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

3. THE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OF OFFENDERS ON PROBATION AND STATUTORY LICENCE

Probation and statutory licences

3.1 The supervision in the community of offenders subject to probation or statutory licence on release from custody is a core responsibility. Probation orders and statutory licences are intended to prevent or reduce further offending through a combination of firm oversight and interventions targeted on changing or controlling specific attitudes and behaviours which support offending. They should also address problems associated with offending and assist reintegration with the community. In supervising these orders and licences, social work staff must pay close attention to public protection. In many instances they will work closely with other agencies, for example, addictions services and the police.

Workload

3.2 Table 6 below gives a breakdown of the numbers of new probation orders undertaken by each authority over the past 4 years. Table 7 sets out the number of existing and new statutory licences 'on the books' of each authority in the given year. These include parole and non-parole licences, extended sentence licences, and supervised release orders.

Table 6 : New Probation Orders

3.3 These figures show demand holding steady across the partnership during the years 1999-2002 (with some fluctuations in individual authorities) and a significant increase of 51 orders in 2002-2003, accounted for by rises in Argyll and Bute and East Dunbartonshire.

Table 7: New Parole and Non-Parole Licences

3.4 These figures show that demand has held steady over the past three years (the higher figure for 1999-2000 for West Dunbartonshire is almost certainly an error).

3.5 There are published statistics for probation orders per 10,000 population relating to the period 2002-2003. These indicate a West Dunbartonshire rate of 21.3 per 10,000 as against the national average of 20.5. Argyll and Bute had a rate of 16.2 and East Dunbartonshire a rate of 9.8 ( Source: Scottish Executive Criminal Justice Social Work Statistics 2002-2003).

Profile of offenders on probation

• As of 2002-2003, 14% of probationers across the partnership were female. In Argyll and Bute the proportion has remained the same over the past three years. In East Dunbartonshire the proportion rose from 7% in 2000-2001 to 13% in 2002-2003. In West Dunbartonshire the proportion dropped from 21% to 13% over the same period.
• Across the partnership 7% of all probation orders are made on offenders under 18 and 40% on offenders aged between 18 and 25. The remainder are over 25 (2002-2003).
• 55% of probationers in Argyll and Bute were unemployed, 73% in West Dunbartonshire, and 81% in East Dunbartonshire (2002-2003).
• Over the past three years courts across the partnership were most likely to make 1-year probation orders followed by orders of 18 months and 2 years. The minimum of 6 months and the maximum of 3 years were used comparatively rarely.

Performance indicators

3.6 Audit Scotland collects some information on key performance indicators for probation. In 2001-2002, the percentage figures for offenders seen within five working days of the order having been made were 67.7 (West Dunbartonshire), 79 (East Dunbartonshire) and 82 (Argyll and Bute). These figures do not address reasons for non-attendance which may be outside the control of the supervisor.

3.7 The percentage figures for the same year for applications to the court for breach of probation were 17.2 (West Dunbartonshire), 9 (East Dunbartonshire), and 33 (Argyll and Bute). (Source: Accounts Commission: Performance Indicators 2001-2002.)

3.8 Statistics about breach are also collected by the Scottish Executive's Statistical Service meaning that the local authorities in the partnership had to supply similar information to more than one public body. The parameters of these requests and the issue of how information of this kind is collected and analysed will be returned to in the final chapter.

The inspection

3.9 National Standards and related guidance set a clear framework of expectations for offenders and for the staff working with them with regard to procedures, frequency of contact, and compliance. Within this framework staff have scope to develop the service in line with the principles of effective practice.

3.10 To investigate the quality of this work across the partnership, the inspection team reviewed a sample of 75 case files, 35 from West Dunbartonshire, 25 from Argyll and Bute, and 15 from East Dunbartonshire. Following the file reading, data was entered and analysed on a total of 73 cases (in 2 instances the data retrieved was considered incomplete). 51 of these cases were still active, and 22 recently terminated.

3.11 25 cases were community service orders and will be dealt with later in this report.

3.12 The breakdown of the remainder was as follows:

• 35 probation orders: of these 15 were standard orders with no additional requirements; 13 were Section 229 orders which attach a condition of unpaid work (community service); and 7 were probation orders with other additional conditions;
• 12 parole licences;
• 1 non-parole licence.

