As a membership body, our view of an issue is a strategic view, informed by our members.
We find a number of ways to get that view across: responding to consultations and calls for evidence; briefings to MSPs; event reports and publications based on our own work.
The Impact of COVID-19 on the Financial Sustainability of Local Government in Scotland
SUBMISSION FROM SOCIAL WORK SCOTLAND, TO THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT’S LOCAL GOVERNMENT & COMMUNITIES CALL FOR VIEWS
Q.1. How has COVID-19 impacted the local government sector, in particular, council
Within these totals, additional funding has been largely concentrated in specific, ring-fenced areas, delivering on Government manifesto commitments (e.g. expansion of Early Learning and Childcare hours). While such policy developments are welcome, the move to ‘targeted investment’ (ring-fencing) at the expense of sustaining ‘general local authority revenue’ has forced councils, as policy and spending demands increase, to make deeper cuts in ‘unprotected’ areas.
To illustrate the pre-COVID-19 financial situation for local populations, the graph below (see download)
Of particular relevance to Social Work Scotland has been local government budgets relating to social work and social care.). As Audit Scotland noted in December 2018: Councils’ social work departments are facing significant challenges because of a combination of financial pressures caused by a real-terms reduction in overall council spending, demographic change, and the cost of implementing new legislation and policies. […] The report goes on to restate the finding of Audit Scotland’s 2016 report that, unless there is radical reform in way council and Integrated Joint Boards deliver services, councils’ social work and social care spending would need to increase by between £510 and £667 million
Using the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA), which provide net service expenditure data (current plus capital) for personal social services (in this context, a term equivalent to social work and social care), it shows that Scotland spent £3.4bn on social care in 2018-19; the only UK nation to be spending less (-3%) in real terms than it was in 2010-11. (Detailed figures are in an appendix to this submission.)
Despite significant policy developments over this period spend per head in real terms was 6% smaller in 2018-19 compared to 2010-11; the largest percentage reduction among the UK nations (see the second of the graphs in download below). Spend per-head figures provide a better indication of the availability of public services to council residents than whole budget numbers. (A budget may increase, but if the numbers requiring support also increase, available spend per person may actually fall.)
However, while spend per-head takes into account total population change, it does not reflect population ageing. And as has been noted extensively in other submissions to the Committee, the increasing number of people aged 75 years and over, and of 85 and over, have greatly increased the need for social care services for older people. Improvements in medical care have also increased the demand for services among children and working-age adults with moderate and severe learning disabilities. Expansion of council duties towards looked after children (such as Continuing Care) have extended support throughout young adulthood.
Unfortunately, in the run up to COVID-19, investment in social work and social care was not sufficient to keep up with the increasing demand. The Scottish Government’s Health & Social Care Medium Term Financial Framework (October 2018) estimates that 4% growth per year is required for social care from 2016-17, including pay and price inflation; for demographic change alone the annual growth figure is 2.8%. Into this context, COVID-19 has created new challenges for local government, increasing its
Over recent months local authority social work teams have had to redesign services and redistribute resources at a scale and pace never seen before, ensuring staff can work safely and effectively from home or with personal protective equipment. Homeless people have been accommodated, and Humanitarian Assistance Centres established to provide food and services for those most in need. Systems have been created to support those shielding, and hundreds of offenders released from prison early. As the situation in Scotland’s care homes became clear, new structures of oversight and assurance have been built.
Now, as we move through the route-map out of a national lock-down, the reopening of regular services (day centres, respite, Children’s Hearings, schools, etc.) introduce another layer of issues; not least an operational challenge in having to sustain multiple access and support options simultaneously, to meet the varied needs of local populations.
Scottish Government has been bold and determined in its efforts to shore up public services, allocating significant extra funds at various stages. But the challenge for local government, and for social workers within that, is in estimating levels of need and demand for services in a constantly changing environment, where the public’s behaviour is unpredictable, and government policy driven by competing priorities (e.g. infection control vs. revival of the economy). Services are stretched.
And as universal services continue to re-open, referrals to social work are expected to increase; for example, child protection interagency referral discussions are currently at levels significantly above the average for August and September; as courts re-open we expect to see new Unpaid Work hours to be allocated to offenders, adding to the current back-log of over 700,000 hours; assessments for social care support, withheld by individuals or families over lock-down, are now being requested.
Unpaid carers, both “informal” (largely families and neighbours) and ”formal” (volunteers), have made a massive contribution to carrying the social care sector through the lock-down and initial stages of the route-map; as the furlough scheme ends and offices reopen, a proportion of that personal care and support will be removed, requiring a response from national and local government and Health and Social Care Partnerships.
Work on the costs of Covid-19 for local government in England published in August by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, found that social care accounted for 41% of financial pressures (p14), due to “increases in spending as a result of additional demand, increased payment rates and other support for providers, workforce sickness and other pressures, the cost of personal protective equipment and other costs” (page 53). There is no reason to think the situation is different for Scottish local government. And while the emergency investment from Scottish Government has undoubtedly gone some way to meet the costs of the pandemic, it is too early to tell if it will be sufficient to meet all of the increased costs (including those which are to come, in the delivery of a post lock-down, COVID-aware system).
Meanwhile, local government income has been lost from the closure of leisure facilities and other services carrying charges, and by delayed payments of council tax. The financial situation for Scottish local government is perilous.
Q.2. Which parts of local government have been least affected or most resilient?
We concur with the views of the Accounts Commission/Audit Scotland, in their evidence to the Committee on 28 August, that “very few, if any, council services have been unaffected by the impact of the pandemic through lockdown and social distancing”. Every part of local government has been pressed into service as part of the COVID-19 response, with staff and resources redeployed, priorities changed.
What has been remarkable is how resilient and flexible the system as a whole has been, drawing strength in the breadth of skilled professionals, budgets, etc. at its disposal. As we begin, post-COVID, to consider further reform to our public services (such as the introduction of a National Care Service), we believe it is important that weight is given to local government’s capacity to adapt in times of crisis. A critical factor in our assessment of proposals must be whether any future system will have the capacity, as local government does, to withstand and flex to a significant external event, such as a pandemic.
Q.3. What help will councils need in future from the Scottish Government or others to overcome the ongoing financial strain?
The first priority for the Scottish Government will be to identify with COSLA all additional spend and income reductions that council have experienced, so that any shortfall in the COVID-19 funding already provided can be clarified, and met. As the Accounts Commission stated in their evidence to the Committee on 28 August, “we cannot say that the [Government funding] increase in itself has significantly relieved the pressure on the sustainability of local government”.
The Scottish Government’s Summer Budget Revision stated that local authorities were being provided with an additional £155m for social care COVID-19 support. However, the Programme for Government 2020 (Protecting Scotland, Renewing Scotland) states: “During the pandemic, we put in place a number of interim measures to support the social care and support system. This includes £100 million of funding to meet any additional costs of COVID-19 and support the sustainability and resilience of the sector” (page 74). We have asked Scottish Government for clarification as to whether the £155m been reduced to £100m; or whether £100m been provided to date, with a further £55m still to come in 2020-
The impact of Covid-19 has perhaps been most visible in care homes. Joint research by Professor David Bell of Stirling University with colleagues in other universities shows that, during the weeks ending 13 March to 26 June, care homes accounted for 47% of deaths in Scotland recorded as associated with Covid-19, compared to 30% in England. In Scotland, 65% of care homes reported Covid-19 infections, compared to 44% in England. However, a better measure is “excess deaths” compared to the expected deaths based on the average for the period in the last five years; the research found there was “a 76% increase in mortality over the pandemic period in English care homes compared to 62% in Scotland”.
Earlier work by the Office for National Statistics has shown that, measured by total age standardised excess mortality (in all settings, not just care homes), Scotland ranks third highest in Europe, after England and Spain.
Local government and its partners (Integrated Joint Boards, providers) are going to need considerable ongoing help to recover, rebuild and – if reform is forthcoming – relaunch adult social care. The Account Commission / Audit Scotland’s reports into social work, social care and integration, over the past few years, have underlined the need for continued reform and investment. One without the other is highly unlikely to deliver meaningful improvement for communities.
Finally, before the Covid19 pandemic, the Accounts Commission had already expressed concerns about reduced council reserves, and their “ongoing use [of reserves] to manage funding gaps”10. Linking with our response to question 1, the increased use of reserves is clear evidence that funding for local government is not keeping pace with the population’s demand for services (both in respect to demographic changes, and the Scottish Government’s legislation placing new duties onto councils).
Q.4. What can the local government sector do, in the short and long term, to manage
In respect of the positive examples from local government, much has been written over recent weeks documenting the extraordinary lengths councils have gone to in order to maintain services and support for communities. We would note the recent achievements of homelessness teams, working closely alongside social landlords and the charitable and private sectors, to accommodate rough sleepers throughout the pandemic, and to provide greater security to people with precarious housing. Elsewhere, justice social work teams have adapted rapidly to ensure continued, effective supervision of offenders in the community, and have helped facilitate the early release of prisoners (reducing pressure and infection risk within the prison estate). Social work managers from local authorities have stepped into care homes to provide additional leadership and capacity at a time of acute pressure, while others have been approved as foster carers in order to provide safe, loving homes for children who could not remain with their families.
The Accounts Commission have already mentioned community hubs in their oral evidence
Q.5. How soon do you think the sector will be back to normal? Or is this time for a
In our opinion the framing around COVID-19 of “back to normal” and a “new normal” are unhelpful. Prior to COVID-19 there was significant variation across the country in respect to people’s experience of public services, and the level of ‘change’ forced on some local areas by the pandemic has been less than others.
