PERFORMANCE INSPECTION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SOCIAL WORK SERVICES

Transcription

1 Social Work Inspection Agency PERFORMANCE INSPECTION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SOCIAL WORK SERVICES Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services 2007

2 Social Work Inspection Agency PERFORMANCE INSPECTION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SOCIAL WORK SERVICES Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services 2007 Social Work Inspection Agency Edinburgh 2007

3 Crown copyright 2007 ISBN: Social Work Inspection Agency Ladywell House Ladywell Road Edinburgh EH12 7TB Produced for the Social Work Inspection Agency by RR Donnelley B /07 Published by the Social Work Inspection Agency, June, 2007 Further copies are available from Blackwell s Bookshop 53 South Bridge Edinburgh EH1 1YS The text pages of this document are printed on recycled paper and are 100% recyclable

4 CONTENTS Page Summary Context and Arrangements Social Enquiry and Home Background Reports Supervision High-Risk Offenders Community Service Organisation and Management Appendix

5 Performance Inspection

6 Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services 2007 SUMMARY Background to Report This inspection of the Ayrshire Partnership is the thirteenth in our national programme of inspections of criminal justice social work services. We examined the quality of assessments prepared for courts and the Parole Board and assessed the standard of supervision of offenders on probation, community service and parole and non-parole licence. We evaluated 143 court reports and 15 home background reports. We examined 120 case files and observed examples of supervision. We interviewed managers and practitioners about their work and offenders about their experiences of community orders and licences. We asked the Sheriffs and beneficiaries of community service for their views about the quality of service. We judged the quality of reports and the quality of information in the case files on a four-point scale: very good, good, adequate and poor. The inspection findings show that the standard of some practice was very good. Supervision of offenders on community service was of a high standard and opportunities to link community service more closely with overcoming barriers to employability were being developed. Other areas of practice showed clear room for improvement. Offending behaviour needed to be better analysed and focused on more during supervision. Risk assessment and management required to be addressed more consistently, particularly in work with high risk offenders. One key finding, however, was that the Partnership arrangements across the three authorities had not made much impact on the delivery of criminal justice services. Efficiency and capacity-building gains had not yet been achieved and there was no Partnership performance management framework in place to inform and measure planned improvements. Key Findings The dominant evaluation was that the quality of social enquiry reports was adequate. (reaching a minimum standard with substantial room for improvement) The risk of re-offending was assessed in nine out of ten reports but there was a less consistent approach to assessing for risk of harm. Home background reports were stronger on describing supports available to offenders after release than assessing any risks posed to the community. Two thirds of reports contained a provisional release plan. Three quarters of supervision cases included an initial plan. Three quarters of such plans focused on addressing offending behaviour, and slightly more also addressed offending related needs. A sustained focus on addressing offending-related needs was evident in two thirds of cases, whilst a sustained focus on addressing offending behaviour was evident in only half of cases. Practice in managing supervision compliance was good or very good in more than half of cases. Community service performed particularly strongly on the management of compliance, achieving good or very good evaluations in four fifths of cases. The content of supervision was adequate and good in equal proportions for both sexual and serious violent offenders. Victim awareness was addressed in only half of such cases. 1

7 Performance Inspection Community service schemes were supervising offenders well in each of the authorities but there were no opportunities for joint work, service development or training. The Partnership had not delivered the improvement, consistency and efficiency gains that had been hoped for. Key Areas for Improvement Report writers should improve their analysis of offending behaviour and risk of harm; Supervision should be based on a plan in every case and should focus on offending behaviour as well as offending related needs. Training, guidance and supervision must combine to ensure that risk of harm assessment is thorough and on-going in the supervision of high-risk offenders; Partnership-wide services should be subject to performance management measures to ensure that they are active and effective in proportionate measure across the three authorities; Community service schemes in the three authorities should commit to closer cross-authority working to maximise development opportunities and efficient use of resources; The Partnership should establish a quality assurance framework for criminal justice across the three authorities; The Partnership should keep its planning and service development processes under close review to ensure proper integration with the role and priorities of the South West Community Justice Authority. 2

