The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION, METHODS & BACKGROUND

Introduction

1.1 The Structured Deferred Sentence ( SDS) is a low-tariff intervention providing structured social work intervention for offenders post conviction but prior to sentencing. It is intended for offenders with underlying problems such as drug or alcohol dependency, mental health or learning difficulties or unemployment that might be addressed through social work intervention.

1.2 This report sets out the findings of research to evaluate the implementation of the SDS pilots in 3 areas and 5 Sheriff Courts; Ayrshire (Ayr and Kilmarnock Sheriff Courts), Angus (Arbroath and Forfar Sheriff Courts), and Highland (Inverness Sheriff Court). The pilots commenced in early 2005, scheduled to finish in March 2008. This research considers operation of the pilots between early 2005 and December 2006.

1.3 The report is divided into 6 chapters, covering background information and research methods (1), implementation (2), outcomes of SDS (3), practitioners' and service users' perceptions of SDS (4), costs (5) and conclusions (6).

Research Aims

1.4 The aims of the research were to consider the implementation, operation, estimated costs and preliminary outcomes of the Structured Deferred Sentence pilot schemes.

Background To Implementation

Relevant legislation

1.5 Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 allows for sentences to be deferred. Prior to the SDS pilot, this legislation was largely used to defer sentences for procedural purposes (for example to allow reports to be written or information to be checked), or to allow the offender to demonstrate 'good behaviour'. The SDS scheme operates within this existing legislation, but with the addition of a criminal justice social work component. 100% funding for this aspect of SDS is provided for through Section 71 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003. ¹

Development Of SDS Model

1.6 The SDS model evaluated in this report was originally developed in consultation with a Deferred Sentence Working Group comprising representatives from ADSW, the Sheriff's Association, the voluntary sector, an academic and the Scottish Government.

1.7 The SDS model was based primarily on policy and practitioner perceptions that low-tariff offenders with high levels of need were being up-tariffed to probation in order to provide social work support, which would not be available through lower tariff sentence options.

The Bid / Tender Process & Framework Guide

1.8 In January 2004, Directors of Social Work were invited to bid to establish an SDS pilot scheme in relation to specific Sheriff Courts within their unitary authority, with 100% funding for criminal justice social work.

1.9 Certain aspects of SDS design were stipulated in a framework guide prepared by the Deferred Sentence Working Group. This stated that the purpose of SDS was to provide a relatively short period of focussed supervision as part of a deferred sentence, with the specific objectives of:

• Meeting assessed criminogenic needs and building offender motivation for positive change
• Reducing or restricting the frequency or seriousness of offending behaviour
• Avoiding premature or unnecessarily intensive periods of supervision in the community
• Completing the range of available interventions / thus meeting the needs of courts
• Matching more effectively intensity of intervention / supervision to assessed needs and risks
• "Investing to save" by withholding offenders, wherever and whenever appropriate, from other, less appropriate, community disposals / custody

1.10 The framework guide suggested various potential target groups, for example women, young offenders, those with alcohol and/or drug related problems, learning difficulties or mental health problems, or the possibility of SDS being used more generally as a form of low tariff community supervision.

1.11 The framework guide also stipulated that the pilots should only be available in Sheriff or Stipendiary Magistrates Court, with access only through Social Enquiry Report ( SER) assessments, within authorities already using structured assessment tools. It stated that deferments of either 3 or 6 months with a clear action plan should be suggested to the court, with at least one progress report (or Supplementary SER) at the end of the period of deferment, and potentially another progress report midway through the deferment.

Bid Requirements

1.12 The more detailed design of the pilots was not prescribed by the Scottish Government or required to be the same across pilot sites. Instead, the Scottish Government asked those applying to propose appropriate target groups and assessment tools, planned interventions, delivery mechanisms and arrangements for monitoring, evaluation and feedback to sentencers.

1.13 Those applying were also asked to detail within the bids: the intended aims and objectives; target client base and rationale (including what structured assessment tools they would use); evidence of consultation with interested organisations; predicted capacity; anticipated outcomes; delivery mechanisms (including details of other agencies to be involved in delivering interventions) and predicted costs.

1.14 Three schemes were identified for the pilots. Each specified different aims, objectives and target groups, and Angus proposed a high-tariff SDS, in addition to the intended low-tariff SDS.

