The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER 2: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PILOTS

2.1 Funding for the pilots was available from January 2005. The Angus and Highland pilots began in February 2005, and the Ayrshire pilot began in April 2005, with all 3 pilots continuing until March 2008.

Take-Up

Overall

2.2 As Table 2 shows, the number of SDS imposed was highest in Angus, and lowest in Ayrshire. Take-up of low-tariff SDS was less than predicted in the pilot bids for all 3 pilot sites, with the greatest shortfall in Ayrshire (27% of predicted capacity), but take-up of high-tariff SDS in Angus exceeded predictions (163% of predicted capacity).

Table 2: Number of SDS Orders Per Month, Year And As % Of Predicted Numbers

Angus

2.3 In Angus, a total of 102 SDS (77 low tariff and 25 high tariff) were imposed on 94 individuals during the first 23 months of the pilot (Feb '05 - Dec '06). Most individuals received one order only, but 6 people were given 2 orders and one person was given 3 orders. Table 3 and Table 4 show the number of low tariff ( LT) and high tariff ( HT) orders and the number of individuals imposed orders.

Table 3: Number of Angus Orders (Low And High Tariff)

Table 4: No. & Type of Angus Orders by Individuals

2.4 While the number of low-tariff orders was only 57% of the number predicted in the pilot bid, the number of high-tariff orders exceeded expectations, at 163% of predicted capacity.

2.5 Possible reasons suggested by social workers interviewed for higher than predicted use of high tariff SDS were a slight widening over time of the criteria considered appropriate for high tariff SDS; greater than expected demand; and Sheriffs' increasing confidence in this option. As Figure 1 below shows, there was an initial lack of orders imposed (only 3 orders in the first 9 months) followed by an increased use of orders thereafter.

2.6 There is no obvious trend, however, in the numbers of low tariff orders; the number of orders fluctuated between one and 6 per month throughout the first 23 months of the pilot. Social workers suggested that lower than predicted take-up of low tariff SDS might have resulted from a slow start to the pilot because of SDS workers initially covering probation staff vacancies, and time needed to build awareness, but this is not reflected in the monthly figures (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: No. of Angus Low & High Tariff Orders Per Month

Highland

2.7 In Highland, 68 SDS were imposed on 68 individuals during the first 23 months of the pilot (Feb '05 - Dec '06). This was around 59% of the number of orders predicted in the bid.

2.8 As with Angus, the number of orders fluctuated throughout the evaluation period from zero to 4 monthly, with higher peaks in May and November 2005 (see Figure 2). Social workers suggested that the shortfall in orders was partly because few SDS referrals were made by a locum SER writer responsible for writing a large proportion of SERs over 9 months of the pilot (April - December 2006) and a possible reluctance amongst SER writers to refer to SDS during the 2.5 months (July - September 2006) when the SDS worker post was vacant. The numbers are too low, however, to determine if these factors affected uptake.

Figure 2: No. of Highland Orders Per Month

Ayrshire

2.9 In Ayrshire, 45 SDS were imposed on 45 individuals during the first 20 months of the pilot (April '05 to November '06). 28 orders were imposed in North Ayrshire, 16 in East Ayrshire and only one in South Ayrshire. This equated to just over a quarter (27%) of predicted capacity.

2.10 Social workers interviewed gave 2 main reasons for this low-uptake. Ayrshire experienced considerable difficulties recruiting and retaining SDS workers and had no SDS worker in post for 10 months of the pilot (April 2006 - January 2007) and no partnership worker from Ayrshire Council for Alcohol in post for 6 months (August 2006 - January 2007). This resulted in strict gate-keeping to ensure manageable numbers, little possibility to undertake promotional activities to raise awareness of SDS and an assumption by some in South Ayrshire that the scheme had closed.

2.11 The extremely low take-up in South Ayrshire may also have been due to the fact that South Ayrshire joined the pilot only after the first year and far fewer promotional activities were undertaken there than in E. and N. Ayrshire, resulting in very low awareness amongst SER writers and Sheriffs.

2.12 Other issues which interviewees felt might have affected uptake were a perception that some Sheriffs preferred probation to SDS, that SDS was considered of low importance or that some suitable offenders were accepting a fine in preference to SDS.

Figure 3 - No. of Ayrshire Orders Per Month

2.13 As with Highland, it is difficult to ascertain any pattern in the number of orders imposed each month in Ayrshire (see Figure 3 above).

Conclusions

2.14 For all 3 pilot sites, the number of low tariff orders fluctuated throughout the study period, while the high tariff SDS in Angus experienced a slow start. All 3 pilot areas experienced fewer low tariff orders than they had predicted, while there were more high tariff orders than expected. Low take-up was particularly marked in Ayrshire. Across the pilot sites, recruitment issues were highlighted as a cause of low up-take (see the section on 'Staffing' below), restricting capacity to undertake promotional activities in Ayrshire (see section on 'Promotion and Awareness').