8 Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services CONTEXT AND ARRANGEMENTS Introduction 1.1 This report on services in The Ayrshire Partnership is the thirteenth in a series of inspections examining the practice of all groupings of local authorities and unitary authorities providing criminal justice social work services across Scotland. The programme focuses on key elements of service provision. These include reports for the courts, background reports for the Parole Board, social enquiry reports and the community supervision of those on probation and statutory licence. 1.2 The inspection fieldwork took place during January We read 143 social enquiry reports, 15 home background reports and 120 case files and interviewed staff providing services and offenders receiving them. We visited community service sites, observed staff carrying out supervision and sought the views of Sheriffs and community service beneficiaries. 1.3 Following the launch of Community Sentences The Tough Option and the agreement between CoSLA and the Scottish Executive on the formation of groupings, East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire formed a partnership for delivering criminal justice social work services. 1.4 The Management of Offender etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 established Community Justice Authorities (CJAs) which will assume their full powers to oversee offender management in April The three Ayrshire authorities are to join with Dumfries and Galloway to form the South-West CJA. The Ayrshire authorities intend to continue as a formal partnership beyond the advent of the new arrangements. 1.5 The recommendations of this report relate to the partnership but the three authorities should consider how best to take the recommendations forward in the context of the new Community Justice Authority. 1.6 The partnership arrangements and the CJA are discussed further in Chapter 6 on Organisation and Management. Finance 1.7 A funding formula based on historical workload patterns and a range of need factors determines the allocation of funds to groupings/unitary authorities for delivering core services (appendix one describes this formula in more detail). The table below sets out the financial allocation to the authority based on this formula for the last three years. Core Non-core Total ,961, ,114 3,812, ,051,909 1,098,628 4,150, ,572,655 1,319,920 4,892,575 3

9 Performance Inspection Area Profiles East Ayrshire 1.8 Out of the total population of 119,400, people of working age account for 61%, compared with 62% nationally. By 2014, the local population is expected to reduce by 1 percentage point (compared to a national increase of 0.9 percentage points), with a 3% reduction of those of working age and 16.9% increase of those above working age (national figures are a 0.8% reduction and a 16.8% increase). 1.9 The local unemployment rate is 4.5% (March 2007), higher than for Scotland as a whole (3.1%). Unemployment has reduced by 0.2% over 2006, whereas in Scotland it reduced by 0.1%. 18.7% of the unemployed have been so for one year or more, compared with 14.9% nationally Over the last 10 years, the population of East Ayrshire has reduced faster than the national rate and is expected to fall still further. The population is spread unevenly. The area is made up of a mix of urban, small town and rural communities, each with strong identities. Particular features of the area are the pockets of extreme disadvantage in and around Kilmarnock and in the more rural south. The rate of drug misuse (1.92%) is above the national average of 1.84%. North Ayrshire 1.11 Out of a total population of 135,830, people of working age account for 60.7%, compared with 62% nationally. By 2014, the local population is expected to reduce by 1.7 percentage points (compared with a national increase of 0.9 percentage points), with a 5.2% reduction of those of working age and 23% increase of those above working age (national figures are a 0.8% reduction and a 16.8% increase). The local unemployment rate is 5.4% (March 2007), significantly higher than the 3.1% rate for Scotland as a whole. Unemployment has increased by 0.3% over 2006, whereas in Scotland it has reduced by 0.1% North Ayrshire Council covers around 340 square miles, including a coastal area, an inland area, and the islands of Arran and the Cumbraes. Most of the towns and most of the population are at or near the coast. The social and economic situation is varied. The island of Arran and the northern coastal area are relatively advantaged, while almost all of the other urban and rural areas are significantly disadvantaged. The north coast is relatively well off, but there are areas of deprivation elsewhere. The rate of drug misuse (1.85%) is above the national average of 1.84%. South Ayrshire 1.13 Out of a total population of 111,780, people of working age account for 59.5%, compared with 62% nationally. By 2014, the local population is predicted to reduce by 0.9 percentage points (compared with a national increase of 0.9 percentage points), with a 5% reduction of those of working age and 17.5% increase of those above working age (national figures are a 0.8% reduction and a 16.8% increase). The local unemployment rate is 3.4% (March 2007), higher than the rate of 3.1% for Scotland as a whole. Unemployment has fallen by 0.2% over 2006, compared to 0.1% for Scotland. 15% of unemployed people have been so for one year or more, compared with 14.9% nationally. 4

