National Care Service: Justice Social Work research

4. Partnership working

Key points

• The nature and extent of partnership working was generally viewed as a strength of JSW by both JSW staff and their wider professional partners.
• JSW has a wide range of key local partners, including other branches of social work, wider justice services, other local authority services, the NHS, and a variety of third sector services.
• Inevitably, at local level some partnerships were viewed as easier or more effective than others and participants discussed a number of factors that either facilitated or hindered effective joint working.
• Co-location can substantially strengthen partnership working by helping staff develop working relationships, support knowledge and information sharing, and make it easier to link clients with services.
• Effective communication and information sharing supports risk management, but was felt to be hampered by a combination of ICT systems and restrictive policies and practices around information sharing among some partners.
• Statutory frameworks such as MAPPA can help ensure consistency in partnership working and decision making.
• Partnership working relies on sufficient resources in terms of funding, time, staffing and access to services, not only for JSW but also crucially for their partners.
• Where JSW or their partners felt they shared a similar ethos or values, this was viewed as helping to facilitate joint working. However, JSW did not always feel wider professional partners fully understood their role.
• Opportunities to share best practice with colleagues from other areas across Scotland were valued by JSW staff; there was a desire to increase these opportunities, especially for those below senior management level.

Introduction and context

This chapter covers views on partnership working, from the perspectives of both justice social workers and their wider professional partners – who are JSW’s key partners, and what are the factors that support or hinder effective partnership working?

Partnership working has been a long-standing focus within the justice sector. The most recent National Strategy for Community Justice (2022^[17]) explicitly recognises that the effective risk management and social integration of justice involved people requires a collaborative, holistic and multi-agency partnership approach. Recent legislation designed to improve partnership working which impacts on JSW has included: the creation of Community Justice Authorities (2006), later replaced by Community Justice Partnerships (CJPs, 2016); Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) (2007), which require bodies to cooperate on risk management; and the Public Bodies (Joint Working) Act 2014 which underpins arrangements for the integration of health and social care, establishing ’integration authorities’ whose aim is to facilitate effective partnership working between NHS boards and local authorities.

The literature review conducted for this research highlights the wide range of partners with whom JSW needs to work to meet their client support and public protection responsibilities. These include: Children and Families and Adult social work teams, the NHS (particularly, but not only, mental health services), Alcohol and Drug Partnerships, Community Justice Partnerships, Community Justice Scotland, the Fire and Rescue Service, Skills Development Scotland, Victim Support, Police Scotland, the Scottish Prison Service, the Procurator Fiscal’s Office, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (including Sheriffs and court staff), education, employability services, local authority housing teams, and third sector organisations delivering a wide range of services their clients may need.

The extent to which different JSW partners are embedded within the structures described above (e.g. CJPs and HSCPs) varies across local authorities, with the complexity of governance arrangements under HSCPs reportedly leading to some tensions between partners.^[18] The existing literature also indicates that having multiple IT systems amongst partners constrains capacity for effective information sharing.^[19]

Key local partners

The organisations identified as key partners across the six case study areas included in this research closely reflected those identified in the wider JSW literature review, delineated above. Perceptions of the most important partnerships varied with participants' specific roles - for example, JSW staff who were part of a dedicated court team were more likely to mention court staff, Sheriffs, and SPS, while those responsible for supervising DTTOs were more likely to mention the NHS and addiction services. The availability of particular services locally was also a factor, as discussed below.

Overall, both JSW professionals and the partners interviewed for this research were very positive about the nature, quality and impact of many of their working relationships with partners in terms of:

• Effective risk management through sharing of information
• Navigating access to appropriate support for clients
• Sharing resources and knowledge, viewed as particularly important during an emergency situation such as the Covid-19 pandemic or if a client presents during a crisis, and
• Providing additional resource to deliver relevant JSW services.

As one senior manager put it:

“I would struggle to see how justice could function effectively and as effectively as it can without a real fundamental integrated approach across services.” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 13)

However, inevitably some partnerships were viewed as easier or more effective than others at local level. Participants discussed a number of factors that either facilitated or hindered effective joint working.

Factors impacting partnership working

Co-location

Across the six case study areas included in this research there were various examples of JSW staff being co-located (based in the same office/building) with other services. The precise configurations varied both between and within areas, with examples including: JSW teams being based within courts; sharing offices with other social work teams and / or with housing; or being based in large multi-agency centres where many key local authority and other public sector partners are also located.

Participants described how co-location can substantially strengthen partnership working by:

• Helping JSW staff to develop personal relationships with staff in other services. There was a perception that staff in other services were less likely to decline requests that were made in person.
• Supporting knowledge and information sharing by providing opportunities for staff to communicate informally. This helped support risk management by facilitating discussions about potential issues.
• Helping staff develop a greater understanding of each other’s service provision, which was particularly useful for newer staff learning about partner services. At a more senior level, co-location supported joint strategic planning.
• Making it quicker and easier to link clients with the services they need. Co-location was mentioned as particularly important if a client needs help quickly during a period of crisis. It also made it easier for JSW staff to accompany services users to meetings where necessary.

