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

3 Partnership Working

3.1 Partnership working is a key feature of the PSP model. This chapter assesses what impact the PSP model has had on partnership working, what mechanisms have been put in place to ensure an equal working relationship between partners and whether these have been successful, and the challenges to partnership working. The chapter starts with a brief summary of the partnerships covering their membership, meetings and structures, and partner roles. Finally, the role of key public sector partners is discussed given the importance of engaging the public sector in partnership working.

3.2 The key findings are:

• Partners were evenly divided between the third and public sectors and generally, interviewees felt the right partners were involved. Public sector partners were predominantly the eight Community Justice Authorities and local authorities. The involvement and the role of key public sector partners - local authorities, Community Justice Authorities, NHS and the Scottish Prison Service - varied significantly between PSPs.
• Partnership meetings played a significant part in the PSP development process, the frequency, format, and size of the meetings varied significantly.
• Organisations have fulfilled a variety of roles as lead, providers, referral, support and strategic partners.
• The impact of the PSP model on partnership working was said to be evident in improved relationships, better understanding between partners, the development of trust, and the development of shared values.
• Overall there was a sense of equal partnership working. The main mechanism to ensure equal partnership working was dialogue to address issues. Learning from the experience was also highlighted as an important means of developing equality in the future.
• A number of challenges to partnership working have been encountered and they involved the limited timescale available to develop PSPs, the competitive nature of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund, the different approaches of partners, a perceived lack of clarity at the outset on some issues, the input of different personnel, and the issues faced in discussing sustainability.

The Partnerships

Partnership Membership

3.3 The PSP survey found that a significant majority of respondents (84%) agreed that the right partners were on the PSP (see Appendix 7). In total the 14 PSPs involved 150 partners^[10] and Appendix 6 shows that membership is almost equally divided between the third (47%) and public (53%) sectors. Within the third sector, there were slightly more partners from national organisations (39) than regional/local organisations (31). Only one MoU included service users as a partner.

3.4 The public sector's involvement in the PSPs varied by organisational type. The CJAs were listed as partners in all 14 PSPs and local authorities were listed as partners in 12 PSPs, thereby demonstrating a strong commitment to the PSPs, at least on paper. Other public sector organisations have been involved in fewer PSPs - SPS and the Police were listed as partners in 4 PSPs, ADPs in 3 PSPs, and the NHS in 2 PSPs. In part this was a result of the PSPs' focus, for example, whether they were focused on offenders leaving prison or serving community sentences.

3.5 Not all 150 partners signed up to the acceptance section^[11] of the MoUs. ">Appendix 6 also shows that 111 individuals were named as signatories and they were divided evenly between the third (50%) and public (50%) sectors. Within the public sector, most signatories were from local authorities and CJAs.

3.6 Interviews established that PSP membership was driven by a number of factors. The lead organisations highlighted that they invited many of the partners to join the PSP bid on the basis of existing relationships that pre-dated the Change Fund. Lead organisations reported that good working relationships were an important consideration because they were comfortable working with these partners, could trust them, and in some cases felt the timescale meant there was limited time to engage new partners. In most cases the lead organisation and their invited partners formed the core of the PSPs and the lead organisations emphasised that this helped the PSP develop their proposals in the time available.

3.7 Some PSPs did seek to engage new partners. This was mainly driven by the lead organisation's own efforts to broaden the partnership by bringing in potential delivery partners or referrers of service users, as well as expertise on justice and mentoring. Some lead organisations highlighted that CJAs and The Robertson Trust - on behalf of the Decision Making Group - signposted some organisations to them as potential partners. The reaction to this was mixed with a small number feeling uncomfortable and suggesting it was unwelcome as it was viewed as outside interference in the Partnership. Overall, the involvement of new partners was seen as a positive aspect of the PSP development process by lead organisations and partners as it brought new ideas and enthusiasm to discussions and, in some cases, challenged the views of the lead organisations and their existing partners.

