Review of the Aberdeen Problem Solving Approach: report

4 Delivering the PSA in practice

Key messages

Screening, referrals and sentencing

• The vast majority (95%) of screenings were undertaken without face-to-face contact, because ineligible individuals could easily be eliminated ( e.g. those with fewer than seven convictions).
• In line with the target group, those referred had considerable offending histories, had encountered significant adversity, and were at high risk of reoffending.
• Rapid reports (the target is within seven days of referral) enabled swift sentencing.
• It was seen as important (by defence agents, for example) to assess the extent to which an individual wants and is able to change. However, this was not always evident at the point of assessment where the potential participant may appear highly motivated but the basis of this (avoiding custody, accessing services or more likely a combination of both factors) is difficult to determine.
• The PSA process can bring all outstanding charges together to be dealt with at one point, which both professionals and participants saw as an important feature.
• For a small number of participants, the PSA had been working effectively up until they had charges called in another court, over which the PSA had no power. Although they had been making good progress on the PSA, they were re-arrested on an outstanding warrant and returned to custody. It was suggested that this requires a more 'joined up approach' across courts and data collection systems to ensure that information on PSA participants can be passed between courts. Sheriffs and other court professionals were currently working to resolve this issue.

Support services

• Regardless of initial reasons, participants reported that once they began receiving support (including the proactive support of workers and positive encouragement from the sheriff), their motivation to comply often increased.
• One perceived advantage was that, while other statutory orders such as CPOs do involve regular contact with social workers, PSA participants had more workers available to them, tended to see workers more regularly, and were also likely to have more informal contact.
• Availability of resources and adequately funded support services was seen as crucial. Housing and mental health support, in particular, were identified as being important for participants, yet often difficult to access.

Review hearings

• The fact that only those directly involved in the participant's case were present at the hearings, and that there were no onlookers in the public gallery, was very important to participants. They felt that this facilitated more open and honest discussion.
• Engagement with the sheriff, and the relationship this developed within the court itself, seemed to help encourage some individuals to make an effort to change their behaviour.
• The communication between people within PSA court hearings is consistently perceived by participants and practitioners as less formal and more individualised and interactive than 'standard' court hearings.

Exit planning

• The findings emphasise the importance of effective exit planning and, in particular, ensuring that participants understand from the outset what support will be available to them when they exit the PSA.
• There is perhaps an inherent tension in the problem-solving model in that the length of judicial oversight justified by the offences committed may often be shorter than the length of time required to solve the underlying problems. Professionals should therefore remain alert to the risk of up-tariffing. Exit plans and clarity about access to continued support are important in this regard.

Partnership working

• While relationships between partner agencies appeared to be good, there is scope to improve communication further to ensure that all stakeholders (and new staff, in particular) are aware of the PSA and how it works. The multi-agency meetings that were held during the set-up stage should be reinstated.
• There should be more regular communications to wider stakeholders (particularly those not as closely involved on a daily/weekly basis) to ensure they remain aware of the PSA and their roles are in relation to it.

As evaluations of other PSAs have highlighted (for example McIvor et al, 2006) the practical aspects of implementation and co-ordination require time to become embedded. This was also the case for the Aberdeen PSA. This section describes the PSA process, emphasising contextual features and enablers which affect its delivery in practice (a detailed process map illustration and the logic model are available in Appendices 4 and 5).

4.1 Stage 1 – Arrest to first calling (screening and admissions)

Potential PSA participants are screened by CJSW using two lists: people released on undertakings and people subject to appear from custody. The numbers fluctuate but, on average, approximately two women's cases and seven men's cases are screened each day. The screening is undertaken by a social worker and takes around an hour each day. A social work administrator collates data on convictions (and passes this to the social worker undertaking the screening) and this takes around half an hour each day. The screening form is shown in Appendix 6.

A list of people detained in custody overnight is passed to the CJSW pre-disposal team (using a secure electronic system) by Police Scotland early each morning for eligibility screening. The confidential list from Police Scotland contains personal information, charge(s), as well as details of any identified risk factors and complex needs. It is usual that some of the people on the list will already be known to CJSW services.

Criminal justice social workers flag suitable cases to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service marking team. Practitioners interviewed reported that Stage 1 (screening people for admission to the PSA) depends on access to sufficient information – noting that current information-sharing is mostly working well. A representative of Police Scotland spoke positively about the daily custody report: ' the process works for us' and ' it doesn't make the task onerous for the [Police Scotland custody] team at all'.

The vast majority of screenings were undertaken without the need for face-to-face contact, because individuals could be easily eliminated due to clearly not meeting the eligibility criteria. Around 5% of screenings (with those who seemed most likely to be suitable) were undertaken face-to-face. This equates to a woman being screened approximately every 10 days and a man being screened every two-three days. Face-to-face screening included a needs assessment undertaken by a social worker.

The screening was completed in approximately 15-20 minutes. However, there were challenges in accessing participants at screening and admission stages, which added time to the process. Most people were seen directly from the custody court and the small space available for interviewing could mean that interview time was limited and social workers sometimes had lengthy waits to see a potential participant. This appeared to be particularly pronounced in cases of young men coming from Polmont YOI:

The biggest difficulty is getting access to the cell block to see the people. […] You can queue down there for 40 minutes and still then get into the cell block and wait again for a room. The problem, difficulty, is that they have three interview rooms in the cell block, and you have tens of solicitors waiting there and queuing with papers to see their clients. [the males] they're not arriving in the building until ten and then you are queueing with solicitors and anyone else doing their welfare checks and everything, given they have three rooms, the time, if there is a big custody, well the time can be really limited.

( CJSW professional)

It appeared that different agencies co-operated effectively in identifying and assessing potential PSA participants. Criminal justice social workers expressed the view that most, but not all, sheriffs were ' very good' at proactively trying to identify people for PSA, and that defence agents attempted to identify people who appeared in court but not from custody. This proactive identification was important in ensuring that potential participants were identified while physically present and could be given information about the PSA and what participation might offer at a significant point in the process ( i.e. when appearing in front of a sheriff or meeting with the defence agent).

Lesson for other areas
Pro-active identification of potential participants by sheriffs and defence agents helps engage participants. This reinforces the importance of raising awareness of the PSA among relevant professionals.

