Supervision of high risk offenders in the community
9.1 We have advocated a new form of indeterminate sentences for certain 'serious violent and sexual offenders who may present a continuing danger to the public'. The term indeterminate sentence should not be seen as synonymous with indeterminate incarceration. It is central to our Committee's thinking that where the risk assessment indicates that it is appropriate, and where the comprehensive risk management plan is in place, offenders will continue their sentence in the community. Return to the community will be subject to life-long supervision, specified conditions of release appropriate to the individual, and sanctions and restrictions including recall to custody.
9.2 The SPS and local authority social work departments have long experience of preparing offenders for their return to the community and of supervising and assisting them on their release. This work is supported by the contribution of housing agencies and a range of other statutory bodies and voluntary organisations.
9.3 The role envisaged for the Risk Management Authority and the arrangements for considering release have already been outlined. Before addressing the issue of future service arrangements it is important to acknowledge the current arrangements for supervising offenders in the community.
9.4 The evidence received by our Committee suggests that local authorities are developing structured approaches to risk assessment, such as the Level of Service Inventory (Revised) (LSI(R)) and the Risk Assessment and Guidance Framework (RAGF). Growing numbers of offenders have access to specified change programmes delivered either individually or on a group basis. In general, local authorities appear to be delivering within, and even above, the standards expected of them, although there are variations in practice between and even within authorities.
9.5 Our Committee is aware that the Social Work Services Inspectorate has carried out an inspection of the management of sex offender cases in the community. It is hoped that, if and when its report is published, this will provide a clearer picture of the current baseline of services. Such a baseline is required in order to inform the development of new standards.
9.6 However, we are of the view that more needs to be done for the very high risk group with which we are concerned. If such offenders are to be released into the community, this is only likely to be appropriate, and acceptable to the public, if the conditions of supervision are of a different order from those which are currently available.
9.7 The current National Objectives and Standards for Social Work Services in the Criminal Justice System will not be sufficient to meet the needs of this group. New standards require to be developed, which combine a national minimum standard of service with a framework which accommodates highly individualised risk management plans. The Risk Management Authority could be expected, in due course, to contribute to the development of these standards.
9.8 In addition to new standards, resources will require to be made available in order to meet these standards.
|
RECOMMENDATION 43 National standards for the supervision of high risk offenders should be developed by the Scottish Executive, in consultation with the Risk Management Authority. |
9.9 Some local authorities have the benefit of specialist workers or projects who work exclusively with sex offenders (e.g. the Tay Project). The development of such projects significantly enhances the capacity of local authorities to provide detailed and specialised assessment. It also enhances the level and nature of community supervision.
9.10 The current re-organisation of Social Work Services in the Criminal Justice system will form groupings of local authorities.
|
RECOMMENDATION 44 Each of the proposed local authority groupings should have access to a specialist services for high risk offenders which can supplement and support the work of individual supervising social workers. |
9.11 In considering the nature of community supervision of high risk offenders, we have been influenced by the services we visited overseas, particularly the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) programme in Phoenix, Arizona (see Annex 4). Whilst we do not support the legislative framework in the United States for detaining sexually violent predators, this is an example of a service which appears to have successfully developed mechanisms to allow high risk offenders to move into the community, while maintaining public safety.
9.12 The SVP programmes do have a considerable therapeutic element, but our view is that this is not the only, or even main, basis for success. Significant factors in these programmes appear to be:
9.13 This approach includes not only supervision, as it is traditionally understood in Scotland, but also an element of surveillance. This is done both through technological means, such as satellite monitoring systems, and by personal checks. This may well involve the development of a new cadre of staff to provide this intensive monitoring, supporting the more traditional case management by social work staff, and other therapeutic input.
9.14 There may require to be primary legislation to ensure that the widest range of options is available for the safe management of high risk offenders in the community. This may apply in particular to electronic monitoring. We see this as potentially useful in a variety of situations, including the periods when offenders are still subject to custodial control, or when they are living in a pre-release hostel, or after release on licence.
9.15 Currently, electronic monitoring (or 'tagging') has been introduced on a pilot basis in three sheriff courts. These arrangements are intended for a different client group, and use more limited technology than we observed in the USA.
9.16 The indiscriminate use of electronic monitoring rightly causes concern. However, as was noted by one respondent to our consultation, 'the civil liberties implications will always be less grim than the alternative of indefinite imprisonment'. Our experience in the USA was that many offenders also take this view, and are quite prepared to accept the inconvenience of electronic monitoring, including devices which are much more cumbersome than the more simple tags used in the UK, if this allows them to remain in the community and to lead a comparatively normal life. We recognise that the technology used to monitor offenders is developing at a fast rate, but public confidence in the methods used is of course paramount.