3.8 Two lead organisations used questionnaires to gather information on partners and potential partners' experience of mentoring, service delivery and links with other organisations. These organisations viewed this as a useful exercise which aided the PSP development process as they had a clear understanding of partners' experiences and capabilities.

3.9 The vast majority of the individuals listed as signatories had signed the MoU. The majority of missing signatures appeared in one particular MoU and interviews with two of the organisations highlighted that their involvement and support for the PSP was limited. Although this was an isolated incident it demonstrates challenges around partnership working existed behind what was presented in the MoUs.

3.10 Overall the make-up of proposed PSPs did not change significantly from Year 1 bids to Year 2/3 bids. A small number of organisations involved in early discussions around Year 1 bids were not subsequently been part of the Year 2/3 bids. The main reason identified by some of these organisations, was a looser fit between their particular skills or experience and the proposed PSP as the finer details of the PSP developed.

Partnership meetings and structures

3.11 One of the suggested uses of the Development Funding was the establishment of steering groups to guide the partnerships.

3.12 During Year 1 all bidders held a series of partner meetings to progress their proposals. The format, frequency, and size of the meetings varied significantly by PSP. There was a mix of formal minuted meetings and less formal meetings, frequencies varied from every two weeks to every six to eight weeks, and the size of meetings varied from less than five to approximately 20 attendees. In general, the more formal meetings involving all partners were in essence the Governance Groups and the less formal, non-minuted meetings tended to be core working groups. In addition, there were numerous one-to-one meetings in all PSPs which tended to focus on detailed elements of the proposed service.

3.13 These partner meetings were the mainstay of the PSP development process at which discussions took place on a wide range of issues - existing services, target groups and need, service gaps and opportunities, service user involvement, service proposals, sustainability, partnership structures, and bid writing. All partners including the lead organisations reported that these meetings were an essential part of the PSP development process that gave partners opportunities to discuss the key issues. The PSP survey found these meetings were felt to be open and encouraged dialogue (88%). Interviewees in all PSPs stated that the meetings were constructive and led to impacts such as improved or new relationships between partners, which was highlighted by a number of interviewees as one of the most positive aspects of the PSP development process. The meetings also resulted in tangible outputs such as existing service mapping, needs analysis, and draft service proposals which were an integral part of the bids. Many interviewees also highlighted that the meetings were challenging at times and the challenges to partnership working are discussed later in this chapter.

3.14 The PSP survey established that there was agreement that governance was strong and accountable (67%) although the strength of agreement was lower than a number of other questions in the survey (see Appendix 7). Some of the interviewees felt that governance was a challenge partly because of the necessity for a strong lead to ensure the tight bid deadline was met. The survey also found that there was agreement that PSPs met regularly to a firm agenda (75%) and information was shared among partners (83%). The existence of less formal meetings was reflected in the lower level of agreement in the survey that meetings were minuted (68%).

3.15 A demonstration of the strength of partnership work was the level of agreement that the partnership had a clear vision (83%), partners were involved in developing the vision (80%), and partners understand the purpose of the partnership (85%). The interviewees generally supported this view, although there was a view expressed by some partners that the vision was developed by the lead organisation and partners had less input than the survey suggests.

3.16 During Year 1 partners discussed the form and responsibilities of the partnership structures proposed for Years 2 and 3. Interviewees highlighted that these discussions were instigated by the lead organisation and varied across the 14 PSPs. Some lead organisations viewed developing the structures as an important part of the overall PSP development process that helped embed ownership during the bidding stage, whereas others viewed partnership structures as less important at that stage of the process. The resultant proposals for partnership structures were outlined in all 14 MoUs. The firmness of these proposals varied from those with individual named members and specified frequencies, to those where the responsibilities of the Governance Group was not defined. Three types of partnership structure were proposed:

• Single tier structures - proposed in seven PSPs adopting the Governance Group model included in the Year 2/3 MoU template. The seven PSP were all sub-national bids led mainly by medium sized third sector organisations.
• Two tier structures - proposed in four PSPs where strategic and operational groups would be developed; two of the PSPs were national and two were regional.
• Locality based structures - proposed in three PSPs that covered more than one administrative area where local steering groups would operate beneath an overarching Governance Group.

