Structured deferred sentences: guidance

Section 2: Developing and implementing a Structured Deferred Sentence scheme

This section is not intended to be prescriptive; rather, it outlines the key considerations for developing and operating SDS in Scotland and areas of best practice. Services are encouraged to adopt a flexible, innovative approach in developing an SDS scheme that is commensurate with their priorities, capacity, local need, and evidence-based practice.

Developing and implementing an SDS scheme - summary of key considerations for justice social work services and partners

• Have you identified a target group/criteria based on local area need and/or service priorities which complements your area’s Community Justice Outcomes Improvement Plan?  (sections 2.1; 2.4)
• Have you engaged with the local judiciary to determine how SDS might be used? (sections 2.1; 2.2)
• Will your SDS scheme begin as a pilot scheme, with a view to broader roll-out? (section 2.1)
• What resources and staffing do you have?  Will you create a specific SDS team, or place SDS within the remit of existing teams/services? (section 2.3)
• Will further training for staff be required e.g. to raise awareness of SDS, or other key areas? (section 2.3)
• Have you engaged with partner organisations, including the third sector, to identify local needs and capacity for delivering services that could form part of SDS in your area? (sections 2.2; 2.3; 2.5)
• Will you need to develop a bespoke SDS intervention programme, or do you have existing 1:1 or groupwork programmes that can be utilised or adapted?
• How will you raise awareness of/promote SDS? (e.g. consider developing information leaflets for service users, staff, and other stakeholders, and local procedural guidance/flowcharts) (section 2.3)
• Do you have appropriate templates? (e.g. SDS action plans; review reports; outcome measures) (section 2.3)
• How will you structure and manage engagement, compliance, and any escalation in risk within your particular SDS scheme? (section 2.7)
• Do you have appropriate SDS data collection processes in place? (section 2.9)
• Do you have an outcome measure by which to evaluate the SDS intervention? (section 2.9 and Annex 9)

2.1 Determining the purpose and use of Structured Deferred Sentences

2.1.1 Purpose and use

SDS aims and practical use can differ across areas, with local demographics and priority areas of need often being determining factors.  These priorities and needs may link with strategic planning and local Community Justice Outcomes and Improvement Plans.

It will also be important for services to engage with local judiciary when determining the criteria, purpose, and target groups of the SDS, particularly when implementing a new scheme.

There are some commonalities of SDS purpose and use, which this guidance highlights.

SDS are generally utilised post-conviction and prior to final sentencing as part of a deferred sentence to provide a relatively short period of focused intervention with the specific objectives of:

• Meeting assessed criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs and building an individual’s motivation and capacity for positive change;
• Reducing the frequency or seriousness of offending behaviour; and
• Avoiding premature or unnecessarily intensive periods of supervision in the community

SDS might therefore be, for example, specifically aimed at certain individuals such as women in the justice system^[3], young people who have offended^[4], those with lower-level substance use, people experiencing poor mental health, and those with a limited offending history who may pose a low/medium risk of re-offending (sometimes referred to as ‘low tariff’ SDS). The purpose of SDS in such cases would be to reduce the number of individuals made subject to supervision who could be more appropriately dealt with through the provision of a structured programme of support addressing identified areas of need. The SDS period would serve to furnish the court with information on the individual’s progress during this time, with the optimum outcome being a less intensive disposal at the end of the deferment period such as an admonition. It should be noted that these are only examples and any individual who has been assessed as suitable – irrespective of offence type^[5] – can be considered for SDS.

In addition, SDS can also be used as a means of assessing suitability for a Community Payback Order (CPO) or Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO), potentially to allow an individual the opportunity to achieve stability in a certain aspect of their circumstances, and/or to gauge their ability to comply with supervision in the community (sometimes referred to as ‘high tariff’ SDS). SDS in this context might be more commonly used for individuals with more persistent offending, those who may also be at a higher risk of receiving a short custodial sentence, those who have struggled to comply with community orders, and/or those who pose a higher risk of re-offending^[6].  Individuals are thus provided with the opportunity to demonstrate their motivation to engage with supervision and support, and address offending behaviour. A shorter community-based disposal could then be imposed on their return to court, should satisfactory progress be made. It is important to carefully consider timescales should services target SDS use in this way, paying due regard to the length of time that an individual may be subject to an SDS and any subsequent period of supervision.