10 Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services South Ayrshire is a mainly rural area and most of its population live in coastal towns, with the rest spread over a number of smaller towns and villages inland. The number of jobs in the production and construction industries fell by 26% between 1995 and South Ayrshire contains a mix of urban and rural communities and of advantaged and deprived areas. The rate of drug misuse (1.88%) is above the national average of 1.84%. (Sources: GRO and Estimating the National and Local Prevalence of Problem Drug Misuse in Scotland, NHS, 2005.) Crime Statistics 1.15 Crime rates per 10,000 population are 688 in East Ayrshire, 783 in North Ayrshire and 649 in South Ayrshire compared with a rate of 820 for Scotland as a whole. (Source: Recorded Crime in Scotland, Statistical Bulletin, Criminal Justice Series, Scottish Executive ) Sentencing Statistics 1.16 The Partnership provides a service to the Sheriff Courts listed below. The table below gives the figures for probation and community service orders as a proportion of all sentences. Sheriff Court % Probation % Community Service % given custody Ayr Kilmarnock Scotland (Source: Costs, Sentencing Profiles and the Scottish Criminal Justice System , Scottish Executive.) Methodology 1.17 To assess the quality of practice we examined social enquiry reports and case records, observed work with offenders, interviewed staff and offenders and consulted key stakeholders. The detailed methodology is set out in appendix 1. Assessing the quality of reports and practice 1.18 The inspection team used a four-point scale to assess the quality of reports and practice as evidenced in case records. The scale distinguishes between practice that is very good, good, adequate and poor. Very good indicates a very high standard that exceeds an acceptable level of competence. The high standard set, which recognises excellent work in complex cases, means that this point in the scale is awarded comparatively rarely. Good means that work attains an entirely acceptable level of competence. Adequate confirms a general basic competence, but suggests substantial room for improvement. Poor means that work is of an unacceptable standard. The Inspection Team 1.19 The Social Work Inspection Agency (SWIA) team comprised Audrey Mistry (Lead Inspector), Gerry Hart, Willie Paxton, John Waterhouse and Clare Wilson, Inspectors. With the assistance of John Fleming (Criminal Justice Service Manager), East Dunbartonshire Council, David McAllister, HM Assistant Chief Inspector of Prisons and Dorothy Smith Inspection Project Manager. Local staff made an important contribution to the inspection by assisting Inspectors with the examination of case records. 5

11 Performance Inspection 2. SOCIAL ENQUIRY AND HOME BACKGROUND REPORTS 2.1 Preparing social enquiry reports (SERs) is a key function of criminal justice social work services. These reports provide information and advice to the courts to assist sentencing. They are subject to National Objectives and Standards, last revised in Social enquiry reports are important for the information and advice they can offer courts, and because they constitute an initial assessment that can help to underpin work with the offender in the community, on probation, community service, and release on licence. 2.3 Table 1 below shows the number of social enquiry reports the Partnership has prepared since the year Table 1: Social enquiry reports submitted Nationally 34,780 38,123 39,492 40,265 42,043 East Ayrshire North Ayrshire ,014 South Ayrshire (Source: Scottish Executive Criminal Justice Statistical Bulletin ) 2.4 Statistics for the number of SERs submitted per 10,000 population for the period show East Ayrshire submitted 100.5, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire 96.3 compared with the national average of 116. (Source: Scottish Executive Criminal Justice Social Work Statistical Bulletin ) Performance indicators 2.5 During the period East Ayrshire submitted 99.5% of social enquiry reports to the court on time, North Ayrshire 100% and South Ayrshire 92%. (Source Audit Scotland Housing and Social Work Performance Indicators ) Report writing analysis 2.6 We assessed 143 reports using criteria drawn from National Standards and effective practice principles. These comprised 46 submitted to the courts during a specific week in November 2006 and a further 97 reports read as part of the file reading. Tables 2 and 3 below set out the results of the analysis of the sample of reports for the Partnership as a whole. Table 2: Social enquiry reports performance (Sample size: 143) Yes No N/A Has the author verified key information? Is there an outline supervision plan in the report?

12 Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services 2007 Table 3: Social enquiry reports performance Poor Adequate Good Very good N/A How well is offending behaviour analysed? How well are offending related needs analysed? How well is risk of re-offending analysed? How well evidenced are the report s conclusions about the feasibility of different sentences? Overall, how satisfactory is the report? The analysis shows that: one third of reports were good or very good and half of the reports were adequate. Less than one sixth were rated poor ; two thirds of reports contained an outline supervision plan; two thirds of report writers verified key information; the analysis of offending behaviour was good or very good in one third of the sample and adequate in over one third. One quarter were poor ; writers analysed offending related needs well or very well in just over a third of reports and adequately in one half. More than a tenth were poor ; analysis of risk of re-offending was good or very good in nearly half of the reports. Nearly half were adequate and more than a tenth were poor. Partnership report template 2.8 The Partnership introduced a standard SER template in Individual local authorities had provided staff training following the introduction of the template. There had been no training across the Partnership and its interpretation had varied. We observed social workers referring to the template during SER interviews. Workers said that they found it helpful in structuring their information-gathering, especially recently appointed staff. Women offenders 2.9 Findings in the small sub-sample of reports on women offenders largely reflected those of the overall sample. There were marginally fewer poor and slightly more good reports in the sub-sample. 7

