« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
PERFORMANCE INSPECTION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SOCIAL WORK SERVICES: Report on Argyll, Bute and the Dunbartonshires' Criminal Justice Social Work Partnership
SUMMARY
Background to the report
This inspection of the Argyll, Bute and the Dunbartonshires' Criminal Justice Social Work Partnership is the first in a series of inspections of the practice of all the groupings of local authorities and unitary authorities providing criminal justice social work services across Scotland. It was carried out during August and September 2003. It focused on main areas of service provision: social enquiry reports, probation and community service orders and parole and non-parole licences. Inspectors read a total of 110 social enquiry reports, 12 home background reports and 75 case files and interviewed staff providing services and offenders receiving them. They visited community service sites, observed staff carrying out supervision, and sought the views of sheriffs and community service beneficiaries. The quality of reports and supervision was assessed on a 4-point scale - 'very good', 'good', 'adequate' and 'poor'.
Key findings
- Almost half the 110 social enquiry reports were rated as 'good' or 'very good.' Of the remainder, all but 6 were 'adequate'. Sheriffs were satisfied with the quality of reports they received.
- 6 out of 12 home background reports were rated 'good' or 'very good'. Of the rest, all but one were 'adequate'.
- Of the 48 probation and throughcare case files examined, all but six had a written supervision plan. These plans set out the frequency and duration of contact better than the detail of what it was proposed to do in supervision.
- Supervision plans showed evidence of partnership work, for example in addressing drug and alcohol problems.
- The main method of work with offenders across the partnership was non-programmed individual work although one authority was using programmed group work in a substantial number of cases.
- The frequency and duration of contact was judged to be 'good' or 'very good' in 34 of the 48 cases, with one case assessed as 'poor'. The content of supervision was judged to be 'good' or 'very good' in 24 of the 48 cases, with 5 cases assessed as 'poor'.
- Staff prepared final reviews and completed the necessary reports for the courts at the end of an order or licence. They also obtained offenders' views about the service they received. One authority had commissioned external research on the targeting and impact of its group work programme. This showed some positive early results.
- The partnership had a clear policy and strategy for dealing with high risk offenders that involved police and housing. Detailed operational procedures were at the final draft stage. Organisational arrangements for supervising and managing high-risk offenders were in transition. The new structure should set a tighter operational framework and enable staff to develop their expertise.
- Visits to community service work sites showed offenders undertaking an impressive range of squad and individual agency placements. Offenders were well supervised and service recipients appreciated the tasks undertaken. 26 agencies supplied very favourable written feedback on the work offenders carried out for them and the ways in which community service personnel supported their staff.
- Case files showed that work instructions for community service were clear and that offenders' skills and circumstances were matched to placements in most cases. Getting offenders to comply with all the requirements of an order was a problem in a significant number of cases although, with some exceptions, this was well handled.
- One authority had taken the initiative to train two community service supervisors as SVQ assessors so that the work an offender undertook could be assessed and contribute to a vocational qualification.
- The main focus of the inspection was practice and management was not addressed in detail. Inspectors found the three authorities in the partnership had made progress in setting in place more integrated arrangements for managing services and developing effective practice.
Areas for improvement
- More consistent quality in social enquiry reports would be achieved by better use of the results of the structured risk assessments (LSI-R and RA3/4) carried out in each case, by probing the offender's account of the offence more thoroughly, and by improved quality assurance.
- Home background reports should give greater attention to setting out pre-release plans (in conjunction with the prison social worker) and to identifying related packages of post-release support.
- A lack of evidence of planning in some high-risk cases requires urgent attention.
- Overall, planning would be improved by spelling out more clearly in a SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-limited) way what supervision will involve.
- Supervision with offenders not included in programmed group work tended to lack structure and quite frequently gave insufficient attention to offending. Greater use of structured programmes focusing on offending behaviour and related needs should be introduced. This is particularly important for the partnership's work with sex offenders.
- Staff worked hard to ensure compliance, sometimes with difficult cases. There was nevertheless some slippage, and some evidence that the limited discretion allowed in National Standards not to warn or breach was not always exercised consistently and appropriately. Enforcement practice needs to be tightened and clearer guidance given to staff about adherence to National Standards.
- More work should be done to develop and implement fully partnership wide systems and approaches for monitoring performance, assuring quality, and delivering effective practice.
- The deployment of management resources across the partnership should be reviewed.
« Previous | Contents | Next »