Pilot Aims And Target Groups

1.15 A summary of main aims and the target groups for all the pilots is provided in Table 1 below. This shows that all 3 pilot sites aimed to address assessed needs relating to the offenders' offending behaviour. In addition, all low tariff SDS orders aimed to offer an alternative to 'higher tariff' non-custodial sentences such as community service or probation, while the high tariff SDS aimed to keep offenders out of custody. In each case, the pilots aimed to reduce offending behaviour.

1.16 In terms of gender, age and assessed needs, the target groups within Angus and Highland were very similar. In contrast, Ayr targeted solely alcohol issues, with no gender or age specified.

Table 1: Main Aims And Target Groups By Pilot Site

Angus

1.17 Tayside CJS Partnership, working with Arbroath and Forfar Sheriff Courts, stated that the aim of their SDS scheme would be "to offer 2 models of deferment of sentence.. with a view to aiding better targeting of sentences for both low and high tariff offenders". Their mission statement states that SDS should offer:

"A viable alternative to probation for those individuals assessed as having high social needs. Providing a proactive system of focussed support aimed at reducing those aspects that can contribute to offending behaviour. Our ultimate aim is to empower service-users by facilitating greater access and opportunity to local services which it is believed will reinforce the ultimate aim of a reduction in crime."

1.18 Tayside CJS identified "women, young offenders and offenders with substance misuse" as priority groups for SDS, with SDS targeted at:

a) Low-tariff offenders who cannot pay fines but whose offending is not serious enough to necessitate probation or community service, and;

b) High-tariff offenders who are at risk of custody through persistence or seriousness of offending, but who might benefit from probation or Community Service after completion of SDS, especially 'Custodial remands'.

1.19 Angus CJS had previous experience piloting new schemes, for example, Bail Information and Supervision, Diversion and Arrest Referral. A Bail Steering Group was already in operation in Angus and this group was involved in the design and start-up of the SDS scheme.

1.20 The priority groups identified for the Angus SDS schemes represent a subset of those suggested in the Scottish Government's framework guide. No further information has been identified regarding the rationale behind this choice of target groups, or the decision to extend the pilot to include a high tariff component.

Highland

1.21 Northern Partnership working with Inverness Sheriff Court, stated that the objectives of SDS were to:

a) Reduce or restrict the frequency of seriousness of offending behaviour;

b) avoid premature or unnecessarily intensive periods of supervision in the community; and,

c) identify criminogenic need and motivate offenders to achieve positive change.

1.22 The SDS was targeted at:

"Offenders who do not require to be sentenced by means of existing community disposals but where a need has been identified to provide a short period of focussed supervision."

1.23 And intended particularly for:

"16-25 year olds, particularly women, those with drug and/or alcohol related problems, or learning/mental health difficulties".

1.24 These target groups were chosen to reflect national priorities, and are the same as for the Diversion from Prosecution Scheme already operating in Highland. They also exactly match those target groups suggested in the Scottish Government's framework guide.

Ayrshire

1.25 Ayrshire Criminal Justice Partnership working with Ayrshire Council on Alcohol ( ACA), and Kilmarnock & later Ayr Sheriff Courts, designed the Alcohol Related Offending Project ( ARO); an SDS specifically targeted at alcohol misuse offenders. The focus of this SDS was informed by a small scale research study conducted by CJS which examined 98 randomly selected LSI-R assessments compiled for Social Enquiry Reports for Kilmarnock Sheriff Court. This study found that 30% of those sampled had alcohol problems and 93% of these were involved in alcohol related offending.

1.26 The aims of ARO closely reflect those in the framework guide:

a) To address assessed criminogenic needs and work with individuals to encourage them to develop their motivation for positive change;

b) to match levels of intervention and resources to the level of assessed need(s) and risk;

c) to offer sentencers, where appropriate, a viable alternative to other less appropriate community disposals or custody;

d) to reduce or restrict patterns and seriousness of offending behaviour; and

e) to provide value for money via the provision of service(s) that seek to address criminogenic needs and divert individuals from more expensive forms of intervention.

