SOCIAL WORK SERVICES IN SCOTLANDS PRISONS; AN ANALYSIS OF THE SWIA REPORT

It is a truth universally acknowledged that reoffending rates amongst persons released from prison remain high, and demonstrate little real change. Between 1997-98 and 2007-08 the rate of reconviction within two years remained above 40% every year, with the rates higher for offenders given either a Drug Treatment and Testing Order (probably not surprising, given the criteria that enables an offender to be selected for such an order) or a custodial sentence, and within the latter group short sentences of less than six months attracting rates of over 70%1. It should also be noted, though, that the two year reconviction rate for long-term offenders serving sentences of four years and above, who are released subject to licence conditions, is significantly lower than the average, running at 25%. Once again, it is not surprising that those who have, at the time of their release access to a fixed address, family support and gainful employment are at a markedly lower risk of returning to prison than those whose release may be to an empty flat in an area of high social deprivation, with no realistic employment prospects. In recent years, several attempts have been made to improve the joining up of services offered within prisons and agencies and support services within the community. Attempts to integrate prison and probation services together in England and Wales by way of the National Offender Management System (NOMS) have not been an unqualified success, but with its own legislature, smaller population, fewer local authorities and fewer prisons, there was some optimism that Scotland might manage to escape many of the problems that have beset the system south of the Border. In England and Wales, following the recommendations of Patrick (now Lord) Carter2, the Probation Service and the Prison Service were merged in June 2004 to form NOMS, initially under the control of the Home Office, but since May 2007 part of the Ministry of Justice. The Carter proposals were that there should be 'end-to-end
1

Source: Scottish Government Statistical Bulletin: Crime and Justice Series: Reconviction Rates 200607 and 2007-08 (pub. 31/8/10) 2 P. Carter, Managing Offenders, Reducing Crime, pub TSO, 2004

management' of each offender from their first contact with correctional services to full completion of the sentence, that there should be a clear division between the commissioners of services and their providers, and thirdly that there should be 'contestability' within a market system amongst the service providers. By this means, he argued, efficiency would be increased, unit costs reduced, and innovation encouraged. Its less than seven years of existence has seen several organisational reforms, and it still remains little loved by prison officers or probation staff, and has been the subject of much trenchant criticism in legal journals3, which recent administrative improvements have done nothing to alleviate; indeed in July 2010 Harry Fletcher, Assistant General secretary of Probation Officers union NAPO said The last two years in the merged organisation has been disastrous for Probation and its role and presence has been further eroded as each week has passed. In Scotland, the creation of Community Justice Authorities in terms of the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2005, which for the first time placed a duty on councils, the Scottish Prison Service, the police and other relevant bodies to cooperate and establish joint arrangements to manage high-risk offenders (i.e. the MultiAgency Public Protection Arrangements), and the subsequent developments in Integrated Case Management (ICM) in prisons, introduced in 2006 and designed to provide a multi-agency approach to the assessment and management of the risks and needs of those prisoners with a requirement for post-release supervision in the community, were hoped to give grounds for optimism that management of the transition of those offenders who needed structured supervision on release would operate successfully. The further introduction of a more robust assessment process before a prisoner could be recommended for transfer to open conditions was also hoped to improve community protection. Further changes in respect of adults at risk of harm were introduced by the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 20074 So, with all this in mind, and bearing in mind the size of our prison population, one might perhaps look with optimism towards the conclusions of the recently published report from the Social Work Inspection Agency, titled Social Work Services in
3 4

See, for example http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/nomsand-other-follies With effect from 29th October 2008 this creates the power to remove or ban persons from specified places, in order to protect vulnerable adults.