3.13 The cases were distributed across the three authorities in the following way:

• Argyll and Bute: 15 probation orders, including 3 Section 229 orders and 5 orders with other conditions; and 4 parole licences;
• East Dunbartonshire: 5 probation orders, including 3 Section 229 orders and 1 order with other conditions; and 5 parole licences;
• West Dunbartonshire: 15 probation orders, including 7 Section 229 orders, and 1 order with other conditions; 3 parole licences; and 1 non-parole licence.

3.14 There were 8 women offenders in the sample.

3.15 12 offenders were assessed by social work staff as high-risk. Of these, 3 were on probation with no additional conditions, 1 was on a Section 229 order, 1 was on a probation order with other conditions, and 7 were on parole licence. The service to high-risk offenders is dealt with in a separate section of the report.

3.16 The file reading exercise required the inspection team to read and evaluate the evidence on file about how social workers were planning and implementing their work with offenders on probation and statutory licence. Was there a plan? How well was it related to any assessment of risk (of re-offending and harm to others) and need (which may have contributed to offending)? Were the planned levels of contact and intervention appropriate? Were other relevant services identified in the plan (e.g. addictions services)? Had the plan been implemented and was it regularly reviewed? How well was attendance and non-attendance handled? Did files show staff routinely evaluated their practice?

3.17 As well as examining case files, the inspection team interviewed social workers providing services, their line managers, and heads of service. The team observed some face- to-face work with offenders in each authority, and looked at several video recordings of group work sessions delivered by staff in West Dunbartonshire. Interviews were carried out with a small number of offenders on supervision in each authority and the views of Sheriffs were also sought.

Planning

3.18 Table 8 below sets out the results of the file reading analysis with regard to planning.

Table 8: Planning Performance

3.19 The main findings are:

• most cases had a plan for the first three months of supervision;
• there was evidence of partnership work in drawing up plans and this appeared to be delivered;
• the planned level (frequency and duration of contact) of supervision was better related to the assessed risk of harm, re-offending, and offending related need than the proposed content of supervision, although this was achieved to a reasonable standard.

Women offenders

3.20 There were few significant differences in the findings in respect of women offenders. 6 out of 8 had a plan. 4 plans involved partnership working (i.e. work with another agency), 3 of the six cases were allocated to programmed group work. The planned level of supervision was dealt with marginally better than the planned content. No 'poor' practice was identified.

Interviews with staff

3.21 The file-reading exercise established that there was a plan in most cases although some plans lacked detail and specificity. Staff in West Dunbartonshire said the outline plan in the social enquiry report was normally considered sufficient until the first review at three months and provided the basis of a written contract that the offender signed and which was kept on file. Staff in East Dunbartonshire said they had recently reviewed practice and had decided to draw up a firm plan within the first month of supervision that would be signed by the offender. This plan would make the outline plan normally contained in a social enquiry report more specific. In Argyll and Bute a separate outline action plan is drawn up and logged, based on the initial work plan contained in the SER and amended at the first review.

3.22 Staff said they used the review at 12 weeks to confirm and revise plans and there was evidence that this was happening. Staff confirmed that addictions agencies were most frequently involved in partnership working, which seems appropriate given the levels of drug misuse in the offender population.

Commentary

3.23 The file-reading indicated that West Dunbartonshire was stronger in planning the level and content of supervision than the partner authorities. This was largely explained by the use in West Dunbartonshire of the 'Constructs' group work programme which, for most offenders, offers a clear programme of group work intervention focused on offending behaviour and offending related need. This structure was not available to the other two authorities, placing more responsibility on individual supervisors to set out and implement their own plans.

3.24 National Standards are clear about the planning task during the initial phase of supervision. The Standards for probation state that during the initial phase a plan should be confirmed and 'if necessary made more specific, paying particular attention to identifying specific tasks and responsibilities'. Although these Standards were written some time ago, their basis is still sound. In the intervening years, developing knowledge about 'what works' in working with offenders to prevent and reduce offending has underlined the importance of matching the level and content of supervision to the assessed levels of risk and offending related need. Where this is done, the potential for positive change is enhanced. Where there is a mismatch there is a possibility that things may get worse.

