Scottish Government

CONSULTATION ON REDUCING REOFFENDING IN SCOTLAND:
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

SECTION 5 EFFECTIVENESS AND VALUE FOR MONEY

5.1 This section presents the findings relating to Issue 5, which focused on "Effectiveness and Value for Money", although the majority of points made here reiterated those identified previously. For example, it is impossible to separate some of the identified weaknesses of the current system from perceptions of efficiency and effectiveness. A large number of respondents also raised issues at various points which impacted upon their perceptions of value for money, such as views of specific interventions or perceived priorities for action. This section, therefore, summarises some of these issues and identifies the points which related most specifically to the use of resources.

SOURCES OF INEFFICIENCY AND INEFFECTIVENESS

5.2 Although many respondents identified perceived sources of inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the current system, a small number (including some of the stakeholder events and some respondents to the written consultation) believed that this was not the case, or questioned this. One of the social work representative organisations, for example, suggested that local authority criminal justice social work had demonstrated high levels of performance, and similar positive views were expressed by others. One respondent also suggested that it was difficult to identify whether or not services were efficient and effective due to the lack of monitoring and evaluation, while another noted that many of the influences upon reoffending were outwith the control of criminal justice agencies, making it impossible to conclude that the level of reoffending reflected inefficiency in the criminal justice system.

5.3 A large number of respondents, however, identified sources of perceived inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the system (as has become clear throughout) and the issues raised included perceptions of:

• An inability of the system to meet the needs of all offenders.
• A lack of overall coordination of provision and inefficiency in means of working.
• Inefficiency in the criminal justice process.
• Limitations on the effectiveness of some disposals.
• Staff issues.

Meeting the needs of offenders

5.4 A number of respondents suggested that current services do not always address the needs of offenders, leaving areas of unmet need and the potential for this to have a negative impact on reoffending. Many of these issues have been discussed in detail and covered concerns, for example, with perceived:

• Gaps in provision (e.g. in specific areas, in types of services and for specific groups).
• Inappropriateness of some existing provision (generally, and for specific groups).
• Problems with access to services (e.g. at appropriate stages in a sentence or because of location).
• Problems with the nature of the services provided (in prison and the community).
• Areas of duplication (e.g. assessment and some aspects of provision).
• Inconsistency (in relation to a number of aspects of the system).

Co-ordination and means of working

5.5 Many respondents reiterated the perceived lack of a co-ordinated, strategic approach, along with the lack of joined up working as a source of inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the current system. As one respondent summarised, for example:

"There is a lack of co-operation and strategic overview, this leads to gaps in services and also duplication in some areas of work." (Voluntary organisation)

5.6 These issues were identified in most of the stakeholder events and in the focus groups as potential sources of inefficiency and ineffectiveness, as well as by a number of respondents to the written consultation. Many of the detailed points raised were again identified previously and included concerns with:

• The lack of a national strategic approach and leadership.
• The lack of clear, shared objectives and standards.
• The lack of partnership working and insufficient involvement of some key services.
• Gaps in some service providers' knowledge of the system, roles and responsibilities.
• Duplication.
• Problems with information sharing and communication.

The criminal justice process

5.7 Issues relating to the criminal justice process were also identified as contributing to inefficiency and ineffectiveness, some of which had again been identified previously. Concerns included the perceived:

• Slowness and inflexibility of the process.
• Level of bureaucracy.
• Lack of accountability.
• Level (and, in the view of some respondents, inappropriate nature) of demand for SERs, the time involved in responding to requests and the lack of attention by sentencers to the background information provided.
• Policies and practices of individual services (such as the movement of prisoners, policies about booking agents' visits, the process of giving "breaches" new case numbers etc.)
• Legal Aid system (which one stakeholder event suggested built in inefficiency).