“When you are part of an area team and you're co-located with addiction, homeless casework, children and families, lots of those relationships develop very organically…for clients as well, it can be one stop. They come to the social work department and can see their addiction worker, they can link in with their children and family’s worker, so there is massive, massive, benefit to that kind of model and provision of service.” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 7)

While in general, the positives of co-location were seen to outweigh any challenges, JSW professionals did discuss some practical issues that need managing, including access to meeting rooms and private spaces (particularly important given the confidential nature of many JSW-client conversations) and managing risk when different groups of services users may be accessing busy reception and waiting areas.

“…there are issues if we share with Children and Families, not least registered sex offenders coming and visiting, but the benefits of being co-located with other services I think outweigh the challenges” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 8)

The specific services JSW are co-located with is also obviously relevant: in one area where JSW was located within a court building, the team also reflected on the potential negative impacts they felt this had on clients in terms of revisiting the place where they were convicted to access services. Their preference was to be co-located with other social work services rather than other justice services as they felt the message it sent to clients was “almost at odds with the model of what we are trying to achieve” in terms of welfare and support. Nevertheless, overall, it was clear that JSW professionals viewed the benefits of co-location as outweighing any negatives.

Integrated teams

There were also some examples where staff members from other services were integrated within JSW teams. For example, the Women’s Justice Team in one case study area includes an NHS nurse and a third sector staff member who attend staff meetings and deliver services for clients. In another area, there is a programme for vulnerable women delivered by JSW, Children and Families social work and addiction services. Integrated teams were seen as supporting positive outcomes by recognising and addressing the multiple support needs of particular JSW client groups. One suggestion was that embedding a mental health worker in every JSW team would be beneficial, given the prevalence of mental health issues among their clients and the reported difficulties accessing these services (discussed further below).

Statutory framework

The statutory framework governing key elements of the responsibilities of JSW and their partners was seen as an important facilitator of joint working with key partners. Through MAPPA there are requirements for regular meetings and statutory guidance around attendance and roles^[20] which was felt to help ensure consistency in partnership working and decision-making. MAPPA meetings were generally described as productive with room for differences in opinion to be aired. Partnership working under MAPPA was contrasted with the challenges that can arise around joint working when there is no equivalent shared statutory framework.

“…there are very clear guidelines set out through legislation in regards to joint working and risk assessments based on case conferences, [and] the frequency of them based on the offender’s risk, so because everything is very tight and clear as it’s laid out there are regular meetings and we do effectively use emails to ensure all information is shared with all the agencies…[by contrast, in addiction services] it’s very much on a voluntary basis, the customer has a wee bit more control over this, so if they don’t engage, the agencies can’t work more effectively together.” (Wider professional partner interview 10)

Communication and information sharing

Discussion of the benefits of co-location often focused on its impact in supporting effective communication. More widely, participants highlighted the importance of proactive and regular communication between partners who need to work together to support JSW clients, particularly ensuring that there are communication channels outside crisis management and channels for informal discussion of issues affecting JSW.

JSW’s local professional partners interviewed for this study were generally very positive about the quality of communication from JSW. They appreciated JSW staff taking the time to reply to emails, attend meetings and share information, in some cases contrasting this with the lower level of communication they felt they received from other services.

Participants reflected on multiple aspects that underpin good communication including: opportunities for joint meetings, staff willingness or ability (depending on organisational policies and practice) to share information, and the interface between ICT systems.

Attendance at multi-disciplinary meetings (in addition to MAPPA and Community Justice Partnership meetings) was mentioned by several participants as supporting effective communication. For instance, in one area a social worker described how it had been helpful for them to attend NHS meetings, because JSW often have the most contact with clients and can share information with other relevant health teams. At the same time, JSW staff did not always feel that they were included in all relevant meetings (including those relating to individual clients) – for example, a manager discussed the fact that they were not always invited by Children and Families colleagues to meetings concerning their clients. There was also a perception that JSW were not always listened to by other partners. For example, senior staff in one area discussed a case where their recommendations and requests in relation to a clients’ safety were not taken on board by other services.

Concern was also raised around a lack of information sharing by some partners, which JSW professionals felt could affect risk management. Challenges were discussed with respect to the Scottish Prison Service, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, the NHS, and Police Scotland. For example, JSW professionals in one area noted that justice social workers used to receive custody lists from Police Scotland but that these are now only sent to senior managers which slowed down the process of identifying when their individual clients had been picked up by the police. Senior leaders in another area raised specific concerns about JSW not being made aware of level one orders for unpaid work by courts, which they felt raised issues for how they meet their KPIs and managed risk in the community.

