Scottish Government

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

1. This report sets out the findings of the evaluation of the pilot Community Reparation Order schemes ( CROs) operating in Dundee, Highland and Inverclyde from April 2005 to March 2007. The research has been conducted by the University of Edinburgh's Criminal Justice Social Work Development Centre for Scotland in partnership with DTZ.

2. The Scottish Executive introduced Community Reparation Orders ( CROs) in May 2005 as one of a range of new measures for tackling antisocial behaviour under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004.

3. CROs are

• community-based disposals available to district and sheriff courts in Scotland for summary cases;
• intended to achieve reparation for antisocial behaviour ( ASB) by having offenders, aged 12 and over, make amends for their crimes by completing a programme of between 10 and 100 hours of unpaid community work;
• intended to address lower level forms of ASB that cause alarm or distress to victims and communities; and
• aimed at reducing the offender's involvement in ASB by making them aware of the adverse effects of ASB and encouraging personal and social responsibility and self respect.

4. The evaluation was based on

• interviews with key members of local authority staff in the pilot areas;
• analysis of CRO monitoring data;
• interviews with 10 justices of the peace and 4 sheriffs, spread equally over the pilot sites;
• interviews with 17 offenders;
• consultations with key stakeholders including senior personnel in strategic partners organisations such as the police, the District Courts Association and the Association of Directors of Social Work ( ADSW); community stakeholders who had been involved and consulted prior to the implementation of CROs; and community representatives; and
• cost analysis.

Establishment and Early Implementation of CRO Schemes

5. All 3 sites successfully initiated community consultations on the operation of the Orders. There were local variations in the way this was progressed and consultation through established community safety channels proved problematic.

6. All sites had managed to ensure that their CRO offenders had been placed in work schemes and projects. However, all sites also reported difficulty in creating and sustaining these opportunities.

7. Awareness-raising had been carried out with sentencers. Common techniques included the provision of presentations and open days. In one of the pilot areas staff also regularly attended the district and sheriff courts in the initial stages to promote the scheme and offer guidance.

8. 'Victim awareness' work varied within the 3 schemes. One site set up a victim awareness module and made awareness an ongoing theme and philosophy throughout the Order. In the other 2 sites, no specific victim awareness work was undertaken. The prescribed activities were relied upon to meet the change requirement of Orders.

Profile of the Orders and the Offenders

• During the first 20 months of the pilot period, 74 CROs were imposed on 70 offenders.
• Only 20 of the Orders were given by sheriffs. Nineteen of these came from one site.
• Numbers of Orders in the second year of the pilot were smaller than in the first year and numbers were consistently lower than the expected overall figure of 550 orders per annum.
• The overall average number of hours for Orders was 44 but this varied from 30.4 to 70.5.
• Most (87%) of the offenders were male. The average age of the offenders was 22 and three quarters were aged 21 or younger. No CRO offenders were under 16, however 29% were under 18.
• Previous conviction information was available for 30 (43%) of the offenders. Sixty three per cent had previous convictions. Only one was known to have served a custodial sentence.
• The most common offence leading to a CRO was Breach of the Peace.
• Twenty four offenders had successfully completed their Orders and 16 were still in process. There had been 33 breach applications.
• Completion rates across the different sites ranged from 18% to 60%.

Views and Experiences of the Sentencers

9. The extent to which sentencers said they had been briefed about CROs varied. Sheriffs in 2 sites reported little involvement at the early stages whereas justices across the 3 pilots recalled a variety of training sessions during which they had been informed of the main features of the pilot.

10. Sentencers gave a number of suggestions as to why there had been fewer Orders than anticipated. These included: far fewer relevant cases than expected; lack of attendance of some justices at briefings and training; the existence of a local fixed penalty diversion scheme; awkward location of the scheme on the outskirts of town; and uncertainty about the types of offences for which a CRO could be used.

11. Justices welcomed the sentencing opportunity that CROs provided. Experience of means enquiry court sittings had demonstrated a niche for the Order as a constructive and reparative disposal. Sheriffs on the other hand were content with continuing to utilise Community Service Orders and viewed CROs as an unnecessary addition.

Impact of CROs on Offenders: What the Offenders Said

12. All offenders said that social work staff had explained the nature of the Order to them at some point after they had been sentenced. However, only half of offenders interviewed demonstrated some degree of understanding as to the nature and purpose of the CRO.