For those working in social work and social care, the past twenty years (and arguably longer) have been a continuous process of change, adjusting first to policy backed with investment, then post the financial crisis, to policy underpinned by austerity. In this context, COVID-19 has been an exaggerated, accelerated version of “normal”, demanding energy be ploughed into adaptation and innovation. Of course, elements of the past six months are new, such as social distancing, extensive use of PPE, track and trace, etc, and will need to be continued until vaccination or exposure creates sufficient immunity. But in the expansion of home working or greater use of digital platforms for service delivery (among other examples), COVID-19 has simply truncated processes which were already ongoing, forcing us into decisions sooner, rather than later.
Our priority now is in re-locating the individual person back at the centre of public services, reaffirming the principles of personalisation, choice and control. This was not the ‘normal’ prior to COVID-19, but it was the aspiration, and although the environment has changed it should remain the focus of our collective efforts.
Finally, we would draw the Committee’s attention to a number of critical issues which, while
For further information, please do not hesitate to contact:
Response to the Scottish Government Review of Local Authority Financial Returns – Social Work Services
Social Work Scotland response to the Scottish Government Review of Local Authority Financial Returns – Social Work Services (LFR03)
23 August 2020
Social Work Scotland welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the LRF3 for 2019-10. We sympathise with the position of Councils (and the Scottish Government) which have less staff time available for statistical returns, due to the pressures of dealing with Covid19.
Nevertheless, the proposed radical reduction in the data collected for social work and care services via the LFR3 will make the financial statistics much less useful to users, and significantly reduces the information in the public domain about a large volume of public expenditure amounting to £4.5 billion (gross) in 2018-19.
In its UK role, ONS last year reviewed the Adult Social Care dataset in Scotland and found important gaps; unfortunately, their review did not include financial information, however their findings do not seem consistent with the LFR3 direction of travel, especially if the data reductions were to become permanent.
Unfortunately, the brief “summary of changes” document issued with the consultation does not identify which changes are intended to be temporary, and which changes are due to “information already gathered as part of the LFR03 review” and might therefore be permanent. The LFR3 review is described as not yet completed as a result of reduced capacity due to Covid-19. Social Work Scotland is not aware of consultation with service users on any prior proposals from the review. We were involved in an earlier review three or four years ago which stalled – is this the same one? We would welcome involvement in the review when it is re-starts.
In our view, permanent changes of this magnitude require very careful consideration and a fuller consultation than can be done in present circumstances. Meanwhile, we strongly urge all changes to the 2019-20 LFR3 to be temporary until the review can be reconvened with data user representation, and a fuller consultation paper prepared.
We understand the desirability of temporary change to reduce the workload this year, and possibly next if there is no vaccine or widespread vaccination by then; and we appreciate the need to simply the recording of transactions between councils, IJBs, and heath boards. However, we have concerns about the statements that “these changes are focussed on reducing the volume of data collected to that which is required for a clear and specific purpose” particularly in the “additional information section” where the only examples given of recognised data needs are “figures that are required for ONS and Eurostat data collections, or are used within the Local Government Benchmarking Framework”. (Later we query whether the ONS requirement has been met).
However, there are other essential uses for the data which are not routine, involving the policy divisions of the Scottish Government, MSPs, COSLA, other stakeholders such as the Third Sector and Social Work Scotland; “think tanks”, research institutes and academics; and campaigning groups. Examples of such uses of LFR3 data known to Social Work Scotland include: costings for policy initiatives such as free personal care and changes to charging policy; work on the financial memoranda for new legislation (integration, children services, carers); post-implementation work on costs and the adequacy of funding (eg FPC, Children, Carers); campaigns by groups opposed to charging for social care; calibration of indictors for funding distributions; work on future expenditure requirements as a result of demographic change, for workforce planning and future funding options for social care.
In a democratic society, the purpose of financial statistics about public expenditure needs to be set more widely than the necessarily aggregated information needed for the national accounts and statutory reporting. The whole concept of “additional information” as something secondary to this narrow focus is itself unhelpful.
This is an important area which we have not yet worked through in terms of the current LFRs and the proposed changes to LFR00 and LFR3.
One issue which does not appear to have been addressed is the lack of service expenditure data for adult social care client groups in the LFR3 returns from Highland for the last few years. This has been a problem since Highland adopted the “single agency” approach to Health and Social Care integration, whereby Highland Council delegated its legal duties and powers in relation to adult social care to NHS Highland, and NHS Highland delegated certain legal duties and powers in relation to children’s services to Highland Council. This has been interpreted as meaning that most adult social care services are no longer part of the local authority financial return, albeit that the ultimate legal responsibility for these services still lies with the delegating authority, Highland Council.
Certainly, in the first part of this period, NHS Highland provided civil servants with an annual LFR3 showing the service expenditures for Adult Social Care, to allow the full Scottish totals for service spends to be calculated as when they were needed. I do not know if this helpful practice has continued. However, these were never incorporated in the official LG statistics which simply did not include adult social care service expenditure in Highland. Unfortunately, not all users of the LFR3 statistics are likely to be aware of this problem if they are only using the Scottish totals.
We also have no comments on the changes to Support Services, other than to note that in the 2018-19 LFR3 returns it appears gross in row 9 at £150m, again gross in row 51 at £142m, and net in row 85 at £140m. The proposed removal from the service expenditure sections from 2018-19 seems sensible, but will reduce total service spend, so therefore needs to be added to a long list of changes that data-users need to know about time-series comparabilities.
We do not support the aggregation of the five adult client groups into one single category of Adult Social Care. This represents a huge loss of financial information, and would mean data users seeking information on social work/care spend on older people, or people with learning disabilities, or physical disabilities, or mental health needs, would only have the gross (and not also net) spend totals (from the proposed new rows at 49-53), but no information at all on the expenditure on the different services funded, apart from the new lines for older people only for care homes and home care.
For example, local authorities spent well over half a billion pounds (£578m gross) in support to people with learning disabilities in 2018-19: the suspension or abolition of any detail about this spend on services below the total is unwarranted on materiality, equalities and policy grounds, and is not in the public interest. Similar remarks apply to support for people with physical disabilities (£268m gross in 2018-19), mental health needs (£187m), and other needs (£71m).
The LFR3 return has required a service/client-group split for at least 18 years. While local authorities need to use service statistics to split any generic categories in their financial ledgers which are not already split between the adult client groups, they all will have systems in place for doing that. They will need to use such systems to produce the five Adult Social Care client group sub-totals in rows 49-50. But how will they do that? In the existing LFR3, this is done by adding up the service spends for categories already coded to a particular client-group, to which are added the results of splitting generic categories of spend – the total gross (or net) spend for the client-group is therefore a result of adding together the service-specific data. So, if this work has to be done anyway, there is little time saving in deleting most of the gross expenditure service rows from the LFR3.
Of course, there is another way of producing the client group totals in rows 49-53, which is to take the results from last year and apply them as proportions to the total Adult Social Care gross expenditure. Such a short cut would save time, but contradicts one of the stated aims: to improve data quality. In general, it is a mistake to think that data quality is improved by higher levels of aggregation, when aggregates are not available independently of adding sets of lower-level data; all that is achieved is that the data quality problems become harder to spot.
The “summary of changes” document simply states this column is to be removed, without giving the rationale. While children with disabilities are an important group, they have never been properly incorporated into the LFR3, only appearing as a memorandum item which made the data capture seem less important. In 2018-19 only 13 out of the 32 authorities reported any spend; the Scotland page in the workbook shows gross expenditure of £11m, down from £24m in the previous year. However, there was an error in the calculation which omits Glasgow: the correct figure Scotland for 2018-19 is £16,385m. However, that is clearly an undercount, since 19 councils made no returns.
The Carers Act, and associated funding, apply to carers of children and young people with disabilities, and (all other things being equal) could be expected to increase spend on services for being cared-for in order to assist carers. However, it is clear that collecting spend data on children with disabilities has not worked on a memorandum basis, and that now is not the time to do the work to establish how reasonably robust financial data can be collected for this group. Since partial collection serves little purpose we agree with the deletion of this item.
The service rows have been significantly reduced, particularly for gross expenditure. However, the points made earlier suggest that the time-saving delivered will be less significant than it seems.
Turning briefly to the gross expenditure service rows that are retained, it seems anomalous to ask for Accommodation-Based Service totals only for Children and Families, but not for Adult Social Care. Accommodation-Based Services has a number of sub-categories, of which only Care Homes have been retained, this time for both Children & Families and Adult Social Care. There is a complete loss of information on gross (and net) spend on Residential Schools (£127m gross in 2018-19) and Secure Accommodation (£12.8m).
There are currently no net expenditure totals requested for the five Adult Social Care client-groups (ie the net equivalent of rows 49-53). This will be a problem for many users of LFR3 data, including Social Work Scotland, and possibly also for UK and Scottish public expenditure statistics. The Scottish tables including Personal Social Services in Chapter 10 of HM Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2020, published last month, must be derived from the LFR3 and appear to use net expenditure (since the PSS total for 2018-19 is £3.370 billion, which is similar to the LFR3 net total of £3.246 bn). PESA also requires separate figures for “Sickness and disability”, “Old age”, and “Family and children” – the latter figure is very close to the net LFR3 total, but PESA appears to count some expenditure for older people under “sickness and disability”. Nevertheless, if the ASC client-group split is not available for net expenditure on the five client groups, the OSCAR system which produces PESA will have to be fed estimates not actuals.