Staffing

Overall

2.15 All 3 pilot schemes have experienced some staff turnover, or difficulties recruiting staff. This was most pronounced in Ayrshire, where lack of staff, resulting in strict gate-keeping to ensure that numbers were manageable, may have had a particularly adverse effect on take-up of the scheme.

Angus

2.16 Staff costs for the Angus scheme were initially based upon one social worker and 2 criminal justice assistants, as it was felt that social worker input would be necessary for the high tariff SDS. Due to recruitment difficulties, however, it was agreed with the Scottish Executive that social worker input for the high tariff SDS would be provided from within the CJS team, with 3 assistants employed for SDS, rather than 2.

2.17 Due to other CJS staffing shortages, however, all 3 assistants initially covered some probation work, in addition to working on SDS, and one assistant left after 9 months of the pilot to take up a permanent position. A replacement third worker was recruited from within the CJS partnership, but also left in December 2006. Since this point the SDS scheme has operated with 2 assistants, but it has been possible to bring in extra help to deal with particularly busy periods.

Highland

2.18 In Highland, funding provided for one social worker, one NCH Project Worker, a part-time APEX Project Worker, and a part-time CJS Clerical Assistant. The original social worker employed for SDS left after 18 months for a permanent post, but was replaced after 2.5 months. Social workers felt that staffing was sufficient to meet demand during the times when all intended positions were full.

Ayrshire

2.19 Funding for staff in Ayrshire was originally intended to cover one full-time social worker, one part-time administrator, and an Ayrshire Council on Alcohol ( ACA) project worker, with provision for additional sessional workers to meet demand if required.

2.20 However, both the full time social worker and ACA worker assigned to SDS left (in March 2006 and July 2006 respectively), leaving only the CJS team leader in charge of SDS to manage the scheme. Despite recruitment attempts, these posts were both vacant for the rest of the period covered by this study, although they were filled in February 2007 with the workers remaining in post from then on. Although provision was made for additional sessional workers to meet demand, no sessional workers were employed during these vacancies, with CJS covering all SDS duties.

2.21 Interviews with social workers involved suggest that these recruitment issues had a substantial impact upon take-up. For example, social workers interviewed stated that strict gate-keeping has been necessary to keep numbers manageable during the periods when posts were vacant, and had also reduced the ability of staff to undertake promotional activity, with adverse affects upon SDS numbers.

Conclusions

2.22 All 3 pilot schemes experienced recruitment difficulties and periods with SDS worker vacancies due to the temporary nature of the pilots, and workers leaving for permanent positions. This was particularly pronounced in Ayrshire, with significant periods with no SDS workers in post, resulting in strict gate-keeping and an inability to promote the scheme.

Promotion And Awareness Of SDS

Overall

2.23 SDS managers and workers interviewed, were asked about any promotional activities undertaken in their areas, while all other interviewees were asked questions to ascertain their level of awareness of SDS and how they found out about the pilots schemes.

Offenders

2.24 Awareness varied amongst the 9 offenders interviewed, with some feeling they had been given sufficient information prior to their first appointment and others saying they would have liked more.

2.25 Just over half the offenders interviewed said they first heard about SDS from the Sheriff or judge. The others had heard first from the SER writer, court social worker or their solicitor, and in one case from peers who had been given SDS previously.

2.26 Information some offenders were not aware of at trial, but would have liked included; information about what SDS is, where it takes place, how frequent appointments are and whether activities are 1-1 or in groups.

Angus

2.27 Apart from some initial pre-pilot promotion and briefing it appears that communication in Angus was mainly through existing communication mechanisms such as social work team meetings, Bail Steering Group meetings, and existing relationships.

2.28 Awareness amongst the Sheriffs and Sheriff Clerk interviewed varied. There was some knowledge of promotional activities when the scheme was introduced, while one Sheriff's awareness focussed on high tariff SDS. The Sheriff Clerk interviewed had little awareness of SDS. The defence agent interviewed had significant experience of working with clients on SDS but was unaware of any promotion activities or the differences in enforcement for low and high tariff.

Highland

2.29 In Highland, initial promotional activities included a launch event for Sheriffs, prison staff and Criminal Justice Social Work, and meeting Sheriffs and Sheriff Clerks. Awareness was maintained through frequent emails and visits to SER and social work teams.

2.30 In addition, to ensure that SDS was considered in every case, SER writers were asked to comment on the suitability of SDS in every SER, not just in cases where they considered SDS suitable.