9.17 Another striking difference between the SVP programme in Phoenix and the Scottish system is that licence conditions are considerably more detailed and stringent than would be expected here. Despite this, it appeared that such conditions were tolerated by offenders. This seemed to be because they were extremely strictly enforced, so there was no scope for offenders to test the system. Undoubtedly, another strong incentive was the considerable hardship for offenders being returned to secure conditions, and particularly to prison.
9.18 The final key element was a staged approach, which allowed people to progress in manageable steps to conditions of greater freedom (and, if necessary, have that freedom restricted).
|
RECOMMENDATION 45 Community services for high risk offenders should develop techniques for intensive supervision and surveillance. Components of this service would include:
|
9.19 The risk management plan would continue to be the basis upon which needs are assessed and co-ordinated. Where the offender is being managed in the community, the Risk Management Authority would require reports to be supplied periodically by all agencies working with the offender and would conduct a formal risk assessment and risk management review with periods determined by the risk management plan.
Accommodation
9.20 Our Committee is aware that a number of pieces of work are currently in progress in relation to the provision of accommodation for offenders in general and sex offenders in particular. The Scottish Executive is currently co-ordinating the development of a national accommodation strategy for offenders. It is understood that this work is still at an early stage but it is of considerable significance in terms of the group of offenders with whom we are concerned. The availability of appropriate accommodation is central to reaching a decision to release prisoners on indeterminate sentences. It is also central to the appropriate supervision of offenders in the community. Unstable or unsuitable accommodation arrangements will have a direct bearing on the capacity to manage risk.
9.21 This point was reinforced by the 1997 Scottish Office Social Work Services Inspectorate publication 'A Commitment to Protect: Supervising Sex Offenders. Proposals for More Effective Practice' which states that 'Homeless and highly mobile offenders are very hard to monitor and supervise effectively. They therefore pose a greater risk and the provision of stable accommodation will assist in minimising the risk of offences'. The availability of appropriate accommodation will be an essential pre-condition for the release of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences.
9.22 The move from custody to the community can involve specialist residential facilities, general hostel provision and community housing. Previous reports have highlighted the dearth of specialist residential facilities. Those which do exist may have specific admission criteria which exclude sex offenders. While the difficulties of establishing such facilities are not underestimated it is clear that the number of hostels or half-way houses available in other countries is substantially greater than is the case in Scotland. The availability of such facilities enhances supervision and monitoring and decreases risk.
9.23 The general hostel provision for homeless men is unfortunately associated with high levels of alcohol and drug use and low levels of supervision and support. As such it is wholly inappropriate for this client group.
9.24 Where consideration is being given to the allocation of an individual tenancy, housing authorities will play a key role in managing risk. The Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland issued advice in 1999 on the housing of sex offenders.16 This guidance would apply equally to all of the offenders with whom we are concerned.
|
RECOMMENDATION 46 The Scottish Executive should ensure that there is an appropriate range of accommodation, including hostels and other forms of supported accommodation, which can facilitate the discharge of high risk offenders from custody and ensure their appropriate supervision in the community. |
Community notification
9.25 In gathering evidence on the practice in other countries our Committee became increasingly aware of the very wide range of practices which have developed for community notification of the release from custody of serious violent and sexual offenders. In North America the clear trend is towards the use of generalised community notification. This can manifest itself in a number of forms including widespread use of the local media, individual leafleting of the neighbourhoods surrounding the proposed address and the calling of community meetings organised by the Police and the authority responsible for post-custodial supervision. In contrast, the approach we observed in relation to release from the TBS clinics in The Netherlands was one of no community notification.
9.26 From the information available, and from the evidence gathered in discussion with practitioners with direct experience of such arrangements, it is not clear that widespread community notification makes any significant additional contribution to public safety. Problems associated with offenders being driven out of one address after another have been experienced in a number of countries and there is a clear danger that such experiences lessen both the capacity of the authorities to exercise appropriate supervision and the willingness of the offender to co-operate.
9.27 The current arrangements in Scotland have largely been developed since the introduction of the Sex Offenders Act 1997. The guidance associated with this legislation places on obligation on the Police to notify the Social Work Department of the details of each registered offender. The current guidance stresses the strictly confidential nature of this exchange of information. A limited amount of information requires to be shared with the housing authorities in order that they can make appropriate decisions about accommodation, but beyond this the guidance emphasises that information should not be given to agencies or individuals outwith the Police and Social Work Department unless it is believed that serious harm might result from not sharing information about the risk the offender poses.
9.28 Following the introduction of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 the Police and local authorities have developed a series of local protocols which outline the arrangements for information sharing, risk assessment and the development of jointly agreed risk management plans. Such protocols have enhanced inter-agency co-operation at both strategic and operational levels and provide a sound basis for future joint work. Our Committee are aware of the current work being undertaken by the Association of Directors of Social Work and the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland to develop a Scottish protocol. We see this as a helpful development of the work previously undertaken at a local level.
9.29 In the Scottish context, our Committee considers the current guidance to be appropriate and does not consider that adopting a policy of widespread public notification would enhance public safety.