In 2012 Social Work Scotland calculated the impact of demographic change on future expenditure needs for a submission to the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee. LFR net expenditure data for older people was used with national activity data to estimate age-specific spend. We plan to update this work, but that would not be possible on the current LFR3 reduction proposals, without total net expenditure for older people to act as the control variable for the baseline. A similar methodology may have been used in the Scottish Government’s Health Social Care Medium Term Financial Framework (2018), which again will need updating before it expires in 2023. Improved methodologies require unit costs to weight service durations or events, separately for age/sex groups, from the social care person-based datasets developed initially by ASD and now by ISD. (Methodologies are need to project future numbers of people with learning disabilities – the large increase in spend over the last 10-15 years has not received the same attention as the growth in the elderly populations). The cost numerators must largely come from the LFR3, if Scottish social care data is to be used. This requires maintaining the full Adult Social Care client group structure in the LFR3, and a reasonably detailed set of services.
Generally, less service rows have been cut from Net Expenditure than from Gross Expenditure, but there are some exceptions where the service appears under Gross but not under Net Expenditure, but no rationale is given in the text document on the changes. Should (Row 58) Fostering/Family placements be moved to Net? The same question arises for the three Self-Directed Support rows, which are in Gross (lines 42-44) but not in Net.
Row 44 is new: “SDS3 – Support arranged directly by the Council”. Option 3 of SDS is where people ask for their support to be arranged and managed for them by the Council. Services will then be provided directly by the Council or purchased by them. It is not clear why this row is necessary, since by definition the services provided or arranged will appear in other service rows. The 2018-19 LFR3 guidance makes it clear that the SDS2 row (now 43) is only to be used for any service spend under this options which is not already counted elsewhere in the LFR3. Is the new row 43 intended to capture similarly residual spend? It seems likely to be much smaller than other service categories which have been cut.
The Total “Accommodation-Based Services” is retained in Net Expenditure, but the problem created by the aggregation of the five ASC client-groups is addressed only for older people (row 71) and “people aged 18-64 with physical or sensory disabilities” (row 70). The former accounted for the largest accommodation spend in 2018-19 (£593m) and the latter for £57m, far less than for learning disabilities (£160m), which should also have a new row (unless you restore the full client-group columns).
As remarked earlier, care homes for children and young people are retained, but not Residential Schools (£125m net in 2018-19) or secure accommodation (£12m); these are significant services in policy terms and should be reinstated.
The Care Home sub-divisions are fine, as this level of detail is needed for ongoing monitoring of Free Personal Care. However, the “Care Homes – Other” row had been deleted. In 2018-19 a massive £566m (excluding children) was coded against this row on the LFR3, 80% of all spend on care homes for Adult Social Care! Is the view that the other care home categories are exhaustive for Adult Social Care, and that data quality would improve if councils were forced to code this to the FPC/FNC combination rows? Perhaps the new LFR3 guidance notes should ask council to let LGFS know if there is any ASC spend which should be in the deleted “other care home” category.
Similar comments apply to the Home Care rows. Again, more is spent on home care for learning disabilities than for physical disabilities so to select only the latter (row 82) is anomalous. The two rows (82 and 83) for non FPC Home Care should be retitled “Other Home Care …….”
The retention of Day Care and Equipment etc is welcome, but what is the rationale for retaining “Supported Employment” when spend in 2018-19 was only £7m?
The loss of Services to Support Carers is problematic, when the Scottish Government has stated it is monitoring the impact of the new Carers (Scotland) Act 2016. To be sure, only £25m was recorded against this in 2018-19; the cost of carers assessments, and services provided to the cared-for person as replacement care, or to otherwise support carers, will be coded to other services rows. Nevertheless, since there remain some concerns about the adequacy of the Financial Memorandum funding, it is not appropriate to be cutting this information now, particularly as LGFS already cut the respite care accommodation expenditure data a couple of years or so before the Carers Bill was passed.
All “Other” categories have been deleted, eg Other Accommodation-based Services, Other Community-based Services. There is a view that the inclusion of “other” in classifications encourages miscoding; however, there is a counter evidence that the absence of “other” actually encourages miscoding to other categories. The data quality benefit of showing “other” categories is to highlight to data providers and senior staff signing off the returns possibly anomalously coding issues. These “other” rows could be reinstated as ones automatically populated by the difference between the stated sub-categories and the category totals, to help highlight the data quality issues.
According to the 2018-19 LFR3 returns, income from charging for social work/care services provided income of some £243m for councils, which is about 19% of the total social work/care service income (as derived from subtracting Net from Gross service expenditure).
However, charging for social work and care services remains controversial, despite free personal care for older people from July 2002 and since April 2019 for people aged under 65 years. Unlike almost all NHS services, social care is not free at the point of consumption. In recent years, campaigning groups opposing charging for social care have use LFR3 data on income from charging in submissions to Scottish Parliament Committees and in publicity. Such use of the LFR3 data would be difficult or impossible in future, if, as seems likely, the proposed data reductions became permanent.
Turning to the detail, the proposals for Children & Families appear to make no sense. All data cells are blanked out except for “Assessment, Casework, Care Management & Occupational Therapy” – in 2018-19 this accounted for £1.4m of charging income out of a Children & Families total of £4.6m. However, the total cell shows “PASS” so must simply be copying the Assessment etc figure. That means a loss of information about the total charging income from other Children & Families services. In 2018-19, there was also income of £2.2m for community-based services, and £0.9m for accommodation-based services. While these are not large sums, they are significant in policy terms, and also to the people who have to pay them.
Similarly, the amalgamation of the five adult client groups into “Adult Social Care” means that the impact on council income of free personal care on the under 65s from 1.4.19 will not be able to be monitored via the LFR3. There also continues to be public concern about the impact on older people and their families of charges for specific services such as residential and home care – the income from such charging (£200m in 2018-19) will also be no longer transparent nationally. Such data is still very necessary to inform future public discussion of social care reform. At the very least, income from charging should include all chargeable services for which there is gross or net expenditure retained on the proposed 2019-20 LFR3, or which are added back as a result of this consultation – for, as well as the points just made for older people, the impact of the new legislation on free personal care for people under 65 on the local authority incomes from charging needs to be known separately for adults with learning disabilities, physical disabilities, and mental health problems.
The proposed shorter service detail for charging people who use services is also problematic. The “Assessment, etc” row (£3.6m in 2018-19) is retained: fine, it needs some investigation as to what exactly is being charged for here, as none of the named services are normally chargeable. The amalgamation of “accommodation-based services” is fine. Total “community-based services” is in, but of its 7 service rows only “Equipment and Adaptations” and “Supported Employment” have been retained, despite the latter having no income shown against it in the 2018-19 returns! The service detail needed is: Home Care; Day Care; Equipment and Adaptations, and Other Community-based services. Finally, the SDS1 and SDS2 items disappear and so should be retained (perhaps aggregated) to ensure the total charging income is complete.
Covid-19 Workforce Plan Discussion Paper
COVID-19 WORKFORCE PLANNING FOR THE HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE WORKFORCE IN SCOTLAND – MAY 2020
SUBMISSION FROM SOCIAL WORK SCOTLAND TO SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT
26 May 2020
We agree that workforce planning in the light of Covid19 must separately consider the immediate, medium term, and long term contexts and objectives. (para 7i). In Annex A, these are described as Respond, Recover, Renew.
Scotland and the rest of the UK is not yet at the end of the Respond period. While there is evidence that social distancing and lockdown has reduced the virus transmission rate, there are still new cases and fatalities especially in care homes and the community. A cautious and phased approach to lockdown remains essential but, despite improvements, this will be hampered by the insufficient supply of PPE for all who need it, by the current limitations on the volume of “test-trace-isolate” initiatives in the health and social care sectors.
Providing adequate support to NHS, care homes, home care, mental health, domestic abuse, financial support, food banks, volunteer coordination, and other essential services must remain the top priority of the Government, the public sector, and society.
It is not obvious how changing the Workforce Plan at national level can assist that work at local level. Rather we all need to learn from what has been done well and what hasn’t in the response so far to the virus.
Apart from the shortage of PPE and testing, lessons need to be learnt from discharging untested patients from hospital to care homes because they were considered “medically fit for discharge”, and its contribution to the high rate of death from Covid-19 in care homes. Lessons also need to be learnt from the failure of the NHS to meet normal demand while freeing bed capacity for Covid-19. Some of the excess mortality in this period will be due to cancelled diagnosis and treatment for people with cancer, heart disease or other life-threatening conditions. In both these cases, the lesson is that too narrow an understanding of “Protect the NHS” costs lives as well as saving others.
Health and social care integration requires both parts to be considered equally. While the current Integrated Health and Social Care Work Plan is a significant step forward, it is noteworthy that there are far fewer specific commitments relating to social care than health, despite the fact that their workforces are of broadly similar size.
We consider that additional resource is most likely to be required across mental health services for all ages, and across social care. The independent sector will require to adjust to the impact of Covid-19, and this will impact on capacity at local level and the support required from councils and partnerships.
We think it is too early to make significant changes to the Workforce Plan for the longer term, as the “Renew” landscape will be not yet clear. There is growing support in Scotland for a fundamental review of social care, including funding and care models, and that is something Social Work Scotland welcomes and will support.
