Summary
Background to Report
This inspection of the Ayrshire Partnership is the thirteenth 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 143 court reports and 15 home background reports. We examined 120 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 the 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'.
The inspection findings show that the standard of some practice was very good. Supervision of offenders on community service was of a high standard and opportunities to link community service more closely with overcoming barriers to employability were being developed. Other areas of practice showed clear room for improvement. Offending behaviour needed to be better analysed and focused on more during supervision. Risk assessment and management required to be addressed more consistently, particularly in work with high risk offenders.
One key finding, however, was that the Partnership arrangements across the three authorities had not made much impact on the delivery of criminal justice services. Efficiency and capacity-building gains had not yet been achieved and there was no Partnership performance management framework in place to inform and measure planned improvements.
Key Findings
- The dominant evaluation was that the quality of social enquiry reports was 'adequate'. (reaching a minimum standard with substantial room for improvement)
- The risk of re-offending was assessed in nine out of ten reports but there was a less consistent approach to assessing for risk of harm.
- Home background reports were stronger on describing supports available to offenders after release than assessing any risks posed to the community. Two thirds of reports contained a provisional release plan.
- Three quarters of supervision cases included an initial plan. Three quarters of such plans focused on addressing offending behaviour, and slightly more also addressed offending related needs.
- A sustained focus on addressing offending-related needs was evident in two thirds of cases, whilst a sustained focus on addressing offending behaviour was evident in only half of cases.
- Practice in managing supervision compliance was 'good' or 'very good' in more than half of cases. Community service performed particularly strongly on the management of compliance, achieving 'good' or 'very good' evaluations in four fifths of cases.
- The content of supervision was 'adequate' and 'good' in equal proportions for both sexual and serious violent offenders. Victim awareness was addressed in only half of such cases.
- Community service schemes were supervising offenders well in each of the authorities but there were no opportunities for joint work, service development or training.
- The Partnership had not delivered the improvement, consistency and efficiency gains that had been hoped for.
Key Areas for Improvement
- Report writers should improve their analysis of offending behaviour and risk of harm;
- Supervision should be based on a plan in every case and should focus on offending behaviour as well as offending related needs. Training, guidance and supervision must combine to ensure that risk of harm assessment is thorough and on-going in the supervision of high-risk offenders;
- Partnership-wide services should be subject to performance management measures to ensure that they are active and effective in proportionate measure across the three authorities;
- Community service schemes in the three authorities should commit to closer cross-authority working to maximise development opportunities and efficient use of resources;
- The Partnership should establish a quality assurance framework for criminal justice across the three authorities;
- The Partnership should keep its planning and service development processes under close review to ensure proper integration with the role and priorities of the South West Community Justice Authority.