Scottish Government

CONSULTATION ON REDUCING REOFFENDING IN SCOTLAND:
ANALYSIS OF FOCUS GROUP RESPONSES

Annex 1 The consultation questions

The questions posed within the written material (and which formed the basis of the group discussions and individual interviews) were as follows:

Reducing reoffending, roles and responsibilities

1.1 What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current system providing offender services?
1.2 How could these services be improved?
1.3 How could the organisation and structure of these services be improved?
1.4 How can the organisations involved better focus on shared objectives? What should these objectives be?
1.5 Is it possible to improve accountability for reducing reoffending rates? If so, how do we go about this?

Purpose of prison

2.1 What can be done to improve the rehabilitation of short term prisoners?
2.2 Individuals can end up in prison because of persistence rather than seriousness. How can the issue of persistence be effectively addressed?
2.3 How can an institution which isolates individuals from communities also effectively reintegrate individuals back into society?
2.4 What are the most effective and appropriate ways of managing sentences for long and short-term prisoners to reduce reoffending?

Addressing reoffending

3.1 What kind of interventions are most successful in tackling reoffending behaviour?
3.2 How can we ensure that offender programmes are effective and consistent across Scotland?
3.3 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?
3.4 What needs to be done to ensure that measures to reduce reoffending are improved?

Integration between agencies

4.1 What are the barriers in the current arrangements to achieving a seamless management of sentenced offenders?
4.2 What can be done to improve service delivery across all the agencies involved so that we challenge offenders to stop offending?
4.3 How can information best be shared between agencies to reduce reoffending?
4.4 What are the barriers to communication and how can these be overcome?
4.5 What are the key agencies that community based criminal justice services and the Prison Service need to work closely with?
4.6 What organisational structures would provide an effective solution?
4.7 Would the establishment of a single agency to deliver custodial and non-custodial sentences provide the most effective solution?
4.8 How might the strengthening of the adult justice system improve the way work is undertaken with the children's hearings system?

Effectiveness and value for money

5.1 What are the current sources of inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the community-based and prison services in Scotland?
5.2 How can these be addressed?
5.3 How might organisational restructuring be used to address these inefficiencies in the system?
5.4 Are there other solutions which would not require organisational restructuring?
5.5 How could a single agency meet these challenges?
5.6 Are resources currently being used in the most effective way in delivering sentences and programmes?
5.7 If not, how might we improve the effective use of resources?

As noted in the report, there was some variation in the specific focus of the discussion for the different groups of group participants and interviewees, and these were not asked verbatim. They did, however, serve to guide the discussions / interviews and were developed into specific topic guides / interview schedules for each group.

Annex 2 Method of analysis

The aim of this part of the consultation was to gather the views of specific groups and to feed these views into the wider consultation process.

Collection of information

The focus groups and individual interviews covered broadly the same questions as those covered in the written response form, although the wording of these was adapted, as appropriate. In most cases, the groups were facilitated by one researcher and scribed by another. Wherever possible, the discussions were also recorded on mini disk (although this was not be feasible in every case, particularly in the in-prison groups and some of the community offender groups). Where the meetings were scribed, these recordings were not transcribed, but provided additional supplementary information. In the few cases where the meetings were facilitated by one researcher, the recordings were used as the basis of the response.

All of the groups' responses were recorded manually (either at the time or from the disk) on a booklet which covered each of the individual questions. Although, clearly (given the informal and wide-ranging nature of the discussions) the issues raised often related to more than one question, it was generally possible to identify those to which the views expressed were most closely linked. Where a view related to more than one question, this was recorded at each.

Analysis

The information gathered was analysed qualitatively, under each of the five key themes. An Access database was developed covering each of the questions under each theme in order to store the information which was received from the groups. Fields were included for the storage of basic data about the groups (such as the numbers of attendees, the type of group etc.), alongside specific fields for each of the individual questions asked and a field for the inclusion of any other comments which did not relate specifically to the issues covered in the questions posed. The main points raised at each of the groups were input to the database, in the form of detailed qualitative information for each question. Quotations were input verbatim.

Following the completion of the database, the second stage involved working systematically through the comments. A "book" of different themes emerging in the responses to each of the questions was developed, providing an outline of the broad overall themes (and types of respondent), as well as a further document of "sub-themes" within each broad area, providing further details of the range of points made within the overall theme. The nature of the comments in relation to each theme could then be described more fully, providing an overview of the findings for each of the questions.

This preserved the richness of the material, and allowed the identification and further discussion of any differences of view. This procedure was followed for all of the questions and was considered an appropriate means of both retaining the detail and providing systematic analysis.

A similar approach was followed with the individual interviews with victims which were carried out as part of this process. Similar questions were asked and the information gathered was included in the database and the theme-based approach set out earlier.

Presentation of the data

From all of this material, a report of the responses to this strand of the consultation was prepared, providing a qualitative account of the issues raised. Although the report provides a broad flavour of the points which were made frequently, it was considered inappropriate to provide quantitative data, for the following reasons:

• As noted, not all of the groups addressed each question in turn (although their comments were always relevant to the subject of the consultation) and there were several areas in which their comments were relevant to more than one of the specific questions. It would clearly have been inappropriate to try to "count" the number of those who discussed each particular theme at each question.
• Some respondents represented their organisations, whereas others provided their own views. This made it impossible to identify the actual number of people represented by the groups.
• The purpose of the consultation was to identify detailed views which might inform subsequent decisions (a process which is not wholly dependent on the "weight" of views).

For all of these reasons, the report does not make detailed reference to numbers of respondents, but focuses instead on the identification of broad patterns. The broad groups to which individuals belong has been identified, where appropriate, but individual respondents remain anonymous. (Respondents were informed that this was the intended use of the material.)

Overview

This method provided an appropriate means of reflecting the range and depth of views of the focus groups and individual interviews as part of the consultation on reducing reoffending in Scotland.

Annex 3 Groups and interviews

The following groups were held:

A total of 13 individual interviews were held, where it was considered that those involved would be less likely to take part in a focus group. These included interviews with victims of crime (in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Highland) and, in one other area, with young women offenders in the community (where it was suggested that the young women involved would respond less well in a group setting).