Evaluation of Community Payback Orders, Criminal Justice Social Work Reports and the Presumption Against Short Sentences

Footnotes

1. See, for example, Armstrong, S. and McNeill, F. (2012).

2. The final Bill contained over 200 sections, with almost 700 proposed amendments at Stage 2 and a further 200 at Stage 3.

3. Accessible at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/archive/law-order/offender-management/offender/community/16910/Standards/GuidanceCJSWR

4. Although CSOs and POs were replaced by CPOs for any offences committed after February 2011, a small number of such offences continue to reach the courts and the disposals remain, therefore, as potential outcomes.

5. All data from the Sheriffs' survey are presented as absolute numbers rather than percentages because of the small total sample size.

6. The NOS Practice Guidance on CJSWRs suggests that reports should contain: 'only information which is necessary, appropriate and unique to the person in question' (Scottish Government, 2011b, p.19).

7. As a general point, Risk of Harm can relate to self, those near to us, figures of authority, the general public or situational. It is a potentially complex issue, hence auditors' comments about the need for more comprehensive guidance (see below).

8. All data from the survey of CJSW managers are presented as absolute numbers rather than percentages because of the small total sample size.

9. The latest set of figures are published in the statistical bulletin (Scottish Government, 2014b)

10. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice/Datasets/SocialWork

11. Adapted from Table 1 (Scottish Government, 2014b)

12. The Edinburgh figures include DTTO IIs.

13. Adapted from Table 10 (Scottish Government, 2014b)

14. The unit level data include a small number of orders with two requirements, neither of which are Supervision. It is not clear whether these are data entry errors or orders which do not meet the guidelines.

15. There is a negative correlation between the percentage of CPOs in each local authority that include a DTR, and the percentage of social work orders that are DTTOs, with a correlation coefficient, R = ‑0.34

16. A comparison with 2011-12 would not be valid, due to the decrease in the use of legacy orders and the lack of data on individuals receiving both a CPO and a legacy order during the period.

17. Based on analysis of the unit level dataset.

18. Qualitative data from depth interviews with CJSW and 'other practitioners' detailed this uncertainty, as well as entries from open ended text boxes from some respondents in both the CJSW and Sheriff surveys.

19. The AUDIT was developed by the WHO as a simple method of screening for excessive drinking

and to assist in brief assessment (WHO, 2001)

20. DAST-10 was devised by the Addictions Research Foundation (1982) with the aim of providing a quantitative index score of the degree of problems related to drug use and misuse (Gavin, Ross, Skinner, 1989)

21. To be diagnosed with a Paraphilic Disorder, DSM-5 requires that people with these interests:

feel personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society's disapproval; or

have a sexual desire or behaviour that involves another person's psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviours involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

22. For example, looking at outcomes by employment status at the start of the order, or looking at differences between hours of unpaid work and other activity imposed and hours completed.

23. Scottish Government (2014b)

24. This excludes 12 orders (in eight different local authorities) reported as containing UPWOA Requirements, and either Conduct Requirements or Compensation Requirements, but no Supervision Requirements. While it appears that these orders have been made contrary to the guidance on Supervision, it is possible that they have simply been entered incorrectly into the database.

25. It would have been preferable to include a breakdown by Level 1 and Level 2 orders, but due to the incompleteness of the data, this can only be done for orders commenced in 2012/13, or for orders in which the UPWOA Requirement has been successfully completed.

26. R = 0.22, using figures for the 29 local authorities shown in Tables A6.3 and A6.4 in Appendix 4.

27. R = 0.59, using figures from Tables A6.3 and A6.5 in Appendix 4.

28. Controls are included for age, sex, being in employment, education or training, and having had previous orders during the year 2012/13.

29. Care should be taken in interpreting the table, as it is based on administrative data, rather than sample data. Statistical significance is therefore a meaningless concept, although the measure of significance provided gives an indication of which findings may be a result of small numbers of cases.

30. Those with the largest odds ratios, and with a significance level < 0.05 (see note above). An odds ratio of just over 2.5 for unpaid work and other activity only indicates that the odds of a successful outcome for a CPO with this requirement are 2.5 times the size of the odds of a successful outcome for a CPO with different requirements. Similarly, the odds ratio of 1.5 for offender supervision only indicates that the odds of a successful outcome for a CPO with offender supervision as its only requirement are 1.5 times the size of the odds of a successful outcome when offender supervision is not its only requirement.

31. The odds ratio for each of these requirements is 0.65, so the odds of a CPO which includes a DTR achieving a successful outcome are around two-thirds of the odds of a CPO which does not contain a drug treatment requirement achieving a successful outcome. The same is true for CPOs containing a Programme Requirement.

32. Three Sheriffs did not answer this question.