CHAPTER EIGHT: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE EVALUATION
8.1 Each of the 3 pilot areas was able, successfully, to establish a CRO scheme for both their sheriff and district courts within the required timescales and attempted to meet the specifications required by the Scottish Executive. Undoubtedly, given the similarities, existing expertise in running community service was important to establishing, managing and administering the pilot schemes. The available funding allowed adequate staff resources to be appointed to provide personal and activity supervision and increased capacity for unpaid work in the community. However a number of aspects of the initiative proved problematic.
8.2 The number of Orders made did not, however, reach those predicted except in Site 3 where the expectation was for 50 and 34 were made. Given this fact, the nature of the evaluation had to shift somewhat towards addressing why numbers were so much smaller than original estimates. Nevertheless, the research team believes that a number of lessons have been learned from the pilots.
Engaging with stakeholders
8.3 CRO staff in all 3 areas had initiated efforts to fulfil the requirement to consult key stakeholders, including local communities, on the kind of work to be undertaken by offenders. Contact was made with sentencers, with the dual aim of raising awareness of CROs and, in some cases, coming to some agreement about the parameters of its use (Site 2). However, from what sheriffs said in interviews, the Local Authorities in 2 sites had not engaged very effectively with them. Earlier and more effective liaison might have generated greater numbers and more varied CRO placements which, in turn, might have encouraged sentencers more in using them.
8.4 Each site had adopted broadly similar techniques for progressing their early liaison with courts and communities, such as the provision of presentations and open days. Efforts were made to establish inter-agency liaison via Community Councils, through existing Community Safety Partnerships and through local groups such as area Neighbourhood Watch schemes. Staff in all 3 sites felt, however, that there had been less 'interest' than they might have expected.
8.5 It was suggested that because of the nature of community organisations and their wide-ranging responsibilities, these bodies were only able to engage with the work of the CRO scheme to a very limited degree. Nevertheless, despite a mixed response and low attendance at events, each area was able to establish sufficient local community links to place offenders by identifying highly visible local projects (Site 1), by using individual placements (Site 2) and by incorporating activities into the work of existing CSO and SAO schemes (Site 3). In Site 1, in particular, stakeholders recalled positively the consultation processes used.
8.6 CROs, with the same exception noted above for Site 1, did not achieve a high public profile in local communities or with community groups. Communication channels to existing community organisations did not prove a straightforward way to provide information to the community or to gain community support.
Use of CROs
8.7 CROs, as expected, were used primarily for young men under the age of 21 (no young people under the age of 16 received a CRO), often first offenders, who had been involved in relatively low level offences; only 12% of Orders had been for female offenders. The offences targeted were consistent with the policy focus of anti-social behaviour, although some may have related as much to the law enforcement techniques of police and community wardens as to the anti-social behaviour which had drawn community warden and police attention in the first place.
8.8 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 CSOs which they use as they consider appropriate.
8.9 All sheriffs interviewed felt that CROs had little if anything to offer them as a sentencing option. Scottish research, statistical data and the accounts of some of the sheriffs interviewed for this evaluation suggest that, in practice, sheriffs use CSOs across a wide range of offence types and sentencing circumstances. The introduction of CROs to sheriff courts as an additional low tariff reparative option, where CSOs are technically a high tariff alternative to custody requiring consent, did not, therefore, prove successful.
8.10 All the justices interviewed expressed some enthusiasm for the new Order, particularly for young offenders as it provided them, in 2 sites, with access to reparation through unpaid work which was not generally available. Some justices, however, were uncertain about the kinds of cases for which they could use a CRO. Without a background report from social workers, sentencers have to use whatever information is available about the offender and the offence. In one of the sites, a screening checklist had been drawn up which might have been seen as excluding offenders which the legislation did not intend to exclude. Aids for sentencers may be required to assist them to use the disposal appropriately.
8.11 Some justices seemed reluctant to use the discretion given to them to decide that the offence before them had an element of antisocial behaviour. It may, therefore, have been helpful for justices in their preparation to have been given examples of possible antisocial scenarios including antisocial elements within offences, such as shoplifting, which at face value might not have seemed appropriate for a CRO.
8.12 The existence of a large scale diversion (fixed penalty) pilot in Site 2, may have contributed to the low usage of the Order in that location compared to initial predictions. The other sites had other explanations for low usage. In Site 3 the location selected for the scheme, on the outskirts of the town, seemed to be a very real deterrent. Justices considered this location difficult to access for some offenders who lived outside of town. Offenders might ordinarily not see a problem in getting public transport from their home to the centre of town but the journey from town to the CRO scheme proved more difficult.
8.13 Finally, for the justices in Site 1, their enthusiasm could not be matched by the numbers of what they saw as relevant cases. A combination of this reported slump in numbers, with a strict or narrow interpretation of what constituted a 'relevant' case, a tendency for accused persons not to turn up to court, and the fact that some justices had missed training sessions, possibly contributed to the low level of use of CROs.