3.25 Matching intervention plans with the assessed levels of risk and need is critical for effective practice. This could have been done better in some instances. To achieve this means making better use of both the information in social enquiry and home background /prison social work reports and the related structured risk assessments that are now routinely undertaken, to plan supervision in more detail setting out what areas will be covered and how this will be achieved.

Conclusions and areas for improvement

3.26 Overall, planning for supervision was carried out reasonably well:

• most cases had a plan;
• partnership work was evident in drawing up the majority of plans;
• the extent to which the planned level of supervision (frequency and duration of contact) matched the profile of the case was mainly 'good' or 'very good';
• the extent to which the planned content of supervision matched the profile of the case was 'good' or 'very good' in just over half the cases.

3.27 One area in particular should be improved:

• just under half of all cases (19 out of 41) were assessed as 'adequate' in spelling out how the content of supervision was going to address the assessed levels of risk of reconviction, harm, and offending related need. To improve practice the partnership should develop a more consistent approach to preparing supervision plans. Staff should be aiming for a plan which is SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time limited) and which is in place within the first month of supervision.

Supervision

3.28 Tables 9 and 10 below set out the findings from the file-reading exercise with regard to the implementation of supervision.

Table 9: Supervision Performance (1)

Table 10: Supervision Performance (2)

3.29 In respect of implementation of supervision the main findings are:

• both the level and content of supervision were judged to be 'good' or 'very good' in the majority of cases;
• this majority was larger for level of supervision than for content;
• reviews were mostly undertaken in line with National Standards, although there was some slippage;
• case management in terms of regular reviews and evaluation of progress was generally good;
• in the view of file readers, services were efficiently delivered in the majority of cases;
• the primary method of work across the partnership was non programmed individual work. This was the only method of work recorded in Argyll and Bute. All the programmed work was in West Dunbartonshire.

Women offenders

3.30 The findings for female offenders showed that both the level and content of supervision were appropriate in the majority of cases.

Service delivery

3.31 Supervision is delivered in various ways across the partnership. In West Dunbartonshire there is a supervision team (which is separate from the assessment team and does not undertake social enquiry reports) consisting of a senior social worker, 4 social workers and one group worker (not social work qualified). The social workers have responsibility for holding and case managing all probation orders and statutory licences and for delivering the 'Constructs' group work programme (to be described in more detail later). In East Dunbartonshire 1 senior social worker and 4 social workers (when the team is up to complement) prepare all the reports and manage and supervise all the probation orders and statutory licences. Argyll and Bute has a similar arrangement (see paragraph 1.12). The teams in West and East Dunbartonshire each work from a single location. In Argyll and Bute, the team is dispersed.

3.32 Neither East Dunbartonshire nor Argyll and Bute delivers the 'Constructs' group work programme for offenders although there is a commitment to roll this out across the partnership. The programme has been tried in East Dunbartonshire but ran into difficulties due to staffing problems. In Argyll and Bute, geography and numbers militate against running group work programmes.

West Dunbartonshire

3.33 In West Dunbartonshire, the 'Constructs' programme offers programmed group work to the majority of offenders placed on supervision. Offenders who might have difficulty with the programme, such as those with mental health problems or learning difficulties, are offered alternative one-to-one supervision or might be assisted to move into a group work programme at a later date.

3.34 'Constructs' is central to the service provided in West Dunbartonshire and is a demanding programme. Average contact can be over 100 hours, well in excess of the contact requirements of National Standards. This is in addition to individual contact in relation to such case management responsibilities as reviews, home visits, pre-group work induction, reinforcement of programme content, enforcement of compliance where necessary, and post group work maintenance and relapse prevention work. The programme consists of a number of 6-8 week modules and ten 'stand alone' life-skills sessions. The former include 'offending behaviour' and 'victim awareness'; 'alcohol and drugs misuse'; and 'aggression and violence'. The latter cover issues such as 'employability' and 'debt awareness'. Gender specific modules and life skills operate for female offenders.

3.35 West Dunbartonshire aims to allocate offenders to those modules and life-skills sessions that match their assessed levels of risk and need. In practice this has resulted in almost all offenders attending the 3 modules listed above and most of the life-skills sessions.