“we had one [level one order] the other day where that order was made ten weeks ago, and we only just got a copy of the order from the court, so that person has been on their three-month order for ten weeks, and we just got it in... if a report hasn’t been prepared by us, but a Sheriff or a Justice of Peace has given an order of X amount of hours, if we don't give an order on that day, then we have already missed the KPI.” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 3)

Paraprofessionals also described getting information for reports from the NHS about addictions or health conditions of clients in prison as a “nightmare” because of NHS policies around consent to share information.

“…trying to get information from the NHS up in the prison is an absolute nightmare…they are insistent on a ‘consent to share’ form being signed by the prisoner who is not our case…it is a massive barrier particularly when we are trying to get this information within two weeks to get these reports back to the prison, and they won’t give us it. So, the reports are going back without that key piece of information [on health or addictions].” (Paraprofessionals interview 2)

JSW professionals also expressed frustrations with the impact of different ICT systems on information sharing between partners. Staff recognised issues around GDPR and some staff reported that work was underway to try and improve the situation. Co-location was perceived to have mitigated the impact of information sharing issues in some areas (since staff could share information more easily in person). However, staff also mentioned relying on “personal favours” to access information. Where staff can easily share information through shared computer systems this was described as a “huge benefit”.

Resources

As discussed in chapter 3, resourcing issues were a strong theme across interviews. This included a strong emphasis on how partnership working relies on availability of sufficient resources for both JSW and for its professional partners.

The availability of JSW funding to purchase services from the third sector had a direct impact on the scope for partnership working: participants in one area gave examples where partnerships between JSW and the Third Sector had ended or were at risk because of a lack of funding, while a third Sector representative described how year-to-year funding creates insecurity and uncertainty for their staff. Justice social workers in one area noted that they did not always have the budget they needed to fund partners to provide the unpaid work opportunities they felt would best meet their client needs, potentially impacting on their successful rehabilitation:

"The only way we will get a kind of better service that way is to kind of, I suppose, beg at the hands of a charity to say, will you provide a decent placement for them free of charge" (Paraprofessionals interview 6)

At the same time, the availability of third sector services, or lack thereof, in particular areas also impacted on the scope for partnership. JSW teams covering more rural areas, as well as smaller towns, described a general lack of a third sector provision offering some of the mental health, addictions and employability support often provided to JSW clients by the third sector in Scotland’s cities: as one senior manager in a rural area put it, “we’re it”. It was noted that while some services claim to offer support across the whole of Scotland, in reality this was sometimes only phone support for people in remote areas, which JSW professionals felt did not meet their clients’ needs.

Staffing pressures and workloads within JSW was also raised as a barrier to effective joint working. A Housing partner in one area highlighted high staff turnover and sickness rates in JSW as making it difficult for them to find out who to speak to about a client. Wider partners also felt that stretched JSW resources affected the time available for senior staff to focus on strategic work as opposed to immediate service delivery. At the same time, JSW professionals were aware of the pressures on their partners, particularly with respect to the NHS. Availability of mental health services in particular was a recurrent theme across interviews and was perceived to be a nation-wide problem – as one professional partner put it, “health is on its knees”. This was seen as creating particularly acute issues around supporting clients with ‘dual diagnoses’ of mental health and substance misuse issues and as having significant implications for the ability of JSW to effectively support clients to remain in the community:

“That is why people are not lasting in the community because other services, if you are trying to get them placed, they are not coming in, particularly adult services and mental health services” (Justice social workers interview 3)

In working against a backdrop of resource challenges and constraints, participants highlighted that it is important for services to understand the pressures on each other and to be open about this. For instance, one senior partner within the Scottish Prison Service mentioned that it would be easier for them to raise resource issues with the Scottish Government if JSW staff were more specific about why they are not able to provide a service for certain clients.

Ethos, culture, values

JSW professionals discussed positive elements of their own professional culture that they felt helped foster partnership including an openness to innovation and a willingness to share information and reach out to other organisations. Several participants noted the importance of the attitudes of senior JSW staff in fostering a culture that supports partnership working.

Where JSW or their partners felt that they shared a similar ethos, this was also viewed as facilitating effective joint working. For example, a participant from Police Scotland noted that JSW and the police have a similar understanding of risk reduction in the context of reducing offending:

“Largely we are of a similar mindset. Our focus is on preventing reoffending…so we have [a] very shared vision. I find the individual social workers that I work with are very very good, they have the exact same thought processes as me…Children and Families social work might attend the same meeting but have a very different perspective, they’re much more focussed on the welfare of the people…” (Wider professional partner interview 2)

However, where partners were seen as having a different ethos, this could present a barrier to effective partnership working. For example, JSW professionals across several areas felt there was a difference in organisational attitude between JSW and NHS services when it comes to supporting clients. They felt that that NHS services often appeared to operate a ‘two or three strikes and you’re out rule’, whereby if clients do not attend two appointments they are removed from a treatment programme. This was seen as inappropriate given the complexity of JSW clients’ lives and issues and did not reflect JSW professionals’ understanding of a trauma-informed approach.

