SE Approved

Justice DepartmentReducing Reoffending Division

Francesca Osowska, Head of DivisionSt Andrew’s HouseRegent RoadEdinburgh EH1 3DG

Telephone: 0131-244 2646Fax: 0131-244 3548francesca.osowska@scotland.gsi.gov.ukhttp://www.scotland.gov.uk

Our ref:2JKA/001/002

2 March 2004

_ _____Dear Consultee

Re:duce, Re:habilitate, Re:form – A consultation on Reducing Reoffending in Scotland.

The Scottish Executive has made the reform of the criminal justice system in Scotland a priority. Wehave already introduced a number of initiatives and will continue to do so until we achieve a fair,efficient system which delivers the safer communities the people of Scotland deserve.

The enclosed consultation pack seeks your views on the issue of reducing reoffending in Scotland.Inside you will find facts and figures about the current criminal justice system in Scotland, how itworks, who is involved and the impact they have on reducing reoffending. We want your viewsabout what is good about the system, what can be improved, and how offenders can best be managedin prison and in the community so that the likelihood of their reoffending in the future is minimised.

This consultation meets our partnership commitment to consult on proposals to establish a singleagency to deliver custodial and non-custodial sentences. We want your views on how our criminaljustice services might better be structured to deliver the efficient and effective service we need toreduce reoffending.

We are inviting responses from everyone with an interest in our criminal justice system, includingthose agencies working within the system, those who provide services, communities (victims, thoseaffected by crime and the general public), offenders and their families. A list of those to whom weare sending our consultation pack is enclosed. We want to encourage debate in a number of ways:

A series of meetings and focus groups is being arranged to take place over the next 3 monthsso that we can discuss these issues with you and listen to your views.

A discussion forum will take place on the Reoffending Consultation webpages (log on towww.scotland.gov.uk/reoffendingconsultation/) where you can exchange views with otherinterested parties in addition to your formal response. You can telephone Freephone0800 77 1234 to find out where your nearest public internet access point is.

SE Approved

We are also inviting written responses to this consultation paper by Tuesday 25 May.Written responses may be submitted in the following ways:

• Log on to www.scotland.gov.uk/reoffendingconsultation/ where you will find a copy ofthe consultation pack and a response sheet which can be filled in and submitted directly.

• Email your response to reoffendingconsultation@scotland.gsi.gov.uk using “ConsultationResponse” as the subject of your email.

Alternatively, you may prefer to send a hard copy of your response to:

Reducing Reoffending DivisionRoom GW.15St Andrew’s HouseRegent RoadEdinburghEH1 3DG.

We would be grateful if you could clearly indicate in your response which questions or parts of theconsultation paper you are responding to (using the consultation response form if appropriate) as thiswill aid our analysis of the responses received.

All responses should also include a completed Respondee Information Form, which you will findattached to the Response Sheet. This will help ensure we handle your response appropriately.

We will make all responses available to the public in the Scottish Executive library by Thursday 24June and on the Scottish Executive Consultation Web Pages by Thursday 1 July, unlessconfidentiality is requested. All responses not marked confidential will be checked for anypotentially defamatory material before being logged in the library or placed on the website.Decisions on the outcome of the consultation will be made as soon as possible thereafter.

A list of the main organisations we are consulting is attached to this letter. A full list is available onrequest.

If you would like any further information about this consultation – including information on how toobtain copies of the consultation pack in alternative formats and languages - please contact KirstenDavidson on 0131 244 1770.

FRANCESCA OSOWSKAReducing Reoffending Division

SE Approved

The Scottish Executive Consultation Process

Consultation is an essential and important aspect of Scottish Executive working methods. Given thewide-ranging areas of work of the Scottish Executive, there are many varied types of consultation.However, in general, Scottish Executive consultation exercises aim to provide opportunities for allthose who wish to express their opinions on a proposed area of work to do so in ways which willinform and enhance that work.

While details of particular circumstances described in a response to a consultation exercise mayusefully inform the policy process, consultation exercises cannot address individual concerns andcomments, which should be directed to the relevant public body. Consultation exercises may involveseeking views in a number of different ways, such as public meetings, focus groups or questionnaireexercises.

