National Care Service: Justice Social Work research

6. Delivering for clients

Key points

• The overall strengths and challenges of delivery for clients reflected themes in previous chapters. Local flexibility and innovation were also seen as key strengths, although there were some examples where opportunities for innovation were felt to be limited.
• Clients’ views on what works from their perspective focused on: being treated with dignity and respect; having justice social workers who are approachable, communicative and honest; the range and quality of support JSW provide or facilitate; consistency (keeping the same social worker); and flexibility in terms of taking account of clients’ personal circumstances when arranging JSW commitments.
• On the other hand, where clients had experienced what they perceived to be less respectful treatment, multiple changes of justice social worker, or felt they had been treated inflexibly, particularly with regard to the timing of JSW commitments, they were more negative about JSW support.
• One view among professionals was that the delivery of core JSW services is fairly consistent, supported by a clear statutory framework, national policies and sharing of good practice. However, it was recognised that there are local differences in both approaches to delivery and access to wider services.
• Differences in JSW delivery were not necessarily viewed by JSW professionals as always having negative impacts on client outcomes; rather, some differences could be viewed as simply different ways of achieving them. At the same time, there were some concerns about the impacts on clients of differences in interpretation and practice.
• These differences were sometimes attributed to issues around resourcing, or to limitations to the perceived suitability of some national programmes and policies, particularly in rural contexts, both of which were seen as creating barriers to delivering for clients. Inconsistency in terms of access to wider services was also seen as problematic. Again, this was particularly, but not only, discussed in terms of rurality.

Where JSW had developed specialist services targeting specific groups (e.g. women or young people), these groups were generally seen by JSW professionals as well supported. Groups of JSW clients who were perceived to be less well served included: those with particularly complex or multiple needs, (older) people convicted of sexual offences, and clients in rural areas. However, again these perceived inequalities in access to support were viewed as, at least partly, a reflection of challenges accessing appropriate support from external partners rather than weaknesses in JSW delivery.

This chapter considers the strengths and challenges associated with service delivery for JSW clients which, when done effectively, in turn supports public protection. In particular, it discusses issues of consistency of delivering on outcomes for clients, across different areas and client groups.

Summary of strengths and challenges of delivering for clients

The key strengths and challenges around delivering for clients that were discussed by JSW professionals and partners largely reflect those discussed in previous chapters of this report. Key perceived strengths underpinning effective delivery included: JSW’s social work values and overall ethos (see chapter 2); its dedicated and skilled workforce; and its commitment to partnership working (see chapter 4).

However, in addition, JSW professionals reflected on the value of JSW being embedded in local areas and the importance of having local cultures and structures that support innovation.

There was a strong perception that JSW practice benefits greatly from having “local knowledge”, as well as having local flexibility to adapt interventions and services to their client’s needs. Being based within a local community was seen as enhancing relationships with clients, helping them to reintegrate more effectively with their community, as well as strengthening partnership working through raising awareness of the services available in clients’ local areas. Participants working in rural areas highlighted that local services in their areas did not always have an online presence and could be hard to find unless you were based in the area.

"I think you're seeing that developing really well in terms of our recovery networks … and it is about how we are working closely together with people within their local environments and communities and people being able to access the support from their own local communities and not just statutory based services. So [...] I think that locality model lends itself well, I suppose to helping people be part more of their community." (Justice social workers interview 4)

JSW professionals also discussed the value of local autonomy to be creative and innovative in their approach to meeting the needs of clients. For example, one area discussed their involvement in plans to establish a new drugs court service to help manage the high number of drugs-related offences locally, while JSW professionals and partners in another area highlighted the success of their service user feedback group where clients had recently produced a guidance leaflet on what to expect for people coming into the service. However, there were some examples where participants felt opportunities for local innovation were hampered by attitudes of leadership (a perceived unwillingness to act on staff suggestions for change, for example) or practicalities such as local authority size (for example, being too small to develop specialised services or too large to easily roll out innovations across the entire authority).

Professionals’ views on the main challenges of delivering for JSW clients again largely reflected themes discussed in previous chapters. Resourcing issues were central (see chapter 3), while difficulties around information sharing and systems and issues around partner organisations’ ability to support clients were also key (see chapter 4).

