The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

02 THE GOVERNMENT'S PLAN OF ACTION

Our plan of action will ensure that community penalties are used to their full potential in future. The public and sentencers will have more confidence in community penalties if they see them working effectively in their communities. We will take forward key actions based around the four themes of the review - Reparation and Payback; Rehabilitation and Reintegration; Quality and Enforcement; and Community Engagement.

2.1 Paying Back to the Community

Reparation and Payback

The Government believes that penalties which involve the offender having to give something back to their community should be increasingly used as an alternative to prison, in cases where prison is not a necessary response to protect public safety. Prison should not be used as 'bed and board' when the opportunity exists for victims and communities to benefit from penalties rather than pay for a second time. Reparative penalties are less costly and allow the offender to undertake work from which he or she may benefit - by acquiring new skills or, quite simply, getting back into some form of routine.

Under this theme, we sought views from respondents on how reparative penalties could be improved to ensure that they make offenders carry out meaningful work, both as a punishment and to pay back for the damage their offending has caused victims and the wider community.

What did the review process tell us?

Rationalisation

Most respondents thought that the current range of reparative sentencing options was more complex than it needed to be - at present reparative work could be part of a community service order, supervised attendance order, community reparation order or an additional condition of probation. Simplification would result in a more coherent package of measures which would improve understanding amongst sentencers and the public. "Community Service" was the best known "brand" in this area and it could be developed to form the core of a reparative approach across all levels of community penalty. A recent evaluation of the pilot of community reparation orders ⁶ indicated that this lower level reparative order had been little used, was not well understood and was regarded by Sheriffs as an unnecessary addition to the system.

Flexibility

A community service order should be able to include some rehabilitative elements - in addition to the core payback element. Most respondents believed that a penalty which provides both payback and an opportunity for offenders to change their ways would be more effective (and command greater public confidence) than one which simply does one or the other. This reflects the fact that offending (and the circumstances of the offenders who commit it) is complex and needs to be tackled on a number of levels to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Visibility and effectiveness

Reparative sentences should require offenders to do something visible and meaningful, which gives something back to the victim and/or the wider community. This will require the development of innovative work programmes, forcing offenders to work hard for the benefit of the community but enabling them to enhance their skills/sense of reward/future employability at the same time. A balance needs to be struck so that penalties are sufficiently punitive and, at the same time, deliver some real benefit to local communities. Examples of such good practice were already in existence and should be developed - respondents agreed that it would be for Community Justice Authorities to develop suitable local approaches.

Immediacy

There was support for measures which made offenders start their orders as quickly as possible as delays contributed to the view that community penalties were "soft". But there were also warnings against rushing offenders into unsuitable activities. A balance had to be struck between immediacy and appropriateness - getting that balance right would require local innovation, within an effective national framework.

What we will do - transforming Community Service

Community Service ( CS) is one of the best used and understood of all community penalties. But it could be argued that it has failed to keep up with the changing expectations of communities and the changing needs of offenders. The time has come for a new approach to CS to secure it respect as a high quality intervention, which balances the requirement that offenders pay back for their crimes to communities with opportunities to help them move their lives on. Consistently high standards of service for CS will allow the courts to use it more often.

In future we propose that Scotland will have a single reparative community sentence to be known as a Community Service Order ( CSO). The new CSO will subsume the existing Community Service Orders, Supervised Attendance Orders and Community Reparation Orders and will fit better with the public's understanding of what community service involves. It will provide a single flexible sentence with a range from a minimum of 20 hours to a maximum of 300 hours in solemn cases and 240 hours in all other cases. This will allow the court to consider using a reparative penalty in response to a wide range of offending, where it believes that some form of payback to the community would be appropriate. Guidelines will assist courts in the use of the penalty and the appropriate number of hours to be imposed. In order to ensure that CSOs can be imposed swiftly at the lower end of the scale it will not be necessary for a court to obtain a Social Enquiry Report before imposing a CSO of under 100 hours (this replicates current practice with Supervised Attendance and Community Reparation Orders).

We will also take steps to reduce the period of time within which CS orders should be completed, to ensure they provide a focused period of activity for the offender - current legislation provides that orders have to be completed within 12 months of their imposition. In future the expectation will be that orders are to be completed within 6 months - to ensure that the penalty does not drag on and the link between the offence and the punishment is maintained in the mind of the offender.

