The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents |

Listen

Reid Howie Associates was commissioned by the Scottish Executive to undertake an evaluation of the implementation of mandatory Supervised Attendance Orders pilot schemes in Ayr Sheriff and Glasgow District Court. The pilot commenced in May 2004 (at Ayr Sheriff Court) and June 2004 (at Glasgow District Court) and was due to conclude in June 2006, but was extended to December 2006. This evaluation deals with the pilot period up to June 2006.

Main Findings

• The pilot was introduced to test the feasibility of removing the discretion of sentencers in two courts to impose custody in the event of default on a fine up to £500.
• The implementation of the pilot went smoothly in Ayr, but less so in Glasgow, mainly due to issues of reorganisation and staffing which were unconnected to the pilot.
• This disparity had a significant impact both on the flow of orders, and on the level of breaches.
• The level of breaches stabilised and fell over the last few months of the pilot, as new measures were introduced to address this.
• Over the period of the pilot, no offenders were sentenced to custody directly as a result of fine default, although a considerable number received custodial sentences when asking for fine default to be taken into consideration on pleading guilty to other charges.
• The number of offenders received into custody across Scotland solely as a result of fine default fell from 4168 in 2003-04 to 3231 in 2005-06.
• The numbers received into custody from pilot courts where the offences listed on the warrant included fine default fell by 43% (from 1221 to 700) in Glasgow, and by 58% (from 91 to 38) in Ayr.
• There was also a significant impact on women offenders, with a fall of around 60% (from 170 to 67) in the number being received into custody from Glasgow District Court for offences including fine default.
• The main negative impact of the pilot was the high number of breaches in Glasgow. This had implications for a range of services, including Glasgow District Court, the Procurator Fiscal service, supervised attendance officers and the police (as a result of the high number of warrants).
• Over the period of the pilot, 61 offenders at Glasgow District Court and 23 at Ayr Sheriff Court were sentenced to custody as a result of breaching an order.
• Overall, there were mixed views about the pilot, with a clear recognition of the benefits of fewer offenders receiving custody, but also a recognition that the rate of breaches evident in Glasgow, particularly through the first year of the pilot, would be unsustainable in the longer term.
• It was suggested that, if the Scottish Executive is to consider rolling out mandatory SAOs to other courts, local partners should be asked to develop a management plan which includes the identification of measures to address breaches.
• A range of other suggestions were also made relating to increasing the number of non-financial penalties available to sentencers, reducing the maximum length of orders, reducing the maximum penalty for breach and changing the point at which a fine is remitted in order to allow more offenders which wish to pay the chance to do so.

Aims and Methodology

Reid Howie Associates was commissioned to undertake an evaluation of the implementation of Section 235(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in two courts, Ayr Sheriff Court and Glasgow District Court.

The practical effect of Section 235(4) was to introduce a mandatory Supervised Attendance Order ( SAO) in the event of an offender defaulting on a Level 1 or 2 fine (up to £500), thus removing the discretion of sentencers to impose a custodial sentence.

Aims

The aims of the research were to:

• assess the effectiveness of the mandatory use of SAOs in relation to process and delivery;
• assess their effectiveness in terms of outcomes, economic and social costs; and
• explore the longer-term viability of prescribing other courts in Scotland to use mandatory SAOs for level 1 and 2 fine defaulters.

Methodology

The main methods used to address these objectives were a literature review; a review of statistical material; a review of legislation, guidance and National Standards; interviews with staff and sentencers; and interviews with 130 offenders on Supervised Attendance Orders. In addition, a small number of interviews were undertaken in three comparison areas.

Basis of the pilot

Fines are the most common disposal in Scottish courts. In the event of an offender defaulting on payment of a fine, the normal procedure is for the court to identify why an offender has not paid a fine, and inquire into their means.

Prior to 1990, most offenders defaulting on fines were sentenced to imprisonment, but it was recognised that for some offenders this may not be appropriate. Supervised Attendance Orders offer a community-based alternative to custody, usually involving a "core" module designed to provide offenders with basic life or employment skills, and a period of employment or vocational training, or unpaid work.

Although the number of SAOs rose over the 10 years to 2003, the number was still lower than the number sentenced to custody. There was also concern specifically about the number of women sentenced to imprisonment as a result of fine default. In light of these issues, Ministers decided, on a pilot basis, to remove the discretion of sentencers in two courts to impose custodial sentences in the event of fine default.

Prior to the pilot, Ayr Sheriff Court had made extensive use of SAOs, while their use at Glasgow District Court had been less common.

The implementation of the pilot

Implementation in both areas was taken forward by multi-agency groups involving court and social work partners.

At Ayr Sheriff Court, implementation was considered to be smooth, with little discernable change in either the pattern of implementation of SAOs or in their administration. The only concern expressed was that the absolute number of orders was lower than social work staff had anticipated.

The delivery of the order was largely unchanged from the period prior to the pilot (and was the same regardless of sentencing court). The level of breaches of orders was also little changed, and the number sentenced to custody as a result of breach was low.

The implementation at Glasgow District Court was more problematic, as during this period the court was engaged in major reorganisation unconnected to the pilot. The practical effect of this was that, although nearly 200 orders were imposed in the early weeks, virtually none were imposed for the next 9 months. This had a range of impacts, including the loss of SAO staff who were not then replaced for 12 months.

From May 2005, the number of orders imposed by the Court increased sharply. As the Supervised Attendance team was by that time understaffed, it could not cope with the demand. The effect of this was that the level of breaches in the first 15 months of the pilot was very high.