2.31 Awareness of SDS was good among the SER writers and Sheriff interviewed, while the Sheriff Clerk interviewed was least aware.

Ayrshire

2.32 SDS was initially introduced in Kilmarnock only, with promotional activities including meetings with Sheriffs and the Solicitors' Faculty at the start of the pilot and ongoing awareness raising with social workers.

2.33 The scheme was introduced a year later in Ayr Sheriff Court, but promotional activities were notably fewer. This may be one reason for the extremely low uptake in South Ayrshire, with low awareness resulting in low usage and vice versa. However, since the end of the period covered by this study, with vacancies filled, awareness raising has increased once more.

2.34 Interviewees were generally unaware of promotional activities since the introduction of the pilot in Kilmarnock. Recruitment difficulties seem to have impacted on awareness, with one interviewee in South Ayrshire stating that in the gap between the first SDS workers leaving and new workers arriving, there was an assumption that the project had closed.

Conclusions

2.35 All the pilot schemes undertook initial promotional activities, with varying degrees of ongoing awareness raising, including emails and meetings with social work teams, and use of existing communication mechanisms.

2.36 Awareness varied amongst the 9 offenders interviewed, and was generally good amongst the SER writers and most of the Sheriffs interviewed. An exception was South Ayrshire where awareness and up-take was low. This illustrates the importance of launch events and ongoing promotion of SDS, both of which were not feasible in South Ayrshire due to staff vacancies.

Duration Of Orders

Overall

2.37 SDS orders were shortest in Angus, averaging 3 months as intended. Orders averaged 5 months in Highland, where the initial orders was expected to be 3 months, but extensions were expected. Orders also averaged 5 months in Ayrshire where they were intended to last 6 months, but where accused were often sentenced at a review hearing after 3 months, if they had progressed well. Extensions to orders were relatively common in both Angus and Highland, resulting in a wide range of order lengths from one or 2 months to more than one year (see Table 5 below).

Table 5: Duration of Orders in Each Pilot Site

2.38 Several Sheriffs, from across all 3 pilot sites, expressed a preference for 3 month orders, or in the case of Ayrshire review at 3 months, in order to check attendance. Although some social workers felt 3 months was insufficient for some offenders' to achieve change or access services, in all pilot sites it was possible to request extensions where needed. This was common in Angus and Highland, with social workers interviewed in Highland commenting that the ability to extend the SDS was a positive aspect of the pilot design.

Angus

2.39 SDS orders in Angus were originally specified as 3 months for both low and high tariff. Although both types of order averaged 3 months (120 days and 102 days respectively), low tariff orders varied more in length (1-16 months) than high tariff orders (2-6 months).

2.40 Most orders were completed after the initial deferment period, but some were extended one or more times. This was more common for low tariff SDS than high tariff SDS (see Table 6 below).

Table 6: No. of Extensions For SDS Orders in Angus (Low and High Tariff)

2.41 All extension periods (for which there is data) lasted 3 months, but initial SDS periods varied from 1-7 months for low tariff, and 2-4 months for high tariff. Three months, however, was standard.

Highland

2.42 SDS orders in Highland were intended to last 3 months, but with extensions after this period where required. Although the data for duration within Highland should be treated with caution, due to inputting errors and inconsistencies, it appears that initial periods of SDS did last 3 months in at least half of cases, with around 1 in 5 initial orders lasting 4 months.

2.43 Extensions were common, with at least 19 orders (out of the 48 cases where data is available) involving one or more extensions, and some involving multiple extensions. Orders averaged 5 months overall, ranging from 2-14 months. Social workers in Highland felt that this ability to extend orders one or more times was as a positive aspect of the pilot design.

Ayrshire

2.44 Although Ayrshire initially intended to have 3 and 6 month programmes, only the 6 month programme was implemented. This was designed to have a review after 3 months (reviews occurred after 3 months in 4 out of 5 cases). A third of orders were disposed of at this court review stage.

2.45 For those orders continued after court review, the second period of SDS lasted between 1 and 6 months, with orders lasting between 3 and 9 months overall, and averaging 138 days (4.6 months).

Conclusions

2.46 Initial SDS orders in Highland and Angus were usually 3 months, but with extensions to low tariff orders where required. In contrast, high tariff SDS in Angus were rarely extended. SDS orders were intended to last 6 months in Ayrshire, but a third finished at an interim court review after 3 months.

2.47 Overall, Sheriffs seemed to like contact with the offender after 3 months to check on their engagement with the order, while social workers, especially in Highland, valued the ability to extend orders if offenders required more time to address assessed needs, or there were waiting lists for referrals.

