SUMMARY
Background to the report
This inspection of the work of the Lanarkshires grouping (North and South Lanarkshire Councils) is the seventh in our national programme of inspections of criminal justice social work services. The grouping brings together the fourth and fifth largest local authorities in Scotland to deliver criminal justice services.
We examined the quality of assessments for the courts and Parole Board and the standard of supervision of offenders on probation, community service and parole and non-parole licence. We evaluated 156 court reports 30 home background reports and 134 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 Sheriffs and the beneficiaries of community service for their views about the quality of services. 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'. 1
Whilst we found examples of excellent individual practice overall standards in important areas of work needed to be raised significantly. Challenges for managers included setting clear priorities for service improvement and service development, focusing in on key areas of practice and making sure staff had the appropriate qualities and skills for the job and improving planning and quality assurance processes. Managers in both authorities had already identified many of these problems and were taking steps to address them.
Key findings
Just over one in three court reports was 'good' or 'very good'; just under half reached a minimum standard; nearly one in five was 'poor';
Associated risk assessments, including routine screening for risk of harm, were not always completed;
Just over a quarter of home background reports were 'good' or 'very good'; just over half reached a minimum standard and the rest were 'poor'. Just under two thirds of these reports contained a provisional release plan;
Just over seven out of ten probation or throughcare cases had an initial action plan. Plans almost always spelled out steps to help offenders with problems related to their offending. Two thirds also spelled out steps to address offending;
The level of supervision offered to offenders achieved a minimum standard or better in most cases. However in slightly more than one in ten cases it was 'poor'. Standards for the content of supervision were broadly similar though there was a higher proportion of 'poor' cases;
Staff handled compliance issues 'well' or 'very well' in just over half the sample of probation and throughcare cases. Performance in handling community service cases fell significantly short of this figure;
Performance in work with sex offenders was better than with other offenders in the sample. They were more likely to have a plan and supervision was more likely to address their offending. Work with other higher risk offenders was less consistent.
There were delays in allocating offenders to community service placements in South Lanarkshire and problems with the over-allocation of offenders to placements in North Lanarkshire.
Key areas for improvement
Risk assessments must be carried out more thoroughly and consistently and include routine screening for risk of harm;
All cases should have a firm plan, wherever possible within the first six weeks of supervision;
Supervision should seek to maintain a clear focus on offending behaviour as well as offending-related needs. This will mean improving the infrastructure for delivering offence-focused work;
Procedures for supervising offenders released from prison must provide for greater continuity where cases are transferred from the specialist throughcare team to local area teams;
The grouping should review its guidance to make sure it sets out clearly and unambiguously what managers expect in relation to the assessment, management and supervision of high-risk offenders;
Any remaining delays in allocating offenders to community service placements and problems associated with over-allocation should be addressed;
Case recording standards must improve;
Information about service performance must be routinely collected and used to plan and review services.