agencies, in particular about organisational plans and other relevant material and related information about cross-system consultation and co-ordination. The meetings provided an opportunity to explore attitudes of people at the top of these agencies about the place of their organisations in the system as a whole, and to seek views about joined-up working.

5.2 Meetings were also held with senior representatives of other bodies with an involvement or interest in the CJS in Scotland. These included what might be described as 'membership organisations' which represent important groups of players in the CJS where there is no agency or corporate body as such. A list of the agencies and groups consulted is provided in Annex A.

5.3 All these meetings were very useful and the interesting and perceptive contributions from a range of organisations, including those with a more limited association with the CJS, illustrated the worth of widespread consultation during this Review. I am grateful to all those who made time to meet me for their willingness to provide comprehensive information and candid views. The meetings were conducted on the basis that there would be no personal attribution of views and these are therefore reported in anonymous terms.

5.4 The information and views obtained in the meetings supplemented the analysis of the information in the organisational documents as regards the extent to which the CJS in Scotland presently operates in an integrated way as a system. The views expressed helped to answer questions about the extent and strength of support for improving joined-up working and about possible measures to achieve this.

Information and views about the current operation of the system

5.5 The meetings with the senior officials of the principal agencies did not produce much evidence of a joined-up approach. For example, the extent of consultation with others about the preparation of plans and the objectives and targets they contain has varied from none to limited, but where it has occurred it has seldom included consultation with CJS partners. The limited consultation that exists was described as informal, often dealing with small scale issues rather than strategic planning, and it was suggested that CJS agencies are not very good at talking to one another at a corporate level. Examples were given of targets set for one part of the system without consultation with (or adequate forewarning to) other parts of the system that were directly affected.

5.6 Historically, CJS agencies have tended only to circulate Strategic/Corporate/Business Plans to other interested agencies after publication, and not to provide them with drafts pre-publication. Some improvement in consultation has, however, been reported during the currency of this Review.

5.7 It was noted that much police consultation takes place informally at a local level, to enable national targets to be aligned with local expectations, and that consultation is generally not well structured within the CJS. It was suggested that the development of electronic technology has led to a diminution in face-to-face contact between some CJS partners and possibly contributed to a 'silo' approach within organisations. Poor communications between the various players in the system was a more general complaint from a range of consultees.

5.8 There was general acceptance at a senior level in the principal agencies that existing arrangements are unsatisfactory and inadequate. Although identified system blockages have been addressed, to a greater or lesser extent, in recent years by high-level working groups, consultees were generally of the view that problems had persisted and the system has not been working as well as it should.

5.9 Senior representatives of other organisations that form part of the CJS, or are associated with or affected by it, were critical of the lack of consultation and joined-up approach. One expressed concern that "the constituent components of the criminal justice system continue to work in relative isolation from each other", while another suggested that organisations only tend to talk to one another when problems have to be dealt with. The perception that "key elements in the system operate independently of each other, or at best have a rudimentary understanding of the nature of joined-up working" appears to represent a common view.

5.10 From a number of consultees there was a view that there were failures within organisations to recognise and act on the interdependence of the various agencies and to appreciate the consequences for partner organisations and for the system of poor quality performance by an agency. It was felt by some that there was a lack of understanding of how problems impact on users of the CJS and a belief that problems did not exist, notably amongst the judiciary. It was suggested that there is a lack of confidence in each other's efficiency between some people working in the CJS and several consultees suggested that in the system everyone blames everyone else. The 'blame culture' can lead to perceptions of systemic incompetence amongst important participants in the process such as victims. It was suggested that some organisations are rather better at engaging with their critics than others, which have in the past tended to 'run for cover' rather than deal effectively with media and external criticism.

5.11 There was an optimistic view expressed that the experience of ISCJIS has shown that organisations had "an ability to work together and even bear costs for the greater good." Another example that was given of effective joint working was the operation of the Drug Court pilots.

5.12 Information about existing machinery and mechanisms for cross-system liaison and joined-up working is reviewed in greater detail in chapter 7 below. It was apparent from consultation with senior officials that there is a structural issue in the CJS in Scotland about non-coterminous boundaries, but the proposed reorganisation of the PFS into Areas was broadly welcomed in that regard.

5.13 Many consultees saw a need for better joined-up working at the disposal end of the system, including with regard to the outcomes the system should be aiming to deliver, in relation to the comparative effectiveness of different disposals/sentences. It was recognised, however, that this falls outwith the scope of the remit of this Review.

