Reducing Reoffending Change Fund Evaluation of Year 1 - Public Social Partnership Development

2 Lead Organisations and leadership

2.1 A unique feature of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs was the specification they must be led by third sector organisations. This chapter therefore focuses on the organisations that led the PSPs and the leadership they provided. The chapter starts with an overview of the lead organisations and their leadership responsibilities; it then addresses the following research questions:

• How the projects have used the funding to develop PSPs
• Why did the organisations choose to get involved with a PSP? What did they hope to get out of this model of working?
• Are they achieving what they wanted to from being part of a PSP model? Would they be part of a PSP model again?
• What challenges are they facing through the process?

2.2 This is followed by a summary of partners' views on the advantages and disadvantages of third sector organisations leading PSPs.

Summary of key findings

• There is significant variation in the size, scale and experience of the third sector organisations that led the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs.
• Lead partners' motivation for applying to the Change Fund focused on the availability of funding to expand or develop services and the opportunity to work in a new collaborative way with the public sector.
• The lead organisations undertook a wide range of activities in the development of PSPs and the activities were generally viewed as successful.
• Lead partners described their involvement in the PSP process in positive terms, and identified a range of benefits from the experience.
• Challenges were faced by the third sector lead organisations including limited experience, difficulties in assuming the leadership role and issues engaging partners within the timescale.
• Interviewees identified both advantages and disadvantages of third sector organisations leading PSPs.

Overview of PSP leadership role and summary of the lead partners

2.3 The Year 2/3 Guidance specified that the lead partner in all Reducing Reoffending Change Fund bids should be a third sector organisation with the capacity and experience to manage the proposed service. The Guidance also emphasised that the third sector should be at the heart of service design and delivery.

2.4 Appendix 4 provides an overview of the 14 third sector organisations that led the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs. All of the lead partners were medium or large third sector providers; none were small^[9] organisations. The scale of their service provision varied - five operated nationally and the remainder typically provided services within one or two local authority areas. There were differences in each organisation's experience, including the extent to which lead partners had previously worked within the justice sector and their experience of delivering services to reduce reoffending. Eight of the lead organisations had experience of PSPs prior to their involvement in the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund, which mainly involved participation in the HMP Low Moss PSP.

2.5 The experience of lead partners was discussed in interviews. In PSPs where the lead organisations had direct experience of working in criminal justice, they were more likely to have pre-existing relationships with partner agencies to build on, which was seen as an aid to development of the PSP. Some interviewees felt that those lead partners with a history of PSP working were in a strong position due to a clear understanding of what the partnership needed to achieve within the development period. A minority of interviewees, however, suggested that there was a risk that these partners came with preconceived models of working - for example, strong ideas about the number of partners that should be involved in design - that were not necessarily appropriate for this round of PSP development. The organisations involved in HMP Low Moss PSP consulted during this evaluation have been very positive about the experience which they felt had helped in the RRCF PSP development process.

2.6 Partners involved in more than one PSP were able to compare differences in lead partners' levels of skill and experience. Some highlighted that larger third sector organisations had an advantage in terms of experience of high-level cross sector working, being able to draw on resources and administrative support, and having more time to devote to PSPs' development.

How the projects used the funding to develop PSPs

2.7 Appendix 5 summarises how lead organisations proposed to use the Development Funding. It shows that approximately two thirds of the funding was proposed for staff costs (68%), with other proposed expenditure including lead partner costs (15%), consultants (6%) and service user involvement (4%).

