The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

PERFORMANCE INSPECTION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SOCIAL WORK SERVICES
Report on Argyll, Bute and the Dunbartonshires' Criminal Justice Social Work Partnership

2. SOCIAL ENQUIRY AND HOME BACKGROUND REPORTS

2.1 Preparing social enquiry reports (SERs) is a key function of a criminal justice social work service. These reports provide information and advice to the courts to assist sentencing. They are subject to National Objectives and Standards (NOS), last revised in 1999.

2.2 Social enquiry reports are important, not only for the information and advice they offer courts but also because they constitute an initial assessment which can underpin work with the offender in the community on probation, community service, and release on licence. If the offender is sentenced to imprisonment, they will also contribute to sentence planning.

2.3 Table 1 below shows the demand for social enquiry reports across the partnership for the last four years.

Table 1: Demand for Social Enquiry Reports

2.4 This shows that the overall demand has remained reasonably steady over this period, although the figures for individual authorities show some significant fluctuations. The national figures for the same years are 33,614, 36,210, 32,430, and 39,260.

2.5 Over the past year, the demand for SERs has risen by 50% in East Dunbartonshire and 46% in Argyll and Bute. West Dunbartonshire however, has seen only a 4% rise over the same period and has experienced a significant decline from 1999-2001 levels. Argyll and Bute also saw a significant decline between 2001 and 2002.

2.6 Statistics for the number of SERs submitted per 10,000 population for the period 2002-2003 show that West Dunbartonshire produced 112.3 reports as against the national average of 105.6, while Argyll and Bute produced 64.7 and East Dunbartonshire 52.7. ( Source: Scottish Executive Criminal Justice Social Work Statistics, 2002-2003.)

Performance indicators

2.7 The partnership performs well in relation to key performance indicators collected by Audit Scotland. For the last published period (2001-2002), West Dunbartonshire submitted 100% of their reports by the due date, and East Dunbartonshire 96.8%. Argyll and Bute achieved 99.4%, though Audit Scotland noted that the Council itself had reported that this information was unreliable.

The inspection

2.8 The inspection team examined a sample of 110 social enquiry reports. Inspectors also interviewed social workers who prepared reports and their line managers. The views of Sheriffs sitting in the 5 Sheriff courts in Argyll and Bute and West Dunbartonshire were sought. The views of Sheriffs sitting at Glasgow Sheriff Court were not sought because it was not feasible to ask them to single out East Dunbartonshire reports from the large number of reports they receive from other authorities, particularly Glasgow.

2.9 The inspection examined the extent to which social enquiry reports met the main purposes set out in National Standards which are to:

• offer information and advice which can help the court decide between available sentencing options;
• assess the risk of re-offending and the offender's attitude and motivation to change;
• assess the feasibility of a community based disposal involving social work supervision or the need for supervision on release from a custodial sentence;
• assist the court to avoid the use of custody for want of a suitable community based disposal;
• assess the possible risk of harm to others in more serious cases.

2.10 Whether report writers made the basis of the information in reports clear was also examined, as was the extent to which reports showed that key information relevant to sentencing had been checked. Reports were screened for obvious errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation that could undermine their credibility with the court.

2.11 The sample of 110 social enquiry reports comprised those read as part of the file-reading exercise and a separate batch of reports submitted to local courts. Reports were assessed across a number of fields requiring either a yes/no response or the allocation of a grade on a 4-point scale, culminating in an overall rating.

The findings

2.12 Tables 2 and 3 sets out the main findings. A small amount of data were incorrectly entered by file readers and is reflected as 'not applicable'.

Table 2: Social Enquiry Reports - Performance (1)

Table 3: Social Enquiry Reports - Performance (2)

2.13 Just under half of all the reports were rated either 'good' or 'very good'. A substantial minority reached an 'adequate' standard and around one in twenty was 'poor'.

2.14 Specific strengths were evident in the way reports assessed offending related needs, reviewed the feasibility of different sentencing options, and based advice to sentencers on evidence. The majority of reports handled these issues well, achieving a 'good' or 'very good' standard.

2.15 Performance was less strong in some other fields. More than half of all reports were 'adequate' or 'poor' at assessing risk of harm to others, analysing offending behaviour and assessing the risk of re-offending. National Standards require practitioners to comment on the possible risk of harm 'in more serious cases' and it is possible, therefore, that this risk was assessed in some cases but, because of the nature of the offence, no reference was made to the assessment in the report. However, analysis of the data on offence types indicates that a assessment of risk of harm should have been clearly addressed in reports in more cases than it was.

2.16 In almost half of all reports, it was not clear to the reader that information which could have had a bearing on the credibility of the report had been checked with a source other than the offender.

2.17 Most reports were clearly set out and accurately written. However a minority (just over one in ten) contained errors in spelling, grammar, or punctuation which could have undermined the credibility of the report.