As noted above, slightly different eligibility criteria were in place for women and men. For both, it was intended to ensure that those targeted were:

• 'persistent' offenders
• at medium/high risk of custody
• those most likely to benefit from the PSA approach.

The PSA eligibility criteria required that female participants were aged over 16 years, had seven or more previous convictions and resided in Aberdeen City. For men, the criteria required that participants should be aged between 16 and 25, have seven or more previous convictions or two assault convictions and reside in Aberdeen City (see section 3.5). The initial paper sift could identify the number of convictions and offences that an individual had accrued, age and residence, thus allowing those who were not eligible to be sifted out. The face-to-face screening which followed would establish the individual's circumstances and their willingness to be put forward for the PSA, any outstanding charges and/or other orders in place. At this point, any needs which were linked to offending (such as problem substance use, precarious circumstances) could be identified.

4.1.1 Screening women

Of the 1589 women's cases screened, 1543 (97%) were deemed not to be suitable. Where information was available on the mode of screening (1022 cases), the majority (972 or 95%) were identified as ineligible and excluded at the initial file screening stage. The reasons women were deemed to be unsuitable for the PSA are summarised in Table 4.1. It should be emphasised that the figures relate to the numbers of screenings and not necessarily to the number of women screened – and it is likely that some women were screened on more than one occasion.

The most common reasons for women being considered ineligible were: having fewer than seven previous convictions, not being an Aberdeen City resident, already being subject to a Community Payback Order with a requirement of supervision and having been charged with a type of offence that is excluded from the PSA (drunk driving, DWP fraud, breach of bail conditions or court orders and more serious assaults). The 'other' reasons included procurator fiscal liberations (eight cases), the fact that there had been an apparent gap in offending (eight cases), previous assessment for the PSA (seven cases) or having previously participated in the PSA (six cases).

Table 4.1: Why women were assessed as not eligible for the PSA

Reason for lack of eligibility	Number of cases	Percentage of cases
Fewer than 7 convictions	606	39%
Not an Aberdeen City resident	257	17%
On an existing CPO with supervision	190	12%
Offence type is excluded	118	8%
Already subject to PSA	80	5%
Not a summary complaint in Aberdeen Sheriff Court (including cases on petition)	55	4%
Not amenable to PSA (includes declined screening or participation and potential mental health issues)	53	4%
Appearing on warrant	40	3%
Does not have multiple needs/low risk of re-offending	23	2%
Not at risk of custody	18	1%
Appeared in respect of the matter before 2/11/2015	16	1%
Pled not guilty [4]	9	<1%
Outstanding CJSW report	9	<1%
Other (reason specified)	39	3%
Other (unspecified)/no information	30	2%
Total	1543

4.1.2 Screening men

Of the 2053 men's cases screened, 2017 (98%) were deemed not to be suitable. The majority of cases (where information was available) were excluded at the paper sift stage. This reduced the number of those screened face-to-face to 6% of the total.

The reasons for men being deemed unsuitable are summarised in Table 4.2. The most common reasons for men being screened out were similar to those for women: having fewer than seven convictions, not being an Aberdeen City resident, being on an existing CPO with supervision and being considered for an offence type that is excluded from the PSA. This latter category has also included men charged with or previously convicted of sexual offences (14 cases) and men with a history of domestic abuse (five cases). The 'other' reasons for ineligibility included appearing before the date on which the PSA became operational (seven cases), procurator fiscal liberation (seven cases), already being assessed for the PSA (seven cases), a gap in offending (six cases) and breach of previous orders (five cases).

Table 4.2: Why men were assessed as not eligible for the PSA

Reason for lack of eligibility	Number of cases	Percentage of cases
Fewer than 7 convictions (or 2 assault convictions)	696	34%
Not an Aberdeen City resident	463	23%
On an existing CPO with supervision	313	16%
Offence type is excluded	177	9%
Does not have multiple needs/low risk of re-offending	64	3%
Not a summary complaint in Aberdeen Sheriff Court (including cases on petition)	57	3%
Warrants	52	3%
Not amenable to PSA	43	2%
Already subject to PSA	33	2%
Pled not guilty [5]	32	2%
Outstanding CJSW report	17	1%
Other (reason specified)	61	3%
Other (unspecified)/no information	9	<1%
Total	2017

4.1.3 Stage 2 – First calling to first problem-solving hearing (plea and rapid report)

At the first calling, if a plea of guilty is entered, sentence can be deferred for an assessment and rapid report to be prepared by CJSW and sent to the PSA sheriff within one week. Rapid reports take about a third as long to complete as standard CJSW reports, are more condensed and more focused on PSA issues. Potential participants are not assessed as to their suitability for other disposals ( i.e. supervision or unpaid work) and other agencies such as general practitioners are not contacted – which makes the report shorter and quicker. The rapid report process was generally seen by professionals to work well. Social workers were able to meet potential participants and start providing support as soon as they indicated that they were willing to go on the PSA.

Lesson for other areas
Rapid reports (the target is within seven days of referral) enabled swift sentencing: there was an average of 15.5 days (for women) and 11.3 days (for men) between first calling of the case and sentencing. The speed of this process was described as 'critical' by one sheriff.

Figure 4.1 shows the court processing time (the number of days between first calling and sentencing).

It is possible that delays between first calling and sentencing were because of non-compliance ( i.e. not attending for appointments). It is also possible that in some cases the individual may have been in custody as a result of warrants. The mean number of days between first calling and sentencing was lower for women who completed their SDS (10 days) than for those who did not (25 days) lending some support to the suggestion that the longer than expected processing time may have reflected instances of non-compliance/co-operation at the pre-sentencing stage ^[6] .

One sheriff observed that for the plea and rapid report to work well, the sheriff, clerks, fiscal depute and defence agent must know the procedure well; where workers were not familiar with it, the process itself could be affected. The consistency of personnel involved in key positions also supported the effectiveness of the problem solving approach. Defence agents were not aware of noticeably more joint work but did agree that they may spend longer speaking to social workers about the client before the case was called in court.

