The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

SCOTLAND'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLAN

CHAPTER FIVE: INTEGRATED SERVICES FOR MANAGING OFFENDERS

Integrated Offender Management:
Case Conference

5.1 Reoffending is a major problem and appropriate interventions are vital to addressing the issue. We know that an ex-offender is less likely to break the law if he or she has stable accommodation, supportive family relationships and employment opportunities. Alcohol and drug addictions, mental and physical health are also important factors. If we are to improve public safety through significantly reducing reoffending rates it is critically important that:

• Criminal justice agencies work in partnership with other key agencies such as health, housing, education and employment organisations which support offenders;
• There is consistent and high quality support in all parts of the country;
• There are closer operational arrangements between those organisations responsible for delivering community sentences and those responsible for custodial sentences; and
• That all agencies approach risk assessment and management in a consistent way, sharing information that is relevant to risk across agencies whenever the offender passes from one to another and whenever multiple agencies are involved in sentence delivery.

5.2 We need also to build community confidence in criminal justice agencies. The consultation on Reducing Reoffending in Scotland ⁵ revealed that most people thought that the criminal justice system lacked an overall strategic direction. Many thought that this meant that different agencies did not work together effectively.

Serious and sexual offenders

5.3 It is especially important that agencies work well together in managing the risk posed by violent and sexual offenders. The Expert Panel on Sex Offending chaired by the Hon Lady Cosgrove and the Committee on Serious, Violent and Sexual Offenders chaired by the Hon Lord MacLean have set the framework for multi-agency co-operation in protecting the public from the most heinous crimes.

5.4 Following an in depth review of the matter, the Expert Panel concluded that sex offenders are manipulative individuals who will exploit any gaps in the monitoring arrangements and so the Panel placed the onus on statutory agencies to provide a robust and coherent system to reduce the risk. Scottish Ministers responded with an ambitious programme of work which has improved arrangements for protecting children through strengthening the requirements on disclosure; tightened legislation on registration and monitoring; broadened the scope of those brought under registration legislation; extended the range of sentences available to our courts; developed better tools for assessing the risk posed and provided programmes in prison and in the community to work with offenders on managing that risk posed by their deviant behaviour; and is improving working arrangements between criminal justice agencies by developing a framework of protocols to encourage them to share information.

5.5 In addition, the Scottish Cabinet has decided to introduce legislation which will place a statutory power on Chief Constables and Chief Social Work Officers to establish joint arrangements for assessing, monitoring and managing the risk posed by sex offenders. This is in line with a recommendation from the Expert Panel but, in view of the ever-greater awareness of the importance of inter-agency working in dealing with sex offenders, the power will be extended beyond the police and social work to include the Scottish Prison Service. These 3 principal authorities will then be empowered to act in co-operation with other agencies such as, Education, Health, Social Security, Child Support, Housing, including registered Social Landlords and Social Services. These in turn will be required to share information so that the principal authorities can perform their function more effectively.

5.6 The new powers will be extended to include cases with a significant sexual element, violent offenders and offenders who by reason of offences they commit, may cause serious harm to the public. Taken together, this represents a considerable tightening of the process involved in assessing and managing risk from this high profile group. It will support the remit of the Risk Management Authority and take us closer to the robust framework envisaged by Lady Cosgrove in her report.

What we have done

• We have tightened the legislation on sexual offending and broadened its scope.
• We have introduced more robust procedures in our courts to ensure that the judiciary have better information when sentencing sexual offenders.
• We have provided the Parole Board with the power to impose electronic monitoring as a licence condition.
• We have legislated for the introduction of the Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR) sentence for offenders who have committed serious violent and sexual crimes. The OLR is designed to ensure that offenders are not released until they have served an adequate period in prison to meet the requirements of punishment and thereafter do not present an unacceptable risk to public safety. There will be systematic and regular reviews of OLRs by the Risk Management Authority.
• We have set up a multi-agency group chaired by the Solicitor General to improve the arrangements for sharing information on sex offenders.