SDS Offender Profiles Compared With Target Groups

Overall

2.48 Both Angus and Highland chose similar target groups; women, young offenders and those with substance misuse problems (with Highland also targeting those with mental health or learning difficulties). In contrast, Ayrshire chose to target solely those where alcohol misuse had contributed to their offending behaviour. This section of the report compares the characteristics of those given SDS in each area, with these target groups.

Angus low tariff

2.49 Tayside CJS identified "women, young offenders and offenders with substance misuse" as priority groups for SDS.

2.50 In addition to the above priority groups, the original bid states that low tariff SDS is targeted at:

" Offenders who cannot pay fines but are not "serious" offenders necessitating probation or community service, but who have particular criminogenic needs or other specific difficulties amendable to short term task centred intervention."

2.51 Although the above description includes inability to pay fines as a referral criteria, social workers made no mention of this, placing most emphasis on criminogenic need. In this respect, practice seems to have diverged from the original plans.

2.52 The average age of offenders given low tariff SDS was 26, but 64% were 25 or under, of which 32% were 20 or under. This compares with 47% aged 25 or under, of which 24% are 20 or under for national reconviction figures (see Table 7 below).

2.53 The ratio of male to female offenders given low tariff SDS was 3:1. The national male to female ratio for convictions is 5:1, suggesting that SDS is achieving its aim of targeting women offenders.

Table 7: Angus Low Tariff SDS Offender Profiles Compared With National Figures ⁴

2.54 In terms of assessed need, 'Drug/alcohol problems' was most common; identified for almost a quarter (56 out of 77) of low tariff orders. 'Employability' and 'social/living' were the next most common needs, identified for offenders in 45 (58%) and 39 (51%) of the 77 LT orders (See Table 17 for further information regarding identified need).

2.55 Out of 77 LT orders, 'risk of custody' was identified as 'unlikely' in 27 cases, 'possible' in 23 cases, likely in 5 cases and 'highly likely' in 7 cases.

2.56 These figures suggest that the low tariff SDS was reaching the target population in terms of age, gender and substance use problems, whilst also admitting offenders with a wider range of needs. Figures for 'risk of custody', however, suggest that while most accused given SDS were low to medium risk, some at 'higher risk' of custody were also given low tariff SDS.

2.57 Unfortunately, it is not possible to investigate whether SDS targeted offenders who can't pay fines, as no management data was collected on relevant characteristics such as means, housing, employment or benefit status, or self-reported disability. ⁵

2.58 Theft, Breach of the Peace and Assault were the most common charge types for low tariff SDS in Angus (see Table 8 below).

Table 8: Charge types by Angus low tariff SDS order

* Data available for all 77 orders. More than one charge type may apply to each order.

Angus High Tariff

2.59 In addition to the priority groups of "women, young offenders and offenders with substance misuse", the target population for the high-tariff SDS was:

"Those who are at the highest risk of custody through persistence or seriousness of offending, but who might benefit from probation or undertake Community Service after completion of SDS".

2.60 Out of those 23 individuals given high tariff SDS, the average age was 24, with 14 out of 23 offenders aged 25 or under, of which 9 were aged 20 or under. As with the low tariff SDS, this is higher than the national averages (see Table 9).

2.61 The proportion of female offenders given high tariff SDS, however, was lower than for low tariff SDS, with a ratio of men to women of 4.75:1.

Table 9: Angus High Tariff SDS Offender Profiles Compared With National Figures

2.62 As with low tariff SDS, 'drug/alcohol' problems was the most commonly assessed need; identified in 17 of the 25 high tariff orders. 'Employability' and 'Social/Living' were the next most common needs, identified in 13 and 12 of the 25 high tariff orders respectively.

2.63 Out of 25 high tariff orders, 'risk of custody' was identified as 'highly likely' in half of cases (12), 'likely' in a quarter of cases (6), 'possible' in 2 cases, and 'unlikely' in 2 cases ⁶.

2.64 The above figures suggest that high tariff SDS was reaching the target population in terms of age and substance use problems, but not in terms of gender. As with low tariff SDS, needs other than those related to drugs and alcohol were also common.

2.65 In terms of 'risk of custody', most offenders fit the target population, with custody considered 'highly likely' or 'likely' in three quarter of orders, but it is surprising to find some orders where custody was considered only 'possible' or 'unlikely'.

2.66 Theft was the most common charge type for high tariff SDS orders (see Table 10 below).

Table 10: Charge Types by Angus High Tariff SDS Order

* Data available for all 25 orders. More than one charge type may apply to each order

Highland

2.67 The SDS in Highland was targeted at "16 - 25 year old male and female offenders, particularly women, young offenders (16-17 year olds), those with alcohol and/or drug related problems, learning difficulties or mental health problems", although the bid also states that other offenders will be considered.