Effectiveness of disposals

5.8 A large number of respondents (including a number of stakeholder events and face to face meetings, as well as respondents to the written consultation and in the public survey) identified the current nature and use of disposals as contributing to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the current system. The largest number of these comments related again to the use of prison, although some also focused on problems with some community disposals. Some of the broad themes included perceptions that:

• Too many people (particularly short term prisoners) are sent to prison (with a number of respondents suggesting specifically that a higher prison population at a time of falling crime must indicate inefficiency).
• There is little evidence of rehabilitation, with concerns about the effectiveness of prison for many offenders (with a specific perception that repeat imprisonment is inefficient).
• The use of prison is expensive and costs more than community alternatives (although one stakeholder event suggested that community disposals could also be expensive).
• There is a lack of use of, and public support for, community disposals.
• There are problems with some community disposals (in terms of the nature of these, current effectiveness, provision of additional support, consistency and flexibility).
• There is a lack of evaluation of interventions (and a lack of time for initiatives to work).

Staff issues

5.9 Some staff issues were also identified as having an impact on efficiency and effectiveness (some of which were identified previously) and concerns included:

• Staff shortages (exacerbated by recruitment problems), heavy workloads, lack of time and a wide range of tasks.
• Lack of support to staff (e.g. lack of priority / profile and lack of administrative support).
• Staff approaches (e.g. resistance to change of some, and methods of working).
• Lack of clarity of roles and poor performance indicators.
• Low morale, poor terms and conditions (including variation in salaries across local authorities) and uncertainty.

USE OF RESOURCES

5.10 A large number of respondents (including most of the events and meetings, the focus groups and a large number of respondents to the written consultation) commented specifically on the use of resources at some stage in their response. These comments also linked (either explicitly or otherwise) to perceptions of efficiency and effectiveness. While a small number of respondents stated that they believed that resources were being used effectively (e.g. evidenced by a best value review, or in a specific geographical area, or for some offenders), most of the comments related to perceived problems or potential improvements. Common themes included:

• An overall lack of resources for the tasks required.
• A lack of resources to specific organisations, types of service and to meet the needs of particular groups.
• Problems with the means of provision of funding.
• An inappropriate balance of resources between the use of custody and community disposals.

5.11 A small number of respondents also raised issues relating to the basis of decision making.

5.12 In terms, firstly, of perceptions of an overall lack of resources, some respondents identified the general lack of provision to address key needs. The impact of staffing and resource cuts was also noted, for example:

"You cannot cut resources and still expect a better service, it just doesn't work." (Individual)

5.13 Many also identified a more specific lack of resources in particular organisations, types of service or to meet the needs of particular groups. Again, some of these views are implied by issues raised previously, but included a number of comments about the lack of provision for social work service providers (such as local authorities generally and different parts of social work, including prison and community). Two respondents, however, suggested a need to dispel the myth that increased funding for social work would address all of the issues associated with reducing reoffending. SPS was also identified by some respondents as lacking resources, as well as experiencing budget cuts and staff shortages. Some respondents also identified the lack of resources in the voluntary sector, and further comments were also made about the lack of resources for those providing support to community disposals generally.

5.14 A number of comments were also made about resources for specific types of provision. Some aspects of current provision were identified (by very small numbers of respondents) as a "waste of money" (e.g. some drug work, some programmes and courses, some expenditure in prison, some work parties and some hostel provision). More often, however, the specific forms of provision (such as throughcare, drug and alcohol support, family support, housing, education, health, employment support, programme work and policing) were identified as lacking resources. The needs of specific groups were also identified (generally reflecting those highlighted in Section 1 as having particular needs, but also including children and young people, offenders who are not on any order and victims of crime). Some issues were also raised relating to the focus of provision such as, for example, the lack of provision for staff training or for front line work, and the perception by one partnership that there was too much emphasis on processing cases, and not enough on addressing behaviour. Some of the prisoners within the focus groups suggested that there was insufficient focus on addressing basic needs and conditions in prison. One stakeholder event suggested that resources are too often focused on new work rather than the needs of existing projects.

5.15 A further common theme was the identification of problems with the means of provision of funding (discussed in many of the events / meetings and by a number of respondents to the written consultation). This included the identification of specific problems for the voluntary sector (such as the lack of funding security and the related restrictions which this imposed on the work that could be done). One voluntary organisation suggested that the provision of funding to voluntary organisations through local authorities was neither efficient nor effective, as this meant that national organisations had to apply to 32 local authorities.

