Iy9yJ5

Volume 3 | Number 2 | June 2015POLICINGReflections on developments andchanges to policing in ScotlandISSN 2052-7950ISSN 2052-795001019 772052 7950059 772052 795005

editorialWE DECIDED a while ago not to tackle policing as atheme for the SJM until any upheavels around the creationof the single national agency, Police Scotland, in April 2013had settled down. Over two years on, substantial aspectsof the changes and subsequent performance of the newpolicing arrangements continues to be controversial andunresolved. However, policing is one of the most pressingissues in contemporary criminal justice in Scotland aselsewhere, and we were therefore very pleased thatProfessor Nick Fyfe and Alistair Hendry, two leading expertson policing from the Scottish Institute for Policing Research(SIPR) agreed to be guest editors for this special.They have compiled contributions which placepolicing, and organisational change, in a wider historicaland comparative context and explore some recentthinking on contemporary policing policies, and use ofresearch. As Jackson and colleagues illustrate, the idea ofa centralised force was not a new one and it can in theoryhave many benefits, not least in terms of cost effectivenessalthough there remains a need, as seen in other countriesfacing police reforms, such as England and Wales andthe Netherlands, described by Terpstra, to recognise theimplications of change for approaches to local policingand, importantly, for structures of local accountability andgovernance. In practice, as several contributions indicate,changes may be difficult to implement, and as Harkin pointsout, ‘change’ may not lead to ‘reform’.The articles also reflect concerns with the nature ofpolicing, which inevitably involves tensions betweenthe police mandate of crime prevention and control anddue process, seen particularly in relation to the vexedissue of stop and search in Murray’s historical account.Scottish Police are also tasked with addressing communityengagement, safety and well-being. These different focihave been subject to a number of initiatives and researchsuch as the Safer Communities Evidence Matrix describedby Aston and Lum and procedural justice theory, whichstresses the importance of treating those with whom thepolice come into contact with respect, discussed in thedifferent contexts of training by Robertson and MacMillanand traffic by M c Queen and Bradford.The importance of relationships with local communitiesemerges in a different way in the rural setting described byWooff, where the use of discretion and the ability to establisha negotiated order are vital as back up cannot immediately besummonsed. Concerns that a centralised Police organisation maydownplay the local are reflected in the question posed to thepoliticians in Take Five concerning the centrality of the traditionof localism. At the same time, the establishment of a knowledgebase makes the transfer of knowledge and experience ofevidence based policing possible internationally, as seen inRoyan and Eck’s contribution relating to crime prevention andPaddy Tomkins’ reflections on his experiences in Serbia. Thesealso illustrate the role of SIPR in bringing together research andpractice.Our current issues section includes Helminen’s accountof research on funding the vital Third Sector Organisationsin Scandinavia and Scotland as well as contributions relevantto another pressing issue in Scottish criminal justice, namelythe future of women’s imprisonment. Pinkman explores thebackground to and some major issues for to be considered inany reform, the need for which is vividly underlined in Loucks’article illustrating the often devastating impact on families ofimprisoning women who are so often single parents. Their plightmay well be exacerbated by poverty, which in turn may be madeeven worse by the regime of benefit sanctions discussed in MaryMunro’s interview with Liz Dahl and Maura Daly of Circle.Deprivation also features in our statistical feature inwhich M c Vie and her colleagues draw attention to the grosslyunequal effects on victimisation of the much hailed crime dropwhich, while reducing overall levels of crime, has not led toany decreased risk for those most vulnerable to repeated andsevere victimisation. The impact of the most severe forms ofvictimisation is also highlighted by Fohring who alerts us to thepotential secondary victimisation of those who seek to supportsuch victims and carry out research in this area.Finally, Rhona Hotchkiss illustrates the varied experiencesof a week as a Prison Governor, and this month’s book reviewdeals with John Carnohan’s account of the work of the ViolenceReduction Unit.Hazel Croall and Mary MunroDon’t forget that you can still buy paper copies of all previous SJMs from www.magcloud.com as well as download free .pdfs from www.scottishjusticematters.com,listen to our interviews on soundcloud.com/sjmjournal, explore our Pinterest boardson www.pinterest.com/SJMJournal/ and follow us on Twitter @SJMJournal andfacebook.com/pages/Scottish-Justice-Matters/November 2015: special SJM on Poverty, Inequality and Justice to be edited byLesley M c Ara and Susan M c Vie of the University of Edinburgh.Also look out for Tim Newburn’s review of the forthcoming book Crime, Justice andSociety in Scotland edited by Hazel Croall, Gerry Mooney and Mary Munro, due to bepublished by Routledge in August 2015.

contents Volume3:2 June 2015Scottish Justice Matters is a publication of theScottish Consortium of Crime and CriminalJustice (SCCCJ). The Consortium is an alliance oforganisations and individuals committed to bettercriminal justice policies. It works to stimulate wellinformed debate and to promote discussion andanalysis of new ideas. It seeks a rational, humane,constructive and rights-based approach toquestions of justice and crime in Scotland.Editorial BoardNiall Campbell, Hazel Croall, Nancy Loucks,Alan Mairs, Maggie Mellon, Mary Munro,Alec Spencer, Alan Staff, Cyrus Tata,Managing editor:Mary MunroConsulting editor:Hazel CroallThematic editors for this edition:Nick Fyfe and Alistair HenryAdministrator:Helen RolphIf you would like to contribute to SJM or have aproposal for content, please contacteditor@scottishjusticematters.comWebsite: www.scottishjusticematters.comTwitter: @SJMJournalMagcloud:Facebook:www.magcloud.comfacebook.com/pages/Scottish-Justice-Matters/Soundcloud: soundcloud.com/sjmjournalPinterest: www.pinterest.com/SJMJournal/SJM is free to read digitally but relies on grants,advertising and donations.To make a donation please go to:www.scottishjusticematters.comEmail us at: editor@scottishjusticematters.comCopyright: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 UK: Scotlandlicense. Before using any of the contents, visit:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/UK:_ScotlandDisclaimer: Publication of opinion in SJM does notimply endorsement by the SCCCJ. So far as we areaware, people used in the images have consentedto such use.ISSN 2052-7950 (Print)ISSN 2052-7969 (Online)Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice isa registered charity [SC029241]n Theme: PolicingTheme editorial by Nick Fyfe and Alistair Henry 2Scottish Police Force Amalgamations and Mergers: A Historical Perspectiveby Louise Jackson, Neil Davidson and David Smale 3Policing Prevention and the Rise of Stop and Search in Scotlandby Kath Murray 5Scottish Policing: Has There Been Real Reform? by Diarmaid Harkin 7Scottish Policing and Procedural Justice: Two Experiments1. Evidence from the Scottish Police and Citizen Engagement (SPACE) Trialby Annette Robertson and Lesley M c Millan 92. Findings from the Scottish Community Engagement Trial (ScotCET)by Sarah M c Queen and Ben Bradford 11Crime Reduction Through Regulations by James Royan and John E Eck 13Policing Must Be Local, But Also Informed by Global ExperienceAndy Aitchison interviews Paddy Tomkins 15Crime Prevention and the Development of the Safer Communities EvidenceMatrix Scotland (SCEMS) by Liz Aston and Cynthia Lum 17Policing Antisocial Behaviour in Rural Scotland by Andrew Wooff 19Reform, Research and ‘Re-invention’ by Nick Fyfe and Alistair Henry 21n Current issuesFunding and Third Sector Organisations Working With Offenders:Some Observations from Scandinavia and Scotland by Maija Helminen 23Coping with Victimisation: Trauma and the Criminal Justice Researcherby Stephanie Fohring 25Scotland Needs a Shared, Bold, Coherent Strategy on Women Who Offendby Anne Pinkman 27Imprisoning Mothers: The Impact on Children and Families by Nancy Loucks 29n InternationalPolice Reform in The Netherlands and Scotland Compared by Jan Terpstra 31n StatisticsHas Scotland’s Falling Crime Rate Benefited Everyone Equally?by Susan M c Vie, Paul Norris and Rebecca Pillinger 33n InterviewMaura Daly and Liz Dahl of Circle Scotland 35A day in the life of … A Prison Governor: Rhona Hotchkiss of HMP Dumfries 37Take Five: five politicians respond to SJM’s questions 38Book Reviews 40Scottish Justice Brief 41www.magcloud.comScottish Justice Matters is available on the HP MagCloud service. Here you candownload and view for free on the MagCloud iPad or desktop apps. If you wouldprefer a printed copy, MagCloud offers a print-on-demand service.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 1

POLICING: LEARNING FROM PAST EXPERIENCEScottish Police Force Amalgamations and Mergers:A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVELouise Jackson, Neil Davidson and David SmaleMODERN POLICE FORCES emerged as a result of localinitiatives from the late-eighteenth century onwards. GlasgowCity Police, founded in 1800, was the first in Britain, and in1857 all Scottish towns and counties were compelled by act ofParliament to create their own police forces or constabularies.However, almost as soon as this nationwide patchwork of localprovision came into being, calls for amalgamation were beingput forward by civil servants and senior police officers. Indeed,the idea of a single policing body for Scotland can be datedback to the 1850s. Why, then, did it take so long to be realised?Examination of the earlier history of amalgamation enables usto better understand the uniqueness of the circumstances thatproduced Police Scotland in 2013.It is often suggested there was an inexorable pull towardscentralisation and consolidation. The number of police forcesin Scotland was reduced from 89 in the late 1850s, to 48 by1939, 33 by 1959 and finally eight from 1975 until 2013. Yet thecreation of a single service was far from inevitable. The numberof county constabularies in rural areas remained remarkablyconstant for the first 100 years, whilst reductions in the numberof burgh (urban) forces were mainly concentrated in the 1930sand 1960s (Figure 1). Indeed, the eight regional ‘legacy’ forceslasted for 40 years.Comparing the very recent reorganisation of policing inScotland with the Netherlands, Terpstra and Fyfe have arguedthat a combination of factors (consistent with change in otherareas of policy) helped generate reform. They point to theopening of a ‘window of opportunity’ created by specificcrises or focusing events, including the threat of internationalterrorism and organised crime as well as pressures on publicspending (Terpstra and Fyfe, 2015). Key individuals or ‘policyentrepreneurs’, with skills, resources and influence, have thenacted as important agents for change. However, their capacityto act was enabled by wider political and cultural factors(devolution and the election of a majority SNP government).Moreover, it was important that identification and analysisof the ‘problem’ chimed with policy solutions that were alreadyin circulation. We argue here that this framework, which focuseson the existence (or lack) of policy windows, the role of policyentrepreneurs, the coupling of problems and solutions, anda responsive political context, is also useful in explaining pastinertia and resistance as well as previous piecemeal reform.There have been earlier moments of national crisis in whichthe arguments for a single policing body were made in Scotland.We also find early ‘policy entrepreneurs’ drawn from the new butgrowing elite of influential professional policemen who soughtto promote the idea of a national service. Yet until very recentlythere was no coherent alignment of politics and policy solutions.The first of these entrepreneurs was Alfred John List, theinnovative head of Midlothian Constabulary who, in 1853 putforward a plan for a national system of police commanded byone chief constable (Second Report, 1852-3, Q3960). However,his ideas did not meet the approval of his political task masterswho did not see it as a relevant solution to a recognisableproblem. A few decades later, in 1886, the Crofters’ Protests inSkye and Lewis provoked Captain David Munro, HM Inspectorof Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS), to draw up a planfor the creation of a national force commanded by a ChiefCommissioner in Edinburgh, with the country divided into policedistricts. At the time it was mooted that violent disturbanceshad been exacerbated by Irish agitators, intensifying fears of acombined external and internal threat (Cameron, 2012). As thedisturbances petered out so too did the plan.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 3

of the subject’ which was ‘dictated’ by the increase in violentcrime (de Smith, 1953; 483-484). Likewise Conservative MPRonald Bell concluded ‘it is the criminal class that has forced itupon us’ (HC 26/2/1953 vol. 511 col. 2354). To summarise, theAct was deemed a necessary, if somewhat ‘un-British’ approachto justice.Expanding the policing roleThe Prevention of Crime Act, 1953 signalled a shift inthe ways in which the political classes conceptualised thepreventative role of the police from an older Peelian modelbased on visibility, to a pre-emptive approach, using policepowers, coupled with the slippery principle of reasonablesuspicion. Whilst such powers were not unknown (for example,the Poaching Prevention Act 1862 conferred search powers, asdid Scottish Burgh Police Acts), the significance of the 1953 Actlay in its relevance to routine policing.This set a precedent for the expansion of pre-emptivepowers in the 1960s premised on search, rather than arrest.Between 1964 and 1971, largely under Wilson’s Labouradministration, a range of search powers were conferredfor drugs and firearms, variously with and without warrants,for premises and for people. By the late 1960s, the right tostop and search as an adjunct to specific offences appearedto be accepted by politicians of all shades: a legal constructthat no longer went against established concepts of justice.As Conservative MP Joan Vickers stated in regard to theDangerous Drugs Act 1967:There was, regrettably, a late Amendment to the 1967Act which gives police power to stop and search withoutwarrant any person who is suspected of being in unlawfulpossession of drugs. I suggest that this is really a newthreat to civil liberties. It has received very little attentionin Parliament, or, I am surprised to find, in the Press. Itsdangers are, in my opinion, immense, and it will not helprelations between the police and the public (HC Deb.1/12/1967 vol. 755 c. 877).Politics and police powersIn Scotland, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980conferred stop and search powers for offensive weapons.Passed by dint of an English Conservative majority, the Bill wascontested by Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP politicians.Concerns were voiced over civil liberties, police-communityrelations and use of the power ‘for random and mass searchingof young people’ by way of deterrence (Baldwin and Kinsey ,1982; 183). As Labour MP Bruce Millan stated:[If] the power is used to a significant extent, it willconsiderably prejudice relationships between the policeand many young people, and that will spill over to therest of the community and seriously damage relationshipsbetween the police and the public. Where the action is notjustified, it is an invasion of privacy and an invasion of civilliberties (HC 14/4/1980 vol. 982 c.834).Similarly, SNP MP Donald Stewart commented, ‘If ConservativeMembers think that this proposal will make for good relationswith the police, they delude themselves’ (ibid. col. 860).A decade later, search powers for offensive weaponsprovided the legislative vehicle for the seminal high-volumestop and search campaigns undertaken by Strathclyde Police.For example:On Monday police in Strathclyde will exercise their right tostop and search anyone they suspect might be carrying anoffensive weapon, as part of a three-month enforcementcampaign. (Herald, 26/2/1993)The Strathclyde campaigns extended the preventative remitfurther, introducing deterrence rationales, alongside detection,in effect, taking both detection and non-detection as successfuloutcomes (RHA, 2002; 22). In this way, the tactic was renderedunassailable, a commonsense solution to violent crime whichcould be legitimated irrespective of the outcome.This powerful win-win outlook, which placed crime controlover due process, prevailed for more than two decades insome parts of Scotland. As Chief Superintendent Niven Rennieexplained, ‘if you’re truly successful in targeting your stoppingand searching, you’re going to have a lower success rate’(Holyrood Magazine, 2014). It is also shown forcefully in policestatistics. Between 2005 and 2012/13, recorded searches rose556%, from around 104,000 to 682,968. In the year prior toreform, the search rate in Scotland was seven times higher thanEngland/Wales at 682,968 seaches. Search rates began to fallin the post-reform period, by 6% in 2013/14, and more sharplyin 2014/15, by 33%. Despite this fall, the search rate in 2014/15remained over four times higher than England/Wales in thenearest comparable period, at 80 and 16 stop searches per1,000 people respectively (Police Scotland, 2015).This win-win orthodoxy is now subject to challenge, andfurther change seems imminent. Following an unprecedenteddegree of critical media and political attention, stop and searchpowers are currently under review by an independent advisorygroup, appointed by the Scottish Government. A fresh case willhave to be made for police practice, and consideration givento the balance between crime control and due process. Thisshort history shows how this balance has changed over time,and importantly, how different ways of thinking about thepreventative role of the police can influence police practice.Kath Murray is an SCCJR research associate at theUniversity of Edinburgh. She blogs on stop and searchat http://scottishjusticematters.com/author/kathmurray/Baldwin, A. and Kinsey, R. (1982) Police Powers and Politics, London, Quartet.de Smith, S.A. (1953) ‘Statutes and Statutory Instruments’, The Modern LawReview, 16 (4).HMICS (2015) Audit & Assurance Review of Stop and Search: Phase 1, HMICS.Holyrood Magazine, Policing by Consent (online) http://legacy.holyrood.com/2014/02/policing-by-consent/Murray, K (2015) ‘The Proactive Turn: Stop and Search in Scotland, PhDThesis, University of Edinburgh.Police Scotland (31/3/2015) ‘Stop and search data publication’ (online)http://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/police-scotland/stop-and-searchdata-publication.Reid Howie Associates [RHA] (2002) Police Stop and Search among White andMinority Ethnic Young People in Scotland, Edinburgh, Scottish Executive.6 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