As a result, Glasgow City Council and its contractor ( APEX Scotland) implemented a series of measures to address the level of breaches and, with the filling of the vacant posts in early 2006, the level of breaches began to fall. Staff considered that the trend in the level of breaches would continue to be downward as procedures improve. The number of breached orders, however, had a significant knock-on effect on a range of criminal justice partners.

The delivery of the order by Glasgow City Council and its contractor was largely unchanged as a result of the pilot, although the volume of orders was much higher than before, requiring more sessions to be offered.

Impact of the pilot

The pilot did not appear to have any impact on the use of custody as an alternative at the time of imposition of a fine.

As a result of the pilot, more than 2000 SAOs were imposed over a two year period to the end of June 2006. Slightly fewer orders were imposed by Ayr Sheriff Court than had been expected, while Glasgow District Court imposed fewer than expected orders in year 1 but significantly more in year 2.

There was a very large impact on the number of offenders receiving custody as a result of fine default. Over this period, no offenders in default of a Level 1 or Level 2 fine were directly sentenced to custody at either court.

The total level of receptions to custody for offences including fine default fell sharply at both Ayr Sheriff Court (-58%) and Glasgow District Court (-43%) over the period of the pilot.

Although the Scottish Prison Service was unable to separate receptions solely for fine default by sentencing court, overall, this fell by 937 (22%) over the period of the pilot.

A total of 23 offenders were sentenced to custody as a result of breaching an SAO imposed by Ayr Sheriff Court and 61 as a result of an order from Glasgow District Court.

The impact on women offenders has also been particularly significant, and it is clear that the pilot in Glasgow has made a significant contribution to the Scottish Executive's objective of reducing the number of women receiving custodial sentences.

The main negative impact of the pilot was in terms of the number of breach hearings required at Glasgow District Court, requiring a significant staff commitment by a number of agencies. The level of attendance at these hearings was also poor, leading to a large increase in the number of warrants being granted.

Overall, there were mixed views of the success of the Mandatory SAO pilot. Some sentencers (although not all) remained unconvinced of the desirability of removing their discretion in imposing custody, and there was widespread concern about the level of breaches at Glasgow. It was, however, recognised that the pilot had a significant impact on the level of receptions to custody.

The investment by the Scottish Executive as a result of the pilot also resulted in significant improvements in the facilities available to all three social work services.

It is hard to draw conclusions about cost effectiveness due to the absence of robust data and the relatively short period of the pilot. Excluding capital costs, the direct cost of delivering an individual SAO in Glasgow was slightly higher, and in Ayr slightly lower than the cost of an equivalent period in custody. This does not take account of the costs of managing breaches. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the average cost of orders may fall over time.

In terms of the implications for any wider roll out of a mandatory SAO, the main area of concern expressed was the potential impact of the level of breaches. There was also concern expressed that some social work SAO programmes may be unable to cope with increased demand in the absence of significant levels of investment.

There were a number of other issues raised about the operation and management of the order including the need for more sentencing options which do not involve fines; the need for a greater level of awareness about SAOs; specific concerns about both long orders and Section 237 orders; a view that, for technical reasons, some offenders who would pay cannot do so; and a concern that the maximum sentence in the event of breaching an order is disproportionately high compared to the maximum sentence for fine default.

Main suggestions for action

A number of suggestions were made both relating to SAOs generally, and the implications of any wider roll out of the mandatory order:

• Local partners should be asked to prepare an implementation plan which details management arrangements and a plan to address the level of breaches.
• The Scottish Executive could consider further promoting the use of SAOs to stakeholders.
• Current procedures could be amended to make an SAO the normal penalty for default, but reserving the power to use custody where the sentencer believes specific circumstances justify this.
• The point at which a fine is remitted could be changed to allow more offenders to pay fines who wish to do so.
• The Scottish Executive should consider whether 100 hours is a viable maximum, given the consensus view that many offenders are unlikely to be able to complete such an order without being breached at least once.
• Similarly, the Scottish Executive should consider the implications of reducing the maximum penalty in the event of breaching an order to the equivalent level for default on a fine.
• A wider range of disposals could be indicated in the event of a breach being admitted. Clarification could be provided of the status of the disposals identified in the legislation; whether other disposals would be competent; and whether custody should be available for breaching an order relating to a Level 1 or 2 fine, or for a first admitted or proven breach.
• Improvements could be considered to the current format of breach reports.
• Written evidence could be used as proof of non attendance, thus removing the need for a personal appearance by a supervised attendance officer except where this is challenged.

If you wish further copies of this Research Findings or have any enquiries about social research, please contact us at:

Scottish Executive Social Research

Tel: 0131 244-7560
Fax: 0131 244-5393
Email: socialresearch@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Website: www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

If you wish a copy of "Evaluation of the Implementation of the Mandatory Supervised Attendance Order at Ayr Sheriff and Glasgow District Courts" the research report which is summarised in this research findings, please send a cheque for £5.00 made payable to:

Blackwell's Bookshop

Tel: 0131 622 8283/0131 622 8258
Fax: 0131 622 8258
Email: business.edinburgh@blackwell.co.uk

This document (and other Research Findings and Reports) and information about social research in the Scottish Executive may be viewed on the Internet at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

The site carries up-to-date information about social and policy research commissioned and published on behalf of the Scottish Executive. Subjects covered include transport, housing, social inclusion, rural affairs, children and young people, education, social work, community care, local government, civil justice, crime and criminal justice, regeneration, planning and equalities issues. The site also allows access to information about the Scottish Household Survey.

« Previous | Contents |