APPENDIX 1
1. The methodology
In carrying out their work inspectors:
- looked at the available information about service performance. They requested management information in advance to build up a picture of local procedures and practices for establishing the direction of services, assuring their quality, and evaluating their effectiveness;
- examined a sample of reports submitted to the courts during a specified period and assessed the quality of the reports held in the case sample files;
- examined a sample of probation, community service, and throughcare case files. These included women offenders and offenders considered to pose a serious risk of harm to others;
- observed individual and group work practice either directly or through video recording;
- visited a number of community service sites selected to reflect the different ways in which community service work placements were delivered;
- interviewed offenders following their observed interviews, group work sessions, or community service work;
- interviewed staff at different levels in the organisation. These interviews focused on issues arising from the management information, file reading, and observation of practice;
- attended meetings of relevant committees; and
- consulted Sheriffs and beneficiaries of community service by asking them to complete a short questionnaire about the quality of the service they received.
2. Criteria for inspection of social enquiry reports
The inspection examined the extent to which social enquiry reports met the main purposes set out in National Standards which are to:
- offer information and advice which can help the court decide between available sentencing options;
- to assess the risk of re-offending and the offender's attitude and motivation to change;
- to assess the feasibility of a community-based disposal involving social work supervision or the need for supervision on release from a custodial sentence;
- to assist the court to avoid the use of custody for want of a suitable community-based disposal; and
- to assess the possible risk of harm to others in more serious cases.
The inspection also examined whether report writers made the basis of the information in reports clear and the extent to which reports showed that key information relevant to sentencing had been checked. Reports were screened for obvious errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation that could undermine their credibility with the court.
3. Criteria for inspection of probation orders and statutory licences
The inspection examined the extent to which requirements for the supervision of orders outlined in National Standards were met. These are to:
- focus attention on offending behaviour, including the factors which precipitate it and on ways of learning the necessary skills which would help to reduce and prevent it;
- involve the offender in completing an action plan which identifies the issues to be worked on and resources to be used, and is achievable;
- set clear expectations regarding standards of behaviour and attendance in accordance with the standards and pursue non-compliance; and
- work in partnership with local agencies.
4. Funding formula
4.1 Allocation between groupings/unitary authorities of available funds for delivering core services is determined by a funding formula agreed between the former Scottish Office and CoSLA in January 1999 and reviewed by the Scottish Executive and CoSLA/ ADSW in late 2000. The formula is derived both from historical workload patterns and a range of needs factors. The workload component is calculated on the basis of agreed workload measures multiplied by the number of orders/reports undertaken (averaged over a 3-year period). Once the calculation has been arrived at for those services considered to be 'core,' the allocation between individual groupings/authorities is determined on the basis of their percentage share of the national workload. The needs factors comprise three data sets based on the percentage population aged between 15 and 29, the percentage population of unemployed males and the proportion of Sheriff Court business. Using these three data sets, each authority's proportion of the national figure for each indice is arrived at and a weighting applied. The final calculation is to apply a two thirds workload and one third needs factor weighting to produce an overall allocation for each individual authority.
5. 'Getting Our Priorities Right'
5.1 This document sets out national guidance for all relevant agencies to assist them to assess the needs of children of drug misusing parents, and provide services to safeguard their welfare. These agencies include drug and alcohol services, children's services and criminal justice agencies, medical and nursing staff, teachers, housing staff, youth workers, psychologists, staff in voluntary organisations, Reporters, police, Procurators Fiscal and staff in prisons. The document underlines the need for workers in these agencies to be aware of those families in which substance misuse is resulting in significant consequences for children. It emphasises the need to provide support and protection for these children and to provide support to parents to tackle their problems. That may mean intervening against their wishes.
5.2 The first part of this guidance sets out what is currently known about the extent of parental substance misuse and the impact on children. Part 2 sets out what agencies need to ask of families when they present with drug or alcohol problems, and provides guidance to staff on identifying risks. Part 3 offers advice on what kinds of help may be needed, and on how to work together more effectively. Part 4 tackles the complex area of confidentiality and offers advice to agencies about when and how to share information. Part 5 identifies the need to strengthen services for families and offers advice on how this might be done. Work with children and their parents' needs to be underpinned by jointly agreed policies, procedures and practice guidance, together with sound training; part 6 provides guidance on this. Each local Drug and/or Alcohol Action Team is advised to work closely with their local Child Protection Committee to put in place joint policies and procedures for addressing the needs of children in these families.
Source: Getting Our Priorities Right, Scottish Executive, 2001.