POLICING: LEARNING FROM PAST EXPERIENCESCOTTISH POLICINGHAS THERE BEEN REAL REFORM?Diarmaid HarkinWITH ALL THE TALK about the reform of policing in Scotland, there are continuitiesas well. In terms of the fundamentals of what the police do and how they do it, reformhas clear limits, faces resistance and the whole process must overcome drag and inertia.There are genuine shifts and changes to reckon with (see Fyfe, 2013). For instance,the new Scottish Police Authority fundamentally alters the accountability structure, andthe alignment of police districts with local authority territories affects the relationshipwith council partners and local community organisations. The establishment of‘policing principles’ encourages a new organisational vision and of course, theconsolidation of all police in Scotland under one management structure will inevitablyimpact on multiple issues of strategy, leadership style, as well as on-the-groundoperational matters.These changes are not inconsequential and they do have ramifications. However,let us not overstate the newness or the extent of transformation to core practice.It is common to hear police management in many different circumstances talkingup the achievements of reform, disavowing the past and speaking of transformeddepartments. This sort of rhetoric has clear elements of impression management aspolice chiefs attempt to satisfy political demands. In Scotland, the SNP made policereform a hot political topic and so a responsibility emerges for critical commentators toattempt to separate the rhetoric that surrounds ‘reform’ agendas from the genuine andimportant transformations to core policing.I suggest that the key question to be answered is whether the fundamental exerciseof police authority over citizens is transformed in substantial ways: does on-the-groundlocal policing look significantly different? If we take this perspective we can establishthree key points. Firstly, police reform can be overstated. Secondly, there are permanentaspects to the police that never change: finally, that there are demonstrable wayspolicing can reform and will reform.‘Police Reform’ can be overstatedI suggest that reform should be understood as having a strategic and deliberategoal, while change can be superficial or mundane. Change is easy while reform ishard, or as Edmund Burke suggests, “change is novelty” whereas ‘reform’ is “a directapplication of a remedy to (a) grievance” (Burke, 1909). In this respect, the shift fromeight police forces to one, does not necessarily qualify as a reform. Introducing newpolicies, new strategies, new tactics or new structures should be considered changesuntil their ability to solve a pre-decided problem is proven. In other words, we shouldbe reluctant to use the word reform for what could be superficial adjustments. Reformis an outcome that does not always necessarily follow change. This principle applieswhether we are considering the large scale centralisation of Scotland’s forces or smallerscale programmes.I conducted research on local police-public consultation forums in Edinburgh thatwere part of a new community policing strategy launched in 2010, and asked whetherthese forums helped contribute to local police reform. The ‘priority-setting groups’,brought together residents, community-council members, representatives fromhousing associations and multiple third-sector community organisations to discussneighbourhood policing issues and set priorities for the local community policingteam. The groups were led by the police and council representatives. I observed theconsultation process for 12 months across 2011/2012, interviewing the key stakeholdersbetween meetings.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 7

POLICING: LEARNING WITH OTHERSScottish Policing andProcedural JusticeTWO EXPERIMENTSIn these two articles, researchers describe experimentsto apply and test ideas of procedural justice in relationto police probationary training and road traffic policing.Police Training and Procedural Justice:Evidence from the Scottish Police and Citizen Engagement (SPACE) TrialAnnette Robertson and Lesley M c MillanA GROWING literature provides evidence of increasedawareness of procedural justice concepts and their relevanceto policing, but also their potential value in relation tofostering better relations between the police and the public(see Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant and Manning, 2013).It is argued that by using a procedurally-just framework inall interaction with the public, treating everyone fairly andrespectfully, having trustworthy motives, and giving them a‘voice’, the police will benefit in various ways. On a practicallevel procedurally-just interaction can result in generallyimproved public engagement and cooperation with the police,but it can also result in greater support for, and confidence inthe police, and the creation of conditions for enhanced policelegitimacy.The concept of procedural justice is increasingly reflected inthe values espoused by police organisations around the world,including in Scotland. When the new single service, PoliceScotland, came into existence in April 2013, its core values werepresented as ‘integrity’, ‘fairness’, and ‘respect’, reflecting thenew code of ethics and the police constables’ oath taken by allnew officers (Police and Fire Reform Act, 2012).The SPACE TrialIt was within this new institutional framework that theScottish Police and Citizen Engagement (SPACE) trial wasdeveloped, and implemented over August 2013-March 2014(Robertson, M c Millan, Godwin, and Deuchar, 2015). Modelled onthe Chicago Quality Interaction Training Programme (Schuckand Rosenbaum, 2011), it tested the effects of introducingspecific training on procedural justice, and its relevance topolicing, to probationers at the Scottish Police College (SPC).Two groups of probationers participated in the trial:a control and an intervention group. Both received theestablished 12-week initial training programme for newrecruits, whilst the intervention group also received additionaltraining on procedural justice. Baseline data were collectedusing a survey at the beginning of training, which was thenrepeated at the end of training, along with additional surveys,observations, and focus groups. These were analysed toestablish any differences in outcomes between the groups inrelation to probationers’ attitudes and behavioural intentions,using the key procedural justice indicators of ‘respect’, ‘trust’,‘fairness’, ‘voice’, and ‘communication’ (Schuck and Rosenbaum,2011; Skogan, 2013).ResultsGeneral results of the trial were favourable over a rangeof measures for both control and intervention groups, whichimplied there were no serious underlying attitudinal issues.This also suggested that recruitment methods are largely fit forpurpose in terms of taking individuals into police training whoalready appear to have a reasonable capacity to engage withand implement the key principles of procedural justice.Differences were found between the control andintervention groups over all the measures, with statisticallysignificantchanges recorded for certain ‘communication’ and‘respect’ measures. Over the course of the project:v Four of the eight ‘communication’ measures changed ina positive direction, all of which were for the interventiongroup, showing the additional training had a positiveimpact.v Two of the four ‘respect’ measures changed, both in anegative direction. One applied to both the control andintervention groups, and the other to the interventiongroup alone. This suggests potential issues with both thebasic training programme and the additional SPACE inputs,which warrant further investigation.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 9

CommunicationCommunication is a vital component of effective policing.SPACE inputs highlighted the importance of communicationin all encounters with the public, regardless of how contactis initiated, and also provided practical advice on interactingwith specific groups and/or in difficult/sensitive situations.Communication is intrinsically important, but it also underpinsall of the other procedural justice principles. For example,a police officer must be able to communicate respectand impartiality in order to build trust and confidence.Consequently, the improvements noted in communicationmeasures for the intervention group were a very positive result.RespectRespect is perhaps one of the most challenging values touphold, given the diverse and demanding nature of policework. Although the procedural justice framework emphasisesthe approach should apply to everyone (victims, witnesses, andsuspects), this may prove challenging at times. For example, itmay be difficult to maintain a respectful manner when dealingwith someone who is not reciprocating.As mentioned above two statistically-significant changeswere found in the respect measures. The ‘respect’ measurethat became worse for both control and intervention groupswas; “Officers should at all times treat people they encounterwith dignity and respect”. The additional respect measure thatworsened for the intervention group only was; “People shouldbe treated with respect, regardless of their attitude”. Theseresults indicated that probationers agreed more strongly withboth statements at the start of their training than at the end.This is a concerning outcome in both the shorter (training)and longer term (work) perspective, as ‘being respectful’ hasbeen found to be directly associated with public perceptionsof police professionalism and, therefore, with quality of serviceevaluations (Mazerolle, Bennett, Antrobus, and Eggins, 2012).It is worth noting in this respect that the most commondisposal (61% in 2013-14) for complaints made against policeofficers in Scotland was ‘concluded by explanation’ (ScottishPolice Investigations and Review Commissioner, 2014), whichsuggests that many complaints could be avoided if bothbetter communication and a more robust engagement withprocedural justice concepts were demonstrated.However the procedural justice approach has more to offerthan simply reducing the level of public complaints, desirableas that may be: it provides an opportunity for securing greaterpublic trust and confidence. Although the police in Scotlandenjoy comparatively good rates of trust and confidence fromthe public, these vary across communities. For example thoseliving in the 15% most deprived areas report lower levels ofconfidence (37%) in the police compared to the rest of thecountry (49%), and are more likely to agree (43%) that policecommunityrelations in their area are poor compared to otherareas (27%) (Scottish Government, 2011).It was encouraging to find at the end of the trial that manyprobationers professed to be familiar with the concept ofprocedural justice and proficient in relation to associated skillsand competencies. This was a positive outcome. Probationersreported knowledge and understanding of key skills andapproaches related to procedural justice also improved in areassuch as:v The use of empathy in police work (83% reported a betterunderstanding).v The role of active listening in police work (80% reported abetter understanding).v How procedural justice approaches can help to developpositive relationships with young people (69% reported abetter understanding).v What procedural justice is and how it applies to generalpolicing (66% reported a better understanding).v How procedural justice approaches might be particularlypertinent for victims of sensitive crimes (64% reported abetter understanding).Probationers also highlighted active listening, engagingwith young people, effective communication, and empathy asspecific aspects of SPACE training that would have an impact onhow they did their jobs.However, only 28% reported that it was ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’that they would use the knowledge and skills covered in SPACEtraining in their work as police officers, compared to 39% whosaid it was ‘unlikely’ or ‘not very likely’. There was a tendency bysome to dismiss procedural justice as ‘common sense’, whichmay indicate some participants were not open to engagementand therefore unwilling to have their perceptions, beliefs, andattitudes challenged.Overall the evaluation indicated a more proceduredrivenapproach, perhaps at the expense of procedurally-justapproaches, although the two are not mutually exclusive andideally both would be given appropriate consideration in policetraining. This would require a greater focus on the ‘how’ and‘why’, as well as the ‘what’ of policing in basic training. Whatthe police do is clearly important, but how they go about thisis perhaps equally, if not more important to the public and mayhave a significant impact on how the latter perceive the police,engage with them, and rate the service they provide.Annette Robertson is senior lecturer in Criminology,Glasgow Caledonian UniversityTulliallan Police Training College. Photo Jeff Egge.Lesley M c Millan is professor of Criminology andSociology, Glasgow Caledonian University10 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

POLICING: LEARNING WITH OTHERSProcedural Justice in Practice:Findings from the Scottish Community Engagement Trial (ScotCET)Sarah MacQueen and Ben BradfordPROCEDURAL JUSTICE THEORY provides aframework through which to understand people’sreactions to the use of power and authority (Tyler2006; Tyler and Huo 2002). The theory stresses theimportance of the fairness of the process of interactionbetween citizen and authority figure in shaping trustand confidence in, and judgements on the legitimacyof, that authority. In the context of policing, fairnessmeans being treated with dignity and respect duringencounters; being allowed a voice in the interaction;and being given clear information about what ishappening and why.Procedural justice theory is increasingly usedto inform the development of policing practice inScotland and beyond, but with only scarce evidenceon how its various elements should be operationalisedand what police can do in a practical sense to enhancetrust and legitimacy.The Australian Queensland CommunityEngagement Trial (QCET) was the first study to utilise alarge-scale randomised field trial methodology to testthe effect of procedurally fair policing during routineencounters with citizens. It found that the quality ofinteraction between public and police during randombreath testing operations had a direct positive effecton: satisfaction of members of the public with theprocess and outcome of the encounter; perceptionsof police fairness; respect for the police; trust andconfidence in the police; and self-reported willingnessto comply with police directives (Mazerolle et al,2012; Mazerolle et al, 2011). Crucially, QCET found thatimplementing and adhering to a script designed tocommunicate the core elements of the proceduraljustice model generated these positive outcomes.The first study to demonstrate a causal link betweenimplementation of procedurally just forms of policingand the formation of public opinion and confermentof legitimacy, QCET made an important contributionto an expanding evidence base that supports theimportance of procedural justice, albeit within aspecific policing context.In 2013 the Scottish Government funded ScotCETto address the relative dearth of robust, Scottish-basedevidence available to inform policy and strategicdevelopment. The QCET findings were to be testedwithin a Scottish context to inform the implementationof the Reassuring the Public programme within theJustice Strategy for Scotland.The TrialDirect replication of QCET was not possible due to legislativeand operational differences, so an adapted experimental design wasdeveloped in partnership with road police officers working acrossScotland. All 20 road police units participated in the final experiment,which took place during the Festive Road Safety Campaign 2013-14.Prior to the campaign, units were randomly assigned to experiment orcontrol conditions.During the first week of the campaign all officers conducted‘business as usual’, with the addition of distributing questionnairesto drivers. Subsequently, half of the units began operating underexperimental conditions, delivering a set of key messages duringencounters and distributing a leaflet designed to enhance perceptionsof procedural justice. The key messages aimed to introduce a levelof consistency to encounters such that each included all of the coreelements of the procedural justice model, whilst allowing officers toprotect their responsivity and ‘natural’ style of interaction. The leafletwas designed to reinforce the key messages and ‘collective’ natureof campaign. The remaining units continued to operate ‘business asusual’ to provide the control group. All units continued to hand outquestionnaires to the drivers they stopped.The overarching hypothesis for ScotCET was that the positivefindings from the original QCET would be replicated. Analyses of thesurvey data asked, in essence, whether receiving the experimentalintervention shifted perceptions of procedural justice, and levels ofsatisfaction, trust and confidence and legitimacy, in a positive direction.Over the course of the trial, 12,431 questionnaires were issued. Intotal 816 questionnaires were returned by the cut-off point in April2014: 305 in the baseline (‘pre’ period), comprising 122 responses fromthe units assigned to the experiment condition and 183 from thoseassigned to the control condition; and 511 in the ‘post’ period (176responses from the experiment and 335 responses from the control).The overall response rate is 6.6 per cent. Of the responses achieved,the majority were male drivers (63%) and the mean age was 50.7. Threequarters (75%) of the sample were owner-occupiers, and 40% had a firstdegree or higher. There were no significant differences pre to post trial,or between experimental or control groups, on any of the demographicmeasures used.ResultsOverall driver opinion about the police in terms of each of the keyconstructs measured was highly favourable. With regard to proceduraljustice, over 80% of respondents answered that the police ‘completely’met each criterion of interest. Similarly, the overwhelming majority‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with the indicators of trust in policeofficers and around 90% of respondents reported being ‘very’ or ‘fairly’satisfied with officer conduct, personal treatment and encounteroutcome.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 11

However, examining the effect of the experimentalintervention revealed interesting results.Across the control areas there was a consistent patternof improvement in scores on the key constructs over thecourse of the campaign. Yet this pattern was not repeated inthe experiment areas, and driver assessments of proceduraljustice during encounters and subsequent driver satisfactionfell in the experiment areas relative to the control areas. Theexperimental intervention appeared to diminish drivers senseof procedural justice during their encounters with roadspolice, and led to a relative decrease in driver satisfaction (inother words, the opposite of the effect predicted). Perceptionsof general trust and conferment of legitimacy were shown tobe similar across both groups.Overall, the experimental intervention had someunintended detrimental impact on policing practice, whichled to some small but significant negative effects on publicperception. These findings are unexpected.The experiment was designed in line with existingevidence on procedurally just modes of policing and effectivepolice-public communication, led by previous successfulexperimental intervention in the field (Mazerolle et al, 2011;2012) and incorporating the fundamental elements of theprocedural justice model: treating drivers with dignity andrespect; demonstrating neutrality of decision making andtrustworthy motives for action; and presenting drivers withopportunities to be an active participants during and afterthe encounter (Tyler, 2006; Tyler and Huo, 2002; Murphyet al, 2008). Moreover, those police officers responsiblefor implementing the experimental intervention were keycontributors to its design. For this to have had a detrimentaleffect on perceptions of procedural justice and satisfaction issurprising.The experimental interventionappeared to diminish drivers senseof procedural justice during theirencounters with roads policeAs yet, nothing in the data gathered explain why theobserved effects occurred.Nevertheless, our results lead us to suggest that, inpolicing contexts where police/ citizen interaction andsatisfaction are already high, it is not enough to simply up the‘dosage’ of procedural justice to positively ‘shift’ perceptions.An encounter may contain all of the appropriate ‘ingredients’for a procedurally just encounter, but here encounters wherekey ingredients may have been missed and excluded faredbetter. Contrary to the messages emerging in the growingliterature (Mazerolle et al 2013; 2014), there appears to bemore to successful operationalisation of the procedural justicemodel than simply ‘adding in’ the components through verbaldialogue and written messages. On their own, these are notsufficient to improve, or even maintain, public perceptions ofthe police.At a time when procedural justice theory is rapidly beingdeveloped into a model of policing and practice, we haveshown that the implementation of a procedural justicemodel of policing is not a straightforward matter. WhileQCET demonstrated the apparent ease with which such amodel could be successfully implemented and incorporatedinto practice, our research suggests that, at least in policingcontexts where interaction and satisfaction are alreadyhigh, other factors, for example subtleties and nuances ofcommunication context, content and style, can intervene.Failure to acknowledge and provide for these in attempting tooperationalise the procedural justice model may, perversely,undermine public trust and police legitimacy. Future researchmust explore these further to establish the critical elements ofcommunication and interpersonal skill required to implementprocedurally just policing.Sarah MacQueen is a research fellow for the ScottishCentre for Crime and Justice Research, University ofEdinburgh Law School.Ben Bradford is lecturer in Criminology in the Facultyof Law, University of Oxford.Mazerolle L, Sargeant E, Cherney A, Bennett S, Murphy K, Antrobus, E andMartin, P (2014) Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Policing, Switzerland:Springer International PublishingMazerolle L, Bennett S, Davis J, Sargeant E and Manning M (2013)‘Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of theevidence’ in Journal of Experimental Criminology 9(3) 245-274Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Antrobus E and Eggins E (2012) ‘Procedural justice,routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police; Main findingsfrom the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET)’, Journal ofExperimental Criminology, 8(4): 343-367Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Eggins E, Antrobus, E, White G and Davis J (2011)Testing police legitimacy . . . one breath at a time: The Queensland CommunityEngagement Trial Technical Report, Brisbane: ARC Centre of Excellence inPolicing and SecurityMurphy K, Hinds L and Fleming J (2008), ‘Encouraging Cooperation andPublic Support for Police’ in Policing and Society 18.138–57Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (2014) Police ComplaintsStatistics for Scotland 2013-14http://pirc.theapsgroupinscotland.com/police_complaints/Robertson A, M c Millan L, Godwin J and Deuchar R (2015) The Scottish Policeand Citizen Engagement Project: Final Report, Glasgow: Glasgow CaledonianUniversity.Schuck A and Rosenbaum D P (2011) The Chicago Quality InteractionTraining Program: A Randomized Control Trial of Police Innovation, NationalInstitute of Justice: Washington.Scottish Government (2011) 2010/11 Scottish Crime and Justice Survey: MainFindings; Chapter 7: The Public and the Policehttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/361684/0122316.pdfSkogan W (2013) The 2013 Officer Training Survey (unpublished overview)Tyler TR (2006) Why People Obey the Law, Princeton: Princeton UniversityPressTyler T R and Huo Y J (2002) Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperationwith the Police and Courts, New York: Russell Sage Foundation12 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