5.14 More than one consultee suggested that the separation of youth crime issues (for which the Scottish Executive Education Department has the policy lead) from Justice Department had created difficulties, but again that issue is not one for this exercise.

Views about improving joined-up working and measures to achieve this

5.15 Some consultees who were not from one of the principal agencies considered a more unified system to be essential, but believed that most of the main agencies did not want a unified CJS and would be reluctant to "embrace ownership of the justice process."

5.16 In fact, although there was not support for a fully unified system as such, there was general support from the senior officials of the principal agencies for action to improve joined-up working, with recognition that individual agency objectives could not be achieved without partnership working to some extent. The view was expressed that the whole system needs to be looked at more holistically. Almost all of the other bodies and groups consulted also argued strongly for better integration of the CJS.

5.17 Across the range of consultees there was considerable support for stating overarching aims and objectives for the system as a whole. As regards the planning process for the individual agencies, consultees generally welcomed the idea of circulating and consulting on draft business plans, so long as the process did not become excessively bureaucratic, and there was a preference stated for bilateral exchanges of draft documents. There also appeared to be recognition that many existing targets were quantitative, with little or no focus on quality of service, and a desire amongst managers for a greater emphasis on outcomes rather than processes.

5.18 In relation to the operational interface between agencies, the principal agencies' consultees inclined to the use, where appropriate, of protocols between the agencies. These were seen as more suitable than service level agreements as such, being more consistent with a partnership approach and with the respective responsibilities of the agencies and the relationship between them. The importance of inter-agency linkages locally as well as nationally was also recognised.

5.19 The role of the judiciary was seen by senior, experienced commentators from several groups as an important element in improving joined-up and efficient working. There was a view that the Sheriffs Principal could play a more effective managerial role and that the support of the judiciary more generally would be needed. The effective operation of the Drug Court pilots was cited as a useful model, in which the Sheriff played an important role in overseeing the process and holding other agencies accountable.

5.20 There were concerns in some quarters about a possible threat to the necessary independence of parts of the system, in particular judicial independence, that might arise from attempts to improve joined-up working. However, the senior representatives of the principal agencies, while recognising the need to protect independence appropriately, did not appear to see this as an obstacle to their agencies participating in action to secure such improvement.

5.21 There was a suggestion that the 'silo' approach of staff in individual agencies and the lack of knowledge and appreciation of interdependence between the agencies should be addressed by staff being trained to see their own role as only one part of a wider system. A similar suggestion was that there may not be enough cross-fertilisation of personnel within CJS agencies, and that more joint training would help to foster wider perspectives of mutual roles.

5.22 A number of senior operational consultees saw a need for improved dialogue and a closer relationship between policy and operations and there was a view that policymakers and managers could learn a lot from practitioners engaged in operational duties within CJS agencies. It was also suggested that better integration was needed within the Scottish Executive itself, and that better policy and implementation frameworks were needed, with a clear focus on delivery.

6 FOCUS GROUPS

6.1 At an early stage in this project the view was reached, in consultation with the Reference Group, that there would be value in extending the research to seek a perspective from operational level staff in the principal agencies, as well as from senior representatives. The senior officials of the SCS, COPFS and ACPOS were supportive of this view and kindly undertook to facilitate arrangements for a series of Focus Groups involving operational staff. NFO System Three Social Research were therefore commissioned to carry out a limited Focus Group research project and provide a report. The work was undertaken by an experienced consultant, Mr. Simon Anderson. His full report is attached at Annex G. It is a useful contribution to the Review and I am grateful to him and to all those who participated in or facilitated the exercise.

6.2 The following section briefly describes the methodology and summarises what I consider to be the key findings that are most relevant to the Review.

METHODOLOGY

6.3 There were eight Focus Groups; two each involving staff from the police, COPFS and the SCS, and two mixed groups with representatives from all three of these agencies. Participants were recruited by their parent agencies, which had been requested to canvass experienced staff with current or recent operational responsibilities, from as wide a geographical base as possible. Although this approach carried the risk that agencies might select staff who would promote organisational policies, all of the participants expressed forthright views and opinions and the results validated the method chosen.

6.4 On the consultant's advice an attempt was made to keep the groups relatively homogeneous in terms of levels of seniority, in order that participants might not feel obliged to 'defer' to their seniors, and that they would be most likely to feel comfortable about airing their views amongst colleagues. A couple of the groups had a slightly wider spread of grades attending than others, but this did not appear to have a significant effect on the group dynamics.