East Dunbartonshire

3.36 The main approach to supervision in East Dunbartonshire is non-programmed one-to-one work. Staff said they used materials from a number of sources including 'Targets for Change' (an intervention work-pack), the 'Constructs' pack, drink-driving worksheets and materials for working with sex offenders. Staff piloted the 'Constructs' group work programme but staffing problems prevented it from being delivered.

3.37 As in West Dunbartonshire, the main partner agency is the local addictions service, housed in the same building. Recognising the high proportion of offenders living in the area who are unemployed (81% of those on probation), a member of staff undertakes employment assessments on all offenders on supervision (including community service) not in work and seeks to find them appropriate work or training opportunities.

Argyll and Bute

3.38 Practitioners in Argyll and Bute said that they engaged offenders in a variety of ways. They used resource materials like 'Targets for Change' and also helped offenders deal with practical issues in their lives. Plans were in hand to deliver the one-to-one version of the 'Constructs' programme and to revise a manual of basic procedures for probation, community service, and residential placements.

3.39 After a risk assessment, and if agreed by a senior social worker, unqualified staff could supervise low tariff and low risk offenders. Very occasionally, if no other staff were available, administrative staff could 'sign in' an offender at the reception desk. This was simply to maintain contact and did not involve them in any interviewing or decision-making.

Practice observation

3.40 Inspection team members observed some practice in each authority by sitting in on interviews and by observing video recordings of group work sessions. A team member talked with a group of offenders who had just completed a group work session. Offenders on the receiving end of the interviews were also asked about their experience of supervision. This observation was limited but allowed the team to get some sense of how direct work with offenders was being carried out across the partnership.

Individual interviews

3.41 Inspectors looked for evidence of the extent to which the activity addressed those behaviours, problems, and needs which had contributed to offending; whether the aims of the interview were clear; whether the offenders understood them; and whether they were achieved. Also important was the extent to which offenders appeared engaged with the process. A final concern was the extent to which the activity formed part of a sequence of appropriately focused activities with the potential to reduce offending.

3.42 The offenders had committed a range of crimes and offences including assault, sexual offending, drink driving, fraud, and shoplifting. There were also significant problems related to their offending. These included most frequently alcohol and heroin addiction, mental health difficulties, and anger control.

3.43 The aims of the interviews were clear in almost all cases. Most were at an early or fairly early stage of the order or licence and a substantial part of the interviews was concerned with firming up plans or reviewing progress.

Some case examples

3.44 In a first interview the social worker set out the expectations of the probation order and explained that, once the probationer was settled, she would go into the 'Constructs' programme. The probationer was a drug user, fairly recently pregnant, and concerned about the implications of her drug use for her pregnancy. She was dealt with clearly and supportively, eliciting a positive response. She reported subsequently that she was clear about next steps and felt positive about being on probation. Another interview was with an offender with a drug problem who had been placed on a final warning following late and missed appointments. The social worker took a robust approach to attendance whilst showing commitment and support in assisting the offender with a range of difficulties. This involved helping him stabilise his accommodation, register with a GP, and access support from a local addictions service. In a further interview the supervisor helped an offender to examine very fully the consequences for him and for others of his drinking. In another interview (a 3-monthly review), the focus of work over the next 6 months was discussed and agreed, based on a clear understanding of what had been achieved and what still needed to be done.

3.45 Examples of work that could have been better included an interview where the offender was asked to complete too many tasks within the time available. It was also clear he did not fully understand why he was asked to do them. An interview with a sex offender focused on managing his time and relationships safely but did not directly discuss his offending behaviour An interview with a young women recently placed on probation did not fully engage her in agreeing a meaningful work plan for the first three months.

3.46 Most of the offenders interviewed said they understood the purpose of supervision was to help them stop offending. They also said they were clear about what they were being asked to do and why.

Group work

3.47 Three group work sessions were observed on video: 'Alcohol and Drugs' for male offenders; 'Alcohol and Drugs' for female offenders; and 'Offending Behaviour' for male offenders, all from the 'Constructs' programme. Each of the sessions, which lasted for three hours, started with a review of the previous week's session before moving into the main focus for the session. The sessions were taken by 2 workers who followed the programme for the particular session as set out in the 'Constructs' manual. It was noted that there was no round up at the end, or discussion of how the work in the session could be practised over the following week. This is a weakness that should be addressed if offenders are to have the opportunity to rehearse the skills they are learning.

