Criminal Justice Programme Board minutes: November 2023

Attendees and apologies

• Cat Dalrymple (Chair, Scottish Government (SG))
• Ruth McCallum (TCP 3 Programme Manager, SG)
• Lucy Gibbons (TCP 1 Programme Lead SG)
• Amy Wilson (Head of Justice Analytical Services, SG)
• Fiona Cameron (TCP 3 Programme Director, SG)
• Gemma Fraser (Community Justice Scotland (CJS))
• Jennifer Harrower (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS))
• Marie-Louise Fox (Scottish Legal Aid Board (SLAB))
• Kingsley Thomas (SLAB)
• Dene Burke (Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service (SCTS))
• David Fraser (SCTS)
• Patrick Campbell (Police Scotland)
• Naomi Gregg (Head of Justice Portfolio Management Office (PMO), SG)
• Karl Champion (Senior Officer PMO, SG)

Observers

• Allan Wells (SG)

Apologies

• ACC Wendy Middleton (Police Scotland)
• Anna Donald (TCP 1 Senior Responsible Owner (SRO), SG)
• Willie Cowan (TCP 3 SRO, SG)
• Sue Brookes (Scottish Prison Service (SPS))
• Karyn McCluskey (CJS)
• Robert Strachan (SPS)
• Cameron Stewart (SG)

Items and actions

Agenda

• welcome and introductions 
• key notes and actions
• action and decision log review 
• transformational Change Programme (TCP) 1 highlight report update
• TCP 3 highlight report update 
• project dependencies (TCPs 1 and 3)
• any other business (AOB)

Welcome and introductions

The TCP 3 Programme Director chaired the early part of the meeting as the Chair had prior commitments and welcomed members to the eighth meeting of the Criminal Justice Programme Board. 

Key notes and actions

The draft version of the key notes and actions were circulated on 24 October. No feedback or comments were received so these are now considered agreed and signed off.

Action and decision log review

The TCP 3 Programme Director reviewed selected open actions.

3-1306 – Partners project leads to provide information on the assurance progress for each project.
SG clarified that this is relating to TCP 3 and we are trying to understand the assurance processes for each project.

5-0908 – All to review the refreshed draft terms of reference (ToR) on receipt and provide feedback direct to SG.
This update will be covered under AOB.

1-1110 – All partners to provide a clear list of projects and initiatives that contribute to reducing journey times.
Previously agreed to focus TCP 3 on reducing journey times and looking for other areas that contribute to this. Summary Case Management (SCM) and Digital Evidence Sharing Capability (DESC) projects will also contribute to reducing journey times. Another initiative would be linked to section 76 legal aid changes. Police Scotland have stood up a working group around court demand and direct measures for early intervention along with Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).

TCP 1 highlight report update

The TCP 1 Programme Lead presented the programme highlight report. A discussion took place at the Operations and Analysis Group (OAG) around the performance approach for this TCP. Currently trying to identify existing tools that can be used to collect data around measuring the victim experience with the justice system.

Action 1-0811 – SG to share performance approach paper produced for OAG.

Action 2-0811 – All board members to circulate OAG performance approach paper within their organisations and identify correct people to feed in.

SG presented the logic model for TCP 1, highlighting that delay is a major driver behind poor experiences for victims. COPFS are keen on improving court scheduling which is key to improving journey times and victim experience. There are concerns around the current loading of summary trials and sheriff and jury courts. SCTS agreed on the point around communications and proposed a deep dive for this board on High Court floating trials.

Action 3-0811 – SCTS to present a deep dive on High Court floating trials at a future board meeting.

The board discussed how we are often system heavy when talking about victim satisfaction but understanding the victim experience is deeper than that. There is ongoing work around victim disengagement levels, particularly around violence against women and girls. There is an absence of a real data set in this area and we are looking to the third sector to help. A consultation has taken place around victims and survivor experiences and disengagement, particularly in terms of violent crime. Court scheduling is also on the radar, Police Scotland have developed a court scheduling tool, looking for COPFS data to overlay when a trial is due to commence with available officer time to ensure things like annual leave are avoided. 

Action 4-0811 – SG to work up suggestions into future proposals for the board to consider.

TCP 3 highlight report update

The TCP 3 Programme Manager presented the programme highlight report. The programme focus has primarily been on the dependency work and more work is needed to develop the Total Operating Model (TOM) for SCM. Remote Provision of Evidence is back in the scope for TCP 3. We need to make a decision on Virtual Custody as it was taken out of the programme but updates are still being provided.

Action 5-0811 – Porftolio Management Office (PMO) to amend core documents to reflect inclusion of Remote Provision of Evidence in the scope of TCP 3.

The project that was taken out was a North Strathclyde sheriffdom creation of a virtual custody court. A slightly different model of virtual custody courts is now progressing and it would make sense to include this in TCP 3. A Sheriff Principal will chair this going forward and there are meetings in calendars and a business case will be produced to support this. 