POLICING: LEARNING WITH OTHERSCRIME REDUCTIONTHROUGH REGULATIONSJames Royan and John E. Eck on violent disorder and the licensed tradePhoto by kind permission ©STVTWO MURDERS, 5994 kilometres(3724 miles) and 45 months apart,illustrate the value of police-researcherknowledge transfer. The first murderoccurred in 2010 at the Ritz Nightclub, inCincinnati, USA. The victim was shot. Thenightclub had a history of trouble withthe police, including numerous violentevents. The second killing occurredin 2013, at the Rowantree Inn, outsideDalkeith, Scotland. The victim wasstabbed. This place too had a history ofviolence and other troubles. Both eventsillustrate the utility of taking a regulatoryapproach to crime prevention.In April 2013, the Centre for EvidenceBased Crime Policy (CEBCP) and theScottish Institute of Policing Research(SIPR) assembled academics andpractitioners from the United States andScotland at George Mason University topromote the transfer of knowledge ofevidence based practices. In October,2014 SIPR and CEBCP held a secondmeeting at the Scottish Police College.This paper is the result of a fortuitousmeeting of the authors.At the first meeting, Eck spoke aboutregulating crime places, arguing thatcrime is concentrated on places becausesome create crime opportunities (Eckand Eck, 2012). Unless the opportunitiesthat create ‘hot’ places are rectified,these addresses will stay ‘hot’. Arrestingand prosecuting offenders servesjustice, but leaves opportunities forcrime untouched, so more crimes occur.A regulatory approach addresses theopportunities for further crime. At thesecond meeting, Royan spoke about hisapplication of a regulatory approach toplaces within his command area usingthe Ritz Nightclub murder as an example.In this article, we illustrate the utilityof practitioner-researcher informationexchange by focusing on the directapplication of Eck’s theory and the workalso illustrates the utility of both policeresearcherand international exchanges.Licensing Developments in MidlothianOn 26 November 2012, Royan wasappointed the Local Area Commanderfor Midlothian. He identified alcoholrelated violence and antisocial behaviouras a priority, and began exploringpartnerships which could help reducethese problems identifying two specificconcerns:The Licensing Act 2005, placed a dutyon all Local Licensing Boards to have a‘Licensing Policy Statement’ containingan overprovision assessment of thenumber and density of licensed premisesand if this caused problems. Midlothian’sLocal Licensing Board had neither a‘Policy Statement’ nor an ‘overprovisionassessment’.The Act provides for the creationof Local Licensing Forums to review itsoperation and to give advice and makerecommendations to the Board. TheMidlothian Council had a Forum but itwas administered within the Licensingsection of the Council, which limited itsindependence from the Board.To rectify issue 1, Royan suggested tothe Clerk of the Licensing Board, and itwas agreed, that the Community SafetyPartnership Analyst would prepare analcohol profile for Midlothian, whichwould allow the Board to developa Policy Statement, containing anoverprovision assessment. In responseto issue 2, Royan requested that theadministration of the Local LicensingForum be moved from the LicensingDepartment to the Safer CommunitiesTeam. This increased communityrepresentation at the Forum, and gavethe Forum greater independence. Thus,the Forum became the key driver forcreating the overprovision assessmentand making recommendations to theBoard.Simultaneously, Forum membershipwas increased and widened to includegreater representation from thecommunity and licensed trade. Thisfostered effective working relationshipsbetween the Police and partners,specifically the licensed trade.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 13

Case Study: The Rowantree Inn, Mayfield, MidlothianThe background was the culpable homicide of a 28 year oldmale outside the Rowantree Inn on 24 November 2013.The PlaceThe Rowantree Inn is a public house within the formermining area of Midlothian. Between October 2010 andNovember 2011, there were 17 separate incidents on thepremises requiring police intervention, including fourdisturbances involving multiple individuals; eight assaults andfive other miscellaneous licensing offences, including patronsrefusing to leave the premises and selling alcohol to underagepatrons.As a consequence, police asked the Local Licensing Boardto review the premises’ operating plan. The police supportedthis request with documentary evidence, oral testimony, andCCTV footage. The Board upheld the grounds for the reviewand reduced the Rowantree’s operating hours by one hour. TheRowantree Inn did not come to the attention of the police forany significant incident thereafter until the murder.The IncidentAt 2341 hours, the police received an emergency callreporting that a man had entered the Rowantree with a knife.He threatened the barmaid before a second man intervenedand with a group of other patrons ushered the first man out,into the adjacent car park.Within the car park, the disturbance resumed, and the firstman fatally stabbed the second. A full criminal investigationensued: the man responsible was convicted of culpablehomicide and is currently serving a custodial sentence.Licensing InterventionsTo prevent further violence, Royan considered the PSinternal Alcohol Licensing Toolkit, sought advice and supportfrom the National Licensing and Violence Reduction Policy Unit,and considered the contents of Eck’s ‘Crime Place and Pollution’article when developing his community impact assessment.From the 24 th the premises was a crime scene and waslocked down for forensic examination. By 29 November, thepolice were ready to hand the premises back to the owners.However, Royan identified a significant risk in the premisesbeing handed back on a Friday with all likelihood that it wouldre-open over the weekend. Community tensions were runningexceptionally high following the incident, particularly betweenthe two families involved and the Rowantree was a potentialscene of more trouble.Mindful of the limitations of an emergency closure, Royanconsidered other options. Through involvement in the LocalLicensing Forum, Police Scotland had developed an enhancedworking relationship with Midlothian’s Licensed Trade.Exploiting these positive working relationships, Royan invitedthe Premises Manager of the Rowantree Inn to a meeting. Atthis meeting police informed him that the property would bereturned but a licensing investigation still had to examine anymalpractice. Since community tensions were still high, Royanasked the premises manager if he would agree to closure untilthe 16 th December on a voluntary basis. This would allow fora full licensing investigation, community tensions to subside,and, a formal application for a closure order to be made toMidlothian Local Licensing Board.The premises manager agreed and the premises closedimmediately on a voluntary basis. This agreement was facilitatedby the positive working relationships developed among thelicensed trade, Licensing Forum, and police.On 13 December 2013, an application was made for a formalClosure Order. This was granted until the Local Licensing Boardcould hear from the police on their review of and suggestionsfor the premises operating plan. This was only the second formalclosure order to be granted within Scotland under this legislation.A month later, the Board upheld the reasons for the reviewand agreed to a full implementation of the conditions requestedby the police. These were that the Premises Licence Holdershould:v Be present on the Rowantree at all times that it is open.v Hire stewards to be on duty between 9pm and close ofbusiness every Friday and Saturday.v Pay for an independent review of stewarding needs, to thesatisfaction of the police.v Remove indoor and outdoor sports.v Keep an up-to-date incident book.The premises were only permitted to re-open after the reviewof stewarding was undertaken.After re-opening, the police conducted regular visits andinspections to ensure all conditions were being adhered to. Bythis time, community tensions had gone down.This case study deftly combined three dimensions ofregulation. The first is government: here the police and LocalLicensing Board. The second is ‘self-regulation’, and involves theorganisation or industry imposing rules upon themselves: herethe premises’ owner and representatives of the license trade.The third is community-based regulation: here the expandedLocal Licensing Forum (Grabosky, 2011). This case also illustratesthe interconnectedness of a problem-oriented approach andregulation (Sparrow, 2000). Finally, it shows that although theorybased on evidence is useful, practitioners must artfully apply thegeneral principles to local problems.Eck and Eck suggest that place management practices are inpart responsible for high crime and place managers can reducethe crime in their respective place. To achieve this, a regulatoryapproach can be useful. Through the application of specificlegislation the police and partners can apply regulatory controlover problematic premises. Finally, in this case, by requiring anindependent review of stewarding at the premises’ manager’sexpense, the burden of responsibility shifts towards placemanagers reducing crime.James Royan is a Chief Inspector with Police ScotlandJohn E. Eck is professor of criminal justice at theUniversity of CincinnatiEck J E and Eck E B (2012) “Crime Place and Pollution: Expanding CrimeReduction Options through a Regulatory Approach” Criminology and PublicPolicy. 11(2): 281-316.Grabosky P (2011) “On the interface of criminal justice and regulation”.In Quirk H, Seddon T and Smith G (eds.), Regulation and Criminal Justice:Developing a New Framework for Research and Policy Development. Cambridge:CUPSparrow M (2000) The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems, andManaging Compliance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.14 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

POLICING: LEARNING WITH OTHERSPOLICING MUST BE LOCAL, BUT ALSOINFORMED BY GLOBAL EXPERIENCEPaddy Tomkins, former Chief Constable of Lothianand Borders Police and head of HM Inspectorate ofConstabulary in Scotland, talks to Andy Aitchison, lecturerin Criminology at the University of Edinburgh about hiswork with the Serbian Ministry of the Interior (MUP).AA: You have spent twoyears working in Serbia.What were you trying toachieve?PT: To help them develop an evidencebasedapproach to making strategicdecisions in terms of constrained resources,and develop a more anticipatory approachto determining what the key challengesare likely to be. The minister, although notresponsible for operational policing, wasput in a position of making decisions thataffect, constrain and determine operationalpriorities, but on a very reactive basis.The other imperative for the MUP wasthat clearly everything is driven by thedetermination to become a member of theEU, including the adoption of models thatwe would be familiar with in Europol suchas intelligence led policing, risk assessmentmodels and so on.How welcome was yourpresence?PT: Within the ministry, the middlemanagement were very open to changehad seen processes working elsewhere,had seen the benefits that brought. Thepeople at the very top were more scepticaland questioning. I think that there wasactive resistance and some fearfulness.Pressures to change quite dramatically wereunnerving.Did you see thatscepticism change?PT: Yes. I think it’s about engagement andtalking, and helping people move from thegeneral to the specific with examples ofhow that would work in the Serbian context.What additional preparation did you have?PT: A trawl of various inputs, assessments, reports. Very few of those wereactually implemented and sustained. I don’t think that’s the fault of the beneficiarycountries. It’s a fault of the donor community many of whom work with littlereference to each other in a very complicated environment.So knowing this record, how did that shape yourapproach when you arrived in Serbia?PT: I looked at the strategic aim of the project, €1.5 m of public money, thinkingabout how I would work with key individuals and change agents or potentialchange agents to equip them to lead the process and have the confidence andtools to maintain momentum after I’d left.Who did you find were the most effective changeagents?PT: It was a very much knowledge-based power rather than rank-based power.In some cases at the top it was rank-based power, but below that you could havea very influential detective inspector getting the ear of the minister. Expertise wasvested throughout the hierarchy.Is that a contrast to Scottish policing in termsof how people can cross levels in order to shapechange?PT: It was much more based on personality and relationships and individualsthan I would expect to see in Scotland. Policing in Britain as a whole has vestedmuch more effort developing systems and investing in the systems withknowledge and doctrine. There is a degree of resilience built into the Scottishmodel.In terms of the task that you thought you weregoing out to do, how did that shift?PT: I realised that the development of the process needed to come second to ahearts and minds campaign. Relationships, mutual trust, and mutual respect arevery important. It is a huge mistake to go into any environment in internationaldevelopment saying that if we simply transfer the experience and the processesfrom one environment to another then things will get better.Primarily it’s about supporting the development of individuals to use thelessons from those processes and to develop their own processes that are mostappropriate to the environment within which they are working.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 15

Knowing everything you knownow, could you go back to 2011and give yourself one piece ofadvice, what would it be?PT: More patience! I was certainly naïve about thedegree to which we could invest the process of changewith the speed that I would have been familiar with inthe UK.I think that’s part of the development of opportunityfor us in Scotland. Yes, we have much to offer, but wehave much to learn as well. I would see this kind ofinteraction as not just simply giving something to Serbiaor another beneficiary country, but as a mutual benefit.The UK has a history of sendingpolice officers off to variousmissions. How well do you thinkwe prepare police officers forforeign deployment?PT: The people that do go are obviously a minority.They probably don’t receive the degree of trainingand support that they merit and don’t get theunderstanding about how powerful their role can be ininfluencing perceptions of Scottish or British expertiseand willingness to help others.I learned a great deal from the experience and I thinkthat would inevitably, were I still an operational policeofficer, help me think about the issues within differentcommunities within my own country when I came back.So for officers who are still serving at different levels,it can only enhance their empathy and their ability toengage with complex social and cultural challenges inScotland were they to be involved in this kind of activity.What are the big challengescoming up for the MUP and theSerbian police?PT: They have very major structural issues. Forexample, in Serbia the ratio of police to population wasabout twice that of Scotland. In common with otherpublic services they are there to help get people jobs.It leads to a lack of focus on what the roles of policeofficers are within society.There are huge operational challenges aroundserious organised crime. There are still significantinstabilities in the region and there is an increasingexpectation from EU police forces that their colleaguesin Serbia and elsewhere in the western Balkans willoperate at a level which they would expect from theirpeers.I’ve got absolutely no doubt about the competencyof the individuals but they need the right training,they need the right equipment, they need the rightintelligence databases and so on.Are there positive things in Serbianpolicing that you think we could learn fromhere?PT: I think that one of the key lessons is that they manage, with farfewer resources than we do, to deliver a policing service in which a verysignificant level of population have trust and faith. The processes, theequipment, the training, the physical resources, the estate are a longway behind those which we would consider minimal and yet they areinventive and adaptable and responsive in terms of how they still enforcethe law and engage with the public.Their lack of defined processes and intelligence-led modelssometimes gives them more freedom for movement than we would becomfortable with. That leads on to the issue of accountability. How doyou demonstrate accountability if you’re not clear what your standardsare? If you don’t have the systems to check the quality of data of crimereporting, how do you hold the police service to account? So, they findmore informal and individually focused approaches for holding peopleto account.What now?PT: I continue to work with Serbia and the western Balkans, but it’sencouraged me to engage in other areas. For example, I’m invited todeliver a symposium in Mexico City talking about police reform, policeaccountability, police governance, in a very different environment withvery profound operational challenges.Scotland’s own experience of profound reform has given me andothers a lot of confidence to say that our insights and our experiencesare valued just as we should value those of others. The more we do toengage in and promote a dialogue between countries in the discipline ofpolicing, the more our respective communities will benefit.Where do you see the relationship betweenpolice and democracy?PT: From my perspective the police service is absolutely core to theeffective operation of any democracy worthy of the name, principallybecause it should give the public the confidence to participate in thedemocratic process: to be able to expect a certain level of service fromthe government; to hold to account that public service; to question thatpublic service. That’s what we seek in Scotland.There will be a sense of confidence in Scotland that one couldquestion, confront, and challenge policing decisions, the senior leadersof policing, and the relevant politicians and civil servants.Thank you. Is anything else you feel thatyou would like to add?PT: Policing must be local, but it must be informed by globalexperience. The more we do at all levels, not just operationally, butin training, development, exchanges and so on to help our peopleunderstand what it’s like to work in different environments with differentconstraints and different expectations, can only be beneficial and Iwould like to see that opportunity extended to others and possiblyearlier in their careers so they can actually apply it to practice here.A fuller version of this interview is available on the website and on SoundCloud.16 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

POLICING: LEARNING WITH OTHERSCRIME PREVENTION AND THEDEVELOPMENT OF THE SAFERCOMMUNITIES EVIDENCEMATRIX SCOTLAND (SCEMS)Liz Aston and Cynthia LumTHE Safer Communities EvidenceMatrix Scotland (SCEMS) is a knowledgeexchange tool which aims to provideeasy access to evidence on policing andcommunity safety from Scotland andfarther afield. It has emerged againstthe backdrop of a collaborative workingarrangement between the ScottishInstitute for Policing Research (SIPR)and the Center for Evidence-BasedCrime Policy (CEBCP) at George MasonUniversity (GMU). The collaborationformed from SIPR and CEBCP’s mutualinterest and leadership in not onlygenerating impactful research, buttranslating and exchanging researchand analysis into practical outputs forpolicing.A Shared Interest: translating researchevidence and the evidence-basedpolicing matrixOne of CEBCP’s tools became afocus in this exchange – the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix (Lum, 2009; Lumet al., 2011). Developed by the CEBCP’sdirector Cynthia Lum and her colleagueswith the support of the US Departmentof Justice, the Matrix is an interactiveweb-based tool which houses all policecrime-control intervention researchof moderate to high methodologicalquality, designed to provide lawenforcement officials with easy accessto the research knowledge on effectivecrime prevention measures. Throughthe Matrix, the authors collect, store,summarise, visualise and generalisefrom high quality evaluations of policecrime control measures, updating it eachyear. The overall goal is to facilitate theuse of existing knowledge in policing,and to serve as a resource for agenciesin developing strategies and tactics fortheir own needs that have elements ofsuccessful interventions.To achieve this, the Matrix classifiesand maps rigorous evaluations of policeinterventions (see http://cebcp.org/evidence-based-policing/the-matrix/)based on three very common dimensionsof crime prevention strategies: the natureand type of target, the degree to whichthe strategy is reactive or proactive, andhow tailored a strategy is to a particularproblem. Doing this allows clusters ofstudies and their findings to emergerevealing generalisations about crimeprevention tactics that the police candeploy. For example, law enforcementofficers are more likely to make animpact on crime when they designtactics that are place-based (rather thanfocused only on individuals), proactive(for example, using crime analysis toanticipate problems) and focused ortailored to a particular problem at hand.The Matrix has become a startingpoint in disseminating informationfrom a large body of research in afree and user-friendly online formatto police officers. Further, by filteringfor research with at least a moderatethreshold of methodological quality, theMatrix provided the law enforcementcommunity with the most reliableinformation on evaluated crimeprevention efforts by the police.How has the Safer CommunitiesEvidence Matrix Scotland (SCEMS)developed?SCEMS began in the context of policereform, with similar goals of linkingresearch with practice. In late 2011, thethen lead of the Reform Team’s LocalPolicing Work Stream approached Prof.Ken Scott and Dr Liz Aston for adviceon best practice in local policing. Scottand Aston applied for and received aSIPR ‘Improving Police Action throughKnowledge Transfer’ grant, and during2012 attended the ACPOS Local PolicingWorking Group meetings and providedadvice on evidence relating to goodpractice in local policing. After hearingabout the Matrix at a SIPR /ScottishGovernment event, Scott and Astondecided to develop a similar knowledgetranslationtool on research related tolocal policing, which developed intothe Scottish Local Policing EvidenceDatabase (SLoPED).Having looked at Lum et al.’s Matrix, itwas clear that some amendments wouldneed to be made in order to developsomething which would be suited tothe Scottish context. For example, theMatrix includes only those studies whichare at least quasi-experimental (thatis, at a minimum, the intervention wastested with the presence of a comparablecomparison group) or that use rigoroustime series methods. However, similarstudies on policing interventions at thatmethodological threshold in Scotland arescarce.A decision was made to includegrey literature from the Scottish contextand studies which use a broader rangeof methods, including qualitativeresearch and ‘conceptual’ pieces suchas literature reviews and theoretical orpolicy documents. In order to reflectthe principles of the Police and FireReform Scotland Act (2012), the focusmoved beyond crime reduction asthe sole outcome of interest to alsoinclude community engagement andpartnership working (Aston and Scott,2013). However, the intention of SLoPEDmirrored the Matrix - to provide keymessages from the body of relevantliterature that could be easily accessed bypolice practitioners.Subsequently it became apparentthat the idea appealed to organisationsbeyond the Police, and a decision wasScottish Justice Matters : June 2015 17