Typically, Scottish Executive consultations involve a written paper inviting answers to specificquestions or more general views about the material presented. Written papers are distributed toorganisations and individuals with an interest in the area of consultation, and they are also placed onthe Scottish Executive website enabling a wider audience to access the paper and submit theirresponses1. Copies of all the responses received to consultation exercises (except those where theindividual or organisation has requested confidentiality) are placed in the Scottish Executive libraryat Saughton House, Edinburgh (K Spur, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh EH113XD, telephone 0131 244 4552).

The views and suggestions detailed in consultation responses are analysed and used as part of thedecision making process. Depending on the nature of the consultation exercise the responsesreceived may:

• indicate the need for policy development or review• inform the development of a particular policy• help decisions to be made between alternative policy proposals• be used to finalise legislation before it is implemented.

SEconsult

A new email alert system for SE consultations SEconsult is currently being planned. This systemwill allow stakeholder individuals and organisations to register and receive a weekly emailcontaining details of all new SE consultations (including web links). SEconsult will complement, butin no way replace, SE distribution lists, and is designed to allow stakeholders to ‘keep an eye’ on allSE consultation activity, and therefore be alerted at the earliest opportunity to those of most interest.We will publicise the launch of the system on the SE website and would encourage you to registerwhen it is available.

If you have any comment about how this consultation exercise has been conducted, please send themto Kirsten Davidson at the address provided.

1 www.scotland.gov.uk

SE Approved

MAIN DISTRIBUTION LIST

Local Authorities

Chief ExecutivesDirectors of Social WorkAssociation of Directors of Social WorkBritish Association of Social Work (Scotland)

Prisons

Chief Executive, Scottish Prison ServiceHM Inspectorate of PrisonsPrison GovernorsScottish Prison Officers AssociationScottish Prison Service CollegeChairs of Prison Visiting Committees

Police

Chief ConstablesScottish Police CollegeScottish Drug Enforcement AgencyScottish Criminal Records OfficeScottish Police FederationHM Inspectorate of Constabulary

Courts etc

Chief Executive, Scottish Court ServiceChief Executive, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal ServiceLord President and Lord Justice GeneralLaw Society of ScotlandFaculty of AdvocatesDistrict Courts AssociationStipendiary MagistratesSheriff PrincipalsSheriffs AssociationScottish Law CommissionScottish Legal Aid BoardScottish Committee of the Council of TribunalsScottish Children’s Reporter AssociationJudicial Studies BoardParole Board for Scotland

Victims Organisations

SE Approved

Voluntary Organisations, including

SCVOCriminal Justice Service ProvidersProviders of related services

Academic

University Departments of Social WorkLaw SchoolsSocial Work Research Centre, StirlingCriminal Justice Social Work Development Centre

Other Criminal Justice Organisations, including

HMI Probation (England and Wales)Northern Ireland Probation BoardScottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal JusticeNOTA (Scotland)Howard League for Penal ReformScottish Association for the Study of Delinquency

Housing Organisations, including

Chartered Institute of HousingScottish Council for Single HomelessScottish HomesCommunities Scotland

Education and Children’s Organisations

Health Organisations, including

NHS Health BoardsOther health-related organisationsDrugs / Alcohol organisationsADATs

Equality Groups

Trades Unions

re:ducere:habilitatere:form

A CONSULTATION ON REDUCINGREOFFENDING IN SCOTLAND

OUR GOAL IS A CRIMINAL JUSTICESYSTEM WHICH WILL EFFECTIVELYAND EFFICIENTLY MANAGESENTENCED OFFENDERS SO THEYARE LESS LIKELY TO REOFFEND,AND WHICH WILL DELIVER THESAFER COMMUNITIES WHICH THEPEOPLE OF SCOTLAND DESERVE.

SOURCESHome Office (2001), Making Punishments Work: Review of the Sentencing Framework for England and Wales.

