Scottish Sentencing and Penal Policy Commission report: Justice That Works

Chapter Ten: Looking ahead: towards a smarter penal policy

Summary

Fragmented, outdated and often paper-based justice data limits the system’s ability to understand needs, assess risk, evaluate interventions and plan effectively. Inaccurate or incomplete information slows multi-agency working and impedes both frontline decision-making and strategic reform. Poor data quality is not a technical issue alone but a structural barrier to effective, humane and preventative justice.

A single integrated data system, supported by statutory information-sharing duties, common standards and governance through a dedicated justice data body, would improve reliability. Stronger linkage with health, housing and education data would enable better insights into the drivers of offending and the effectiveness of interventions. Improved data integration would support earlier intervention and reduce reliance on crisis-driven responses.

A justice data and research observatory could consolidate analysis and support whole-system evaluation. Investment in digital infrastructure is essential to modern, preventative and person-centred justice. A smarter penal policy depends on the ability to learn systematically from evidence and apply it consistently across the system.

Data plays a central role in the criminal justice system. It encompasses information that is collected, observed, or measured, including both operational data – used to manage cases and individuals – and analytical data, which helps identify trends and inform policy decisions. We have consistently heard and seen for ourselves that the way data is collected, managed and used in the criminal justice system could be improved considerably. Significant evidence gaps exist because the data is not systematically gathered and can be of low quality or is inaccessible to those who require it. There is not sufficiently effective data and information sharing between justice organisations or with and from other partners involved in areas such as housing and health or third sector delivery services. A myriad of data sharing agreements exist between partners on a case-by-case basis, and the process is arduous, lengthy and resource intensive, even where all parties are willing. Up to date data held within one organisation is not always visible or known to others; paper-based systems and manual processing are common.

A central issue is that there is no single dataset which can be accessed across all justice partners such as Police Scotland, Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS), Scottish Prison Service (SPS) and Justice Social Work. Each organisation responsible for part of the justice system has individual data collection purposes, measurements and priorities for its operations; has varying incompatible IT/technical systems; and is at different stages of embracing technological developments. Organisations record the same events in different ways – some count cases, crimes, or people, depending on their focus, and each count tells a different story. It is not possible to get a picture of the whole system or follow a case or person’s journey through the system end-to-end or in a timely fashion, regardless of whether they appear as a person who has offended, a victim, or a witness. Any attempts to link data together requires time consuming, manual intervention and is not always feasible. Various data ownership, controls and processing agreements means data linkages require consent and often stray into legal issues, though this approach can be done in rights-respecting ways.

Calls for greater data availability and a joined-up approach to information in the criminal justice system are longstanding and not unique to Scotland.³⁸⁶,³⁸⁷,³⁸⁸ Although some progress has been made, the problems persist.

“…different parts of the justice system including courts, prisons, justice social work, and third sector providers, often hold disconnected and incomplete data about individuals. When viewed in isolation, these data sets offer limited insight […] The current fragmented nature of communication within and between justice agencies is a persistent obstacle to progress. There is a need for improved systems of data sharing and professional collaboration [and] structural reforms to improve communication, data sharing and system planning.” – Sacro, Call for Evidence.

“For too long, we have seen concerns about compliance with data protection legislation and the lack of interface between different IT systems, restricting the flow of vital information.” – His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Scotland (HMIPS), Call for Evidence.

Specific data gaps, some of which we have highlighted throughout this report, and insufficient sharing or linking of relevant data across organisations affect both how individuals are managed as they move through the justice system at a local level, and how aggregate data and evidence are used to inform decision-making, policy, and practice nationally. Our justice data in Scotland is not being used as effectively as it could be and some of the impacts include:

• Hampering multi-agency collaboration: Quality data and effective data sharing enables justice delivery organisations and wider services to work together to deliver joined-up responses and better outcomes. Poor data and information sharing and manual handling of data causes delays in justice processes and makes it difficult to identify gaps in service delivery and operational effectiveness.
• Less effective decision-making and interventions: Professionals may lack access to relevant information at the right time, leading to missed opportunities for early and appropriate intervention. Without data from beyond the justice system – such as housing, health, and employment – and ability to build a complete picture of an individual’s journey, responses are less holistic and risk management and rehabilitation efforts are weakened. Courts are often making life-changing decisions without access to a complete picture that is up to date. Recent Fatal Accident Inquiry reports have highlighted the tragic consequences of ineffective information sharing and lack of joined up systems.³⁸⁹
• Limited insight for inspectorates and scrutiny bodies: Without the ability to analyse and report on the data which exists across the system it is difficult to establish a comprehensive picture of how the system is performing. Inspectorate and scrutiny bodies may struggle to systematically analyse issues and improvements if data gaps exist or systems are incompatible, reducing the effectiveness of oversight and accountability.
• Lack of data governance: There is no system wide data strategy, governance, standards or processes, and access to the data is often given on a case-by-case basis. There is no single body with authority to set data standards, mandate cooperation, or oversee progress.
• Insufficient anonymised, aggregate data for research and evaluation, and analysis of the journeys and experiences of individuals within the system: This restricts the ability to inform and evaluate local and national policy and interventions. It also prevents the use of disaggregated data to understand impacts on specific groups, including those with protected characteristics under equality legislation (for example, race, religion or belief, disability, sexual orientation).
• Decision-makers lack the information they need: The Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government, Scottish Sentencing Council, and various statutory justice agencies need more comprehensive and reliable data and information to support evidence-based decisions.³⁹⁰ Challenges with data are evident in the lack of long-term modelling and lack of long-term planning to predict flows through the system, with those in leadership and governance roles having to make decisions based on limited or fragmented information.
• Negative impacts for victims, witnesses and people who have offended: Information available to people in contact with the justice system, and those supporting them, is not always accessible, consistent, or transparent. This includes both general information about how the system works and case-specific details. Victims and those who offend often must retell their stories to different agencies to access information and support. There are issues with data sharing between justice partners and third sector/non statutory services; hampering their ability to support individuals through the system and beyond.
• Overall, at a minimum, data-related issues are consuming considerable time and effort across organisations in both operational and analytical contexts. At worst, they are undermining public safety.

In criminal justice contexts, the Integration of Scottish Criminal Justice Information Systems (ISCJIS) was established in 1994 to develop agreed standards and automate information sharing and exchange among the main criminal justice bodies.³⁹¹,³⁹² Though this brought improvements in the electronic sharing of information, it has not kept pace with change. Many existing dataflows rely on email exchanges, which are then manually parsed and uploaded into the destination system. There is no strategic data governance for the ISCJIS standards. Without coordinated leadership, accountability and investment, the system is no longer fit for purpose. It must be replaced or fundamentally restructured, guided by robust governance and strategic oversight.

The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) is “a comprehensive general offending assessment and case management planning method” used by all community and prison-based justice social work services in Scotland to aid decisions on the level and focus of intervention with people (aged 16+) who have been involved in offending.³⁹³ It is used to evaluate patterns of offending, determine appropriate levels of social work intervention and supervision, monitor progress, and develop case management plans. The IT system which supports use of the LS/CMI method is an example of multi-agency information sharing across certain parts of the justice system. Data from the LS/CMI has the potential to provide insights into the journeys of those in contact with the justice system, however it is currently under-utilised. As noted by the Care Inspectorate in their review of Justice Social Work, “local aggregated reporting […] is limited, and there are no national reporting requirements currently in place to utilise the rich data within the system to inform national reporting of performance, quality and outcomes.” ³⁹⁴

The data landscape, ownership and information flows in our criminal justice system are undoubtedly complex, however that should not prevent much needed progress or improvement. Better data collection, sharing and analysis is required to improve understanding of the outcomes our justice system is generating and enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. Voluntary collaboration has failed to deliver progress.

Recommendation 10.1: Establish a single consistent, integrated, and accessible, electronic justice dataset/information management system that links data across justice partners. Lead partners – Scottish Government, Police Scotland, Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS), Scottish Prison Service (SPS) and Justice Social Work.

This should:

• Allow cases and individuals, and other relevant factors such as charges, disposals and outcomes, to be followed consistently across the justice system.
• Be accessible, with tailored permissions and safeguards, across all justice partners (police, prosecution, courts, social work, prisons), placing a statutory duty to share and link data where appropriate.
• Be designed with due regard for human rights, procedural fairness and safeguard against overreach.