For the first time District Courts (and the new justice of peace courts when established) will be given access to CSOs across Scotland (subject to a lower limit of hours that may be imposed, to reflect their jurisdiction). Courts will still be able to impose probation orders with a condition of unpaid work attached where a primarily rehabilitative penalty is considered appropriate. Provision will also be made for a CSO (subject to a lower maximum number of hours) to be imposed upon fine defaulters for non-payment of fines, where efforts have been made to collect the fine and the court concludes that the offender genuinely cannot pay. This will follow the successful operation of Supervised Attendance Orders and ensure that fine defaulters who cannot pay are made to give something back, rather than spend a short spell in prison.

At the lower end of the scale the use of CSOs will not be limited to particular types of offence (this was one of the difficulties faced by the Community Reparation Order pilot, which led to a lower than anticipated uptake of that order). We will also provide, for the first time, that a small proportion (not more than 15%) of the total number of hours imposed on a CSO may be spent engaging in activities other than unpaid work, such as skills development or counselling - in order to address the underlying causes of offending and/or provide access to tailored assistance and services that will support an individual who is looking to change. At present, legislation provides that community service should consist solely of reparative activity, with no direct help or assistance being offered as part of the penalty. That, in the Government's view, is a missed opportunity. We want to ensure that the balance of punishment and rehabilitation can be provided in as wide a range of cases as possible. This approach is not about being "tough" or "soft" - it is about ensuring that the penalties available are designed to reduce reoffending as effectively as possible, based on the available evidence.

We agree that steps should be taken to ensure that CSOs are regarded as tough and command public confidence. For this reason we are minded to give courts the power to impose an electronic monitoring (tagging) condition in combination with a CSO, where the court considers that appropriate. In cases where that option is used the offender would be subject to payback by day and curfew by night. This approach would also provide an offender with a greater degree of stability during the course of the penalty - aiding compliance and helping the offender establish a routine free from offending and the triggers that might lead to it. This proposal was not raised during the review, but we believe it will be generally supported. We will consider its feasibility with the main interests before taking any decisions - to ensure that it could operate effectively.

These changes will require legislation - the Government is committed to bringing that legislation before Parliament as part of a wider set of criminal justice reform measures.

Guiding principles for the new CSO

Whilst it is for Community Justice Authorities ( CJAs) in conjunction with local authorities, to develop and implement local CS schemes, we will work with them to ensure that the CSOs of the future adopt the following principles at the heart of their operation:

• Immediacy
  The review told us that for community service to be seen as credible it has to start quickly. When an offender is sentenced to a CSO they should not be allowed to leave the court with little prospect of punishment commencing for weeks. While it may not be possible to commence CSOs immediately following sentence we believe that, as a minimum, the assessment and induction process for the offender should start on the next working day.
• Flexibility
  The new model will provide scope to develop a wider range of work placements, working with statutory, voluntary, social enterprise and community agencies. There will be a role for a resource manager and skilled CSO supervisors to develop innovative placements that balance payback with addressing an offender's needs. There may be more opportunities for night and weekend schemes, which will assist those in employment to take part in CSOs.

• Community Engagement
  Communities must be able to have a say in what would be the most useful work that could be carried out by offenders on CSOs in their area. The Government will promote a legislative duty on the relevant service providers to carry out consultation in communities to identify the type of reparative work they would like carried out. It will be for those providers to satisfy that duty, but this would involve consultation with representative groups, victims' organisations and community councils. We will also work with CJAs to publicise the benefits of successful CSO schemes where these deliver real change for a community - demonstrating the benefits that this penalty can deliver.

What will this look like in practice?

We envisage that CS will be provided in a more modular format in future, with payback as its main component but with an overall structure which will include:

• An early initial induction process including a needs assessment;
• Development of an individual action plan to focus on suitable payback but with opportunities to link into rehabilitative services. Resolution of preliminary issues ( e.g. health and safety);
• The main element of the order - payback to the community;
• Where appropriate, a short period of rehabilitative activity - depending on the services available and the circumstances of the offender this could involve:
• restorative activity, such as contact with members of the local community or victims;
• a short period of counselling to address a particular offending issue;
• skills training to tackle underlying causes of criminal behaviour - e.g. debt awareness/financial management, life and work skills;
• support and assistance to help the offender move towards employment.

Taking the changes forward

An implementation programme will be established to develop the practical and legislative changes required to deliver the new CSO. This will be led by the Government with the National Advisory Body on Offender Management and will involve Community Justice Authorities, national and local service providers and other interested community and victims groups. This is an ambitious and radical restructuring of the current range of reparative sentences available in Scotland, which will allow services on the ground to deliver effectively. It will build on the good practice already in place as opposed to disrupting it. Work to develop the necessary legislative change is already under way - we will develop these proposals with practitioners before bringing them to Parliament, to ensure that they will be effective and deliver real improvements. The implementation programme will ensure that services on the ground continue to adapt and improve (based on CJA area plans) and are well prepared to make best use of changes in the law.