Figure 4.1: Court processing times for PSA cases: number of days between first calling and sentencing

At the PSA hearing, a decision is made by a dedicated PSA sheriff to admit the case to the PSA or impose an alternative sentence such as a financial penalty, community-based sanction ( CPO, Restriction of Liberty Order, or a DTTO) or custodial sentence.

Thirty women received an SDS while one was imprisoned for 24 months (see Figure 4.2 below). The majority of SDSs were initially for six months (25 cases) with three women receiving an initial SDS of 12 months, one an initial SDS of nine months and one an initial SDS of 10 months. Twenty men were accepted for sentencing in the PSA, 18 of whom had received an SDS, with the disposal still pending in two cases. In fifteen cases an initial SDS of six months was imposed while in three cases the SDS was initially for nine months. Overall, 80% of the SDSs were initially for six months.

4.1.4 Motivation and compliance

Both professional respondents and PSA participants acknowledged that there were various reasons why individuals agreed to take part in the PSA. For some individuals, the primary consideration at the point of assessment for the PSA was a desire to avoid a remand in custody or a custodial sentence; a point noted by defence agents. This could have longer term implications; meaning that if motivation was determined by a desire to avoid custody, once the immediate threat of custody had passed the participant might struggle to engage with social work services and other service providers. For some, the offer of support and assistance was welcome as it provided opportunities for them to make changes in their lives.

It was seen as important (by defence agents, for example) to assess the extent to which an individual wants and is able to change. While undoubtedly the services made available through the PSA could provide some short term/immediate intervention and benefits, they may not have longer term impact if the participant is unable or unwilling to take up the provisions offered. As professionals and participants noted, this was not always evident at the point of assessment where the potential participant may appear highly motivated but the basis of this (avoiding custody, accessing services or more likely a combination of both factors) is difficult to determine. While participants and professionals identified various motivating factors, the data available do not provide scope to determine which factors might influence different participants. At the assessment stage, it was possible to identify particular needs that were linked to offending and to establish the appropriateness of available resources to address this, thus providing a basis for changing the individual participants' offending-related circumstances.

At the point of imposition, the length of the SDS was indicated. However, there was scope for extension or for sentencing to take place earlier in cases of non-compliance (since, effectively, sentencing was being postponed on a monthly basis). One of the sheriffs was keen to point out that SDSs have "no technical meaning", that different courts in different parts of Scotland use them in different ways and although "in some places it is described as a low tariff intervention, […] it can't be [described as such in the PSA] in Aberdeen and, in fact, it can be a very intense order."

In terms of participants' understanding of this issue, some of those interviewed did not appear to have a very clear understanding of the how the SDS or an extension to it would work – although they did understand that they were at risk of a custodial sentence if they did not comply with the PSA plan. It is not clear whether their lack of clarity about the SDS was due to insufficient explanation from the professionals involved – or due to other factors such as memory problems ( e.g. related to current or previous substance use) or confusion caused by the sheer number of different sentences or orders they had been subject to at one time or another.

Lesson for other areas
The PSA process can bring all outstanding charges together to be dealt with at one point, which both professionals and PSA participants saw as an important feature of the process. With all cases rolled together, the participant could be admonished in relation to some of the charges to recognise and reward compliance, thus increasing incentives.

For a small number of participants, the PSA had been working effectively up until they had charges called in another court, over which the PSA had no power. Although they had been making good progress on the PSA, they were re-arrested on an outstanding warrant and returned to custody.

APSA area for improvement
There was a suggestion that the issue of charges being called in another court requires a more 'joined up approach' across courts and data collection systems to ensure that information on PSA participants can be passed between courts Sheriffs and other court professionals were currently working to resolve this issue.

PSA participants felt that the PSA was more flexible than standard courts in response to missed appointments or non-compliance (based on their personal experiences of other community orders). In part, this was due to the informed basis of the PSA which recognises that recovery from substance use, for example, is a process that can involve different stages. This also allows for response that takes account of traumatic circumstances (trauma informed) and is aimed at resolving these difficulties through the problem solving approach.

Regardless of initial reasons, participants reported that once they began receiving support, their motivation to comply often increased. The proactive support of workers (phoning them on a daily basis and providing ongoing contact) meant that there was an investment and desire 'not to let them down' as one participant stated. Similarly, the positive encouragement from the sheriff and the interaction of the reviews increased the importance for some participants of 'doing well'. As one participant put it: ' the longer I stayed out of prison, the more determined I was to stay out'.

4.1.5 Stage 3 – Problem-solving process (service provision and review hearings)

Service Provision

It is outwith the scope of this Review to examine the services offered as part of the PSA. However, the support provisions formed an important part of the approach. While CJSW support was provided to each individual participant, specific referrals to other services (such as housing, addiction support) were also made. PSA participants were allocated a criminal justice social worker and a support worker. They usually met each weekly, but sometimes two or three times a week, in the case of some participants with more complex needs. There was often additional contact with both workers (by phone and in person) and workers described using 'assertive outreach' or 'assisted engagement' and proactively contacting participants to help ensure they attended appointments and to check how they were doing.

CJSW had two functions in this phase:

• direct one-to-one work with participants
• case management of referrals and access to services ( e.g. by third sector organisations, mental health services or withdrawal management and rehabilitation services)

A contextual feature of the PSA is its location and how this shapes access to service provision.

Lesson for other areas
Some professionals perceived the PSA's success to be partly contingent on having available local services to offer the necessary level of support and frequency of appointments.

Given the importance of services in influencing participants to comply with the PSA, the availability of services and access to these services was significant.

Lesson for other areas
The benefit of having a predisposal social work team based in council premises adjacent to Aberdeen Sheriff Court was noted. This facilitated access to potential participants and communication among the professionals involved. This team had been retained following a pilot of the service (as opposed to a more generic court team) and was then in place to support the PSA.

This highlights the importance of local provisions as a framework around which PSAs can be developed both in terms of statutory provisions and the availability of non-statutory agencies which can be used to support the PSA (as the Women's Centre and Venture Trust did in Aberdeen).

Lesson for other areas
Transport issues (in relation to participants attending meetings and reviews) could also present a potential issue for effective operation in rural areas. Criminal Justice Social Work in Aberdeen provided participants with bus tokens which they felt worked very well to help them attend meetings and reviews.