Women offenders

2.18 The sample included 22 reports on women offenders. The overall quality of these reports did not differ significantly from the sample as a whole. The reports were better at assessing offending related needs than risk of re-offending and harm to others. A strength of the arrangements in West Dunbartonshire was that all reports on women offenders were prepared by female staff.

The views of Sheriffs

2.19 Using a short written questionnaire, Sheriffs in Dumbarton and Argyll and Bute were asked about the quality of the reports. The questionnaire requested comments on the overall standard, style, layout and length of reports; whether they arrived on time; the extent to which reports met their requirements for information and advice relevant to sentencing; whether, in the event of a proposal for probation, it was clear what work would be undertaken in the course of the order; and whether they would like to see any changes which would improve reports.

2.20 The Sheriffs who responded expressed satisfaction with the service they received which they said usually met their requirements for information and advice. They were also happy with the way information was presented. One noted that the advice contained in reports was 'invariably helpful'. There was a general consensus that, from their perspective, the overall standard of reports was reasonable or better. The occasional late arrival of reports was commented on but the Sheriff concerned said that he had raised the issue and considered matters now to be resolved.

Commentary

2.21 These findings show some 'good' and 'very good' practice and Sheriffs clearly value highly the service they receive. The findings also show, however, that the quality of some reports can be improved. Factors that would help to achieve this are discussed below.

Organisational arrangements

2.22 There are different arrangements for preparing reports across the partnership. In East Dunbartonshire, reports are prepared by members of the criminal justice social work team who were also responsible for supervision. In West Dunbartonshire, a specialist team is responsible for preparing all reports. In Argyll and Bute most reports are prepared by members of the criminal justice social work team also responsible for supervision, but some are undertaken by generic social workers, for example where the offender lives on an outlying island.

2.23 In theory the creation of a specialist team should have advantages both in developing expertise and in ensuring better targeting of resources. However, the quality of reports read for this inspection from West Dunbartonshire does not wholly bear this out and prompts further consideration as to the possible reasons. In Argyll and Bute, there are tangible logistical difficulties in delivering a criminal justice social work service across a large, scarcely populated area. The deployment of generic staff to prepare reports is a practical solution but one which requires support and advice to ensure quality, particularly in complex cases.

Availability of information about the current offence and previous offending

2.24 Social workers writing reports should receive a copy of the complaint/indictment, the list of any previous convictions libelled by the Crown, and, where the unique reference number is available (the URN), a copy of the offender's criminal record. In serious cases (most frequently sexual offences), some more detailed information about the current offence may be shared informally.

2.25 Staff across the partnership normally received the complaint/indictment and the list of any libelled previous offences. Access to the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) record was not routine because the offender's URN was not always supplied. Even in East Dunbartonshire which was a pilot site for the new ISCJIS system of electronic data transfer between criminal justice agencies, the SCRO record was quite frequently unavailable because the S number (the electronic equivalent of the URN) was not supplied.

2.26 The lack of detailed information about the current offence and less than full details about previous offending made the tasks of analysing the offender's attitude to his offence and the risk of re-offending more difficult. Nevertheless, there was a tendency in some reports to describe the offender's account of events with little analysis of offending or assessment of the extent to which the offender was aware of the impact of his behaviour on any victim. These issues are important elements in determining risk of re-offending, potential harm to others, and amenability to change.

Risk assessment

2.27 The LSI-R (Level of Service Inventory - Revised) which assesses risk of re-offending and the RAGF 3 and 4 (Risk Assessment Guidance Framework) which asses risk of harm are used across the partnership. An LSI-R and RAGF 3 is completed in respect of each offender on whom a report is prepared. The LSI-R provides a scored assessment of the static and dynamic factors associated with the risk of re-offending, and sets out the areas of need where intervention should be targeted to tackle offending. The RAGF 3 and 4 screen for risk of harm to others and, where a risk is predicted, help to assess the potential scale of the risk.

2.28 Whilst staff completed these risk assessment instruments, it was not sufficiently clear how the risk assessment had informed the content of reports, including any advice given about disposal. There is no requirement to refer specifically to the findings in reports (although this is done in a general way in East Dunbartonshire), but they should provide a pointer as to what information should be included. They should also assist the analysis of offending and associated risks and the review of possible sentencing options. Finally, they are an essential tool for planning intervention.

Quality assurance

2.29 Arrangements for monitoring of the quality of SERs varied. At the time of the inspection there was no formal monitoring system in operation in Argyll and Bute, the system having been suspended in anticipation of the introduction of partnership wide quality assurance procedures. In East Dunbartonshire the team leader monitored a sample of reports prepared during the previous 6 months using a 13-point form based on national standards. West Dunbartonshire had a system of management and peer scrutiny and up to 10% of all reports were routinely monitored. In addition there was a weekly meeting, also attended by members of the supervision and community service teams, to discuss particular reports prepared by team members. The purpose was to discuss problematic cases and to use the group as a sounding board to test out assessments, conclusions, and sentencing proposals. Staff appeared free to select which cases they brought to the meeting. Discussion was loosely structured.