Restorative Justice

The issue of restorative justice was raised by a small number of respondents during the review process. Restorative justice brings an offender and victim together with the aim of holding the offender to account and allowing him or her to explain and/or apologise for their actions. It also allows the victim to explain to the offender the impact of his or her actions and to ask questions about the offence. The approach may allow the offender to become more aware of the impact of their crime (and reduce the likelihood of further offending). The victim may also benefit from a degree of "closure" as a result of the process. While the Government is of the view that the reformed CSO should focus principally on payback, there may be scope to explore restorative approaches as a part of probation or the proposed rehabilitative element of the CSO, which seeks to help an offender move back towards a law-abiding lifestyle. We will explore this option with practitioners as the new regime is developed.

CASE STUDY

Scout Association National Activity Centre, Hillend, Dunfermline

The National Activity Centre is based on 52 acres of land in Fife and is used by Scouts from all over the United Kingdom, as well as international visitors from the Scout Association Worldwide. The centre provides an ongoing community justice project, which requires offenders on Community Service to undertake a variety of duties such as: erection/maintenance of fences, building barbeque areas, ground work for activity areas (such as climbing walls), building access ramps for the disabled, repairs/painting of accommodation blocks, other general maintenance and re-situation of huts to improve facilities. This work improves the amenity of the site and helps keep it running efficiently. The successful work of the scheme was acknowledged in the Scout Association Annual Report.

2.2 A Part of the Community

Rehabilitation and Reintegration

Community penalties are imposed by the courts after someone has been found guilty of a crime. It is right that their principal aims should therefore be to punish and to provide payback. However, with the exception of a small number of people found guilty of the most serious crimes "offenders" will return to (or in a large number of cases remain in) a community. Often those who offend face a number of underlying problems, such as substance misuse, the lack of a stable home or having been a victim of crime themselves. Whilst these circumstances can never excuse criminal behaviour they should not be overlooked if our penal system has the reduction of reoffending as one of its main aims. And while it is not the job of the justice system alone to provide services and support to such individuals, community penalties should play their part in tackling underlying problems in order to move people towards a law-abiding lifestyle.

Under this theme, views were sought as to how community penalties could be most effectively used to help tackle underlying problems that offenders may have, which were likely to lead to further offending if left unchecked.

What did the review process tell us?

Addiction problems

Respondents agreed that it was essential to tackle these in order to deliver any other form of meaningful intervention. Interventions had to be carefully selected to suit the offender's abilities and avoid "setting them up to fail". Drug treatment and testing orders ( DTTOs) were identified as a successful (albeit costly) model for dealing with those who have addiction problems.

Mentoring and support

A number of respondents saw a role for mentoring or the use of "link workers" in the adult criminal justice system - both to help offenders adhere to their penalty and to provide assistance in accessing other support services as they attempted to "move on".

Probation

Some respondents questioned the value of the standard model of probation and called for a more structured/modular approach. Such an approach could focus on work that would help an offender from slipping back into offending ( e.g. training in issues such as money management might be useful in addition to activity addressing specific offences).

Access to support services

The justice system had an important part to play in "signposting" offenders towards mainstream services (health/housing/skills) to ensure that they received the support they needed. Most took the view that the structures now in place (particularly with the inception of CJAs) would facilitate improved joint working arrangements in future.

Women offenders

The majority agreed that women offenders were often more "troubled" and likely to have multiple problems - including addictions and being a victim of crime/abuse themselves. Providing stability was often the critical first step towards reducing offending. A number of respondents felt that prison was sometimes being used by courts as a place of "respite" for women offenders, who would benefit more from structured assistance outwith custody.

Diversionary activities

These were recognised as important to keep young people out of trouble in the first place and help develop a sense of self-esteem and interest in other activities.

What we will do - punishment with a purpose

The Government wants to make sure that, in addition to punishing, every community penalty uses the opportunity of formal contact between the offender and the state to help move the offender towards a law-abiding lifestyle. Community penalties can act as a catalyst towards positive change - we must make sure that they do so wherever possible. A lot of good work is already carried out by criminal justice social work departments and other service providers across the country - but we propose to make a number of improvements.

Tackling the root cause - drugs

Drug treatment and testing orders ( DTTOs) have proved highly effective in managing problematic drug use amongst some more serious offenders. They target those whose offending is linked to their drug problem - for example those who steal to fund a drug habit. Their aim is to help offenders overcome a drug addiction, thereby eliminating or reducing offending. Offenders subject to a DTTO are required to undertake regular testing and treatment. They also appear before a Sheriff every month to account for their behaviour. Independent evaluations of DTTOs have found that they are effective in tackling the kind of substance misuse that can lead to involvement in crime ⁷ and that they have a very positive impact upon re-offending rates ⁸.