6.5 In total, 54 people from the core agencies took part in the six 'unitary agency' Focus Groups, and 17 took part in the two inter-agency groups. A minority of those attending the inter-agency groups had also attended one of the unitary groups. The Focus Group discussions were loosely structured around an agreed topic guide. The project findings are reported under the following headings.

KEY FINDINGS

Intra-agency perspectives

6.6 Participants were asked about their work and to identify the main problems and frustrations they faced on a day-to-day basis. For purposes of the Review this was useful in indicating the extent to which practitioners are preoccupied with internal issues and whether external relationships or system issues are among their key frustrations or difficulties.

6.7 Not surprisingly in an exercise of this kind, particularly at the present time, participants took the opportunity to 'let off steam' about their frustrations about their own organisations, raising issues such as workload and resources, staffing and experience levels, increased scrutiny, and remoteness of senior management.

6.8 However, there was also widespread frustration with the operation of the criminal justice system as a whole. This related to both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the system. As to the former, there were concerns about case outcomes, the treatment of victims and public confidence, with considerable frustration across all the groups about the perceived willingness and ability of accused persons and defence agents to 'play the system' and the perceived adverse consequences for justice. As regards efficiency, inefficiencies and lack of co-ordination in relationships between the parts of the criminal justice system were also a matter of concern. There was widespread frustration with a perceived lack of integration across the work of the different agencies, with staff in all the groups spontaneously referring to ways in which their work was hindered by the practice of other criminal justice organisations - though some also acknowledged that their own actions could cause difficulties for others. Practitioners in all three principal agencies see the need for - and would welcome - improvements in the ability of their respective organisations to work more effectively together.

Inter-agency perspectives

6.9 Each group alluded to a perceived 'blame culture' within the CJS, and participants said they often felt they were unfairly held responsible for the problems of the system as a whole; problems that are not of their making.

6.10 There appear to be widespread failures of communication between agencies at either organisational or individual level. There also appear to be a lack of knowledge and understanding of each other's work and a widespread failure of 'organisational empathy' - i.e. the ability to ask the question, "what does this mean for our partners?" The lack of integrated objectives across the different agencies is considered to be both cause and symptom of this. The failure of organisational empathy results from failure to understand how the various elements of the system fit together, but, in itself, it reinforces a culture in which such understanding is unlikely to develop. These failures of communication and understanding are felt to be evident in national and local objectives that at best do not knit and at worst conflict across the different agencies (and also in patterns of day-to-day working).

6.11 Numerous specific points of tension in bilateral relationships were mentioned, especially between police and prosecutors and prosecutors and SCS staff. An important factor as regards the former was believed to be insufficient direct contact between individual Procurators Fiscal and police officers.

6.12 The problems of communication seem to be reinforced by models of working that rely on highly specialised division of labour, rather than team-based approaches.

6.13 A consistent theme across the groups was the importance of recognising local variation in the way the CJS operates, with different local cultures. There is considerable local variation in the character and effectiveness of inter-agency working. The groups provided some examples of close and productive co-operation between agencies locally. Although the variation is partly a function of the type of area, there were also specific local examples of good practice driven by particular individuals or projects. There was support from staff for improving inter-agency communication through both meetings at senior level to determine the overall framework for partnership working and opportunities for contact and communication at an operational level.

6.14 Although the discussions mostly centred around interactions between the three participating agencies, invariably the role and responsibilities of the judiciary were also mentioned during the course of the Focus Groups. The judiciary was seen as having a potentially very important role in the effective management of the criminal justice process. There was, however, a strong sense of frustration at the reluctance of the judiciary in most areas to take on such a role. Their use of the principle of judicial independence as a justification for that position was also a source of frustration, particularly where there were perceptions that the judiciary sometimes did get involved with case or court management matters, but used the principle of judicial independence when, impliedly, it suited them to do so to avoid such involvement. It was widely felt that any move towards better joined-up working within the CJS would be likely to founder without the involvement and commitment of the judiciary.

Aims, objectives and targets

6.15 Most participants found it difficult to engage with the concept of high-level organisational statements of aims and objectives, which they felt had little or no bearing on their own day-to-day work. Some saw these as having a symbolic role. For the most part they were seen as aimed at external audiences. A minority of participants, notably SCS staff, were more familiar with such language and could see that it had some relevance to their routine activities.

