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

4 Service User Involvement

4.1 Service user involvement in the design and development of projects is a core element of the PSP model and it has been one of the main activities undertaken as part of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSP development process. This section presents an overview of the different approaches taken to service user involvement and assesses how successful stakeholders feel it has been, and what impact it has had in shaping services. The section also highlights innovation, and proposals agreed during Year 1 to secure ongoing service user involvement in the PSPs.

4.2 The key findings are:

• There has been significant involvement of service users in the PSPs using Development Funding in a variety of ways including focus groups, depth interviews and surveys. There were also some innovative approaches including the use of video to capture the views of one hard to reach group.
• The third sector led the involvement of service users and public sector partners played an important supporting role in many PSPs. Existing links and an understanding of service users, including hard to reach groups, were identified as key factors in the success of the service user involvement.
• Service user involvement mainly consisted of consultation to gather views on existing services and PSP proposals rather than direct engagement in the service design process. PSPs recognised the importance of engagement and most have developed proposals during Year 1 for ongoing engagement.
• Service user involvement was viewed as successful as it identified a number of issues and its impact is evident in several PSPs with services redesigned following input from users.

Service user involvement

4.3 All the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs involved service users during the development process. The approaches taken are briefly summarised in Appendix 8. In the majority of PSPs the level of service user involvement was described as significant both in terms of the quantity and quality of work undertaken, especially given the relatively short timescale. The key routes to involvement were traditional methods of surveys, interviews and focus groups, although there were some examples of more innovative approaches such as video, and text surveys.

4.4 Interviewees reported that the third sector had generally taken the lead role in service user involvement, building on the close links the sector had with service users, particularly those deemed as 'hard to reach'. Partners across PSPs identified that the third sector in Scotland, both at a national and local level has a track record of working within the justice system and with hard to reach groups, and the PSPs were able to build on a level of understanding and trust to provide valuable insight into service users' needs and aspirations. For the majority of the lead organisations the development of the PSP was a natural progression of their work and they reported that they were able to capture service user views quickly and effectively by using existing structures and links.

4.5 Interviewees also highlighted that the role of the public sector was important as they had in a number of cases provided the means of accessing offenders serving custodial or community sentences. Existing links with the public sector partners were seen as an important facilitator, as was the joint commitment among partners to progress the PSP. This resulted in PSP partners working together to engage service users, for example, one PSP used its existing links with the local authority CJSW service to consult over 150 service users in a short space of time. The support of SPS and individual prison governors was also highlighted by some lead organisations, which emphasised the importance of existing relationships, particularly at a local level, to establish service user views in the timeframe. These PSPs reported that this access to prisoners was vital for their proposal and development of mentoring ideas.

4.6 As Appendix 8 shows, service user involvement consisted mainly of consultation to gather views rather than direct engagement in discussions about service design. All the PSPs consulted service users to establish their experiences of the justice system, and in most cases their views on the specific mentoring proposals developed by the PSPs. There was limited active engagement of service users in the partner discussions around service design although partners highlighted that this would have been a challenge in the timescale. In their opinion, engagement was important but had to be conducted correctly and failing to do so could have been counterproductive. In particular, they highlighted it was not possible to secure genuine participation at Governance Group level by service users during the time available because of the need for capacity building. The timescale was the only challenge identified by partners during the service user involvement process.

Development Funding

4.7 Interviewees highlighted the importance of Development Funding to service user involvement. In a number of partnerships, the funding was used to allow staff to engage groups of service users or individuals and to pay for venue hire or out of pocket expenses. The Development Funding was also used in some PSPs for consultants to undertake the work, and this was seen as particularly useful where offending services were not core business because it enabled the lead organisation to gather detailed evidence for the bid.

4.8 A small number of PSPs used Development Funding to provide training and support to continue to inform project development and enable participation at a partnership level in the future. In one PSP, partners supported the development of a forum of ex-offenders to provide a voice for service users while another PSP established a pilot group to develop and test proposals.

4.9 The general view was that the Development Funding enabled the PSPs to reach service users in numbers and in a timeframe that would not have been possible if relying on their own resources.

Success and impact of service user involvement

4.10 The lead organisations and partners generally regarded the service user involvement as successful and something which had a positive impact on proposals.

4.11 The consultation was seen as successful as it identified a number of issues which had informed project development. These issues included the need for the mentoring services to be built around trusting relationships, recognising each offender as a unique individual, providing emotional and motivational support, and addressing practical issues such as employment, training, housing, health and benefits.

4.12 Across PSPs interviewees identified how these findings have secured changes in design directly attributable to the input of service users. Examples include:

• In one PSP feedback from service users was critical of the voluntary nature of proposals initially drawn up by partners. The users felt that this seriously undermined their 'value' not just in financial terms but in the way they would be viewed by peers and statutory agencies. As a result the partners redrew their plans to include paid mentors.
• One PSP identified the benefits of their service user involvement as "the most significant piece of research we undertook in terms of impact on our service design day and ultimately our proposal". Their work identified the severe isolation many younger prolific offenders suffer, particularly on release, and a bespoke service centred on "someone to talk to" has arisen from this work. The PSP also introduced paid and unpaid mentors into their programme as a result of user views.
• Another PSP was presented with strong evidence for a range of needs including accommodation, benefits, debt and money management, employment, training, substance misuse, and relationships with family and friends and as a result they widened their proposals and the range of organisations involved in the service. The consultations with offenders highlighted strong support for one-to-one mentoring to help offenders address practical problems, cope with stressful situations, provide emotional and motivational support, address offending behaviour, and provide and support links into other support services.
• One PSP extended the period of support to more than six months as this was deemed essential by service users.

Innovation

4.13 As outlined in Appendix 8, most consultation involved traditional methods such as surveys, focus groups, interviews and consultation events. One PSP was more innovative as it used Development Funding to commission a company to work with people with lived experience of the justice system. The company worked with nine men, discussing their experiences and thoughts which were used to create their own short film. Another PSP used a mobile phone text survey to overcome service users' literacy issues and a perceived reluctance to engage using traditional survey methods.

4.14 Other examples of innovation focused on the method of recruitment rather than particularly innovative research methods. For example, in one PSP, 47 inmates from two prisons were interviewed by prison staff on a one-to-one basis to provide detailed findings; the prison staff were briefed by the PSP consultant to apply research ethics and standards. In another PSP, service users were interviewed as participation was part of their 'Other activity requirement' stipulated in their Community Payback Order.

Year 1 proposals for ongoing service user engagement

4.15 The majority of PSPs highlighted that they would encourage ongoing service user engagement as the PSP progressed and had considered during Year 1 how to achieve this. Some PSPs proposed Service User Groups to provide ongoing feedback on delivery and user experience to the Governance Group. Other PSPs proposed the direct involvement of service users in the Governance Group, supported by capacity building to enable the service users to contribute effectively to the process.