SUMMARY
Background to the Report
This inspection of Dumfries and Galloway authority is the ninth 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 64 court reports and nine home background reports and 45 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 beneficiaries of community service for their views about the quality of service. 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
Operating as a unitary authority has placed limitations on the service and in the past it has experienced particular difficulties with staff vacancies and absences. We found some good examples of individual practice and some interesting initiatives. However, these initiatives have lost their direction and overall standards in important areas of work need to be raised significantly. We found that there was insufficient management oversight of criminal justice services.
Key findings
- One in three reports to court were 'good' or 'very good'; just under a half reached a minimum standard; a quarter were 'poor';
- Only two of the nine reports for the Parole Board were 'good' or 'very good'. Six reports did not have a provisional release plan. Six described family and community supports 'well';
- The authority has a long established assessment meeting that considers all reports to court and the Parole Board. It was therefore disappointing that the quality of reports was not better;
- Most cases had a plan which addressed offending behaviour and related needs. In under half of the cases the level and content of supervision was 'adequate';
- In most cases involving sex offenders the content of supervision was 'good' or 'very good. However the level of supervision was 'poor' or 'adequate' in just under half the sample. In most cases involving violent offenders both the level and content of supervision was 'poor' or 'adequate';
- Community service carried out work of real value to the community. The level of resources available to the CS scheme is markedly poor;
- There was a lack of management oversight of criminal justice services at both an operational and strategic level.
Key areas for improvement
- The service needs to review the purpose and function of assessment meetings. It should ensure that practitioners make better use of risk assessments to analyse risk of re-offending and risk of harm;
- The service must improve its adherence to National Objectives and Standards, particularly in relation to reviews and home visits;
- The service must provide greater continuity for offenders who are leaving prison, from the point of sentence to their return to the community and ensure there is a focus on offending behaviour as well as resettlement;
- The authority must improve the quality of community service transport and premises;
- There must be more effective arrangements for the quality assurance of services and better use made of information collated on IT systems;
- There must be firmer senior management oversight of criminal justice services;
- There is a need to ensure that the criminal justice social work service manager is able to focus on and prioritise the performance and development of criminal justice services.