As stated, in all cases, at the end of the period of intervention the court retains the discretion to pass sentence in any manner that would have been appropriate at the time of conviction, with the additional benefit of information from justice social work and partner services on the individual’s response to a structured intervention during the deferment period.

2.1.2 SDS interventions

Some areas have developed specific SDS intervention programmes, including one-to-one and groupwork schemes for people subject to SDS. These may be designed to focus on specific areas of need, such as alcohol-related offending, or form part of a more general approach to addressing need and risk.

The following areas are likely to be covered as part of an SDS intervention (this is not exhaustive):

• Motivation and capacity-building
• Substance use
• Health and wellbeing
• Mental health
• Accommodation
• Employability, education, and training
• Relationships
• Decision-making, risk-taking, and offending behaviour

This can be achieved through a variety of methods such as:

• One-to-one (or 2:1) meetings and interventions
• Specific groupwork programmes
• Referrals, signposting, and partnership working with relevant agencies^[7]

As stated, SDS can be aimed for use with specific groups where there may be local need and/or a gap in provision.  Areas currently operating SDS often first trialled its use as a small-scale, pilot scheme for specific groups, subsequently rolling it out for broader use.

2.1.3 Engagement with and support from the local judiciary

Support from the local judiciary will be crucial in establishing and running a successful SDS scheme. Justice social work services should seek to engage with the judiciary as early as possible both to determine how SDS can best be used locally, and to ensure that sheriffs are aware of what interventions and support can be offered by justice social work and other local partners as part of an SDS. This engagement should not be limited to the set-up phase of any new SDS scheme – ongoing, meaningful communication between justice social work and the courts is an important part of ensuring that SDS works well, is evaluated, and retains the confidence of the judiciary, allowing feedback to be provided by all parties and the services offered to be refined over time.

2.1.4 Practice examples

For specific practice examples of how SDS is used in a selection of local authorities across Scotland, please refer to Annex 2.

2.2 Principles of service provision

The majority of these principles reflect the underpinning practice and ethos of all of the interventions provided by justice social work services and partners and are not intended to be an exhaustive list; rather, the key principles for SDS are highlighted for the purposes of the guidance.

2.2.1 Participation with consent

Given the nature of SDS in seeking to work closely with individuals to provide a targeted and/or early intervention to address needs and avoid further offending behaviour, a willingness to engage with the scheme is critical. Once an individual has agreed to participate, they will be expected to show commitment to the SDS. It will therefore be important to seek the consent of the individual to engage with SDS at the Criminal Justice Social Work Report stage and in co-producing the action plan.  In addition, when assessing for SDS suitability, schemes will wish to consider whether individuals are currently subject to concurrent statutory supervision, as this can be perceived as incompatible with the ethos of SDS and may serve to duplicate work undertaken as part of statutory supervision.

Nonetheless, SDS should be offered as a credible, effective, and proportionate alternative or precursor to community sentences, or, in some cases, as an alternative to short periods of custody. Courts will have expectations of the work to be undertaken as well as the needs that require to be addressed during the deferment period. The expectations of engagement with the SDS, and the potential consequences of non-engagement, should therefore be clearly agreed and communicated with all parties.

2.2.2 Effective, evidence-based interventions

SDS will involve working with partners and reporting on actions to ensure delivery of an effective, evidence-based intervention proportionate to the identified needs and risks^[8], which improves outcomes for individuals and communities and maintains stakeholder confidence in community interventions.

Generic, one-size-fits-all interventions are ineffective. The quality of an intervention can impact on its effectiveness, and SDS allows for a flexible and innovative approach in response to complex and varied needs.

2.2.3 Needs-led, strengths-based and outcomes focused

SDS should be needs-led and the intervention should focus on the areas of need identified by the individual in collaboration with the SDS worker – these may be dynamic and any intervention plan should be responsive to emerging needs.

An SDS intervention should also focus on identifying and building upon the strengths and resiliencies of the individual, with a focus on developing autonomy, self-efficacy, and achieving positive outcomes.

2.2.4 Individualised, responsive and flexible

As stated, it is important for SDS action plans and interventions to be individualised and person-centred, with no ‘one size fits all’ approach. Action plans should be co-produced with the person subject to SDS.

SDS interventions should be flexible and innovative, and responsive to the needs of individuals subject to SDS. Any bespoke SDS programmes should be adapted to take account of responsivity considerations such as gender, age, ethnicity, mental health needs, learning disability, communication and literacy needs, learning styles, and so on.