What we are doing

• We will legislate to support the work done by the police, criminal justice social work and the Scottish Prison Service, assisted by a range of other agencies, in assessing and managing the risk from sex offenders and to support better systems for sharing information.
• In cases of rape and murder, new powers to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of bail (where bail is considered appropriate) will improve public protection. These new provisions will be piloted in spring 2005 in certain courts.
• We are providing Scottish police forces with VISOR - a system for improving the registration, management and information sharing on violent and sex offenders throughout the UK.
• We are establishing a Risk Management Authority (RMA). It will be a national centre of excellence in the field of risk assessment and risk management of offenders. The RMA will have 3 main functional areas:
  • it will have an overall role to develop best practice in risk assessment and the risk management of all offenders. It is to be the authoritative source in the promotion of best practice through research and standard setting and in encouraging co-ordination across all relevant agencies;
  • it is to have an operational role in accrediting professionals to carry out risk assessments for the court. Where a person has been convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence, the prosecutor may move for a risk assessment to be carried out. Such a risk assessment must be carried out by a person accredited by the RMA. There will be 90 days to carry out the risk assessment. The defence may commission its own separate assessment, and when the court reconvenes for sentence, it will consider the assessment(s) which have been carried out and may hear evidence to support these. If the court decides that the statutory risk criteria are met it must make an Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR). This sentence will largely replace the discretionary life sentence; and
  • where there is an OLR, the 'lead authority', i.e. the Scottish Prison Service, the NHS, or the local authority (depending on who is responsible for the supervision of the offender at any one time) must prepare a risk management plan for that offender. The RMA will be responsible for approving the risk management plans prepared by the lead authorities.
• We are looking at whether to end automatic early release from prison for those convicted of sex offences. We are currently working up options to discuss with the Sentencing Commission. We will also want to ensure that robust arrangements are in place for supervising and monitoring all sex offenders on release from prison - regardless of the length of their sentence.
• We are reviewing the operation of Scotland's sex offender registration system.
• We are funding specialised training for 400 frontline police and social workers in assessing the risk which individual sex offenders pose to communities.

What we will do

• We will legislate to support the work done by the police, criminal justice social work and the Scottish Prison Service, assisted by a range of other agencies, in assessing and managing the risk from sex offenders and to support better systems for sharing information.

Transition between prison and the community

5.7 We know that support at the right time, particularly when an offender leaves prison, is crucial in influencing future offending behaviour. Our criminal justice system must provide for the seamless management of individual offenders and in particular perform better at these points of transition. We need to help an offender to preserve or improve his or her home circumstances, family and employment prospects, and to tackle addictions during a sentence. This work must be followed through after release into the community. The level of intervention provided by the services responsible for managing offenders should be based on a consistent approach to risk assessment so that they target resources on the factors that put the offender at most risk of reoffending.

What we have done

• We have developed a Core Screening process for short-term prisoners to assess risks and needs whilst in prison.
• We have introduced LINKS centres to help prisoners prepare for their release at nine prison establishments with plans for the rest.
• We have introduced a new throughcare strategy to improve the system of community support for prisoners when they are released and increased our investment in the service to 6m by 2005. Priority has been given to long term prisoners who pose the greatest risk. They will have a community-based supervising officer from the start of their sentence who will work with them and the prison authorities to help prepare for the day when they move back into the community.

What we are doing

• For short term prisoners, we are also strengthening the system of voluntary assistance to help them resettle back into communities and move away from reoffending.
• We are giving special attention to the post release supervision of high risk offenders to ensure the public is protected, to the rehabilitation of young people to give them another chance to step off the escalator which leads them into a life of crime and to those who have shown a commitment to reform by attending programmes whilst in prison to address their offending or by staying in touch with the Scottish Prison Service's addiction service. We will help those who want to help themselves.
• The Scottish Prison Service and local authority criminal justice social work services are developing professional tools to assess the needs and risks posed by offenders which will underpin a more integrated approach to managing offenders.
• We will merge the Community Justice and SPS Accreditation panels in spring 2005 to promote consistency in programmes for offenders in prisons and the community.

What we will do

5.8 We believe that the measures described in this chapter will help us improve public safety by reducing reoffending. However, reoffending remains a significant problem and one that demands substantial change.