6.16 SCS staff were similarly more likely to endorse quantitative targets as a means of prioritising workloads in line with key organisational goals, whereas there were strong perceptions among police and PFS participants that a focus on quantitative targets had led to resources being diverted to discrete areas and activities capable of measurement, and that senior management was less inclined to take a more holistic and qualitative view of agency work. While there was recognition of the value and function of targets, participants emphasised their belief that targets ought to be used as tools to improve, not drive, agencies' operational practice.

6.17 Generally, participants were only aware of other agencies' aims, objectives and targets if they were felt to be in conflict with their own, as for example prosecutors' awareness of the (now withdrawn) SCS target for fixing a Sheriff summary trial diet.

Views on greater harmonisation of the system

6.18 Although participants often referred to the CJS as a 'system', they found it difficult to define. Most gave a fairly narrow definition based on the process of reporting, investigating, prosecuting and sentencing. Others, typically the police, envisaged a wider definition that included issues such as order maintenance, crime prevention and offender rehabilitation.

6.19 There was no clear consensus on the extent to which different agencies could, or should, work together towards a set of common goals, other than fairly bland - but nonetheless important - ones involving the speedy, fair and efficient operation of the criminal justice process. Participants noted that agencies' statutory responsibilities may militate against working relationships that are too close, notably the requirement that Procurators Fiscal investigate complaints against the police. It was also clear that the three agencies had other responsibilities apart from criminal justice process work which meant that organisationally they could not easily be bound together in a unified way. Participants did, however, support the principle of greater joined-up working, especially if it could lead to a reduction in the extent of 'target-clashing'.

CONCLUSION

6.20 This research established a very clear recognition of the need for closer and more effective working relationships between the different criminal justice agencies and it disclosed an apparently genuine commitment to the idea that things should be different and better.

6.21 It disclosed serious problems of inter-agency communication, knowledge and understanding and 'organisational empathy', reminiscent of findings of the Pryce/Dyer Report. As already noted, the consultant concluded that the present lack of integrated objectives throughout the CJS was both a cause and a symptom of these failures.

6.22 There is some lack of clarity about the meaning and scope of the 'criminal justice system' and any statement of overarching aims for the 'system' will need to be meaningful and relevant to all those organisations and staff to whom it applies. Practitioners' attitudes demonstrated in this exercise suggest a negative response to any initiative for objectives and targets for the system that is perceived as being a 'top-down' imposition and as adding further bureaucracy and scrutiny.

6.23 The integration of the aims, objective and targets of the various agencies in the CJS, if carefully managed, may have a critical role to play in generating the shift in working cultures and relationships that will also be required to achieve the declared aims of the Review - of ensuring the more efficient, effective and joined-up operation of the system and securing delivery of the criminal justice priorities of the Scottish Executive.

7 EXISTING MACHINERY

7.1 Consideration has also been given throughout this Review to existing machinery for cross-system liaison, planning and management. Current arrangements for inspection, integration of information technology systems and the provision of cross-system performance management information have also been considered.

MACHINERY

Ministerial Level

7.2 Crime has been identified in Building a Better Scotland as one of the Government's five priorities for action. As such, it is an area that has received attention in Cabinet-level discussions.

7.3 The Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate, as the two Ministers having principal responsibility for criminal justice issues and the main justice organisations, discuss key issues from time to time. The Minister for Education and Young People also has responsibilities that relate to criminal justice matters in respect of youth crime. There is no formal structure for Ministerial consultation and oversight concerning the CJS in Scotland and, in particular, no formal Ministerial Group.

National Level

7.4 The Criminal Justice Liaison Group (CJLG) is the most senior inter-agency co-ordinating body of officials. This Group comprises heads of department, agency chief executives and senior officials from the Justice Department, COPFS, SCS and SPS. It is chaired by the Head of the Justice Department and it meets approximately quarterly.

7.5 The CJLG has been in existence for many years and has provided a forum for inter-agency discussion of criminal justice issues between senior officials within the Scottish Executive (and formerly the Scottish Office). Its role has included contributing to policy review and development. It has only fairly recently taken a role in the collection and monitoring of business management information and it has not to date had any formal status or responsibility for CJS planning and management. Its membership does not include a number of key players in the system who are outwith 'central government'.