made to look at broadening the scope beyond local policing, and developing it inline with the Building Safer Communities agenda. In 2014, Aston and Scott receiveda small SIPR grant to conduct a scoping exercise on the development of the SaferCommunities Evidence Matrix Scotland (SCEMS). As a result the remit has beenexpanded beyond the policing principles, so in addition to ‘community engagement’,‘crime reduction’ and ‘partnership working’ the Y axis now includes ‘harm reduction’and ‘reducing reoffending’ (see Figure 1 and Aston et al., 2015).It was clear that a user should also be able to gain a visual message andgeneralisations from the research when they look at SCEMS and how entries aredistributed. Therefore, the X axis now reflects the ‘policing approach’, on a scale from‘reactive’, to ‘proactive’ and ‘highly proactive’. Additionally, the SCEMS takes inspirationfrom the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research’s ‘Security of Mega EventsResearch Grid’ (SCCJR /Hamilton-Smith et al. 2015). The intention is that SCEMS willbecome a dynamic matrix which will also show, for example, how successful policestrategies are, the scope of the research (such as individuals, groups, communities andso on) and the research methodology employed (see Figure 1 below).Figure 1 The Safer Communities Evidence Matrix ScotlandWhat are the next steps for SCEMS?Police Scotland and partners have welcomed the development of a system whichwould allow users to readily access relevant research and help guide them as they seekto address policing and community safety challenges. Thus far one focus group hasbeen conducted with a selection of local stakeholders (various representatives fromPolice Scotland, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Scottish Government, EdinburghCity Council, and Lothian and Borders Community Justice Authority). Partners are keenon the idea of having a single place where evidence relating to safer communitiescan be accessed and used to inform decisions about what course of action to take.Various helpful suggestions were made, particularly in relation to additional ways inwhich entries could be classified in order to filter searches, for example, by timescale ofintervention, target population, age, and geographical area. The intention is to pursuefunding which would support the development of SCEMS and enable its delivery as afully functioning and accessible tool for use by the police and partner organisations.The development phase would involve further consultation with a broader range ofusers (front line practitioners and managers in a range of organisations), focusing ontheir requirements.At the outset, the reform of Scottish policing understandably concentrated on restructuringand delivering cost savings. However, two years on there is a need to focuson evidence based policing, in particular learning from best research and practicein relation to the delivery of local policing. Indeed, moving towards using what weknow from research evidence to develop strategies that can prevent crime, reduceharm, improve community relationsand increase partnership workingcontributes to cost-effectiveness. Thereshould also be an emphasis on ensuringthat the principles enshrined in thePolice and Fire Reform Scotland Actare upheld and underpin the activityof Police Scotland and its partners. Thisinvolves community engagement andpartnership working, and in this contextit is argued that the developmentand use of a tool like SCEMS becomesextremely important.Most significantly, this endeavourand other exchanges between SIPR andthe CEBCP highlight the importanceof international partnerships and thesharing of ideas between scholarsand practitioners. Although eachcountry seems on the surface vastlydifferent with regard to their policingpractices, digging deeper reveals manymore shared interests and commonchallenges.Dr Liz Aston is senior lecturer inCriminology and subject groupleader for Social Sciences atEdinburgh Napier University.Dr Cynthia Lum is associateprofessor and director of theCentre for Evidence Based CrimePolicy at George Mason University,Virginia USA.Aston E and Scott K (2013) ‘Developing anEvidence Base for Local Policing in Scotland’,Scottish Institute for Policing Research BriefingPaper No.13 http://www.sipr.ac.uk/downloads/Briefing13.pdfAston E, Currie N, Kukla R and Scott K (2015)‘Scoping Exercise for the Safer CommunitiesEvidence Matrix Scotland (SCEMS)’ SIPR AnnualReport 2014 http://www.sipr.ac.uk/downloads/SIPR_Annual_Report_14.pdfLum C (2009) Translating police research intopractice. Ideas in American Policing LectureSeries. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.Lum C, Koper C and Telep C (2011) TheEvidence-Based Policing Matrix. Journal ofExperimental Criminology, 7, 3-26.Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.Section 32. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2012/8/contents/enactedSCCJR / Hamilton-Smith, N., Mackenzie, S.,Burman, M. and Fyfe, N. (2014) ‘The Governanceof Security and the Analysis of Risk for SportingMega Events’.http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/projects/g2014/.18 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

POLICING: LEARNING WITH OTHERSPOLICINGANTISOCIALBEHAVIOUR INRURAL SCOTLANDAndrew WooffANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (ASB) policy and discoursehas been developed within and focused upon urbanareas, yet 94% of Scotland’s space is classed as ‘rural’.By examining the distinctive ways in which rural policeofficers respond to ASB it is possible to gain insights intobroader rural social processes and to argue that the ruralcontext is a key consideration when thinking about theway that the policing of ASB is carried out throughoutScotland. This has become particularly pertinent sincethe creation of Police Scotland, given that the focus oncentralisation has significantly altered the level at whichstrategic decisions are made. The policing of ASB in ruralareas has been entirely absent from academic and policydebates.Policing rural Scotland can be challenging, not onlybecause the police are often located remotely fromthe communities that they serve, but also becauseof the sheer size of rural policing beats. Yet, the ruralcontext plays a key part of understanding the policeresponse to ASB in rural Scotland (Wooff, 2015). It offersopportunities for the police to respond in local, contextdependent ways which often amount to a ‘softer’ policingresponse than that in urban areas. In this article I useresearch findings from my ESRC-funded PhD projectwhich involved 80 hours of participant observation, 33interviews and eight focus groups across the two casestudy locations to evidence this before going on toconsider the impact of Police Scotland on rural policing.Rural context and policingMy research suggests that the rural context impacts on policingin a number of ways. First, rural police officers tend to negotiate themaintenance of order in response to ASB in rural communities, bothat macro and micro scales. The large areas involved in their the beatmeans that officers often have little choice other than to negotiateorder because back-up is a long-distance away and transportingdetainees to the nearest police cells takes a long time:The distance you are from custody, like here in [fieldwork site]you are at least an hour round to take someone to custody [...] youneed to box cleverer here. Particularly with disturbances, becausethe nearest backup might be half an hour away ... by blue light (PoliceInspector)At the micro-scale, rural police officers frequently live and workin the community that they police, which means many officers havean embedded knowledge and understanding of the community theypolice and the associated challenges. This added situated knowledgeoften enables a softer policing response, whereby communitysolutions are sought to deal with low-key ASB in a more fundamentalmanner than in urban locations.One of the ways that ‘softer’ policing happens is through the useof discretion. There is not the space to go through the argumentsrelating to discretion and policing here, but the rural contextappears to promote it. In a US study Weisheit et al. (2005) note thatrural officers tend to do activities which not only vary more butare also more wide-ranging than their urban colleagues, typicallyemphasising crime prevention over enforcement. Also in the US,Payne et al. (2005) suggest that this is in part because the physicalScottish Justice Matters : June 2015 19

distances involved means that discretion is used in ways to facilitatea choice between enforcement and other interventions. Forexample, in ScotlandDiscretion is vital. It is trying to weigh up - [the officer] will makethat assessment themselves, you know is something serious enoughthat we can’t ignore it by just giving a warning [...] So whilst there arethings we can’t have discretion over - drink drivers for example - wehave no discretion over this nor should we ... but there might beinstances where maybe someone in [name of city] doing the samething will get the jail where here they won’t ... (Police Inspector).there are distinct spatial challengesassociated with rural policing which meanthat it is necessary for officers to use theirdiscretion when responding to ASBAlthough it is imperative not to fall into idyllised notions of ruralpolicing, there are distinct spatial challenges associated with ruralpolicing which mean that it is necessary for officers to use theirdiscretion when responding to ASB. The knowledge officers have ofthe situation they are policing means that they can often respondby using their discretion and community-based knowledge in a waythat is less possible to do in urban based situations. It is important,however, to acknowledge that rural Scotland is not a uniform spaceand therefore there are different geographic challenges associatedwith policing different rural communities. In particular, differentcommunities require different policing responses depending oninformal community structures already in place. In remote ruralcommunities with active community groups, for example, thepolicing response to ASB varies from an accessibly rural communitywith a high percentage of social housing.The use of discretion and negotiated order maintenancetherefore relies on police-community relationships and knowledgein rural communities. This is impacted upon by the type of ruralcommunity and the length of time the officer has been policingthe community and consequently the intimate knowledge thatthey have of the community. It is therefore important as a ruralcommunity officer, to understand how the rural context impacts onthese relationships. As Fenwick et al. (2011) note, many rural policeofficers are required to ‘think on their feet’ and interact with thecommunity in a different manner than their urban colleagues. As acommunity officer noted:I have what I call ‘the monthly tea spots’, these are people in thecommunity who have the gossip and know what’s going on - infothat’s very useful to me. So I pop by Miss H’s, sit down, have a cuppa... that way she thinks she’s getting good service and I get to hearabout all that’s been going on ... (Community police officer).Indeed, the fact that many officers live and work in thecommunities they police means that they have a situated, informalknowledge about different people, their circumstances and the waythat different local factors interact. Drawing on this informationallows embedded community police officers to negotiate order andrespond to ASB in ways which are more nuanced. Rural policingtherefore presents greater opportunity to govern through the social,where soft policing skills are used to a greater degree. It is importantnot to over generalise, this is not something which happens inevery rural community and is dependent on structural policingdecisions such as how long a community officer works ina rural community and whether the officer has a situatedknowledge gained by living in the community that theypolice. Additionally, different rural communities havedifferent challenges related to ASB which require locallydeveloped and implemented policing response strategies.Nevertheless, I would argue that rural communitiespresent greater opportunities for the police to respond inless formalised ways to ASB, negotiating order and usingtheir discretion to a greater degree.It is also important to remember that rural Scotland isa diverse environment, which requires different policingresponses in different communities and an understandingof the complexities of policing over large areas. PoliceScotland has provided a number of opportunities,particularly in relation to standardising policing deliveryat a national scale. However, there are also challengesassociated with this approach, in particular, the (potential)to undermine the more nuanced approach to policingdescribed here. There are distinctive elements associatedwith rural policing, notably a lack of nearby back-up anda situated knowledge of the community which makesdiscretion a more likely route in responding to ASB.This has important research and policy implicationsbecause given that large tracts of Scotland are considered‘rural’, there has been a relative dearth of work examiningthe police in these contexts. By better understandingthe spatiality of the police in rural communities andtheir response to ASB over space, resources can be moreappropriately dispatched. This is particularly importantin relation to the introduction of the single police forcein Scotland, where there are concerns that the local, ruralpolicing context has been diluted by the centralisation ofpower and control. Although at a strategic level this maybe beneficial, as this article has highlighted, it is importantthat a degree of localised policing decision making ispreserved and enabled within the national structure.Additionally, rural policing should be considered a corepart of the skill set of Scottish police officers, a part of thepolicing craft which relies on ‘softer’ policing skills.Andrew Wooff has recently been appointed asa lecturer in Criminology at Edinburgh NapierUniversity.Fenwick T, Dockrell R, Slade B, Roberts I (2011) Rural policing:Understanding police knowledge and practice in rural communities,SIPR Research Summary No. 10. http://www.sipr.ac.uk/downloads/Research_Summaries/Research_Summary_10.pdf , last accessed18/05/15Payne B K, Berg B L, Sun I Y (2005) Policing in small town America:Dogs, drunks, disorder, and dysfunction. Journal of Criminal Justice33, 31–41.Weisheit R, Falcone D, Wells L (2005) Crime and policing in rural andsmall town America. Prospect Heights, Waveland.Wooff A (2015) Relationships and responses: Policing anti-socialbehaviour in rural Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies.(forthcoming).20 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

POLICINGREFORM, RESEARCHAND ‘RE-INVENTION’Nick Fyfe and Alistair Henry with some final reflections on Scottish policingIN A PIECE on ‘Reinventing policing’, Peter Neyroudobserves how fundamental changes are currently re-shapingpolice organisations in many states across the globe:States both old and new, across the developed anddeveloping world, are undertaking police reformsto transform policing. Sometimes this is because themoney has run out, sometimes because the governmentrecognizes a need to rebuild the legitimacy of police forces… This is both an age of “austerity” and reform (Neyroud,2012: 315).These comments are an important reminder thatdevelopments in Scotland are part of a broader set of reformsto policing that are occurring internationally. In this finalcontribution we place the changes in Scotland in this broadercontext, underlining the differences in the trajectories of reformacross the UK but also the underlying similarities in terms ofthe pressure to mobilise research evidence to demonstrate theefficiency, effectiveness and professionalism of policing. Takingup Neyroud’s theme of ‘reinventing policing’, we conclude withsome observations on the opportunities for the ‘re-invention’of Scottish policing.Viewed against the back drop of UK policing,developments within Scotland present a starkly differenttrajectory of policy change compared with England and Wales.While in both jurisdictions the reforms have been framed bythe economic challenges of declining budgets, there are atleast two key points of difference. The approach in Englandand Wales has been strongly informed by a politics of localismfocused on replacing centrally driven forms of ‘bureaucraticaccountability’ in policing with a much stronger role for local‘democratic accountability’ through locally elected Policeand Crime Commissioners (PCCs). In Scotland, by contrast, thepolicy discourse has focused on the economic and technocraticrationale for reform and changes to the governance of policinghave involved the replacement of locally elected policeauthorities with a nationally selected body, the Scottish PoliceAuthority. Where in England and Wales the overarching politicalobjectives of police reform appears to centre on transferringpower over policing to locally elected politicians, the ScottishGovernment’s strategic objectives for Police Scotland are morewide ranging and include reducing duplication, strengtheningconnections with local communities, and using the capacityand capability of a national force to improve access to specialistexpertise.A second important and related difference within the UKpolice reform agenda concerns the political narrative aroundwhat the police are for. In England and Wales, the HomeSecretary has made it clear that the focus must be crimereduction and that the mission of the police articulated in thenineteenth century by Sir Robert Peel as one of preventingcrime and disorder has not fundamentally changed. InScotland, the reform programme has been used as anopportunity to articulate a set of new ‘Policing Principles’within the Police and Fire Reform Act, in which the emphasis oncrime and disorder is subsumed within a broader statement ofthe policing mission as being to ‘improve safety and well-beingof persons, localities and communities’ in ways which engagewith communities and promote measures to prevent crime,harm and disorder.Viewed against the back drop of UKpolicing, developments within Scotlandpresent a starkly different trajectory ofpolicy change compared with Englandand WalesUnderlying these differences in the trajectories of policereform within the UK, however, there are in fact very similareconomic and political pressures to enhance the efficiency,effectiveness and professionalism of policing. One importantresponse to these pressures there has been an increasingemphasis on the need to develop evidence-based policingand make greater use of research about ‘what works’. Theidentification of evidence of effective and cost-efficientpractices and policies is viewed essential ‘if policing is to gainlegitimacy and secure investment in an increasingly scepticalworld of public services in which the competition for publicfinance is growing ever more acute’(Ayling, Grabosky, andShearing, 2009). The processes of embedding evidence-basedpolicing are, however, far from straightforward. Bullock andTilley (2009) highlight how there is often disagreement aboutwhat counts as evidence of effective practice, as well as furtherorganisational constraints facing practitioners in terms of alack of support for them to engage with research that might beseen as a threat to professional and ‘craft’ expertise.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 21