One perceived advantage was that, while other statutory orders such as CPOs do involve regular contact with social workers, PSA participants had more workers available to them (due to having both a social worker and support worker), tended to see workers more regularly, and were also likely to have more informal contact. As a result, workers considered that they had a better sense of what was happening in a participant's life and could therefore provide support as appropriate: one criminal justice social worker noted " there is a lot more scope to use discretion". Other PSA professionals and participants themselves were also extremely positive about the support provided by workers:

I suppose essentially most of the work is done in social work in the work that they do with people, and the planning, and the eternal patience…the compassion and understanding, sometimes tough love. They are very, very, realistic people, I think the work that they do is particularly good.

(Sheriff)

I can go in there [Criminal Justice Social Work office] and speak to them about anything. It could be anything at all. I can go in there any time and I don't get judged. I don't get "ah no, we can't see you today, you know, you have to come back." There's always somebody there willing to help me. I'm not just saying things, this is God's honest truth: I just think they are so amazing and I'd be so lost without them. I would."

(Female PSA participant)

Availability of resources and adequately funded support services was seen as crucial. Housing and mental health support, in particular, were identified as being important for participants, yet often difficult to access:

It's 10 times harder [to make progress] when you're in a hostel.

(Male PSA participant)

I saw people who were in hostels and I was being told they're in a hostel and that's not great, and they're desperate for a tenancy.

(Sheriff)

There is always the battle of mental health services and trying to get people engaged with [access to] that.

( CJSW professional)

Review hearings

Participants are expected to attend court reviews on a regular basis (usually monthly). While there is a degree of flexibility around the frequency, the dates for all reviews are fixed at the initial review hearing. Shortly prior to the hearing, the sheriff receives a brief (few pages) update report from CJSW. During the court session, the report is discussed and the sheriff hears from the participant's defence agent, social worker and the participant themselves, about what progress has been made since the last review and what their goals are over the next few weeks. The sheriff provides praise, warnings and encouragement as appropriate.

As the participant is approaching the end of the initial period agreed for the SDS, the deferred sentence may be extended in cases where this is warranted, for example, if a participant is complying with relevant services and making progress or to provide further opportunities to engage if circumstances have hindered this (see above for details). Of the 48 SDSs imposed so far, nine had been extended (for between one and six months). Any decision to extend the deferral lies with the sheriff and it is discussed with the participant and the professionals involved in their case.

Court scheduling

Lesson for other areas
The time-tabling of participants' monthly reviews required considerable organisation to fit them into the court schedule and sheriffs' rotas.

This had implications for other court business, resulting in reviews being scheduled earlier than normal court business within a half-hour time slot from 9.30-10.00am (on the two to three days a week on which they were held). This was seen by most professionals as the most effective solution to the time-tabling issue, but some PSA clients would regularly turn up late and it was acknowledged that the relatively early start was challenging for those with chaotic lives and/or substance use problems. This was also an issue mentioned by participants. However, the potential benefit of the early start for participants was also noted by professionals, in that it contributed towards developing structure in their lives. While generally working well, the schedule could impact on Sheriff Clerk and Procurator Fiscal time, taking away from preparation time for other courts.

Hearings are held in Court 4, a small room in a part of the court rarely accessed by the public. The only attendees are therefore those participating in the proceedings. Only one PSA participant is present in the courtroom at one time, meaning that participants who are waiting to be called are located in the hallway or another room. There are no onlookers in the gallery seating at the back of the courtroom, and friends or family of the participant also wait in the hallway outside the court. In this sense, participants perceive it to be 'closed' and this perception supported open and honest discussion between sheriffs and participants.

It's very important that it's closed.

(Female PSA participant)

No one else is allowed in court. [It's just] the sheriff, sheriff clerk, defence agent and social worker there ^[7] - and the police but that's just so there's no trouble so I don't mind them.

(Male PSA participant)

The importance of select attendance at review hearings was echoed in some practitioner comments; they considered this approach to be distinct from other court settings. Defence agents noted that the PSA differs from other criminal court business in that ' these [ PSA] courts are done in private' and ' they need to separate it from the body of court business and that's important'. This delivery approach is relevant to considering the PSA's formality, including what is discussed and how (see ' Formality and Interactions in the Court' below).

Lesson for other areas
The fact that only those directly involved in the participant's case were present at the hearings, and that there were no onlookers in the public gallery, was very important to participants. They felt that this facilitated more open and honest discussion.

It is worth noting, however, that there are other potential ways to overcome the difficulty of discussing sensitive issues in court. For example, in some drug courts (including the Glasgow Drug Court), there are pre-review discussions in which sensitive issues can be covered.

Relationship with the sheriff

Engagement with the sheriff, and the relationship this developed within the court itself, seemed to help encourage some individuals to make an effort to change their behaviour. It appeared that the interest shown by the sheriff was meaningful and important for some PSA participants; with defence agents, social workers and participants themselves indicating this. Communication and the relationships between participants and professionals – which were a central feature of the PSA – were highlighted as making the process intense but valued.

People often value initially the relationships they're building and not just with us but with the court. You know, the sheriff will have the dialogue with them and often the relationship is the foundation and it's not limited to us.

( CJSW professional)

The ones that want to make a change, can work at it at a pace that they're comfortable with. You know, that people that are listening to them rather than telling them. So, yes, I think that's really important. The communication is important, and that seems to be the strength of the thing for me.

( CJSW professional)

She [sheriff] spoke to you like a person, asking you how you're doing or asking you to work on things.

(Female PSA participant)

The personal relationship that sheriffs, and other professionals, built up with some participants was also acknowledged by one sheriff:

…there are certainly people that you feel you're more connected with than others, that you do start to feel quite invested in … and it can be painful to see when they're not doing so well and you can worry about them.

It was suggested by defence agents and social workers that women may be better able to engage with the more proactive contact and support from support workers and the direct dialogue with sheriffs at court reviews than were young men. Defence agents suggested that, while individual differences existed, women appeared to prefer the personal approach from sheriffs more than men; they also noted that – other than defence agents – almost all the professionals involved in the PSA were themselves women. In some examples proffered by defence agents, female participants would speak more openly to the sheriff than they did with their (male) defence agent.