Relationship-based practice will be key – SDS workers should build relationships with individuals based on a person-centred, pro-social modelling approach, engendering trust, an open dialogue, and supporting the desistance process.

2.2.5 Trauma-informed

The Scottish Government’s National Strategy for Community Justice (2017) highlights that people in contact with the criminal justice system often have vulnerabilities in relation to their health and well-being, with people experiencing high levels of mental health difficulties, trauma, and adversity. The Scottish Government’s Mental Health Strategy (2017-2027) therefore acknowledges the need to ensure that interventions for people who commit offences are informed by an understanding of the impact of trauma.  Consideration should be given to this both in relation to perpetrators and victims. The perspectives of, and any impacts on, victims should be taken into account where relevant in delivering SDS.

NHS Education Scotland have produced the Transforming Psychological Trauma framework which aims to ensure that the Scottish workforce, including justice social work services, have the necessary level of knowledge and skills to meet the needs of people affected by trauma.  This framework should be taken into account when designing and delivering SDS interventions.

2.2.6 Proactive engagement

SDS should operate on the principle of proactive engagement – SDS staff are required to proactively make contact with the individual, encouraging and supporting engagement wherever possible through the use of meetings, telephone contact, digital engagement where appropriate, home visits, letters, and partnership working with other agencies.

2.2.7 Partnership working

As well as partnership working with the individual subject to the SDS, working with other services offered by the local authority, the third sector (including consultation with victims organisations where relevant), health, and other statutory partners as appropriate is integral to the operation of SDS.  It may be, in some cases, that one or more third sector service will be the most appropriate agency in meeting the identified needs and risks, with justice social work serving to facilitate access to such services and monitoring the overall SDS.

Third sector partners working in justice and other sectors may be able to provide a range of services or interventions that could be used as part of SDS to help people address their offending behaviour and to resolve other issues such as health or housing needs.

Many justice social work services will already have strong links with local third sector organisations, however local Community Justice Partnerships and Third Sector Interfaces should be able to help identify potential third sector delivery partners where this is not the case^[9]. Some local areas also have established networks of third sector services that could provide support.

The scheme should also complement the Community Justice Outcomes Improvement Plan in your area (or at least the anticipated direction of the plan) and members of the Community Justice Partnership should be aware of the scheme and who is involved, with opportunities to collaborate and support delivery.  Community Justice Partnership Co-ordinators should be aware of SDS plans and will be able to facilitate engagement with the Partnership as appropriate.

As stated, buy-in from the local judiciary will be imperative when setting up new schemes.

2.2.8 Time-limited

SDS should also be time-limited – interventions should generally not be continued beyond six months, although some caveats may apply when working with individuals with more complex needs and desistance journeys.

2.3 Resource considerations

2.3.1 Assessments, reports and interventions

The Criminal Justice Social Work Report (CJSWR) author will usually assess for SDS suitability at the CJSWR/pre-sentence stage in conjunction with an SDS worker, where available, with some schemes employing or utilising either paraprofessionals (such as social work or community justice assistants), justice social workers (or social workers within young people’s justice services), and/or partner agencies such as the third sector to undertake SDS interventions.

Paraprofessionals can also complete SDS review reports, which may require sign-off by a staff member with a social work qualification as per commensurate justice social work services practice guidance.

In cases where there are perhaps higher levels of risk, areas may wish to consider whether these are most appropriately directly managed, including the delivery of core offence-focused interventions, by a justice social worker.

As stated, partnership working with third sector agencies is also key to the success of SDS schemes, in order to address the range of needs that individuals may have.

It will be for local areas to determine which staff groups are involved in SDS. Some areas have specific SDS teams, but this is not compulsory – nonetheless, staff should be appropriately trained in working with the needs of specific groups and/or appropriate interventions for that group, as well as SDS awareness training and standard training and guidance such as risk assessment and management (including Care and Risk Management (CARM) for young people), domestic abuse awareness, child and adult protection, and trauma-informed practice.  Multi-agency training with partner agencies should also be facilitated where possible.

Other areas place SDS teams or workers within Diversion from Prosecution and Bail Supervision teams, specific teams such as women’s services and drug/alcohol court services, and some within generic justice social work teams.