7.6 The Criminal Justice Forum is a national body on which a wide range of criminal justice interests is represented. Originally set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland it is now chaired by the Minister for Justice and normally meets two or three times a year. Membership is by invitation of the Minister for Justice and consists of broad representation across the CJS, including ministerial and judicial representation, senior officials, heads and representatives of the main departments, agencies, bodies and associations involved in the provision of criminal justice in Scotland. The Forum seeks to take an overall view of the issues facing the CJS. It not only aims to provide a regular opportunity for the discussion and debate of major issues and to improve mutual understanding and co-operation in the interests of justice, but it also has a role in advising Ministers on issues of concern to the CJS as a whole.

7.7 There is liaison and consultation between individual CJS agencies at a national level. Much of this is issue-related and takes place in a more formal Working Group or Committee structure comprising multi-agency representatives. Other matters are dealt with on a bilateral or trilateral agency basis. For example, in respect of the police and prosecution, there are regular meetings between ACPOS and COPFS senior management regarding a range of issues, and there are also a number of joint ACPOS/COPFS Working Groups on particular issues.

Local Level

7.8 From the information gathered, it is clear that the arrangements for local liaison and consultation between criminal justice agencies throughout the country are wide-ranging and varied, in terms of nature and level of participation, formality, frequency, scope and effectiveness. Some arrangements are more systematic and regular while others take place on an informal issue-by-issue basis.

7.9 Liaison tends to be more frequent between agencies having a more direct working relationship. Accordingly, there is considerable contact between the police and prosecution and between the prosecution and court services. Other key justice agencies, such as SCRA, CJSW and the SPS, also engage in frequent communication regarding operational matters with partner agencies.

7.10 Local police/prosecution liaison varies throughout the country, and there is generally a certain degree of liaison at different grades of seniority, from the operational practitioner level to Chief Officer/Area Procurator Fiscal level. At the practitioner level, contact can be on a regular, perhaps daily, basis regarding specific cases or operational issues. In some forces all grades of officers can contact the Procurator Fiscal's Office, while in others this is via a force liaison officer or an officer in a supervisory capacity. The arrangements, however, between more senior representatives tend to occur less frequently and in a more formalised way.

7.11 With regard to involvement in local force planning processes including those relating to particular policing initiatives or campaigns, there also appears to be a variation throughout the country with some Procurators Fiscal being more involved in the processes with their local Police Forces than others.

7.12 Liaison arrangements, including assistance with training, are also in place both centrally and at local level between the prosecution and the many non-police reporting agencies that report offences for consideration of prosecution.

7.13 Arrangements for liaison and consultation between the prosecution and courts services also appear to vary throughout the country.

7.14 In relation to the High Court, apart from the Glasgow Group referred to below, no formal consultative machinery exists. There are, however, regular exchanges on a variety of issues between the Justiciary Office and the High Court Unit at Crown Office, and an annual discussion regarding the pattern of High Court sittings, prior to the Lord Justice General's approval of the sitting programme.

7.15 The Glasgow High Court User Group meets approximately three times a year to discuss operational issues affecting the performance of Glasgow High Court. Sub-groups are also established from time to time to consider specific issues. Chaired by Lord Bonomy, the multi-agency composition of the Group includes relevant representatives from the prosecution, courts, police, defence, social work and prisons.

7.16 In respect of the Sheriff Courts, the majority have some sort of machinery in the form of Court User Groups or Standing Advisory Committees, which normally comprise a local Sheriff, Sheriff Clerk, and representatives of the Procurator Fiscal's Office, local police, local faculty and Social Work Department. The Children's Reporter, witness service and local authority also attend these meetings in some areas. Again these groups vary in formality and frequency, some meeting monthly while others meet quarterly, bi-annually or annually. While the subject matter is wide-ranging, issues such as court programming, accommodation, administrative arrangements and the implications of legislative change appear to be fairly standard items on agendas for discussion. In addition to these multi-agency groups, most areas have some form of bilateral liaison or contact between the Procurator Fiscal and Sheriff Clerk, with or without the involvement of the judiciary, regarding key issues.

7.17 Liaison arrangements for the District Courts also vary in formality and frequency throughout the country, with some participating in multi-agency Court User Groups while others generally proceed on a more informal bilateral agency basis, meeting to discuss specific issues. Although liaison principally involves the court Clerks, some Justices, particularly in the busier courts, take a more active role in liaison with local court users.

7.18 The general lack of consultation by other criminal justice organisations with representatives of the District Courts, in relation to new developments and initiatives which impact on the courts, was commented on during this Review. While it was acknowledged that the current structure, involving management by individual local authorities and the absence of a unified court service, does create certain difficulties in relation to consultation, nevertheless it was felt that the District Courts Association, as the 'representative body', should be consulted regarding relevant CJS issues.

