Public Audit Committee
Community Justice: Sustainable alternatives to custody follow up
Letter from Convener to Convener of Criminal Justice Committee, 11 November 2021
Dear Audrey,
Community Justice: Sustainable alternatives to custody
On 30 September 2021[1], the Public Audit Committee took evidence from the Auditor General for Scotland (AGS) on the above briefing[2]. The Committee took further evidence on the briefing from Scottish Government officials at its meeting on 28 October 2021[3].
The Committee agreed to close its scrutiny of the briefing following the evidence session on 28 October. In doing so however, the Committee identified several issues that would benefit from further scrutiny, and therefore agreed to draw these to your Committee’s attention as set out below.
Lack of data
The AGS’s briefing states that an Audit Scotland report from 2012[4] concluded that a lack of data made it difficult to assess the impact of Community Justice Authorities, or the effectiveness of community pay back orders. We were disappointed to see in the AGS’s briefing, that nine years later, Community Justice Scotland is reporting that data deficiencies mean that progress against national community justice outcomes is still not being measured effectively. In particular, the briefing highlights a “lack of published data on wider outcomes for people completing either type of sentence, including future employment or health”.
We addressed this with the Scottish Government at the evidence session on 28 October, where Joe Griffin, Portfolio Accountable Office stated—
“We accept that the system is not working as well as we would like it to. It does not give me, as the accountable officer, the data that I would like. We have a clear plan for improvement and we must learn the lessons, including those that Audit Scotland has helped us to understand.”
The Public Audit Committee believes it is vital that full and comprehensive data is available to determine whether the wider outcomes of the Scottish Government’s strategy are being achieved and to be assured that public funds are being spent wisely.
The role of Community Justice Scotland
The AGS’s briefing questions whether the roles and accountability arrangements of Community Justice Scotland and the 30 Community Justice Partnerships are sufficiently clear. We asked Joe Griffin whether all the stakeholders involved in the planning and delivery of community justice have a shared understanding of the lines of accountability and areas of responsibility; and expressed a concern that community justice partners remain accountable through their usual accountability arrangements and are not accountable to Community Justice Scotland.
While we note Joe Griffin’s response that Community Justice Scotland takes the view that a collaborative approach is best, we believe that Community Justice Scotland may benefit from additional powers that would enable it to take a more interventionist approach when required.
Variation in the use of community sentences by crime type
The AGS provided the Committee with additional data on the variation in the use of community sentences by crime type. The Committee was extremely concerned to note that since 2016, 5.7% more people have received a community sentence as opposed to a custodial sentence after being convicted of a sexual crime. While in contrast, 4.1% more offenders received a custodial sentence for fire raising and vandalism etc offences.
The Committee believes that the shift in sentencing for crimes such as these are likely to impact negatively on the public’s perception and confidence in the use of community sentencing, as referred to by the Scottish Sentencing Council in its recent paper highlighting obstacles to the use of community sentencing[5].
We would welcome your Committee giving consideration to these issues as part of any future scrutiny that it may decide to undertake in relation to community justice.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Leonard MSP
Convener