There are some critical key questions whose answer will form the main parameters of the next phase:
The current Workforce Plan commitments were based on meeting identified needs, which have not gone away. The question now is whether there are more important Covid19-related priorities for the resources allocated to these commitments; if so, then the commitments should be deferred. We are sure that all stakeholders, especially Integration Authorities, Councils, and the NHS will already be acting pragmatically. Covid-related priorities must include restoring essential health and social care services for people on waiting lists whose diagnostic tests, assessments, treatments or support have been deferred, and for people who have not been referred not come forward because of current Covid19 priorities.
See the points made about information under questions (4) and (6).
Urgent consideration needs to be given to increasing the flexibility of the workforce to operate across health and social care sectors, and public and independent sectors, understanding that this will require regard to terms and conditions, training and professional registration.
The voice of people who use services should underpin assumptions about workforce demand across the system. The usual pattern of care delivery has been temporarily altered to a significant extent, as some partnerships have sought to reduce their volume of service delivery, some have restricted flexibility and some have increased personalisation. Some people have opted of their own accord to temporarily reduce their reliance on directly funded social care, due to risk of contracting Covid-19, others have been approached by partnerships requesting to reduce their POC, others have changed their Self-directed Support option in order to find the model of support that best suits them at this time. Preferences In short, their experiences are significantly different to what they were prior to the pandemic.
The experience and needs of the Personal Assistant workforce should be drawn out, as they are a small but crucial sector in the delivery of personalised social care.
Local governance arrangements require to be strengthened and closely aligned with national workforce priorities. The statutory role of social work needs to be accommodated in national and local workforce planning.
Lessons learned from the pandemic about effective use of flexible working, home and remote working, and the use of digital meeting platforms should be incorporated.
The role of the Scottish Government here is to support, with information, guidance, and resources, the relevant public bodies at local level. Many aspects of the current Workforce Plan will remain: we need to continue all the actions that ensure we have a well-trained, educated, and supported workforce at sufficient volumes to provide the services society requires.
We envisage the need for short-, medium-, and longer-term plans based on current knowledge and insight. As new service models emerge, based on changed requirements, and ideally evidence of “what works”, then the Plan can change accordingly. The possibility of further lockdown needs to be incorporated into planning assumptions.
New models of community supports need to be sustained to ameliorate the requirement for directly provided care, for example renewed consideration could be given to a Buurtzorg model of community support, and from the early adoption of Community-led Hubs (Health Improvement Scotland).~
One specific commitment needs some attention in any event. The first bullet in para 5 of the Discussion Document states you will “As a baseline, look again at the modelling and financial assumptions set out in the integrated workforce plan published at the end of 2019”.
This is welcome as there is some lack of clarity in the statistical information underpinning the current Integrated Workforce Plan:
Underpinning question 2. Is our concern that the staffing growth implied by the Scottish Government’s 2018 Medium Term Financial Framework has not been correctly stated in the 2019 Health and Social Care Workforce Plan, perhaps due to a statistical calculation error. For example, taking the Workforce Plan to the next stage would mean discussion of what kinds of health and social care staff are needed in the future, but if the national financial parameters are wrong, then that will impact negatively on that work.
The Integrated Workforce Plan would benefit from a dedicated page on the Scottish Government website. This should include key documents, any toolkits, useful contacts, links to other sites, etc. It should also include and Excel Workbook holding the relevant staffing statistical time series starting with the Plan baseline dates, by type of staff and setting, and updated regularly by NES and SSC, with a summary page for Scotland, and in time separate pages for each Partnership area. That would provide transparency about the actual direction of travel and enable more rapid monitoring of the Plan delivery.
Ideally, members of networks and stakeholder groups would be able to sign up on the website for email alerts to updates. Meanwhile communications can continue via email.
Financial redress for historical child abuse in care – pre-legislative consultation
PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF THE REDRESS SCHEME
Yes, in general terms we agree with the proposed purpose of financial redress. However, in the drafting of the legislation we would encourage greater alignment with the wording used in the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017, to ensure it is clear that the scheme applies only to individuals who sustained harm, rather than any child who was placed in a particular setting. Furthermore, the term ‘long term’ should be removed; ideas of what constitutes ‘long-term’ are contested (one month, one year?) and no clear definition exists or is likely to be agreed. The only relevant factors are that a child was placed in a setting by a public body (i.e. the state) and in that setting they suffered abuse. The length of time the child was in care should be immaterial.
If some version of the phrase “responsibility for the care of the child in place of the parent” is maintained in the description, it would be prudent to consider how the Redress Scheme will treat cases where institutions and bodies facilitated private arrangements within families, supporting relatives or family friends to provide care for the child in place of the parent. In these cases the state may never have assumed formal responsibilities for a child, but could still have had a significant role in determining with whom the child was placed; who may subsequently have subjected the child to abuse, or sent the child to a setting where they were subjected to abuse. While likely to affect only a few individuals, an equitable and effective Redress Scheme must be clear on how to treat these and other marginal cases.
2. Do you agree with these guiding principles?
Yes, we agree with the guiding principles proposed. But we feel that the list of principles should be extended further. Firstly, to include an explicit principle that individuals applying to the scheme are provided with specialised support from the start, designed to minimise the potential for future harm through the process (building on Principle 5), and also to ensure as strong an application as possible. This is to ensure equity of access to the Scheme, as some eligible individuals may have more experience, confidence, skills or support that others.
Secondly, while we agree the primary focus of the principles should be on the experience of the persons applying, we believe it would be helpful to have additional principles related to how public bodies and other organisations / institutions will be treated. For example, there could be a principle that the Redress Scheme will not put at risk services currently available to nurture and protect children looked after by Scottish local authorities. A clearer statement of how affected organisations can expect to be treated will not only help manage their engagement, it should improve transparency around a critical dimension of the Scheme for individual’s applying.
3. Do you agree with the proposed approach in relation to institutions and bodies having long term responsibility for the child in place of the parent?
No. As noted previously, the notion of what constitutes ‘long-term’ is subjective and contentious, and the phrase should be removed, in favour of simply “responsibility in place of the parent”. The factors which need to be established are whether institutions and bodies had responsibility for the child (in place of the parent) at the time abuse took place.
Similarly, we would recommend removing the term “morally responsible”. We assume this has been included to highlight that the state (through its institutions and bodies) had ethical and moral responsibilities towards the children in its care. However, in this context it appears both anachronistic and, possibly, trivialising of the extent of responsibility. We would favour instead “…and were legally responsible for their physical, social and emotional needs in place of parents” or “…and were practicably responsible for their physical, social and emotional needs in place of parents”.
4. Subject to the institution or body having long term responsibility for the child, do you agree that the list of residential settings should be the same as used in the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry’s Terms of Reference?
Broadly, yes. The list of residential settings should be the same as used in the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
5. Where parents chose to send children to a fee paying boarding school for the primary purpose of education, the institution did not have long-term responsibility in place of the parent. Given the purpose of this redress scheme, applicants who were abused in such circumstances would not be eligible to apply to this scheme. Do you agree?
No. While we understand and broadly agree with the rationale for excluding from the scheme children who were placed in fee paying boarding schools by parents who were free to choose, the current wording does not take into account the complexity of the UK’s history or individual family situations. As a result, individuals may be unfairly denied access to the Redress Scheme.
For example, how should the scheme treat children who were sent to fee paying boarding schools because of the parent’s employment abroad for the state, such as in the military, as colonial officers, or on diplomatic missions? In some cases the state itself will have paid the fees for these boarding schools, either directly or through supplements to parents. In these circumstances, did the parent’s ‘choose’ to send their children to boarding schools? Furthermore, in such circumstances it may be argued that sending children to such schools was for not primarily for the purposes of education, but also of care.
Related to points already made, there may also be situations were institutions and bodies (of the state) facilitated the placement of children in fee paying boarding schools, securing the financial support of relatives to keep the child out of formal state care. The Redress Scheme does need boundaries, but it must also be flexible enough to take account of the immense variety and complexity of individual circumstances. That will require skilled professionals, supporting individuals with their applications from the very start. And where people / groups are excluded from the Redress Scheme, we should be confident that those individuals have recourse to redress through other means. (Even then, we are concerned about the potential disparity which may emerge between two school peers, both victims of abuse, but one able to access a supportive, person-focused Redress Scheme, the other only with access to the courts.)
Finally, if a version of this exclusion is adopted, it will be important to communicate that it does not apply to people who were directly placed in boarding schools by institutions and bodies who had parental responsibilities towards them.
6. Where children spent time in hospital primarily for the purpose of medical or surgical treatment, parents retained the long-term responsibility for them. Given the purpose of this redress scheme, applicants who were abused in such circumstances would not be eligible to apply to this scheme. Do you agree?
No. We are very uneasy about the exclusion of children who were abused while in hospital for the purpose of medical or surgical treatment, where parents retained ‘long-term’ responsibility for them. As with boarding schools, the lack of nuance here risks denying many individuals the right to redress for abuse suffered while in the care and protection of the NHS. It also insulates the NHS from appropriate accountability around how it fulfilled its responsibilities to the children in its care. We fully accept that local authorities had responsibilities towards children who were then victims of abuse, but that is equally true of hospitals and NHS Boards.