Scotlands Prisons: A National Inspection5. This is, incidentally, the first full external inspection of social work services in prisons since 1993. Sadly though, many of the conclusions in the report as to the operation of current practices are concerning. It is noted that there was no national strategy of vision for overall provision of services. Just over half of Scottish prisons and local authorities had formal agreements in place outlining what social work services should do, with the remainder relying on informal arrangements. The Executive summary observes that Social work services were not always well integrated with other services in prisons or with those in the community. There had not been a proper strategic review of how these services operated together.6 Current practice At present, the bulk of social work services prioritized working with the minority of prisoners who are more serious offenders, serving long-term sentences of four years and more, who require by law to be supervised on licence after release. 7 This is of course hardly surprising for two reasons. Firstly, long-term prisoners, having committed more serious offences, are likely to be perceived as often presenting a high risk of reoffending, and secondly targeting a large part of budgetary resources to those for whom there is a statutory duty of supervision is of course sensible. However, the vast majority of prisoners, including some regular repeat offenders sentenced to imprisonment several times a year, and those serving less than three years and not subject to statutory supervision on release, were thus unable to access scarce social work resources in custody. The problem of the revolving door offender, whose brief periods in the community between sentences might almost resemble a holiday rather than a time to access employment, accommodation and addiction services, has long been recognised, and considerably exercised the minds of the Scottish Prisons Commission, who issued their report in 20088. The problems of prisoners are complex. In addition to the wholly obvious fact that they are all in prison because of commission of criminal offences, the prison population differs markedly from the
5

Published January 2011 by the SWIA, and available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/340045/0112552.pdf 6 Ibid, Executive Summary, p.3 7 Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (S) Act 1993, s.1 8 Scotlands Choice: Report of the Scottish Prisons Commission, 2008

general public in several ways. In particular, prisoners are 13 times more likely to have been in care as a child, 10 times more likely to have truanted regularly from school, and 13 times more likely to be unemployed9. Literacy and numeracy skills are far lower than the average in society, while drug misuse, mental health issues and suicide attempts are far more common. Many short-term prisoners do not access social work services in prisons, and have next to no support network within the community. A great many of the revolving door offenders are persistent nuisances to their local communities, whose behaviour is no doubt exasperating and worse to those around them, but they do not present a genuine risk of committing serious harm. Quite clearly the continued short-term imprisonment of public nuisances offers their community some respite, but neither deters nor rehabilitates them, and costs a considerable sum. With public spending being reduced in all areas, resources need to be targeted at those who need them most and can access them. How does this affect prisoners and post-release supervision? With the exception of the Open Estate, comprising HMP Castle Huntly in Perth & Kinross and HMP Noranside in Angus, under the administration of one governor and with management services provided solely by Perth & Kinross Council, the remaining fourteen prisons have social work services provided by the local authority within whose boundaries they are situated, involving the employment of around 130 staff.
There is no jointly agreed national strategy or country-wide vision for prison-based social work services. Functions are reported to be defined by local (formal or informal)

agreements between prison governors and councils or by specific contractual arrangements in the two private sector prisons at Kilmarnock and Addiewell, which operate wholly independently of SPS. Evidence shows that many short-term prisoners were not accessing social work services in prisons. It cannot be said with certainty whether this was due to unwillingness on the part of prisoners or inability to provide support. This group was sometimes difficult to engage because the prisoners were only in custody for short periods of time, although evidence referred to above demonstrates that they were often returned to prison for further offences. Evidence collated by SWIA reveals that there were variations between services provided at different prisons. Given that the
9

Scotlands Choice, .p16

Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act has been in force for five years, it is surprising to learn that SPS staff and other service providers in some establishments were not fully aware of the role of prison-based social work services or the range of tasks they could undertake. Not all establishments had developed a clear remit for social work services. There are a number of key tasks to be undertaken by prison based social workers; some of these relate to carrying out risk assessments for the Parole Board and others, participating in ICM and risk management work, and contributing to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), carried out alongside one-to-one and groupwork with prisoners, and engaging with appropriate pre-release procedures. There is evidence of some uncertainty about different staff roles, which contributes to an avoidable duplication of effort, and the report is clear that further progress is still required. For example, prisoners and their families need to be more fully involved in case conferences, and SPS personal officers, whose responsibility is to specified prisoners, are felt to need to fulfil their responsibilities for case management. Views of Risk Assessment Perceptions of risk assessment vary according to whether one is the subject of the assessment or its recipient. SPS staff and the Parole Board both rated the risk assessments produced by social work staff highly. In interviews, though, many prisoners had a different view. Perhaps surprisingly, the report states Many of the (approximately) 170 prisoners we met were not always clear whether assessments of needs/risks had been prepared on them, with a quarter of those surveyed stating that they did not know.10 Some complained that the outcome of the risk assessment process had not been explained, or that they were not given any real opportunity to challenge the assessment findings. An unspecified minority of prisoners expressed the view that the level of risk they posed (in terms of reoffending and harm) often changed when they moved from one prison establishment to another. Their impression was that this was not because of any material changes in their situation but rather due to prison-based social workers coming to different conclusions about risk when undertaking their assessments. Prisoners did not understand why this happened and stated that when they sought an explanation from the professional concerned, they
10

