re:duce • re:habilitate • re:form
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is also available in pdf format (92k)

The Scottish Executive has made a clear commitment to reforming the criminal justice system in Scotland. A large scale consultation on "Reducing Reoffending in Scotland" was undertaken from March to May 2004 and involved:

• A written consultation (138 written responses).
• Events with stakeholder groups (15).
• Face to face meetings between the Scottish Executive and key stakeholders (16).
• Focus groups (34).
• A survey of members of the public (500+ interviews and 8 discussions).
• An online discussion (7 contributions).
• A parliamentary debate.

A number of common themes were identified and this summary report presents a broad outline of the responses (although it cannot reflect the detailed range of suggestions). The findings are presented qualitatively, reflecting the nature of most of the data.

Although most of the comments described below relate to concerns, it should be noted that a number of strengths of the current system providing offender services were highlighted by a range of respondents. These included:

• The value base, knowledge, services, standards and approach of criminal justice social work.
• Positive services from SPS and others.
• The range and nature of services provided.
• Links between services and partnership working.
• Responsiveness and accountability.
• The experience, skills and knowledge of staff.
• The nature of some disposals (particularly in the community).

Against this background, however, a number of concerns and suggestions for improvement were identified.

The nature and availability of services

Many respondents raised concerns about the nature and availability of services to offenders. These included perceived gaps in provision overall and in specific aspects of provision (e.g. in types of services; to geographical areas and to specific groups of offenders). Difficulties in access were also identified, as were problems with the nature, appropriateness and effectiveness of some of the services (particularly in prison, but including other provision). Specific difficulties were also identified in addressing the support needs of short term and persistent offenders.

Many respondents identified the need to address these gaps in services in order to ensure provision to meet the range of needs of all offenders. The need for a number of key forms of support to offenders was repeatedly identified, including:

• Support with employment.
• Appropriate housing.
• Addictions support.
• Health and mental health care.
• Education, programmes, training and skills.
• Financial support.
• Personal and social skills.
• Family support.
• Support with other problems.

There was a strong emphasis that, although responsibility for reducing reoffending rested with offenders themselves, there was a shared responsibility amongst service providers to make appropriate provision, in order to address offenders' complex range of individual needs. Many detailed suggestions were made about service improvements.

Consistency and continuity

Concerns were raised about the consistency and continuity of provision to offenders. There were seen to be difficulties in liaison between different services (particularly between prison and the community) with many examples of inconsistency, particularly in terms of the availability of programmes and services. There were also concerns about a lack of continuity as offenders move between different settings, with particular problems at points of transition.

Many specific comments were also made in relation to effective reintegration to the community. The importance of providing reintegration support, improving links between prison and the community and maintaining family links were common themes.

There were also many comments about the best means of developing consistency in the availability of programmes (although several respondents identified the need for flexibility to meet local needs). Suggestions included:

• The development of guidance, standards and shared accreditation.
• Common or shared assessment.
• Availability, content and choice of programmes.
• Effective joint working.
• Evaluation and monitoring.

Overall, there was seen by many to be a need for effective sentence management for all offenders, with provision from an early stage in a sentence through to liberation and beyond. Common suggestions included that this should comprise:

• Clear and effective assessment of individual needs.
• Development of individual plans.
• Provision of appropriate holistic support.
• Review of progress.

A number of respondents identified the need for provision and rehabilitation work to start at an early stage in a sentence, and there were many references to the need for the further development of throughcare.

The criminal justice process

A number of concerns were raised about the criminal justice process, particularly its slowness. This was seen to impact upon offenders' progress and the likelihood of reoffending, as well as on victims, witnesses and public confidence.

Other process-related concerns included:

• Inflexibility.
• Bureaucracy.
• Lack of accountability.
• Practical issues (such as the high level of demand for background reports).

Some also suggested a lack of a victim perspective, and more general comments included that the system was increasingly punitive and custody-focused.

The need for improved efficiency was a common theme, particularly in terms of increasing the speed of the process and "rolling up" outstanding charges. A number of other specific suggestions were also made in relation to ways in which the process could be improved.

Disposals and interventions

A further issue raised frequently related to the perceived effectiveness of some disposals. There was considerable concern about the high level of use of prison and the lack of availability or use of community disposals, coupled with the lack of benefit of prison for some offenders (particularly those on short sentences) and the high cost. Many also commented on the benefits of community disposals, suggesting that it was easier and more effective to undertake work with offenders in a community setting.

A common suggestion was the need to reduce the use of imprisonment (particularly for those on short sentences). Although a number of respondents identified a place for prison within sentencing policy, several suggested that it should be a "last resort" for the most serious offenders. There was also a focus for many on developing the use of community disposals and other solutions. A large number of suggestions were made about community options which could be used (although some problems with these were also identified).

A number of respondents identified the need for community sentences to be "robust" and monitored, to be credible to the public and to sentencers, and for sentencers to be aware of the options available. Many respondents made more general comments on the characteristics of successful interventions, including that they should be:

• Needs-led and individual.
• Integrated and holistic.
• Appropriate and relevant.
• Built upon key principles.
• Evidence-based.

Knowledge and awareness

A number of respondents raised concerns about a perceived lack of knowledge of the criminal justice system amongst some service providers and the public. It was suggested that some providers may lack understanding of their own and others' roles in meeting offenders' needs and that public perceptions and knowledge of the criminal justice process were poor.

