Summary
Background to the report
This inspection of the work of the Forth Valley Grouping is the eighth 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 123 court reports, 13 home background reports and 70 case files and observed examples of supervision. We interviewed managers, practitioners and offenders from across the different services and contacted Sheriffs and the beneficiaries of the community service scheme to gather their views about the quality of the service. We assessed the quality of the information in the files on a four point scale: 'very good', 'good', 'adequate' and 'poor'. 1
The authorities have made a concerted effort to work together as an effective grouping. Practice standards across the three authorities are reasonably good and consistently so. There are many examples of good individual work with offenders and of well delivered group work programmes. Staff are learning from each other and sharing their expertise. The grouping is getting to grips with performance management and quality assurance. Their own audit processes have already identified some areas for improvement.
Key findings
- The overall quality of court reports was almost evenly split between 'good' or 'very good' and 'adequate'. Report writers analysed the risk of re-offending 'well' or 'very well' in just under half of reports. There were very few 'poor' reports;
- Four in ten home background reports to the Parole Board were 'good' or 'very good'. Reports described the likely family and community supports available after release well but were less good at describing the post-release package of supervision and at assessing risk to the community. A third of reports did not contain a provisional release plan;
- In around half of cases, there was a 'good' or 'very good' match between the level and content of supervision and the assessed risk. The authorities managed the compliance and enforcement of orders 'well' or 'very well' in the same proportion of cases;
- The level of supervision offered to the sub-sample of sex offenders and serious violent offenders in the sample reflected the risk they presented in the majority of cases. However, practitioners failed to carry out the required number of home visits in half the sex offender cases and in just four of the thirteen cases involving serious violent offenders;
- The content of supervision reflected the risk offenders presented 'well' or 'very well' in seven of the ten sex offender files. Performance in respect of serious violent offenders was less good, with three of the thirteen files sampled judged as 'poor' and two as 'adequate';
- Community service schemes supervised offenders well and carried out work of value to the community. Two authorities had recognised the particular needs of women offenders and made provision to meet these.
Key areas for improvement
- The authorities should take steps to address areas of weakness that this inspection and their own audits highlight, including the need for report writers to continue to improve their analysis of offending and of re-offending;
- Home background reports should be clear about the type of supervision that will be offered to a prisoner on release and should contain a provisional release plan;
- Checks must be carried out on the living arrangements of high-risk offenders;
- Supervision focused on offending behaviour in just under half of cases sampled. The grouping could improve on this by increasing its capacity to deliver structured group work programmes;
- Community service schemes in Stirling and Clackmannanshire need to introduce systematic health and safety procedures and make sure that these become embedded in practice;
- The grouping should build on the work it has already carried out to assure the quality of its services.