Formality and interactions in the court

The physical layout and format of the court in which the PSA is held is moderately formal and traditional, albeit in a much smaller room than other courts on the premises. The furniture is not moveable, so the structure or layout of the room stays fixed and does not differ depending on the type of hearing being held. Some formalities still apply, including:

• sheriffs, procurators fiscal and defence agents wearing judicial or legal attire
• announcement and standing when the sheriff enters/leaves the room
• the sheriff sitting at the front behind a bench, higher than others in the room.

However, the communication between people within PSA court hearings is consistently perceived by participants and practitioners as less formal and more individualised and interactive than 'standard' court hearings, for example, CPO hearings. Observations of a series of CPO hearings at Aberdeen Sheriff Court confirm this distinction, and there was more eye-contact between sheriffs and PSA participants.

The relationship with the sheriff is much more personal - they speak to you a bit more… The sheriff's personality came out, she'd smile and have a laugh.

(Female PSA participant)

We had a laugh and a joke in court. They treat you like you are a person. It is more relaxed

(Female PSA participant)

You sit back and feel comfortable to say how you feel… It's a hundred times better than going to a normal court room [where I'd be] a bit more fazed about what other people are thinking - if I said I'd stay away from drinking, people would laugh

(Male PSA participant)

There remain some formalities in the PSA that are structured, for example, the sheriff usually speaks with the practitioners first. In the PSA, it is commonplace for participants to add comments and offer explanations on matters the sheriff, social worker and defence agent are discussing, whether this is about making progress on one of their goals, accessing a new service, experiencing sensitive personal circumstances (for example, bereavement or their children being adopted), disclosures of relapse or explaining non-compliance. In the case of non-compliance, some PSA participants voluntarily offered apologies in court to the sheriff.

By contrast, this type of dialogic and informal communication is not seen in observations of CPO hearings, which can involve complex legal language in exchanges predominantly between the sheriff and defence agent, and little or no direct conversation about an offender's complex needs or sensitive personal circumstances, even when these are salient. In some cases observed, issues were mentioned by professionals using coded indirect language ( e.g. talking about 'difficulties' and 'issues' rather than explicitly saying what those were) and referring to written information in files only they can see. Such an approach is likely to have been adopted to safeguard the privacy of sensitive information given the sizeable public audience (including journalists) present in the court where CPO hearings are held.

International experience and research evidence indicates there are links between interactive and clear communication in problem-solving approach hearings and participant perceptions of procedural justice and their willingness to comply: 'these opportunities for offenders to explain themselves and what is going on in their lives tends to make them feel fairly treated, which in turn makes them more likely to comply with the current order and with legal requirements in future' (Bowen and Whitehead, 2013: 18). Some PSA participants reported having a greater level of trust in the criminal justice system, as a whole, as a result of participating in the PSA. Others felt they had been treated fairly while on the PSA, but this did not extend to feeling more positive about the wider criminal justice system.

Observations of the PSA show some modest variations in the level of formality and interaction between PSA cases or hearings, that is, there is more interaction and informality in communications with some PSA participants than others. Overall, however, interactions in the PSA are still 'judge-centred' or sheriff-centred in that the sheriff has the power to lead, initiate and shape the discussions, no matter how interactive and engaging, and this is broadly characteristic of problem-solving approaches (Portillo et al., 2013: 11).

Craig's Story

Craig is 23. He was in care between the ages of 4 and 14. He has had nine convictions and has served three custodial sentences since the age of 16 for offences including car theft, drunk and disorderly conduct and breach of the peace.

He said he had already heard about the PSA while in prison and then the sheriff recommend that he go on it. He agreed to go on it "so that I didn't get jail again".

Craig was on the PSA for around six weeks before he committed another offence for which he was jailed for eight months. Despite only being on it for a short while, he was full of praise for it and hoped that he would be able to go on it again when he was released because "I got more done in that few weeks than I ever have ". His social worker had helped him get a house, a bank account and they were working towards him getting a job. His alcohol support worker was helping him reduce his alcohol use and phoned him every day.

He had known his social worker for " a long time" and felt that he could speak honestly to her. He had not known his alcohol support worker before but said he was "brand new – one of the best people you could meet". His experience of care as a child had led him to "hate social work" but he felt these workers were totally different: he appreciated both the personal relationship he had with them and the practical help they were able to provide.

He attended one PSA review. He found it completely different to his previous experiences of court and described it as "a lot more laid back. Your social worker gets to speak which is really good – they [the sheriff] are not just reading a report. And you sit back and feel comfortable to say how you feel". He had a good report and the "the judge smiled at me – I've never had that before " and he felt incredibly proud.

However, he said things then "went pear shaped really fast". He split up with his girlfriend, started drinking more heavily, and missed appointments with his social worker and alcohol support worker. Although he didn't respond, he appreciated that they had phoned him several times to find out how he was and what was happening.

He was returned to custody because he was drunk, resisted arrest and assaulted a police officer. While in prison this time, he has recommended the PSA to others, in comparison with some transitional support services, because "you can get more stuff done. They phoned me on this [the PSA]".

4.2 Comparing the PSA to other community orders and hearings

This section examines stakeholder perspectives on some distinguishing features of the PSA and perceived differences and similarities to uses of other community orders. Any sense of 'comparison' and differentiation discussed here is situated in the context of Aberdeen, with recognition that hearings, community orders and how they are overseen or implemented may differ across locations, practice contexts and individual service users. The other community orders considered here are a CPOs, Drug Treatment and Testing Orders ( DTTOs), and Restriction of Liberty Order ( RLOs) involving electronic monitoring tagging and curfew restrictions.