A number of respondents suggested the development of improved awareness amongst service providers (with clarification of staff roles and increased knowledge amongst sentencers of the nature of disposals). A further common suggestion was the need to develop public awareness of, and confidence in, the criminal justice system (and in community sentences) through initiatives such as publicity campaigns, the use of media and public education (alongside increased political support).

Integration of provision

Many respondents identified a lack of integration of different aspects of provision to offenders and drew attention to the potential for overlap, complexity and duplication. Barriers to seamless management were identified as including:

• The lack of an overall strategic approach.
• Differences in policy, priority and practice between organisations.
• Physical separation of service providers.
• A lack of clarity in relation to data protection issues.
• Technical issues with information systems.

Generally, there was considerable support for a more strategic approach to provision (including a national strategy, central direction, joint planning and explicit priorities, aims, objectives and standards). A number of suggestions were made about what shared objectives might be, with the most common relating to:

• Reducing offending/reoffending.
• Effective intervention, rehabilitation and the provision of services.
• Promoting public and community safety.
• Keeping offenders out of prison.

There was also an emphasis on the need for more integrated working (including the use of shared assessment or common tools), a holistic multi-agency approach and improved links/co-ordination between services, breaking down existing barriers.

A number of suggestions were also made about means of developing co-operation, communication and information sharing, including:

• Developing contact mechanisms.
• Providing training and joint training.
• Providing clarity of legal provision and confidentiality.
• Developing protocols, procedures and guidance.
• Developing shared or linked information systems.
• Ensuring access to data.

Structural changes

Many comments were made about a single agency as a potential means of addressing these issues. Most respondents to the written consultation, events and meetings expressed concerns about such a change, and many stated explicitly that they did not favour this. A small number of respondents to the written consultation and most (although not all) focus groups were in favour. In the survey of members of the public, whilst most did not identify the lack of a single agency as a weakness, the majority supported this.

A number of potential benefits of a single agency were identified, with some suggesting that this would improve:

• Integration.
• Accountability.
• Continuity.
• Joined up working.
• Respect and confidence.
• Communication and information sharing.
• Planning, development and monitoring.
• Sentencing.
• Efficiency and quality of services.

The largest number of comments, however, focused on concerns. These included perceptions that a single agency would:

• Not necessarily tackle reoffending, nor tackle some of the current weaknesses.
• Create additional problems and lead to the loss of links at a local level, local democratic accountability, responsiveness and independence.
• Exclude some agencies.
• Fail to address the complex range of needs of offenders.
• Be unable to reconcile differences between organisations.
• Impact on the status, skills and professional recognition of social work staff and lead to the loss of qualified staff.
• Reduce the ability to manage risk.
• Involve bureaucracy, disruption and cost and divert resources from service provision.

A large number of respondents suggested other potential structural solutions, most of which focused on some form of enhanced partnership working, coupled with the developments to joint working identified. Suggestions focused on three broad themes:

• Building upon existing structures and links.
• Developing national strategic groups supported by local groups.
• Separating national and local prison provision.

Respondents also identified many organisations with which community-based criminal justice services and the prison service needed to work closely. The wide range suggested again highlights the perceived complexity of offenders' needs and service provision.

Research, evaluation and monitoring

The need for further good quality research, evaluation and monitoring was also identified frequently, with perceived gaps in information about "what works" and the impact of interventions, in order to inform developments. A number of suggestions were made about evaluation and monitoring, including:

• The use of examples from national and international best practice.
• Auditing or inspection of programmes.
• The identification of feedback from offenders.

The development of a consensus on measurement, the use of common evaluation tools and the dissemination of information were also seen by some to be important.

Tackling wider issues

The need to tackle the wider causes of offending and reoffending were also identified by a number of respondents, covering not only the need for support with personal issues, but also broader social issues. This included the perceived need to address social exclusion, poverty and deprivation and issues relating to the overall social context of offending.

Some also suggested the importance of preventive work (and early intervention) and a number of respondents considered that the children's hearing system had an important role in providing early intervention and keeping young people out of the adult system. Although a number of problems were identified with the children's hearing system, several respondents suggested that the adult system could learn from its focus on the causes of offending and the holistic, welfare-based approach.

Resources

Finally, a further common area of concern focused upon issues relating to resources (time, staff and funding) and to the use of resources. Issues raised included the high level of demand for provision, staff shortages and heavy workloads, as well as a lack of support to staff and poor terms and conditions for some.

While a small number of respondents stated that they believed that resources were being used effectively, most comments related to perceived problems, with common themes including:

• An overall lack of resources for the tasks required.
• A lack of resources for specific organisations, types of service and to meet the needs of particular groups.
• Problems with the means of provision of funding.
• An inappropriate balance of resources between the use of custody and community disposals.

Some of the suggestions about improving the use of resources focused upon addressing the issues already identified, while others focused on the means of allocation in order to ensure that they were used in an appropriate way. Suggestions relating to the use of resources included:

• A general increase in resource provision across all agencies.
• Additional provision to specific services or groups.
• Developments to the nature of funding and the means of provision.
• A shift in resources to community disposals.
• Support for developments in working practices.

In terms of developing efficient means of resource allocation, themes included ensuring that:

• Resource allocation flows from strategic priorities.
• Decisions are taken for appropriate reasons.
• Funding mechanisms are long term and flexible.
• Research, evaluation and monitoring inform allocation of resources.
• Resources are targeted appropriately to key areas of need.