In view of this evidence we believe that aspects of the DTTO approach should be applied to a wider range of offenders - allowing drug problems to be addressed before a criminal career progresses too far. We will therefore develop and pilot the use of a new level of DTTO, which will be accessible both to lay Magistrates in the District/Justice of the Peace Courts and to Sheriff Summary Courts, for dealing with lower level offenders who are offending as a consequence of drug addiction. This new level of DTTO will retain the following features, which have been crucial in ensuring the success of the current scheme:

• Access to a dedicated team of social work and medical professionals - to ensure a joined up approach which tackles addiction and offending problems in parallel;
• Regular drug testing throughout the order - to provide motivation to reduce or eliminate drug use and to demonstrate such reduction/elimination; and
• Case review - to provide, on the one hand, motivation to adhere to the order and, on the other, to demonstrate that compliance is taken seriously, with regular check-ups.

It is hoped that this approach will reduce the likelihood of offending from an earlier stage - bringing benefits to communities by stopping a potentially lengthy life of crime in its tracks.

Case Study - The '218 Centre'

The 218 Time Out Service is a project based in Glasgow for women involved in the criminal justice system. It provides diversion from prosecution and an alternative to custody (and services for women involved in the Criminal Justice Service not necessarily at risk of custody). It is designed to address the root causes of offending through programmes of care, support and development which tackle substance misuse and the trauma and poverty that drive it.

There is a day service with capacity to work with 35-45, and a residential unit which can accommodate 12. In its first 2 years of operation, it received over 1100 referrals, completed 400 assessments and 107 programmes. Some 2 out of 3 referrals have come via the court and criminal justice routes. A study* of the centre concluded that it provided many benefits, including reductions in reoffending and drug use, improvements in health and the attainment of stable accommodation for a number of women.

* Evaluation of the 218 Centre, available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/04/24161157/0

Helping the most vulnerable address their difficulties - support for women offenders

We were struck by the number of respondents who took the view that an extra helping hand for some of the most vulnerable offenders might make the difference between further offending and the possibility of a community penalty helping that person "turn the corner". We were also struck by the number of respondents who observed that a high proportion of female offenders are more "troubled" or face more challenging circumstances than the average male offender - circumstances which may require access to multiple services and forms of support.

We therefore propose to pilot a mentoring/link worker scheme for adult female offenders given community penalties, to provide them with additional support/advice throughout the period of their penalty (and for a short period thereafter). The aim of this pilot will be to provide extra support to those offenders who most need it and to assess whether that support makes it more likely that the penalty will be successfully completed (and whether the offender is more likely to lead a law-abiding lifestyle thereafter). This will be a new approach for the adult criminal justice system in Scotland. We will develop proposals for the pilot in liaison with CJAs, with a view to it commencing next year. A full evaluation will be conducted in order to assess its effectiveness.

Joining-up services - the role of the NAB and CJAs

Ensuring that an effective strategy for the management of offenders exists at a national level, whilst allowing local good practice and innovation to develop is crucial. It is only through this combination of national co-operation and local innovation that front-line services can tackle the underlying causes of offending in the most effective and joined-up way. This was recognised by the previous administration, which established the National Advisory Body on Offender Management ( NAB) and eight Community Justice Authorities ( CJAs) in order to create a delivery structure that struck a balance between central consistency and local effectiveness.

The work of these bodies is at an early stage - CJAs formally took on their responsibilities in April this year and their 3-year plans for the period 2008-11 will be published around the end of the year. A lot of work has already gone into this process, which aims to improve service delivery at a grass roots level. The Government remains committed to this structure - the NAB has been tasked with supporting national-level discussion about partnership working and CJAs have been tasked to draw up area plans which identify "where closer joint working would best add value". ⁹

The Government will work with the NAB and CJAs to improve the effectiveness of community penalties. In particular we will support new approaches that improve the effectiveness of community penalties, provide more joined-up access to services, and help make communities safer by reducing the incidence of reoffending. Examples of good practice, such as the provision of a "one-stop-shop" approach to service provision for offenders (and the wider community) are already in place. The period from 2008-11 will allow CJAs to demonstrate the further benefits that can be delivered from a more joined-up approach.