3.48 In discussion with participants following the drug and alcohol group for men, it was clear that the majority appreciated coming together for the group which they said gave them an opportunity to think about issues relating to their drug and alcohol use. However they had difficulty in saying what the objective of the group was apart from raising their awareness of the impact of drugs and alcohol and appeared unclear about how what they learnt in the group related to their individual action plans. This was a particularly large group which appeared to be quite difficult to control. This may have affected the learning outcomes for the group. The other 2 observed group sessions were smaller and appeared better focused on the objectives for the session. It was not possible to interview participants following these sessions.

Compliance

3.49 Tables 11, 12 and 13 below set out the evidence from the case files about attendance and compliance.

Table 11: Compliance - Performance (1)

3.50 Table 11 provides information about pre-release meetings (throughcare), first appointments, number of appointments attended during the first 4 weeks, and first reviews (at 3 months).

3.51 The table shows that two-thirds of first appointments took place within 5 days of the making of the order (probation) and almost all within one day of release from custody (throughcare). More than half of pre-release meetings took place at least one month before the release date. Just over half of all offenders attended 4 appointments within the first four weeks. More than two thirds of all case reviews were held within the prescribed 12-week time frame.

3.52 Some additional analysis was undertaken better to understand these figures. Information was sought to establish whether meetings and reviews had been arranged within the designated time frames and, if not, whether the reason was the fault of the supervisor. The analysis for case reviews revealed 10 cases where supervisors had not arranged reviews timeously. Arranging pre-release meetings is formally the responsibility of prison social workers, in discussion with supervisors. The analysis revealed 2 cases where meetings had not been arranged when they should have been, and 2 where this was not possible.

Table 12: Compliance - Performance (2)

3.53 Table 12 presents what action supervisors took following a second unacceptable failure to comply with the requirements of an order or licence. (National Standards state that both for probation and throughcare such a failure should result in a formal and final warning, with a third unacceptable failure leading to breach action (probation) or notification to Scottish Executive Justice Division (throughcare).)

3.54 The table shows that breach action or a formal written warning most frequently followed a second unacceptable failure. However, in just under one-quarter of cases, no action was recorded.

Table 13: Compliance - Performance (3)

3.55 Table 13 provides an overall rating for the way cases were handled in respect of contact, compliance, and enforcement. In nearly three-quarters of all cases compliance was judged to have been handled well. There was, however, a significant minority of cases where the inspection team felt that compliance could have been handled better.

The exercise of discretion

3.56 The inspection team asked practitioners and managers about their approach to compliance and the enforcement of orders. All staff agreed that National Standards were the framework within which they worked.

3.57 The main issue which arose in discussion was how to exercise the limited discretion the Standards allow not to apply for breach or to report the offender to the Parole Board (the Standards allow for two formal warnings before such applications or reports are made).

3.58 Practitioners in East Dunbartonshire considered that discretion should be exercised on the basis of the offender's track record. They said that they gave the offender a clear message about expectations at the beginning and were quick to warn and breach if these were not followed. However, if the offender had made progress and demonstrated his/her motivation, the occasional lapse, particularly towards the end of an order, was tolerated. Managers supported this view.

3.59 Staff in Argyll and Bute also exercised discretion within the overall framework of National Standards. They said there were difficulties in achieving consistency in applying the Standards across such a large geographical area within current staff resources.

3.60 Practitioners and managers in West Dunbartonshire said that offenders should be given the message that there were no reasons for failing to attend unless medically certified. This message was reinforced when offenders attended for groups. They recognised, however, that the exercise of discretion was an issue.

3.61 Medical certification for absence was raised as an problem across the partnership (it was also a problem for community service). Offenders sometimes could not get appointments in time. Certificates could be provided retrospectively in response to a final warning. A certificate might simply say that the offender told the doctor that he was ill on the given date or dates. If contacted (and offenders sign a mandate at the beginning of an order permitting such contact), some doctors were more helpful than others. These variable practices did not assist consistent enforcement practice.

3.62 Across the partnership there was a general view that a literal interpretation of the standards was not always helpful in work with the most chaotic offenders who needed time to change. This was particularly true of those with severe substance misuse or mental health problems. Staff recognised, however, that it was important for such offenders to learn to meet external expectations and to exercise greater self-discipline.

