The Scottish Government

Social Work and Criminal Justice: Probation

National Objectives and Standards for Social Work Services in the Criminal Justice System and the 100% funding initiative (`the policy') were introduced in l991 [ National Standards for Community Service had been introduced in l989.] in order to secure the provision of services which have the confidence of both criminal justice decision-makers and the wider public. This study is part of the social research programme designed to evaluate policy implementation. It examines the process and outcomes of probation supervision.

Main findings

• Packages of probation appeared to be tailored to the characteristics of offenders.

• Probation appeared to be less successful with young offenders than with adults.

• Although most probationers recognised that one of the main purposes of probation was to address their offending behaviour, they identified help with practical or emotional problems as being of most benefit to them.

• Where there was less evidence of targeting National Standards were least often met. In such cases, probation practice appeared more closely aligned to a welfare model which emphasises probationers' problems rather than their offending behaviour.

• Social workers considered that 40% of probationers in the study sample were unlikely to reoffend whilst re-offending was thought very likely in 17% of study cases. Probation was thought to have reduced the risk of re-offending in 68% of study cases.

• Most practice was undertaken on an individual basis. Some managers believed that there was scope for more imaginative approaches to work with probationers for example, the development of modular or group work.

Introduction

The National Objectives and Standards (the Standards, 1991) set out the framework within which local authorities are required to provide social work services where costs are met by the 100 per cent funding initiative (initially social enquiry reports and associated court services, community service, probation, parole and other aspects of throughcare).

Prior to the development of the Standards, local authorities had to fund most social work services out of their general income. Criminal justice services were, therefore, in competition for resources with other local authority services and as a result were not always of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the requirements of the courts.

The main aims of the policy are:

• to reduce the use of custody by increasing the availability, improving the quality and targeting the use of community-based court disposals on those most at risk of custody, especially young offenders;

• to enable offenders to adress their offending behaviour and make a successful adjustment to law-abiding life.

The purpose of this study was to examine the process and outcomes of probation supervision in Scotland by describing the characteristics of probationers, documenting the services offered and examining the effectiveness of supervision in meeting probationers' needs and reducing the risk of further offending.

Four social work authorities were selected for study, to reflect areas with urban centres, those which were predominantly rural and to represent both specialist and more generic forms of organising social work criminal justice services.

The research focused upon probation cases from these authorities which closed between 1 July 1994 and 30 April 1995 (155 probationers). Information was obtained from social work files, 96 questionnaires were completed by supervising social workers and interviews were undertaken with 65 probationers.

The probation process

The Standards were for social work contact were met for 67% of probationers in the sample who were first seen within one week of the order being made; 44% who had at least eight contacts in the first three months; 47% who had at least two home visits in the first three months; and 51% where the timescale of initial reviews was within that set by the Standards.

Action plans were mentioned in all but three probation case files. Offending behaviour, personal relationships and employment featured most often in action plans and in the services offered to probationers.

Most services were delivered on an individual basis and most were provided by the supervising social worker. Other individuals or agencies were most likely to be involved in probation supervision through the provision of services relating to employment, alcohol, drugs and health issues.

Probation outcomes

Action plan objectives relating to offending behaviour appeared to have been achieved in full or to a significant degree in 56% of cases in the sample; those relating to employment or accommodation appeared least often to have been achieved.

Probation objectives were most often achieved with adult offenders though this could be partly accounted for by the higher proportion of young offenders who were breached. Objectives were more likely to be achieved with first or early offenders than with persistent offenders, even when 'successful' orders were considered.

National Standards were least often met in the area where there was less evidence of clear targeting and where probation practice appeared more closely aligned to the traditional welfare model which places greater emphasis upon probationers' problems and less on their offending behaviour.

Social workers' views

Three-fifths of probationers studied were considered to have responded positively to probation. Social workers considered that greatest progress had been made towards achieving the objectives of supervision concerned with offending, personal relationships and successful completion of the order.

Forty per cent of probationers were considered unlikely to reoffend while in 17% of cases reoffending was thought very likely. Probation was thought to have reduced the risk of re-offending in 68% of cases.

Perceived risk of reoffending was inversely related to probationers' motivation, their response to probation and the extent to which offending-related objectives had been achieved.

The views of probationers

Although most probationers recognised that one of the main purposes of probation was to address offending behaviour, they identified help with practical or emotional problems, having someone to talk to and referral to/liaison with other agencies as of most benefit to them. The features of probation which probationers found least helpful were the location or frequency of appointments and the possibility of breach.

The relationship established with the social worker appeared to be a significant aspect of probation supervision.

Most probationers believed that it was unlikely that they would reoffend, though further offending was thought more likely by young probationers.

While a quarter of probationers thought that they had gained nothing from probation, the remainder cited benefits such as: resolving their problems; gaining self-confidence, motivation or self-respect; learning self-control; and having 'time out' to reflect on or change their situation.

Conclusion

The introduction of 100 per cent funding and the National Standards appears to have succeeded in large measure in focusing probation practice upon tackling offending behaviour and in this way has increased the effectiveness of probation supervision.

Some managers believed, however, that further progress could still be made in relation to the development of more imaginative approaches to work with probationers. Most practice was undertaken on a one-to-one basis, suggesting that there may be greater scope for the development of modular or group work approaches, particularly with young probationers.

The study was carried out by the Social Work Research Centre at Stirling University as part of the programme of research to evaluate social work criminal justice policy. The research programme was conducted by The Scottish Office Central Research Unit in collaboration with the Social Work Research Centre at Stirling University and with Edinburgh University. It was funded by the Home Department of The Scottish Office.

Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 6: 'Probation'; the report of the research programme summarised in this Research Findings is published by The Stationery Office. It may be purchased from The Stationery Office, price £15 per copy.

Gill McIvor and Monica Barry

Reports of Individual Studies on this programme are also available:

Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 1: 'The Impact of Policy'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 2: 'Early Arrangements'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 3: 'The National and Local Context'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 4: 'Sentencer Decision-Making'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 5: 'Parole Board Decision-Making'.
Social Work and Criminal Justice Volume 7: 'Community-Based Throughcare'.

Cheques should be made payable to The Stationery Office and addressed to:

The Stationery Office Ltd,
Mail Order Department,
21 South Gyle Crescent,
Edinburgh, EH12 9EB.

Telephone: 0131-479-3141 or Fax 0131-479-3142.

The following Research Findings for other studies on this programme are also available:

Findings 13: 'The Impact of Policy'.
Findings 14: 'Early Arrangements'.
Findings 15: 'The National and Local Context'.
Findings 16: 'Sentencer Decision-Making'.
Findings 17: 'Parole Board Decision-Making'.
Findings 19: 'Community-Based Throughcare'.

Research Findings may be photocopied, or further copies may be obtained from:

The Scottish Office Central Research Unit
Room 53
James Craig Walk
Edinburgh EH1 3BA

Telephone: 0131-244-5397 or Fax: 0131-244-5393