Measuring JSW outcomes

Among JSW professionals and partners (particularly CJP leads) there was a view that it could be difficult to assess progress on JSW outcomes. This was partly attributed to challenges around collecting the right data, with JSW workers having to prioritise service delivery over evaluation or experiencing technical difficulties inputting data (including previous issues with the national system for recording LS/CMI data). However, it was also suggested that assessment of, or reporting on, JSW activity is currently overly focused on outputs (for example how many orders are completed, or how many reports are submitted) instead of on outcomes for clients. They felt that this failed to capture the progress made in certain areas, specifically rural areas, where outcomes may not be achieved in the same way or through the same outputs.

Client views on what works

JSW clients that took part in this research were asked about their experiences with JSW and what they thought worked more or less well.

As discussed in chapter 2, the core social work values underpinning JSW’s approach were also reflected in client discussions, who typically felt that they were treated with dignity and respect.

“I was expecting to be treated like a criminal basically, but no, not at all.” (Client interview 5)

Being “approachable” and “communicative” was also appreciated. Clients reported that their justice social workers were easy to get hold of, proactive in checking in to see how they were doing, and gave them opportunities to ask questions. Honesty was also appreciated; one client described how their justice social worker had helped to manage their expectations by being honest and realistic about what types of unpaid work opportunities would be available to them.

Aside from the attitude of individual workers, clients were also very positive about the range and quality of support provided directly by JSW. Clients had received support with a wide range of issues, such as accessing or settling into accommodation, starting or staying in employment/education, personal finance, and mental health and wellbeing. The one-to-one emotional support provided by justice social workers was viewed as a particular strength.

“Sometimes when I meet family that I’ve not seen for a long time, my emotions start to get all over the shop […] they’ve given me pointers on what to look for when it’s starting and how to address it.” (Client interview 1)

Linked to this, there was a sense that justice social workers were non-judgemental and genuinely cared about their clients and acted their best interests. In several interviews, clients spontaneously compared JSW favourably with their experiences of other services in terms of both how they felt they were treated and the quality of support received. Clients who had experience of Children and Families social work, either as children or as parents (or both), were far more positive about JSW. They felt that JSW was more focused on them as individuals and on their needs – one participant who had been through the care system said that social workers she had contact with before her involvement with JSW had always made her feel “invalidated”. Another felt they could be more honest with their justice social worker if they were experiencing mental health issues, whereas they thought that Children and Families workers might use this against them. Clients also indicated that they felt better supported, in some cases, by their JSW than by health professionals they had come into contact with.

However, there was also a perception that while individual social workers may be understanding and caring, their statutory responsibilities around monitoring and risk assessing clients sometimes limited the extent to which clients felt they could fully trust them. For example, one client feared that disclosing mental health issues to their justice social worker may not be in their interest as it may mean they were deemed as higher risk. As one client put it, from their perspective the positives of JSW were all about “the individuals” and the negatives were all about “the governance”.

When clients had a single, consistent justice social worker working with them, this was also viewed as a strength of delivery. Participants explained that this helped them to build up a trusting relationship over time, something that was particularly important to those with social anxiety. This then led to clients feeling more comfortable ‘opening up’ and sharing information with their justice social worker, as well as avoiding the need for clients to explain their background multiple times to different people. In contrast, where clients had experienced multiple changes of justice social worker this was perceived negatively in terms of its impact on their ability to form a trusting relationship with them:

"For me it's difficult with new people, every time [...] it's good having the one person, it's not multiple, because, like I said, the anxiety is through the roof. When it's just the same person your comfort zone eventually calms down." (Client interview 5)

Clients also believed that repeated changes of social worker might impede their progress through the justice system, as they felt that a social worker with whom they had a good relationship was more likely to advocate for them (for example, in relation to parole):

“When you get through nine in a year, none of them are gonna recommend my release. […] It doesn’t work. […] I’d go to a visit and it was a different social worker and I’d get told such and such had left. Then I’d go to another one a couple of months later and get told that she’s left and such and such is here. It’s a nightmare. Every time they’ve done that it’s added years onto my sentence.” (Client interview 1)

One client also mentioned that different social workers seemed to have different information about their case and it did not seem like they worked together and shared this information. This was seen as being impractical and causing issues for them if the social worker working with them was on leave.