Evaluation

3.63 As part of the file-reading exercise, the inspection team looked at the available information about how staff were evaluating their own work. They also asked staff about this at the interview stage.

3.64 The extent of evaluative information in the case files was comparatively limited. Where an order was completed and a completion report required for the court, this had normally been made available. Staff had also written final reviews which summarised progress. Evaluations of an offender's participation in individual modules of 'Targets for Change' were usually completed. Occasionally, supervisors also administered the 'Crime-Pics' attitudinal survey which assesses attitude change over time. Offenders finishing probation and community service orders were asked to complete a form providing feedback on their experience.

3.65 In Argyll and Bute, staff administered the LSI-R risk assessment tool at the beginning, middle, and end of each order so that progress could be measured over time. This growing database is available but, as yet, has not been fully analysed.

Evaluation of 'Constructs'

3.66 The partnership commissioned Professor Gill McIvor from Stirling University to undertake a formal evaluation of the 'Constructs' programme. As a result, evaluation mechanisms were not built into the programme itself although each module has an evaluation measure which is collected, but not currently utilised for evaluative purposes. The LSI-R risk assessment is repeated at the end of the order.

3.67 The data available so far from the McIvor study indicate that 'Constructs' is being appropriately targeted at medium to high-risk offenders. Of the sample of 88 probationers, there were 50 completers and 38 breaches. (This does not reflect the overall breach rate.) Reconviction rates were very low for completers, with 10% reconvicted within 6 months and 12% within 12 months, although longer term follow up is required. There was also evidence of attitude change having been effected in most modules. The study notes that participants were positive about their overall experience and appeared to value the combination of structured group work and individual supervision.

Conclusions and areas for improvement

3.68 The inspection highlighted many strengths in the way supervision was carried out across the partnership:

• evidence from the file-reading suggested generally good work in respect of case reviews, follow through on partnership work, and contact levels;
• the 'Constructs' programme offered a means of delivering well thought out structured group work to a significant number of offenders in West Dunbartonshire;
• observation of practice suggested that most practitioners were engaging well with offenders. They were clear about what they were doing and the focus of their work was appropriate. This was confirmed by the comments of the offenders themselves;
• the initiative in East Dunbartonshire to address employment and training issues with all offenders under supervision addressed a demonstrable need;
• there is evident commitment to evaluation of work within the partnership and this is evidenced by the external evaluation of 'Constructs'.

3.69 The strength of delivering planned structured group work in West Dunbartonshire exposed weakness where this was not the case. Performance could be improved in the following areas:

• although practitioners undertaking work with individual offenders used materials from a range of sources, this did not always constitute a sufficiently structured, and targeted approach and did not focus enough on their offending. There was evidence that without the structure imposed by 'Constructs', purposive work on offending and offending related problems fell away and was not delivered consistently throughout an order or licence. Further consideration needs to be given to the use of a structured one-to-one programme and how this could be delivered across the partnership;
• where offenders were attending Constructs, there appeared to be some blurring of the role of case manager and programme deliverer. As a result, it was not always clear that case managers were working sufficiently with offenders outside the group to reinforce the learning from the programme and assist them with other problems and issues which could help prevent further offending. The role of the case manager should be strengthened for those offenders undertaking 'Constructs';
• it was a matter of concern that supervision arrangements in Argyll and Bute provided for some offenders to be signed in by clerical staff when no other staff were available. This practice should cease. It is accepted that geography creates major difficulties in delivering the service. However, if there are identified needs for supervision they should be addressed. If not, application should be made to terminate the order;
• the evidence from the file reading and from discussions with staff shows a commitment to meet National Standards in respect of compliance but demonstrates some lack of clarity and inconsistency in the exercise of discretion. Managers across the partnership should give clearer guidance to support staff on this issue;
• discussions with staff indicated that timely follow up of failures to attend placed a heavy burden on the resources of supervising social workers. Consideration should be given to how staffing resources could be better directed to deal with enforcement issues;
• further consideration should be given to how ongoing evaluation can be more systematically built in to intervention and resources deployed to input and analyse data held on individual cases.

« Previous | Contents | Next »