Scottish Executive, Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts, 2001,Statistical Bulletin CrJ/2002/9, 2002

Scottish Executive, Reconvictions of Offenders Discharged fromCustody or Given Non-Custodial Sentences in 1997, Scotland,Statistical Bulletin CrJ/2003/1, 2003

Scottish Executive, Recorded Crime in Scotland, Statistical BulletinCrJ/2003/3, 2003

Scottish Executive, Prison Statistics Scotland 2002, StatisticalBulletin CrJ/2003/6, 2003

Scottish Executive, Criminal Justice Social Work Statistics, 2002-2003,Statistical Bulletin CrJ/2003/10, 2003

Scottish Executive, Provisional Statistics for Persons released fromcustodial or receiving non-custodial sentences: PercentageReconvicted within 2 years of 1999 and 2000

Scottish Executive, Costs, Sentencing Profiles and the ScottishCriminal Justice System 2001: Section 306, Statistical BulletinSE/2003/75,2003

Scottish Prison Service, Annual Report 2002/2003, SE/2033/190,July 2003

Scottish Executive, Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts, 2002,Statistical Bulletin CrJ/2004/1, 2004

Scottish Executive, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland AnnualReport 2001-2002, SE/2002/191, September 2002

Home Office (2003) Findings 234 - World Prison Population List(fifth edition)

re:ducere:habilitatere:form

A CONSULTATION ON REDUCINGREOFFENDING IN SCOTLAND

Scottish Executive Edinburgh 2004

© Crown copyright 2004

First published 2004

ISBN: 0-7559-0955-0

Published byScottish ExecutiveSt Andrew’s HouseEdinburgh

Produced for the Scottish Executive by Astron B32209 3-04

Further copies are available fromThe Stationery Office Bookshop71 Lothian RoadEdinburgh EH3 9AZTel: 0870 606 55 66

The text pages of this document are produced from 100% elemental chlorine-free,environmentally-preferred material and are 100% recyclable.

ISSUE 1: REDUCING REOFFENDING – ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

ISSUE 2: THE PURPOSE OF PRISON

ISSUE 3: ADDRESSING REOFFENDING

ISSUE 4: REDUCING REOFFENDING – AN INTEGRATED APPROACH

ISSUE 5: EFFECTIVENESS ANDVALUE FOR MONEY

6

10

14

18

22

CONTENTS

4

Our goal is a safer, stronger Scotland. Scotland is justifiably proud of its criminal justice heritage. The system has

served us well for generations but faces ever increasing pressures. The confidence of ordinary families in our criminal

justice system is too low. Our communities cry out to be better served and to be listened to.

The Scottish Executive has put reform of the criminal justice system at the heart of its policies. Every aspect of the

criminal justice system is being explored to consider the potential for improvement. The High Court Review will speed

up court procedures which will bring benefits to victims and families. The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill will complement

the Children’s Hearing system and enable earlier intervention in young offenders’ behaviour. The Risk Management

Authority will promote consistent standards in the management and assessment of risk while the Sentencing

Commission will examine consistency, effectiveness and other key sentencing issues. These and other measures such

as the review of summary justice and developments in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, represent the

most profound series of reforms to the criminal justice system in over 20 years.

But to meet our goal we must reduce reoffending. For 19991, within 2 years:

60% of offenders released from prison were reconvicted of another offence

58% of offenders who received a probation order were reconvicted

42% of offenders who began a community service order were reconvicted of further offences

40% of offenders who received fines were reconvicted of further offences

53% of offenders under 21 years were reconvicted.

Almost 30,000 offenders convicted in 2002 of a crime or offences such as common assault or breach of the peace,

had at least one such previous conviction between 1993 and 2002. Much of the offending behaviour suffered in our

communities arises from people who have offended before. The consequences of reoffending may affect us all, but

disadvantaged communities, which are already hard-pressed economically and socially, often bear the brunt.

But the answer to reducing reoffending does not lie simply in more imprisonment. Prison population and numbers of

admissions are rising. In 2002 12,613 sentenced offenders were received by Scottish prisons, compared with 12,496

in 1993.2 Furthermore, 18,726 offenders were remanded in custody in 2002, compared to 13,412 in 1993. In 2003,

Scotland had the 4th highest rate of imprisonment in the European Union – 129 people 100,000 head of population.

