28 July 1995

Dear Sir/Madam

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SOCIAL WORK SERVICES:

OPTIONS FOR MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATION ARRANGEMENTS (SHARED SERVICES)

SUMMARY

1. This Circular is intended to assist existing and shadow local authorities to make arrangements for the organisation, management and delivery of criminal justice social work services following local government reorganisation in April 1996. The aim is to guide new authorities in the development of services and to assist in the maintenance of service delivery in accordance with National Standards, particularly when shared arrangements may be under consideration.

BACKGROUND

2. In the last few years, particularly since the introduction of 100% funding and National Standards there have been significant advances in the quantity and quality of criminal justice social work services. The forthcoming reorganisation of local government presents a number of challenges and opportunities to new authorities. Circular SWSG6/95 on the implications of reorganisation sets out the continuing general principles and requirements for 100% funded criminal justice social work services. All further consideration of organisational and service delivery options needs to be undertaken against this agreed background.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES RELATING TO SHARED SERVICES

3. The key principles which underpin any consideration of shared services include the following:-

a. Individual local authorities continue to have overall responsibility and accountability for ensuring the provision of and access to 100% funded services in respect of offenders who reside or will reside in their area. In particular, local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide the supervision components of probation, community service, parole and supervision on release from custody ("throughcare").

b. Except where otherwise specifically agreed, 100% funding will be to the accountable authority, who may then elect to secure the required service from another organisation or authority.

c. Where shared arrangements between authorities are agreed, criminal justice social work staff must still be employed by an individual authority and have clear and specific lines of management and accountability ie employees should only be accountable to one authority.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION AND SHARED SERVICES

4. Local government reorganisation could result in some aspects of criminal justice services being vulnerable in the process of restructuring with the risk that a short term loss of service may result in a long term loss of confidence by the courts. In addition, there are aspects of the service which will be vulnerable because of diseconomies of scale, and where new arrangements may require to be made if courts are to retain equitable access to the wide range of services available at present.

5. In order to minimise potential difficulties, new authorities will need to pursue the following objectives:-

a. To ensure that the credibility of the service with the community, courts and other criminal justice agencies is maintained.

b. To ensure that managerial arrangements for services are clear and capable of supporting the provision of services of a consistently high standard, monitoring performance, evaluating outcomes and assessing value for money.

c. To ensure that criminal justice services remain an integral part of social work and that social work remains an integral part of criminal justice services.

CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE SHARED SERVICES MAY BE CONSIDERED AS NECESSARY/DESIRABLE

6. Local authorities may require to provide and access shared services and adopt a coordinated approach to certain support services and functions in order to maintain and deliver criminal justice social work services to National Standards. This could arise where there is sufficient demand within an authority for the service to be delivered effectively by that authority, where it is more efficient or cost effective to provide services on a shared basis, or where the nature of the need requires or would mutually benefit from a shared or coordinated response.

7. Aspects of service or function which could lend themselves to joint arrangements may include:-

a. Throughcare, including social work in prisons.

b. Support programmes, including accommodation, employment, addiction and mental health services, intensive probation and specialist programmes.

c. Scotland wide initiatives including specialist residential services.

d. Liaison and coordination with courts, criminal justice agencies and the voluntary sector.

e. Training.

f. Planning, management information, monitoring, evaluation and needs analysis and information technology.

In this Circular, the term "shared services" should be understood to encompass both functions and services.

8. In order that local authorities are better placed to meet the objectives outlined in this Circular The Scottish Office and COSLA have agreed to issue four illustrative models of way in which the delivery of services might be organised and financed. These four models are attached as Annex 1.

SHARED SERVICES AND COURT BOUNDARIES

9. The entry point to many criminal justice social work services is through the criminal courts. It is therefore critical that following on from local government reorganisation, the confidence of the courts is maintained with the provision of the right quality and quantity of services. Due to boundary changes, there will be a number of courts which will be receiving services from more than one local authority. The court system in Scotland is structured on sheriffdoms, and there appears to be merit in structuring the delivery of shared social work services to mirror this.

10. Local authorities are therefore recommended to collaborate at sheriffdom level. To achieve this, it will be necessary that chief social work officers for the new local authorities jointly meet with the appropriate Sheriff Principal(s) as soon as possible.

SOCIAL WORK SERVICES FOR SERVING AND RELEASED PRISONERS

11. Particular difficulties surround the provision of social work services for serving and released prisoners. The delivery of social work services to Scottish Prison Service (SPS) establishments is the responsibility of the local authority in which the establishment is located, but this authority will not be responsible for the supervision of prisoners released from that establishment who return to homes elsewhere. It is therefore essential that all local authorities cooperate to ensure that the range and quality of their services are consistent throughout Scotland.