The primary consideration in determining eligibility should be whether the state had a significant role or power in determining the placement of the child, and when the child was in that placement, had responsibilities for their care and protection. A parent whose child requires medical treatment does not ‘choose’ to leave them in hospital; they follow the recommendations (and often decisions) or doctors. Nor does the parent remain totally responsible for the care and protection of the child over that period; the hospital (and NHS more generally) assumes responsibilities too. These dynamics are true today, but were perhaps even more of a feature in the past, where deferential attitudes towards medical professionals would have meant less challenge of their decisions, and where hospitals were less welcoming of parents and families (with strict visiting times, etc.). By any common sense account, children in hospital for medical or surgical treatment were (and are) in the care of the hospital and its staff. That should be reflected in the eligibility to the scheme.
By our understanding of this proposed eligibility criteria, if a group of children had suffered systematic abuse in a Scottish hospital (such as Jimmy Saville perpetrated in an English context) only those who had been formally ‘looked after’ by a local authority would be eligible to apply to the Redress Scheme. This does not seem fair on the victims (who may legitimately feel the hospital had responsibilities to keep the safe) nor on the local authorities and other organisations who will participate in the Redress Scheme.
7. We intend to use the same definition of abuse as the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 for the purpose of the financial redress scheme. This includes sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse and abuse that takes the form of neglect. Do you agree?
Yes. The same definition of abuse as the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017 should be used for the purpose of the Redress Scheme. We also support the link to the Child Protection guidance.
In determining how specific applications to the Redress Scheme are handled, we believe the interpretation of this definition should be expansive, taking into account certain actions which do not correspond obviously to sexual, physical or emotional abuse. For example, in situations where there is inappropriate administration of drugs, whether as means of control or as part a fabricated induced illness.
8. In our view 1 December 2004 represents an appropriate date to define ‘historical’ abuse for this financial redress scheme. Do you agree?
Not sure. Any date is going to exclude people, however, in the interests of making the Redress Scheme as inclusive (and final) as possible, should we not set a date somewhere closer to the present? Particularly as the scheme is not expected to be in operation until 2021. Moreover, the rationale given for the December 2004 date feels weak; we are concerned that victims / survivors of abuse may not feel the date of a public apology is a sufficient milestone. Perhaps a more suitable alternative would be the start of the public inquiry, in 2015.
If the 2004 date is chosen, clear guidance on alternative routes to redress must be made available to those who suffered abused at a later date.
9. Do you have any comments you would like to make in relation to child migrants who also meet the eligibility requirements of this redress scheme?
We are supportive of the proposals around child migrants. It is both logical and fair that these individuals are considered eligible to the Redress Scheme, if they suffered abuse within Scotland while in the care of the state. This should apply even if they have also received or applied to the UK child migrant scheme.
10. Do you have any comments about the eligibility of those with a criminal conviction?
Criminal convictions should be no barrier to accessing the Redress Scheme. Eligibility should be determined by the circumstances of an individual’s childhood, not what the individual did or went on to do. We understand that for some it will be unpalatable to award financial payments to individuals convicted of offences (particularly sexual offences against children), but ultimately that is a political, presentational problem. The scheme can only live up to the principles on which is supposed to be based if it is open to all, irrespective of the actions of individual applicants. Moreover, if any restrictions were to be introduced, they are likely to be challengeable under the Human Rights Act 1998.
11. Do you have any other comments on eligibility for the financial redress scheme?
It may help if the eligibility criteria were clear on characteristics like citizenship. Our assumption is that the Scheme would be open to anyone who suffered abuse in Scotland while in the care of public bodies, regardless of their citizenship at the time or now.
We also recommend that powers be taken by Scottish Ministers to review and adjust eligibility criteria, and for these to be formally reviewed after the first couple of years of the scheme’s operation.
12. What options might be available for someone who has been unable to obtain a supporting document which shows they spent time in care in Scotland?
Those who are unable to produce documentary evidence of being “in care” are ineligible for an Advanced Payment; it makes sense that the full Redress Scheme mirror this. However, individuals applying to the full scheme should have the option to give evidence on oath, submitting an affidavit for determination.
Assuming that individuals will receive support with applications from the start, it may also be possible to triangulate from other documentary evidence, including individual’s personal records, to a high degree of certainty that an individual was at a particular place when abuse took place. This could be validated by a version of the ‘in care confirmation letter’ developed for the Advanced Payment scheme.
13. Do you think the redress scheme should have the power, subject to certain criteria, to require that bodies or organisations holding documentation which would support an application are required to make that available?
Yes. To deliver the Scheme efficiently and effectively relevant bodies and organisations should be required to provide information which would support an application. This power would replicate that of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry. It would also help ensure all relevant parties share the load of facilitating the work of the Scheme.
However, the provision of information is not a cost free exercise. In fact it can be a highly onerous one, and detailed consideration will need to be given to how organisations covered by this power are supported to undertake the work requested. Resourcing (human and financial) and imagination will be necessary. It could be worthwhile, for example, to establish within the Scheme’s statutory body a team of sufficient size that they can directly assist data / evidence providers (who otherwise may need to recruit and train additional staff). In all instances, adequate, realistic timescales must be given for compliance.
The key consideration for the design and management of the Redress Scheme must be that attention and resources are not diverted (more than is absolutely necessary) away from the current provision of services, and the support of children and adults (some whom may also be applicants). The redress scheme will be unsuccessful and self-defeating if it saps the strength of today’s public services, through the reallocation of money, or people’s time and energy. The operation of the Redress Scheme must be fully funded, including the cost requirements of local authorities and others, whose staff will be central to making the Scheme work.
14. For Stage One, what evidence do you think should be required about the abuse suffered?
For the Stage One payment, the evidential test should be the same as currently in place for the Advance Payment scheme. We should be confident that abuse did take place at an institution while the individual was placed there, but not need to have proof of the specific instances of the individual’s abuse. Individuals should be able to submit what information they see as relevant to assist their application, including a written statement, but it should not be required. Similarly, a short written description of the abuse and its impact should not be required; the Stage One scheme, as proposed, would not be about assessing the extent of impact, so this would not be relevant. The act of describing the abuse may also, in itself, be re-traumatising. It should be choice whether they wish to disclose this, as part of a Stage 2 application.
15. Do you have any additional comments on evidence requirements for a Stage One payment?
16. For Stage Two, what additional evidence of the abuse, and of its impact, should be required for the individual assessment?
17. Do you have any comments on evidence requirements for a Stage Two payment?
While the evidential test for a Stage Two payment should be appropriately more demanding than Stage One, the process for assessing claims must remain victim centred, flexible and focused on enabling and empowering an individual to secure redress (rather than meeting requirements or thresholds). This is likely to mean a process heavily dependent on skilled professionals and volunteers, including social workers, councillors, therapists, archivists, etc. That must be taken into account in the design of the scheme, and the structure and costs of the structure / organisation delivering it (e.g. a new public body).
18. Do you think applicants should be able to give oral evidence to support their application?
Yes. They should be able, but not required, to give oral testimony. They should have this option even if there is sufficient documentary evidence for their claim. This option should also be utilised where it is difficult to assess a case on the basis of available information.
19. Do you have any views on whether the length of time in care should be factored into the Stage Two assessment?
Length of time in care should be a consideration, but not a determinant or indicator of any impact. Being in care for two years and suffering abuse three times is not necessarily less significant than being in care for fifteen years and suffering abuse three times. Length of time in care should be something the professionals undertaking the assessment take into consideration, drawing on evidence about how individuals deal with trauma in different contexts, with different support structures, etc.
20. Do you have any views on the balance the assessment should give to different types of abuse (physical, emotional, sexual, neglect)?
Each case must be considered independently, and the focus must be on assessing the impact abuse had, whatever its form, on the individual. Establishing a hierarchy of abuse, as this question suggests, risks marginalising some victims’ experiences.
The process of assessment must be rigorous and forensic, but also sensitive and person-centred. It will not work if it becomes either a tick-box exercise or an opaque, subjective judgement. Maintaining the central, delicate balance will require very skilled professionals, using tools and their judgement, backed up by case notes and managers, and case discussions within small teams (to ensure individual assessors’ prejudices and assumptions are being challenged). Critically, individuals should have the right to appeal assessments.
21. What are your views on which factors in relation to the abuse and its impact might lead to higher levels of payment?
This should mirror the approach currently taken by civil courts.
22. Do you think (a) the redress payment is primarily for the abuse suffered; (b) the redress payment is primarily for the impact the abuse has had; (c) both the abuse suffered and the impact it has had should be treated equally.
It is unclear whether this question relates to Stage 1 payment, Stage 2 payment, or both. Assuming it refers to the Stage 2 payment, then its primary purpose is for the impact the abuse has had. The Stage 1 payment should be about acknowledging the abuse, and the second payment about its impact.
23. How do you think the scheme should ensure all parties are treated fairly and that the assessment and award process is sufficiently robust?
Again, the question is unclear about whether it applies all or part of the Scheme. Assuming that it refers to the Phase 2 payment, ensuring parties are treated fairly and the process is robust will depend on (a) the skills of the professionals undertaking the assessment, (b) transparency of the criteria being considered, (c) opportunities for review and appeal of assessment decisions, (d) strong structures of supervision for those undertaking assessments, (e) close work as a team to ensure consistency, and (f) constructive internal challenge.
Fairness is not something which can be baked into a system, or achieved through process or criteria. It is something experienced by individuals, and it will be determined in the relational space which the scheme’s employees offer. If individuals feel listened to and treated with respect, and that assessors took everything possible into account when making their judgement, and that decision makers give clear reasons for their judgement, applicants are more likely to feel the Scheme was fair, and accept decisions.
24. Do you agree that anyone who has received a payment from another source for the abuse they suffered in care in Scotland should still be eligible to apply to the redress scheme?