2.68 The average age of offenders was 32. Only 4 offenders were 16-17 years old, with 39% between 16-25 years old (see Table 11 below). This equates to fewer young offenders than for national reconviction figures.

Table 11: Highland SDS Offender Profiles Compared With National Figures

2.69 The proportion of female offenders was slightly higher than for national figures, with a male to female ratio of 3:1 in Highland, compared to 5:1 for convictions generally.

2.70 Out of all 'activities' identified for/undertaken by offenders on SDS, 'offending awareness' was most common (30 out of 68 offenders) followed by activity to address 'alcohol' use (25 out of 68 offenders). Mental health support was identified for/undertaken by 18 of the 68 offenders and activity addressing 'drugs' use by 10 out of 68 offenders (see Table 18).

2.71 As expected, the majority of people on SDS were assessed as either low, low-medium or medium risk (63 individuals). There were, however, occasional exceptions where higher risk individuals were accepted onto SDS (see Table 12 below).

Table 12: Initial Risk Assessment Scores for Highland SDS Orders

2.72 These above findings indicate that SDS in Highland did reach those intended, with the exception of age, where offenders were of a wider age range than targeted.

2.73 Out of the 65 orders with data available, the most common charges resulting in SDS orders were Breach of the Peace, assault and theft.

Table 13: Charge types by Highland SDS order

* Missing data for 3 orders. More than one charge type may apply to each order.

Ayrshire

2.74 The SDS in Ayrshire was more specifically targeted than at the other pilot sites. It was intended for low to moderate offenders where alcohol was a contributory factor to the current offence. Although pilot documentation indicates that this order was not intended for those with serious or chronic alcohol problems, some social workers interviewed stated that some offenders given SDS fitted this category. There was a mixed response to inclusion of these offenders, with one social worker feeling SDS had been effective for them, while another felt that this caused confusion regarding criteria for referral to SDS.

2.75 Over three quarters (35) of the individuals on SDS were men. The average age was 31. The programme was undertaken by offenders of a wide range of ages from 16 to 66, although just under half of offenders (22) aged 16-25.

Table 14: Ayrshire SDS Offender Profiles Compared With National Figures

2.76 Breach of the peace, theft and assault were the most common primary charges within Ayrshire.

Table 15: Charge Types by Ayrshire SDS Orders

* Missing data for 10 orders. More than one charge type may apply to each order.

Conclusions

2.77 Both Highland and Angus (low and high tariff) sought to target women, young offenders and those with substance misuse issues. Overall, these target groups were reached (except regarding gender for high tariff SDS in Angus, and age in Highland). However, flexibility was applied in terms of referral criteria, with offenders with a much wider range of assessed need, a wider age range, and a more varied risk profile admitted onto SDS. Likewise, in Ayrshire, there were some exceptions to the referral criteria, with a small number of offenders with more serious or chronic alcohol problems given SDS, than the programme was initially intended for.

2.78 In terms of the charge types resulting in SDS orders, Breach of the Peace, theft and assault, were most common across all pilot sides and both low and high tariff SDS.

Referral To SDS

Referral process

2.79 All 3 pilot sites followed similar referral processes, involving an SER interview, followed by discussion between the SER writer and SDS worker before making a recommendation.

2.80 Assessment criteria and methods differed across pilot sites. With Angus using New Hampshire RA1-3(4), Highland using RA1-3 and a criminogenic needs tool, and Ayrshire using a LSI-R score and screening form.

Recommendation in SER

2.81 In all 3 pilot sites, the majority of SDS imposed were recommended in an SER (see Table 16 below). In Ayr and Highland it was very uncommon for SDS to be imposed otherwise, whereas in Angus, just under 1 in 5 low tariff SDS and 1 in 3 high tariff SDS were imposed without a SER recommendation.

Table 16: Number of Orders With/Without SER Recommendation

* 9 cases missing for Angus LT and Ayrshire, 3 cases missing for Angus HT and Highland.

2.82 Two Sheriffs stated that the SER greatly influenced their decision to impose SDS, while the other 3 Sheriffs interviewed said that SER was one factor they considered. Two out of five Sheriffs interviewed said they would impose SDS without an SER recommendation in some cases, while the others said they would not or had not.

Angus

2.83 Social workers and SDS workers interviewed in Angus were generally very satisfied with the referral guidance and process. SDS workers, nevertheless, stated that there have been some inappropriate low and high tariff referrals, for example, low tariff offenders with no area of social need (because not required, or supported already), or cases where 'conditions' have not been included for high tariff offenders (see paragraphs 2.109 - 2.112 on 'Compliance Mechanisms' for more details).

