National Care Service: Justice Social Work research

1. Background and methods

Background

Justice Social Work (JSW) in Scotland provides a range of services and support to the criminal justice system and people who have been convicted of offences. JSW services include:

• providing assessments and reports to courts to assist with sentencing decisions and to the Parole Board to assist decisions about release from prison
• supporting diversion from prosecution (including supervision services as an alternative to custody)
• implementation of social work orders (including supervising unpaid work as part of community payback orders (CPOs) and supervising drug treatment and testing orders (DTTOs) and deferred sentences
• and statutory or voluntary support and supervision of those serving prison sentences, both before and after release.^[2]

JSW services are currently managed by Scotland’s 32 local authorities, with the legal framework and central policy direction set by the Scottish Government. Since the establishment of Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCPs, formed to integrate services provided by health boards and councils in Scotland), responsibility for planning JSW has been delegated to the HSCP in some, but not all council areas. At the time of writing, JSW was delegated in 19 out of 32 local authority areas (including Highland, which operates a ‘lead agency’ model, in which the local authority leads on planning and delivery of JSW and Children and Families social work services, while the NHS is the lead agency covering Adult social work).^[3]

Community Justice policy in Scotland is currently underpinned by the Community Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, which set out plans for strengthening community justice services, including establishing Community Justice Scotland as a national body with the aim of improving joint working of services to reduce reoffending. At local level, it established Community Justice Partnerships, made up of a number of statutory partners (including local authorities) with responsibility for community justice planning and reporting against national outcomes.

From its origins as a national probation service and its subsequent integration with social work following the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968, how JSW services should be structured, delivered and where and with whom they should be located, has since been the subject of much consultation and debate. The impetus for this research came from the most recent potential development in the structure of JSW – the question of whether or not JSW services should be incorporated within a National Care Service (NCS). In 2022, The Independent Review of Adult Social Care (IRASC) recommended creating the NCS but refrained from making recommendations about the integration of social work into the proposed arrangements. The NCS Bill^[4] includes a power to transfer JSW to a NCS, but the Scottish Government has committed to a programme of professional and public consultation before a decision is taken either way.^[5] The research on which this report is based is one element of a wider programme of inquiry, intended to inform subsequent stages of consultation and decision-making on the relationship of JSW to the NCS. However, as discussed below, questions around the NCS were explored in the wider context of the current strengths and weaknesses of JSW and how the service might be improved, whatever its future structure.

Research aims

The research had three main objectives:

• To identify the fundamental components, principles, and practices of JSW that are required to deliver effective services and achieve agreed outcomes
• To establish the strengths and weaknesses of the current JSW approach in Scotland and where stakeholders feel improvements could be made in achieving outcomes, and
• To analyse the strengths, weaknesses, and implications of JSW being included, or not included, in a future NCS in achieving agreed outcomes.

Research methods

The research consisted of two main elements:

• A literature review of national and international evidence relating to different approaches to delivering JSW, conducted between December 2022 and March 2023
• Qualitative engagement with JSW professionals and key stakeholders (including clients) across six case study local authorities, conducted between April and July 2023.

It was supported by an initial workshop with national stakeholders to refine the research questions and approach.

Literature review

The literature review was conducted by Professor Beth Weaver at Strathclyde University and is published in full as a separate report. It focused particularly on addressing the first of the three objectives above. The latter two objectives were the primary focus of the qualitative research but were also considered – where relevant data was available – in the literature review. As such, the two reports are complementary and should be read together in considering the evidence resulting from this research. The approach taken to the literature review is detailed in that report but included a systematic search for relevant publications across academic databases and operational and government platforms.

Qualitative research with JSW professionals and stakeholders

Qualitative research was undertaken by researchers from Ipsos Scotland between April and July 2023 across six case study local authorities: Argyll and Bute, Fife, Glasgow, Highland, South Lanarkshire and West Lothian. These areas were selected to provide a mix of areas in terms of size, rurality and current JSW structure. In particular, they include four areas where JSW is delegated to the HSCP (Argyll and Bute, Glasgow, Highland – where JSW sits within the Highland Council ‘lead agency’ part of the HSCP, and West Lothian) and two (South Lanarkshire and Fife) where it remains outwith this structure.

In total, the researchers heard from 141 participants across the six case study areas, including:

• 102 professionals working directly in JSW, comprising:
  • 14 senior or service managers
  • 34 team leaders (or equivalent)
  • 29 justice social workers, and
  • 25 paraprofessionals / support workers.
• 19 professional partners, working in organisations identified by the service managers for each area as key partners for JSW locally. These included: representatives from Police Scotland, SACRO, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), addictions and mental health services (including NHS and third sector services); housing services; third sector organisations; and the community justice partnership coordinators/leads for each area.
• 20 JSW clients, who were receiving a variety of different types of support and supervision, including supervision on unpaid work orders, attending domestic abuse rehabilitation groups, support from a specialist Women’s Service, and more general one-to-one JSW throughcare support on leaving prison.