5.16 A number of comments were also made about the use of short term, time limited funding, including that year to year contracts made it difficult to build relationships and to undertake service planning. There were also seen to be some problems with competitive funding (e.g. the potential for replication and fragmentation of resources), erratic funding and initiative funding. The means of funding of criminal justice social work services was also seen by some to be problematic, in terms of the provision of ring-fenced funding, the inflexibility of provision and the inability to mix "core and non-core" provision. One local authority also pointed out that the funding formula for criminal justice social work did not appear to take account of the rural dimension (and, for example, the lack of opportunity to undertake groupwork). One of the stakeholder events also suggested that the contract culture was counter productive in working to address individual needs.

5.17 A very high number of comments focused on the balance of resources between the use of custody and community disposals, with many suggesting that there was a disproportionate expenditure on imprisonment and particularly short sentences (reflecting the point made earlier in relation to efficiency and effectiveness). One respondent suggested that too much was spent on some forms of community disposal.

5.18 Many comments were made about the cost of imprisonment (including the "hidden" costs such as family break-up and the impact of loss of employment on the labour market) and the lack of resources to some forms of provision in the community, for example:

"Lack of resources inhibits the development of cost efficient and effective community sentences such as probation and community service." (Representative organisation)

5.19 A number of other specific forms of community disposals were identified as lacking resources.

5.20 A number of respondents expressed specific concerns about the intention to build new prisons, with one suggesting, for example, that they found no evidence that this was a good economic or social investment and that there had been no discussion of whether the money might have been more effectively spent in other ways.

5.21 A small number of respondents identified that decisions about resources were often driven by issues such as public opinion, publicity and image, which may not accord with criminal justice policy. It was also suggested that allocation does not always take sufficient account of the range of participants in the process (including, for example, victims, offenders, families or other members of the community and practitioners).

PROMOTING EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS AND VALUE FOR MONEY

5.22 Many respondents made comments about the means of promoting efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. A number of ways were suggested to address all of these issues, some of which related to general improvements, and some of which focused specifically on the use of resources.

5.23 General improvements which might increase efficiency and effectiveness have been suggested throughout the report and will not be reiterated in detail here, but included to:

• Develop provision to address gaps and meet the needs of all offenders at all stages, as outlined particularly in Sections 1-3. (A range of specific suggestions were made in relation to individual services and programmes and some emphasised the need to meet the needs of all groups.)
• Develop a clear national and local strategic approach to provision, as outlined particularly in Sections 1, 3 and 4. (Suggestions included developing a clear purpose, shared goals and national and local strategies.)
• Improve some aspects of working practices such as joint working, information sharing and communication, as outlined particularly in Section 4. (This included the need to avoid duplication, provide appropriate information at all stages and address some of the existing barriers to joint working.)
• Improve the criminal justice process, as outlined particularly in Sections 1-3 and raise awareness of the process. (This included, for example, addressing issues relating to speed and flexibility, sentencing policy and the management of sentences as well as decreasing the number of requests for SERs and piloting other models of court working.)
• Impose fewer custodial sentences, as outlined particularly in Section 3 whilst developing and improving options in the community. (It was suggested that this might have the additional effect of easing pressure on SPS and allowing more work to take place with offenders.)
• Improve staff morale and working conditions. (Suggestions included: recognising the work of staff; providing more positive messages; carrying out a review of work / salaries; restructuring the wage system; providing more diverse opportunities; and developing staff care and training.)

5.24 As highlighted in Section 4, there were mixed views as to whether or not specific forms of organisational restructuring could lead to improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. Although some respondents suggested that a single agency could have an impact on this, more took the view that this was not necessarily the case, and that it may involve a higher level of cost (at least in the short term) and greater inefficiency in service provision. It was also clear that a number of respondents felt that it would have a significant and detrimental impact upon other related issues such as staff morale and staff shortages. All of these issues have been discussed in the previous section.

Improving the use of resources

5.25 Some of the suggestions about improving the use of resources focused upon addressing the issues identified throughout the report, while others focused on the means of allocation of resources in order to ensure that they were used in an appropriate way.

