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

7 Conclusions

7.1 The preceding chapters of this report have focused on the experiences and role of the lead organisations and assessed how the organisations and their partners addressed key elements of establishing a PSP - partnership working, service user involvement, co-production and sustainability. Chapter 3 highlighted that partnerships consist of broadly equal numbers of third and public sector organisations although the level of involvement of the public sector varies by organisational type; significantly the chapter also highlighted that partnership working was a real strength of the PSP development process to date. Chapter 4 highlighted that extensive service user consultation was undertaken although direct engagement in the design process was limited to date. Chapter 5 highlighted that co-production was an integral part of the PSP development process consisting mainly of discussion around a service proposal presented by the lead organisation although some involved deeper collaborative design. Chapter 6 highlighted that sustainability was a key consideration from the outset and that CJAs in particular committed to underwriting the services if they proved to be successful and other conditions were met.

7.2 This concluding chapter revisits the questions posed in the research brief to provide an overview of progress to date in the development of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs.

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

7.3 Generally speaking the main reasons why organisations were involved in a PSP were not because it was a PSP but related to the Change Fund's focus on mentoring services to reduce reoffending. The availability of funding was a key factor in why the lead organisations and delivery partners got involved in the RRCF. It was also a factor in why some other partners supported the PSP bid as it was seen as an opportunity to bring resources into their area. However, funding was not the only factor. The majority of the lead organisations were involved in the delivery of justice services and/or mentoring services and they viewed the RRCF as an opportunity to expand or develop new services. Where the lead organisation was not already involved in justice or mentoring they had been identified as potential growth areas that the RRCF provided an opportunity to develop. Ultimately the aspiration to reduce reoffending was therefore a factor.

7.4 The PSP model was highlighted as a secondary factor insofar as it offered an opportunity to expand/develop mentoring services to reduce reoffending in a new way. Although there were some reservations about the PSP model - mainly where it was an unknown quantity - it appealed to third sector lead organisations as it gave them a much more prominent position in the service design process. It is also noteworthy that a number of the public sector partners that engaged in the process were also interested in working in a new way more closely with the third sector, and ensuring service users' voices were heard.

7.5 A small number of interviewees highlighted that the Change Fund's prescription of the PSP model did not allow partners to consider whether PSPs were the most appropriate model or proportionate to the likely outcomes. The Scottish Government's Guide to developing PSPs includes reference to both of these issues.

What activities did organisations undertake as part of the PSP development? How successful or unsuccessful do they feel these were?

7.6 The PSPs delivered a range of activities in a relatively short space of time. The activities have been described in this report and were essentially those outlined by the RRCF Guidance, most notably a series of partnership workshops and meetings, extensive service user involvement with a range of participants including hard to reach groups, detailed service mapping and needs analysis, and collaborative service design. Interviewees highlighted that Development Funding was important in progressing these activities in the time available via a combination of in-house staff and external consultants, with considerable support from partner organisations from both the public and third sector.

7.7 Generally the lead organisations and their partners viewed these activities as successful. The consensus was that the submissions for year 2 and 3 funding had benefitted greatly from the activities, and better evidenced and more detailed proposals had resulted.

Do they feel that the PSP model is having a positive, negative or no impact on the quality of the service that has been/is being developed? What is it about the model that is having this impact, if any?

7.8 PSP partners generally viewed the PSP model as having a positive impact on the quality of the services proposed in their bids and they were also optimistic that this would be shown in the delivery phase. The main reason for their optimism was the opportunity afforded by the PSP model for partners from the third and public sectors to co-produce services that took account of service user views and existing services more than might have been the case using other models. Co-production and service user involvement were highlighted as important factors.

7.9 Two approaches to co-production were developed - refinement of an approach proposed by the lead organisations, and a more fundamental approach to the design of a new service from scratch - feedback on the latter process was very positive. Views on the success of the two approaches varied and preclude conclusions about which was more effective. The process of co-production was one of the elements of PSP development that partners found most valuable, in terms of learning about services, sharing knowledge and experience, and fostering a system of close joint working. The majority of partners interviewed felt the proposals were co-designed and the process had a positive impact on the quality of services developed. Similarly, service user involvement was viewed as successful as it identified a number of issues and an impact was evident in several PSPs where services were redesigned following input from users.