5.9 The case for change is incontrovertible. Reports from both the Inspectorates of Prisons and Social Work Services show that our current systems are failing to deliver the high standards we expect of our public services and that we need if we are to improve public safety.

The Reducing Reoffending Consultation

5.10 The extensive consultation, "Reduce, Rehabilitate, Reform" carried out by the Executive earlier this year, did not produce any consensus view on the detail of how best the current system of offender management could be improved to reduce the number of sentenced offenders committing further crimes. There was, however, acceptance that improvements had to be made and wide agreement on a number of weaknesses inherent in our current system. These are; lack of shared objectives (and thus accountability) for reducing reoffending, poor communication and integration between criminal justice agencies, inconsistent delivery of services across Scotland and the lack of effectiveness of short term prison sentences in reducing reoffending. In developing our proposals, close attention was paid to what we had been told through the consultation.

Lack of shared objectives and accountability for performance

5.11 Organisations which currently deal with offenders have a wide range of objectives and targets. The prison service, local authority criminal justice services and many voluntary groups are all working to their individual aims with little co-ordination with other agencies. Thus there is no consistent approach to offender management through the course of an individual's sentence and reintegration. No agency has as a specific, measurable objective the reduction in the number of people reoffending.

5.12 For some organisations, such as voluntary agencies, the lack of a reoffending objective is because the agency believes that it can only have a small influence on future offending behaviour. For others, such as the prison service, the service has no direct influence on offender behaviour after the prisoner is released. In some cases, an objective of supporting offenders to reduce reoffending may conflict with other pressures, for example prioritising secure housing for offenders may clash with local authority housing policy which prioritises other groups.

5.13 The different priorities of the various agencies involved in managing offenders means that joint working towards reducing reoffending is hindered by a lack of shared objectives. If an overarching objective of reducing reoffending was established, each agency would then have an obligation to work to that aim. In developing our proposals we have recognised that it is essential to put in place the means to establish this shared objective in order to provide strategic direction for criminal justice services.

5.14 While the establishment of an overarching objective provides, in principle, a mechanism to improve joint working, in practice this will only occur if there are clearly defined performance criteria which agencies would be expected to attain. Experience has shown that voluntary agreements between agencies to work together to a specific objective generally suffer from a lack of clear accountability due to poor linking of strategic objectives to expected performance targets. Therefore our proposals allow an objective to reduce reoffending to be supported by performance-related targets.

Communication and Integration

5.15 The consultation showed that communication and integration between criminal justice organisations, while improving, was perceived by practitioners and other respondees, as being poor. Issues such as non-compatibility of computer software, Data Protection legislation and cultural barriers were cited as specific examples why communication and integration are so poor.

5.16 Cultural differences between prison and criminal justice staff must be addressed and the establishment of a common objective and strategic direction as described above will assist in this. Our proposals will also ensure that prison and local authority criminal justice staff work more closely together to manage offenders in a more integrated way.

5.17 A specific difficulty that many national agencies have in dealing with offenders is that they must relate to each of the 32 local authorities, each of which organise, manage and prioritise criminal justice social work services in their own way, adopting its own procedures and protocols. The Tough Options review simplified matters by grouping local authorities into 8 regional groupings and 6 unitary authorities. However experience and inspection reports show that communication and integration have still not attained the desired level. Our proposals will improve and simplify communications between national agencies and local authorities.

Improving Consistency in services across Scotland

5.18 A concern of many respondees to the consultation was the inconsistencies in programmes and interventions available to offenders from different parts of Scotland. Also, there is no commonly accepted means of assessing an offender's needs or the risk he or she represents. Some queried why offenders of a particular type from a particular area receive intensive support, while similar cases in other parts of Scotland received little or none.

5.19 The variability in provision across Scotland is a particular difficulty for prison workers attempting to deliver rehabilitative and treatment programmes in prison which are compatible with local authority programmes. Our proposals provide a mechanism to improve both the range and consistency of offender services, both within and outwith prison, across Scotland.