The Scottish Government provided the research team with contact details for the JSW service manager and chief social work officer in each case study area who assisted the researchers with identifying additional team members, professional partners and clients to interview. Within each case study area, as far as possible we tried to ensure a mix of JSW professionals with different roles and responsibilities. Across the six areas, we heard from JSW professionals with specific responsibilities for programme delivery (including domestic abuse and sex offender programmes), court services, DTTOs, younger people involved in the justice system, unpaid work, prison social work and throughcare, and individuals deemed high-risk, as well as those with a more general locality-based JSW remit.

Those assisting with recruitment were provided with information sheets about the research to share with professionals and with clients. JSW professionals liaising with clients about participating were asked to emphasise the voluntary nature of involvement in the research.

JSW professionals took part in a mix of group discussions and paired or depth interviews, depending on the numbers of interested participants and fieldwork practicalities (e.g. participant availability). Groups were split by area and level so that participants could discuss similar experiences and to encourage more open discussion about strengths and weaknesses of current delivery. Interviews with professional partners were either one-to-one or paired depth discussions.

Interviews and groups with professionals were primarily conducted via video or telephone, while discussions with JSW clients were primarily held in person (in JSW premises), except where client preference or the feasibility of arranging a face-to-face discussion necessitated a remote interview.

All fieldwork was conducted by the Ipsos research team using flexible topic guides (agreed with the Scottish Government) to ensure that similar issues were covered across interviews, while allowing for different experiences and perspectives to be explored (see Appendix A). The focus of the guides was informed by the national stakeholder workshop and the literature review.

With the participants’ permission, groups and interviews were audio-recorded to support subsequent analysis. Interviews were summarised into a thematic matrix, organising the data into pre-set and emergent themes, to allow for systematic analysis to identify patterns, differences and details in the views expressed.

Scope and limitations

Any research is subject to limitations and it is important to consider these when interpreting the findings.

The research which these findings are based on was qualitative in nature, supported by wider literature which was also frequently qualitative. Qualitative research is intended to understand the range and nature of views on an issue in detail. It is not intended to measure prevalence. As such, this report avoids using quantifying language as far as possible (including terms such as ‘most’ or ‘a few’).

While the sample was designed to ensure we heard from a wide range of participants, it is not comprehensive – it is possible that stakeholders in other local authorities, or with different roles within the case study local authorities, might have held views that are not represented here. In particular, we did not speak to representatives of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) or Sheriffs as part of this research.^[6] Moreover, as the research was based on a local case study approach, national organisations were not included as interviewees (although a number of national organisations were involved in the initial workshop which fed into the topic guide design).

The researchers were reliant on assistance from JSW teams in recruiting clients to the study. As such, it is possible that those with weaker relationships with JSW were less likely to agree to take part. However, those who did take part expressed a range of views, from positive to more critical, providing some confidence that overall clients were not ‘cherry picked’ for participation.

The topic guides developed for the research were designed to ensure that key issues were covered across interviews. However, as the scope of the research was wide ranging, it was not always possible to explore every theme in the same depth in every interview. Where there was less detailed discussion of a particular theme, this is noted in the relevant chapter.

Finally, at the point in time the research took place, the Scottish Government was still developing its plans for the NCS, including options for including JSW within the service. As such, the research team were not in a position to relay a definitive or detailed description of what this might look like. Participants’ views on the NCS were therefore based largely on what they had seen and heard at that point in time, which may not reflect later proposals. In particular, the research pre-dated the outcome of discussions between the Scottish Government and COSLA around the division of responsibility and accountability between local government and the NCS.^[7]

Report structure

Chapters 2 to 6 of this report explore perceptions of the current strengths, challenges and areas for improvement within delivery of JSW.

• Chapter 2 explores understandings of the ethos, culture and general approach of JSW
• Chapter 3 summarises views on resourcing and funding of JSW
• Chapter 4 covers partnership working within JSW, exploring factors that facilitate or hinder joint working
• Chapter 5 examines views on leadership and governance of JSW, both locally and nationally
• Chapter 6 assesses views on delivery of client outcomes, with a particular focus on the extent to which this is seen as consistent across local authorities
• Chapter 7 discusses the perceived implications of JSW either becoming part of the NCS or sitting outwith this new structure
• Chapter 8 summarises the overall conclusions of the research.

Report conventions

Anonymised quotes from qualitative interviewees are included to illustrate key points. In order to preserve confidentiality, parties are identified only by a group or interview number. Professionals are identified only by their broad professional group, with senior managers (service managers and above) grouped with team leader or equivalent, to protect the identities of people in this relatively smaller group. We do not identify which local authority in particular quoted professionals are from, to avoid the risk of their being identifiable.

This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for market research, ISO 20252.