Flexibility in taking account of their specific personal circumstances was also valued by clients. For example, one client explained that they were able to take part in unpaid work that was suitable for them given their health conditions, while another said that they were usually able to schedule JSW meetings in the evening to make it easier to fit in with their work commitments. On the other hand, where clients thought JSW had applied the rules to them in what they felt was an inflexible manner, this was the source of some frustration. Examples largely related to unpaid work placements: having inconvenient placements (e.g. not being able to finish in time for the school-run); not being allowed to use phones during unpaid break times; not being given enough choice of the types of work they carried out; or not feeling able to say no to work where they felt uncomfortable (for example doing removals work in a house where they felt unsafe). Clients in one area discussed the fact that, while they felt JSW was inflexible with clients around the timings of placements and appointments, in some cases JSW themselves cancelled these at very short notice, when clients had already moved around work or other commitments to attend them. Unannounced home visits – which are mandatory for some categories of clients as part of risk-management – were also mentioned as a source of some frustration.

There was a belief that sometimes a perceived lack of flexibility was caused by justice social workers being unable to exercise their own judgement to support clients in the most beneficial way. Clients recounted situations where their justice social worker had acknowledged that the rules did not necessarily make sense for their situation, but they could not do anything to change this.

“I don’t think bosses at the very top have got a grasp of what’s really happening either. I just think they’re detached from reality. […] They don’t know what’s happening on the outside. They’re making rules for social workers to abide by, but they don’t really know what impact that’s having.” (Client interview 1)

Governance is, of course, an essential part of the JSW role, but these comments from clients highlight the challenges of delivering on these responsibilities while also retaining an effective relationship with clients.

Clients also expressed some frustrations related to the timing of support. There was a perceived gap in support available to clients between court orders being issued and being assigned a justice social worker, and this process was seen as too time consuming. Linking with professional views on the value of preventative work, one participant said they wished that they had had access to someone like their justice social worker even earlier, as it may have prevented them from offending in the first place. Others felt they would benefit from longer-term support from JSW after the end of their order.

Finally, while clients were, on balance, positive about the support they had received from their current justice social worker, there was an acknowledgement that this can vary. There were clients who recalled negative experiences they had previously had with individual JSW professionals, often in a different local authority, who they felt had been unhelpful, less respectful, or uncaring. This leads on to issues around consistency of delivery for clients across Scotland.

Consistency of JSW delivery between areas

The literature review conducted for this research highlights that issues around consistency of delivery and availability of services between areas have long been recognised as challenges for JSW. More recently, a SPICe report (2022:34) argues that ‘while criminal justice social work may be more prescriptive [compared to adult services], there are inconsistencies across local authority social work departments in practice’.

One view among JSW professionals interviewed for this research was that JSW was actually fairly consistent in terms of delivery of core services, particularly in comparison with other branches of social work.

“I'm not saying that is not something we could improve on. But […] [in terms of] consistency, I think we have got a pretty good set up just now.” (Senior manager / team leader interview 7)

Justice social workers highlighted the statutory framework underpinning key elements of their role (such as MAPPA requirements) as a key factor they believed ensured a relatively high degree of consistency of practice and made their services more ‘structured’ compared to other types of social work. Current national policies were also seen as a route for fostering consistency:

“There are mechanisms in place now, there are national networks that have been developed. […] For example, there has been a development in terms of how justice services deliver reports to the parole board from prisoner and community. That is just one example where there is an umbrella framework there to allow us to come together and share experience and actually develop a consistency of practice. So, I see that as quite a significant stride forward, and […] that offers a reassurance that we are able to organise and develop on a national basis.” (Senior manager / team leader interview 7)

However, participants also highlighted that national policy alone did not guarantee consistency of interpretation across areas, but needed to be supported by regular opportunities for cross-area discussions, for example.

Moreover, although in some respects JSW was seen as relatively consistent, JSW professionals did recognise that some elements of delivery of JSW varied between (and in some cases within) local authorities. In part, these differences were seen to reflect differences in team size and in resources available, including resources available in terms of partner services. For example, in large urban areas, greater use was made of partners in the third sector or joint projects with other parts of the public sector to deliver elements of JSW-related support. They were also able to offer more specialist services targeting specific groups of clients. Smaller and more rural areas had less scope to do this given team size and available external partners (discussed in chapter 4), meaning that justice social workers themselves were delivering more support directly to individual clients.

However, differences in delivery were not only attributed to differences in resources but also to differences in local approach. This, in turn, was sometimes linked with the perceived limitations around implementing national policies or programmes in specific (particularly rural) areas – for example, delivering national interventions designed as programmes based on group work (such as the Caledonian domestic abuse intervention) was seen as more challenging – or even unfeasible – for some rural areas given the geographic dispersal of clients and staff. JSW teams in rural areas also reported having to be creative in terms of how and where they met clients, given the risk of stigma where they are recognised within small rural communities, combined with a lack of alternative public venues, such as cafes or libraries, where meeting in home is deemed inappropriate.