13. Many offenders reported positive gain from their placements. Skills acquisition and achievement were regularly cited. Those given menial tasks typically did not value their placement. Some reported difficulties with their placements, such as lack of transport, health issues, and feelings of intimidation.

14. All but one offender expressed satisfaction with their supervising officer, suggesting potential within the schemes to motivate and change offenders. Some described their supervising officer as providing a positive role model. Similar views were expressed about activity supervisors.

15. One site placed particular emphasis on pro-social modelling and offenders here were all able to identify the positive elements of their supervisor's treatment of them. Where supervisors were less involved with the offenders, feedback was more negative.

16. Few offenders reported that they felt their placement had made amends to the community for their offences. Only three offenders reported having any contact with the beneficiaries of their work although offenders took positive account of any praise they received for their work, directly or indirectly.

17. A number of the offenders felt they had changed in some way since starting their CRO. Reported changes included learning to control bad tempers; controlling alcohol consumption; staying at home more; and recognising that graffiti and litter were a public nuisance. Some offenders knew they needed to change but were not ready to, or could not avoid situations that got them into trouble. To some degree, these might be seen as achievements in self-awareness. Twelve offenders discussed future plans, often predicated on ceasing offending. Despite these positive findings, more than half of those interviewed reported committing further offences since starting their Order.

18. Some expressed awareness of the adverse effects of antisocial behaviour and there were reasons to believe that some were aware of the need to take greater personal responsibility. It is not possible to say that any of this awareness had been raised or instilled by the Orders.

What Other Stakeholders had to say

19. Interviews with key strategic partners, community stakeholders and community representatives provide support for many of the broad impressions, within the 3 sites, arising from the evaluation.

20. There was a general belief among community groups that while the public perception was that ASB was increasing, it was not clear that this was borne out by the facts. ASB was attributed to boredom among the young and drug misuse among adults.

21. The principle of community reparation was generally supported but there were perceived to be difficulties in implementing CROs.

22. Inter-agency working in delivering programmes such as CROs was thought to have shortcomings, particularly in relation to communication between agencies.

Cost Analysis and Roll Out

23. Analysis of the funding for the provision of CROs in 2005-06 and 2006-07 in each of the pilot local authorities was compared against actual expenditure.

24. In 2 of the sites, expected unit costs have borne little relation to actual unit costs. Lack of cases was a major contribution to the high costs as initial set-up and capacity building costs are inevitably high.

25. As a result of the lack of throughput, as well as slower than expected implementation, there was an under spend of 30-40% in 2 sites in the first year of CROs.

26. Using a unit cost of £1,000, roll out might cost approximately £7 million across Scotland. However, this should only be seen as a rough estimate based on a level of uptake of CROs across Scotland at the rate originally expected in the three pilot areas. If rollout reflected the problems in implementation in the pilot areas, we estimate an alternative rollout cost of £4.5 million, but with far fewer cases and, consequently, unit costs of near £7000.

Conclusions

27. The CRO pilot schemes met many of the objectives set. The concept of making amends through unpaid work was perceived positively by sentencers, community representatives and offenders alike.

28. Findings from this evaluation suggest that the place of CROs as a vehicle for unpaid work was unclear and needs to be reviewed in the light of other available options. District courts welcomed the provision and perceived it as a constructive response to low tariff offences for people unlikely to be able to pay a fine. Sheriff courts already had unpaid work in the form of Community Service Orders ( CSO) which they use as they consider appropriate.

29. The predicted numbers of CROs (550 in the first year) did not materialise. These numbers are unlikely ever to be realised without further clarification of the applicability of Orders to cases and the function of unpaid work as a low tariff reparative option. The explicit expectation that CRO practice should achieve changes in crime related and crime sustaining (criminogenic) attitudes as an outcome, created differences in practice and expectations across the pilot areas.

30. The findings suggest that the costs and administrative arrangements of providing opportunities for unpaid work may be better met through integration within existing community service provision along a continuum from alternatives to custody, through to diversion from prosecution. Clearer guidance is required for the kinds of experience needed to achieve the different objectives, including making amends, personal change, community awareness and perceived benefits. Policy and practice guidance is required to indicate the appropriate application of this method across the range of offences and court jurisdictions.