According to the Halliday Report (2001), the prison population would need to be increased by 15% in order to

achieve a short-term reduction in crime of 1%.

MINISTERIALFOREWORD

1 Provisional figures provided by the Scottish Executive Justice Department2 Does not include those imprisoned for fine default

5

Nor does the answer lie simply in ever-increasing investment. The Scottish Prison Service budget

has risen from £122m in 1991-92 to £229m in 2002-3. Criminal Justice Social Work budgets have

increased from £18m in 1991-92 to £63m in 2001-3.

The current position is untenable. We must take action to address reoffending and rising prison

populations. We must improve how we manage offenders throughout their sentence to their

reintegration into a law-abiding lifestyle. Around the world, different countries organise their

systems for managing offenders in different ways. A number of countries have recently reviewed

their arrangements for managing offenders and some have opted for a single agency approach.

The precise form of single agency varies from country to country but Denmark, Norway, Sweden

and Finland all have structures which bring prison and community offender services together into

one organisation. In our Partnership Agreement, we made a commitment to consult you on whether

a single agency to manage custodial and non-custodial sentences might provide a better means of

addressing the weaknesses in our system. Following initial consultation with a range of stakeholders,

we also want to use this opportunity to broaden the debate. We want to explore how we might

better structure the means by which we manage offenders. But we also want to explore what it

is we need to be doing as we manage offenders so we reduce the likelihood of their reoffending.

This consultation raises questions about three features of the way the current system handles

offenders which demand particular attention. Firstly, many offenders who pass through prison,

or who are given community sentences reoffend. Secondly, the prison population continues to

expand, in many cases with offenders who might actually be suitable for non-custodial sentences.

Thirdly, the increase in the use of probation and community service orders made over the past

decade has not slowed the rise in the prison population against a background of an overall

decrease in recorded crime.

These are tough issues. We invite you to work with us as we find effective solutions.

Our goal is an integrated system where all offenders are managed consistently and appropriately

through their sentence to their reintegration into a law-abiding lifestyle. Our goal is a system of

excellence focused on reducing offending. Our goal is a structure that will deliver what we need.

Our goal is a system which will deliver the safer communities which the people of Scotland deserve.

I want to stimulate thought and debate so that together we can gain a better insight into

reoffending, how best we can tackle it, and what needs to change in order for us to do so.

I invite you to rise to the challenge and identify how we can best work together to achieve

the modern, effective and efficient system we need. I hope you will take the time to join us

in the development of policy in this vital area.

Cathy Jamieson, MSPMinister for Justice

ISSUE 1: REDUCING REOFFENDING– ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

7

OUR GOAL IS A MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT SYSTEM THAT REDUCESREOFFENDING. OUR GOAL IS A CO-ORDINATED SERVICE WHICH MANAGESOFFENDERS THROUGHOUT THEIR SENTENCE TO THEIR REINTEGRATIONINTO A LAW-ABIDING LIFESTYLE. EACH PART OF THE SERVICE MUSTTAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OVERALL STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE OFREDUCING OFFENDING AND FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THAT.

The individual is responsible for the choice they make when they commit crime and the individual is also

responsible for the choice they can make to stop reoffending. But when an offender enters the criminal justice

system, there is an opportunity for that service to promote change in his or her behaviour. Planned and

constructive offender programmes promote public safety and assist offenders to become law-abiding citizens.

Many agencies contribute to the process of offender management:

Police investigate crime and report it to the Procurator Fiscal Service;

Procurators Fiscal consider whether it is in the public interest to prosecute and take appropriate cases to court;

The courts determine innocence or guilt and impose appropriate sentences;

The Prison Service manages offenders in custody and prepares them for release;

The Parole Board considers the release from custody of long term prisoners;

Local Authorities provide information to the courts, supervise community sentences and parole licences,

and assist the reintegration of prisoners back into communities following release from prison

Many voluntary bodies work in partnership with local authorities in the supervision of offenders, provide

programmes and support offenders and their families.