Broadly, yes, we agree that individuals who have received a payment for another source should still be eligible to apply to the Redress Scheme. However, the amount received should be deducted from any future redress payment. And where a court has made a determination about a previous claim, the Redress Scheme must handle applications very carefully, to ensure that an award does not contradict the court’s decision.
Our rationale for supporting this eligibility to the scheme is one of equity and fairness. We considered an example where two individuals experienced similar abuse, in the same institution, at a similar time. One of the individuals has successfully secured redress through the courts or another scheme, while the other chose not to. The latter individual now makes a claim through the Redress Scheme, and is provided with a more substantial award than that offered to the first individual. While we expect variance even between two very similar cases (due to variable impact of abuse), it does not seem fair that one is entitled to make the claim and the other excluded.
25. Do you agree that any previous payments received by an applicant should be taken into account in assessing the amount of the redress payment from this scheme?
26. Do you agree applicants should choose between accepting a redress payment or pursuing a civil court action?
Yes. We agree that applicants should choose between the two routes to redress. However, we do have some concern about the availability of quality legal advice to people having to make this decision, and the potential for individual’s to be exploited. There is already anecdotal evidence of some legal firms encouraging individuals to make civil claims (sometimes on a no win, no fee basis).
MAKING AN APPLICATION
27. We are proposing that the redress scheme will be open for applications for a period of five years. Do you agree this is a reasonable timescale?
Yes. However, it would be advantageous if the legislation permitted an extension of the scheme, with the approval of relevant stakeholders, if demand, logistics, etc. justified it. Furthermore, if there is to be a deadline for applications (e.g. five years after the scheme opens) it will be necessary to build in some form of public information campaign to ensure eligible people know and understand the deadlines.
It is also important that we distinguish the timeframe within which applications can be submitted, and the timeframe of the scheme and associated public body. Processing applications may take some time (well beyond the closing date of applications) and, moreover, it would be a lost opportunity if the public body did not complete some research and publications before it was wrapped up. Further communications around the Scheme should make clear that the public body may be in operation for longer than the Scheme itself.
28. Should provision be made by the redress scheme administrators to assist survivors obtain documentary records required for the application process?
Yes. However, in part this should be achieved by properly assessing and resourcing the archivist and data retrieval functions of data holders (such as local authorities). Ensuring that these organisations have the capacity needed to meet demand would achieve the same result, but also have many more attendant benefits (freeing up front line social workers, for example). Locally embedded capacity could also work in local projects around record retention and access more generally, and would hold out the potential for skills to be developed locally, rather than in a public body which will eventually be dissolved.
Should a national database be developed with admission and boarding-out-register data (as is currently being considered) there is an opportunity for the Scheme to access the data directly and where the person is discovered this will negate the need for further documentary evidence.
This will not fully negate the need for survivors to be assisted to access records though, and whether the necessary support is provided by the Scheme or other organisations, it should be a priority in both the legislation and implementation. And the support for survivors will need to go beyond practical documentary evidence gathering, extending to emotional and legal guidance too. The complexity – and cost – of providing such support should not be underestimated.
29. In your view, which parts of the redress process might require independent legal advice? Please tick all that apply.
30. How do you think the costs of independent legal advice could best be managed?
If it was possible, perhaps a measure of legal advice for free (provided by legal professionals employed or contracted by the statutory body). Then if an application is taken forward, this should be supported through legal aid (if the individual is eligible), with a cap on the maximum amount charged.
NEXT OF KIN
31. What are your views on our proposed approach to allow surviving spouses and children to apply for a next-of-kin payment?
Some provision for close, immediate family seems appropriate as a recognition on the impact the abuse may have had on the family. If the individual has died, the payment may also act as posthumous recognition of that individual’s experience.
It may the case that multiple family members may apply separately, but in our view only one payment should be available per survivor who has died. The Scheme will need to determine how a payment is then subsequently sub-divided between next-of-kin applicants.
We are supportive of the proposal to limit the next-of-kin definition to surviving spouses and children, as long as ‘surviving spouses’ includes civil partnerships and those who in long term relationships. Cases may become further complicated where ex-‘spouses’ feel justified to a claim on the basis that relationships with the abuse victim broke down in part because of the abuse the deceased individual had experienced. And there may also be difficulties with assessing the validity of children who were estranged (questions about whether the victim / survivor would have wanted them to receive funds), as well as those individuals who were not biologically or legally a victim / survivor’s children, but who were treated as such (e.g. children who grew up in informal kinship arrangements, with uncles, aunts, grandparents, etc.).
32. We are considering three options for the cut-off date for next-of-kin applications (meaning that a survivor would have had to have died after that date in order for a next-of-kin application to be made). Our proposal is to use 17 November 2016.
We do not have a firm opinion on this, but suggest that a single date be agreed to mark the various thresholds and cut-offs relevant to the Scheme. Previously we had suggested 17 December 2014, the announcement of the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry.
33. We propose that to apply for a next-of-kin payment, surviving spouses or children would have to provide supporting documentation to show that their family member met all the eligibility criteria. What forms of evidence of abuse should next-of-kin be able to submit to support their application?
Next of kin applicants should have to provide the same proof as required by living applicants, as well as proof of their relationship. That should include any existing written documentary evidence of the abuse, and here necessary, written or oral testimony in support of their application.
34. What are your views on the proportion of the next-of-kin payment in relation to the level at which the redress Stage One payment will be set in due course?
35. We think those bearing responsibility for the abuse should be expected to provide financial contributions to the costs of redress. Do you agree?
Yes. Attributing responsibility for abuse will, in many instances, be complex and contentious. But, if we work from a position that certain parties had a responsibility to keep children safe and protected from abuse, we can build a framework within which relevant parties (i.e. those who should make a financial contribution) can be identified. This would include the government (now Scottish Government), local authorities and institutions.
Determining liability with regard to local government is likely to be very complicated, and we urge Scottish Government to work closely with COSLA and others to identify and properly stress-test different contribution models, before any legislation is introduced into Parliament. A suitable model can then be agreed in advance, supported by the relevant parties.
36. Please tell us about how you think contributions by those responsible should work. Should those responsible make?
No answer to this question.
37. Are there any barriers to providing contributions, and if so, how might these be overcome?
No answer to this question.
38. Should the impact of making financial contributions on current services be taken into account and if so how?
Yes. It is critical that the Redress Scheme does not impact detrimentally on current services. That most obviously includes those services available to today’s children and families, but also extends to the adult services (disability, drugs and alcohol, social care) which many victims / survivors will rely. If the Scheme was found to be negatively impacting on current services (for instance through reducing available funding), public support for the Scheme would likely wane, and it would potentially create risk within families.
In respect of how the impact on current services is monitored, individual organisations will have mechanisms for this, but there is also potentially a role for Audit Scotland and OSCR, keeping under review the financial statements of the organisations involved to ensure that changes in the availability of funding for certain services are flagged, and the reasons behind them interrogated.
39. What other impacts might there be and how could those be addressed?
Harder to identify than financial impact on current services, but possibly no less important, are the risks of vicarious trauma and burn out among the professionals supporting applications. We already have examples, driven by the demands of the Historical Abuse Inquiry and Advance Payment scheme, of resources having to be diverted, teams stretched, and individuals requiring time-off (due to over-work or discomfort with the material). Many people assume that identifying and processing records (i.e. for a Subject Access Request) is a purely administrative and bureaucratic exercise, but in reality it is one which exposes individual workers to stories of abuse and neglect. That exposure has an impact, and with the expected increase in requests for documentation which will follow the opening of the Redress Scheme, it will need to be properly taken into account.
40. How should circumstances where a responsible organisation no longer exists in the form it did at the time of the abuse, or where an organisation has no assets, be treated?
No answer to this question.
41. What is a fair and meaningful financial contribution from those bearing responsibility for the abuse?
No answer to this question.
42. What would be the most effective way of encouraging those responsible to make fair and meaningful contributions to the scheme?
No answer to this question.
43. Should there be consequences for those responsible who do not make a fair and meaningful financial contribution?
No answer to this question.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO WIDER REPARATIONS
44. In addition to their financial contributions to the redress scheme, what other contributions should those responsible for abuse make to wider reparations?
For the redress scheme to be more than just an acknowledgment of abuse, and for us to take this opportunity to address the harm done by the abuse and subsequent response (or lack thereof), it is critical that financial redress is just part of wider package of support.
In our opinion there should not be a distinction between the redress scheme and wider reparations. The Redress Scheme should cover all aspects, with financial awards representing one component. The financial contributions from relevant organisations and bodies would therefore be for the entire Scheme.
Within the package of wider reparations should fall the support provided (either directly by the Scheme or by relevant bodies and organisations) to applicants, such as help finding documentation, psychological support, etc.
DECISION MAKING PANEL FOR REDRESS
45. Do you agree that the decision making panel should consist of three members?
It is unclear again if the question is referring to a decision making panel for Phase 1, Phase 2 or both. If for Phase 1, then a three person panel seems excessive. An individual, suitably supervised and peer reviewed, should be sufficient. This would be in line with the current Advance Payment scheme. If the question relates to Phase 2 or both, we agree that the panel may consist of only three members. This is a fairly standard size for tribunals, and seems proportionate.
However, we think it should be clear that this panel will not be working alone, and that they will need to be supported by a range of professionals (employed directly or indirectly by the public body) whose purpose it is to support individuals with applications, assess the seriousness of impact (and validity of experiences, in some cases), etc. These professionals will play a key role in ensuring the information submitted to the Panel is as complete as possible, but they should also have role helping the Panel come to decisions (where necessary).