Methods

1.27 A mixed methods approach was adopted for this study, including:

• Document review
• In-depth qualitative interviews
• Quantitative analysis of management data
• Thematic analysis of Supplementary Social Enquiry Reports ( SSERs)

Document Review

1.28 This was based on materials provided by the pilot sites and the Scottish Government Community Justice Services Division. These documents included the initial tender and pilot bids, minutes from SDS team and steering group meetings, as well as materials used in the operation of the pilots such as leaflets, standard letter templates and some course worksheets.

In-Depth Qualitative Interviews

1.29 Interviews were conducted with the following participants:

• SDS manager at each pilot site (3 interviewees)
• SDS worker at each pilot site (3 interviewees)
• 2 SER writers at each pilot (6 interviewees)
• One Sheriff from each court (3 interviewees, 2 written submissions)
• 3 Sheriff Clerks
• 1 defence agent from Angus
• 9 offenders (1 from Ayrshire, 4 from Highland, and 4 from Angus), out of 13 with whom interviews were arranged

1.30 Professionals interviewed, as appropriate to their role, were asked about:

• Their awareness of SDS and it's purpose
• The design, set-up and operation of the pilots
• Their role within the schemes & inter-agency working
• What aspects of the pilot set-up worked well / could be improved
• Their general perceptions of the value or otherwise of SDS in the context of the other options available and as a means of addressing offenders' needs

1.31 Offenders interviewed were asked about their attitudes towards and experiences of SDS, and the extent to which they felt they had benefited from SDS.

1.32 Most interviews were conducted face-to-face at Criminal Justice Social Work or Court premises, although 2 Sheriff interviews and 1 SER writer interview were conducted by telephone, and 2 Sheriffs chose to provide a written submission rather than participate in an interview. All interviews were digitally recorded, fully transcribed, and analysed thematically using a 'framework' analysis technique.

1.33 All SDS managers (current during the fieldwork period) were interviewed. Where more than one SDS worker was available, the interviewee was chosen at random, and in one case, where no SDS worker was in post, a former SDS worker was interviewed. One Sheriff at each court was nominated to participate in the research by the Sheriff Principal at that court.

1.34 Other interviewees were selected according to types or levels of experience but also according to availability; Sheriff Clerks with the most exposure to SDS were chosen (although at two Sheriff Courts, no Sheriff Clerk felt they had sufficient exposure to the pilot schemes to comment), while SER writers with greater and lesser experience referring to SDS were selected. In identifying offender interviewees, an attempt was made to adhere as closely to pilot sites' normal appointment scheduling as possible, while speaking with a range of offenders; for example both high and low tariff offenders at Angus, both men and women, older and younger offenders, those who had recently started their SDS programme as well as those who were further through their SDS. Due to the small number of interviews conducted, the views expressed are illustrative rather than representative.

Quantitative Analysis Of Management Data

1.35 All 3 pilot sites provided anonymised management information in electronic format, covering the period from the start of each pilot; November 2006 for Ayrshire and December 2006 for Angus and Highland. This provided around 300 anonymised management information records for analysis, each containing approximately 60 variables.

1.36 The design of these datasets varied from pilot to pilot, resulting in inconsistency in the type of analysis possible from site to site. In some instances there are also inconsistencies and inputting errors within this data. In one case this may have been partly due to retrospective inputting of management data. In cases where there are particular concerns with data quality, this is noted within the report, or the data has not been used.

Thematic Analysis Of Supplementary Social Enquiry Reports ( SSERs)

1.37 At the end of a period of SDS, a supplementary social enquiry report ( SSER) is submitted to the court, providing a record of offenders' progress on SDS and in some cases providing suggestions for disposal. A number of SSERs were collected, coded and entered into a framework. These provided information unavailable from the management data, such as:

• Comments on attendance (not otherwise available for Angus)
• Comments on attitude towards SDS
• Information on re-offending
• Comments on progress with issues causing offending behaviour (for example alcohol or drug use)
• Suggested disposals

1.38 All available SSERs were submitted by Highland and Ayrshire, totalling 65 and 45 SSERs respectively. ² Due to resource issues at Angus, SSERs were received for a smaller, randomly selected sample of 34 orders, out of a possible 102 orders.

Note On Presentation & Interpretation Of Quantitative Findings

1.39 Due to variations in the amount of data available, base numbers vary throughout the report. These are indicated in each case.

1.40 Where percentages do not add up to 100, this is due to rounding.

« Previous | Contents | Next »