13 Performance Inspection Risk assessment 2.10 There was a partnership protocol governing the use of risk assessment tools. The expectation was that authors of court reports should employ LSI-R to assess risk of re-offending and RA3 to assess risk of harm in every case. The expectation was that the RM2000 should be used when assessing sex offenders. There was no explicit reference in the protocol to the use of the RA4 when a fuller assessment of risk of harm was needed. While the training materials we saw did cover this ground, the cross-authority audit of SERs conducted by the Partnership led managers to conclude that refresher training was necessary. We would suggest that this is accompanied by an amendment to the protocol to remind staff about the appropriate use of the RA We found that the LSI-R was used in nine out of every ten of the reports we read. In more than half of such cases the analysis of the risk of re-offending was rated as adequate or poor. We found a less consistent approach to the use of the RA3 and room for improvement in the quality of the analysis which followed the use of this risk assessment tool. The analysis of risk of harm was found to be very good or good in only a third of cases The findings on the use of the RA4 and RM2000 are discussed more fully in Chapter 4 on High-Risk Offenders. Quality assurance 2.13 The Partnership carried out its first pan-ayrshire audit of SERs in November This departed significantly from the previous approach taken by individual authorities, where the scope and frequency of auditing varied. The Partnership developed an audit tool and sought objectivity by ensuring that each local authority s reports were audited by staff from a partner authority. In its audit report the Partnership acknowledged that there had been some variance in how different local authority staff had interpreted the audit tool when making judgements in relation to the four point evaluation scale and there was a commitment to further training before carrying out any further audits We commend this approach and support the undertaking of carefully managed peer reviews as part of wider quality assurance processes The Partnership audit identified three main issues that required to be addressed. These were that risk of harm assessments were not included in all SERs, that the quality of risk assessments needed to be improved and that a greater focus on analysis of offending behaviour was needed. The audit report proposed that these issues would be addressed through further staff training. The report also acknowledged that there had been no consistent Partnership-wide staff training in relation to SERs and that practice may therefore have varied Our analysis of 143 SERs indicated similar findings to those of the Partnership s own audit. There was room for improvement in relation to the analysis of offending behaviour, offending related needs and the risk of re-offending. 8 Views of Sheriffs 2.17 We sent eight questionnaires to Sheriffs. We received two written responses and met with five Sheriffs in person (two from Kilmarnock and three from Ayr) Sheriffs were broadly satisfied with the standards of reports and considered that they provided reasonable information and assessment. They commented that timescales were met in the overwhelming majority of cases although Sheriffs from both courts expressed serious concern about the number of reports which services had not submitted over the Christmas and New Year period

14 Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services We asked criminal justice managers why this had happened. They conceded that non-productions had risen to an unprecedented level this year, particularly affecting Kilmarnock Sheriff Court. They said that this was due to the co-incidence of local authority holidays and staff absence through illness, the latter compromising the restricted cover arrangements. There should be robust contingency plans in place to minimise the number of non-productions during holidays or periods when the service experiences difficulty in meeting demand Sheriffs commented on the unhelpful use of over-elaborate language in some reports. We agree with this observation on the basis of our own reading of quite a large sample of reports. Managers should organise guidance and training for staff in using clear English in their reports. Conclusions and areas for improvement 2.21 The dominant evaluation was that the quality of social enquiry reports was adequate (general basic competence but with substantial room for improvement). The Partnership will want to improve on this performance. This will be achieved by: improving the analysis of offending behaviour; improving the analysis of offending related needs; improving the analysis of risk of re-offending; providing further training for staff to clarify the purpose of each of the different assessment tools and using the results to inform appraisal of sentencing options; ensuring more report writers verify key information ensuring that reports contain outline supervision plans developing robust contingency arrangements to minimise the numbers of nonproductions during holiday periods or periods when the service experiences difficulty in meeting demand; ensuring report writers use clear English in all reports; reviewing the auditing of reports within authorities and establishing partnership-wide quality assurance procedures. Home background reports 2.22 Home background reports (HBRs) provide the Parole Board with information about the home circumstances to which a prisoner would return on release from custody and describe the level of supervision and support on release to assist resettlement. Table 4 shows the national and local demand for these reports. Table 4: Demand for home back ground reports 2002/ / /05 Nationally 1,237 1,235 1,339 East Ayrshire North Ayrshire South Ayrshire (Source: Scottish Executive Criminal Justice Statistical Bulletin ) 9

15 Performance Inspection 2.23 We read 15 home background reports written by the three authorities. Table 5 below details our findings. Table 5: Home background reports performance (Sample size: 15) Poor Adequate Good Very good How well does the report describe the likely family and community supports available after release? How well does the report describe the post release package of supervision, including access to any specialist resources? How well does the report address any risks to the community arising if/when this offender is released? Overall, how satisfactory is the report? Does the report contain a provisional release plan? The analysis shows that: reports were stronger on describing the likely family and community supports available after release. Three fifths of reports were good or very good ; reports were weaker at describing the post release package of supervision. Two fifths of reports were poor and one fifth were adequate ; reports were also weaker at assessing the risk to the community. Two fifths were poor and over one fifth were adequate ; two thirds of reports contained a provisional release plan. Conclusions and areas for improvement 2.25 The sample size from each authority was relatively small. However, the overall evaluation of reports showed that one fifth were poor and over two fifths were adequate. The Partnership will want to improve on this performance and should ensure that home background reports: clearly describe the nature and level of supervision that the authority would offer the offender on release; assess the risk to the community; are subject to quality assurance procedures that ensure that they meet the necessary standard. Yes No 10