All processes, discussions and decisions of the Panel and supporting professionals should be recorded, transparent, accessible and challengeable.
46. Do you agree that the key skills and knowledge for panel members should be an understanding of human rights, legal knowledge, and knowledge of complex trauma and its impact? Are there other specific professional backgrounds or skills you feel are essential for the decision making panel?
Yes, agree with the proposed knowledge and skills. No, there are no other skills or professional backgrounds which need to be represented in decision making panel. But as noted in our answer to Q.45, the panel – and individual applicants – should be supported by other professionals, who can be called on to help plug gaps in knowledge and expertise. The skills necessary for this scheme to work well should not – and cannot – be contained within a small, three person panel.
47. We propose that a Survivor Panel be established to advise and inform the redress scheme governance and administration, ensuring survivor experience of the application process is considered as part of a culture of continuous improvement. Do you agree? How do you think survivors should be recruited and selected for this panel?
Yes. This would represent an important aspect of governance and continuous improvement, including rapid responses to challenges as they emerge. Survivor experience should also be reflected in the schemes overall governance (i.e. the Board).
Selection should be on the basis of open invitation and competition (on transparent criteria). Organisations should be encouraged to support members to apply. Representation should be broad enough to ensure all perspectives are being heard.
48. Do you agree that the financial redress scheme administration should be located in a new public body?
Not sure. The consultation document presents this as the only option, but for such an important decision it would be helpful if other options available were presented and evaluated (i.e. costs, benefits, risks, issues, etc.). For example, Social Work Scotland members have queried why the Redress Scheme cannot be located within the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, on the basis that it already has relevant expertise, and has judicial oversight and appeals processes built in. Others also raised concern that a new public body would not be seen as sufficiently independent of Scottish Government or local authorities, on whose resources the public body is likely to rely.
49. Do you have any views as to where the public body should be located and what it should be called? What factors should be taken into account when deciding where the public body should be?
We do not have views on what a new public body should be called, and the right choice of location(s) will be significantly determined by the public bodies’ functions. For example, if the public body is going to provide a structure for the provision of support services for victims, the body should perhaps have multiple locations across Scotland. Its headquarters could be in a significant town, easily accessible by public transport. Access for survivors and participating institutions, bodies and professionals should be the primary consideration.
50. How can survivors be involved in the recruitment process for these posts? How should survivors be selected to take part in this process?
Through the recruitment process there should be scope for survivors to interview and be part of the assessment process for panel members. Their feedback would provide an additional perspective which will ensure the people on the panel have good interpersonal skills, are empathic and personable. It may also help to run a national campaign inviting survivors to apply to be panel advisors.
There are strong parallels here with recruitment of panel members and senior staff at Children’s Hearings Scotland. Engagement and learning from CHS’ experience would be advantageous.
51. What are your views on bringing together the administration of other elements of a reparation package such as support and acknowledgement with financial redress? What would be the advantages? Would there be any disadvantages, and if so, how might these be addressed?
While we acknowledge the advantages of bringing together the administration of the wider reparation package (in respect of improved coordination, governance, efficiency, joint-working, single-point-of-entry, etc.), we have concerns about breaking the link for people with established local support services. As a result of the centralisation of support ‘under one roof ‘, funding for local services may be put at risk. These are services which have established relationships within local areas and with local areas, and which, if properly resourced and supported, may outlive the public body running the Redress Scheme.
Furthermore, many aspects of supporting individuals and facilitating applications are currently provided by local authority social work. The relationships local professionals have developed will be difficult to replicate quickly in a national body. Ultimately, individuals live in local communities, and will benefit from being linked into a web of support which is itself local and accessible.
For these reasons, while we do see the advantages of bringing administration together, the case for doing so must be very convincingly made, its potential benefits clearly outweighing its risks of disrupting the existing mix of local and national provision.
52. Do you agree that it would be beneficial if the administration of these elements were located in the same physical building? What would be the advantages? Would there be any disadvantages, and if so, how might these be addressed?
No answer to this question.
53. Should wider reparation be available to everyone who meets the eligibility criteria for the financial redress scheme?
Broadly, yes. Access to the wider reparations should be on the basis that the individual experienced abuse while in the care of the state, between certain specified dates. However, we would favour a more nuanced approach to determining access to support than the criteria set for eligibility to financial redress.
Support should begin from initial inquiry, and be available (if desired) in the preparing of applications for financial redress. By virtue of this though, it would not be possible to determine whether someone is eligible for wider reparations on the basis of whether they are eligible for financial redress, as this may not have been decided yet. It may be the case that an individual applications for financial redress is turned down, but that they receive a measure of support through the process, and access to other services.
54. Should there be priority access to wider reparation for certain groups, for example elderly and ill?
Yes. A form of triage and prioritisation will be important, to ensure those in most need, and those with life limiting conditions are responded to early. Each person applying for wider reparations should have their needs and context assessed appropriately.
55. If a person is eligible for redress, should they have the same or comparable access to other elements of reparation whether they live in Scotland or elsewhere?
Yes. However, the services should be made available in Scotland, and people’s actual access to it will be determined by their proximity to relevant offers (groups, etc.) or access to appropriate technology.
It would not be feasible to extend all aspects of the wider reparations to people living in other countries. They should equal right to access, but not have services taken to them.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND APOLOGY
56. To allow us more flexibility in considering how acknowledgment is delivered in the future, we intend to include provision in the redress legislation to repeal the sections of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 which established the National Confidential Forum. Do you have any views on this?
In our view the powers should be taken. The decision whether to use them should be considered further, but it is important that Scottish Government and its stakeholders have the ability to make changes in the future, if so decided.
57. Do you have any views on how acknowledgment should be provided in the future?
58. Do you think a personal apology should be given alongside a redress payment? If so, who should give the apology?
No answer to this question.
59. Do you think there is a need for a dedicated support service for in care survivors once the financial redress scheme is in place?
Yes. There is a need for a dedicated support service with a single point of entry and access to multi-agency services. Care experienced people who are no longer receiving services, and who are or wish to access their records, are a high-risk group who must be considered within the scope of these services. Moreover, for some survivors they will already have a key person who is offering support, and any development of dedicated service will need to take account of and incorporate these existing relationships.
We think it is odd that these questions of support have been located outwith the sections of the consultation concerned with wider reparations. In our view it is a mistake to separate these things out. The provision of high-quality, person-centered support (including but not limited to assistance in making applications for financial redress) represents reparation. Making amends for failures in the past by ensuring that today eligible individuals have access to all the support they need. Indeed, the Redress Scheme should be constructed with a view to the Self-Directed Support (Scotland) Act 2013, providing people with control over how they wish to direct and receive support. (In contrast to a national public body commissioning services which victims / survivors then have to ‘fit’ into.)
60. Do you have any initial views on how support for in care survivors might be delivered in Scotland, alongside a redress scheme?
Please see answers to earlier questions.
For further information, please do not hesitate to contact:
Director, Social Work Scotland
Priorities for 2020-21 Budget – SWS Justice Submission
This paper has been written in response to the pre-Budget Scrutiny request for the Justice Committee. With further change expected on the horizon, our submission calls for the Scottish Government and its partners to take a forensic look at how the justice system is working (and CJSW place within it), with a view to establishing a clearer, collective vision of what we are trying to build in Scotland.
Social Work Scotland is the professional body for social work leaders, working closely with our partners to shape policy and practice, and improve the quality and experience of social services. We welcome this opportunity to feed into the Justice Committee’s scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s budget for 2020-21.
Budgets provided to the public, third and voluntary sectors for health, education, employment, through-care, family-contact, rehabilitation/re-offending, in-cell technology and other services provided to prisoners
Criminal justice social work (CJSW) provides a range of statutory services to individuals in
CJSW therefore plays a central role in the justice system, and in particular the rehabilitation and management of individuals subject to community-based supervision. As the responsible agency for managing the risk of serious harm and the needs of people subject to statutory supervision, the ‘risk’ sits squarely with CJSW.
Funding is provided to local authorities in a ring-fenced grant provided under sections 27A
“Of the forecasts provided by Justice Analytical Services, even a ‘LOW’ uptake would result in approximately 1,300 additional people across Scotland receiving community sentences. If the policy has greater impact, then numbers could further increase. It is likely some of this number will require additional support to complete their sentence successfully. Local Authority areas and service providers need to be able to meet this demand for support.”
The report goes on to argue that research undertaken by Progressive Partnerships, an independent research organisation, suggests that “a proportion of these people (i.e. those currently receiving a prison sentence of up to 12 months that might now get a CPO) may have more complex needs that will require more support than the current ‘average’ person completing a CPO”.
It is true the total number of CPOs in Scotland has declined since their introduction in 2011 from a peak of 19, 451 in 2015-16 to 17,834 in 2017-18.3 However, notwithstanding the impact of PASS described above, there have been several practice developments in the last 10 – 15 years that have had a significant impact on CJSW workloads and the ability of services to work effectively with individuals and are not fully funded. These include, but not limited to:
Additionally, other developments in the justice environment continue to increase workload and pressure on a strained and over-stretched CJSW system. Many of these developments are, in themselves, welcome. But most are driven forward in isolation, with too little consideration given to the compound effect they collectively impose on CJSW. For example, Social Work Scotland members report a very significant rise in the requirement for CJSW to attend Parole Tribunals and Hearings in prisons. As this mostly requires attendance in person this development absorbs worker’s time. Relatedly, the lack of availability in the Scottish Prison Service of reliable connectivity limits CJSW ability to use videoconferencing with prisoners, for both Integrated Case Management (the process by which SPS manage statutory prisoners) and the development of CJSW report. Other examples of developments putting pressure on CJSW is the push to increase bail supervision numbers, and to offer Diversion to greater numbers.