Distinguishing features of the PSA and the rationale for its use of SDSs, compared to other community orders and hearings, include:

• The SDS defers sentence, it is not a statutory order like a CPO or RLO.
• The prospect of admonition upon completion of an SDS within the PSA may act as an incentive.
• The SDS and the PSA may take less time to complete than a CPO with a supervision requirement (which ranges from 6 months to up to 36 months) or a DTTO (an average of 18 months ^[8] ), and slightly more time than the average length of an RLO which is 3-4 months in Scotland ( G4S, 2018).
• The PSA involves a participant being allocated a criminal justice social worker and a support worker, and (typically) weekly appointments with each. For a CPO with a supervision requirement, it is relatively common to be allocated a social worker only, and the regularity of appointments may vary significantly.
• Supports and interventions responding to some complex needs within a CPO may be orchestrated through one or more of the nine requirement options, for example, a programme's requirement or a treatment requirement for mental health, alcohol, or drugs. Within the PSA, these may also be a core focus of intervention, but it is not orchestrated through a requirement of a statutory order.
• The PSA and the SDS is structured to include judicial supervision and multiple review hearings set at regular intervals (typically every four weeks), which is similar to the DTTO. Sheriffs described PSA review hearings as 'more personal and motivational' than CPO reviews. For CPOs, review hearings can be held at the discretion of the court but are a lot less common (only 16% of CPOs imposed in Scotland in 2016-2017 had progress reviews in court (Scottish Government, 2018: 15))

There was broad consensus among professionals in Aberdeen that the PSA and its use of SDSs is more flexible than a CPO, especially in relation to responding to non-compliance and breach. Professionals identified the discretion, flexibility and informal regular collaborative working as distinctive strengths integral to how the PSA works with participants with complex needs and prolific offence histories.

Several participants spoke about the routine provision of practical resources like bus tickets for travel to and from appointments as a distinctive and helpful feature of the PSA which, in their experiences, did not routinely happen with other community orders. They also highlighted practical supports like text message and phone call reminders and regular and intensive communication by social workers and support workers as more common and characteristic of their experience of the PSA than of other community orders, such as a CPO. However, the use of text message and phone call reminders within CPOs varies across Scotland according to the local area and the worker(s) and individuals involved.

There were different perspectives among participants on the extent to which the PSA is like a DTTO, another therapeutic jurisprudential approach available in Scotland. One participant said the PSA 'is more like a DTTO in the drug court' than other community sentencing processes and orders, 'except there is more, like, a closeness with the support worker compared to the DTTO'. Another participant said that 'the DTTO takes a lot more work and it's also not as lenient'. Where a DTTO is used in the context of a Drug Court, multiple participants may be present for one another's hearings – although DTTOs in Aberdeen Sheriff Court are held in the same courtroom as the PSA hearings and, like the PSA, only those directly involved are present.

4.2.1 Stage 4 – exit

Professionals indicated that planned exits ( i.e. those following successful completion of the SDS) are managed differently depending on the individual's needs – both in relation to the court aspects and the support aspects of the PSA.

Court

If a participant is progressing well, court reviews might become less frequent ( e.g. every six weeks rather than every four weeks) towards the end of the SDS. This is, in part, a 'test' of whether the individual can maintain progress with this reduced judicial oversight and, in part, a signal to them that the process is coming to an end.

One of the sheriffs described how she liked to handle the final couple of reviews ^[9] :

…in the review before the final review I tended to tell them that the next time I would be asking them to consider where they were now, compared with where they were when they started and then, on the final review, I asked them to reflect back on the progress made, and actually celebrated it with them, saying 'look what's happened: you've got your tenancy, you had four custodial sentences in 2015, you've had none in 2016'. I can congratulate them. I admonish them and I tell them 'you're still allowed to use the women's centre and to seek help from the social workers if you want.'

(Sheriff)

Support

Sheriffs and social workers said they made it clear to participants that they could still access social work support (and support from other services they have been linked up with such as addiction support) on a voluntary basis following exit from the PSA – and they encouraged participants to do so.

The qualitative research with participants showed that some understood this and welcomed it. One current participant said:

If I had a problem after [my SDS ends], I think I could still come and speak to them [ CJSW and alcohol worker].

(Male PSA participant)

A former participant talked about how she had been encouraged to stay in contact with the Women's Centre and had done so (see ' Jillian's Story').

Indeed, it was suggested that – among those who had successfully engaged and completed their SDS – an over-reliance on criminal justice services was more likely to be a problem than losing contact.

[more of] our problem sometimes is having folk stuck here, well it's not a problem, it's a good problem to have, because obviously they see this as a safe place to be, but we need to continue to be proactive about moving women back into their communities and services that are away from criminal justice.

(Support worker)

The existence of the Women's Centre in Aberdeen provides an obvious continued point of contact for women who have exited the PSA. The lack of an equivalent point of contact for men was not raised as an issue by professionals in the research and it may be that voluntary contact with social workers, support workers and other services (such as addiction services) is sufficient – but only four men have successfully completed the PSA thus far so it is too early to draw this conclusion.

However, there were cases where participants clearly had significant anxiety about the potential loss of support following exit from the PSA. One of the participants who took part in the qualitative research spoke of her concerns about not seeing her social worker and support worker as often (see 'Angela's Story' on page 56) and court staff highlighted the case of a participant who had 'gone off the rails' and admitted committing an offence (albeit not a serious one) to ensure she continued on the PSA and continued to access services.

APSA area for improvement
The findings reinforce the importance of ensuring that, from the outset, participants understand what support will be on offer to them if they successfully complete their SDS and of encouraging independence from services.

The risk of 'up-tariffing ^[10] '

Sheriffs, social workers and defence agents all raised the issue of what should be done when a participant is making progress in relation to their problems, and extension to the SDS is not justified on legal grounds, but it is felt that they would benefit from continuation on the PSA (in terms of the judicial oversight and/or the support).

Then [in those circumstances], as a case manager, I have a real dilemma, because am I asking the court for a couple of months' extension for the structured deferred sentence? Do they still need that tied to the court or can it be managed with just the voluntary contact offer? We find that sometimes we're asking for an extra month at the end just to get someone through a specific issue or period.

( CJSW professional)

There is perhaps an inherent tension in the problem-solving model in that the length of judicial oversight justified by the offences committed may often be shorter than the length of time required to solve the underlying problems. Many participants have long-standing and complex problems and will require support for longer than six months if they are to make significant progress in overcoming them. It can be tempting, therefore, for the sheriff (and social workers making recommendations to the sheriff) to use an extension of the SDS as a way to motivate and encourage the participant to maintain progress and enable them to access support for longer. However, this may result in an SDS which is disproportionate to the offence(s) committed. Professionals were aware of this risk and there was no indication from the data on SDS length (see section 4.3) that it was happening in many cases. However, it is something for those involved to remain alert to.