5.26 In relation to the use of resources to address particular issues, potential developments were largely implied by the problems identified, but overall themes included the perceived need for:

• A general increase in resource provision across all agencies (including resourcing "mainstream" services).
• Additional provision to specific services or groups (covering the types of groups identified, whilst including some very specific suggestions such as: a review of funding of secure care for young people; a review of a specific named service; investment in autism services; more resources to the Parole Board and the need to develop preventive work).
• Developments to the nature of funding and the means of provision (such as the provision of secure, sustainable, longer term funding and flexible funding, as well as specific suggestions such as: a review of funding for SPS and criminal justice social work; the creation of a new funding stream; the provision of guidance on access to funding; centralisation of funding to voluntary organisations or some form of top slicing for national organisations before local distribution, or conversely continued provision through local authorities).
• Reduction in the use of custody (particularly for short sentences) and a shift in resources to community disposals (with a range of existing and potential community interventions identified, as well as some very specific suggestions such as: reversing the trend to build new prisons; undertaking a review of the value of prison in a modern society; providing resources to research and developing community provision; providing smaller community-based prisons when custody is used; developing new facilities such as custody centres, small units or halfway houses and using resources to support rehabilitation rather than containment).
• Support to developments in working practices (e.g. the provision of well-resourced multi agency forums / partnerships; joint planning; research and training and specific suggestions such as: the potential for some existing work to be developed or purchased from the private or voluntary sector and the need for a review of staffing structures).

5.27 In terms of developing efficient means of resource allocation, themes included the need to ensure that:

• Resource allocation flows from the identified strategic priorities and supports shared goals (with suggestions including the need for a strategic overview of the use of resources, and the use of a national strategy as a means of determining priorities and ensuring best value, as well as the provision of support based upon quality assurance and accreditation).
• Decisions are taken for appropriate reasons (rather than, for example "short term election catching") and include the views of appropriate participants.
• Funding mechanisms are sufficiently long term and flexible to meet needs (with additional very specific suggestions including: the need to take account of rurality; the need for race equality to be built into procurement guidance; the potential for pooled budgets or shared resources for some purposes and the suggestion that contracts with agencies to run programmes throughout the prison service could be more cost effective than contracts with a variety of groups providing similar types of services in different prisons).
• Research, evaluation and monitoring inform the allocation of resources (e.g. using a variety of methods including learning lessons from other work and focusing on outcomes and "what works". Although some also suggested the use of targets, other respondents were concerned that target-setting would undermine the work undertaken).
• Resources are targeted appropriately to key areas of need (with suggestions including: targeting particular geographical areas; deprived communities; national priorities; those at the greatest risk of reoffending; those most likely to benefit; those at specific stages; particular groups or issues and "what works").

5.28 It was also suggested that political will would be required in order to support any redirection of resources.

THE CONSULTATION OVERALL

5.29 As well as providing views on the consultation issues, some respondents made comments on the actual consultation overall. Some warmly welcomed the consultation or the opportunity to participate, or expressed agreement with the concerns raised. Some provided additional material (in the form of papers or references to papers, information about how their responses were generated, or detailed information about their work). One raised personal issues. All of this detailed material was provided to the Scottish Executive.

5.30 A number of respondents raised more specific issues about the consultation. Some highlighted questions about the use of the findings and the way forward. A number of prisoners, for example, expressed some concerns about the use of the findings in terms of whether anything would change and whether their views would be given equal weight with others. They also stressed the need for feedback to be provided to consultees, using appropriate means.

5.31 A small number of respondents made comments about the actual consultees or process, with most of the comments emphasising the need to include the views of particular groups. These included: the courts; sentencers; police; other government departments (such as Development, Education and Lifelong Learning and Health); offenders; victims and young people. One stakeholder event suggested that they had only had limited time available to consider the issues.

5.32 A number of comments and suggestions were made, in most of the strands, about the subject matter of the consultation. For example, it was suggested that consideration should include a focus on:

• Offending (as well as reoffending).
• Reasons for offending.
• Offenders from childhood onwards (not only sentenced prisoners).
• The whole criminal justice system (and for some, wider still) not just SPS and criminal justice social work.
• Successes as well as weaknesses (e.g. the general fall in recorded crime in Scotland and examples of good practice).
• Sentencing.
• Restorative justice.
• Issues for specific groups.
• Health and mental health.
• Victims and witnesses.
• Prevention.
• Social inclusion.

5.33 One of the stakeholder events and a respondent to the written consultation expressed a concern that the consultation was about cost cutting, with the single agency seen as the cheaper option. It was also suggested that the perceived focus on the single agency and organisational change was limiting. A small number of respondents also suggested that the outcome of the consultation may be a foregone conclusion, with a perception that there was a strong leaning in the document to a single agency.