Despite the seismic change in the demands and requirements placed on CJSW since the early 2000s, there has not been a comprehensive review to quantify and accurately cost the component parts of the work CJSW does. The S27 funding formula has been reviewed, but this was limited to how the grant is distributed. (In simple terms, the workload element was reduced from two-thirds to half, a rurality element was introduced and social and economic indicators are applied.) We believe the funding formula now requires comprehensive review.
Under the current formula, CJSW are actually penalised for reducing re-offending, as retrospective three year activity levels are the basis for allocation. Moreover, there is a clear case to consider more than one year grant allocations, as the current approach limits effective planning, being confirmed only in December of the preceding year (limiting our ability to respond constructively to reduced allocations). Previously, under the previous funding formula, whilst not entirely satisfactory, there was a mechanism to ‘soften’ any significant reductions in allocation from one year to the next.
We believe there is also a clear case for removing the separation of Part 1 and Part 2 funding, and instead providing local authorities with one S27 grant allocation. This would enable greater flexibility to allocate resources in accordance with local strategic plans and priorities.
In 2014 the Scottish government initiated research into the unit cost of a Community Payback Order (CPO). We are not aware that the final report was published, perhaps reflecting the complexity of establishing a ‘unit cost’ of a CPO, given the diversity and geography of Scotland and/or the difficulty of assimilating all the relevant expenditure/resources involved in delivering CPOs. In the absence of that research, in 2015-16 the cost of a CPO was estimated at £1,771. This figure was calculated by dividing
Indeed looking at the system as a whole, the actual cost of delivering CJSW services in line with National Outcomes and Standards for social work services in the criminal justice system and associated Scottish Government practice guidance, including the alternatives to prosecution schemes (Diversion, Fiscal Work Orders) and statutory community supervision (e.g. Throughcare services both during a prison sentence and post release) has not been accurately costed this century. Despite the fact that since 2000 the demands on CJSW have increased exponentially, driven by successive waves of criminal justice policy innovation and reform. Such an analysis, to identify the current actual cost of CJSW, could be done by conducting a time and motion study to assess the cost of producing a CJSW report, completing LS/CMI (including the extensive risk of serious harm component), managing an individual on a prison licence, etc.
This is not a call for a return to a justice system (and associated policies and practice) of the 1990’s. Social Work Scotland, along with many other informed stakeholders, strongly support many of the developments of recent years, encouraged that policies are driven by evidence and a commitment to human rights. But we cannot build or maintain a system on the strength of ideas alone. The system must be built methodically, on robust, appropriately resourced foundations; of which CJSW is one. This argument was made repeatedly in the written submissions and oral evidence (including from Victim Support Scotland and the Sheriff’s Association) heard by the Justice Committee this year, in considering the proposed extension to PASS. These made explicit reference to the need for more resources for
In considering the resource requirements of the criminal justice system, another factor which must be taken into account is the recent national public sector pay award. This has not been funded by Scottish Government, and in the six months since coming into effect Social Work Scotland members are reporting a serious impact on budgets. A survey of local authorities showed that, of the 23 that responded, 21 are required to fund the pay award from the S27 grant. One local authority calculates that they will have to find almost £1 million to cover the pay award between 2018 and 2021; that money will have to come from CJSW budgets. In another local authority, their small uplift in Part 1 funding in 2019-20 of £50,000 is less than the cost of the pay award. This situation creates serious challenges in filling posts when they become vacant, and creates pressure to re-design or re-organise services to meet the budget short fall. However, the time required to do this properly, with the requirement to consult and work with staff and unions, inevitably means that savings are not going to be achieved until future financial years. And in that time there will no doubt be further changes and funding reductions.
It is understood the S27 grant is made up of the ‘criminal justice social work’ allocation in the Scottish Government budget, topped up from money in the community justice ‘offender services’ budget. The former budget has remained static for several years at £86.5 million.
In 2017-18 the total allocation to CJSW including money from ‘offender services’ was £98,819,949; since then there have been marginal increases to £100,080,038 in 2018-19 and £100,115,038 in 2019-20. As set out in the paragraphs above, we believe that this has led to significant, systemic underfunding of CJSW. This is impacting on the ability of CJSW to deliver on the three key outcomes set out in NOS – reducing reoffending; promoting social inclusion; and public protection and community safety. And this will, in turn, impact on the system’s collective ability to deliver key Scottish government policy initiatives, such as PASS, community justice and bail supervision. CJSW is centre stage in efforts to
The resource requirements of such a key player must be properly understood and fully met. Longer-term challenges and financial requirements to tackle issues such as staffing levels in prisons, over-crowding, drug use, safety and security of staff and prisoners, the use of the open estate and an ageing prison population.
A number of developments are currently underway which will present financial challenges. Perhaps most significant is the work instigated by the Health and Justice collaboration Board to integrate health and social care in prisons. This is a programme Social Work Scotland is proud to be involved in, and tests of change are currently underway in six prisons. The integrated health and social care in prisons programme gives us a valuable opportunity to explore how health, well-being and social need affect the risk of offending in the future, and to work across statutory and voluntary throughcare systems to deliver a more holistic, individualised and integrated response to individuals, reducing the risk of
Elsewhere in the justice landscape, there are some potential efficiencies to be made in developing integrated, multi-disciplinary services and by reviewing and aligning third sector services in prison. To date these have grown organically, rather than through any strategic needs assessment and commissioning plan. It is likely, therefore, that they will not cover all current (and the expected increase) in needs which we will see in our prisons. In the context of integrated health and social care provision in our prisons (as described in paragraph above) we will need to review which and how services have been delivered in prison, and consider provision within the wider commissioning and procurement framework.
There remains a lack of data around the health and social care needs of people in prison, which some tests of change and a Government commissioned strategic needs assessment will seek to rectify in the next few months. Like the Scottish population as a whole, the prison population is ageing, meaning there will continue to be a greater number of people who are frail, and require additional support. But the prison population also has significant levels of need in terms of mental health, addiction, learning disability and neuro-diversity.
These needs impact on people’s capacity to make use of any opportunities for learning and development in prisons and then to successfully reintegrate into their communities on release. The prison estate does not currently have the capacity to meet the needs of a growing population of people with complex age and/or health related conditions. Without investment in the estate, this means care will likely be delivered in inappropriate settings, potentially without the equipment that would be deemed necessary in community settings. This not only places people in receipt of services at risk, but workers too. The Justice Committee may want to consider the elements both of the prison estate and the delivery of a whole systems approach to health and social care in a justice setting in its future planning.
Views on how to achieve a rebalancing over the longer-term in expenditure on prisons and that of community-based alternatives to incarceration and preventative spend, including the challenges of provision in remote or rural areas.
If we are to achieve this re-balancing, and potentially unlock resources to re-distribute to community-based alternatives, Scotland needs first to agree and articulate what the role of prison is. If our national aim, as articulated by Professor Cyrus Tata and others, is that imprisonment should be used sparingly, only where warranted on the grounds that the risk of serious harm is so great as to require confinement, and never on the basis of ‘rehabilitation’ or ‘self-improvement’, we should say so clearly, and work out the policies to achieve it. Over time we would see a reduction in the prison population, freeing up
With such an agreement about the role of prison in place, the change itself would require robust strategy, energy, collaboration, and, perhaps most importantly, bold leadership and financial investment. The newly established Community Justice Leadership Group, co-chaired by the Cabinet Secretary and COSLA’s Community and Wellbeing Spokesperson, offers an opportunity to explore whether this is possible. The group could set a clear vision for what the justice system in Scotland to look like in 20 – 30 years’ time, and agree the outlines of how we get there. (An example of this scale of ambition is the Housing to 2040 vision.) The group could crystallise what a compassionate justice system looks like, how it balances responsibilities, and identify the milestones on the journey to achieve it. Critically, the group could set coherent ‘stretch aims’ for the system, such as limits on the number of
However, to do this right requires both time and investment. A system built up over decades, which itself reflects public attitudes and culture with roots which go even further, cannot be transformed through policy documents and rhetoric. Vested interests will need to be challenged, all parts of the system be open to radical change, and resources made available to facilitate the transition. Simply put, the current system will need to continue to be maintained (and improved) while the new one is built. That cannot be done (or at least cannot be done quickly) with no increase in overall spending. For example, to win public (and some professional) support for a compassionate justice system, significant investment will be needed in deploying and evaluating the effectiveness of community-based interventions. We know such interventions work, but to fundamentally rebalance the system Scottish Government and its partners will need to go further than securing the support of experts.
The alternative is that public sector money will continue to be invested in an increasingly complicated version of the current system, with policy innovations woven into a prison-centric infrastructure. That will fail to unlock the potential of those policy innovations, and make it less likely that we develop across Scotland the integrated services needed to prevent offending and re-offending in our communities. It will also mean we fail to unlock the significant resources allocated to a growing and aging prison population.
For further information, please do not hesitate to contact:
Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Bill Response
Social Work Scotland submission to Scottish Parliament committee.
Social Security Bill
Social Work Scotland Response to Consultation