3.17 Analysis of the MoUs highlighted that the Governance Groups' proposed responsibilities included:

• Overseeing and guiding the PSP and service delivery.
• Ensuring the services work to the intended outcomes.
• Scrutinising the use of resources.
• Holding partners accountable to ensure their responsibilities are fulfilled.
• Sharing of best practice where local PSP steering groups exist.
• Highlighting local and national issues which may impact on the PSP.
• Engaging other stakeholders.
• Disseminating learning from the services and the PSP.

Partner roles

3.18 The PSP survey established that there was broad agreement that PSPs had set out clear roles and responsibilities for partners (81%), and the roles built on individual partner strengths (77%). Interviews support these findings although there was a view that roles and responsibilities were less clear at the outset.

3.19 PSP partners had various roles within the PSP which are summarised below:

• Lead - The lead organisation's role was covered in detail in the previous chapter.
• Providers - Many of the third sector organisations were primarily involved in the PSP because they were the proposed service providers that will deliver support directly to service users. Their involvement was said to be important in bringing expertise to the service design process and in most cases they had an existing relationship with the lead organisation.
• Referral - Some of the partners had been involved in the PSP as they would be the main referral agencies for service users and their involvement has brought an understanding of the criminal justice system which has informed service design. The referral partners tend to be public sector organisations although some are third sector organisations.
• Support - A small number of partners were not directly involved in the provision of services or referral of service users but provided complementary or onward referral services.
• Strategic - Public sector partners including the CJAs, ADPs and local authorities had a strategic role in the PSP linking it to the wider criminal justice system; they also had a potential future commissioning role.

3.20 The roles described above were not in all cases mutually exclusive.

Impact of the model on partnership working

3.21 The fieldwork established that the PSP model was felt to have had an impact on partnership working in terms of improved relationships, better understanding between partners, the development of trust, and the development of shared values.

3.22 The PSP model relies on partners working together to jointly define, design and ultimately, deliver services. A number of partners involved in the PSPs emphasised that the intensity of the joint working and the collaborative approach had resulted in a very positive impact on the nature of their relationship with other partners. For some this has been the strengthening of existing relationships whereas for others this has been the establishment of new positive relationships. Significantly this included improved relationships across the public and third sectors and new relationships with organisations including local authorities and CJAs. The interviewees felt that this impact would have benefits for partnership working in the future both within the PSPs and in joint working on other initiatives.

3.23 Numerous partners reported that their involvement in the PSPs had led to a greater understanding of each others' approach, services, and challenges. Interviewees identified this as a legacy of their involvement in the process regardless of the ultimate success of their PSP bids. For example, one lead partner appointed their development worker from a PSP partner's staff team and they felt this brought the two organisations closer together and gave their partner a greater feeling of ownership in the development process.

3.24 The PSP survey found agreement that there was trust among partners (73%). The interviews confirmed that, generally speaking, there was a good degree of trust between lead organisations and partners and vice versa and that the trust extended across sectors. The lessons from previous PSPs highlighted in Chapter 1 included the importance of trust. Interviewees felt that the trust provided a solid basis for the further development of the RRCF PSPs as well as other partnership working outwith the PSP.

3.25 All of the PSPs adopted the partnership working values included in the MoU template:

• Equality.
• Mutual respect and trust.
• Open and transparent communications.
• Co-operation and consultation.
• A commitment to being positive and constructive.
• A willingness to work with and learn from others.
• A shared commitment to providing excellent services to the community.
• A desire to make the best use of resources.

3.26 The wide ranging fieldwork with the lead organisations and partners shows that generally speaking these values have been evident during Year 1 and there is no reason to believe at this stage that they should not be continued in the future.