Nevertheless, the combined impacts of austerity, reformand the desire to enhance police professionalism haveprompted a renewed interest in developing the evidence basefor policing. In Scotland this is exemplified by the establishmentof the Scottish Institute for Policing Research (SIPR) in 2007 asa strategic partnership between universities and the policeservice as a new way of connecting research and practice.Now recognised internationally as a model of best practice ofpolice-academic collaboration (see Engel and Henderson, 2014;Fyfe and Wilson, 2012), SIPR is encouraging the co-productionof research between practitioners and researchers and aculture of engagement between research ‘users’ and research‘providers’. These activities are important because they yieldthe kind of sustained involvement of practitioners and policymakers in the research process that facilitates a better mutualunderstanding of the different worlds of police organisationsand academia. These activities also help illuminate the ways inwhich research can play a number of different roles in relationto policing, ranging from building knowledge around the (in)effectiveness of practices, initiatives or processes (and howthey are experienced) and supporting organisational problemsolving,through to stimulating deep thinking about practice,about exploring alternative possibilities and future trajectories,all of which might productively challenge how the problemsthemselves are and ought to be ‘framed’. Nutley, Walter andDavies (2007) call this the ‘enlightenment’ model. Thinkingabout research in this way suggests that its function shouldnot just be thought of in instrumental terms (‘can it help outwith this problem?’), it can also play a role in shaping thevalues and aims of practice. Indeed, the research process itself,particularly when it involves collaboration between researchersand practitioners, plays a role in this ‘enlightenment’ throughthe very openness and transparency that such an enterpriserequires.the combined impacts of austerity,reform and the desire to enhancepolice professionalism have prompteda renewed interest in developing theevidence base for policingRecognising that research may be useful for differentreasons is liberating because it reminds us to value differentmethodological approaches and what they can individuallyand collectively add to our understanding. The contributions tothis issue of Scottish Justice Matters demonstrate that breadthof different types of research, from Randomised ControlledTrials (RCTs) to more qualitative approaches. SIPR has alsoembraced different ways of connecting research and practicethat range from support for the ‘research-based practitioner’via collaborative research projects that provide opportunitiesto build grass roots interest in the use of evidence to informpractice (as the Royan and Eck piece illustrates), to an‘embedded research’ model where research use is achievedby embedding findings into formal policies and processes ofan organisation (as exemplified by the procedural justice ideasembedded into the protocols of Road Traffic Officers and thetraining provided to probations at the Scottish Police Collegeas discussed in MacQueen and Bradford’s and Robertson andM c Millan’s articles).Finally, the growing evidence base around policing inScotland combined with the opportunities for change createdby police reform create significant scope for ‘reinventing’policing in ways which align with the ‘Policing Principles’ setout in the Police and Fire Reform Act. As discussed above, theseprinciples focus on the need for prevention and partnershipand for the police to be accessible to and engaged withlocal communities. Such principles strongly resonate withkey messages from the accumulated international researchevidence on police effectiveness, evidence which placesa focus on prevention and community confidence as thecore requirements of contemporary policing in advanceddemocratic societies (Lum and Nagin, 2015). There is, of course,a long and strong tradition within Scottish policing of a focuson prevention and community engagement but there is nowscope to build on this in ways which are informed by cuttingedgeresearch of ‘what works’ to reduce harm and increasetrust and confidence in policing. Such evidence informedapproaches, supported by an infrastructure of independentresearch and evaluation, can provide the foundations forScotland to be seen as a world-leader in policing.Nick Fyfe is director of SIPR and professor in theSchool of Social Sciences, University of Dundee.Alistair Henry is an associate director of SIPR (leadingthe Police-Community Relations network) and alecturer in criminology in the Law School, University ofEdinburgh.Ayling J, Grabosky P and Shearing C (2009), Lengthening the Arm of theLaw: Enhancing Police Resources in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Bullock K and Tilley N (2009) ‘Evidence-based policing and crimereduction’, Policing: a journal of policy and practice, 3(4), 381-387.Engel R and Henderson S (2014) ‘Beyond rhetoric: establishing policeacademicpartnerships that work’, in J.Brown (ed) The Future of Policing.London: Routledge, 217-236.Fyfe N R and Wilson P (2012) ‘Knowledge exchange and police practice:broadening and deepening the debate around researcher-practitionercollaborations’, Police Practice and Research: an International Journal, 13(4),306-314.Lum C and Nagin D (2015) Reinventing American Policing: A six-pointblueprint for the 21st century, Crime and Justice: A review of Research,Chicago, IL, University of ChicagoNeyroud P (2012) ‘Reinventing policing – a call for debate’, Policing: ajournal of policy and practice, 6(4), 316-316.Nutley S, Walter I and Davies HTO (2007) Using Evidence: How Research CanInform Public Services. Bristol: Policy Press.22 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

CURRENT ISSUESFUNDING AND THIRDSECTOR ORGANISATIONSWORKING WITH OFFENDERSsome observations fromScandinavia and ScotlandMaija HelminenTHERE IS growing interest in making better use ofthe services offered by third sector organisations (TSOs)in criminal justice. The use of TSOs is often justified witharguments such as this:The third sector has a number of unique and positiveattributes that differentiates it from the public and privatesector. A distinctive feature . . . is that it is value driven,characterised by a strong sense of ethics and prioritisesthe needs of people over all other objectives … (TheRobertson Trust 2012, 2)TSOs are understood to be more responsive to the needsof individual offenders, less bureaucratic and able to findmore innovative ways of working than the public sector.However, in England and Wales, several commentators haveworried that the way in which the government is deployingthe services of the TSOs, via contractual agreements, is, in fact,nullifying such benefits. For example, contract-based fundingis seen as a threat to the work of TSOs, because it tends to beless open-ended than grants, which historically have providedthe core of TSOs’ income. Contracts are thought to reducethe possibilities of the TSOs to engage in innovative andflexible ways of working. Furthermore, commentators havesuggested that acting as a service provider to the criminaljustice system will hamper the abilities of the TSOs to criticisegovernment policies and represent the interest of their clientsin policy-making (Mythen et al. 2013; Maguire 2012; Neilson2009; Corcoran 2009; Vennard and Hedderman 2009. For theopposite view, see Tomczak 2013).The potential effects of contract funding for TSOs workingwith offenders have received little attention apart from inEngland and Wales, although contracts as a way of funding TSOsare becoming more important, particularly in the area of healthand social care. As a part of my doctoral research, I examined thesituation of TSOs working with offenders in relation to contractfundingin my home country, Finland, and in two other rathersimilar countries, in Norway and in Sweden. I also includedScotland in my study to compare accounts of third sectorrepresentatives from different ‘civil society regimes’ (Enjolras andSivesind, 2009). I selected the following, most significant TSOsworking with offenders for study: KRIS Finland and KRIS Sweden(‘Criminals’ Return In to Society’), Probation Foundation Finland(PFF), Wayback (Norway), X-Cons from Sweden, and Apex andSacro from Scotland.These TSOs are fairly different in terms of their approaches.The two CRIS organisations, Wayback and X-Cons are so-calledpeer support organisations: the services and support that theyoffered was based on the idea that released convicts supportother releasing convicts in their return into the society. As a rule,the peer support organisations employed only those who hadtheir own background in criminality and/or substance abuse.The two Scottish organisations and the Finnish PFF, on the otherhand, were based on services and support offered by social workprofessionals, although they also had a few employees as socalledpeer mentors.The organisations differed also in terms of funding. TheScottish TSOs were funded mainly via contracts with localauthorities, and the Nordic TSOs had both contracts and grantScottish Justice Matters : June 2015 23

funding. In addition, volunteering also constituted a significantresource for the peer support organisations. In all of thecountries, TSOs are significant actors in supporting releasingprisoners and other ex-offenders. This is true particularly for theNordic countries, in which there is a lack of specialised throughor aftercare services offered by the state.Interviewees’ views concerning the overall appropriatenessof contracts as a funding source differed. However, therewere no clear-cut differences between representatives fromdifferent countries. In fact, interestingly, the intervieweesfrom the two Scottish organisations represented exactly theopposite views about the appropriateness of contracts as away of funding their services. Whereas the interviewee fromApex found several problems in relation to providing servicesto their clients via contracts, the interviewee from Sacrodid not recognise such problems. For example, Apex hadoften encountered situations in which it was unable to offerclients such help that it considered essential as the servicewas not specified in the contract it was delivering. Efforts toachieve certain outcomes stipulated in the contracts maydrive the organisation to ‘cherry-picking’ its clients, thus leaveout the hard cases and take in the easier ones. In contrast,the interviewee from Sacro was confident about the abilityof the organisation to work in the contract environment.Nevertheless, despite of the problems highlighted, both of theScottish TSOs were willing to continue working via contracts,which may be because other available means of fundingwere very scarce. The Nordic interviewees generally preferredtheir organisations to be funded via grants. For instance, theinformant from Finnish CRIS justified this view by noting thatthe organisation would lose its character, if it increased servicedeliveryto the public sector.TSOs are understood to be moreresponsive to the needs of individualoffenders, less bureaucratic andable to find more innovative ways ofworking than the public sectorHowever, interviewees generally considered that contractsas such did not restrict organisations’ abilities to influence andengage in policy-work. It seemed that rather than servicedeliverycontracts, it was generally the role of these TSOs ascooperative partners of the public sector that restricted theirability to influence and criticise. For instance, the intervieweesfrom the Swedish KRIS, which in comparison to the ScottishTSOs was much less dependent on contracts, related that theorganisation was never able to criticise the prison system in theway they would have liked to, as if they did, the prisons wouldnot let the organisation to visit prisoners. It can therefore bequestioned as to whether TSOs that engage in practical workwith offenders are ever able to operate in such ‘watch dogroles’ we would expect.The interviewees disclosed also other difficulties in relationto policy-work. For instance, the Scottish representatives, inparticular, highlighted that their capacity to influence policymakersis strongly linked to their ability to provide researchevidence but this is again was connected to their ability to wincontracts.Nevertheless, the most burning problems concerningcontract funding seemed to relate to the abilities of the TSOs toperform meaningful practical work with their clients, althoughit was interesting to note how differently interviewees evenfrom same countries experienced contracts. Consequently, thismay make it difficult for those that do experience problemsto oppose the system, if their colleagues in other TSOs donot recognise similar problems. Opposing can be particularlydifficult for the smaller TSOs, if the larger organisations havingmore influence and power do not share the experiences of theircolleagues.New forms of contracting have emerged, which providemore opportunities for TSOs to influence the content of theservices they provide, such as the Public Social Partnershipmodels introduced by the Scottish Government (see RobStrachan’s article in the March 2014 SJM). Such models mayenable provision of more meaningful services for the clients.Yet, these partnership models probably do not make it anyeasier for the TSOs to retain their ‘alternativeness’ in the eyesof their clients, which undeniably is one of the most importantassets that TSOs have in the work with offenders.Finally, I would like to point out that the views reported donot represent the situation of the whole sector. Nonetheless, itis important to stay attentive to the experiences of these largeactors and to any barriers and disincentives to their willingnessto have an independent voice.Maija Helminen is a doctoral candidate at theFaculty of Law, University of Turku, Finland. Currently,she is examining the involvement of Finnish TSOs indecision-making processes in the area of criminalpolicy.Enjolras B and Sivesind K H (2009) ‘Preface’, Comparative Social Research, 26,xi–xiv.Corcoran M (2009) ‘Bringing the penal voluntary sector to market’, CriminalJustice Matters, 77, 32–33.Maguire M (2012) ‘Response 1: Big Society, the voluntary sector and themarketization of criminal justice’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 12,483–494.Mythen G, Walklate S and Kemshall H (2013) ‘Decentralizing risk: The roleof the voluntary and community sector in the management of offenders’,Criminology and Criminal Justice, 13, 363–379.Neilson A (2009) ‘A Crisis of Identity: Nacro’s Bid to Run a Prison and What itMeans for the Voluntary Sector’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 48,401–410.Robertson Trust (2012) Why Involve the Third Sector in Reducing Reoffending?Available at http://www.therobertsontrust.org.uk/news-publications/publications/why-involve-the-third-sector-in-reducing-reoffendingVennard J and Hedderman C (2009) ‘Helping offenders into employment:How far is voluntary sector expertise valued in a contracting-outenvironment?’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9, 225–245.Tomczak P J.(2013) ‘The penal voluntary sector in England and Wales:Beyond neoliberalism?’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 14, 470–486.24 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

CURRENT ISSUESCOPING WITHVICTIMISATIONtrauma and thecriminal justiceresearcherStephanie FohringTHE NOVELTY of the raisedeyebrows, expressions of surpriseand intrigue that inevitably follow myresponse to the now dreaded dinnerparty question, ‘So, what do you do?’wears off quickly. As the conversationcontinues, and I am likely relishing inthe opportunity to talk about myself, oreven more so, my research, my work withvictims of crime inevitably comes up.‘That must be hard’, and the truth is, it is.When imagining your future as ayoung researcher, you do not often stopto consider the impact on oneself ofworking in criminal justice and forensicsettings. Of course, academics are notthe only, or I imagine, the most intenselyexposed to difficult work scenarios; socialworkers, police officers, prison and paroleofficers, nurses, doctors and numerousclinicians all must cope with the burdenof working with difficult populations.Although all bound by involvementone way or another with criminal justice,people in these professions are likelyto have very different resources andapproaches, both at a personal level andan organisational level, for coping withthe emotional stress. Poor coping in thiscase may be referred to as ‘burnout’:the psychological strain associated withworking in difficult situations. Whilecontributing factors include professionalisolation, the emotional drain of alwaysbeing empathetic, ambiguous successes,and failure to live up to one’s ownand others’ expectations, symptomsmay manifest as depression, cynicism,boredom, loss of compassion, anddiscouragement. All these are common,and thus very possibly overlooked,problems for anyone working in aresearch focused, competitive academicenvironment.That said, the potential effects ofworking with trauma survivors aredistinct from those of working withother difficult populations, as theclinician, caseworker, or in this case,researcher, is exposed to the emotionallyshocking images and suffering that arecharacteristic of serious trauma (M c Cannand Pearlman, 1990). For example, thefirst interview I conducted for my presentresearch was with a young woman whosuffers from an illness which has left herphysically disabled. I was admittedlyunprepared for the harrowing accountof years of sexual abuse by her carers,culminating in the death of her resultantchild. A later interview with a womanwho had suffered the murder of herhusband left my professional transcriberin tears.Impact of traumaExposure to such material mayresult in one of two similar yet distinctillnesses: Vicarious Trauma (VT) andSecondary Traumatic Stress (STS). VTrefers to pervasive, cumulative, andpermanent harmful changes that occurin a professionals’ views of themselves,others, and the world around them asa result of exposure to graphic and/or traumatic material. This definitionin itself is strikingly familiar to theorysurrounding the impact of crime.Victimisation is thought to be sodisruptive because it challenges at afundamental level our beliefs in a safeand benevolent world, and of ourselvesas good (and hence undeserving) people(Janoff-Bulman, 1992).STS on the other hand, is a disorderexperienced by those supporting orhelping persons suffering specificallyfrom Post Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD). The focus here is not specificallyon cognitive phenomenon as in thecase of VT, but on a wider spectrumof experiences directly linked to thesymptoms of PTSD. Over the course ofmy own recent research conducting indepthinterviews with victims of crime,and the resultant process of coping withwhat I was hearing, I began to realiseScottish Justice Matters : June 2015 25

many parallels between my own reactions and those of thevictims I was studying. I was (un)fortunately not the first tomake this connection. The trauma literature is quick to pointout that the process of working through vicarious traumaparallels the therapeutic process with victims. Coping withcriminal victimisation is a very personal experience, as is copingwith any challenging life event, and each victim, each person,will have different strategies and different resources availableto cope with any trauma or challenge. Although the scale ofimpact tends to differ from victim to victim or person to person,ranging from little to no impact, to severe and debilitating, thetype of impact tends to be similar. For example, the victim of ahousebreaking may find it difficult to sleep for a night or twoafter the incident, whereas a victim of a sexual assault may behindered by nightmares for years to come.Coping as a researcherSymptoms of VT or STS may be the culmination ofcontinual exposure to traumatic material that can no longerbe assimilated into one’s world view or worked through:in other words, the inability to process further traumaticmaterial. Whether these changes are ultimately destructiveto the researcher depends, in large part, on the extent towhich they are able to engage in a parallel process to that ofthe victim client, the process of integrating and transformingthese traumatic experiences. Again, like victims themselves,the researcher must be able to acknowledge, express, andwork through these painful experiences in a supportiveenvironment. The knowledge of this process is howevernot innate. This is a skill for which a need must first beacknowledged, and then must be learned.I began to realise many parallelsbetween my own reactions and thoseof the victims I was studyingAdditionally, supportive environments are not alwaysreadily available. There is a semi-prevalent attitude in academia(and other areas) that if you can’t cope with this type ofresearch/work, then perhaps you are in the wrong type of work.However, there is no predicting when, why or how, a certaincase/participant may push one over the line. It may occur verygradually, and no matter how long one has been working in aparticular criminal justice setting.My own answer to the question ‘how did you get into thatline of work?’ began rather early, as a research assistant at thelab of Professor John Yuille in the psychology departmentof the University of British Columbia. I already knew that Iwanted to pursue graduate studies, and thus the need forresearch experience. My first job as a volunteer was transcribinginterviews conducted for two separate projects, one involvedthe victimisation of sex workers from Vancouver’s downtowneastside, another, offenders’ memories of crimes committed.Needless to say, volunteer turnover was pretty high. On thebright side, those that stuck in there (for better or for worse)soon moved up the ranks, through coding and training, toeventually find ourselves enjoying research days at some ofCanada’s high security prisons.Training before going into prison as a researcher consistedlargely of using the psychometric tools relevant to the research,and in physical safety, particularly not wearing high heelsnor revealing one’s address to psychopathic inmates. I do notrecall any discussion of coping with the intense nature of thecases we were covering, despite the fact that we went throughvolunteers in a rather telling manner and personally, I can stillvividly recall some of the stories I heard as part of this research.Give students the tools they need toprotect themselves and to becomenot only successful, but healthyresearchersResearch training for students on the other hand, typicallyinvolves project design, quantitative and qualitative analyticalmethods, and report writing. Research ethics are a crucialpart of this training, but the focus is entirely on protectingparticipants from harm. Providing informed consent andsupport, avoiding deception, and how to debrief are allobviously key skills for student researchers to learn, but whatabout safeguarding researchers? I don’t recall ever hearing thewords ‘vicarious trauma’ in a class when I was a student, despitethe fact that there is substantial research in this area, andnumerous suggestions for how to cope when researching (orworking with) traumatic events.In addition to maintaining balance in our personal andprofessional lives, combining this work with other professionalcommitments (such as teaching), and being aware of andrespecting our own boundaries, M c Cann and Pearlman (1990)recommend avoiding professional isolation by having contactwith other professionals who work with victims. This does notnecessarily have to take the form of a support group or caseconference,so long as the focus is on normalising reactions,providing a safe environment where one may feel free to shareand work through reactions that are painful and disruptive.This again reflects the similarities between researchers andtheir participants; wanting to know that you are not the onlyone, that what you are experiencing is normal, has been one ofthe most pervasive reactions to victimisation in my research,so much so that one of my recommendations made to supportservice providers was to introduce peer support groups forvictims. So why not peer support groups for researchersand other criminal justice employees? And why not includeinformation about the risks and symptoms of VT and STS inresearch methods modules? Give students the tools they needto protect themselves and to become not only successful, buthealthy researchers.Stephanie Fohring is a criminologist and researchfellow at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh.M c Cann L and Pearlman A (1990) ‘Vicarious Traumatization: A frameworkfor Understanding the Psychological Effects of Working with Victims’Journal of Traumatic Stress, 3(1), 131-149.Janoff-Bulman R (1992) Shattered Assumptions: Towards a New Psychology ofTrauma. The Free Press, NY, New York.26 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