2.8 Interviews with the lead organisation highlighted that their staff committed a significant amount of time and energy to the PSP development process. In the majority of PSPs, senior staff from the lead organisation - such as Chief Executives and Directors of Operations - took a hands-on role in PSP development. In part this was linked to the impact that the proposed PSP service would have on the organisation, for example where it represented a significant addition to their services or a strategic shift in direction for their organisation. In the medium sized third sector organisations, input from senior staff was also linked to the organisations' structure where they did not generally have alternatives such as development staff. In some lead organisations, including some where the proposals were a relatively small part of their overall services, senior staff were involved but to a lesser extent and day-to-day work was undertaken by other members of staff. Interviewees reported that the presence of senior staff in lead partners sent clear signals that the PSP development was a strategic priority and this helped to foster buy in both internally within organisations and externally across partners. There were also variations in the number of staff involved in lead partners' development work. Larger organisations often had a bigger team dedicated to the PSP to allow them to share the workload and the learning.

2.9 In some cases partners viewed the Development Funding as a collective PSP resource, and described being asked for consent and/or views on how it was to be spent. In others areas there was some - albeit limited - criticism of the Development Funding as partners were not aware of how it had been used, suggesting that lead partners controlled the funds.

2.10 The majority of interviewees - including all bar one of the lead organisations - felt the Development Funding was very important to the PSP development process. The main benefit highlighted was that the funding provided internal and external staff time which was required for bid development for years 2 and 3. Several lead organisations stated that they would not have been able to develop their bid in the way they did without the Development Funding. The PSP that did not view the Development Funding as important stated that they would have bid without it.

2.11 There were mixed views about the signals that Development Funding for Year 1 sent to stakeholders. Positive feedback included the perception that it gave the RRCF credibility, signalling that an extensive amount of work was required during the development process. These interviewees suggested the resource differentiated the Fund from other initiatives in that it signalled both the process (development) and the final output (application) were valuable. On the other hand, a small number of interviewees suggested the resource attracted opportunistic bidders to the process.

2.12 Seven PSPs used external consultants. Partners within these PSPs explained that their consultants might have enhanced partnership working because, when treated as a collective PSP resource, they reinforced the feeling of equality among partners. There was also a view that external consultants increased capacity, brought objectivity to the process or significant experience and expertise.

2.13 Interviews with a sample of organisations that were unsuccessful in their initial bids for development funding highlighted that they had also committed a significant amount of time to the bidding process. These organisations were understandably disappointed with the outcome and some questioned the reasons given for rejection but accepted the decisions. One of the unsuccessful Year 1 Development Fund bidders went on to prepare and submit a Year 2/3 application, committing a significant amount of time to that bid (which was also unsuccessful). Despite this they highlighted positives from the process in the form of new and/or improved relationships and the design of a useful service, for which they hoped to identify alternative sources of funding. Other unsuccessful Year 1 bidders said they did not feel able to progress their PSP without the financial resource, with one taking the initial rejection as a signal that they were not appropriate for the Fund.

What activities did organisations undertake as part of the PSP development?

2.14 Lead partners described a range of activities involved in PSP development, which aligned with the way that funds were used as summarised above. The tasks most frequently mentioned were:

• to create and implement a plan for PSP development
• appoint existing/recruit new staff and/or consultants to undertake PSP development work
• identify and engage PSP partners and wider stakeholders
• undertake mapping activities
• facilitate and input into the co-production of service design
• consult with service users
• produce the Year 2 & 3 funding application
• access support and guidance as necessary
• project manage the PSP development process.

2.15 Interviews established that overall the activities were positively evaluated by partners and were generally viewed as successful. The PSP survey (see Appendix 7) supports these findings as it found a significant majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that:

• A range of activities took place as part of PSP development (88% of respondents).
• The activities were well attended and relevant (77%).
• The activities were successful and boosted partnership development (71%).

Why did the organisations choose to get involved with a PSP? What did they hope to get out of this model of working?

2.16 The main motivation for lead partners' involvement in PSPs was the opportunity to access funding to develop or expand a service that fitted the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund criteria. In the majority of cases, the provision of services to reduce reoffending was already core business for the lead organisations, including a number with mentoring services, and where this was not the case mentoring/reducing reoffending were areas the lead organisations had a strategic rationale for developing.