5.34 A small number of respondents (including a stakeholder event and face to face meeting) suggested that there was some conflict in the subject matter. It was suggested, for example, that although the document focused on rehabilitation and reducing the prison population, more behaviour is being criminalised and sentences increased, and there is an emphasis on talking tough on crime. New prisons are also planned, and these apparent contradictions were seen to give mixed messages.

5.35 A small number of comments were made about the presentation of the material, with the suggestion that the language used was very critical, or too complex. Three stakeholder events raised questions about definitions, in terms of the difficulties of defining "reoffending" and "effectiveness".

5.36 A number of respondents to the written consultation raised issues relating to the use of statistics, focusing in some cases on the assumptions made. Several respondents raised issues about the use of reoffending rates as a measure, with some suggesting that it is not an ideal measure and should not be used alone to indicate effectiveness. One respondent suggested specifically that the calculation of reoffending depends on the number of people involved and other factors, and does not mean much in terms of reducing crime and increasing public safety. Another identified that reconviction rates fail to account for the frequency or seriousness of offences, while it was also suggested that levels of imprisonment and rates of reoffending are not irrevocably linked, with rates of reoffending reflecting complex legal and social trends. One respondent focused on the cost calculations and a small number suggested that it is not clear that a 60% reconviction rate means that prison is not working (as recorded crime is falling). One respondent questioned the statistical base for the view that community options are more effective.

5.37 Finally, a small number of respondents made observations about links between this consultation and other work (in addition to the links identified earlier in relation to the means of working). The potential links highlighted included:

• The Justice Committee Inquiry on rehabilitation programmes in prison.
• The Sentencing Commission review.
• The review of children's hearings.
• Action to tackle alcohol misuse.
• Prevention of offending.
• Awareness raising of cultural / refugee issues.

5.38 All of the findings which have been presented in this report should help to inform consideration of the best means of taking work forward to address the issues raised in relation to reducing reoffending in Scotland.

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?

Annex 2 The consultation strands

As noted in the "Introduction", the consultation process involved a number of strands, further details of which are provided below.

The written consultation

A total of 138 responses to the written consultation were received. There were 2 anonymous responses and 19 individual responses where the name of the respondent was withheld to protect confidentiality. A total of 13 organisational responses were withheld from publication, but, in accordance with Scottish Executive policy, their names were recorded. With the exception of the excluded individuals, the respondents were as follows:

Respondents by type

Respondents were grouped into categories. Although there will be limitations to any means of classification (as for example, some organisations could potentially have been in more than one category and some subjective judgement was required) the purpose of this is only to provide a broad overview of the spread of responses and does not affect the material. Responses, by these categories, were as follows:

The category "voluntary organisations" included organisations working directly with offenders, as well as those with an interest in criminal justice issues more generally (or a specific issue linked to criminal justice). This category also included faith groups. The category "representative groups" included, for example, trades unions, professional associations and CoSLA. The category "agencies" included public sector organisations other than local authorities. The category "partnerships" included local authority criminal justice groupings and the category "public groups" included members of the public who met in a group and groups of prisoners who submitted written responses.

A total of 19 responses (13 organisations and 6 individuals) were identified as being confidential. A further 30 individual respondents did not wish their names and / or addresses to be published, although they allowed their responses to be used.

Events with stakeholder groups

A total of 15 regional events were held as follows:

• Argyll and Bute.
• Argyll and Dunbartonshire.
• Ayrshire.
• Dumfries and Galloway.
• East Renfrew and Inverclyde.
• Fife.
• Forth Valley.
• Lanarkshire.
• Lothian and Borders.
• Northern.
• Orkney and Shetland.
• Tayside.
• Tayside Sheriffs.
• Voluntary Sector Forum.
• Western Isles.

A further meeting was held for which notes were not received by the Scottish Executive, making it impossible to include this.

Face to face meetings

Face to face meetings were held between the Scottish Executive and the following:

• Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland.
• Association of Directors of Social Work.
• APEX.
• Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland.
• Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
• Inspectorates (except police) and Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission.
• Joint Faiths Advisory Board.
• Lord Wheatley and Lady Cosgrove.
• Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
• Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice.
• Scottish Refugee Council Policy Forum.
• Scottish Prison Service Board.
• Scottish Prison Service Trades Union side.
• UNISON.
• Victims' Organisations.
• "Other" Voluntary Sector.