Equal partnership working between partners and mechanisms put in place to ensure equal working relationships

3.27 The PSP survey found that a majority of respondents agreed that partners were treated equally (64%) and support was available to maintain or achieve equality (61%). Although a majority of respondents agreed with both statements the strength of the agreement was less than other questions in the survey highlighting that not all partners felt there was equality within the PSP or support to achieve it. 14% of respondents strongly disagreed that partners were treated equally which was one of the highest levels of disagreement recorded by the survey. The interviews found that some partner organisations felt the PSPs were dominated by the lead organisations or other key stakeholders and they felt the process was not, at this stage, equitable.

3.28 Some partners felt the inequality was part of a natural process of partnership working where some partners will be more prominent than others. There was also a view that the timescales did not lend themselves to full equality at this stage.

3.29 Lead organisations and partners interviewed identified decision making as a key part of partnership working which informed their views on equality. Two broad approaches to decision making were identified. The most common approach was where the lead organisations encouraged a collegiate approach to decision-making and service design which promoted equality. The second approach was a more directive leadership style, where partners were expected to broadly support the decisions made by lead organisations. Partners generally felt the approach taken by lead partners was a reflection of the personalities involved, rather than a specific strategy.

3.30 Interviews established that the main approach to ensure equal partnership working was to talk through problems and reach compromises that all partners were happy with. Although this was viewed as a simple approach, interviewees felt it was appropriate and generally successful. In one PSP, the lead organisation felt there were fundamental differences in views that could not be overcome within the timescale for partnership development, despite efforts to communicate and reach agreement with partners. In this PSP the lead partner hoped that the issues would be resolved if their bid was successful.

3.31 Funding was also used in a small number of PSPs to aid equality. Two PSPs reimbursed all third sector partners for their time, arguing that this was fair and reinforced feelings of equality within partnerships. Another lead organisation offered to reimburse third sector partners but they declined.

3.32 Lead partners in the PSPs initiated by public sector organisations suggested that they had very strong support and buy in from the start, and felt this equality in commitment was a significant strength for their PSP's development. The lessons from previous PSPs highlighted in Chapter 1, and interviews with HMP Low Moss PSP partners, emphasised the benefits of the involvement of key public sector partners from the outset.

3.33 A number of interviewees highlighted that the PSPs were a new experience for many of those involved and they emphasised the importance to partnership working of learning from the experience as the PSP progressed. The survey found that a majority of respondents agreed that the PSPs had processes in place to capture learning (70%) and had identified barriers and enablers to delivery (76%). There was also agreement that PSPs had been modified through learning (63%) although the strength of agreement was not as high. Interviewees confirmed that there was some capture and application of learning, although this was limited, being influenced in their opinion by the timescales and the lead organisations' drive to submit bids by the January deadline.

Challenges to partnership working

3.34 Interviewees identified the following challenges to partnership working during Year 1 of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund.

Timescale

3.35 The timescale was the main challenge to partnership working identified by lead organisations and partners. Bidders had approximately three months from the award of Year 1 Development Funding to the submission of their Year 2/3 bids and generally interviewees felt this was a major challenge.

3.36 As mentioned above, a number of lead organisations highlighted that the limited time restricted the range of partners involved in the PSP and as a result they relied on organisations they had an existing relationship with. These interviewees felt that with more time there would have been greater opportunity to engage new partners including a wider range of public sector partners such as the police and the NHS. It was felt that this would have linked the PSP to more mainstream services and brought in more partners who may benefit in the long run from a reduction in reoffending. There was however also a view among some interviewees that the limited timescale had a positive effect in focusing minds and a longer timescale might not have led to different outcomes.

3.37 A number of lead organisations and other partners interviewed during this evaluation felt the limited time restricted the depth of discussions around services. Partners generally felt they had an opportunity to discuss issues and services but some did not feel their views necessarily influenced design. Some lead organisations felt the short time available impacted on their ability to make significant changes suggested by partners and they relied to an extent on their original proposals. Where this occurred some partners felt the partnership was not equal.