SWIA Report, p.18

were not provided with a clear answer. Risk assessment is, of course, not an exact science, nor is risk itself a wholly static factor. However, to be fully effective, any detailed risk assessment must involve the prisoner fully in the process. It is not always clear that the prisoner knows that his views have been listened to and recorded. Risk assessments are clearly crucial in determining questions such as access to offencefocused groupwork, suitability for transfer to open conditions and for home leaves, and whether someone should be recommended for parole, together with allowing the report writer to propose the licence conditions necessary for public protection to be recommended for insertion into a parole or non-parole licence. Reported statistics show that, in considering onward progression, prison-based assessments are regarded as important and are generally perceived as of good quality. However, s over 30% of assessments were classed as adequate or weak there is still clearly room for improvement in the development, preparation and presentation of risk assessments. The present emphasis on managing the risk presented by prisoners who would be subject to statutory supervision on release (this group encompasses life sentence prisoners, extended sentence prisoners, long-term prisoners serving four years and more and sexual offenders sentenced to six months or more, who must also be released subject to licence conditions) meant that a significant proportion11 of the prisoner population received a significantly more limited social work service. This point was made repeatedly to the SWIA, mainly by staff and managers across organisations and Community Justice Authority chief officers. As with every other issue where expenditure is governed by tax revenue, the current financial climate is not one in which it is easy to find a balance between the needs of individual prisoners, the responsibilities of SPS and other staff, and the need for public protection. Whether the recent introductions of the presumption against sentences of less than three months12 and the new Community Payback orders13 will affect the prison population remains to be seen; what is clear is that there needs to be much more strategic use of limited resources.
11

Just under half of the daily population are not eligible for release on licence. When the effect of the revolving door is taken into account, it appears that the majority of persons admitted into prison each year will not be released subject to licence conditions. 12 Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1995 s.203 (3A), as introduced by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (S) act 2010, s.17 13 Introduced with effect from 1st February 2011; Criminal Procedure (S) Act 1995 s 227A, as introduced by Criminal Justice and Licensing (S) Act 2010, s.14

There is evidence that those prisoners who access social work services are generally positive about the assistance provided in preparation for release, and there are a number of positive comments reported. While there is some evidence of good linkage between prison-based work and outside agencies, especially in the fields of employment/benefits, accommodation and addiction issues, it remains the case that the links between prison-based and community-based services are not always as strong as they might be, and that there are clearly areas for improvement. The recommendations The report makes nine recommendations14, which cannot, for reasons of space, be summarised here in full, but of which the most significant in my view are: Local Councils and SPS should conclude service level agreements for prison-based social work services, setting out both core and local priorities in early course, they should involve prisoners fully in the completion of risk assessments and risk management plans, Councils should ensure that they have robust quality assurance arrangements in order to improve the quality of risk assessments and risk management plans, councils and SPS should take steps to improve the involvement of prisoners families, both at the time of the ICM case conference and throughout the sentence, support to families should be improved, and councils and the SPS should develop ways of measuring the differences that social work services make in meeting the needs of prisoners and to addressing the risks they present. To be frank, the measurement of such differences does appear difficult, given the numerous variables that can be applied to the lives of many offenders, so this latter proposal appears perhaps ambitious. It must of course be a concern to note that, given the time resources and effort put into attempting to tackle reoffending in Scotland, there still appears to be no agreed national strategy or vision for the service, with different arrangements between councils and the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) for the provision of local social work services. The reports view is that the process to standardise these arrangements needs to be concluded urgently. In addition, it is noted that social work services are still not always well integrated with other services in the prison or in the community.
14

The full recommendations can be found at p.5 of the SWIA report

Ultimately the conclusion of this report is that avoidable duplication of work, and unnecessary divergences in practice still exist, and that both staff morale and leadership could be better. However, the general picture is far from discouraging so, subject to the usual caveats in respect of public spending pressures, there may be grounds to expect that progress will continue.