A new approach to probation - the Constructs/Positive Steps to Stop Offending Programme

We have listened to the calls for a more standardised and structured approach to be taken to probation, ensuring that it provides activities which have a proven record in reducing reoffending. We will therefore support delivery of the "Constructs" programme. Constructs is an externally accredited programme that has been developed for use in a wide variety of circumstances (meaning, for the first time, offenders in the community will receive the same rehabilitative programme as those sentenced to prison). It offers a structured approach to probation, based on evidence of what works to reduce reoffending. A high proportion of the programme is delivered in a group environment, backed up by robust assessment of every offender.

The programme aims to reduce participants' likelihood of being involved in further offending by helping them change the way they think and behave. It is designed to help participants:

• Change their pro-criminal attitudes and beliefs;
• Learn and practice new ways about how they think about and respond to problems. This includes practicing a five-step, systematic method of problem solving;
• Learn and practice a number of other skills such as assertiveness, dealing with conflict, resisting peer group pressure and using time constructively; and
• Develop a detailed plan for avoiding offending in the future.

We are working with CJAs and local authorities to ensure that the programme is rolled out across Scotland. The first stage of implementation is already under way - four local authorities are already using the scheme (which will be used with the vast majority of male offenders aged over 18 who are given probation). Another seven authorities will go live in the next few months and 15 of Scotland's 32 local authorities should be using the programme by the end of this financial year. We will support the roll-out of the programme - ensuring that the quality of intervention delivered when the courts sentence an individual to probation is consistently high, tackles offending practically and is capable of being assessed (through an accreditation process) to ensure that local programmes deliver the high quality intervention that communities deserve.

A broader approach - prevention better than cure

Whilst it is beyond the scope of this review, the Government has made clear that tackling the issue of offending and reoffending requires a broader focus on the underlying causes of such behaviour. Action needs to be taken across all fronts, to address the problems we face as a result of drink, drugs and deprivation. Positive opportunities need to be given to young people so that crime is not seen as a worthwhile option.

We are committed to developing a new strategy to tackle drug misuse, and to developing a national consensus around that strategy. Action is also being taken to tackle under-age and binge drinking. And we will place a new emphasis on diversion and prevention by offering more of our young people opportunities to do something positive and constructive with their lives. We have already announced a new approach to investing funds recovered under Proceeds of Crime legislation and we will look to ensure these funds are used to provide activities that build confidence and self esteem. Taken together, this approach will ensure that the causes of offending are addressed effectively before any offending takes place.

2.3 The Service that Communities Deserve

Quality and Enforcement

Whilst there are a number of arguments in favour of an increased use of community penalties in appropriate cases many people think that they are mostly substandard, that large numbers go uncompleted and that no action is taken to deal with those who try to avoid them. This is not the case in - in 2005/06 for example, almost 6,000 community service orders were imposed. In the same period around 1,500 breach applications were made to the court (to deal with some form of misconduct). Of those applications only 16% (240) were serious enough to result in the order being revoked and a custodial sentence being imposed in its place. ¹⁰ Although these figures are encouraging there is clearly room for improvement. High quality community penalties have to be consistently available across the country if confidence in their use and effectiveness is to be improved. And high quality information is required to make the correct decisions in cases.

Under this theme, views were sought as to what steps could be taken to ensure that community penalties were of a consistently high quality and what steps could be taken to improve enforcement - to demonstrate that community penalties are not a soft option.

What did the review process tell us?

Quality

A number of high quality community penalty schemes already exist. The challenge is to ensure that the standard delivered by the best is replicated across all schemes. Developing best practice nationwide would require effective joint working - the role of CJAs would be pivotal in that process. Robust assessment and quality assurance mechanisms also need to be in place, so that community penalties can demonstrate their effectiveness. A number of respondents felt there should be some form of reward/recognition framework to incentivise good practice.

Speedy action to deal with breach

This was identified as critical in maintaining the credibility of community penalties. A "breach" of a community penalty can take a number of forms - from failure to attend an appointment/ work session (perhaps for good reason) at the minor end of the scale to the commission of a further criminal offence at the severe end. Speedy enforcement is necessary to demonstrate that misconduct will not be tolerated. It can also nip the problem of non-compliance in the bud, allowing the community penalty to stay on track.

Flexible enforcement

At present all formal breach procedures involve a case returning to court - this takes time and involves a number of different agencies. Whilst court proceedings will always be required for serious breaches a majority of respondents called for new breach powers to be created which would allow formal action to be taken without the case returning to court. This would ensure speedier action, allowing the community penalty to successfully continue.

Case reviews

The role of the judge in reviewing case progress was recognised as a key factor in the success of drug treatment and testing orders. Respondents recognised that this process was resource intensive but there were calls for court progress reviews to become a more regular feature of community penalties in cases where that would genuinely be of benefit.