Victim Support provides help and assistance to victims of crime but can also assist offenders by its

involvement in developing programmes that help reduce reoffending.

Other agencies are also involved with particular groups of offenders; mental health services, for example,

treat, support and supervise the small proportion of offenders who suffer from serious mental disorder as

well as providing services to prisons and courts.

This consultation is focusing on that part of the process which

deals with offenders from the point of sentencing through to their

rehabilitation into the community. Punishment is part of the process,

but so too is rehabilitation. The aim of rehabilitation is to address

offending behaviour, to help stabilise home life and to assist

offenders to overcome drug or alcohol addictions, homelessness, lack

of employment and other difficulties. Each organisation has its part

to play and many agencies are working in partnership through the

community planning process enabling more sustainable solutions to

be found for issues which are not the responsibility of any one

agency.

However, each agency has a different primary focus. This means:

Although each agency works towards reducing offending

behaviour each organisation also has its own separate targets

and objectives.

No one organisation is responsible for enforcing or co-ordinating

Court sentences and reducing reoffending is normally one of several

objectives which each agency will have. This means that, in the

current system, each organisation can be held to account only for

its own specific objectives in its own part of the system. No

organisation can be held to account for reducing reoffending

rates.

Various organisations work with offenders with little overall

co-ordination of objectives. The overall management of offenders

is not as efficient or as effective as it might be.

8

9

Almost 30,000 (67%) of the44,300 individuals convicted atleast once in 2002 had at leastone previous convictionbetween 1993 and 2002.

DISC

USS

ION

POIN

TS What are the strengths and weaknesses of the

current system providing offender services?

How could these services be improved?

How could the organisation and structure of these

services be improved?

How can the organisations involved better focus

on shared objectives? What should these

objectives be?

Is it possible to improve accountability for

reducing reoffending rates? If so, how do we

go about this?

1 These convictions in 2002 were for crimes or offences such as common assault or breach of the peace

1

ISSUE 2: THE PURPOSE OF PRISON

11

The statistics presented in the Key Facts section of this consultation pack show that there has been a steady

rise in the Scottish prison population over the past decade. The Executive has already announced its intention

to build two new prisons to meet the growing demand and improve living conditions.

Prison sentences are necessary for the punishment of serious offences, to mark society’s condemnation

of such offences and to fulfil the goals of retribution and deterrence. These are important aspects of

any criminal justice system. Prison is also necessary to protect the public from dangerous offenders.

The Scottish Prison Service has an excellent record of secure custody which is a valuable contribution

to public safety. What prison is not good at is returning offenders back into the community as law abiding

citizens. Prison isolates offenders from the community and their family responsibilities and surrounds an

offender with other criminals. Particular groups of offenders may be especially vulnerable to the effects

of imprisonment, such as women, those with mental health issues or those at risk of self harm.

On release an ex-prisoner may find it difficult to get a job, or stable housing, or other forms of support.

These factors make it more likely that an offender will return to crime. As the statistics show, offenders are

more likely to offend again if they have received a prison sentence than if they had received a community

sentence (other than probation which has a reconviction rate similar to that for offenders given custodial

sentences). While the threat of prison may deter some from crime, it appears that the experience of

imprisonment does not.

OUR GOAL IS FOR PRISON TO BE VIEWED BY SCOTTISH SOCIETY AS THE ULTIMATE SANCTION FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF THE MOST SERIOUSOFFENDERS AND FOR THOSE WHO PRESENT AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO SOCIETY. OUR GOAL IS THE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENTOF OFFENDERS THROUGH FOCUSED AND RELEVANT PROGRAMMES TO SUPPORT CHANGE IN PRISONERS IN CUSTODY. OUR GOAL IS FOR THISWORK TO BE UNDERTAKEN WITHIN AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM THATCONTINUES TO MANAGE OFFENDERS UPON RELEASE IN ORDER TOREDUCE THE RISK OF THEIR RETURN TO OFFENDING.