5.20 Availability of services is determined often by the priorities and size of the local authority (larger authorities being able to offer a wider and more specialised range of services). Spending on community services for offenders has increased dramatically over the last 10 years. This high level of investment is continuing with funding of Criminal Justice Social Work (CJSW) Services increasing from 44m in 2000-01 to 88m in 2005-06 representing an increase of 100% over 5 years. The Tough Options Groupings were intended to improve resource sharing, directing pooled local authority resources to the areas of greatest needs over the partnership area. The aim was greater efficiency and effectiveness of services but there remains considerable scope for further efficiencies. Our proposals will therefore provide a means by which resources for interventions are used in the most effective way.

5.21 Our conclusions from the consultation on reducing reoffending are that offender services must be brought together in a smarter, more strategic and co-ordinated way. These services must be:

• Robustly and clearly accountable, locally and nationally; and
• Fit to deliver the service improvements necessary to:
  • Address the service weaknesses identified in the consultation;
  • Provide a clear focus on public safety and reducing reoffending; and
  • Be seamless in the management of individual sentenced offenders.

5.22 This will require better, clearer national strategic direction for the management of sentenced offenders, in relation both to custodial and non custodial sentences. We also need to ensure more joined up delivery at local level of offender management services, based on a partnership involving the key agencies which are directly responsible for offender management services.

Changing the framework for managing offenders

5.23 There are 32 local authorities in Scotland with responsibility for criminal justice social work. Since 2002, for CJSW purposes, local authorities have operated in 8 non-statutory Criminal Social Work Groupings, in 3 unitary authorities (Glasgow, Fife and Dumfries and Galloway), and in the three island authorities of Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles. The main responsibility for managing offenders day to day lies with 1,288 criminal justice social work staff, who are accountable to elected representatives. They work closely with other colleagues in the local authority and with other support agencies in the community.

5.24 The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) is a national organisation, accountable to Scottish Ministers, which is responsible for 16 prisons in Scotland. Of these all but one is managed by SPS personnel. Kilmarnock Prison is Scotland's first private prison. Most of the 4,023 SPS staff work with offenders in the prisons, with a small number based in SPS Headquarters and SPS College.

5.25 It is clear that the current arrangements, which provide no mechanism for bringing the prison service and local authority CJSW together, cannot deliver the degree of joined up delivery which is needed. Equally, within the current arrangements there is not sufficient means for providing at national level strategic direction and control. Therefore we propose to introduce a new framework for managing offenders which will address both these issues.

• We will clarify and strengthen accountability at national level for the delivery of offender management services.

5.26 In relation to both the SPS and local authority CJSW services, we will introduce changes at national level which make it clear that the role of the Minister is to:

• Set direction;
• Seek effective performance; and
• Hold service deliverers to account.

5.27 For the SPS, in particular, we will reform its framework of governance to improve transparency and accountability. These changes will involve:

• a new system of oversight within which SPS accounts publicly for its plans & performance to Ministers and Ministers account to Parliament;
• revised delegations which ensure that decisions which have most effect on communities will be taken by Ministers;
• a re-defined role for the Prisons Board;
• reorganisation to fit the local dimension of integrated offender management; and
• the new arrangements to be set out clearly in a framework document which will be presented to Parliament.

5.28 We will introduce at national level an advisory body on offender management, chaired by the Minister for Justice which will help the Minister develop a national strategy which will create a shared focus on the aim of reducing reoffending and which can be supported and understood by all key agencies. The national advisory body will also give strategic guidance to the Minister in relation to the SPS and monitor SPS's performance on offender management.

5.29 The national advisory body will bring together a wide spectrum of expertise from the range of organisations involved with offender management, including local government and the SPS. In creating a national strategy the national advisory body will provide a framework within which CJSW Services and the SPS will produce joint area plans for offender management and submit these to Ministers. The national advisory body will consider and advise Ministers on the acceptability of submitted plans and will monitor performance against them. In addition, the new chief officers (see below) will be required to produce an annual report to Ministers.

• To improve integration at local level, we will legislate in Spring 2005 to introduce a statutory framework, to place the SPS and local authorities under specific new obligations to work closely together to manage offenders seamlessly. We will also legislate to bring groups of local authorities together in new joint Community Justice Authorities, which will be responsible for ensuring the consistent and effective delivery of CJSW services across the area.