This project has been stood up to deal with a particular issue within SCTS, but does it also have an aim to contribute to the outcomes of the programme?

Once the first steering group has taken place and the ToR has been agreed, these will be forwarded to the board for agreement. Following that we would be in a better place to make this decision.

Action 6-0811 – TCP 3 Programme Manager to bring further discussion around whether the Virtual Custody project should be in the scope of TCP 3 to the next board meeting on receipt of report from SCTS.
SG continued with the programme update. The SCM interim report is in the process of being approved for publication. SG are also making progress on System Health Check project. There are still issues around DESC that are being worked through and the Trauma Informed Domestic Abuse Model (TIDAM) project is progressing.

The board asked to see the programme highlight reports in advance of future board meetings so that attendees are able to better prepare. The Chair agreed to revisit the timings and pace of future board meetings to support this and other work.

Action 7-0811 – PMO adjust future meeting schedule to better fit the reporting cycle and move to an eight-weekly meeting cycle.

Action 8-0811 – TCP leads to provide PMO with full programme highlight reports so that PMO can issue before board meetings.

Project dependencies (TCPs 1 and 3)

The TCP 3 Programme Director presented a refreshed version of the dependencies paper. The important question is what we do with this information and how it will assist us in deciding what to do differently. Potential way into this question is to take this map and use it to start building a TOM, in the first instance for summary business. This TOM is trying to describe in on a page what the ideal process would look like. The current programme scope is one stage and we could incrementally add content to create another stage. The aim is to provide an overall picture and make it easier to understand what it is we’re trying to achieve and what we intend to change.

The board agreed the TOM is a good starting point, the first action should be to make sure this is aligned with core strategies/visions across justice organisations and SG. The purpose of these pilot projects is to formulate what we want the system to look like in the future and a TOM is a good place to start. Some of the content in the TOM goes beyond scope of TCPs but what the pilots could do is provide more insight into some of the policy questions and inform future policy decisions. The reason for including content outside of TCPs it to create an idea of the future system as a whole and a future version of the TOM could be pulled back to only cover the TCPs. The board highlighted the importance of connecting with TCP 2 on this work and emphasised how full and robust baseline information will support programme managers in developing a better TOM and therefore better future state.

Many projects have clear KPIs and it would be good to pull those together into the TOM. In terms of co-location, are there areas where all pilots could be run simultaneously in order to assess the combined benefits to the system? The main question is whether this is the best approach. In terms of Dundee for example, where DESC, COS and SCM are all live pilots there is a need to balance the implementation of these pilots whilst maintaining business as usual given how resource intensive some pilots can be. If we only piloted in one area it would be difficult to asses which initiatives are delivering against the outcomes of the programmes. However, we need to ensure that one initiative is not hindering another. This approach could really benefit from analytical support around the outcomes and to develop a clear idea of how we are measuring success and cumulative outcomes. There will be some examples where co-location of pilots will be key, for example the TIDAM project needs to work alongside SCM. One of the features of SCM is that it seems to be working better in Dundee than other areas, which is also where DESC is active. This seems to be an area where layering the initiatives is making a difference, could be an area for further study.

A good starting point would be Dundee where several pilots are active. We could compare and contrast this with areas where solo pilots are active. We could then consider adding another initiative in Dundee and building up iteratively. One of the challenges is the lack of a clear plan for delivery and rollout which makes it difficult to see where this is going and what analysis would support the plan. We need to develop a draft rollout plan as a basis. The key issue is the different dynamics in each location which makes it difficult to get an accurate comparison of each pilot initiative. We need a more coherent plan to layer all of the initiatives together and have a good idea of what the end game is.

We shouldn’t be starting pilots unless the vision is that they will become part of a national TOM. We should go into pilots with clear idea of success criteria and measurements of the pilot should be pointing towards those criteria. There needs to be a plan for what happens as soon as those success criteria are met. The next step is to develop a provisional rollout plan which identifies where pilots are being launched and when.

Action 9-0811 – TCP 3 Programme Manager to present the next version of the TOM at the next board meeting.

Any other business

The PMO highlighted a recent ask from the Criminal Justice Board (CJB):

• the wider Vision for Justice three year delivery plan was published on 6 November
• the CJB have asked the PMO to provide a paper clarifying the roles and responsibilities of both the CJB and Justice Board
• the paper needs to set out what the CJB’s sponsor role means in practice both to the TCPs and the delivery plan
• the paper is due to the CJB on 22 November

The PMO will share this paper with the board when its ready. This leads on to the Evolution Session summary report and refreshed ToR for this board. The aim is to get the Evolution Session summary report to members ahead of the next meeting.

Action 10-0811 – PMO to share CJB paper with the board for information when ready.

Action 11-0811 – PMO to share Evolution Session summary report ahead of next board meeting.