Highland

2.84 Several interviewees in Highland remarked that the referral process works well, although SER writers were very dissatisfied with the RA1-3 assessment tool. ⁷ Inappropriate referrals and referrals not being made was mainly attributed by interviewees to the fact that a locum SER writer had been responsible for a large proportion of SER reports over a 9 month period, although there was no other evidence available to support this view .

Ayrshire

2.85 No problems with the referral process were identified by interviewees in Ayrshire. One Sheriff stated that the SERs provided were excellent, and provided all information needed. Social workers interviewed stated that there had been some inappropriate referrals, for example, too serious/chronic alcohol problems, or referrals straight from court not strictly meeting criteria, but SDS workers interviewed felt this was to be expected of this type of order.

Conclusions

2.86 All 3 pilot sites followed a similar referral process involving recommending offenders for SDS in their SER. In Ayrshire and Highland, almost all referrals were made through SERs, where Sheriffs in Angus sometimes referred without an SER recommendation. With the exception of opinion on some of the assessment tools used, social workers in each area felt the referral process worked well, although a number of inappropriate referrals had occurred.

Pilot Activities

2.87 Each pilot offered a different range of services to offenders. The pilots in Highland and Angus involved both appointments with CJS staff, and referrals to a range of other agencies. In contrast, the main focus in Ayrshire was a 10 week programme conducted with the SDS worker, although referrals were also an option.

Angus

Angus low tariff

2.88 The Angus low tariff SDS is based on the premise that the SDS worker and the offender identify areas of need and community supports to address these. Contact with the SDS worker would be greater initially (documentation states a minimum of 2 contacts per week), reducing as dependence decreases and other resources are accessed (to a minimum of one contact per week).

Angus high tariff

2.89 The Angus high tariff SDS was also designed to involve identification of need and supports to address these needs. This order was designed to be very intensive, with a minimum of 3 appointments per week stipulated in the bid, including meetings with both the SDS worker and a social worker, to address needs and also undertake offence focussed work.

Angus needs and referrals

2.90 Potential needs which the Angus pilot bid and SDS leaflets suggest low tariff SDS might address include:

• accommodation
• addictions
• anger management
• benefits/welfare rights
• bereavement
• education
• employability issues
• health/mental health
• relationship
• issues
• use of time

2.91 In actuality, many of these needs were identified for both low and high tariff offenders in Angus (see Table 17 below). For both types of order, drug/alcohol issues were most frequently identified, followed by employability and then social/living issues.

Table 17: Needs Identified at the Beginning of Each SDS, by Tariff

N.B. No missing data, low tariff base = 77, high tariff base = 25

2.92 Referrals made to address these needs included the use of the following local authority services and voluntary organisations:

• drug and alcohol team, drug problem service, Tayside Council on Alcohol
• community mental health team (including community psychiatric nurses, psychologists or counsellors)
• housing or homelessness teams (including tenancy support)
• various voluntary organisations

2.93 In addition, Angus SDS workers used 'off the shelf' materials to address issues such as life and social skills, problem solving, anxiety and confidence.

2.94 As the pilot progressed various changes occurred to the SDS programmes and activities, for example:

• Levels of contact with the SDS worker/social worker became more flexible with fewer appointments per week where other services were being accessed
• Initial hopes to have some group work activities were abandoned as infeasible due to the geographical spread of offenders on SDS

Angus satisfaction with activities

2.95 The Angus SDS worker interviewed expressed satisfaction with the range of services and felt confident that these were meeting offenders' needs. The only problem identified was 6 month waiting lists for drug and alcohol services meaning that offenders could not access this service during the normal 3 month SDS period. In contrast, one social worker interviewed stated that take-up time was very quick for other services such as TACA.

Highland

Highland needs and referrals

2.96 The pilot bid for Highland states that the type and frequency of social work intervention for SDS was to be determined entirely by needs assessment with case management and assessment by the SDS worker and the following agencies responsible for delivery:

• NCH Gael Probation Project delivering an Offending Awareness Programme
• APEX Scotland providing an Employment Focussed Programme
• Youth Action Service delivering 'Time to Grow', addressing offending behaviour through a cognitive behavioural approach for young offenders
• A range of local agencies providing substance misuse services
• NHS Highland for mentally disordered offenders
• other resources available in the community

2.97 During the pilot period, the following activities/areas of work were identified for/undertaken by the 68 offenders on SDS:

Table 18: Activities/Areas of Work Identified/Undertaken by Offenders in SDS

*This table lists the 7 most common activities/areas of work (more than one may have been identified for each order). 'Other' covers a wide range of categories identified for smaller numbers of offenders.

2.98 'Offending Awareness' with NCH, activities relating to alcohol misuse, and employment focussed work with APEX were most common.