12

Local authorities are under a statutory duty to supervise those who have

been sentenced to four years or more. Local authorities can help them

find accommodation, and, if required, support them in overcoming drugs

and alcohol addictions, building on work already done in prison. They

will also continue to work on their offending behaviour if appropriate.

However, in 2002, 97% of all custodial sentences were for less than 4

years. 82% were for 6 months or less. These offenders are not subject

to statutory supervision on release, except in certain exceptional cases.

Although every ex-prisoner is entitled to ask local authority social

work services for advice and support within a period of 12 months

from release, few take this up, and of those who do, most are seeking

support in terms of their welfare needs rather than continuing to

address their offending directly.

The current prison population of Scotland includes large numbers

who have committed less serious crimes. These offenders are in

prison for short periods, often less than three months. Some will be

persistent offenders who have been sentenced to prison following

continued offending despite several non-custodial sentences. Others

may be first time offenders. Some will be in prison for fine default.

During the short time in custody, there is little prison rehabilitation

services can do to address an offender’s behaviour. While they are in

custody, their links with their communities and families are disrupted,

thus making it difficult to reintegrate even after only a short period.

Only small numbers of offenders on short-term sentences are placed on

offending behaviour programmes when released. It is not surprising that

it is this category of offender which is most likely to reoffend.

These are also issues for those remanded in custody prior to conviction

or sentence, some of whom may not pose a threat to public safety and

could therefore perhaps be subject to a form of community bail

supervision, including electronic monitoring.

13

Scotland has one of the highestrates of imprisonment in theEuropean Union. 60% ofoffenders released from prisonin 1999 were reconvicted ofanother offence within 2 years.

DISC

USS

ION

POIN

TS What can be done to improve the rehabilitation

of short term prisoners?

Individuals can end up in prison because of

persistence rather than seriousness. How can the

issue of persistence be effectively addressed?

How can an institution which isolates individuals

from communities also effectively reintegrate

individuals back into society?

What are the most effective and appropriate ways

of managing sentences for long and short-term

prisoners to reduce reoffending?

ISSUE 3: ADDRESSING REOFFENDING

15

What stops offenders from returning to crime? There is no simple answer to this. Research shows that having

stable accommodation, supportive family relationships and a job are three important factors in reducing

reconviction rates. Addressing alcohol and drug misuse and mental health problems can also reduce the risk

of reoffending. It is important that criminal justice agencies work in partnership with other key agencies such

as health, housing, education and employment providers to achieve this. There are good examples of such

partnership working, with local authorities and the Scottish Prison Service working with other agencies to

provide effective support to offenders in these areas in order to reduce their offending behaviour. One example

of this is the work the Scottish Welfare to Work Advisory Task Force is doing to link employers with the

Scottish Prison Service with the aim of meaningful training for prisoners linked to job opportunities on their

release from custody.

Research also shows that programmes which help the offender focus on their offending behaviour can reduce

the risk of reoffending. However it is important that offenders being considered for these programmes are

assessed as suitable and that the programmes developed are designed to comply with what research has

identified works from the “What Works?” agenda. There are a significant number of offenders who are assessed

as requiring programmes but are not placed on them for a variety of reasons, including the unavailability of

a programme in a particular area or prison.

OUR GOAL IS TO CREATE A STRATEGIC, CONSISTENT, SUSTAINED ANDMANAGED APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY OF WORKWITH OFFENDERS, WHICH WILL CHALLENGE OFFENDERS, OFFER THEMTHE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THEIR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR AND BY ITS EFFECTIVENESS REDUCE REOFFENDING.

16

Although programmes have been developed by both local authorities

and the Prison Service based on this research evidence, this has

mostly been done in isolation from the other organisation, resulting

in repetition of work in designing and implementing programmes.

The different organisations also often use different risk and need

assessment tools, although this has recently begun to be taken

forward collaboratively. Attempts are now being made to address

these issues by the groupings of Criminal Justice Social Work Services

and through plans for joint national accreditation of offenders’

programmes. But the current situation means that an offender moving

to another part of the country is not guaranteed access to the same

programme and a prisoner on release may have to start once again

from the beginning of work first started in prison. This lack of

consistency in design, quality and delivery of programmes makes it

difficult to evaluate their impact fairly against the investment made

in them.