CURRENT ISSUESSCOTLAND NEEDS A SHARED,BOLD, COHERENT STRATEGYON WOMEN WHO OFFENDAnne PinkmanI WAS INVITED by Jean Urquhart MSP, to attend a crosspartymeeting at the Scottish Parliament on 22 January 2015to discuss concerns about the Scottish Government’s intentionto build a large new prison for women in Inverclyde. I waspleasantly surprised at the level of political consensus that toomany women are imprisoned and alternatives to custody aremore effective in dealing with women who offend. There wasshared concern too at the proposed overall size of the newcustodial estate for women. It was agreed to write to the newCabinet Secretary for Justice, Michael Matheson MSP to ask himto reconsider the plans and implement the recommendationof the Commission on Women Offenders (2012), namely theneed to invest in therapeutic facilities and build a much smallerspecialist facility for the minority of women who offend andpose a real risk to the public. Concern was expressed howeverof the consequences of not building HMP Inverclyde and theinevitable delays that would ensue in developing alternatives.The inherent risks of losing out on new much needed facilitiesaltogether were also acknowledged.There is an opportunity to divert manymore women from the courts andcriminal justice systemFour days later, on 26 January, Michael Matheson, on a visitto the 218 Centre in Glasgow, announced that “the currentplans for a prison in Inverclyde should not go ahead. It does notfit with my vision of how a modern and progressive countryshould be addressing offending . . . I believe we should beinvesting in smaller regional and community based custodialfacilities across the country rather than a large new prisonfor women”. This announcement was quickly followed byconsultation events held in each of the eight CommunityJustice Authority (CJA) areas across Scotland on the futurecustodial estate for women. The proposition discussed was for afemale custodial estate of 400 comprising a national prison for100 women, three small regional facilities in the North (alreadyin place at HMP Grampian), East and West accommodating50 women in each, and 150 in a number of community basedresidential units , each providing 15-30 places.These consultation events were well attended by keyagencies. At the event held in the Fife and Forth Valley areathere was a frustration that the focus was on the custodialestate rather than what is needed for women who offendand how to prevent their imprisonment. My understanding isthat this view was repeated elsewhere and also at the recentseminar held by the Scottish Working Group for WomenOffenders and SCCCJ.There is no doubt there is a need for suitable prisonaccommodation for women who require to be incarceratedfor the protection of the public: the Scottish Governmentand SPS are to be commended in their efforts to improve thecustodial estate for women offenders. Considerable sums ofmoney and resources have been provided. The SPS strategyfor the Management of Women in Custody and the gendersensitive design for any new custodial facility for women areboth comprehensive and impressive. Separately the ScottishGovernment’s Women Who Offend Project (a workstream of theReducing Reoffending Programme) is looking at internationalgood practice in female penal policy. Jointly the ScottishGovernment and SPS are holding an international symposiumon female custodial policy on 27-29 May 2015. Despite thisfocus the Scottish Government says that it is keen to ensurethat custody is seen as the sentencing option of last resort. Theaspiration is to reduce the use of custody as a disposal and haveas many women as possible remaining in the community.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 27

Between 2013-15, the Scottish Government provided £3mto develop credible community based sentences for women.A further £1.5m was provided for 2015-16. The 16 new projectsestablished by this funding are being evaluated by the Instituteof Research in Social Studies (IRISS) and a report is expectedin May 2015. It can only be hoped that if the outcomes arepositive, funding will be sustained. Short term funding on a oneor two year cycle can damage the credibility of projects.There is clearly a need for a joined up, comprehensivepolicy for women who offend, or are at risk of offending: apolicy that pays equal attention to diverting women from thecriminal justice system, the delivery of credible communitybased sentences, and restricts the use of custody. There is aneed to to use resources differently. A single shared policycould deliver this.Michael Matheson has placed an increased focus onalternatives to custody and remand. The new National Strategyfor Offending that will be introduced as part of the newarrangements for Community Justice should help addressthis focus. A draft of the National Strategy is expected to bepublished for comment later this year.In Scotland we know that 70% ofwomen who are remanded into custodydo not go on to receive a custodialsentenceMeanwhile much can still be done. We should lobby for theintroduction of the ‘no real prospect’ test which was introducedin England and Wales in December 2012. This change to baillegislation prevents any sentencer remanding an accused toprison when there is no real prospect of a custodial sentence.There was a 12% reduction in the number of untried womenreceived into prison on remand in July to September 2014in England and Wales compared to the same period in 2013(Offender Management Statistics Quarterly). In Scotland weknow that 70% of women who are remanded into custodydo not go on to receive a custodial sentence. That figureaccounts for a huge number of women being needlesslyremanded into prison each year: in Scotland 2011-12 there were3100 receptions of women into custody, 1979 (64%) of thesereceptions into prison were for remand (SG and SPS, 2015). Theuse of remand can be as damaging and disruptive to womenas a custodial sentence. This is especially true for issues of childcare, housing and benefit claims (see Loucks, in this SJM).There is an opportunity to divert many more women fromthe courts and criminal justice system. The chronic healthcare needs of our women who offend are well documented.Recently, following on from the transfer of responsibility forthe health care needs of prisoners from the SPS to local HealthBoards, a responsibility has been placed on Health Boardsfor the provision of health care in police custody suites. Thisrequirement on Health Boards provides real opportunities forwomen to be assessed and diverted from the criminal justicesystem at this early stage.Many more changes could easily be made to improvingservices for women who offend. As Professor Andrew Coylestated at the SWGWO/ SCCCJ event “the starting point for this[radical reform] will not be found within the prison system, nomatter how enlightened that might be” (Coyle, 2015). A policymust be developed with prevention and then early interventionas a starting point.CJAs are concerned that the new proposals for the prisonestate for women will be attractive to sentencers. The SPS willbe able to articulate a very clear ‘custodial offer’ to the courtswhich may inadvertently result in an increase in the number ofwomen being sent to custody. Currently there is no coherent‘community offer’ to stand alongside this. Sentencers oftenhave a good understanding of a woman’s presenting needs andhistory from criminal justice social work reports and possiblythe defence solicitor. However, they may lack confidence thatthe woman will get access to the support services neededto ensure compliance with a community sentence, such asaddictions, mental and physical health, housing, welfare,parenting and so on. Added to that is the significant variationof service availability across the country. Many projects andinitiatives come and go with short term funding making itdifficult for sentencers to know what is available in their area.CJAs believe there is merit in establishing a ’community offer’project team that mirrors, and works alongside, the wellresourcedSPS Women in Custody project team. Their purposewould be to ensure that a coherent ‘ community offer’ can bestrongly advocated to all Scottish courts and ensure womenare not imprisoned merely for lack of, or inability to access,community based support.My hope is for the development of a shared strategy forwomen who offend that is bold and aspirational. It shouldset clear requirements to reduce the numbers of womenbecoming involved unnecessarily with the criminal justicesystem, and reduce the numbers of women in prison. TheScottish Government in developing this shared strategy mustbe mindful of the new arrangements for the future deliveryof community justice and provide definitive requirements forCommunity Planning Partnerships and its constituent partners,other key partners such as the Crown Office and ProcuratorFiscal Service, and the new national body, Community JusticeScotland.Anne Pinkman is chief officer of the Fife and ForthValley CJA, and convenor of the Scottish WorkingGroup for Women Offenders.Commission on Women Offenders (Angiolini) (2012) Scottish Governmenthttp://www.gov.scot/About/Review/commissiononwomenoffendersCoyle A (2015) Women affected by the criminal justice system in Scotland:what next? http://scottishjusticematters.com/women-affected-criminaljustice-system-scotland-next/Offender management statistics quarterly. Ministry of Justice. http://www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterlyScottish Government and SPS (March 2015) Women in Custody, Facts andFigures.28 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

CURRENT ISSUESIMPRISONING MOTHERSTHE IMPACT ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIESThe impact of a woman’s imprisonment has consequences well beyond those to the woman herself. Rather than citingstatistics and publications, the following describes what imprisonment has meant for a number of women in Scotland inpractice. All of the stories below are true, though the names have been changed.By Nancy LoucksAgnes‘Agnes’ had committed a very serious offence and was definitely going to besentenced to prison for a long time. It was her first offence, so she was subject tocourt reports. Although she was a single mum of three children under the age of 10,none of these reports investigated the impact her sentence would have on them.Care for the children was shared between the rest of Agnes’ family, initially withone of Agnes’ sisters, a single lady with no children of her own. This placement lastedfor a few years until the sister’s mental breakdown, when the children were passedbetween other family members and eventually on to Agnes’ boyfriend. Over theyears, two of Agnes’ three children developed severe mental health issues. Thoughthe children were offered support from social work, the family could not find any helpfor their own struggles with Agnes’ imprisonment and related publicity.Later in her sentence, Agnes was transferred to HMP Edinburgh, which greatlyincreased opportunity for contact with her family. This went very well until shewas told she had to return to HMP Cornton Vale in order to take courses to qualifyfor parole. Agnes asked if she could revoke her right to parole so she could stay atEdinburgh and continue close contact with her family, but was told this was not anoption for her. She has since returned to Cornton Vale and is still awaiting access toher required courses.Betty‘Betty’, in contrast, was sentenced to four months in prison for breach of acommunity sentence. She spent one month in custody and one month in thecommunity on an electronic tag (HDC). As a single mum of seven children, living inpoverty with very unstable housing, this short period of custody was enough for herto lose her home and custody of her children. Two years after her release, she had stillnot managed to regain custody of her children.CharleneRemand in custody is the mostcommon use of imprisonment forwomen. ‘Charlene’ was remanded incustody for one week. Having been incare herself, and fearing social workintervention, she chose not to tell anyonethat she had a two-year old daughter athome and instead left a cryptic messagefor a friend about her imprisonment. Thefriend did not understand her messageand, left alone in the house, the daughterdied of dehydration.The stories here are typical of thetype of issues women in prison face, andwe see a number of common themes.First, the women are usually dealingwith multiple issues, and placement incustody is enough to tip the balancetowards a whole sequence of negativeevents. Poverty is a particularly commonfeature, as is single parenthood andunstable family circumstances. Second,no one systematically asks questionsabout what the consequences ofimprisonment might be, either forthem or for the families they leaveScottish Justice Matters : June 2015 29

ehind. Court reports are often thought to be adequate forthis, but these reports are not always requested, nor do theyapply to imprisonment on remand. Related to this is thatwomen are more likely to have children and (often sole) caringresponsibilities, though this is not exclusive to women (see,for example, Stuart Gorrie v PF Haddington 2014). SPS PrisonerSurveys suggest that about 2/3 women in prison on any day aremothers of dependent children (SPS, 2014: 2012). Children aresignificantly less likely to be looked after by their dads when amother goes to prison; rather, grandmothers tend to take onthis responsibility. The Corston Report (2007) found that only 9%of dads looked after their children when a mum went to prison,while 12% of children go into the care system. In England andWales, Hamlyn and Lewis (2000) estimated that 6,000 children(and therefore about 600 in Scotland?) are cared for by otherfamily members when a mother goes to prison.no one systematically asks questionsabout what the consequences ofimprisonment might be, either for themor for the families they leave behindNext, even very short periods of custody can have a dramaticimpact. Families (and children in particular) are unlikely to drawa distinction between imprisonment for remand or sentence;for them, the impact is likely to be the same, at least in the shortterm. Further, the impact of imprisonment has much longertermimpacts on the remaining family, lasting well beyond theperiod of custody. For example, a woman in touch with FamiliesOutside recently commented that her children had alreadydeveloped a deep-seated suspicion and hatred of the police andwider justice system. Longer-term impacts on mental health,housing and SHANARRI wellbeing indicators (Safe, Healthy,Active, Nurtured, Achieving, Responsible, Respected, andIncluded) are common features for children who experience aparent’s imprisonment.Finally, features of the justice system itself fail women whoend up in custody. As noted above, fewer options are availablefor women in terms of prison placements or indeed communitybasedsupports. Women may have to choose between contactwith their family and completion of required programmes, asin Agnes’ case. Women with substance misuse issues, in turn,have to choose between their children and their recovery if theyneed to enter residential care, something that supports such asthe recently closed Aberlour Family Support Service in Glasgowworked to prevent. We also have remarkably little informationabout the impact of imprisonment: how many childrenexperience a mother’s imprisonment each year? No statistics areavailable to tell us even this basic information.We close with a good news story, showing the valuethat support to women in custody can have when needs areidentified and addressed early. ‘Donna’ was referred to Circle(see the interview feature in this issue) through the ShineMentoring Service when she was 31 weeks pregnant andremanded in custody. Donna was a young woman who wasidentified as not engaging with services, particularly antenatalsupports.On initial enquiries, the Circle worker found that theofficial opinion at this stage was that the baby would beaccommodated in a different local authority after birth, withno existing plans for family members to take care of the babyif Donna were to be sentenced to custody. No contact hadbeen made with Donna’s partner (the father of baby) or hismother. A pre-birth child protection case conference hadbeen planned, but no family members had been invited.Donna and her family worked with Circle and, althoughchallenging, discussions took place with statutory servicesto assess current family circumstances and the future plansfor Donna’s baby. What made a difference for the family washaving the opportunity to have complex child protectionprocesses explained to them and how the family could beincluded in these discussions.At a pre-birth case conference, the decision was made forthe baby to return to the grandmother’s home after birth,with both parents having unsupervised contact (dependingon Donna’s release date). Donna ended up being releasedwith an electronic tag before the baby’s birth and, ondischarge from hospital, returned to her partner’s mother’shome whilst ongoing assessments continued. After threemonths, the baby was removed from the Child ProtectionRegister with positive reports from all agencies involved.Donna’s baby boy is now thriving and developing positivelywithin his own family.Support and information at the right time can makeall the difference for children and families when someonegoes to prison, particularly when a mother enters custody.Consequently questions about the impact of custody shouldbe asked systematically at key stages throughout the criminaljustice process; without knowing the impact, vulnerable andinnocent people already in challenging circumstances will beleft without the resources they need to cope.Nancy Loucks is the chief executive of FamiliesOutside (www.familiesoutside.org.uk) and a visitingprofessor at the University of Strathclyde’s Centre forLaw, Crime and Justice.Corston J (2007) The Corston Report: a review of women with particularvulnerabilities in the criminal justice system. Home Office. https://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/corston-report-march-2007.pdfHamlyn B and Lewis D (2000) Women prisoners: a survey of their workand training experiences in custody and on release Home Office ResearchStudy 208. http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors208.pdfSPS (2014) Prisoner Survey 2013 Female Offendershttp://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/PrisonerSurvey2013FemaleOffenders.aspxSPS (2012) Prisoner Survey 2011 Female Offendershttp://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-2647.aspxIn our November issue there will be an article on thepost-Inverclyde consultation and the future of thewomen’s custodial estate from the perspective of theScottish Prison Service.30 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

INTERNATIONALPolice reform in theNetherlands andScotland comparedJan TerpstraIN 2013 both Scotland and the Netherlands established national police forces.These two police reforms have much in common. Both countries had long traditionsof local policing. Before 2013 each jurisdiction had a regionalised systems ofpolicing, with Scotland having eight relatively autonomous regional forces and theNetherlands having 25 forces. Despite the emphasis on the importance of localpolicing, in the years prior to 2013 both countries had already had a creeping processof police centralisation. In both countries, the political decision to establish a singlepolice force was taken in a relatively short period of time and indicated a radical shiftin the political landscape.Some main arguments to reform the police were more or less similar: to stop thefragmentation of the police forces, to promote co-ordination, and to improve policingof organised crime and terrorism. There were also some important differences. InScotland the establishment of a national police force was seen as a way to realisebudgetary cuts imposed by the government in London without having to decreasethe numbers of police officers. In the Netherlands, however, budgetary considerationswere only of a very minor relevance in the decision to create a new police system(Fyfe and Scott, 2013; Terpstra, 2013).Spatial organisationThe Netherlands’ Police Act 2012identifies three organisational levels: thenational level, the level of the units, andthe level of the municipalities. In practicetwo additional levels were introduced,even before the Netherlands’ Parliamentmade its final decisions. This made upto five different organisational levels:the national level, 10 police units (notautonomous), 43 districts, 168 basicteams (the lowest organisational level),and 393 municipalities. The relevanceof the municipal level has primarily todo with local arrangements of policegovernance and accountability asdescribed below.This proliferation of organisationallevels of the police force is similar towhat has happened in Scotland sinceApril 2013. The Police and Fire Reform(Scotland) Act 2012 made a distinctionbetween the national level and locallevel with the latter defined in terms ofthe administrative boundaries of 32 localauthorities at which local policing wouldbe delivered. In practice, Police Scotlandnow has also five organisational levels:national, area commands (3), policedivisions (14), local policing areas alignedwith local councils (32), sub-divided intolocal council multi-member wards (353).The increasing number of organisationallevels may be seen as an early indicationthat, in both countries, the reformprocess proved to be more complex thanwas originally envisaged.Governance and accountabilityTo understand the (local) governanceand accountability of the Netherlands’police, two legal concepts are relevant.First, there is the ‘administration’ of thepolice, that is the formal power to makedecisions about the organisation andresources of the police. Before 2013the administration of the 25 regionalpolice forces was with the regionaladministrator, typically the mayor of thelargest municipality of the region. Withthe Police Act 2012 this formal power wastransferred to the national level and isnow in the hands of the national policechief, who has to account to the Ministerof Security and Justice for his use of thisformal power.Secondly, there is the ‘authority’over the police, that is, the formal powerto make decisions about what theScottish Justice Matters : June 2015 31