3.38 It was also suggested that this factor limited the extent to which learning and information sharing about PSP development could be cascaded beyond the core group of individuals who took part. There were examples of staff in organisations not knowing about or buying into the PSP development process.

3.39 It was felt that the availability of Development Funding did help to mitigate these challenges to some degree as it provided additional resources for the lead organisation without which the issues could have been more significant. The lead organisations were very conscious of the timescale but did, generally speaking, try to engage partners throughout the process as best as they felt they could.

Competitiveness

3.40 The competitive nature of the RRCF was also highlighted as a challenge to partnership working by the lead organisations and partners from all sectors. There were examples of lead organisations choosing not to share information with other bidders that asked for it for fear of harming their own chances of success. This impacted on the partnership discussions about existing services and service design at most PSPs. In a small number of cases this protectionism - as some lead organisations viewed it - was felt to potentially affect future relationships with those who were hostile to such requests, although partners highlighted that the PSP process had resulted in many examples of improved relationships.

3.41 The national third sector organisations that led PSPs were also partners in other bids and they reported that they were comfortable in these dual roles. They believed that they had managed to be partners in other bids without damaging their own bid or relationships with other organisations. In some cases this was because different individuals were involved in the different PSPs although that was not always the case. It is noteworthy that some of these national third sector organisations - and other partners - did state that the competitive nature of the RRCF PSPs was counter to some of the core principle of PSPs such as co-production and trust.

3.42 Some interviewees praised the role some of the CJAs played in information flow between competing bids without divulging confidential information and this helped overcome some of the challenges.

Different approaches

3.43 The different approaches and ways of working were said to be a challenge for some partners - particularly at the outset - and this was mainly identified as an issue where organisations were working with each other for the first time. There was however, generally speaking, a commitment to work through the differences for the benefit of the bid. In one example of differing approaches between two third sector partners, the lead organisation highlighted that seeking the views of other partners helped to overcome differences as it provided wider support for the proposals which helped to allay some of the concerns. There were a small number of occasions where the differences between partners resulted in one disengaging from the process.

Clarity

3.44 Partnership working at the start of the process was found to be challenging in some PSPs as some partners sought clarity on a number of issues including their role, the role of other organisations, the lead organisations' motivation for leading, the focus of the RRCF, and the purpose of the PSP model. This was in some cases interpreted as a reluctance to commit to the process, at least at the outset. This meant that the first, and sometimes some subsequent meetings, were described as challenging as some partners were less committed than they turned out to be in subsequent meetings. It should be noted however, that this is a common initial stage of partnership building and not unique to PSPs (other than the specific clarity sought around what a PSP model was and what the RRCF would fund).

3.45 Some interviewees felt the Guidance could have been clearer on some of these issues such as the role of the CJAs and The Robertson Trust, or the rationale for adopting a PSP model. There was however also many interviewees who felt the Guidance was adequate.

Personnel

3.46 Although not a widespread issue, some interviewees highlighted that representatives of some organisations changed from meeting to meeting and their contribution to the discussion was therefore affected. In their opinion the lack of continuity meant that on occasions issues had to be revisited or representatives did not contribute to discussions as they had not been party to previous discussions. Some partners were also frustrated by some representatives lacking the authority to make decisions there and then and needing to seek support after the meetings, although again this was not a widespread view. It was felt that this slowed down the decision making process and emphasised differences between partners. These issues are not specific to PSPs but some interviewees felt had been exacerbated by the limited timescale discussed above.

Sustainability

3.47 One of the main challenges to partnership working was the sustainability requirements built into the PSP model and sustainability is discussed in detail in chapter 6. At this stage we highlight the fact that it was a difficult issue that partners reported created some tension as public sector partners felt in many cases unable to provide the commitments sought by the lead organisation, and the bidding criteria. Although sustainability tested relationships it did not lead to lasting problems as there was an appreciation of the positions that the different partners took. The issue was also helped by the partners working together to find an acceptable solution with the CJAs invariably playing an important role.