17

58% of offenders who receiveda probation order in 1999 and42% of offenders who receiveda community service order werereconvicted within 2 years.

DISC

USS

ION

POIN

TS What kind of interventions are most successful

in tackling reoffending behaviour?

How can we ensure that offender programmes

are effective and consistent across Scotland?

How can we ensure that community and prison

based programmes are complementary to each

other and ensure maintenance of the progress

an individual has made?

What needs to be done to ensure that measures

to reduce reoffending are improved?

ISSUE 4: REDUCING REOFFENDING–AN INTEGRATED APPROACH

19

The multiplicity of agencies involved in the delivery of sentences and rehabilitation of offenders means that

services lack co-ordination both in objectives (Issue 1) and in delivery (Issue 3). Clearly, if agencies are

to work in a more co-ordinated fashion, good communication links between them are essential. A number

of initiatives are currently underway to improve the integration of the various organisations, but none are

addressing the process as a whole. One means of improving the situation could be the establishment of

a single agency to deliver custodial and non-custodial sentences, but we want to hear your views on this

and other possible alternatives.

Local authorities, working with voluntary sector providers, are the main agencies involved in managing

community sentences and reintegrating offenders back into communities. The introduction of National

Objectives and Standards and improved funding from the Scottish Executive has enhanced the range of

interventions undertaken by local authorities.

There are 32 local authorities in Scotland which operate, for criminal justice social work purposes, in

8 Criminal Justice Social Work Groupings, in 3 unitary authorities (Glasgow, Fife and Dumfries and Galloway),

and in the three island authorities of Shetland, Orkney and the Western Isles. The main responsibility

for managing offenders lies with 1,2881 criminal justice social work staff, who are accountable to elected

representatives. They work closely with other colleagues in the local authority and with other support

agencies in the community.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) is a national organisation, accountable to Scottish Ministers, which is

responsible for 16 prisons in Scotland. Of these all but one is managed by SPS personnel. Kilmarnock Prison

is Scotland’s first private prison. Most of the 40232 SPS staff work with offenders in the prisons, with a small

number based in SPS Headquarters and SPS College.

OUR GOAL IS A SEAMLESS MANAGEMENT OF SENTENCED OFFENDERSWHICH FOCUSES ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND CHALLENGES OFFENDERS TOCHANGE THEIR OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR. OUR GOAL IS AN INTEGRATED,EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT SYSTEM WHICH SECURES PUBLIC CONFIDENCEAND REDUCES REOFFENDING.

1 Whole time equivalent. Most recently available figure.

2 Whole time equivalent. Most recently available figure.

20

The Scottish Prison Service and local authority criminal justice social

work services have a statutory responsibility to supervise offenders

once they are sentenced by the courts. Whilst they often work with

the same individuals, there is often little integration in the work of

these organisations, and in their work with the other organisations

involved in the system. In the past there has been little joint training

or exchange of staff between them. To some extent, work by Prison

Social Work units has gone some way to addressing this. In addition,

the Tripartite Group was set up by the Executive to promote

partnership working.

The separation of the functions of custodial sentence delivery by the

prison service, and community sentences and reintegration by local

authorities, means that information sharing is often poor. In general,

there is little offender data flow between the organisations. However,

the Executive has established the Information Sharing Steering Group,

chaired by the Solicitor General to look at how this problem can be

addressed as it relates to sex offenders.

The different organisations involved in the process use different IT

systems, and information about offenders is recorded a number of

times on the different systems, without any sharing of information

between them. Previous efforts to improve communication links have

met with limited success, although the development of ISCJIS

(Integrated Scottish Criminal Justice Information Systems) is

beginning to make some improvements.