What we will do - promoting and ensuring best practice nationwide

Delivering effective practice has to take place on the ground - but the Government must provide the framework to improve quality, raise standards and promote consistency and effectiveness. National Standards are in place to support service delivery - these date from as early as 1989 - and whilst they have been edited over time to take account of changes in policy/practice, their core format has not changed in years. In our view these standards no longer reflect the context in which criminal justice social work services are delivered. In addition to new policies, there are increased expectations about how criminal justice social work services should be delivered. We believe that a major revision of the standards is long overdue and work on this has already begun. The new National Standards for criminal justice social work will provide a tool for driving up standards by reflecting what is currently known about effective practice and risk/needs assessment/management. They will reflect the need for an increased focus on outcomes rather than inputs and outputs and will articulate principles underpinning the practice of criminal justice social work. We anticipate that the core elements of the new standards will be:

• Assessment: assessing risks and needs as a pre-requisite in every service area;
• Case management: planning for, implementing and reviewing arrangements for supervision of offenders, in light of assessed levels of need and risk;
• Frequency of contact: minimum frequencies of contact associated with particular orders or disposals taking into account the assessment of the level of need and risk;
• Information sharing: ensuring that key relevant information is shared, according to nationally and locally agreed protocols, for the purposes of effective risk management;
• Enforcement of orders: expectations regarding discipline and enforcement and the consequences for the offender of non-compliance;
• Timescales: times within which essential tasks should be completed;
• Recording: reliable systems of recording essential information and evidencing decisions;
• Monitoring and evaluation: requirements for local service outcomes.

Development of new Standards will provide a major impetus to improving delivery. The revision is already under way and revised standards will be produced by the second half of 2008.

Work on a broader front is also being taken forward by the Performance Improvement Strategy Group. Launched last year, this cross-agency group has been established to develop a performance improvement strategy for Criminal Justice Social Work in the context of Community Justice Authorities. Its role is to promote consistently high quality work with offenders in the community, informed by evidence of what works. This is an ongoing programme of work which has been broken into seven workstreams: quality assurance; risk assessment and management; interventions; accreditation of programmes/delivery; national standards; evaluation and research.

The work of the Group has training embedded as a consideration in all seven workstreams and will contribute to the development of the National Training Strategy for Criminal Justice Social Work. A delivery accreditation process will commence in the spring of 2008 to promote the ongoing quality assurance of programmes delivered to offenders in the community.

Community Justice Authorities ( CJAs) will also play a central role in ensuring that high quality, community penalties are consistently delivered. A balance needs to be struck between consistency and local flexibility and CJAs are well placed to strike it - by collating and sharing good practice from their areas and participating at a national level on high-level issues. In their 3-year plans for 2008-11 they will identify local priorities and have the responsibility for monitoring performance and allocating resources to local authority criminal justice social work services to address those priorities. CJAs have a legal duty to promote the sharing of good practice and will use existing partnership forums (such as community planning and community safety partnerships) to ensure that quality of service provision is considered across the board. We will support CJAs and local authorities where their plans suggest innovative approaches to tackle existing challenges. There is no "magic solution" that will ensure community penalties are of a high quality and consistently improve community safety - local approaches within a national framework will be encouraged.

Getting things right at the outset - a new approach to risk and needs management

One example of the quality improvement work already under way relates to the development of a high quality, consistent approach to the assessment of an offender's risks and needs. The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory ( LS/ CMI) is a system which combines risk assessment and case management into one evidence-based system, allowing those working with offenders to assess their needs alongside their risk of recidivism and produce an assessment of the type of supervision that would be most likely to reduce reoffending and, at the same time assist the offender back towards a law-abiding lifestyle. The system provides a framework for case management to take place from an informed position, based on effective practice and the changing circumstances of the individual. It is an electronic system that will allow information to be appropriately shared between areas and agencies - ensuring that a consistent approach is taken to risk and needs assessment across all of Scotland, both for offenders who are sent to prison and those who are given community penalties.

Social workers can continue to use the system to assist in case management and to consider the level and type of support an offender may require in order to minimise future reoffending. LS/ CMI will also incorporate an assessment of risk of serious harm and, for the first time, the system incorporates a specific assessment for female offenders, taking account of the different risks and needs that they may pose or face.

All 32 of Scotland's local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service have given an in-principle commitment to adopt LS/ CMI - the Government will work with them to commence roll-out next spring, with a view to the system being in place across the country by the summer of 2009.

RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY ORDERS

Restriction of liberty orders ( RLOs) are a community penalty supported by electronic monitoring ("tagging"). The monitoring of an offender is undertaken by a private company which reports directly to the court. The use of RLOs by the courts has steadily increased from 307 in 2002 to 1,651 in 2006.