5.30 The legislation will ensure that, as the lead responsible bodies, local government and the SPS work together to deliver and develop offender management services in a number of areas covering Scotland. Local authorities within the area will be brought together within a statutory framework to deliver their contribution as a joint Community Justice Authority which could be achieved using the powers available to form Joint Boards under the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act (1994). By placing the SPS and Community Justice Authorities under matching duties to work together we will in effect create an area-wide partnership between the two. The legislation will also provide the basis for greater co-ordination and information sharing between the lead bodies and other organisations with important roles in offender management.

• We will require the Scottish Prison Service and the Community Justice Authority to develop an area plan for offender management in the area covered by the Community Justice Authority.

5.31 The Minister, advised by the national advisory body, will set out a national strategy for tackling reoffending. Locally the Community Justice Authority and the SPS will be responsible for developing a joint area plan which puts this into practice. In so doing, they will be required to consult with other key partners such as the police, health authorities and Courts. We will consider how these organisations could provide further assistance and support to the SPS and the Community Justice Authority. The Community Justice Authority will be responsible for submission of the area plan to the Minister for Justice for approval.

5.32 Funding for CJSW in local government, currently provided to CJSW Groupings, will be directed in future to the Community Justice Authority. The legislation will provide flexibility to joint Community Justice Authorities on how they deliver their part of the plan, whether by employing staff directly, or by securing services from local authority CJSW departments and other service providers. However, provision will be made to ensure that Community Justice Authorities appoint a chief officer accountable both locally and nationally for the delivery of these services.

5.33 No decision has yet been made on the number or boundaries of areas to be covered by each Community Justice Authority. Existing criminal justice boundaries for CJSW groupings, Police Forces, Sheriffdoms and COPFS areas provide possible frameworks, although the location and roles of prisons across the country does not neatly fit within these boundaries. We will bring forward proposals for consultation with stakeholders in order to establish the most appropriate pattern of Community Justice Authority areas. Joint Community Justice Authorities will be the norm. However, we will consider whether in any special cases a single local authority should act as Community Justice Authority for its area alone.

5.34 These moves will reinforce and add impetus to existing joint working initiatives such as those on throughcare and risk assessment.

• We will ensure Ministers have the powers they need to allow intervention where necessary in the interests of safeguarding effective local service delivery both in prisons and in local government.

5.35 Once there is strategic direction in respect of the SPS and Community Justice Authorities, Ministers will expect both to contribute to the delivery of the national strategy. For SPS, the new arrangements described above will provide the mechanism by which Ministers will be able to intervene if necessary. There will also require to be appropriate powers in respect of local government. We will look carefully at how such powers can be coupled with appropriate safeguards, such as the involvement of independent advice. We will inspect CJSW services and where performance falls short of what the public can reasonably expect, Ministers will use powers to intervene to bring performance up to standard. Any intervention, whether in SPS or CJSW, will be subject to a transparent process.

5.36 These proposals ensure that criminal justice organisations will have a key role in developing policy and delivering services nationally and locally. Supported by the national advisory body, the Minister will oversee performance and planning at area level and we will ensure Ministers have the means to intervene where duties are not being performed satisfactorily.

5.37 These changes will need to be supported by a rigorous and independent system of inspection, which encourages effective and coherent working across CJSW services and prisons, is able to provide feedback on how well transitions between the two are managed and identifies where there are gaps in provision. Key areas for a more integrated inspection regime might be to examine how well the work in prisons joins up with community interventions and a specific function to inspect and comment on the work undertaken to reduce re-offending. We will therefore work with the Social Work Services Inspectorate and HM Chief Inspector of Prisons to build on their current joint inspection activity and identify how other aspects of inspection can be more closely integrated.

5.38 We will also take the opportunity to relate this work to the current 21st Century Social Work Review. We recognise that any new developments must retain as a central purpose reporting on the humanitarian treatment of prisoners. Where people are deprived of liberty we need to retain the safeguard of independent inspection of the conditions in which where they are detained and any developments in this area will not alter the statutory independence of HMCIP. We will also consider what the future role of prison visiting committees might be.

Conclusion

New Offender Management Arrangements

Integrated Services for Offender Management

« Previous | Contents | Next »