Scottish Government

CHAPTER 3: PRELIMINARY OUTCOMES

3.1 The main focus of this small scale evaluation has been to consider the implementation and operation of the pilots, rather than to focus on outcomes. Where possible, however, preliminary outcomes achieved by the end of the SDS period have been considered, for example, reported changes in drug and alcohol use as reported in supplementary SERs. Benefits of SDS as perceived by the criminal justice professionals, and small number of offenders interviewed, are also discussed, and disposals after SDS are described and compared to intended sentencing outcomes. Information on re-offending during SDS was very limited, and is mentioned only briefly and due to the scope and timescales of this evaluation longer term outcomes, including re-offending after completing SDS are not been considered.

3.2 Each pilot was based upon slightly different aims or intended outcomes. Key aims, relevant to all pilots, are considered below, under the headings 'Benefits for Offenders', 'Re-offending on SDS' and 'Sentencing after SDS'. Other intended outcomes are not addressed, due to a lack of necessary data ⁹, and it has not been possible to consider the longer-term outcomes of SDS, due to the timescales of the pilot and the evaluation.

Benefits For Offenders

3.3 The following benefits of SDS, are based upon the views of offenders and criminal justice professionals interviewed for the study, and sampled supplementary social enquiry reports ( SSERs) submitted to court after the SDS period.

Overall

3.4 Almost all offenders interviewed described benefiting in some way from SDS, including: learning to evaluate actions; changing attitudes or behaviour; getting support; having an opportunity/chance; and gaining structure/stability.

3.5 Criminal Justice professionals (including the defence agent interviewed) perceived SDS as offering offenders the chance to change behaviour; the chance to get a lesser sentence; and the opportunity to get support. Many interviewees commented that they had seen offenders change as a result of the programme.

3.6 Offenders' progress on SDS was also described in the Supplementary Social Enquiry Report ( SSER) which was submitted to court prior to sentencing (see the following section).

Supplementary Social Enquiry Reports ( SSERS)

Overall

3.7 In Angus and Highland, the majority of analysed SSERs (between three fifths and three quarters) mentioning drug or alcohol use, report abstinence or reduced use by the end of the SDS period. In Ayrshire, where a main focus of the SDS was reduced alcohol consumption, success rates were very high with four fifths of SSERs reporting reduced use.

Angus

3.8 34 randomly selected SSERs were analysed for Angus, out of the 102 orders. A number of these reported offenders' progress regarding alcohol and drugs:

• 3 quarters of SSERs (9 out of 12) mentioning alcohol use reported reduced use or abstinence.
• Over two thirds of SSERs (9 out of 13) mentioning drug use reported cessation, reduced use or that the offender was on a drugs programme.

Highland

3.9 Out of the 68 orders in Highland, 65 SSERs were analysed. Out of these:

• 22 out of 33 SSERs mentioning alcohol use reported abstention, moderated or decreased alcohol consumption.
• 7 out of 12 SSERs (7 out of 12) reporting drugs issues reported cessation, reduced use or that the offender was on a rehabilitation programme.

Ayrshire

3.10 29 of the 45 SSERs analysed for Ayrshire mentioned alcohol use (drug use is not mentioned as this programme focused solely on alcohol use). 4 out of 5 of these SSERs (24 out of 29) reported a reduction in alcohol consumption (with abstinence reported in 3 of these cases).

Conclusions

3.11 Perceptions amongst practitioners and the small number of offenders interviewed suggest that offenders benefited from SDS in a several ways, including getting support, changing behaviour and receiving a lesser sentence after SDS. In addition, across the pilot sites reduced alcohol and drug use during SDS was reported for offenders, with numbers ranging from just over half to four fifths of offenders where this was mentioned in the SSER. The above benefits, however, should be considered in conjunction with the compliance data in the previous section, as it was not possible to interview those who failed to engage with SDS, and they may have benefited less.

Re-Offending On SDS

3.12 Data on re-offending while on SDS was limited, but management information for Angus suggests that further offences were committed while on SDS in 12 out of the 77 low tariff orders, and 8 out of 25 high tariff orders. In Highland, data was available for less than half of orders, with 'no further offending' reported for just over half of these. No re-offending data was available for Ayr.

Sentencing After SDS

Overall

3.13 Interviews with practitioners, a defence agent, Sheriffs and analysis of pilot documentation shows that a lesser sentence was expected for offenders who responded well to SDS. For low tariff SDS, a fine, or admonishment might be anticipated, while for high tariff SDS a non-custodial sentence such as probation was the aim. The following section compares actual sentencing after SDS with expectations and social worker recommendations.

Informing Sentence

3.14 In all 3 pilot sites a supplementary SER ( SSER) was used to inform the Sheriff of offenders' progress during the SDS. In Highland and Ayrshire this was written by the SDS worker, where in Angus a report by the SDS worker fed into the SSER which was written by a social worker. ¹⁰

3.15 Practitioners in Angus and Highland were confident that these SSERs influence sentencing, and in Ayrshire there was a perception that offenders' efforts during SDS affected their sentence. Exceptions to this, however, were mentioned, for example, some inappropriate extensions to SDS in Angus, and a perception in Highland that some offenders who had responded well to SDS had been 'up-tariffed' afterwards (large fine or community service), which could be de-motivating for the offenders.