APSA area for improvement
Professionals should remain alert to the risk of up-tariffing. Exit plans and clarity about access to continued support after completion of the PSA are important in this regard.

4.3 Progress of cases through the PSA

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show cases' progress through the PSA up to the end of September 2017. Table 4.3 provides a summary of case outcomes.

Women's cases

The PSA for women became operational in November 2015. By the end of September 2017, 1589 cases had been screened, 46 were referred and 32 identified as suitable.

Of those 32, 30 had an SDS imposed (one was given a custodial sentence of 24 months and sentence was still pending in the other case). The majority of SDSs were for six months initially (25 cases) with three women receiving an initial SDS of 12 months, one an initial SDS of nine months and one an initial SDS of 10 months. The initial SDS was recorded as having been extended for between one and six months in six cases, five of which involved an initial SDS of six months. In the remaining case a 12 month initial SDS was extended by three months.

Twenty-two of those cases had closed. Twelve of the women had completed their SDS and 11 were admonished (the other received a custodial sentence for a new offence). Ten did not complete their SDS: seven received a custodial sentence, two a deferred sentence and one a CPO.

Men's cases

The PSA for men became operational in August 2016. By the end of September 2017, 2053 cases had been screened, 36 were referred and 20 identified as suitable.

Of those 20, 18 had an SDS imposed (sentence was still pending in two cases). In fifteen cases an initial SDS of six months was imposed while in three cases the SDS was initially for a duration of nine months. The initial SDS was recorded as having been extended in three cases – in one case for one month and in two cases for six.

Thirteen of those cases had closed. Four of the men had completed their SDS and 3 were admonished (the other received a CPO). Nine did not complete their SDS: six received a custodial sentence, two a CPO and one a deferred sentence.

It should be noted that all the numbers refer to cases rather than individuals. It was not possible from the anonymised data provided to identify how many different individuals were screened and referred to the PSA. (Adding a unique identifier for each individual would aid any future analysis – see section 2.5).

Figure 4.2: Progress of women's cases through the PSA (November 2015 – September 2017)

Figure 4.3: Progress of men's cases through the PSA (August 2016 – September 2017)

Table 4.3: Summary of case outcomes

	Women	Men	Total
Number screened for PSA	1589	2053	3642
Number deemed suitable for PSA and SDS imposed	30	18	48
Outcomes
Case still open [11]	8	5	13
Case closed	22	13	35
Completed and admonished	11	3	14
Completed and custodial sentence	1		1
Completed and CPO		1	1
Not completed and custodial sentence	7	6	13
Not completed and deferred sentence	2	1	3
Not completed and CPO	1	2	3

4.3.1 Participants' characteristics and needs

Figure 4.4 shows the characteristics of the women and men who were referred to the PSA. It is clear that – in line with the target group – those referred had considerable offending histories, had encountered significant adversity, and were at high risk of reoffending. The outcomes must be considered against this background.

In the majority of cases, those who had been referred had more than 10 convictions in the last five years and had also had at least three custodial sentences in that time. Furthermore, with exception of two cases, all were classified as 'likely' or 'very likely' to receive custodial sentences in the future.

Among women, shop lifting, crimes against public justice and common assault were the more prevalent index offences. Among men, the most common were crimes against public justice, 'other' offences (these included drug offences and possession of offensive weapons) and shoplifting.

It was clear that those referred to the PSA faced many adversities. Almost all of the women had financial difficulties and had experience of trauma and/or abuse, although other adversity was common too. Men were slightly less likely to have faced adversities than the women, but the same pattern appeared: around two-thirds of men had suffered from financial difficulties and had experienced trauma and/or abuse.

LS/ CMI ^[12] scores (figures are based on the 35 women and 29 men for whom an LS/ CMI assessment was conducted) show that most women had either a 'high' or 'very high' risk of re-offending. The most prevalent LS/ CMI factors that were an issue for women were Leisure/Recreation, Alcohol/Drug Problems, Companions, and Education/Employment. Nearly all women had a 'high' or 'very high' level of risk/need on those factors.

Men were, again, slightly less likely to have a 'high' or 'very high' level of risk of re-offending than women, although it was still high. As with the women, Leisure/Recreation, Companions, Education/Employment were all key issues for men with around two-thirds having a 'high' or 'very high' level of risk/need on these factors. Alcohol/Drug problems were less common than among the women (13 out of the 29 men assessed). It was also common for men to have a high level of risk/need in relation to Criminal History.

Although the age criterion for men was 18-25, there was flexibility around this where it was thought that a slightly older man would benefit and a number of men aged between 26 and 30 were referred.

Appendix 7 provides more detail on some aspects of the profiles.

Figure 4.4: Participant's characteristics and needs

Kelly's Story

Kelly is 37. She spent most of her childhood in care and started using drugs when she was 12. She spent most of her adult life in prison, serving short and medium-term sentences for a range of offences.

Kelly heard about the PSA from acquaintances and asked her social worker if she could go on it. At the start, she didn't really know much about it but thought that it sounded like a good way of avoiding going back to prison.

Kelly met regularly with her drug and alcohol support worker (who she had seen for years) while she was on the PSA. She also accessed other support provided through the Aberdeen Women's Centre and housing support. Kelly acknowledged that the support had always been there but she just hadn't taken it up previously – what made the difference on the PSA was the fact that " they actually come and look for you" . She surprised herself with how good she had been at attending appointments – something she had struggled with in the past.

She attended monthly court reviews with the same sheriff. She spoke very positively about her relationship with the sheriff – "The sheriff kind of gets to know you better than they normally would. They actually get to know you on a personal level rather than just on paper." She felt that she could be honest, without fear of being judged, and that the sheriff genuinely wanted to help her. Kelly felt that the court environment was an important aspect of the PSA. Compared to the mainstream courts – "It feels a lot more relaxed, it doesn't feel as formal. You don't feel afraid to speak." She wouldn't have felt comfortable having the type of discussions she had in the PSA court in a mainstream court with lots of people in attendance.