2.3.2 Resource materials

Services should develop resource materials which explain the operation of SDS in their local areas and promote awareness, such as:

• Information leaflets for service users, professionals, and other agencies
• Local procedures for staff outlining the criteria, assessment, and operation of SDS, such as a flowchart or localised guidance document
• Key templates such as SDS action plans, review reports, and outcome measures

Please see Annex 3 for a sample SDS information leaflet and Annex 4 for an example of a process flowchart.

2.4 Assessing suitability for a Structured Deferred Sentence

Assessment of suitability for an SDS should be undertaken by a justice social worker (or other relevant professional, such as a social worker within young people’s justice services) at the CJSWR stage, where the individual would appear to meet the criteria for SDS (in accordance with the criteria set by that particular scheme).  Some areas include an assessment of suitability for an SDS in all CJSWRs as standard, and where appropriate.

2.4.1 SDS criteria

This is not an exhaustive list; rather, it draws together the commonalities in SDS criteria amongst schemes and is offered as a guide to assist in the establishment and operation of an SDS scheme.  Services should adopt a flexible and innovative approach to developing criteria for their own SDS schemes, and be guided by local area need and service priorities as well as engagement with local judiciary.

Broadly, SDS may be considered for those who:

• Are age 16 (or 18) years and over^[10]
• Pose a low to medium risk of re-offending and have less serious offending
• Are at a lower risk of custody
• Have identified need(s) related to offending behaviour^[11] as identified by LSIR:SV (or an appropriate risk assessment for young people)
• Have a less entrenched pattern of offending^[12]
• Are not currently subject to a statutory order
• Are motivated to engage with a short structured intervention

Schemes should consider at the assessment stage whether individuals with significant substance dependency or severe and enduring mental health conditions will be able to engage with an SDS.

Schemes will wish to determine whether SDS is made available for a broad range of offence types, which will inform the development of their own criteria for the scheme.

It must be noted that should schemes wish to offer SDS to individuals who have been convicted of a domestic offence for the first time, it is vital that local information-sharing processes are in place and followed to enable CJSWR authors to request police call-out information (as well as obtain information from specific domestic abuse advocacy services who may be supporting victims) in order to ensure there is no pattern of incidents and to formulate an informed assessment. It is best practice that CJSWRs undertaken for domestic offences involve the completion of an initial Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA); CJSWR authors will adhere to all relevant guidance and protocols when undertaking this assessment and in considering appropriate disposal options in reports for domestic offences.  Should there be any indication of a pattern of domestic offending^[13], it is unlikely that SDS will be suitable.

Should services wish to broaden the purposes and priorities of their SDS scheme, they may wish to consider offering SDS to individuals who:

• Pose a medium to high risk of re-offending
• Have a high level of offending behaviour-related need as identified by LSIR:SV (or an appropriate risk assessment for young people)
• May have had previous or recent non-compliance or difficulties engaging with statutory orders
• Are motivated to engage with SDS to achieve a period of stability in e.g. substance use or accommodation, and to demonstrate their ability to comply with/engage with a structured intervention in the community as a precursor to a community order

Please see Annex 5 for an example of an SDS suitability screening form template.

2.4.2 SDS assessment and CJSWRs

Consideration for an SDS will usually occur post-conviction and prior to sentencing. CJSWR authors will assess an individual’s suitability for an SDS by discussing this with them at the CJSWR interview, obtaining their consent to engage with an SDS should this be given at court, and formulating the initial areas of risk/need for inclusion in the report.  They should also discuss the person’s suitability with the SDS team/worker(s) where available/appropriate, complete an SDS suitability screening form (where available), and utilise the initial Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) Screening Version assessment (or the commensurate risk assessment tool for 16-18 year olds used by areas)^[14] to assess risk and need.

The risk/needs assessment, in collaboration with the individual will form the basis of the initial SDS action plan, an outline of which should be detailed in the CJSWR where an SDS has been assessed as suitable and is the preferred option of the report author.

Where possible, the date, time, and venue of the first SDS appointment should be detailed within the CJSWR if this is the preferred option.

Please see Annex 6 for example standard paragraphs for inclusion in CJSWRs should an individual be assessed as suitable for SDS.

2.5 Action plans

SDS interventions should be informed by a clear action plan.  Action plans will outline the expectations of the court and the areas of risk and need identified for the individual, as well as contact and attendance requirements during the deferment period.