Recommendation 10.2: Create a Scottish Justice Data Board to drive the data and information improvement agenda, setting data standards, mandating cooperation, and overseeing progress. The board should provide leadership and oversight of a national data governance framework for the single justice dataset. Lead partner – Scottish Government.

Recommendation 10.3: Improve the provision of clear and accessible information about data collection, information uses and rights to the individuals whose data is being collected. Lead partners - Police Scotland, COPFS, SCTS, SPS, Justice Social Work, Scottish Human Rights Commission and Scottish Information Commissioner.

Existing partner IT and technical systems do not need to be replaced to achieve this goal. Several stakeholders have confirmed that it is technically feasible through technology which links the existing systems; however, legal and funding barriers remain the primary challenges. Strong leadership and targeted investment are essential to enable a joined-up approach to data, unlocking the potential benefits for the system as a whole. A single, integrated, and dynamic dataset would reduce duplication, support timely interventions, and enable better tracking of outcomes, progress on prison population reduction, and efforts to reduce reoffending. It should serve as a one-stop source of accurate, up-to-date information on individuals and cases.

Improving how cross-justice data is collected, used, and managed in Scotland must be a collaborative effort. This requires resourcing, energy, and political commitment from the Scottish Government and its partners to work towards a shared ambition for effective, data-driven justice. Progress is already being made in other policy areas – such as health and social care – through improved data sharing, linkage, guidance, and governance. There is no reason why similar ambitions cannot be realised within the justice system.

There is a degree of nervousness around data sharing, with GDPR and data protection often perceived as a barrier. The Commission is clear that ethical, privacy, and data protection considerations must be given the appropriate attention to ensure data sharing is appropriate and proportionate. However, we are clear that data should be used more effectively to support public benefit and safety. Moreover, while we recognise that integrating justice data with relevant public and third sector services – such as health, housing, and social care – is essential to improving outcomes, we believe that a joined-up approach to data among justice partners is a necessary first step.

Research, monitoring and evaluation

Improving how data is collected, managed, shared, and used across the criminal justice system is essential – not only for enhancing operational effectiveness and individual experiences and outcomes, but also for enabling evidence-based policymaking. However, significant gaps in data and evidence remain. The Scottish Government’s Justice Analytical Services Areas of Research Interest document highlights several key examples.³⁹⁵ There are a number of existing bodies that collect, analyse and publish data and research on crime and justice, including independent academics, the Scottish Government’s Justice Analytical Services and bodies such as the Scottish Sentencing Council, Community Justice Scotland, the Risk Management Authority (RMA), Scottish Prison Service and Police Scotland.

However, we heard repeated calls for better data collection, reporting, and research. Victim Support Scotland, for example, expressed frustration about the absence of long-term modelling and analytical capacity, limited data on programme effectiveness, and insufficient evidence to track individuals’ engagement with rehabilitation and community support programmes. They emphasised that impartial and transparent data collection and analysis are essential for understanding the true impact of policies – both for the public and for decision-makers. The Commission considers that the lack of high-quality data and information about victims affects their experiences as they move through the system. This gap limits our understanding of those experiences and prevents us from shaping policy effectively or improving operational practice.

Data linkage: Aggregate, anonymised, linked data both within and beyond the criminal justice system allows for greater insights on key considerations such as the circumstances and experiences of those who encounter the justice system; the patterns of offending, the effectiveness of sentences and interventions, outcomes and support needs. Initiatives in England and Wales such as Data First (established 2020), which links together administrative datasets from across the justice system; and the BOLD programme (established 2022), which uses de-identified data from a range of areas of public policy,³⁹⁶ show promising examples of the kinds of insights and improvements that may be generated through data linkage to support decision making.³⁹⁷ In Scotland, the infrastructure is available to allow data linkage for research purposes,³⁹⁸ but progress is slow and research access to datasets within the justice sector remains limited. Scotland’s Safe Haven Network, for example, is predominantly focused on health and social care and education data.³⁹⁹ Research Data Scotland, which was established to streamline access to public sector data for research, references only one justice-related dataset – the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey. However, even that dataset is not currently accessible through their platform.

This means there is currently no accessible dataset available to independent researchers outside the Scottish Government that enables analysis of the characteristics of the population of people who have committed offences. Though there are planned developments to release the Scottish Offender Index, when released this will exist in isolation, without the capacity to connect it to other relevant datasets. This lack of integration means researchers cannot explore broader contextual factors or relationships. Compared to England and Wales, Scotland remains significantly behind in its ability to understand the demographics of individuals in contact with the justice system and sentencing trends. The absence of linked data poses a strategic challenge for the development of evidence-based justice policy and meaningful sentencing reform.