Electronic monitoring gives the court flexibility to restrict the movement of an offender to (or from) a place at various times of the day or night; perhaps when that individual would be most prone to offending. The order can achieve this whilst allowing an offender to continue in employment, education or training and in close contact with his/her family. They can be used as a solely punitive order or as a condition of a Probation order or DTTO - improving the quality of intervention with an offender - particularly during the early months of an order when the pressures of adjusting from a chaotic lifestyle may seem insurmountable - and the likelihood of reoffending is at its highest.

Feedback from offenders who have been subject to RLOs illustrates the benefits they can have:

"I am no longer taking hard drugs and I'm now at college doing a computer course, which would not have been possible if not placed on the tag."

The Government is committed to the appropriate use of electronic monitoring, both as a restrictive measure in itself and as a means of improving the effectiveness of other community penalties.

Tackling breaches effectively

By their very nature, community penalties require a degree of co-operation from the offender. A minority of offenders will simply refuse to co-operate, so breach procedures will always be required. These need to ensure that breaches, whether serious or trivial, are dealt with as speedily and effectively as possible. For those who consistently refuse to co-operate prison will be the only option. But effective breach procedures can lead to improved compliance, nipping problems in the bud and allowing the order (which the court considered to be the most appropriate penalty in the first place) to continue towards a successful conclusion.

The right action at the right time

We understand why some respondents suggested that those responsible for supervising offenders on community penalties should have formal methods of sanction beyond issuing warning letters to deal with breaches. Breach proceedings involve a number of agencies and can lead to delays. But where a breach is alleged and the offender disputes that fact the decision as to whether a breach has taken place needs to be made by an independent and impartial tribunal.

However, where the offender is willing to admit that a minor breach has taken place a procedure could be developed which allows the supervising officer to inform the offender that, in their view, a breach has been committed and they intend to impose a penalty. If the offender accepted that they had been in the wrong they could admit the breach and accept the penalty (which might take the form of additional hours on the penalty, or a fine). The offender would be given notice of the alleged breach, and the opportunity to seek advice before admitting to or denying it. They would be informed that if they disputed the alleged breach (or did not respond) their case would be referred to court. The court would then have available the full range of powers provided by law for dealing with a breach. In the event that the breach was admitted, the offender would still be entitled to challenge in court the level of penalty imposed by the supervising officer.

This proposal would improve the speed of enforcement action in cases of minor breach and would also make it more likely that the offender will adhere to the original penalty, by preventing delay and removing the uncertainty of a future court appearance. It would also improve the authority of the supervising officer and remove a certain amount of unnecessary cases from the courts. Legislation will be required to give effect to this proposal. We will develop legislative proposals in liaison with the practitioners who would use the power.

Formal breach procedures will, of course, continue to be necessary for cases of serious or repeated breach (and cases where the breach is disputed). Whilst we have no plans to alter the way in which the courts deal with such breaches (as it is right that they determine whether a breach has occurred and impose a suitable penalty) we will explore further what action could be taken to ensure that processes are quick and effective across the country.

Managing compliance, not breach

We agree that the use of case reviews by the judge in the context of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders has been particularly effective. Rather than the penalty being imposed and the offender only returning to court where a breach has taken place, periodic reviews are used as a means of managing compliance and providing encouragement or compulsion where one or the other is required. We have already outlined our plans to pilot the use of the DTTO model in a wider range of cases (see section 2.2). Such a degree of judicial intervention would not necessarily be beneficial in other cases - but it is clear that case review can be effective in appropriate cases. We believe that the sheriff or judge is best placed to take that decision in individual cases (with the advice and support of social work where that is requested).

For this reason we propose that the court should be able to require an offender to return to court for a review hearing when any community penalty is imposed in future (or during a review of that order). Regular reviews are already a part of DTTOs. Powers exist allowing courts to schedule review hearings when a probation order is made where they consider this to be appropriate. We will introduce legislation which makes that option available to the court when it imposes a Community Service Order. This will give courts the power to manage compliance in appropriate cases as opposed to simply having to deal with breach. It may be particularly useful (for example) in ensuring compliance during the early stages of a community penalty, when the offender is most likely to reoffend and may be struggling to establish a routine. Combined with well-managed constructive work in local communities, the existence of a future "check-up" at the court may be sufficient to make the difference between an order failing and succeeding in its early stages.

2.4 -In the Community, for the Community

Community Engagement and Involvement

In addition to seeking the views of respondents to the review on this theme the Government also considered available research and held a short series of focus groups with members of the public to gauge the level of public awareness of community penalties, their use and their impact.