Differences in JSW delivery were not necessarily viewed by JSW professionals as always having negative impacts on client outcomes, but rather as different ways of achieving them necessitated by local conditions. For example, as discussed in chapter 3, JSW professionals in more rural areas highlighted that the greater reliance on direct one-to-one support from JSW (rather than referrals to other services) can help to foster particularly strong and close relationships with clients. However, there was recognition that some differences between areas might have negative impacts for clients:

"There is not consistency across the country in service delivery or interpretation of service delivery or provision. […] when you are, you know, if we have got someone, a [LOCAL AUTHORITY] person who has committed an offence in [ANOTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY], and they don't assess for supervised bail or electronical monitoring bail, then that person is disadvantaged […] they could be at more risk of remand." (Senior managers / team leaders interview 1)

Another example given by a paraprofessional related to delivery of unpaid work, which they viewed as particularly inconsistent, even though they felt it had clear terms and conditions for how it is meant to operate. Based on their experience visiting other local authorities, their perception was that other areas were delivering this in a more innovative manner for clients, including allowing clients to work from home if they are not fit to go out to placements, as well as offering a wider range of more creative interventions to clients on CPOs.

Moreover, differences in the availability of external services across different areas were clearly seen as impacting on the services their clients receive:

“If the person is released to [nearby local authority], then they get a whole range of follow-up, whereas if they come back [here], they don't have anything basically. So, even though they’re getting the benefit of that four months intensive support, they are only getting access to half of the care plan as such, because the normal care plan for somebody in [nearby local authority] would be that you link with those community resources. So, again, it is just about the postcode lottery. Even when we think we’re getting something that’s really good, we are only getting half of it.” (Paraprofessionals interview 2)

Clients who had engaged with JSW in different areas also commented on the difference they perceived in the services they were offered. For example, one client missed the access they had to group activities in a more urban area within the same local authority. They felt they had benefited from both the greater range of activities and the “support network” that these groups had provided. They had also been able to access a mental health nurse based in the same building as their previous JSW team, whereas they were still waiting for a mental health appointment in their new area, having been referred a year ago. On the other hand, they had not been able to access drug and alcohol counselling until they moved.

Other clients described what they saw as cultural differences between JSW teams themselves in different local authorities, commenting on experiences with previous workers who they found “impatient” or viewed as “uncaring”.

Delivering for different client groups

In addition to discussing differences in JSW delivery and services between areas, participants also discussed whether there were particular groups of clients who they felt JSW were able to support more or less effectively at present. Naturally, groups that were seen to be particularly well-served or less well-served varied across different areas. However, some common themes did emerge.

First, where areas offered targeted services, for example, those aimed at young people or at supporting women involved in the justice system, these groups were generally highlighted as being particularly well-served, since support tailored to their specific needs.

“Since the woman’s service has been established a number of years ago - I think that has really added a huge amount to the support and intervention that we give to female offenders in particular.” (Senior manager / team leaders interview 9)

JSW professionals in one local authority with a targeted youth service felt they had seen a ‘big shift’ towards more positive outcomes for young people since they restructured services. In contrast, in areas where young people were seen as being less well served, there was typically a desire for a more specialised service and, in particular, more early intervention and diversion. There was a perceived need for (more) effective communication between the different services supporting young people in conflict with the law and a perception that 16–17-year-olds in particular may be “falling through the cracks” in terms of support between Children and Families and JSW in some areas. However, this was not seen as an issue for JSW alone, but for the wider systems and structures around young people at key transitional stages. Similarly, it was suggested that younger people with autism or another learning disability may be particularly less well-served, but again this was seen as a wider systemic issue: these young people may be missing out on possible early intervention work due to not receiving a diagnosis until they have been through the justice system.

Although overall, as discussed in chapter 3, JSW caseloads were believed to have become more complex over time, it was felt that where clients had particularly complex or multiple needs it was more difficult to access appropriate support. People with neurodivergence and LGBT+ and non-binary clients were mentioned in this context. Particular challenges arose for those with a dual diagnosis of both mental health and addiction problems: JSW professionals recalled numerous occasions where they were unable to obtain appropriate mental health support for a client because of the client’s substance misuse issues, and vice versa. However, this was seen as reflecting lack of appropriate resource and support from partners, rather than a weakness of JSW delivery:

“It seems like other partners are able to walk away from service users, where we can’t. I think that is one of the big frustrations because we really care about people, but we are not all these things that we are talking about, we can’t meet all these needs that someone presents to our services with.” (Justice social workers interview 4)

Finally, those convicted of sexual offences and subject to notification requirements were seen as potentially less well served, largely because of issues of stigma and risk perceptions among JSW partners in the public and third sector. JSW professionals gave examples of the challenges they had faced accessing appropriate services and support for this group, including finding organisations prepared to offer them relevant work or other placements as part of their CPO or recovery work, and issues around finding willing providers for care packages for older people convicted of sexual offences (who, JSW professionals noted, represented a growing proportion of their caseload).