An additional meeting was held, but the organisation involved did not agree to the use of the material from the discussion in the preparation of the consultation report.

The focus groups

The focus group strand of the consultation was facilitated by Reid Howie Associates and covered 213 participants in 34 focus groups across Scotland, as well as including a small number of face to face interviews (young women offenders in the community and victims of crime). The focus groups and interviews involved the following:

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 with young women offenders in the community in one other area (where it was suggested that the young women involved would respond less well in a group setting).

While it was recognised that it was impossible for these focus groups and individual interviews to be strictly "representative" (given the scope, scale and timescale for this strand of the consultation), the mix of respondents was considered appropriate to ensure that the views of key groups were taken into account and to provide a range of expertise and experiences.

Survey of members of the public

A survey of members of the public was carried out by George Street Research involving in-street interviews with 519 people at a range of locations across Scotland and 8 discussion events (involving 69 participants) at four locations.

Street interviews were held at the following locations:

• Aberdeen.
• Argyll.
• Ayr.
• Banff.
• Castle Douglas.
• Dumfries.
• Dundee.
• Dunfermline.
• East Kilbride.
• Edinburgh.
• Elgin.
• Fort William.
• Glasgow.
• Inverness.
• Kirkcaldy.
• Oban.
• Peebles.
• Perth.

Participants by age and gender were as follows ¹⁵:

Discussion events were held in:

• Aberdeen.
• Castle Douglas.
• Edinburgh.
• Glasgow.

Participants by age and gender were as follows:

Annex 3 Method of analysis

In order to complete this report, primary analysis had to be undertaken of the responses to the written consultation, on-line discussion and the notes of the stakeholder events and face to face meetings. The findings from the focus group strand had already been analysed and a report prepared, as had the findings of the research carried out with members of the public.

The primary analysis of the raw data from the written responses, on-line discussion, stakeholder events and face to meetings was carried out first. These strands of the consultation generated a very large amount of largely qualitative data, which was complicated by the variation in the ways in which responses were provided. For example, while some of the respondents ordered their comments around the specific questions posed, many did not. Some ordered their responses by overall themes while others provided more general observations (whilst sometimes making comments which were relevant to specific questions). Differing interpretations of the questions and issues also meant that different respondents provided comments on the same issues at different places in their responses. The method of analysis was designed to take account of all of these factors, whilst preserving the detail of the material.

In order to analyse this material, an Access database covering each of the questions under each theme was used. This contained fields for basic data about the respondents. Fields were also created for each of the questions posed in the consultation document, along with an additional field for any other comments.

Responses which followed the response form (and question format) were input directly to the database. For the remainder (the majority of the written responses and much of the detailed material from the meetings), the large amount of material was read and summarised into the consultation questions before being input at relevant points in the database ¹⁶. For each of these responses:

• The submission was read in full.
• Summary data relating to each question was identified from the text.
• The data relating to each question was input into the field for that question.

Following completion of the database, the second stage involved working systematically through the comments and analysing these. All of the responses to each question were identified (by type of respondent), before being organised into "books" of different themes emerging.

The nature of the data (with the same issues emerging at different points in different responses) meant that, at this point, these "books" were organised by issue (sometimes covering more than one question) rather than by individual question. This minimised the likelihood of repetition and overlap in the analysis framework.

A further document of "sub-themes" was then prepared within each issue-based "book", providing further details of the range of points made and allowing a more detailed summary of the findings for each question.

In summary, for each of the issues:

• The material for each response commenting on the issue was considered individually.
• The book of the emerging themes was identified for each issue.
• The themes were subdivided into a further file of suggestions relating to each theme.

Following completion of this process, the findings from the two reports of the other strands of the process were then summarised and added to the books and themes.

This method helped to ensure that, as far as possible, all of the broad themes discussed by respondents were identified. The report is a general summary of these themes and an overview of the evidence. The original responses (with the detailed points) are available separately, with the exception of those identified as confidential, which are only available to the Scottish Executive. These were, however, available for analysis, and the material provided in these responses has been included anonymously in the report.