8.14 The viability of CROs was questioned, in principle, by sheriffs and in practice by the low usage by justices. The predicted numbers across sites are unlikely ever to be realised without further clarification of the applicability of Orders and the function of unpaid work as a low tariff reparative option. This was made clear by a number of key stakeholder and community representatives interviewed for the evaluation.
Promoting individual change
8.15 Offenders were subjected to an average of 44 hours attendance at a CRO location, spread over at least 6 months, where they would have had an average of just over 4 hours of personal attention to address their offending behaviour. To have effected a measurable change would have been unexpected. What we learned from the interviews with the offenders, however, was that some: had respect for their supervisors; recognised that they were sentenced to make some amends to the community; had learned some basic skills; had been forced to exercise some personal discipline; some of them had plans for their futures.
8.16 The explicit expectation that CRO practice should achieve, as an outcome, changes in the kinds of attitudes identified by research as associated with offending behaviour (criminogenic needs), created differences in practice and expectations across the pilot areas. In general, the unpaid activity was the main vehicle for seeking to achieve such changes; the assumption being that participants would gain a positive understanding of the impact of their offending through making amends to the community and through, in effect, the pro-social modelling of staff. In one site, practitioners recognised that more would likely be needed and included attendance at a short victim awareness module as part of the requirement. This resulted in noticeably longer Orders in that area (an average 72 hours compared to a general average of 44 hours overall) in order to provide sufficient time to achieve change and to have a positive impact on the offenders.
8.17 There was evidence that some Supervising Officers and Activity Supervisors had, indeed, 'impressed' a number of the offenders both with their fairness and in their willingness to offer advice and support. There was no clear evidence, however, that this had the kind of impact that might encourage offenders to desist from offending.
8.18 Around half of the offenders interviewed said they had valued the experience of the Order and felt they had learned something positive from it as intended; others simply saw it as a punishment and a fine on their time that had to be completed. Only a small number had a sense of community benefit from the work. In Site 1 where a nursery and a school project were undertaken, offenders had the greatest sense of there being a beneficiary and of having contributed positively to the community. This same area required attendance at a victim awareness module and had the longest Orders and the highest compliance and completion rates. This may reflect existing practice experience that to achieve positive change outcomes, the constructive or skilled based nature of the work, having some awareness of the beneficiary, and staff role, time and skill are likely to be important ingredients.
8.19 Opportunities for constructive and visible reparation to the community were limited. Most offenders were engaged in work gangs or individual placements cleaning graffiti or gathering litter. Two major exceptions to this related to projects in Site 1 involving creating play areas for a local nursery and a primary school. The attitude and experience of participants in these schemes were noticeably more positive than elsewhere, both in perceiving the direct benefits to the community and in participating in a skilled activity.
8.20 The impact of a court disposal on individual offenders is, at the best of times, very difficult to assess. In the case of CROs, the problem is particularly acute. It had been proposed by the research team that the pilot sites might be encouraged to adopt a specific, if modest, measurement tool. In the event, by the time it was adopted, there was no time to utilise it for the evaluation. There were, however, so few Orders that it would have been problematic to try to generalise from such a measurement tool about something as fundamental as a change in attitudes.
8.21 Over half of the offenders felt they had changed as a result of having a CRO imposed. However, just over a third felt that the imposition of a CRO was not a fair response to the low seriousness of their offence, particularly to breach of the peace. Over half (59%) of the small number interviewed, admitted to having broken the law since being placed on CRO.
Costs
8.22 Costing CROs in the context of a very low uptake inevitably produces unacceptably high unit costs. The dilemma becomes whether or not to build on what are high start-up costs in the hope of encouraging a high take-up rate later. A national roll out of CROs is likely to cost in the region of £7million to produce about 7,000 Orders at a unit cost of £1,000. This is around the level anticipated by initial Scottish Executive funding and local authority estimates of CROs and would represent value for money. However, if the orders experienced similar problems in implementation as occurred in the pilot areas, national rollout is estimated at costing £4.5 million for around 665 orders at a unit cost of £6,800.
8.23 The findings may suggest that the costs and administrative arrangements of providing opportunities for unpaid work may be better integrated within existing community service provision with clearer objectives set for the kinds of experience required to achieve different outcomes, 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.
Conclusions
8.24 Each of the 3 pilot areas succeeded in implementing a scheme for CROs within the terms of the specification set. However key elements such as providing constructive opportunities for offenders to effect changes in behaviour proved problematic. The low uptake and the size of the study sample is too small to generalise with confidence. Nonetheless, the available data provides some evidence to suggest that if CROs were rolled out nationally, district court justices may make use of this relatively costly disposal for people, particularly young people, committing minor offences, thus replacing deferral of sentence or as an alternative to fines, that is, primarily like a CSO, as a fine on time rather than necessarily for the additional explicit purpose of changing attitudes. This might result in a net-widening effect.
8.25 The ambition of providing unpaid work across a wider 'tariff' spectrum than previously available, incorporating district courts, seemed to be welcomed by key stakeholders. However, overall the study findings raise questions about the clarity of purpose of the CRO policy and the viability of distinctive CRO provision as currently presented.