16 Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services SUPERVISION 3.1 The community supervision of offenders subject to probation or statutory licence is a core responsibility of criminal justice social work services. The aim of this supervision is to reduce (or stop altogether) the frequency and seriousness of further offending. Research indicates that, in order to achieve this, the offender should receive robust supervision coupled with interventions that can help change attitudes and behaviours that support offending. Offenders should also be helped to solve any personal problems associated with their offending and lifestyle that may prevent them from re-integrating into the community. Social work staff supervising these orders and licences must pay close attention to public protection, working in partnership with other agencies, such as addictions services and the police, where required. 3.2 Tables 6 and 7 below give a breakdown of the numbers of new probation orders undertaken by each authority since 2001 (by volume and per 10,000 of the population). Table 8 sets out the numbers of existing and new statutory licences held by each authority in the given year. These include parole and non-parole licences, extended sentence licences and supervised release orders. Table 6: New probation orders Nationally ,465 8,402 East Ayrshire North Ayrshire South Ayrshire (Source: Scottish Executive Criminal Justice Statistical Bulletin ) Table 7: New probation orders per 10,000 of population Nationally East Ayrshire North Ayrshire South Ayrshire (Source: Scottish Executive Criminal Justice Statistical Bulletin ) 3.3 The table shows that the most substantial increase in demand for probation orders was in East Ayrshire (well above the national average). In the other two authorities the increase was below the national average. The reasons for the increase in East Ayrshire are worth investigating, particularly as the Partnership has already begun to look at the high proportion of probation orders in the East which include a condition of community service. 11

17 Performance Inspection 3.4 Statistics show that in : 13% of those on probation in East Ayrshire, 6% in North Ayrshire and 8% in South Ayrshire were under 18 years old; 12% of those on probation in East Ayrshire, 16% in North Ayrshire and 18.9% in South Ayrshire were between 18 and 20 years old; 17.7% of those on probation in East Ayrshire, 22% in North Ayrshire and 17% in South Ayrshire were between 21 and 25 years old; 21.5% of those on probation in East Ayrshire, 18.8% in North Ayrshire and 26% in South Ayrshire were female; 84.9% of those on probation in East Ayrshire, 83% in North Ayrshire and 77.5% in South Ayrshire were unemployed or not seeking employment. (Source: Scottish Executive Criminal Justice Social Work Statistics ) 3.5 The Audit Scotland performance indicators show that 81.9% of offenders placed on probation in East Ayrshire had an interview with their supervising social worker or representative within one week of the making of the order. The figures in North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire were 71.5% and 86.1% respectively. (Source Audit Scotland Housing and Social Work Performance Indicators ) 3.6 In East Ayrshire submitted an application for breach in respect of 26.1% of those on probation. The figures in North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire were 41% and 19.9% respectively. The breach rate in North Ayrshire was concerningly high and the Principal Officer had conducted a thorough analysis of the reasons for this at the end of (Source Audit Scotland Housing and Social Work Performance Indicators ) Table 8: Parole and non parole licence Nationally 1,115 2,348 1,373 1,105 East Ayrshire North Ayrshire South Ayrshire (Source: Scottish Executive Criminal Justice Statistical Bulletin ) 3.7 There have been anomalies in the way local authorities have counted parole and non parole licences in the past and this may account for some of the variations in these figures. The small numbers also make it difficult to infer any particular trends. The Inspection The inspection team reviewed 120 case files. Table 9 below shows that the sample comprised the following types of order or licence: 12

18 Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services 2007 Table 9: Type of order or licence Type of Order Overall Men Women Community Service Throughcare (Parole & Non Parole) Probation (incl. additional conditions but not 229) Section 229 Orders (Probation with CS) Chapter 4 examines work with high risk offenders in more detail. Chapter 5 presents data in respect of community service orders. 3.9 File readers (inspectors and local staff) used a structured pro-forma to analyse the quality of assessment, case planning and intervention to address offending and compliance with National Standards (the criteria are set out in full in Appendix 1). They also looked for evidence that the authority evaluated its own work as the order or licence progressed As well as examining a sample of case files we observed interviews and group work sessions with offenders and spoke to offenders afterwards. We also sought the views of managers, stakeholders and beneficiaries of the service Table 10 below provides information about the number of cases in which supervision plans were available and whether they contained essential elements. Table 10: Planning Performance (Sample size: 86) Yes No Is there a written supervision plan for the first three months of the order or licence? (Sample size: 64) Does the plan focus on addressing offending behaviour? Does the plan focus on offending related needs? Does the plan specify how supervision will be delivered? The table shows that: Three quarters of cases had a plan; Plans focussed on offending behaviour slightly less than they did on offending related needs; Just under two thirds of plans specified how supervision was to be delivered Performance varied between authorities. South Ayrshire cases were least likely to include a plan and their plans were least likely to focus on offending. East Ayrshire plans were least likely to spell out how supervision would be delivered. 13