What impact has the model had on partnership working? What mechanisms have been put in place to ensure an equal working relationship between partners and are these successful?

7.10 Chapter 3 highlighted the positive messages around partnership working emanating from the PSP interviewees. 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.

7.11 Overall there was a sense of equal partnership working. The main mechanism to ensure equal partnership working was dialogue and information sharing to address issues. However, achieving equal working relationships was identified as a challenge and this is important as the lessons from previous PSPs emphasised the importance of equality. Generally speaking, the PSPs were aware of the need to progress equal partnership working in the future.

What challenges are partnerships facing through the process?

7.12 It is noteworthy that generally a positive view of the PSP model was found despite a number of challenges identified by the organisations involved. These challenges have been discussed in all sections of this report as they relate to the lead organisations, partnership working, service user involvement, co-production and sustainability.

7.13 Challenges faced by the third sector lead organisations included overcoming limited experience of PSPs, mentoring and the justice system, difficulties in assuming the leadership role, and difficulties engaging partners within the timescale. Challenges identified around partnership working involved the limited timescale available to develop PSPs, the competitive nature of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund, the different approaches of partners, the need for clarity at the outset on some issues, the input of different personnel, and the issues faced in discussing sustainability. Interviewees highlighted that there were challenges in the three key aspects of co-production around identifying gaps and evidencing need, considering how schemes would link with existing and developing interventions, and defining objectives and outcomes. Interviewees also highlighted challenges during sustainability discussions around the limited involvement of some public sector partners including some of those that may benefit from savings resulting from a reduction in reoffending in the future, the limited timescale which impacted on the depth of discussions, issues working across administrative borders for some PSPs, and the prevailing funding and policy environment.

Do they feel that the service being developed through the PSP model is likely to be sustained after the Change Fund ends? Why or why not?

7.14 Discussions around sustainability occurred in all PSPs and resulted in written commitments from public sector partners - mainly from the Community Justice Authorities - to underwrite services in the future in 13 of the 14 PSPs that received Development Funding. The commitments were subject to a number of caveats including the outcome of the UK spending review in 2014/15 and evidence of service impact. The 14 partnerships were unsure about whether the services developed through the PSP model would be sustained after the Change Fund ends mainly because of the caveats attached to the commitments to underwrite services. Despite this most interviewees welcomed the requirement to consider sustainability at the outset as they felt it would allow them to hold public sector partners to account in the future.

7.15 Sustainability commitments appeared to be strongest among the partnerships where the public sector had been most fully involved in the PSP. The limited commitment of some public sector partners that could benefit in the long term from savings resulting from a reduction in reoffending was highlighted by interviewees. The reasons for this were partly because some public sector partners had not been invited to join the PSPs and partly because funding pressure and the 2014/15 UK spending review meant that some public partners could not provide written commitments to underwrite services at this time. The lessons learned from PSP experiences to date described in Chapter 1 suggest that the PSP model works best when the public sector instigates a process involving the public and third sectors to jointly design services that the public sector is seeking to commission.

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

7.16 The majority of PSP partners described their involvement in the PSP process in positive terms. Most linked achieving what they wanted to from the PSP model directly to the outcome of their bid. Outwith the desired funding outcome, the majority of lead organisations and other partners interviewed were of the opinion that the PSP development process had been beneficial and they had achieved something tangible from it.

7.17 It was noteworthy that lead organisations and most partners who participated in the research said they would be part of a PSP again and this was essentially because they felt that they had achieved a great deal in a short space of time. The process had been challenging but this had not dissuaded lead organisations and partners from future involvement in the model. It was unclear whether all organisations that indicated they would be part of PSPs again would do so through choice or where it was the prescribed model. However, it was noted that some of those organisations that had not secured RRCF funding commented that they would consider applying a PSP model in the future. For all those involved in the PSP approach the principle of co-design appeared to be the main attraction.