The role of public sector partners

3.48 Public sector partners are central to the PSP model and the justice system. The lessons from PSPs in Scotland highlighted the importance of the public sector's role in instigating the PSP process and being open to change and interviews with the organisations involved in the HMP Low Moss PSP support these findings. The roles of key public sector partners - local authorities, CJAs, NHS and SPS - in the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund are examined below.

Local authorities

3.49 The role of the local authority was influenced by the geographic focus of the PSPs. In three PSPs the local authority had been instrumental in instigating the partnerships which all had a very local focus. In other PSPs that also had a local focus, the PSP had been driven by local partners with an existing relationship with the local authority and the local authority tended to be described or describe themselves as an active and supportive partner. At this level the local authorities - mainly represented by CJSWs - had generally provided information on existing services and need, provided access to service users for research purposes, and played a prominent role in discussions on service design and information management. In some cases where the lead organisation had limited experience of criminal justice provision, CJSW also provided information on previous services or possible referral routes which helped the service design process. Generally speaking, CJSWs interviewed who were involved in PSPs were supportive of the model and welcomed the opportunity to work in a more collaborative way with trusted local third sector organisations to co-design services which reflected local need.

3.50 As the geographic focus increased from local to regional and national the increasing scale made it more difficult for the lead organisations to directly engage an increasing number of CJSW services. In some cases their involvement was achieved through ADSW or COSLA representing CJSWs collectively, or through CJAs cascading information to the CJSWs in their area. Consequently the CJSW role and their individual sense of relevance and ownership of regional and national PSPs was understandably less than the local bids. In these circumstances CJSWs generally felt there would be a need for more detailed discussions in the near future at a local level to avoid possible duplication between the national RRCF PSPs and existing services, and between local and national RRCF PSPs.

3.51 ADSW and COSLA interviewees were generally supportive of the PSP model in principle although there were some reservations about the application of the model in the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund. The principles of co-design, cross-sector working, service user involvement, preventative spending and piloting new approaches were highlighted as positive attributes of the PSP model which were supported; there was also support for the focus on reducing reoffending across Scotland and the financial support available. Reservations centred mainly on the limited involvement in the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs of some public sector partners that could benefit in the long run from reduced reoffending and the view that this led to local authorities being seen by service providers as the main potential sources of funding at the end of the pilot period. Involvement of all public sector partners which stood to benefit was proposed by these interviewees as well as an assessment of where the savings would accrue. There were also concerns about the prescribed third sector leadership of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs and that the PSP model could be used more widely in the future to outsource local authority services.

Community Justice Authorities

3.52 The Year 2/3 Guidance stated that the Scottish Government expected relevant CJAs to be involved in the process and in all PSPs this was the case. The PSP development process coincided with Scottish Government consultation about the future of the Community Justice system in Scotland including the role of CJAs and their role in the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund may have some bearing on future discussions about the CJAs. The CJAs essentially took on three roles in the RRCF PSP development process.

3.53 Firstly, all CJAs had an important role as the body with oversight of the justice system in their area. The CJAs themselves stated that the nature of this role changed over the course of Year 1 - at the outset they described their role as a consultee for PSPs which they then felt developed into a stronger role intended to minimise duplication and maximise contribution to the CJA Area Plan. This firmer, more strategic role resulted in some CJAs stating that they would not sign off bids and this is a significant issue as without CJA support, bids were unlikely to be successful. The CJAs generally welcomed this strategic role stating that it fitted their overall remit. Some CJAs highlighted that they would have welcomed earlier clarification of this role which they stated was communicated to CJA Chief Officers by The Robertson Trust - on behalf of the Decision Making Group - in November 2012. As part of this role a number of the CJAs held workshops for PSPs in their area to share information and minimise duplication, as far as possible in the competitive Change Fund environment. The CJAs also held a number of separate meetings with specific PSPs. The CJAs were of the opinion that most bidders made appropriate use of the CJA's support although there were some examples of bidders being reluctant to take on board their views and those of local CJSWs, or consulting CJAs at a late stage in the bidding process.