Monitoring and evaluation, and understanding outcomes: The Scottish Government recognises the overall importance of evaluation in its Evaluation Action Plan (2024). To create better outcomes for the people of Scotland, it states evaluation is needed to assess whether policies and interventions are being delivered as intended; if they are working, for whom and why; whether improvements are needed, whether they offer value for money, and; and how resources should be allocated to achieve the greatest impact within limited budgets. Currently, Justice Analytical Services within the Scottish Government performs this function but it is not adequately resourced to meet demand, whilst third sector providers told us that their funding does not extend to cover evaluation. Although there are methodological challenges in evaluating justice-related services,⁴⁰⁰ further action is required for both existing services and new developments.⁴⁰¹

Making progress in this area is not simply or solely a responsibility for national government. To give a specific example, in recent years, there has been a pragmatic acceptance that there are gaps in data and research on race and experiences of minority ethnic individuals across the criminal justice system in Scotland. We want to recognise the efforts of the Cross Justice Working Group on Race and Data Evidence⁴⁰² in seeking to address this and to take a more coordinated approach to planned research. This working group included academics, representatives of ethnic minority communities and racial equality groups, and justice organisations, like Police Scotland, Scottish Legal Aid Board, SCTS, COPFS, Community Justice Scotland, and various others. It is an example of collaborative good practice with a group of people as a focal point.

Fundamentally, for the public and professionals to have confidence in community justice disposals and services, and to promote good practice, there must be a clear understanding of several key factors:

• Which disposals are suitable for different types of offending;
• What approaches are well suited to particular groups of people (for example, having regard to age, race and ethnicity, sex and gender, LGBTQ+, disability, and so on);
• Which approaches effectively promote procedural justice and fairness;
• What approaches are most likely to lead to positive outcomes;
• Where resources (both financial and human) should be invested;
• Which services and interventions constitute good practice, in what contexts, and should be replicated at national level.

While there will be no one size fits all approach and recent evidence reviews have been crucial in highlighting key principles on what works to reduce reoffending,⁴⁰³ we simply do not have enough information to say what successful approaches look like, for whom, in what contexts, or whether such principles are being applied. Indeed, the Commission has seen many areas of positive local community practice and service provision but monitoring and evaluation are not prioritised or funded to evidence such practice. In May 2025, a review by the Care Inspectorate similarly found that “Justice Social Work are not systematically gathering and reporting quality or outcomes data, limiting capacity to demonstrate the effectiveness of community sentences.” The lack of “national data gathering and information sharing infrastructure” was identified as a key national barrier. The absence of outcomes data on community sentences undermines public and professional confidence and hampers efforts to reduce imprisonment.

Defining and measuring effectiveness, progress, and success in the justice system is inherently complex. The Scottish Government highlights the reconviction rate as one “indicator of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in the rehabilitation of offenders.”⁴⁰⁴ However, this measure offers limited insight: it is not timely, does not reflect changes in the frequency, severity, or nature of offending, and cannot assess the impact of local services or interventions.⁴⁰⁵,⁴⁰⁶ A shared national commitment is needed to consistently measure and monitor outcomes – both qualitative and quantitative – as well as the experiences of those in contact with the justice system and the services they use. This is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of local projects, interventions, and programmes, whether in the community or in custody.

Strategic and proportionate research, monitoring, and evaluation of sentencing, penal policy, and specific interventions are vital for informing professional, political, and public debate with clear, comprehensive evidence. There is an urgent need for consistent methods to demonstrate outcomes and track progress in supporting reintegration and rehabilitation. Without this, resources cannot be directed to the most effective interventions. Trust and confidence in the justice system, in part, depend on this data and evidence of justice that works.

“…sources of meaningful data or information on a person’s progress remains limited and is a barrier to demonstrating the effectiveness of community sentences […] Reaching shared agreement about what community sentences are seeking to deliver and how this will be meaningfully measured to demonstrate outcomes, and impact would be an important starting point.” – Care Inspectorate, Call for Evidence.