Sheriffs' Sentencing Decision-Making

3.16 Across all pilot sites, with the exception of the Sheriff responding to the evaluation in Ayrshire, Sheriffs interviewed stated that they would sentence more leniently (for example a small fine) or admonish offenders who had responded well to SDS. If further support was needed at the end of the SDS periods, Sheriffs stated that they would consider an SDS extension (Highland and Angus), probation (Angus and Ayrshire) or community service (Ayrshire). In cases where offenders had not engaged with SDS, the full range of disposals would be considered. ¹¹

Disposals After SDS

Angus low tariff

3.17 The bid documentation states that "the expectation would be a low tariff sentence ( e.g. admonition or fine) at the end of a successful (offence free) period of deferment". In actuality, nearly 1 in 5 low tariff SDS orders (22 out of 62) resulted in admonishment, but fines were rare (imposed for only 2 out of 62 orders). Interestingly, the most common disposal was deferment for good behaviour, imposed for 22 out of 62 orders. Less desirable outcomes were probation, custody, and warrant to arrest which occurred for 6 orders each.

Table 20: Disposal After SDS for Angus Low Tariff Orders

*15 LT cases excluded because trial date after evaluation period, or because disposal data missing or not known.

Angus high tariff

3.18 One objective in the pilot bid is that offenders "achieve sufficient change to enable the Courts to impose a non-custodial sentence" with a target specified of non-custodial outcomes for 50% of high tariff offenders. During the study period, 7 out of 18 orders ¹² resulted, as desired, in a non-custodial sentence, of which 3 were given probation/probation with community service, 3 received a lesser sentence and one was admonished. This is slightly lower than the target set. Out of the remaining orders, 6 out of 18 resulted in custody and 5 resulted in a warrant to arrest.

Table 21: Disposal After SDS for Angus High Tariff Orders

Angus SSER Recommendations

3.19 34 SSERs were available from Angus, but it was not possible to split these by low and high tariff, or match them directly to management information. 24 of the 34 SSERs included recommendations on disposal:

Table 22: Disposals recommended in sample of Angus SSERs

3.20 In the majority of cases (14 out of 24), admonishment, deferment or a fine was recommended. Admonishment was recommended in a third of analysed SSERs (sometimes with deferment/fine given as alternative), but only sentenced in under a sixth of actual cases. ¹³

3.21 Similarly, fewer community service, probation or restriction of liberty orders were sentenced (1 in 5) than recommended (9 out of 24). Custody was not recommended in any analysed SSERs, but imposed in just under a sixth of cases.

Highland Disposals

3.22 Although the pilot bid does not explicitly state the intended sentencing outcome of SDS, social workers interviewed stated that if an offender engaged, a more lenient sentence, such as admonishment or a fine, was expected.

3.23 These expectations were met, with admonishment the most common final disposal (20 out of 49 orders), followed by a fine (11 out of 49 orders). ¹⁴

Table 23: Disposal After SDS for Highland Orders

Highland SSER Recommendations

3.24 Disposal recommendations were available in 57 of the 65 SSERs provided:

Table 24: Recommended Disposals for Highland SDS

*Data missing for 8 orders

3.25 Admonishment was the most common recommendation (24 out of 57 orders) with a very similar number of orders being admonished in actuality. Probation was less frequently imposed than recommended, as was 'deferred sentence'. Notably, fines, community service, and custody were not recommended in any of SSERs analysed, but were imposed in over a third of orders.

Ayrshire

3.26 As with Highland, the Ayrshire pilot bid does not explicitly state the intended sentencing outcome of SDS, but social workers interviewed anticipated a more lenient sentence for offenders who responded to SDS.

3.27 Of the 38 out of 45 SDS where the final disposal was known, nearly 2 in 5 (14) were admonished and a quarter (9) were fined.

Table 25: Disposal after SDS for Ayrshire orders (low and high tariff)

Ayrshire SSER Recommendations

3.28 Disposal recommendations were available in only 13 of the 63 SSERs provided. As a result of these low numbers, no comparison have been made with actual disposals.

Conclusions

3.29 The intended outcome of low tariff SDS across the pilot sites, as specified in pilot bids/identified by interviewees, was a more lenient sentence or admonishment for offenders who had responded well to SDS. Most Sheriffs stated that they would consider sentencing in this way.

3.30 In actuality, admonishment was the most common outcome for orders in Ayrshire and Highland. It was second most common for low tariff orders in Angus, where Sheriffs most often chose to impose further deferment for good behaviour. Higher tariff disposals such as probation, and custody were rare in Highland and Ayrshire, but slightly less so for low tariff SDS in Angus (around 1 in 10 orders). Notably, the number of admonishments given and recommended was very similar in Highland, but fewer orders were admonished in Angus than social workers suggested.

3.31 The desired outcome of high tariff SDS in Angus was that half of offenders should receive a non-custodial disposal after SDS. In fact, just under 2 out of 5 of high tariff orders (7 out of 18) achieved this aim.