3.54 Secondly, the CJAs had a unique role in the national women offenders PSP. Following the publication of the Commission on Women Offenders' Report, the CJA Chief Officers agreed that a national mentoring service should be developed, if funding could be identified. The RRCF provided potential funding and the CJA Chief Officers identified the lead organisation as the most appropriate lead given their experience of mentoring and female offender support services. South West Scotland CJA Chief Officer Co-Chaired this PSP and was a strong presence in the process. The CJAs collectively supported the bid and tried to ensure that other bids in their areas took account of this bid.

3.55 Thirdly, in some of the local PSPs the CJAs were closely involved in the PSP development process. In these PSPs the CJA was said to be an active participant in the discussion on service design and a strong supporter of the bid. This contrasted with some of the 'hands-off' approach adopted by other CJAs given their oversight role described above. For example, one CJA Chief Officer stated that they were unwilling to be involved in local bids because of their support for one of the national PSPs despite the view that the local bid appeared to have some merit.

3.56 Generally speaking, CJAs interviewed were supportive of the PSP approach and positively welcomed the new collaborative approach to service design, the flexibility in the model to adapt services during the pilot phase, and the focus on preventative spend. Some CJAs also welcomed the lead role prescribed for third sector organisations as they felt it encouraged new, additional services, made regional and national bids easier to co-ordinate, and may allow for speedier staff recruitment. Some of the CJAs highlighted that their role in underwriting the PSPs was important as it represented a significant point in the development of CJAs. There was some reservation among the CJA representatives about the different roles CJAs had and how these roles impacted on each other. There was also some concern expressed by PSP partners about the varying role of CJAs during the process and between areas and they felt that clarity on this issue would be useful in the future.

National Health Service

3.57 The NHS was involved in a small number of Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs. Their limited involvement was highlighted by some interviewees from the CJAs, local authorities, and third sector organisations, as a gap in the makeup of the PSPs for two reasons. Firstly, one of the aims of the PSPs was to encourage service users to link into mainstream services including health services and their limited involvement was felt by these interviewees to make this less likely. Secondly, these interviewees highlighted that the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund was part of a preventative spending approach but the absence of the NHS at the majority of the PSPs meant that discussions about where savings will accrue and which organisations should invest to save would not involve all relevant public sector services.

3.58 Where the NHS was involved they were said to have played a significant role, not least in one PSP where a local NHS Board was in effect the lead organisation (and in fact was the initial lead for the bid for Development Funding). The organisation's lead contact on the PSP had significant PSP and criminal justice experience and this was utilised in the development of the PSP. The individual also attended workshops for another PSP where the NHS was a proposed member of the Programme Board. Another PSP also had input from the Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) National Prisoner Healthcare Network. The organisation's involvement built on an existing relationship with third sector lead and the lead organisation highlighted that the NHS had been an important contributor to the service design process.

Scottish Prison Service

3.59 When brought in by the lead organisation and/or involved in the initial discussions, SPS were said to have been an active participant in the PSP development process. They provided information on existing services and need to help inform service design. They also provided access to service users for research purposes, most notably in one PSP where prison staff undertook depth interviews with inmates (see Chapter 4). In addition, a private sector company which operates a prison on behalf of SPS played an important role in the early stages of one PSP bid - they attended partner meetings and workshops, and provided access to inmates for research purposes before the focus of the PSP moved on to community based services. The lead organisations in these PSPs built upon an existing relationship with SPS/the private prison operator. However, overall SPS were involved in a limited number of PSPs.

3.60 There was some criticism of the SPS' input in one of these PSPs highlighting occasional differences between the position taken by SPS representatives from the central team and from specific prisons. It was suggested that this led to a lack of clarity from SPS which was a challenge for the lead organisation. It should be noted that this was a minority view.