Overall, there were differing views expressed both between and sometimes within areas as to which partners JSW staff had most in common with - the alignment of priorities between JSW and Police Scotland, described above, was not recognised by all JSW staff, for example. Perceptions depended both on the specific role of the staff member and how they saw their professional identity (for example, where they saw the balance between the ‘social worker’ and ‘justice’ elements of their roles, as discussed in chapter 2).

Other factors impacting on partnership working

Other factors seen as having an impact on partnership working included:

• Structure – as discussed further in chapter 5, there were different views on the impact of particular local structures on JSW in general, and different views on their impacts on local partnership working in particular.
• Remote working - there was a perception that the ability to build effective relationships with partners has been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic and the associated increase in remote and hybrid working. Staff recognised the benefits of remote working (particularly for staff covering wide geographical areas) but also emphasised the importance of ensuring there are opportunities for staff to connect face-to-face with key partners (as well as each other).
• Local connections – spending time out of the office and actively developing local connections was felt to be particularly important in terms of JSW relationships with the third sector, where there is no central database of all relevant service providers to refer to. In contrast, there was a perception that JSW’s relationship with COPFS in one area was not as strong as they would like it to be in part because COPFS was seen as a more centralised service which made it more difficult to make local connections and work towards local priorities.
• Joint training – it was suggested that there was scope to increase joint training between services. For example, a wider professional partner working in housing commented that it is good for new JSW staff to have an understanding of homelessness legislation and tenant responsibilities and that they would like to develop joint staff training on this.

Partnership beyond local authority boundaries

Although discussion of partnership working focused primarily on partnerships within local authorities, there was some discussion of partnership working across local authority boundaries and (to a limited extent) with partners in the rest of the UK.

For JSW staff, partnership working across local authority boundaries tended to relate to situations where an individual client is based in one local authority and the court they are required to attend or prison they are sent to is in another. There was a desire for improved partnership working in these circumstances. For example, JSW staff in one area described difficulties in accessing information from courts based in another local authority. Requests might also be received to manage a license on behalf of another local authority, where a person on license wishes to move from one local authority to another. It was noted that there can be disagreement between local authorities on who will take these cases. One view (from a senior JSW professional) was that it is not always obvious who is ultimately responsible for resolving disagreements between local authorities in these situations.

Some senior JSW leaders (Service Manager or above) mentioned partnership working with other local authorities at a more strategic level. This could involve attending MAPPA strategic oversight meetings, Social Work Scotland Justice Standing Committee meetings, Scottish Government meetings to discuss national projects, or meeting with neighbouring local authorities through regional justice forums. Outside individual case discussions, these forums provided opportunities for benchmarking practice and sharing learning.

Opportunities to share best practice with colleagues from other areas were valued by JSW staff and there was a desire to increase these opportunities, especially for those below senior management level and for staff who work in more remote rural areas. There was a perception among some JSW professionals below senior management level that JSW was quite “siloed” within individual local authorities at present.

There was relatively little discussion of JSW social workers and paraprofessionals working with partners in the English justice system. However, where it was discussed, a number of challenges were identified, particularly around a perceived lack of information sharing around cross-border transfers, which was seen as creating significant potential risk. One participant described difficulties in finding relevant staff contacts within the probation service, and challenges where a sentence handed down in England does not exist within the Scottish justice system.

“I think there has to be a holistic approach, how people come into each country or each segment of the UK, and how do we work with each other. I think that is a matter for the agenda.” (Senior managers / team leaders interview 3)

Suggestions for improvement

Reflecting the discussion above, there were various suggestions from participants on how to improve partnership working, including:

• Improvements to ICT systems to make it easier for JSW and partners to share necessary information in relation to clients.
• Exploring opportunities for increased co-location of services, where possible, for the benefit of clients and staff.
• Expanding integration between teams, where possible, particularly embedding mental health support within JSW teams to improve clients’ access to these services.
• Exploring opportunities for joint training between JSW staff and partners to increase awareness and understanding of the role, responsibilities and capacities of key organisations.
• Considering where there is a need for further multi-agency forums and networks which are open to JSW staff and relevant partners at all levels.
• Encouraging JSW staff and partners (where co-located) to work from the office regularly, to help develop working-relationships and increase opportunities for information sharing.

Discussions on differences in ethos or approach between partners may also indicate a potential need for wider work aimed at agreeing a common understanding of trauma-informed best practice across partners when working with JSW clients in particular, to address perceived stigma and inequalities in accessing services.