2.17 Some interviewees also suggested that the process offered a means of engaging partners in service design and securing support for the project that was developed. For example, one PSP lead partner had already begun working on the extension of an existing mentoring service to other areas of Scotland and they viewed the Change Fund as an opportunity to engage wider partners more closely in the expansion process and a funding source that could cover the cost of development and, potentially, the delivery stage.

2.18 Although a secondary factor, some lead organisations - and other partners - highlighted that the opportunity to work in a PSP appealed to them. These interviewees welcomed the opportunity to work in a new, collaborative way with partners and they hoped the PSP development process would result in closer working relations between the third and public sectors.

2.19 Five of the lead partners did not initiate their PSPs' development as it was first identified by a public sector partner who then sought a third sector organisation to work with. This was most prominent in the development of the national women offenders PSP which was initiated by CJAs following the findings of the Commission on Women Offenders. The CJA Chief Officers' agreed they would support a national women offenders mentoring service and they identified a national third sector organisation to develop a PSP focusing on this target group.

Are they achieving what they wanted to from being part of a PSP model? Would they be part of a PSP model again?

2.20 A significant majority of lead organisations - and other partners - described their involvement in the PSP process in positive terms. Most linked achieving what they wanted to from the PSP model directly to their success or otherwise in securing Year 2/3 funding above any other benefits.

2.21 Outwith the desired funding outcome, the majority of lead organisations were of the opinion that the PSP development process had been beneficial and they had achieved something tangible from it. The benefits highlighted included an opportunity to engage new and existing partners, build closer working relationships through collaborative working and secure cross-sector support for the project that was developed. A small number of lead organisations also highlighted that they had increased their profile and they saw this as a positive aspect that could be beneficial in the future.

2.22 Some lead organisations highlighted that their lead role had put them in a strong position to steer the PSP's development, including the ability to determine how resources should be used and discretion over which partners to approach in the initial stages of PSP development. A small number of lead partners said this was empowering, and on that basis they would seek opportunities to join other PSPs in future. For example, one lead partner explained that previously they would not have considered or felt able to ask a public sector partner to get involved in design, provide support for a funding application or supply data that would evidence its need. This organisation suggested that co-designed services are strong, credible and more likely to complement local strategies. They felt that co-designed funding applications are much more likely to be successful, and they planned to work with public sector partners on bids much more often in future.

2.23 For the above reasons, lead organisations - and other partners - stated that they would, generally speaking, be part of a PSP again, despite the challenges faced.

What challenges are they facing through the process?

2.24 The lead organisation identified a number of challenges they have faced through the PSP development process including:

• Timescale - The majority of lead organisations suggested that the timescale for PSP development was a significant challenge which impacted on the scope of proposals with some commenting that there was only enough time to develop plans with known partners, in areas they already operated in.
• Leadership - Two medium sized third sector organisations identified initial challenges in assuming the leadership role within PSPs. Their examples include a lack of confidence, difficulties in co-ordinating meetings across a range of partners, and finding it challenging to direct public sector staff who formerly had a role in commissioning their services.
• Engaging partners - some lead organisations described challenges engaging partners where they had preconceived ideas about the lead organisation's levels of professionalism and misunderstandings about services they offer. A small number of interviewees from the lead organisations said their views were not taken seriously because the public sector viewed them as less experienced and less professional.
• Understanding of PSPs - some leads identified a challenge at the outset in terms of their understanding of what a PSP was, and one suggested their unfamiliarity with the model initially dissuaded them from bidding. The majority of lead organisations however felt that the Guidance and support was sufficient for understanding of what was required.
• Experience of the justice system - most lead organisations had significant experience of the justice system, however where they did not, challenges were faced, particularly at the outset. For example, one lead partner reported that at the outset, they assumed the CJA Chief Officer would co-ordinate with the relevant CJSWs, and when this was not done a CJSW representative described annoyance at this oversight and frictions in the initial stages. The opposite assumption was made in another PSP - their lead assumed that CJSW colleagues would confer with the CJA Chief Officer, only learning that this was not the case quite late in the partnership's development.