Kelly felt that she was doing really well while she was on the PSA. She reported that she went three months without committing an offence (before that she was offending almost every week), she had better relationships with her family and was on course to get a flat. The biggest change for her, however, was how she felt about the future. She was much more positive and, for the first time, wanted to change and eventually get a job. She had also become more aware of the effects of her offending on others. She credited the sheriff's approach with this change in her attitudes – " she's trying to change you slowly, rather than telling you what to do."

As a reaction to an event in her personal life, Kelly committed an offence when five months into the PSA. Due to the seriousness of the offence, Kelly was immediately called in front of a sheriff in a mainstream court and remanded in custody. This meant that she lost the flat she was about to get. Kelly was disappointed about this and thought that it would have been better for her offence to have come under the PSA so that the sheriff who knew her could decide on the best course of action to take.

Kelly was sentenced to six months in prison. However, as she had been making such good progress on the PSA, the sheriff decided not to sentence her for all of her cases (which would have resulted in a much longer sentence) and to keep her on the PSA when she is released in relation to her outstanding charges. Kelly was pleased about this and felt that it would be helpful to have the support offered by the PSA when she returns to the community.

4.4 What resources have been required to deliver it?

This section describes resources that have been required to deliver the PSA.

The PSA was supported by Scottish Government funding of £78,721 p.a. for CJSW activity (2016//17 and 2017/18 ^[13] ). This funding was used to employ a social worker and a support worker. This resource was fully utilised. Although the total numbers have been less than anticipated, professionals reported that the amount of support that participants have required has been greater.

Although no other partner agencies received additional funding, the Review explored the additional time they had spent on the PSA. Table 4.4 shows the estimated number of hours per case (by role), assuming six review hearings per case (last column). It does not include the support provided by social workers and support workers or support provided by other agencies to which participants are sometimes referred or signposted towards. The amount of support varies considerably by case and it would be difficult to determine how much is 'additional' – although improved access to relevant support is a central feature of how the PSA is intended to work, some participants would have received at least some support from social work and other agencies had they not been on the PSA.

Table 4.4 - Estimated time required per case, by professional role ^[14]

	PSA stage, and time required in minutes
Role	Stage 1 (screening)	Stage 2 (plea)	Stage 3 (sentence)	Stage 3 (review)	Total inc. 1 review	Total inc. 6 reviews
CJSW	10 [15]	60 [16]	150 [17]	105 [18]	325	850 minutes (14.2 hours)
Procurator Fiscal	5 [19]			15 [20]	20	95 minutes (1.6 hours)
Clerk		15 [21]		20	35	135 minutes (2.2 hours)
Sheriff				40 [22]	40	240 minutes (4 hours)
Police				22.5 [23]	22.5	135 minutes (2.2 hours)
Defence agent		30		30	60	210 minutes (3.5 hours)
Total						1665 minutes (27.8 hours)

This shows that a problem solving case with six review hearings (assuming the participant completes a six month SDS) requires an estimated 28 hours of PSA-specific work, the majority of which is undertaken by social work (14 hours) - undertaking PSA assessments and preparing court reports. The sheriff also contributes approximately 4 hours per case.

Professionals also discussed the resource implications when interviewed. On the whole, professionals reported that they had sufficient resources in place to effectively run the PSA, and there was no evidence of individuals being prevented from accessing the PSA because of resourcing issues. The following points were raised:

• Sheriffs currently working on the PSA did not consider the time spent preparing for and conducting the reviews to be too onerous – they praised the reports prepared by CJSW for their relevance and brevity. Furthermore, as they only had a limited number of PSA participants at any one time, and were therefore very familiar with their individual circumstances, the review preparation was largely a case of refreshing their memory and checking for recent developments.
• Several professionals (sheriffs, procurators fiscal, court staff and defence agents) 'lose' 30 minutes of their day two or three times a week ^[24] as a result of the reviews taking place at 9.30am – essentially, this was time that they would have spent on other tasks that they then had to fit in at other times (including during their lunch hour or by starting work 30 minutes earlier in order to get prepared for the day's business). Overall, however, professionals were pragmatic about this and felt that it was worth it – particularly if the PSA did lead to reduced offending, and therefore fewer cases in court, in the long term.
• The PSA is very resource intensive for CJSW, highlighting the importance of the Scottish Government funding – CJSW staff felt that the resources they currently had available were adequate when the team was at full capacity but that it became difficult when a team member was on leave. If the number of PSA participants increases, resourcing could easily become a problem. The number of participants has been less than the 50 per year anticipated at the outset – which would have been approximately 25 cases at any one time (assuming six months per case). At November 2017, there were 16 current cases. However, although the total numbers have been less than anticipated, professionals reported that the amount of support that participants have required has been greater.

4.5 Sustainability and scalability

Assuming that resources continue at a similar level, the PSA should be sustainable on its current basis. Professionals suggested that the following would help with its continued improvement.

APSA area for improvement
Reinstate the multi-agency meetings that were held during the set-up stage. Community justice partners could also be involved, to ensure everyone is up-to-date with changes happening in the local area and to consider any potential impact on PSA.

APSA area for improvement
Provide more regular communications to stakeholders (particularly those not as closely involved on a daily/weekly basis e.g. other sheriffs and defence agents who did not have clients on the PSA) to ensure they remain aware of the PSA including: criteria for admission, the process, potential outcomes for participants and what their roles are in relation to it.

As discussed in section 3.5, consideration should be given to reviewing the eligibility criteria. If they were to be expanded, this would of course have resource implications and local partners would have to estimate the likely number of additional cases and how these would be resourced. Aspects to be considered would include:

• the amount of additional time required from each agency/group (based on Table 4.4 above) including the number of dedicated sheriffs required. (One of the sheriffs suggested that 20 individuals per sheriff would be about the maximum – this would mean one review per day on average assuming reviews every four weeks)
• the amount of additional time required from social workers and support workers to provide support
• courtroom availability. Given the 9.30am – 10.00am time slot (and it would be difficult to hold hearings at other times), a maximum of around 10 hearings could be held per week in Courtroom 4.