19 Performance Inspection 3.14 These findings are uneven and can be improved. Action planning should be delivered to a more consistently high standard using a common framework. Across the three authorities staff completed the LSI-R and other risk assessment tools to help define service levels and responses but then did not always make the necessary link with action plans. East Ayrshire evidenced efforts to improve practice by the use of a pro forma but this did not generate SMART enough plans. Supervision 3.15 The findings from the file reading regarding the implementation of supervision plans are set out below (tables 11a and 11b) The not applicable column includes those offenders who failed to present for supervision following the making of their order or licence together with a few data errors. Table 12 shows the primary method of service delivery as evidenced from the file. Table 11a: Supervision Performance (1) (Sample size: 86) Poor Adequate Good Very Good N/A Overall, how well does the leve lof supervision reflect the assessed risk of re-offending and risk of harm? Overall, how well does the content of supervision reflect the risk of re-offending and risk of harm? Table 11b: Supervision Performance (2) (Sample size: 86) Yes No N/A Does supervision focus consistently on addressing offending behaviour? Does supervision focus consistently on addressing offending related needs? Does supervision address victim awareness? Is the case manager working together with partners to deliver supervision? The analysis shows that: in more than half of cases there was a good or very good match between the level of supervision (contact and oversight) and the assessed level of risk and need; more than a third were adequate (reaching a minimum standard but with room for substantial improvement) and the remaining few were poor ; performance was not so good in respect of the content of supervision (work to address offending and offending related need). More than half were assessed as adequate or poor. Whilst offending related needs were consistently addressed in just over two thirds of cases, the figure for offending behaviour was around one half; victim awareness had been addressed in less than half of cases; there was evidence of a considerable amount of joint work with other agencies, most frequently voluntary organisations.

20 Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services 2007 Table 12: Primary method of service delivery (Sample size: 86) What was the primary method used to engage with this offender? Number Non programmed individual work* 62 Non programmed group work 1 Programmed group work 13 Programmed individual work 9 Offender never presented The analysis shows that: the main method of work was non programmed individual work; some programmed group work was taking place in two of the three authorities and programmed individual work included work with sex offenders; a number of staff were using structured materials in their work with individual offenders. These were predominantly materials from Targets for Effective Change and Offending Is Not the Only Choice. Addressing offending 3.18 Group work was offered in each of the local authorities. Practitioners in East Ayrshire delivered a short general offending group work programme targeting offenders assessed as medium or high risk. North Ayrshire staff ran a 16 week intensive probation programme for year old offenders assessed as medium or high risk. They also ran a road traffic group, general offending groups and a women s group. South Ayrshire contracted STEP (Step Towards Employment Project), a voluntary organisation, to deliver an anger management programme. There were plans for STEP to adapt and deliver a group work programme for perpetrators of domestic violence These initiatives reflect the efforts of staff to deliver some structured group work on offending. Managers and practitioners were well aware of the limitations of these programmes when set against accredited programme criteria. The initiatives were all local to the individual authority and the three authorities had not taken any collective initiatives or pooled their resources. There was little evidence of mutual learning and managers conceded that they did not know whether the groups they were running were similar to those in neighbouring authorities Future plans include the introduction of the new accredited Constructs general offending programme across the Community Justice Authority. This is a potential vehicle for improving inter-authority co-operation and efficiency and its introduction could have far-reaching benefits. It will require close working between the authorities if this positive potential is to be realised We do not think that the plan in South Ayrshire for STEP to adapt a programme for work with domestic violence perpetrators is the best way forward, although understandable in the context of long delays in agreeing a national accredited programme. This is an area which requires staff with specialist training and complementary work with victims. We understand that the Partnership has discussed this gap in provision and the need for a strategic multi-agency response with the Community Justice Authority, for which this is a priority area. 15