What did the review process tell us?

Public Perceptions

If community penalties are to be regarded as credible, local communities must be convinced of their effectiveness. The views of respondents, backed up by research, demonstrate that the public have a low level of understanding of what community penalties are, their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness compared with short prison sentences. Research conducted for the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament confirmed that while there is a high level of public interest, a gap exists between that interest and levels of knowledge ¹¹.

Further research reveals that, in the absence of detailed information, community penalties are regarded negatively, with 70% of those surveyed in one study perceiving them to be 'too soft' and ineffective in "teaching offenders their lesson". ¹² However, where initial attitudes are challenged (for example, by providing more detailed case scenarios) people see that community penalties can be more effective than imprisonment. ¹³ This suggests that improving public awareness and community involvement in the system could lead to more informed attitudes towards 'constructive' penalties, provided these punish effectively and reduce offending. ¹⁴

Crime and imprisonment rates

The public as a whole feel that crime is rising, in spite of a fall in recorded crime levels of around 5% in the past 10 years. Fear of crime tends to generate an instinctive response for a greater use of prison. But the public are aware that short prison sentences are not without their own difficulties - the Scottish Crime Survey (2003) found that many respondents (80%) thought that offenders simply learn new ways to offend in prison.

Should change be forced?

These complex and contradictory messages reflect the fact that there is no magic solution to eliminate reoffending. A number of respondents thought that the judiciary should be compelled to make a greater use of community penalties. We do not believe that would be the correct approach at this point. By presenting evidence of their effectiveness, alongside improvements in the range, quality and enforcement of community penalties, sentencers will have confidence to use them increasingly in future. But the final decision as to what sentence should be imposed in a particular case will remain in the hands of the judiciary.

What we will do - awareness and involvement

The Government will challenge the perception that short prison sentences are "tough" whereas community penalties are "soft". Community penalties can be more demanding than prison. They can require offenders to undertake work, paying back for the wrong they have done. They can involve offenders confronting the victim of their crime and facing up to the consequences of their actions. They can require offenders to develop skills that will enable them to find work and help them move on in life. And at a very basic level they can develop discipline by forcing the offender to adhere to a routine. We believe that making real improvements in the range, quality and enforcement of community penalties is more important than any "publicity drive" to improve their public image - however, there are steps that can be taken to improve public awareness and increase community involvement in their operation.

Getting the law right

Local communities should be given a clear role in identifying the most useful work that could be carried out by offenders on community service in their area. Section 2.1 outlines our proposal to promote a legislative duty on service providers to carry out consultation with communities.

Getting the practice right

Each of Scotland's eight CJAs is currently developing a communications strategy as part of their 3-year area plans for 2008-11. Those strategies will promote understanding of the work carried out by offender management services and may include a number of innovative proposals to increase the profile of community penalties and levels of community involvement. Strategies will vary from area to area, but may include:

• The production of case studies showcasing effective penalties (and the benefits they deliver to victims, offenders and the community as a whole);
• Innovative ways of seeking local views (perhaps including surveys, public meetings, online initiatives and other forms of contact distinct from traditional consultation);
• The production of information (in various formats) explaining how members of the local community can get more involved in community justice initiatives;
• The development of plans to engage with the judiciary at a local level, to ensure they are aware of the penalties on offer, their benefits and completion/success rates; and
• Generating local publicity to recognise work that has been carried out - newsletters, annual reports and events to recognise improvements that have been delivered for an entire community - and the opportunities given to offenders to "turn their lives around".

We will support CJAs, local authorities and partner bodies in this work but believe it should be carried out at a local level. Local solutions can be tailored to local circumstances. People are more likely to be interested in real change in their own area.

Showcasing what community penalties can deliver

In order to promote innovation and excellence in the provision of "payback" schemes nationally, the Government will institute a national payback scheme of the year award. This award will recognise the development of innovative schemes that involve and benefit communities. It will also provide an opportunity to publicise work carried out across Scotland. This is not about celebrating what offenders have been rightly forced to do - it is about celebrating the benefits for local communities and promoting innovative schemes that will reduce reoffending. In 2005/06 the courts ordered offenders across Scotland to carry out over a million hours of unpaid work through community service and probation orders - work which, at its best, benefits communities, forces offenders to make amends and helps them move on to a life free of offending. Good practice should be highlighted and shared, in order to ensure that it becomes the norm. The development of high quality community penalties across Scotland as a whole will play a major part in the delivery of the coherent penal policy that Scotland deserves.

« Previous | Contents | Next »