The advantages and disadvantages of third sector leads

2.25 Third sector leadership of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs was prescribed by the Decision Making Group at the outset. This distinguished the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs from other PSPs in Scotland which have not prescribed which sector lead organisations should be from. Several interviewees from both third and public sector organisations questioned the rationale for having a third sector organisation as the lead. They suggested that the PSP development process should include identifying which organisation is best placed to fulfil the leadership role, irrespective of their sector. This final section sets out interviewees' views on the advantages or disadvantages of third sector leads.

Advantages

2.26 A number of public sector partners described experiencing a positive change in their views as a result of witnessing leadership from a third sector organisation. This was mainly because the process allowed them to learn about others' services and revisit preconceptions. They described learning about cultural differences in ways of working, sharing information and managing decision-making. For example, one partner explained that they had previously assumed that third sector organisations were small-scale, they realised this was assumption was wrong when they learned about the full extent of the lead partner's services and undertook the mapping exercise of other services during the PSP development.

2.27 A small number of public sector partners suggested that the third sector was in a better strategic position to develop national programmes than public sector partners, because bodies such as local authorities or health boards would find it more challenging to establish a national programme that had support from each local area. Some interviewees also believed that the public sector is unable to work as quickly as the third sector, which would have hampered the development of national bids within the timescale available for PSP development.

2.28 Some interviewees were of the opinion that the third sector was likely to innovative, flexible, and have closer relationships with service users than the public sector. Many third sector partners suggested that the sector has these attributes, describing their organisations as better placed to lead PSPs as a result. However, many public sector partners suggested that those qualities are not exclusive to third sector and that their staff are similarly innovative, adept at engaging with clients and designing services.

Disadvantages

2.29 Interviews with third sector organisations involved in mentoring and/or reducing reoffending that did not apply to the RRCF highlighted that some smaller third sector organisations self-excluded from bidding, feeling that the development process would be too resource intensive, even with the possible support of Development Funding. Some of the smaller third sector organisations that applied for development funding but were unsuccessful also felt they were disadvantaged by size.

2.30 A minority of partners interpreted the specification that third sector organisations should lead PSPs as a signal that public sector partners were to take a reactive role in the formation of PSPs. For example, one public sector partner suggested that it was not their sector's role to initiate applications and they were surprised to learn that counterparts in other areas had done so. This interviewee felt that an open platform, or clearer guidance about who could initiate bids, would have resulted in greater input from public sector partners, and resulted in applications that were potentially more aligned with local justice strategies. Other interviewees suggested a more central role for the public sector would also have helped some PSPs to capitalise on the public sector resources and connections with relevant services.

2.31 A minority of third sector leads suggested that public sector partners are able to work faster than third sector colleagues because they have equipment such as smart phones which allow them to respond to emails quickly. There were however other lead organisations with equivalent access to technology as their public sector partners.

2.32 Interviewees also identified disadvantages which were connected with the size of the third sector lead rather than their third sector status. These issues were:

• Some interviewees felt that the predominance of major national third sector organisations as lead organisations - and partners - undermined the change element of the RRCF, suggesting that they were likely to use the funds to continue or adapt existing services rather than develop new approaches. These interviewees suggested that smaller third sector organisations are more likely to be innovative, and therefore well placed to develop approaches which represent significant change in practice or service delivery.
• There were some concerns that the success of PSPs led by larger organisations in Year 1 might result in smaller organisations becoming excluded from criminal justice provision. A number of partners and potential partners said they believed the large third sector lead organisations would absorb most of the delivery funding in years 2 and 3.
• There was a view among some interviewees that smaller third sector organisations were disadvantaged in their ability to engage partners compared to large third sector organisations that had a higher profile which encouraged partners' confidence and willingness to work with them.