2.99 While some of the above activities were undertaken by external agencies, others were undertaken in-house by Criminal Justice Services, for example, the 'Life Skills' and 'Anger Management' courses. Some activities were undertaken one-to-one while others were group work. The frequency of contact with an SDS worker varied according to need and the number of other agencies the offender was engaged with, ranging from once or twice a month to weekly.

Highland satisfaction with activities

2.100 Both social workers involved in the operation of SDS stated that they were very satisfied with the range of resources and services available to them. One of them commented that 3 months was usually long enough to engage with agencies, with the exception of mental health agencies, where waiting lists might be longer.

Ayrshire

2.101 It was initially intended to have 2 SDS programmes, one consisting of one-to-one counselling over 3 months, with a second involving 12 weeks of group work for 30 hours over a 6 month period. Due to the low turnover and geographical spread of participants, the group work programme was not viable.

2.102 Instead, one programme was implemented, involving 10 one-to-one sessions over a 6 month periods, with a court review after 3 months. Social worker interviewees stated that these sessions were carried out at the offenders' pace. In cases where the offender completed all 10 sessions more quickly, no more contact was required by CJS, although if the offender wished, it was possible for them to continue alcohol counselling with Ayrshire Council on Alcohol without having to join waiting lists. As discussed earlier, many offenders who completed the programme early were sentenced at a 3 month court review, rather than continuing the order for the whole 6 months.

2.103 Although this programme focussed solely on alcohol misuse, SDS staff interviewed said they were able to make time for additional issues, and did link offenders to other agencies if and when appropriate.

Conclusions

2.104 SDS in Angus and Highland was based on assessing offenders' needs, and addressing these through work with the SDS worker or referrals to local authority services or voluntary organisations. Although SDS workers had intended to carry out some group work programmes, this proved infeasible in Ayrshire and Angus due to the geographical spread and small numbers of offenders on SDS at any one time. The frequency of contact with SDS workers varied, according to identified need, and how many other services the offender was accessing.

2.105 SDS workers in Angus and Highland expressed satisfaction with the range of services available to them, with some exceptions where waiting lists meant offenders could not access services during the standard 3 months SDS period. Ayrshire SDS consisted of a 10 week programme that offenders completed at their own speed, with possible continuation of alcohol counselling after completing SDS.

Compliance

Compliance Mechanisms And Perceptions Of These

2.106 All 3 pilot sites have no means of returning offenders to court early, if they are not attending SDS appointments. Instead, they deal with non-attendance through a series of letters, ending with withdrawal of services unless the offender chooses to re-engage.

2.107 Social worker views on this aspect of the pilot were mixed. One SDS Manager strongly favoured stricter enforcement procedures, while the other 2 felt the current system was appropriate for low tariff SDS.

2.108 For high tariff SDS in Angus, Sheriffs have imposed a condition at the time of imposing SDS. This allows offenders to be arrested if they fail to attend appointments, as they would be for breaching the conditions of a community disposal. This use of a 'condition' for high tariff SDS, was initially suggested by SER writers in some cases, but subsequently they were requested to suggest imposing a condition in all cases. This compliance method was considered effective by SDS workers as long it was imposed, although in some cases it was not.

2.109 Out of the 9 offenders interviewed, perceptions of what happened if they missed appointments differed from little knowledge, to those who commented that it would affect their final sentence, and others (low-tariff) who mistakenly thought it would result in custody.

Compliance And Attendance Records

Angus

2.110 One fifth (5 out of 25) of high tariff orders and just under one fifth (13 out of 77) low tariff orders were not completed. This was mainly due to failure to engage, or breach of high tariff SDS, with offenders remanded in 2 cases. These are lower incompletion rates than for community service (36%) and probation (41%) during 2005/06.

No management information was collected on attendance, but this was included in some of the SSERs analysed. Half (10 out of 19) of SSERs containing attendance comments, reported regular or higher attendance levels, while 3 in 5 (18 out of 30) reported that the accused were motivated, engaged or benefiting from SDS. In a further fifth of SSERs (6 out of 30), the accused was described as initially engaged, but with circumstances later deteriorating.

Highland

2.111 'Attendance data' was collected by the Highland pilot. Over three quarters of offenders (52 out of 68) were reported as having excellent, good or fair attendance, with 'good' attendance most commonly reported. 5 offenders were reported as 'defaulted', that is that they failed to attend/engage. See Table 19 below:

Table 19: Attendance Levels for Highland SDS Orders by Gender ⁸

2.112 10 out of 14 women and just over two thirds of men (36 out of 47) were reported as having "excellent" or "good" attendance.

2.113 Just over two thirds of offenders (37 out of 54) received positive comments on attendance or engagement or were reported to have benefited from SDS, out of the 54 SSERs analysed and containing comments on attitude/progress.