As stated, an initial SDS action plan will be outlined in the CJSWR, with the full action plan to be agreed by the SDS worker in conjunction with the individual during the early stages of the deferment period.

2.5.1 Format of action plans

Schemes will wish to determine the format of the action plan they use^[15]. Although the initial action plan is based on the risk/needs identified by the LS/CMI: Screening Version (or other appropriate risk assessment tool), areas may wish to use locally-developed action plan templates rather than the full LS/CMI Case Management Plan template as this is typically used in cases post-conviction and involving a period of statutory supervision, and usually cannot be accessed or used by paraprofessionals.

Some areas may wish to make use of the Justice Outcomes Star to co-produce an SDS action plan with individuals, ensuring areas of risk are identified and addressed.

Please see Annex 7 for an example of a generic action plan template.

2.5.2 Producing the action plan

In all cases, an SDS action plan should be completed by the four-week stage of the deferment period and could include the following headings:

• Level of agreed contact and expectations for engagement, as well as arrangements should there be non-compliance
• Priorities for the intervention such as:
  • Accommodation
  • Relationships
  • Health and wellbeing
  • Substance use
  • Employment/training
  • Use of time
  • Offending behaviour (which may incorporate attitudes towards offending, decision-making, anger, victim empathy/awareness, and so on)

Any specific areas of risk to victims or the public should be identified in the action plan, with interventions tailored accordingly and partnership working with relevant agencies.

Action plans should also take any responsivity issues into account (such as age, gender, health, mental health, communication needs and so on), which will inform the implementation of the plan.

It will be important for the action plan to be co-produced with the individual, communicated in a way that is commensurate with their learning style or needs, and agreed and signed to ensure their buy-in and understanding of the SDS.

An SDS action plan should be dynamic to allow for further information or needs that may emerge during the relationship-building and intervention, which can be added to the plan.

Progress during the SDS will be measured by the factors in the action plan (i.e. positive change in the identified needs/risk associated with their offending behaviour) and set out in SDS progress/review reports to the court (please see section 2.8, and Annex 8 for an example of an SDS progress report template).

Along with the individual and the SDS worker/justice social worker, the following types of services are likely to be involved in achieving SDS action plans:

• Drug and alcohol services
• Health
• Mental health
• Accommodation services
• Employability, education, and training services
• Specific projects or services for e.g. women, or young people
• Specific groupwork or one-to-one interventions

Where an individual will have an ongoing need for support or other services beyond the SDS period, every effort should be made to ensure continuation of support.  This could involve signposting or referrals to appropriate services and, where appropriate, facilitating engagement with these services and supporting the individual during the transition period as the SDS comes to an end.

2.6 Timescales and reviews

The deferment period for an SDS is determined by the court, and is usually three or six months; SDS is generally set at a maximum of six months with a court review at the three-month stage^[16].

SDS set at three months may serve as the initial review period to report on progress on the SDS. An SDS report or supplementary CJSWR is usually requested at this stage.  A further three-month deferment period may be set by the court should there be outstanding needs to address.

An SDS period of 9 or 12 months will usually not be appropriate given the aims and purpose of SDS. Such longer periods of intervention would perhaps require consideration of a CPO or DTTO rather than SDS.

However, services may identify the necessity for more than one or two SDS periods for people with a higher level of need (such as young people or women), in order to more appropriately reflect and support the desistance process for these groups.

Where resource and judicial agreement allows, services may find it useful and appropriate for social work staff to attend SDS court reviews alongside the individual, for example with young people.

Schemes may also wish to incorporate internal SDS case management review processes involving the individual, the SDS worker/supervising officer, and a line manager in order to monitor progress on the action plan during the course of the deferment; this may be particularly beneficial where there are issues with engagement or compliance.

2.7 Engagement and compliance

2.7.1 Levels and nature of contact

Weekly contact should be the minimum expectation during an SDS, with some schemes stipulating contacts of up to three times per week where assessed as necessary (for example, where there are higher levels of risk/need).  In all schemes, these should also include appropriate contacts such as attendance at groupwork programmes, and appointments with partner agencies involved in supporting the individual.

In addition to face-to-face meetings, regular contact by telephone or other appropriate platforms could be highly beneficial to support broader engagement and compliance, particularly for certain groups such as young people.