21 Performance Inspection Addressing offending related needs 3.22 The Partnership had developed strong links with Job Centre+ regarding the Moving Forward pilot project. North Ayrshire has also recently attracted NEET funding (Not in Education, Employment or Training) to enable specialist staff in Community Service to work exclusively with 16 and 17 year olds. Both of these initiatives were concerned with helping offenders to overcome barriers to employability and to find work. Staff gave different accounts of their understanding of the scope of the Moving Forward project but were very willing to support it North Ayrshire also hosted a Training and Employment post, although the post-holder was deployed to cover court duty on a part-time basis Employability services have an important role in the rehabilitation of offenders but the initiatives in the Ayrshire authorities required clearer strategic direction. The scope of each initiative needed to be clarified and staff needed to know when to refer offenders to one or other of the available options. We did not think that the in-house partnership resource was being used effectively and this post should be reviewed South Ayrshire s criminal justice office was co-located with a number of partner organisations to promote joint working. Barnardo s provided support to individual women (6-8 at any one time) with the aim of preventing further offending. In the previous year they had delivered a service to around 22 women. The service helped with individual needs including housing, childcare, financial hardship, substance misuse, mental health problems and social isolation. Support staff also acted as advocates. The service had been positively evaluated In North Ayrshire Supporting People funding was being used to provide a housing support service to offenders. This service had attracted favourable inspection reports from the Care Commission. In East Ayrshire the Housing Department provided a service in the Link Centre in Kilmarnock Prison to help with offenders housing needs on discharge. Housing services in the other two authorities have well-established links with the centre The NHS Ayrshire forensic mental health service was co-located with South Ayrshire and provided a service to the partnership. There was evidence of joint working, particularly in the South With regard to addictions all three authorities worked with the Ayrshire and Arran Health Board which had co-terminus boundaries. Criminal justice services staff could access an assessment service either through Turning Point (East and South Ayrshire) or through the local authority s own substance misuse service (North Ayrshire). These services also provided counselling and referral on to medical services. Turning Point had recently been contracted to provide a throughcare addictions service across the Partnership. There was a waiting list for the local authority provided service in North Ayrshire but not in the other two authorities. Addictions staff were prepared to attend case reviews where necessary and collaboration with criminal justice social work staff was good Substitute prescribing was via the Health Board (few GPs were prepared to prescribe). The Board had placed a cap on methadone prescribing and there was a waiting list and priorities for access to the service. We were told that this policy could pose problems for supervisors when the chaotic drug use of some offenders on their caseloads needed to be stabilised.

22 Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services The Partnership employed an addictions development officer whose job was to develop services and to improve the overall capacity of criminal justice staff to deal with offenders with addictions problems (the majority of offenders on their caseloads). When staff from the ARO (Alcohol Related Offending) Project left and the posts proved difficult to fill she assumed responsibility for delivering this initiative, hosted by North Ayrshire where she was based There was some evidence that this resource was not being used as well as it should have been. There had been a very poor response from staff across the Partnership to a training needs survey, the recommendations from an audit of SERs in relation to Drug Treatment and Testing orders (DTTOs) did not result in centrally managed improvement targets, and other initiatives had not been well supported by all three authorities Senior managers represent criminal justice social work interests on the pan-ayrshire drug action team (ADAT). There is no criminal justice sub-group of the Action Team but effective engagement with substance misusing offenders is a key priority of the Community Justice Authority (CJA). This should provide added strategic impetus to addressing the serious challenges of supervising and aiding the rehabilitation of substance misusing offenders across the partner authorities. Throughcare 3.33 The Partnership had not delivered its original plan (2003) to introduce a specialist, partnership wide throughcare service. This had envisaged the creation of a team of three specialist social workers (based in East Ayrshire) and an allocation of six WTE (whole time equivalent) social work posts to area teams. The specialist team was to be primarily concerned with contact and follow up work in prison and the six WTE social workers with the supervision of offenders released into the community. Management arrangements provided for a throughcare team leader (based in Kilmarnock Prison and also responsible for the unit there) and a throughcare monitoring and support group with management representation from across the Partnership Managers said they had not been able to implement this plan because of difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff. As a fallback they had decided to recruit unqualified care staff. These staff (currently 4) made contact with offenders in prison for the purposes of the ICM procedures and undertook practical support work. They had established links with link centre managers in a number of prisons (in particular Cornton Vale and Polmont) to identify voluntary referrals. They said that around half of these referrals had been taken up. These arrangements had enabled the Partnership to meet most of its ICM and first contact requirements. High risk cases were held throughout their sentence by qualified staff based in the local teams in each authority. These staff also picked up contact with all offenders who were to be subject to statutory supervision, as they neared release This latter arrangement was not working well. Qualified staff in local teams were not always picking up cases, some managers were not engaging with the support workers and targets on contact were not being met because qualified staff were not always available. There was confusion between the central team and local teams and between individual authorities about roles and responsibilities The Criminal Justice Joint Committee overseeing the Partnership requested a full review of throughcare arrangements in Although the review had not been completed at the time of the inspection, it seemed likely that the delivery of throughcare services would revert to individual authorities, that funding would be disaggregated, management devolved and the current throughcare manager would retain a strategic overview. 17