police should do. The authority over the police is exercised atthe local level and shared by two officials. The (non-elected)mayor (the head of the municipal government) has authorityover the police with regard to the enforcement of public orderand the service tasks of the police. Authority over the criminalinvestigation tasks of the police is in the hands of the publicprosecutor.The Netherlands Police Act 2012 did not make any change inthe formal arrangements of the local authority over the police.This implies that although now there exists a centralised policeforce in the Netherlands with the power of ‘administration’ atthe national level, the formal powers of ‘authority’ are still at thelocal level. One of the most important questions is, of course,how these two forms of power will relate in practice. A study(not yet published) (Terpstra et al, 2015) shows that mayors,especially of the small and often rural municipalities, often feelthat they have lost a considerable part of their ability to exercisetheir authority over the police in practice. Nevertheless, thereis considerable difference with the situation in Scotland, wheresince 2013 the local councils only have a formal consultativerole with regard to local police priorities and local police plans(Terpstra and Fyfe, 2014).The increasing number oforganisational levels may be seen as anearly indication that, in both countries,the reform process proved to be morecomplex than was originally envisagedLocal policingThe Netherlands’ Police Act 2012 does not provide muchinformation about local policing. The only legal requirementis that there should be one community police officer for every5000 inhabitants.Another important element of the organisational structureof the Netherlands’ police service consists of the so-called‘robust basic teams’. According to the Design Plan of the newforce these teams should have between 60 and 200 full timeequivalent posts and be responsible for all regular local policetasks.The lack of legal regulation with regard to local policingin the Netherlands is quite remarkable in comparison withthe Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012. The ScottishGovernment decided to make local policing a statutoryrequirement. In addition, and this is in a clear contrast with thesituation in the Netherlands, the Scottish government decidedto establish a set of ‘policing principles’. These principles clearlyreflect the Scottish ambition to have a community orientedstyle of policing with a broad view on what policing should be,in close co-operation with partner agencies and communitiesand with much emphasis on police visibility and proximity. Incontrast, the Netherlands’ Police Act 2012 does not contain anyclear view on what kind of policing is seen as desirable. Exceptfor that legal requirement of the number of community officers,legal regulations with regard to local policing are completelymissing.Reform processA comparison of the two police reforms in terms of theirconsequences for local policing, shows a remarkable contrast.On the one hand it looks as if the Netherlands’ police reformis strong on its arrangements of the local police governanceand accountability, but quite weak on its regulations for localpolicing services. On the other hand, with its emphasis on localpolicing and ‘policing principles’, the Scottish police reformlooks much stronger on local policing services, but muchweaker in relation to the local governance and accountabilityof the police.In addition, recent research shows that there may be aserious implementation gap between the legal and formalaspects of police reform and how they are put in practice.In the Netherlands there has been a serious delay of morethan 18 months in the reform process because of a conflictwith the police unions. On the one hand, at some locationsthis created the room for more diversity in local policing thanhad been expected (Terpstra and Fyfe, 2015). On the otherhand, this delay created much tension and confusion: evenafter more than two years of police reform many police officersare still uncertain about their position in the new force. As aconsequence, in November 2014 the police unions stated thatthey lost their confidence in this reform process. From thatmoment on they have withdrawn their support for the reformprocess. Moreover, in March 2015 the Minister of Security andJustice, who had been responsible for the Police Act 2012 andfor the establishment of the single police force, had to resign.It is unclear what his resignation will mean for the politicalsupport for this reform process.At this very moment it is still hard to say how the reformprocess will continue. One thing seems to be for sure: thetransformation to a single police in the Netherlands provesto be much more complex than anyone could have thoughtbefore. The future will show if this reform process came to adead end or that it is still possible to give it a more positiveturn.Jan Terpstra is professor of criminology at theUniversity of Nijmegen, the Netherlands. His mainresearch topics are police work, police policy, privatesecurity, and local security networks and strategies.Fyfe N R and Scott K B (2013). “In search of sustainable policing? Creatingan national police force in Scotland,” In: Fyfe N R, Terpstra J and Tops P(eds.). Centralizing Forces? Comparative Perspectives on Contemporary PoliceReform in Northern and Western Europe. The Hague: ELEVEN, 199-135.Terpstra J (2013). “Towards a National Police in the Netherlands.Backgrounds of a Radical Police Reform, “ In: Fyfe N R, Terpstra J and TopsP (eds.). Centralizing Forces? Comparative Perspectives on ContemporaryPolice Reform in Northern and Western Europe. The Hague: ELEVEN, 199-135.Terpstra J and Fyfe N R (2014). “Policy Processes and Police Reform:Examining similarities and differences between Scotland and theNetherlands, “ International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 42/2: 366-383.Terpstra J and Fyfe N R (2015). “Mind the implementation gap? Policereform and local policing in the Netherlands and Scotland, “ Criminologyand Criminal Justice (DOI: 10.1177/1748895815572162).32 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

STATISTICSHAS SCOTLAND’SFALLING CRIMERATE BENEFITEDEVERYONEEQUALLY?Susan M c Vie, Paul Norris and Rebecca PillingerBOTH police statistics and crime surveys in Scotland agree that there has beena substantial drop in crime over the last 20 years. This suggests, at face value, thatwe should all be at less risk of becoming a victim. But is this really the case? Work bythe Applied Quantitative Methods Network (AQMeN) Research Centre has set out toexplore our relative risk of being a victim of crime and the extent to which this haschanged during the course of the recent crime drop.We know that some people are more likely to experience crime than others, andthat people tend to experience different amounts and types of crime. In other words,risk profiles vary from person to person. Indeed, Hope and Norris (2012) found fivegroups of people who differed in terms of the number and types of incidents ofproperty crime they were likely to experience, and four groups who differed in termsof their experience of personal crime.A key question, therefore, is whether victim profiles have changed over time as aresult of the fall in crime? For example, there may have been a decline in the numberof victims in certain groups but not others; or the amount of crime experienced by allgroups may simply have diminished across the board. Hope and Norris did not look atchange in the group sizes or experiences over time; therefore, we decided to take thiswork a step further by exploring change in patterns of victimisation over time usingScottish crime survey data from 1993 to 2011.We started by grouping property and personal crimes into four broad crime types(shown in the table below) and, like Hope and Norris, found a number of groups whodiffered from each other on the basis of how likely they were to experience differenttypes of crime. We then went on to look at the change over time in prevalenceof victimisation (that is, the percentage of people in each crime group) and thefrequency of victimisation (that is, the number of crimes that victims experienced onaverage) for each group.Crime types usedto identify riskMotor vehicle crimeHousehold crimePersonal theftand robberyAssaults and threatsDetails of the crime typeThefts and attempted thefts of and from motor vehicles andvandalism to motor vehicles.Housebreaking and attempted housebreaking (to dwellingsand to outhouses), thefts inside and outside dwellings, andvandalism not to motor vehicles (not including fire raising).Thefts from the person, other personal thefts, and robberies.Assaults and attempted assaults, and threats to or againstthe person.We found four typical victim groupswithin the population. Firstly, around80% of the population fell into a groupof ‘Non-Victims’ who had a very low(almost zero) risk of experiencing anykind of crime. Secondly, about 15% ofpeople were ‘One-off Property Victims’who experienced on average oneincident of crime, mostly motor vehicleor household crime, in any one year.Thirdly, around 5% of people were part ofa group of ‘Multiple Mixed Victims’ whoexperienced an average of two incidentsof crime per year, consisting of a mixtureof motor vehicle crime, household crime,and assaults and threats. And finally,about 0.5% of the population were in agroup of ‘Frequent Personal Victims’who experienced on average threeincidents of crime in any given year,consisting mainly of assaults and threats,but possibly also some household crimeor personal theft and robbery.So had there been a change inthe relative sizes of these groups overtime? Figure 1 shows the change in thepercentage of people within each ofthe four groups each year after 1993.Only one group grew larger: that is theNon-Victims, which rose from 76% ofthe population in 1993 to 82% in 2011.Meanwhile, the percentage of people inthe One-Off Property Victims group fellfrom 17% to 12%, and the percentage ofMultiple Mixed Victims fell from 6% to5% over the same period. However, therewas no significant change over time in theproportion of the population who madeup the Frequent Personal Victim group.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 33

Figure 1: Percentage of people belonging to eachgroup over time (difference from 1993)The next question we asked was whether there hadbeen a reduction in the frequency of crime experiencedby people within these four groups? Looking at changeover time in the average number of incidents of crimeexperienced, Figure 2 shows a significant decrease infrequency of incidents amongst the One-Off Property andMultiple Mixed Victims. The risk of victimisation amongstthe Non-Victim group, which was already small, also gotcloser to zero. However, there was no discernible changeover time in the average number of incidents of crimeexperienced by the Frequent Personal Victims. In otherwords, risk of frequent victimisation remained the same inthis group.both of which mostly experienced motor vehicle or householdcrime, explains most of the crime drop. This fits with publishedrecorded crime statistics that show a very large reduction in crimesof dishonesty in Scotland since 1991 (Scottish Government, 2014).However, we found no noticeable reduction in the size of thepopulation in the highest risk group, the Frequent Personal victims,who experienced mostly violent crime. This is despite a significantfall in violent crimes recorded by the police.The fact that most people are less likely to be a victim of crimeis hugely reassuring and should make us feel safer as a result.However, for a small proportion of Scottish society the risk ofvictimisation is as great or greater than it was 20 years ago and therange of crimes they experience is just as wide. In absolute terms,an estimate of 0.5% of the Scottish population of adults aged 16or over represents around 220,000 people (based on mid-yearpopulation estimates for 2013). Our estimates suggest that thisgroup’s share of all crime has doubled from 5% in 1993 to around10% from 2006 onwards. Moreover, we can safely assume that thesepeople are not randomly scattered throughout the population,but are most likely to be living in some of our more deprivedcommunities and families.The fact that one group of victims has not benefited from theoverall crime drop and, indeed, has become more dissimilar to therest of the population, is indicative of increasing inequality betweenvictims and non-victims. This is concerning because it suggeststhat whatever factors have driven the crime drop they have notpervaded every part of our society. If this trend continues, crimewill become increasingly concentrated in this group and the impacton the individuals involved is likely to be extremely damaging. Theresults of our analysis show that efforts need to be directed at thosemost at risk of victimisation if the crime drop is to be sustained.Of course, in order to effectively target crime reductioninterventions it is necessary to know what the characteristics of thepeople in this group are. Therefore, the next phase of our analysiswill involve analysing the spatial concentration of victim groupsusing geographic data to see whether certain areas contain highconcentrations of such victims, and using personal and householdcharacteristics to try to predict what type of people are in thesegroups. This will hopefully enable policy makers and serviceproviders to determine both who and where those most at risk ofvictimisation are and decide how to best target interventions toreduce the current inequality of victimisation in Scotland.Susan M c Vie is chair of Quantitative Criminology anddirector of AQMeN at the University of Edinburgh.Paul Norris is senior lecturer in Social Policy and coinvestigatorof AQMeN at the University of Edinburgh.Rebecca Pillinger is an AQMeN research fellow at theUniversity of Edinburgh.Figure 2: Average number of incidents of crime foreach victim group over time: change from 1993So the overall fall in crime can be explained by both areduction in the number of people who become victimsand a reduction in the number of incidents of crimeexperienced by each victim. Significant changes withinthe One-Off Property and Multiple Mixed Victim groups,Hope T and Norris P (2012) ‘Heterogeneity in the Frequency Distribution ofCrime Victimization’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29:543-578.Norris, P., Pillinger, R. and M c Vie, S. (2014) Changing patterns of victimisation inScotland 1993-2011. AQMeN Research Briefing 2, November 2014.https://www.aqmen.ac.uk/publicationsScottish Government (2014) Recorded Crime in Scotland 2013-14. StatisticalBulletin. http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0046/00466162.pdf34 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

INTERVIEW“THE BENEFIT SANCTIONSARE BRUTAL”Maura Daly, director of operations and Liz Dahl, CEO of Circle interviewed by Mary MunroMM: Can you tell mesomething about Circle?LD: Circle was originally part of theFamily Service Unit across the UK whichwas itself set up during the war to helpbombed out families. When I came herein 1996 our work was focusing on hardto reach families and especially thoseaffected by drug and alcohol issues.We work with families who statutoryservices find hard to reach and difficultto engage.Circle started as a separateorganisation in Scotland in 2006when the original FSU across theUK disbanded. We are based here inPilton and offer services across CentralScotlandMD: Like everyone else, the parentsthat we work with want the bestfor their children, and we supportthem to achieve this. We get verygood engagement overall even withfamilies who do not engage withstatutory services. We work withkinship carers as well.We do old fashioned social work,the preventative case work thatstatutory social work doesn’t havethe time or capacity to do. Similarlywe can provide support in a way thatsocial worker in criminal justice cannotbecause of the demands on their timeto produce court reports. When wehave social work students here theylike the experience of doing this typeof hands on, helpful social work.LD: Our approach is very solutionfocused. The resilience of our familiesis amazing: they have had to endure alot in their lives more than you or I canimagine putting up with, but remarkablyare able to find solutions and focus onwhat is going well. We can work withthem together through their hopes forthe children.MD: There’s a lot of shame thoughand stigmatising. The children can feelthis especially at school and many of thefamilies are in any case not comfortableabout school. Mums and Dads haveoften had bad experiences themselves inrelation to education, so one of the thingswe try to do is to break through that, andoffer support in their working with theschool for the sake of the children.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 35

Can you tell me about yourwork with parents who areoffenders?MD: First of all we don’t talk about offenders, wetalk about Mums and Dads. It is important to respectpeople’s roles as parents rather than have themdefined in other ways.Our work in prisons really got going following apiece of research I was involved with in Cornton Valein 2006. I found that there was very little support forMums in prison and help on their release, so that’swhen we started Circle’s work there.LD: Because that was going so well, we wereinvited to also start projects working with Dads inother prisons, in HMP Addiewell we have a projectthat identifies and supports fathers from theLothians and Lanarkshire. We work with them andtheir families in prison and then on their release, inthe community.So how does the criminaljustice system impact on thefamilies that you work with?LD: Being sent to prison can be a disaster forfamilies. It can result in losing a house, losing ajob, losing contact with your children. Many of thechildren in the families that we work with have tobe looked after by other members of the family orare taken into care. Sometimes that happens evenfor short stays in prison on remand and we knowthat many of the people who are remanded neveractually get a prison sentence. Meanwhile thedamage has been done. We believe Child ImpactAssessments should be done a point of arrest andthen at sentencing to reduce the impact of parentalimprisonment on children.MD: Actually at the moment it’s also benefitsanctions that are causing a lot of problems. Thebenefit sanctions are brutal. We’re seeing anincrease in desperate poverty and hunger andmajor inequalities. We’re seeing families dependenton food banks to eat. We’re also seeing a big risein obesity caused by malnutrition. There was onefather we work with who was detained in a policestation and then released without charge, but he’dmissed reporting to the Jobcentre Plus, and eventhough the police gave him written evidence to saythat he couldn’t attend, he was santioned.LD: Another mother we work with couldn’t attendbecause she was in labour but still got sanctioned.MD: If a fine is imposed as a sentence people areunable to pay them and usually end up in prison fornon-payment of fine.Can you tell me a little more about yourservices in criminal justice?LD: We have 11 staff working in our FABI (Families Affected byImprisonment) team at the moment. As we said, we originally gotstarted working in Cornton Vale in 2008 and that work has been sincebeen evaluated reviewing the first four years of the project (Hutton andNugent, 2013). What that said was that we were offering a unique serviceand one that appeared to result in fewer custodial sentences, and alsohealth improvements. Many of the women in the study had no contact inprison with their children because of a variety of reasons such as financialand transport problems, poor relationships with their family and theinvolvement of the statutory services. Although many of the women weworked with had a long history of offending, it looks as if the sooner theyengage with Circle in custody the better the outcome even though all ofthem, have complex and multiple needs from mental health to debt.It’s important to work with people on an emotional level as well asthe practical and also to talk about endings. We make a point aboutmeeting people at the gate to make sure that they get support at thisabsolutely critical time in dealing with all the essential appointments andarrangements. Otherwise the system makes it very difficult for peopleas soon as they are released. The key to our work is about buildingrelationships both before and after release, so this makes sense.MD: In 2013 we were awarded a share of funding through the ShinePublic Social Partnership (PSP) for women offenders and also for the NewRoutes PSP for prolific male offenders, specifically to work with mumsand dads in prison who were returning to areas in which we had services.Circle brings something very different to the PSPs because we are theonly organisation that works with the whole family. All the literature ondesistance says we have to repair existing bonds, and families have asignificant impact on helping offenders desist from offending. That inessence is the Whole Systems Approach.Given that you work with many mums whohave been in prison, what’s your view aboutthe current ideas from the SPS about howthe women’s custodial estate should beorganised?LD: We were pleased that the decision was taken not to go ahead withthe large institution at HMP Inverclyde but we’re disappointed that the SPSwant to provide for even more places in prison for women than we have atthe moment.Although there will be a need for a small central unit, we think thatthe suggested 100 places is too large. Also we’re not clear about the pointof the smaller units in the ‘community’. There should be fewer womenbeing sent to prison in the first place. It would be good if voluntary sectoragencies such as Circle could be funded consistently to make that happen.Hutton L and Nugent B (2013) Circle’s Families Affected by Imprisonment (FABI) Project:throughcare for female offenders. A report on outcomes in relation to theFour year service evaluation (2008-2012). Available from the Circle web site:www.circle.scotFurther reading in this issue: Nancy Loucks on Imprisoning mothers: the impact onchildren and families on page 2936 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF …WednesdayThe 2 nd edition of our local prisoner-run newsletter Beans withEverything is in preparation. Asked to write an introductionfor it, I took as my inspiration an article from one of the RedTops, bemoaning the lack of punishment in our ‘holiday camp’prisons and complaining that ‘Scottish Jail Bosses’ had rejectedthe tougher approach being taken in English prisons. Thearticle failed to make any connection between that headlineand others highlighting the ‘crisis’ in the English system:increasing numbers, fewer staff, increased self-harm, rises inviolence and assaults on staff. The writer claims that the gulfbetween public perception of what prisons should be doingand what they are doing has never been wider. I don’t thinkthat’s true. The ‘public’ in my experience, are more reasonableand more practical, especially when they see prisons forthemselves. They want the heartache and misery of crimeto stop and they want us to do whatever we can to help thathappen. Unlike some tabloids, they’re interested in what works.A PRISON GOVERNORRhona Hotchkiss, Governor of HMP DumfriesMondayPopped in to our lifeskills centre to see how the new Tenancyand Citizenship course is going. Developed in Dumfries bytwo of our own officers, the course has been accredited bythe SQA and is in demand across the prison estate and thirdsector. The aim is to help people acquire skills that most of uslearned from our parents or as we went through the processof leaving home, going to university, getting our first jobs andflats. Relationships, Sexual Health, Cooking on a Budget, Howto Look After a Home, Basic DIY, Being a Good Neighbour,Budgeting, Opening a Bank Account – pretty standard stuff –and the kind of things most of our guys never had the chanceto learn because they were too busy trying to stay alive whileslowly killing themselves. Lots of them are learning now.TuesdayI had a conversation with a man convicted of truly dreadfulcrimes who says he didn’t do it. I can only begin to imaginewhat it’s like to be an innocent person in prison. I have no ideahow many people there are in that situation, but it would benaive to think there are none. I haven’t met many whose claimsof innocence I thought were credible. Not many - but still - oneor two. All I can do is trust that their lawyers are working forthem, that there are systems in place to review their cases andthat if they are innocent, the awful weight of that injusticedoesn’t crush them before they can prove it.ThursdaySpent about an hour today, dealing with a complex complaint.I’ve been with the Prison Service for six years and can honestlysay I have never worked with anyone who resented the factthat prisoners complain. Everyone recognises it is quite correctthat people who have few of the usual outlets available tothem have access to an open and transparent means of airingfrustrations and grievances. However, there are a few prisonersin the system - no more than a handful - who are not interestedin right, wrong, improvement or progress. Their aim is tocause maximum disruption to ‘the system’ and in the process,prove they are smarter than us. In our rush to ensure thateveryone has access to every possible avenue of complaint,we are facilitating truly awful behaviour by that handful andultimately, allowing them to behave in ways that would notbe tolerated ‘outside’. Is it a price worth paying for the goodcomplaints system we have? Of course it is. I wonder though ifwe can’t find a better system, one that is more finely nuancedand able to discriminate between protecting the vulnerableand fuelling frank megalomania. Good luck with that one toanyone who wants to try!FridayI showed a group of criminology Masters students round theprison, encouraging them to speak to staff and prisoners. Oneman aged 26 told them that he had been in and out of prisonnumerous times since the age of 17 and that it never used tobother him – he just kept his head down and did his time. “Thistime”, he said, “it’s different, it’s been fantastic – I’ve never beengiven opportunities like this in jail before and now I don’t wantto come back because I think I can do better”. I enjoy my jobevery day, but on days like this, I love it.Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 37

