Summary
Background to the report
This inspection of criminal justice social work services in the Northern Partnership is the tenth in a national programme of inspections.
Inspectors examined the quality of assessments prepared for the courts and the Parole Board and assessed the standard of supervision of offenders on probation and community service orders and parole and non-parole licences. They evaluated 135 court reports, 24 home background reports and 117 case files. They observed practice and interviewed managers, practitioners and offenders from across the different services. They also contacted Sheriffs and the beneficiaries of community service schemes to gather views about the quality of the service. They undertook the file reading exercise in partnership with criminal justice social work staff from the four local authorities and assessed the quality of reports and supervision on a four point scale: 'very good', 'good', 'adequate' and 'poor'. 1
Inspectors acknowledged the particular difficulties faced by the Partnership in developing and sustaining effective joint working across such a large geographical area.
The inspection found some good and some excellent practice. Most cases had a written supervision plan that addressed offending behaviour and related needs and we encountered examples of sound supervision practice. Community service schemes generally supervised offenders well and carried out work of value to the community.
There was some poorer performance and some areas of service delivery where all authorities in the Partnership could make improvements. Overall standards were weakened by the performance of one authority, Aberdeen City, which performed less well than its partners in most aspects of practice. We were not convinced that the city had put in place sustainable measures to address these failings.
Key findings
- more than half the court reports sampled were 'adequate'; a third were 'good' or 'very good' and one fifth 'poor';
- just under half of reports to the Parole Board were 'adequate'; a third were 'good' and a quarter were 'poor';
- most cases had a written plan for supervision which focused on offending and offending-related needs. Eight in ten plans spelled out how supervision would be delivered;
- supervision focused consistently on addressing offending behaviour in slightly less than four in ten cases;
- in most sex offender cases supervision focused consistently on offending;
- The Partnership's Joint Sex Offender Project ( JSOP) provided programmes for sex offenders although inspectors were concerned about a lack of effective joint working between the project and case managers in the four authorities;
- practice in relation to serious violent offenders was less satisfactory than with sex offenders, with only one third of cases achieving a consistent focus on offending behaviour;
- the minimum number of home visits were arranged in just under half the sex offender cases and in only a quarter of serious violent offender cases;
- there was a lack of effective joint working between the Partnership's criminal justice addictions team and case managers in some of the authorities;
- there was a high level of satisfaction among beneficiaries of the Partnership's community service schemes;
- a wide range of individual and group community service placements were available and the standard of practice in relation to health and safety was generally sound;
- for a period of over two years some probation cases in Aberdeen City received only a minimal service, culminating in over 270 such cases. The city put measures in place in late 2005 to reduce the number of these cases.
Key areas for improvement
The Partnership should:
- ensure practitioners writing social enquiry reports use the results of risk assessments in their analysis of offending and risk of re-offending and that they do more to probe the offender's account of his or her offending;
- ensure all home background reports contain a provisional release plan, a package of supervision and assess the potential risks to the community;
- ensure adherence to National Objectives and Standards;
- make sure that routine quality assurance arrangements are in place;
- do more to address the offending behaviour of serious violent offenders;
- make sure that there are checks on the living arrangements of high-risk offenders;
- ensure greater linkage between service performance and the aspirations of strategic plans with clearly defined actions and timescales;
- review Partnership specialist services to ensure co-ordination, programme integrity, effective integration with case management and value for money.
- Aberdeen City Council should:
- establish and maintain proper oversight of the performance of their criminal justice social work service and should develop a recovery plan that ensures the future stability and viability of the service.