Recommendation 10.4: Review and strengthen analytical capacity, resourcing and skills across the justice sector, and improve collaboration to meet the key objectives set out below. Lead partners: Scottish Government, Police Scotland, COPFS, SCTS, SPS, Justice Social Work, Community Justice Scotland, Scottish Sentencing Council, Risk Management Authority.

Objectives

• deliver extended modelling and use futures and foresight methodologies to better position justice organisations to plan for long-term futures.
• increase the availability and access to anonymised, aggregate justice data sets, and data linkage with other non-justice datasets for example, health, for research purposes.
• increase the strategic monitoring, and evaluation of justice interventions, services and approaches.
• create a systematic, nationally consistent approach to tracking and understanding the impact and outcomes of all sentences, including community disposals and services, to build a comprehensive evidence base to demonstrate their effectiveness.
• identify and address key priority data and evidence gaps.
• collaborate with external, independent experts and justice researchers and those with lived experience of the justice system.

Recommendation 10.5: Establish a Justice Data and Research Observatory; a specialist, permanent body with expert representation from justice partners to provide a cross-criminal justice multi agency analysis function. Lead partners: Scottish Government, Police Scotland, COPFS, SCTS, SPS, CJS, RMA and Justice Social Work.

This joint analytical function should interrogate the recommended single, integrated justice dataset/information management system and other relevant sources of information for timely cross justice operational and analytical insights, providing a clear, current picture of the ‘health’ of the justice system from end to end. A whole-systems approach requires whole-systems data and whole-systems working. The observatory should work closely with, and complement, the important and existing individual analytical work of the Scottish Government’s Justice Analytical Services, the Risk Management Authority, the Scottish Sentencing Council, Community Justice Scotland, Scottish Prison Service and others.

Technology and digital transformation

Issues of data are closely related to wider conversations about technology and digital innovation of the criminal system. The Digital Strategy for Justice in Scotland was published by the Scottish Government and Justice Partners in 2014 with the following objectives: allow people and businesses to access the right information at the right time; fully digitised justice systems; make data work for us.⁴⁰⁷ There has been some progress to adopt digital technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system, for example, the national roll-out of digital evidence sharing capability (DESC) which allows police officers, prosecutors, defence lawyers, court staff and judges to access a secure, unified system to collect, store, process and manage evidence digitally. However, the objectives of the previous digital strategy remain timely and relevant today. More recently, Scotland’s new Digital Strategy, published in November 2025, highlights key issues of improving use of data and information sharing, as well as delivering collaborative digital programmes and common digital solutions for improved public service efficiency.⁴⁰⁸

There are many live questions about how technology, including new technology like AI, for example, might be applied to service delivery and analytics, and what the ethical and human rights implications of employing new technologies in justice are. Each justice partner will be on their own journey considering these questions. Though these considerations were not a central focus of the Commission’s remit; we are clear that the justice system must keep abreast of the opportunities that technology and digital innovation provides where it is appropriate to do so. However, it is critical to get the basics right first. This was echoed in our extensive engagement activity. Respondents to our Call for Evidence held a view that even better use of less recent or advanced technological solutions could assist penal reform, for instance, by supporting monitoring compliance in the community, whether through electronic monitoring on bail or release, increasing engagement and access to programmes and maintaining family ties. Technology can be used in rehabilitative and desistance-oriented ways.⁴⁰⁹ It was noted that people involved in the criminal justice system might need support to overcome digital exclusion, or for staff training on the use of digital technologies.

Keeping pace requires funding and resourcing commitment by the Scottish Government and justice partners. Justice Digital for example, in England and Wales is the Digital and Technology function for The Ministry of Justice UK working to “design, build and support user-centred digital and technology services for the justice system.” The current scale of people and resource within the Scottish Government progressing digital transformation of the justice system is nowhere near this level or adequate to the scale of the challenge. The Scottish Government and justice partners must therefore set the groundwork for future innovation, with a central focus on ethics, governance, privacy, and human rights, considering how technology may be implemented safely, responsibly, lawfully, and proportionately. Making progress on data and digitalisation must have at its heart a commitment to ethics and the public good.

Recommendation 10.6: Create a Justice Digital Unit within Scottish Government with adequate resourcing to lead and coordinate digital transformation across justice partners and ensure ethical use of technology, including AI. Lead partner: Scottish Government.