Transcript Open - The Scottish Government

Crime and Justice Statistics
th
User Day 5 March 2012 :
Criminal Justice Social
Work (CJSW) – future data
collections
Alan Fleming
Project Manager – Review of CJSW Statistics
Scottish Government, Justice Analytical Services
About current CJSW data
• Collected from all 32 local authorities
• Collected annually for financial year
• Contains aggregate tables for completion
– circa 60
• Generally supplied to the Scottish
Government in July/August
• Published around the following December
or January
Topics covered by CJSW collection
up to 2010-11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CJSW reports (previously social enquiry reports)
Community service orders (CSOs)
Probation orders (POs)
Supervised attendance orders (SAOs)
Drug treatment & testing orders (DTTOs)
Statutory throughcare (community & custody)
Others e.g. home circumstance reports,
voluntary assistance, diversion from
prosecution, bail supervision
New addition for 2011-12
Community Payback Orders
• Introduced by the Criminal Justice and
Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010
• Available to be issued by judges/sheriffs/
JPs since 1 February 2011
• Replaces CSOs, POs and SAOs (not
DTTOs)
• CPO can only apply where offence(s)
committed on or after 1 Feb 2011
About CPOs (1)
• A CPO can contain anything from 1 to 9
requirements
• Every order must contain one or both of:
– Unpaid work or other activity reqt,
– Offender supervision reqt
• Unpaid work or other activity reqt minimum
of 20 hours and maximum of 300 hours
• Offender supervision reqt generally a min.
of 6 months and a max. of 3 years
About CPOs (2)
• If (and only if) an offender supervision reqt is
imposed, 1 or more of the following 7 reqts can
also be imposed:
– Conduct
– Programme
– Alcohol treatment
– Compensation
– Drug treatment
– Mental health
– Residence
Why is SG performing a review of
what it collects for CJSW?
• Information collected on same basis for
over a decade
• Limitations to the usefulness of aggregate
data
• Introduction of CPOs a major catalyst
• Need to reflect modern day customer
demands
• Need to collect data in the most efficient
but least burdensome way
How review conducted
• Identification of appropriate stakeholders
in late 2009
• Stakeholder meeting in March 2010
• Formation of smaller working group (circa
15 members)
• Working group met on nine occasions
across 2010 and 2011
• Recommendations made by working
group put to wider set of stakeholders for
comment
Main outcomes from working group
• Unit level data to be collected for CPOs
and DTTOs from 2012-13
• Prior to 2012-13:
– 12 aggregate tables for completion by
LAs for 2011-12
– During 2011, monthly data obtained from
SCS on CPOs imposed
• Consideration also being given to unit level
collection for CJSW reports (but later than
2012-13)
Why unit level data?
• Intended to be material which local authorities
themselves would collect for own purposes
• Saves LAs from completing large number of
aggregate tables
• Main benefit that it increases the volume and
depth of information that can be produced
• LAs also able to use the data to answer own
internal questions
• Better addresses data quality issues
• Precedence with other unit level data from
LASW depts e.g. CLAS, Home Care
CPO data to be collected
• Collected for 3 different stages of process:
Stage 1
• Orders commenced in the course of the year
Stage 2
• Orders in existence at the end of the year
Stage 3
• Orders which terminated or were completed
in the course of the year
• Expected approx 15K to 20K CPOs annually,
with collection of 130 different variables
Key pieces of data to be collected
• Personal details e.g. unique ID (“S no.”),
sex, DOB, ethnicity, employment status
• Requirements imposed initially and (if app)
length of supervision and hours of work
• Timescale of such points as when initial
offender contact and when work began
• Details (via stage 2 & 3 data) of any new/
amended reqts introduced
• No. of breach applications made
• How order ended and outcome at finish
Questions unit level data can answer
• Basic info such as how many CPOs issued,
how many terminated, how many different
requirements used
• But much more than that! For example:
– What proportion of orders commenced in a
particular period were successfully
completed?
– How did this vary by the type of
requirements in the CPO e.g. how success
rate for alcohol treatment reqt compares
with drug treatment reqt?
Questions unit level data can answer
– For orders with unpaid work, how does the
completion rate vary according to the number
of hours of work?
– How do the average number of breaches per
order vary between those which have court
progress reviews and those which don’t.
– Are young people more or less likely to
complete their orders than older individuals?
How big is the difference?
– Potential to link the data to data already
available for reconvictions – how likely are
people given different CPO reqts to reoffend?
CPO unit level data - timescales
February 2011
• Data to be collected agreed in principle
July 2011
• Some further minor changes made to data list
• 9 local authorities selected to pilot the data
collection
April to November 2011
• Completion of data specifications, building of
data input system (including error checks)
and testing of system
CPO unit level data - timescales
Since spring 2011
• LAs working with IT providers to make
changes to systems to accommodate CPOs
and the info needed
First half of 2012
• Data pilot exercise open until end of July
2012 – 1 council has thus far loaded data
• SG work closely with pilot LAs over data
issues and, if necessary, make changes to
data collection system
CPO unit level data - timescales
Autumn 2012
• 1 or more demonstration days planned for local
authorities
From April 2012
• LAs record full detailed information required for
unit level data and liaise with SG over any
issues
April 2013
• SG request 2012-13 data from LAs - data to be
provided by end July 2013.
End 2013 / early 2014
• Publication of 2012-13 CPO data
Advice if considering a unit
collection in future
• Allow plenty of time - new collections need
plenty of “bedding-in” time
• Ensure plenty of stakeholder liaison
• Ensure data demands are a) truly needed
and, b) able to serve the required purpose
– no “collect it in case we are asked for it”
• Ensure all involved are properly consulted
and involved (e.g. IT security)
Plans for future
• Assess success (and learn lessons from) the
CPO and DTTO unit level collections
• Work towards establishing unit level collection
for CJSW reports in 2013-14
• Following separate review of throughcare
(RRP2), look at whether this and other areas
could be collected at unit level in future
• Look at whether there are organisations other
than LAs which are best placed to provide
certain data
Some useful links
• CJSW Review Sharepoint site (agendas,
minutes, variable lists etc.):
https://www.scotxed.net/criminaljusticesw/Shar
ed%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx
• CJSW statistics bulletins
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Br
owse/Crime-Justice/PubSocialWork) and
accompanying tables
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Br
owse/Crime-Justice/Datasets/SocialWork)
• CPO monthly numbers 2011
(http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Br
owse/Crime-Justice/Datasets/CPOs)