8.26 A distinctive feature of CROs was the policy objective that the Order should have a change impact on low level offenders' attitudes towards their offending and their victims rather than simply be a fine on their time which is the case for CSOs. The structure and nature of the Order made this almost impractical and it could be argued undermined a key objective for the Order. In one pilot, the hours were noticeably higher than in others, ostensibly in recognition of the need for ample time to have such an impact and outcome.
8.27 SERs and consent are not required for the Order and, as a consequence, limited advice was available to courts, particularly district courts, who may have limited experience on the implications of a change requirement.
8.28 Policy guidance providing a model of change, practice standards for the courts and practitioners, and advice on data generation are likely to be required to ensure consistency of practice, for what can be considered a 'high level' change objective within a 'low tariff' order.
8.29 The operational assumption in 2 of the pilot areas was, generally speaking, that the work experience would be 'beneficial' in its own right and effect positive change. One authority made an effort to 'lever in' a victim awareness module using video material and brief discussion to emphasise the change requirement. However, neither the structure, content, sequencing nor duration could be deemed suitable for the intended purpose. Research ( e.g. Lipsey 1992, McGuire 1995) has highlighted the importance of structure, sequencing and duration of interventions aimed at changing attitudes and behaviour and that getting these wrong can be counter productive (risk and programme integrity principles).
8.30 The link between types of offenders and placement varied across sites. If unpaid work is explicitly intended to assist participants better understand the consequences of their behaviour as well as making good to the community, there should be greater attempt to link the types of offences committed and the type of work placements. The opportunities available need to be meaningful, at least symbolically, to the offender and to the community.
8.31 Previous Scottish research has highlighted that having a sense of the 'beneficiary' in their endeavours is important to the impact on offenders (McIvor 1992), and there were good examples of this in the pilots. For example, skilled work improving the external facilities of a community nursery gave a strong sense of satisfaction to participants in that they had paid back to the community and had also gained a sense of worth from the experience. This sat in marked contrast to rather meaningless rubbish collection within a Local Authority office yard, which generated resentment in some cases and in others resigned acceptance that it was simply a punishment to be endured and completed with little or no value.
8.32 Compliance was an important challenge in delivering CSOs and despite a standard disciplinary protocol across all sites, compliance and completion levels varied greatly between the different jurisdictions suggesting different practice cultures and attitudes towards CROs.
8.33 The nature and type of offence seemed important to offenders in relation to the purposefulness of the Order. Some offenders expressed confusion and resentment as to why they were engaged in community work for having, for example, sworn at a policeman or wasted police time. The evidence suggests that these kinds of incidents in particular, and most offences resulting in CSOs, were often associated with alcohol misuse. Only in one instance did issues relating to alcohol misuse or substance misuse feature in practice.
8.34 Almost a third (29%) were young people under the age of 18, appearing mainly in the district court. This is an age group that the UK in general, and Scotland in particular, has been criticised for dealing with routinely in adult criminal proceedings ( EC 2005; UNCRC 2002). The absence of a requirement for an SER before imposing a CRO meant that the district court had no access to advice on how best to deal with this 'sensitive' age group.
8.35 There was no evidence of specific procurator fiscal guidance for dealing with this age group in regard to CROs, other than the existing international guidance (Havana rules 1990) recommending the use, where possible, of diversionary measures for young people under the age of 18. If CROs are to continue to be used mainly in district courts, consideration of the value of an SER and specific guidance to procurators fiscal for this high profile group may be important in fulfilling Scotland's international obligations under UNCRC and its associated guidance.
8.36 The unintended consequence of one of the CRO pilots coinciding with a fixed penalty diversion scheme and possibly resulting in low numbers in that area, might suggest that this category of offender can be effectively dealt with through diversionary measures. For those who fail to pay 'on the spot' fines, diversion to unpaid work may provide an equally effective and cheaper alternative to a CRO in the district courts without the possible negative amplification effects of a full adult criminal conviction.
8.37 The concept of making amends through unpaid work is perceived positively by sentencers, community representatives and offenders alike. Unpaid work is an approach with wide ranging applicability and can be used across a sentencing continuum from alternatives to custody, through to diversion from prosecution. Unpaid work can be used as a punishment with no particular positive expectations or it can be the basis for constructive, disciplined and skilled activity.
8.38 CROs were implemented quickly and showed a number of design and implementation weaknesses. These included problems of engaging effectively with sentencers, raising awareness in the community, policy objectives that required more than simply unpaid work to achieve success, and a narrow target population for whom non-court alternatives could be made (and are) available. These issues, combined with lower take up rates than anticipated, raised questions about the viability of free standing CRO provision as piloted. Integrating unpaid work across a continuum of disposals and within a policy framework which includes community reparative and restorative provision may allow greater coherence in philosophy, clarity of purpose, and more flexible use of unpaid work in the community for both serious and minor offences.