23 Performance Inspection 3.37 If confirmed, these revised arrangements would not be consistent with the terms on which the allocation of funds was predicated. This is one of a number of examples we found of the difficulties the three authorities in the Partnership found in seeking to deliver shared criminal justice services. Compliance 3.38 Table 13 sets out the extent to which file readers assessed that compliance was an issue during the period of supervision. These figures are not in themselves any indication of the quality of practice. There will always be a proportion of offenders who fail to comply with supervision. Table 14 and 15 below present an assessment of how the Partnership dealt with offenders who failed to comply with supervision. Table 13: Compliance Incidence of non-compliance (Sample size: 86, excluding CS) Yes No Was compliance an issue at any stage of the order? Table 14: Performance in handling non-compliance Poor Adequate Good Very Good N/A How well was the case managed in respect of contact compliance and enforcement? Across the partnership, practice in managing contact, compliance and enforcement was assessed as good or very good in more than one half of cases. There was, however, room for improvement with a third of the remaining cases assessed as poor. Table 15: Compliance Performance (Sample size: 105, excludes throughcare) Yes No within No outside service control service control Did the service arrange an appointment within 5 working days of the making of the order? (Sample size: 15, throughcare cases) Did the service arrange an interview within one working day of release from custody? (Sample size: 86, excludes CS) Did the service arrange a review at 12 weeks? Did the service arrange 2/3 home visits in the first 12 weeks? Did the service arrange at least 4 appointments in the first 4 weeks?

24 Report on the Ayrshire Partnership Criminal Justice Social Work Services The analysis shows that: authorities arranged first appointments, four appointments during the first four weeks and first reviews of action plans on time in the majority of cases. However with the exception of throughcare cases ( where performance was very good on first contact following release), there was a significant minority of cases where national standards were not achieved; performance in respect of home visits was much weaker with national standards not being met in a substantial minority of cases Overall we found that the way staff dealt with offenders failure to comply was good. They were applying compliance standards and exercising discretion appropriately in the majority of cases. Managers were usually consulted in the more difficult cases. Staff performance in meeting national standards for contact and reviews needed to be improved. East Ayrshire was the least consistent performer. Sheriffs views 3.42 We spoke to Sheriffs at Kilmarnock and Ayr Sheriff Courts. They appreciated the services provided by criminal justice social work staff and said that communication was good. They pointed to some gaps in service provision and shared social work concerns about the lack of any domestic abuse programmes and shortcomings with drugs services where DTTO was not a suitable option. They thought that compliance was well handled. They had mixed views about the quality and relevance of completion reports. Quality assurance 3.43 The main vehicles for quality assurance across the Partnership were staff supervision and case reviews. Case files were scrutinised before case reviews and high risk cases were subject to a Partnership policy of monthly management oversight. Staff supervision included discussion about caseload and individual cases. In East Ayrshire staff were administering the LSI-R risk/needs assessment as part of the review process to evaluate progress over time. The Partnership manager had initiated audits of reports and case files in preparation for the inspection. Practice observations 3.44 We observed a total of 30 interviews, group work sessions and reviews across the Partnership. We found examples of good practice and of practice that can be improved. The main strengths included: building constructive working relationships with offenders, sometimes in very difficult, challenging circumstances; working together with other agencies to help offenders address problems related to their offending and to manage risk; using structured materials in interviews and groups to work with offenders on their offending behaviour; showing an awareness of child protection issues; 19

25 Performance Inspection conducting reviews with offenders in a purposive, constructive way which involved them in planning for the next phase of supervision; being firm in seeking to ensure that offenders complied with the conditions of their orders/licences Less positively we observed comparatively few examples of direct work on offending behaviour. There were also examples of poorer work on compliance issues and of reviews that had not been prepared for properly. Some staff carrying out social enquiry report interviews did not probe offenders offending and related problems (particularly addictions) thoroughly enough. Conclusions and areas for improvement 3.46 Supervision practice was uneven. We found examples of good work during our practice observations. However relatively good performance in maintaining appropriate levels of contact was not always matched by the quality of the content of supervision, particularly work on offending behaviour. The Partnership had not maximised the potential for adding value by delivering services across all three authorities. There had been missed opportunities to co-ordinate and share the learning from group work initiatives which were being developed and delivered in isolation from each other The Partnership should take a number of steps to improve practice. These include: introducing SMART action plans. There is no single Partnership format for achieving this and one should be developed: delivering more focussed work on offending. The introduction of the new accredited Constructs programme should help to achieve this and all three authorities must work together to ensure that this is delivered across the Partnership; agreeing a structure for throughcare services that ensures that the resources allocated to it are protected and that it continues to be delivered as a Partnership service; ensuring that key national standards for contact with offenders are met; making best use of strategic capacity and operational resources to engage with substance misusing offenders; improving the strategic direction of employability services. 20