While much of the discussion of which client groups are more or less well served focused on those with specific needs, one view was that those classified as low or medium-risk, who are not eligible for more specialised services, may miss out by not being prioritised for limited JSW resources. For example, one justice social worker felt they did not have as much time as they would like to spend with clients on diversion who are less ‘high risk’. Another highlighted that there could be more support put in place to support those who do not meet the threshold for specialist services, but who still have complex criminogenic and welfare needs.

“I think we don't do enough with, so your man in his maybe 20s or 30s who doesn’t get a service in the young person’s service, maybe doesn’t get a service from one of the more specialist services, but they are frankly the bulk of the people that we work with, who have got a number of convictions, who have a number of criminogenic and welfare needs […] I would say those are the people that we are maybe struggling to support as well as we could do.” (Justice social workers interview 4)

Finally, it was suggested JSW clients in rural areas were relatively less well served compared with those in urban areas. This reflected resourcing issues discussed in chapter 3 and issues around inequality of access to wider services, discussed in chapters 4 and above. Those with specialist needs in rural areas were considered potentially more likely to miss out on the support they needed in a rural area without either specialist teams or specialist external services.

In addition, rural clients were seen as facing different barriers to meeting the terms of their court orders – for example, having a lower availability of suitable unpaid work placements to choose from and typically having to travel further to attend them:

“[It’s] an incredibly rural area, people living out in tiny villages, really small towns, transport network is appalling, you are waiting hours for maybe two buses that will turn up in the day. So, we don't have the resources here, and when we do try and set them up, it is trying to use a model that perhaps you would use in a larger place. […] That model won’t work here, […] you are asking someone from one of the smaller villages to come in, they probably won’t attend because of all the barriers that are involved, and it is not for the lack of wanting or trying.” (Paraprofessionals interview 2)

Stigma can impact on JSW clients wherever they live, but was seen creating particular issues around accessing appropriate support for clients in small communities. For example, paraprofessionals in a rural authority believed businesses would refuse to offer work placements if they thought it would be given to a JSW client. They also highlighted difficulties of maintaining confidentiality with housing solutions for clients. For instance, a certain block of flats can become known in the community as housing people with convictions and lead to stigma and other issues negatively impacting outcomes (such as being targeted by people selling drugs).

Suggestions for improvement

Professionals’ suggestions for improvement relevant to improving service delivery have largely been covered in previous chapters. This chapter also highlights the need to consider changes within the context of wider systems of support for JSW clients, including specific groups such as young people or those with mental health or addiction issues. There may also be a benefit in reassessing how ‘outcomes’ are defined and measured within JSW and how effectively they capture the quality of service delivery across different areas. In terms of supporting innovation in JSW, one view was that while there is often a lot of innovation happening locally, there is a gap around a national innovation platform to develop, upscale or test ideas at a wider level.

Clients interviewed for this research were keen to emphasise the positive aspects of JSW that they wanted to stay the same: particularly the respectful, non-judgemental support they received, and the range of issues their JSW teams helped them with. However, they also suggested a number of changes they felt would improve JSW from their perspective, including:

• Extending the length of JSW support, so that clients can voluntarily access ongoing or ad hoc support from their justice social worker after their order ends
• Reducing the number of assessments required before clients start receiving support through JSW
• Allowing clients greater flexibility around timings of JSW commitments, to make it easier to meet their other work and family commitments
• Offering clients more feedback on positive progress outwith formal reviews
• More information at the outset about what involvement with JSW entails. This could include information about what is and is not recorded about conversations with JSW and when and with whom this is shared
• More men/male social workers, as men convicted of certain offences can feel that women feel differently about them (this did not appear to be linked with any evidence that they were treated differently, but appeared to reflect their own beliefs)
• Greater communication between professionals, both within and outwith JSW, to ensure that clients do not have to repeat themselves and are receiving consistent messages about their obligations (e.g. from their individual social worker and those managing unpaid work).