2.30 West Dunbartonshire obtained feedback from Sheriffs at Dumbarton Sheriff Court on the quality of their reports. Each year Sheriffs were asked to comment on all the West Dunbartonshire reports they read over a 1 month period. This feedback was positive.

2.31 Argyll and Bute obtained feedback from Sheriffs at least annually and this was also positive. Staff said they were well known to local Sheriffs and had ready access to them.

2.32 East Dunbartonshire had tried to obtain feedback from Sheriffs at Glasgow Sheriff Court but this had proved difficult. There were logistical difficulties in separately identifying East Dunbartonshire's reports from the many others Glasgow Sheriffs dealt with on a day to day basis.

Conclusions and areas for improvement

2.33 Across the partnership there was some 'good' and 'very good' practice, some practice which was 'adequate', and a small amount of 'poor' practice. Practice was not as consistent as it could have been and some aspects of report writing can be improved. Inspectors welcome the partnership's intention to introduce a more uniform and rigorous approach to quality assurance in the near future. This should help to deliver a consistent standard of high quality reports.

2.34 Improving quality is important not simply because courts will benefit from better reports but because good quality reports and the assessments on which they are based are critical for providing a foundation for work with the offender in the community. They also ensure that issues of risk (of re-offending and harm to others) and need (as it contributes to offending) are properly addressed. To the extent that they influence court decision-making, reports also have a function in helping target the right disposal on the right offender. This includes ensuring as far as possible that custody is not used for want of a suitable community disposal and that a community based disposal involving supervision is not used where a lower tariff disposal would suffice.

2.35 The partnership should take the following steps to improve performance:

• West Dunbartonshire should review its procedures and practices for delivering social enquiry reports with a view to improving quality;
• managerial oversight of the preparation of social enquiry reports in Argyll and Bute should be reviewed with the aims of improving the quality and consistency of reports and ensuring appropriate support and advice to generic social workers undertaking this task;
• practitioners should be more active in probing the offender's version of the offence and previous offending despite the often incomplete nature of the information available from other sources. They should also reflect the findings of the structured risk assessments that are routinely carried out in the content of all reports and related action plans, particularly risk of harm.

Home Background Reports

2.36 Home background reports (HBRs) are required by the Parole Board to advise Board members about the circumstances surrounding the possible release from custody on licence of offenders serving prison sentences of four years or more. They are prepared by community based criminal justice social workers and subject to National Standards. Circular 12/2002 sets out the Scottish Executive's expectations on the delivery of throughcare services to prisoners sentenced to more than four years. Part of its intention is to enhance the overall quality of home background reports which are viewed as an essential element in delivering re-settlement and reducing re-offending.

2.37 The demand for home background reports across the partnership is set out in table 4.

Table 4: Demand for Home Background Reports

2.38 The demand for reports has remained fairly static in recent years, with little discernible variation.

The purposes of home background reports

2.39 Inspectors examined the extent to which the main purposes of reports had been met as set out in National Standards. These are to provide:

• a description and assessment of the social and family context to which the prisoner intends to return;
• a description and assessment of the extent to which this social and family context is likely to be supportive or otherwise in assisting the prisoner to re-settle successfully in the community;
• information about the likely level and nature of supervision and support that will be provided to the prisoner and his/her family on release;
• information about any special programmes, facilities or resources which might be offered to assist the successful reintegration of the prisoner into the community and to reduce the risk of re-offending;
• information contributing to the assessment of risk of re-offending or social breakdown of the prisoner.

The sample

2.40 12 reports were sampled and marked using the four point scale. The findings are set out in table 5 below.

Table 5: Home Background Reports - Performance (1)

2.41 The overall ratings show an even split between 'good' and 'very good' reports and 'poor' and 'adequate' reports. Seven out of the 12 reports had no pre-release plan (something that the Parole Board places considerable emphasis on). Similarly, putting together packages of support (an important part of any pre-release plan) was not dealt with very well.

2.42 Most staff thought the main function of an HBR was to comment on the attitude of family to the prisoner's release. The offender was not normally interviewed at this stage and staff said they sometimes had difficulty in obtaining relevant information from the prison within the given timescales. They said they had an opportunity at the subsequent pre-release meeting with the offender to firm up on pre-release plans.

2.43 The partnership had no systems for monitoring the quality of these reports.

Conclusions and areas for improvement

2.44 Successful re-integration of a released prisoner into the community requires substantial planning based on thorough assessment. Whilst most reports were of an 'adequate' standard or better, there were areas for improvement. The new arrangements for throughcare will, in the future, provide a stronger platform for undertaking this work and it is important that this is taken forward in partnership with prison-based staff.

2.45 The following steps should be taken to improve performance:

• practitioners should ensure that all reports contain a pre-release plan and set out a package of support to be made available on release;
• as part of establishing the new throughcare arrangements, agreement should be reached with the relevant prisons to ensure that the required information is available in good time to undertake home background reports;
• similar monitoring arrangements to those developed for social enquiry reports should be established.

« Previous | Contents | Next »