7.19 In addition to these bilateral meetings and multi-agency groups, numerous and wide-ranging multi-agency groups exist, operating on a more thematic basis. These include local and regional liaison groups looking at a range of issues.

Conclusion

7.20 While there appears to be a plethora of liaison and consultation groups throughout the country, there is no consistent and systematic framework or structure for this. Feedback from consultees has suggested that there is a variation not only in the formality and frequency of these meetings but also in their scope and effectiveness, with some merely being considered as 'talking shops' as opposed to effective bodies for cross-system liaison.

7.21 Although the communication at these meetings and groups may achieve improvements in integration and joined-up working, it tends to be much more operationally focused as opposed to managing and monitoring the performance of the system as a whole.

7.22 At a national level, while some steps have been taken at the most senior inter-agency group of officials (the CJLG) to consider and monitor business management information, the composition and the remit of the group do not extend to a formal responsibility for managing system-wide performance.

INSPECTION

7.23 There is currently no provision in Scotland for joint or cross-system inspection across the CJS. There are individual inspectorates for the police and SPS. The COPFS until recently had an internal inspection body, the Quality & Practice Review Unit. This has recently been disbanded, but the establishment of an independent COPFS Inspectorate is planned for late 2003. There is currently no inspectorate for the SCS or for the District Courts. They are subject to their own internal audits and reviews.

7.24 There has been inter-agency co-operation and certain internal reviews have resulted in implications for the working practices of other agencies. To date, however, there have been no joint inspections carried out on a thematic basis.

ISCJIS

7.25 It has long been recognised that the efficiency of the CJS in Scotland could be improved if information was more easily exchanged and shared among the criminal justice organisations. This recognition has resulted in the development of the Integration of Scottish Criminal Justice Information Systems (ISCJIS) Project, which has been ongoing since the early 1990s.

7.26 Given the nature of criminal proceedings, a large volume of information and documentation is generated at various stages throughout the process, which requires to be transferred between agencies. This includes crime reports transmitted from the police to the Procurator Fiscal for a decision to be made on criminal proceedings, previous conviction and pending case information held by SCRO which the Procurator Fiscal needs when considering what action to take in a case, lists of cases to be called in court by the Procurator Fiscal and reports compiled by Social Work Departments to assist the court at the sentencing stage. The transfer of this information has traditionally been paper-based, necessitating repeated entering of data onto the computer systems of the respective agencies.

7.27 Through the creation of a series of information technology (IT) linkages between the various computer systems of the criminal justice organisations, with the SCRO computer database as the hub, and the development of agreed rules and data standards, ISCJIS has enabled the electronic transfer and exchange of much of this information. This avoids repeated data entry and the speed and quality of inter-agency communication have increased as a result.

7.28 The ISCJIS 'primary loop', referring to the information exchange link between the Police Forces, COPFS, Sheriff Courts and SCRO, is now in place. Further developments are ongoing to develop and pilot links with other criminal justice organisations, such as the SPS, DVLA and SCRA; non-police reporting agencies, such as the Vehicle Inspectorate and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency; and local authorities. The latter's involvement is in respect not only of their District Court function, but also in relation to the reporting agency function, generally for trading standards and environmental health cases, and the CJSW functions of administering diversion from prosecution schemes, preparing pre-sentence reports for the courts and administering certain community-based court disposals.

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

7.29 At present, there are limited arrangements for the gathering of cross-system management information. The principal agencies generally operate their own internal systems to monitor performance against key agency targets and performance indicators, and publish this information in Annual Reports.

7.30 The CJLG now routinely collates and considers management information in relation to certain aspects of prosecution and court action, including sentencing, but does not monitor system-wide service delivery and is not accountable for the management of the CJS as a whole.

7.31 Criminal Justice statistical information, covering a wide range of areas, is currently collected and published by the SEJD. This involves receiving data from many sources including the police, SCRO, courts, COPFS and local authorities. While useful, there are limitations in the information presently available. This is particularly so in relation to case progress and victim-related information.

7.32 Progress is being made in this regard. In particular, a scoping study, presently being undertaken by the SEJD Statistics Unit, seeks to establish the range of statistical and management information presently available on agency information systems which could be sourced and linked by ISCJIS, and to consider what further information could or should be available. It is hoped that this study will inform improvements in the availability and accuracy of statistical and management information to enable better assessment and monitoring of system-wide performance.

« Previous | Contents | Next »