Ayrshire

2.114 Of the 45 individuals given an SDS, 37 (around 4 out of 5) commenced the ARO programme, and 24 (just over half of offenders given SDS and nearly two thirds of those who commenced ARO) completed it. The number of offenders starting and completing SDS was similar for men and women and across age groups.

2.115 Almost three quarters (29 out of 40) offenders were reported in SSERs to be have participated well or very well in the programmed.

Conclusions

2.116 Views on the lack of enforcement mechanisms for low tariff SDS were mixed, with some feeling the system of warning letters used was sufficient, and others favouring stricter measures. Imposing a 'condition' with high tariff SDS was considered effective for high tariff SDS, but was not always included by Sheriffs.

2.117 Although information is not directly comparable across sites, and only a small sample of SSERs in Angus were analysed, comments in SSERs on attendance and engagement were generally positive, with more than a half (and up to three quarters) of SSERs analysed reporting regular to high attendance levels and offenders who were motivated, engaged, benefiting or participating well in SDS.

Factors Facilitating / Hindering Implementation

Factors Facilitating Implementation

2.118 Across all 3 pilot sites, practitioners interviewed felt that implementation had been facilitated by good relationships with social work teams and other agencies. Interviewees felt that this was assisted by the small size of the local authorities (Highland and Angus) and pre-existing relationships formed, for example, through the Bail Steering Group in Angus, and by involvement in the operation of DTTOs in Ayrshire.

2.119 Interviewees in Highland also highlighted the fact they had been able to carry out more client-focussed work than was possible for probation orders, due to lower case loads.

Barriers to Implementation

2.120 The most striking barrier to implementation, across all 3 pilot sites, was the difficulties of recruiting and retaining staff, due to the short term nature of the pilot. In several cases, staff left to take up permanent positions, and the pilots found replacement difficult due to uncertainty regarding how long the schemes would last.

2.121 In Angus, waiting lists longer than the duration of SDS also hindered the effectiveness of SDS (necessitating extensions) and bail conditions were not always included for high tariff orders, making compliance more difficult to manage.

2.122 Thirdly, in Ayrshire, up-take was hindered by the staggered implementation of the scheme first in Kilmarnock and later in Ayr, but with an absence of promotional activities to accompany extension of the scheme.

Implementation Of The Pilots: Overall Conclusions

2.123 All 3 pilot schemes, benefited from good (often pre-existing) working relationships with social work teams and other agencies. Recruitment issues, however, were a problem, resulting in less capacity to promote SDS, a potential reluctance amongst SER writers to refer to SDS while there were staff vacancies, and strict gate-keeping regarding order numbers in Ayrshire. These factors may have contributed to the fact that up-take of SDS was lower than predicted for all the low tariff SDS schemes, ranging from 27% of predicted orders in Ayrshire to 57% of predicted orders in Angus. In contrast, there were more high tariff orders in Angus than predicted (163% of expected orders).

2.124 Overall, social workers were satisfied with the process of recommending SDS in social enquiry reports, although there were a significant number of orders imposed by Sheriffs in Angus without an SER recommendation, and some inappropriate referrals had occurred. Social workers also expressed satisfaction with the range of services and agencies available for referral, although there were exceptions where waiting lists were longer than the SDS referral necessitating SDS extension periods.

2.125 The intended target groups for Angus and Highland were mainly reached (except gender for high tariff SDS in Angus, and age in Highland). However, referral criteria became more flexible, with offenders with wider assessed needs, a wider age range, and a more varied risk profile also admitted onto SDS. Likewise, in Ayrshire, a small number of offenders with more serious or chronic alcohol problems were given SDS than the programme was initially intended for.

2.126 Orders in Highland and Angus were generally 3 months, with the potential for extensions, allowing flexibility to address offenders' needs, while meeting Sheriffs' wishes to check compliance reasonably quickly. Similarly, a 3 month court review in Ayrshire allowed Sheriffs to sentence earlier where offenders had responded well to SDS, or not engaged with the programme.

2.127 There was no other means of returning low tariff SDS offenders to court early if they did not engage with SDS. This absence of compliance mechanisms received a mixed response from social workers, with several Sheriffs expressing a preference for stricter enforcement procedures. The use of a 'condition' for high tariff SDS, meaning that offenders could be arrested and returned to court where they did not comply, was used for most high tariff cases, and considered essential by social workers.

2.128 Although information is not directly comparable across sites, comments in SSERs on attendance and engagement were generally positive, with half or more of SSERs analysed reporting regular to high attendance levels and offenders who were motivated, engaged, benefiting or participating well in SDS. In addition, non-completion or default rates in Angus and Highland were around one fifth, which is notably less than for community service or probation during a similar period.

« Previous | Contents | Next »