12. SPS has recently reaffirmed its commitment to the continued provision by local authorities of core social work services in prisons, as essential to the delivery of efficient and effective services pre- and post-release. The revised National Standards for these services, due to be issued shortly for consultation, reflect this approach and set out Government objectives and operational principles for both pre- and post-release components of these services. Adherence to the revised National Standards on the part of all local authorities, and effective local and inter-authority liaison, should help ensure consistency of service provision throughout Scotland. The section of the standards on social work services in prisons provides for liaison at local and national levels between the local authorities and SPS in order to secure effective planning of these services. In addition, national forums such as COSLA and ADSW can make an important contribution to service quality and the general coordination of services.

FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS

13. The detailed financial arrangements which apply to 100% funded criminal justice social work services are contained in the Finance section of the National Standards. Where an agreement is reached between a local authority and a third party provider of a service (whether another local authority or an independent sector organisation), any payment by The Scottish Office will be to the first mentioned authority, and purchasing arrangements will then be made between that authority and the service provider. It is strongly recommended that any agreement should be made by a Service Level Agreement (SLA). In the case of any agreement being made with an annual value in excess of £15,000, an SLA will be required and should be submitted to SWSG for information. A list of SWSG requirements which should be included in any SLA is attached as Annex 2.

14. Arrangements adopted for shared services should be reflected in annual plans and financial returns submitted to The Scottish Office. It is recognised that it will not generally have been possible for authorities to include full details of the use of shared service provision in the annual plans for 1996-97, due for submission on 1 August 1995. SWSG will nevertheless expect local authorities to submit details of any proposed shared service arrangements for 1996-97 as soon as these are made including, where appropriate, any Service Level Agreement.

CONCLUSION

15. The key elements of this Circular, and any further guidance on the provision or funding of shared services, will be considered with COSLA for possible incorporation within National Standards in due course, in the light of early experience among new authorities and the courts.

16. Enquiries about any aspect of this Circular may be addressed to: Mr J Kirby, Social Work Services Group, Room 16, James Craig Walk, Edinburgh EH1 3BA

(Telephone 0131-244-5438).

Yours faithfully

LESLEY CLARE

ANNEX 1

ILLUSTRATIVE OPERATIONAL MODELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY

The models illustrated in this Annex are not meant to be the only ones that local authorities and/or the independent sector can adopt for service delivery. Instead they are meant to illustrate to local authorities some of the possibilities that exist for imaginative arrangements aimed at ensuring services continue to be delivered to National Standards and in an efficient manner following local government reorganisation in April 1996.

Four possible models for service delivery are illustrated.

MODEL 1: STANDARD ARRANGEMENT

This model is likely to apply to the vast majority of expenditure on criminal justice social work services. In this model The Scottish Office pays grant to the local authorities under 100% funding arrangements and in turn these authorities either deliver services directly or purchase the services from another agency including the ability to "spot purchase".

MODEL 2: INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS

In this model The Scottish Office pays grant to the local authorities under 100% funding arrangements. Individual authorities then secure services from a provider who will be providing a particular service to a number of local authorities. This model is envisaged as being particularly relevant to authorities purchasing services from national and/or specialist providers.

MODEL 3: LEAD AUTHORITY

In this model The Scottish Office pays grant direct to the local authority. Authorities would then have an agreement to allow a lead authority (B above) to negotiate with the provider on their behalf. The lead authority within this model will require a Service Level Agreement both with the service provider and with each authority for whom it is acting as the lead authority. This model may be particularly useful during the transitional period of local government reorganisation in relation to many services which are presently organised on a regional basis and which may need to be desegregated.

MODEL 4: CONSORTIUM

This particular model involves local authorities agreeing to form a consortium whose role would be to oversee/manage a service which they are jointly providing or purchasing. This model is envisaged as being particularly relevant to functions such as management information systems and training.

ANNEX 2

SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS

The following requirements should be included in any SLA:

The nature and level of service to be provided.

A written complaints procedure.

Adherence to all statutory provisions and requirements of National Standards.

Monitoring performance and evaluation of outcome.

Financial arrangements, including

Overall sum

Payment methods

Guaranteed minimum purchase

Audit and financial monitoring

Nominated liaison representatives of all parties.

Review and termination arrangements.

Length of agreement

Frequency of review