As stated, SDS schemes tend to operate on the principle of proactive and flexible engagement – SDS staff will be required to proactively make contact with the individual, encouraging and supporting engagement wherever possible through the use of meetings, telephone contact, digital engagement, home visits (where assessed as safe and appropriate), letters, and contact with other agencies involved with the individual.

Where resources allow, SDS workers should support individuals to attend key events (whether through in-person support, or reminders), such as meetings with other services and court appearances.  This support could also be arranged with partner agencies working with the individual where appropriate.

Contact can be reduced as appropriate should progress be made on the action plan during the deferment period.

2.7.2 Compliance

Flexible and proactive engagement does not equate to a lenient approach – in situations of non-attendance at SDS appointments or contacts, it is expected that follow-up telephone calls, letters, or home visits will occur.  This could be in conjunction with other support services working with the individual.

Should individuals consistently fail to engage during the deferment period, services may wish to leave the offer of engagement open until the court review, and report on their compliance at that stage.

It may be possible or necessary^[17] in some cases to request an early SDS review from the court; services are encouraged to engage with local judiciary on this and ensure all parties are clear on how non-engagement with SDS is managed in their area.

SDS schemes where individuals are being assessed for their suitability for community orders may have specific standards relating to engagement and non-compliance.  Such schemes may wish to use formal letters and suspension/early court review processes to emphasise and manage the consequences of non-engagement with the SDS.

2.8 Structured Deferred Sentence progress/completion reports

Courts will expect an SDS progress report at the initial review stage (if set), and the final disposal stage.  Schemes may wish to use supplementary CJSWRs to report on progress, or develop a local SDS report template.

The SDS report should include the following headings:

• Basis of report
• Action plan
• Response to action plan/progress (including attendance/engagement and quality of engagement, and factors included in the action plan such as substance use, housing, relationships, employment, and so on)
• Any outstanding areas of risk/need
• Conclusion/disposal options (where relevant)
• Sign-off (either by the justice social worker, or the SDS worker and relevant social work qualified staff member)

Report writers should ensure they gather information from a range of sources to inform the SDS report, including partner agencies involved with the individual and information from victim support agencies, in relevant cases.

Please see Annex 8 for an example of an SDS progress report template.

If the work required to address the risk/need factors has been successfully completed, this should be reflected in the report.  For many SDS schemes, this would possibly result in an admonishment as a final disposal.  However, where sufficient progress has not been made, or there are outstanding needs that may be address by way of a further SDS period, it may be appropriate to recommend a further period of SDS (within appropriate timescales), or request a deferment for the completion of a full CJSWR to assess the suitability of other community disposals.

SDS reports whereby the SDS was utilised as a ‘testing’ period in the community will update on engagement and compliance with the SDS and in addition provide an assessment of the suitability of a community order such as a CPO or DTTO following the SDS period.

An updated Criminal History System check for SDS reports should be obtained to determine whether the individual has been charged or convicted of any new offences during the deferment period.

2.9 Monitoring

It is recommended that SDS be included within local Community Justice Outcome Improvement Plans (CJOIPs) and, where relevant, subject to CJOIP reporting and monitoring.

Arrangements should be put in place for the collection of relevant statistical data, so that the schemes’ effectiveness and efficiency can be monitored. If not already in place, services should add a specific ‘Structured Deferred Sentences’ category to their data recording systems.

The data to be collected will include:

• Number of cases where SDS was identified as the preferred option by CJSWR authors
• Number of SDS cases commenced
• Length of SDS deferment period, defined by the categories ‘0-3 months’, ‘4-6 months’, and ‘more than 6 months’
• Number of SDS deferral periods
• The final sentencing outcome following the deferment period(s)

Sentencing outcomes should fall into the following categories:

• Admonishment
• Further SDS period (the final outcome of this must also be logged when relevant)
• Community order – e.g. CPO, DTTO
• Custody
• Other – e.g. financial penalty

All of this data should be able to be categorised by age, gender, ethnicity, and employment status.

Additional data may be required for local management purposes, and areas may wish to measure outcomes related to health, mental health, substance use, attitudes towards offending, education and employment, and so on. As stated, some areas use the Justice Outcomes Star to measure outcomes as part of the action plan, or have created their own templates.  Consideration should also be given to evaluation, drawing on evidence captured around the use of SDS, resourcing, outcomes, and impact, including in preventing people being drawn further into the justice system.

Please see Annex 9 for an example of an SDS outcomes measure.