Take FiveScottish Justice Matters asks our politicians to respond to questions about crime and justice. We asked:How can the tradition of localism in Scottish policingbe enhanced within a national police force?Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary forJustice, Scottish National PartyREFORM was absolutely vital to sustain thelevel of local policing our communitiesdepend on. Moving to a single service issafeguarding local policing in Scotlandfrom Westminster budget cuts, helpingus to continue to exceed our target of1000 additional police officers on thestreet. Contrast this with the situation downsouth, where police numbers have fallen and are expected toeventually be slashed by 15,000.Local policing and accountability remain fundamental topolicing in Scotland and local policing decisions continue tobe based on local intelligence and experience, shaped anddelivered in partnership by designated Local Commanders.In addition to this, all of Scotland’s 353 council wards have alocal policing plan developed and policing now has a statutoryduty to participate in Community Planning Partnerships. Morethan double the number of elected councillors than before areinvolved in local scrutiny of policing.Policing in Scotland is undoubtedly more local than ever,but reform has created significant advantages as dedicatedlocal officers are now supported by national and specialistexpertise and equipment whenever and wherever required. Weare already seeing the benefits of this approach.For example, the National Rape Taskforce is ensuring arobust and consistent approach to sexual crime, and the MajorInvestigation Teams tackle murders and other serious crimes.Having specialist units allows dedicated local officers to focussolely on policing in communities.The results speak for themselves. Recorded crime inScotland is at a 40 year low, violent crime is down 10% in thelast year and crimes of handling an offensive weapon havedropped by 62% since 2006-07.These successes would not have been possible without thededication and professionalism of hardworking officers andstaff: they are doing a great job of ensuring our strengthenedlocal policing is keeping Scotland safe.Hugh Henry, Scottish Labour PartyTHE FORMATION of Police Scotland hascreated significant concerns regardingthe localism of Scottish policing. A onesize fits all programme of centralisationand provision has led to a perceivedloss of meaningful local control withthe closure of local police stations,control rooms and community police desks.This has impacted on service delivery to local communities,local jobs and the local economy. Police Scotland is facing£1.1bn cuts by 2020 with around 1500 civilian jobs lost. Theadditional 1000 officers in Scotland are often not on thestreets serving the public with many working in back offices,behind desks, doing the work of redundant civilian staff whocarried out vital and often specialist jobs. These officers arenot trained in such specialisms. Cuts have also seen Councilsleft to take on responsibilities such as road safety and trafficwarden duties. This is not an effective strategy for keepinglocal communities safe nor is it in keeping with the statutoryduty of best value or the tradition of localism we strive touphold.Effective local policing which provides the policewith legitimacy and the confidence of their communitiesis essential for supporting the wider police mission ofprotecting the public from serious harm. Police Scotlandneeds to be visible, readily accessible at all times andwholly accountable to the public it represents. Scarceresources in these challenging times need to be focused onstrengthening front line policing which must take accountof the characteristics of different neighbourhoods. Strongerrelationships need to be forged with local authoritiesand community planning partners. Local policing plansneed to be strategic and up to date with those overseeingthem ensuring that the concerns, opinions and needs ofcommunities across Scotland remain at the heart of whatPolice Scotland is doing.38 Scottish Justice Matters : March : June 2015

Margaret Mitchell,Scottish ConservativesAlison M c Innes,Scottish Liberal DemocratsJohn Finnie, ScottishGreen PartyTHE TRANSITION fromSCOTTISH LiberalI SUSPECT thethe eight legacy forcesDemocrats consistentlyquestion ofto Scotland’s Nationalopposed the abolition‘localism’ differsPolice force hasof local policegreatly acrossresulted in the erosionservices in favour ofScotland. Zetlandof the service’s ties withone national force.Constabularylocal communities. LocalWe argued it wouldhas long gone butpolicing was supposed toprove unaccountable, localwhen Shetlanders talkbe an integral aspect of a single force but priorities would be neglected, and it could about ‘the chief’ they mean the Chiefinstead the SNP’s centralising agenda has never be as responsive to the needs of Inspector in Lerwick not some far offmerely weakened localism.Scotland’s diverse communities. It gives individual.This is evident with the closure of more me no pleasure whatsoever to see thoseDespite constant assurances to thethan 50 of Police Scotland’s front counters concerns and more vindicated.contrary, it’s apparent Police Scotland,and others now operating reducedOfficers and staff are no longer trusted under its present chief constable,hours, denying local communities the to do what they know is best for their places little value on localism with theopportunity to engage directly with the communities. They deserve credit for country policed as one unit.police. Meanwhile the 101 non-emergency keeping things going but botched reforms The Parliament’s Police Committeenumber, which the public can use tohave taken their toll.was recently told that ‘the threat levelarrange to meet an officer face-to-face, has Independent reports have exposed in Lochinver is the same as it is in Leith’:been beset by technical difficulties and long a one-size-fits-all approach, the erosion a questionable statement which tellscall-waiting times.of discretion and the existence of anyou a lot about operations but evenFurthermore the ongoing control room unhealthy targets culture. Alien policies more about a mind-set which has seenand service centre closures, (down from 11 focused on enforcement, rooted inarmed officers deployed on our streetsto 5) coupled with the restructuring at the Strathclyde, have been imposed onand industrial levels of stop and search.remaining sites, has resulted in the loss of communities without consultation. TheBut all is not lost. The legislationcrucial local knowledge which cannot easily systematic use of armed police and surge that brought the single service intobe replaced by control from a central hub. of stop and search are just the most high being ensured that every Council WardCrime Prevention Panels, which provide profile examples.has its own ‘Policing Plan’ and thereinimportant liaison between police and local Valued local services have also been lies the key to returning policing to itscommunities and provide valuable, local removed. Dozens of police stations have rightful community base.intelligence also face an uncertain future as locked their doors to the public. TheRather than a diktat from PolicePolice Scotland considers withdrawing their closure of the majority of legacy forces’ Scotland Headquarters impactingfunding.control centres and service centres means on every community regardless ofAll of which means the loss of local soon all 999 and 101 calls will be diverted its composition, how much betteraccountability and community liaison to the Central Belt, squandering vitalif those Council Ward Plans are thethroughout the country but particularly in knowledge and expertise.result of proper consultation withrural and remote areas. Whilst the Scottish Meaningful public engagement,communities giving them the styleConservatives have voiced concerns about scrutiny and accountability are key to of policing they want. In turn thosethe loss of local accountability from the enhancing localism.plans can be collectively considered atoutset these concerns have been largelyPolice Scotland has a record of setting local authority level where all 32 localignored.policies unilaterally and working on a need authorities have their own form ofA thorough review of the national police to know basis limited to their own ranks. ‘police committee’. In turn, those localforce is the way forward to ensure that vital People’s right to know and shape how they authorities feed in to make the nationalcommunity links are restored. In carrying are policed must be reinstated. Community plan.out this review it should not be presumed planning partners and local councils must Of course there will be central plansthat a single police force is the only answer. too be meaningfully involved in decisionmakingand reserves to deal with terrorism,Another option would be to introduce- their clout restored.organised crime and other significanta two-tier model, where serious crimesThe significant devolution of budgets threats with resources deployed on aare dealt with by a national force, while could also enable area spending to reflect risk assessed basis (no armed officerscommunity crimes are handled by 32 local local priorities.for Lochinver) but the core policingforces accountable at council level.Scotland’s proud tradition of local style will have come from and thereforeIn doing so a local force, directlypolicing has been badly, but not yetbe respected by local communities.answerable to locally electedirreparably, damaged by the SNP’sThe framework is there, all that’srepresentatives and with policing at a restructuring. The Chief Constable, SPA and required is for those communities andcommunity level at its heart would be Scottish Government have a great deal of their elected representatives to assertestablished.work to do.themselves and genuine localism canbe restored.Scottish Justice Matters : June March 2015 39

BOOK REVIEWSConviction: Violence, culture and a shared public service agendaJohn Carnochan (2015) Argyll Publishing. ISBN: 978-1-908931-63-4Reviewed by Ali MalikConviction, at around 116 pages (excluding thebibliography) makes a valuable contribution to theunderstanding of problem-oriented preventativepolicing by focusing on a specific policy initiativeand serves to show the virtues of asking ‘whatworks’ and ‘how’ in shaping wider public policy. Itfollows the journey of John Carnochan who workedas a police officer for 35 years and co-foundedthe Violence Reduction Unit (VRU), and offers aninsightful account of how the existing practiceswere challenged by Carnochan and his team andhow other public services and young peopleinvolved in gang violence, belonging to some ofthe most deprived areas of Glasgow, were broughttogether to take part in an initiative to preventviolence.The style of the book is almost like a diary of events and at timesreaders may feel that the writer is pontificating, but this might actually beone of the strengths of the book. Carnochan’s introspection and honestyabout the culture of violence that persists in certain parts of Scotlandis evident very early on as he reflects: “I think that Scots are thrawn,that we take offence easily and we never forget” (p. 14). The scrupulousapproach does not stop there as Carnochan goes on and touches onanother sensitive issue in policing and police governance; the use ofcrime statistics, as he describes them as “notoriously inaccurate” (p.23)predominantly due to the under-reporting of violent crimes. This approachserves to highlight that an open and honest identification of the problemsis a key prerequisite for any problem-oriented preventative policy to work.The book also touches at the heart of some of the other key issuesin criminology and criminal justice policy particularly in relation to thetreatment of young people in deprived communities and the virtues ofearly intervention and diversion from criminal justice. This is evident fromthe author’s observation that a conscious effort was made not to includethe word ‘crime’ in the name of the Violence Reduction Unit preciselybecause this was not an issue solely for the police and criminal justice (p.28), but rather a wider public health issue (p.34-36).Whilst for the most part the book documents the experiences ofCarnochan and his team, their attempts to engage with other publicservice bodies to gain support for the VRU and the challenges they facedto convince other stakeholders, the most insightful moment comes whenan initiative called CIRV (pronounced serve) is launched (p.77) and 85young gang members are gathered in the Glasgow Sheriff Court alongwith police officers, surgeons, youth workers, victims and motivationalspeakers. This was one of the most interesting and engaging chapters ofthe book as it offered a first person perspective into the proceedings thattook place in an emotionally charged and “electric” environment (p.83).The book is largely successful in not only illustrating ‘what works’but also taking a chronological approach to show ‘how’. Following thesuccess of the Violence Reduction Unit, Carnochan makes some insightfulobservations on how the preventative approach has been applied to otherareas of concern such as domestic violence. This book is recommendedfor both criminology and criminal justice students and practitioners alike,particularly those with an interest in preventative policy and problemorientedpolicing.Ali Malik is a PhD candidate at the University of Edinburgh.He is exploring the landscape of police governance andaccountability in Scotland following the reforms, with aparticular focus on the Scottish Police Authority.40 Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015

scottish justice briefCurrent legislationAir Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) BillThis Bill was introduced in May to “make provision for thelicensing and regulation of air weapons” and other licensingmatters relating to alcohol. The regulation of air weaponswas an SNP manifesto commitment in 2007 and 2011, and theright to legislate was implemented by the Scotland Act 2012.The Local Government and Regeneration Committee hasheard evidence at Stage 1 and is currently considering Stage 2amendments.Alcohol (Licensing, Public Health and Criminal Justice)(Scotland) BillThis is a member’s Bill introduced by Richard Simpson inApril. It intends to “make provision for reducing and dealingwith the abuse of alcohol; to amend the legislation in relationto applications for, and to vary, licences for the sale of alcohol;and for connected purposes”. The lead committee is Health andSport.Community Justice (Scotland) BillIntroduced on 8 th May, this important legislation intendsto “to make provision about community justice, includingestablishing a new national body to oversee community justiceand introducing requirements in relation to the achievement ofparticular nationally and locally determined outcomes; and forconnected purposes” and in so doing abolish the CommunityJustice Authorities. The origins of the Bill can be traced to therecommendations about the reform of community justiceprovision contained in the Angiolini Commission on WomenOffenders. The Justice Committee has issued a call for evidence:the deadline is August 12 th .Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill“A Bill . . . to make provision about criminal justice includingas to police powers and rights of suspects and as to criminalevidence, procedure and sentencing” and other matters whichwas originally introduced in June 2013. Most media attentionwas directed at the provisions to implement the proposal in theCarloway Review, to reform the Scottish evidential tradition oncorroboration.The Justice Committee’s Stage 1 report (February 2014)supported the general principles of the Bill with the exceptionof the corroboration proposals. Although the Bill clearedStage 1, a surprise announcement in April 2014, in heatedexchanges at Holyrood, postponed Stage 2 and therefore anyfurther progress, until the publication of the (Bonomy) PostcorroborationSafeguards Review reference group’s final reportpublished in April 2015. The Cabinet Secretary then announcedthat the Bill would proceed without the corroboration andjury reform provisions to allow further consideration of the‘substantial and complex’ recommendations.Stage 2 amendments to the Bill are still open.www.gov.scot/About/Review/post-corroboration-safeguardsCriminal Verdicts (Scotland) BillThis Member’s Bill was introduced by Michael M c Mahon MSPin November 2013 to “make provision for the removal of thenot proven verdict as one of the available verdicts in criminalproceedings; and for a guilty verdict to require an increasedmajority of jurors”.The Justice Committee is to lead but the Bill does not appearin its work programme. No other information is available at thetime of writing and its completion date is “yet to be determined’”.Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) BillIntroduced by Michael Matheson in December 2014, this Billaims to “make provision about human trafficking and slavery,servitude and forced or compulsory labour, including provisionabout offences and sentencing, provision for victim supportand provision to reduce activity related to offences.” The Stage1 debate took place on 12 th May and the Bill therefore moves toStage 2.Prisoners (Control of Release) (Scotland) Bill“A Bill to end the right of certain long-term prisoners toautomatic early release from prison at the two-thirds point oftheir sentences and to allow prisoners serving all but very shortsentences to be released from prison on a particular day suitablefor their re-integration into the community.”The ending of automatic early release was an SNP manifestocommitment in 2006. However, a more pragmatic view against arevision of current practices held in the face of repeated criticismespecially from the Conservatives. This Bill was introduced inAugust 2014, to end automatic release at the two-thirds point andreplaces that with discretionary release overseen by the ParoleBoard at the halfway point, for prisoners sentenced to four yearsor more for a sexual offences and for those sentenced to 10 yearsor more for any offence. In early February, FM Nicola Sturgeon,on a visit to the offices of Victim Support Scotland, announced anextension to all prisoners serving four years or more.The Stage 1 debate took place on 2 nd April and the JusticeCommittee continues to hear evidence on the amendments atStage 2.EventsApex Annual LectureWednesday September 2 ndSignet Library, EdinburghA fairer justice system for ScotlandSpeaker: Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice.SASO National Annual ConferenceFriday 13 th and Saturday 14 th November 2015Dunblane Hydro, Dunblane.www.sastudyoffending.org.uk/Scottish Justice Matters : June 2015 41

ISSN 2052-79509 772052 7950059 772052 795005ISSN 2052-79509 772052 7950059 772052 795005Volume 2 | Number 3 | November 2014LIVING ITCHILDREN, YOUNG PEOPLE AND JUSTICEEdited by Claire Lightowler, Susie Cameron and Brian RogersISSN 2052-79500101Volume 2 | Number 2 | June 2014Essential readingNew insights, cross cutting themes and ideascovering crime and criminal justice in Scotland.Scottish Justice Matters is written by and forresearchers, practitioners, policy advocatesand academics.ISSN 2052-7950ISSN 2052-79509 772052 7950059 772052 7950050101HEALTH AND(IN)JUSTICEForthcoming themes:v Autumn 2015:Poverty, Inequality and Justicev Spring 2016:Imagining Punishment and Justice(provisional)ENVIRONMENTALCRIME AND JUSTICEVolume 3 | Number 1 | March 2015ISSN 2052-79500101www.scottishjusticematters.comeditor@scottishjusticematters.com@SJMJournal