« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS
6.1 In terms of operation, all 3 pilot schemes worked well, with good relationships with other agencies and enthusiastic SDS workers. In general, practitioners were satisfied with the referral process and the range of services available to them for offender referrals to other support services and agencies. Exceptions were services with longer waiting lists making referral difficult within the SDS period.
6.2 The target groups originally specified in pilot bids were met to a certain extent, with the exception of gender for high tariff SDS in Angus, and age in Highland. Referral criteria, however, became more flexible during implementation, with SDS addressing a wider range of offenders in terms of age, assessed need, and risk level than originally anticipated.
6.3 Attitudes towards the lack of enforcement mechanisms for SDS were mixed amongst social workers, with Sheriffs generally in favour of a return to court after 3 months to check on offenders' progress and attendance. Social workers were content with this initial duration, as long as extensions were possible where needed. The use of a condition for high tariff SDS in Angus was considered essential by social workers.
6.4 Evidence also suggested that compliance was higher than for community service or probation, with one fifth or less of orders in Angus and Highland incompleted or 'defaulted'. Furthermore, comments in supplementary SERs, submitted to court after SDS, were generally positive regarding attendance and engagement, with half or more of SSERs analysed reporting moderate to high attendance levels or offenders who were motivated, engaged, benefiting or participating well in SDS.
6.5 A lesser sentence after SDS was achieved in a notable number of cases, with admonishment the most common outcome in Ayrshire and Highland and second most common in Angus. Around a third of high tariff SDS orders resulted in the desired outcome of a non-custodial sentence.
6.6 The majority of practitioners were positive about SDS, feeling that it filled a gap in the current court options, and benefited offenders. There is evidence to suggest that offenders did address their needs, but this is not comprehensive and may not apply to all given SDS.
6.7 In terms of cost, the pilot sites were funded on the basis of expected numbers of cases. The cost of SDS per case was higher than expected due to lower than predicted up-take. Nevertheless, the cost of SDS overall is comparable with a community service order, and if uptake could be improved, comparable with probation. Take-up was particularly affected by staffing difficulties due to the temporary nature of the pilots.
« Previous | Contents | Next »