21

3 Arrangements for those under 16 are different

as they are dealt with in the children’s hearings

system. The children’s hearings system and

youth justice services tackle young people’s

offending behaviour to reduce the risk of them

“graduating” to the adult system. The children’s

hearings system has a dual offending and welfare

role. The local authority has responsibility for

implementing any support services, usually led

by social work. For young offenders, it will be

assisted by multi-disciplinary youth justice

teams. The children’s hearings system is being

reviewed currently to develop and improve the

current service. The review will ensure that

the system has the right set up and adequate

resources to ensure that it does the best

possible job to protect children, and that it

does so in the most efficient and effective way.

An estimated 13,000 childrenin Scotland each year areaffected by the imprisonmentof a parent.

DISC

USS

ION

POIN

TS

What are the barriers in the current arrangements

to achieving a seamless management of sentenced

offenders?

What can be done to improve service delivery

across all the agencies involved so that we

challenge offenders to stop offending?

How can information best be shared between

agencies to reduce reoffending?

What are the barriers to communication and

how can these be overcome?

What are the key agencies that community based

criminal justice services and the Prison Service

need to work closely with? What organisational

structures would provide an effective solution?

Would the establishment of a single agency to

deliver custodial and non-custodial sentences

provide the most effective solution?

How might the strengthening of the adult justice

system improve the way work is undertaken with

the children’s hearings system?3

ISSUE 5: EFFECTIVENESS AND VALUE FOR MONEY

23

OUR GOAL IS AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM OF OFFENDER MANAGEMENT WHICHFOCUSES ON WHAT IS EFFECTIVE IN REDUCING REOFFENDING ANDDELIVERS LOWER RECONVICTION RATES (THE MAIN MEASURE OFREOFFENDING) AS A RETURN FOR OUR FINANCIAL INVESTMENT INSERVICE PROVISION.

Inefficiency can arise through sentences and interventions which are ineffective. As is clear from the Key Facts

paper, prison sentences are expensive and relatively ineffective in reducing reoffending, particularly for short-

term prisoners. Interventions need to be supported by robust assessment processes identifying the risk of

reoffending and a management plan identifying the most suitable course of action for an individual. The

worker responsible for managing the case needs to ensure that intervention follows a logical process that will

allow the offender to make sense of his/her situation and address those issues that cause him/her to offend.

For example, an assessment may identify that a particular programme may be suitable for an individual but if

the individual is homeless they are at an increased risk of not being able to comply. The worker needs to

support the individual to address the problems in a logical sequence.

Interventions must be subject to evaluation in order to determine their effectiveness. Evaluation of

programmes is a complex process, made more problematic by the variation of programme delivery across

Scotland. Research does show that it is possible to increase the risk of reoffending by placing an offender

on a programme inappropriate to his/her needs. Programmes will also be ineffective if they are poorly

designed or if an individual fails to complete a programme. The latter can arise through non-compliance by

the offender but also if the offender moves to another part of the country or from prison to the community

where there is no complementary programme. For those sentenced to short prison sentences there is often

no access to programmes even if the need for one is identified.

Some have argued that resources are needed to improve the effectiveness of sentences and programmes.

However, we should be assured in the first instance that existing resources are being used in the most

effective way. Organisational change in the form of a single agency to deliver custodial and non-custodial

sentences might make this easier to achieve, but there may be other options. We want to know what you

think.

24

An average 6 month prison placement cost approximately£15,000 in 2002-03. An average 6 month standard probation ordercost £1,059. We need an effectiveand efficient system which protectscommunities and delivers lowerconviction rates as a return for ourfinancial investment.

DISC

USS

ION

POIN

TS What are the current sources of inefficiency and

ineffectiveness in the community-based and prison

services in Scotland?

How can these be addressed?

How might organisational restructuring be used to

address these inefficiencies in the system? Are

there other solutions which would not require

organisational restructuring?

How could a single agency meet these challenges?

Are resources currently being used in the most

effective way in delivering sentences and

programmes? If not, how might we improve the

effective use of resources?

© Crown copyright 2004

This document is also available on the Scottish Executive website:www.scotland.gov.uk

Astron B32209 3/04

w w w . s c o t l a n d . g o v . u k

9 780755 909551

ISBN 0-7559-0955-0