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

6 Sustainability

6.1 Sustainability is a key feature of the PSP model, as highlighted in Chapter 1. This chapter addresses the study questions on whether the partnerships feel that the services developed through the PSP model are likely to be sustained after the Change Fund ends, and the reasons for their views, the impact that sustainability has had on partnership working and the challenges faced in addressing sustainability. The chapter starts with an overview of the approaches to sustainability taken by the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs and considers the role of key public sector partners including the Community Justice Authorities and local authorities.

6.2 The key findings are:

• Discussions around sustainability occurred in all PSPs and resulted in written commitments from public sector partners to underwrite services in the future in 13 of the 14 PSPs. The commitments were subject to a number of caveats.
• Commitments to underwrite services came mainly from Community Justice Authorities and this was welcomed by partners. The CJAs were largely seen as the most appropriate organisation to provide this commitment in the circumstances.
• The limited commitment of other public sector partners that could benefit in the long term from savings resulting from a reduction on reoffending was highlighted by interviewees. Partly this was because some public sector partners had not been invited to join the PSPs and partly it was because funding pressure and the 2014/15 spending review meant that some public partners could not provide written commitments to underwrite services at this time.
• Interviewees highlighted challenges during sustainability discussions including engaging all public sector partners, the limited timescale, working across administrative borders, and the prevailing funding and policy environment.
• 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 partners 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.
• A number of other issues were highlighted by interviewees during discussions about sustainability including mixed views about competitive tendering, concerns about best value, intentions to source additional funding, and the importance of non-financial sustainability.

Sustainability in the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs

6.3 As outlined in the introduction, the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund seeks to increase the sustainability of services that improve outcomes for both service users and their communities. From these improvements it is anticipated that fiscal savings could be made in the long run as reoffending and all its associated costs are reduced. Such potential savings together with improved outcomes are the incentive for securing partner commitment to PSPs beyond the life of the Fund, post 2015. Lessons from previous PSPs in Scotland highlighted in Chapter 1 suggested that culture change within both the public and third sectors was important which in terms of funding involved the public sector being open to investing to save and the third sector being open to investing to gain.

6.4 PSPs applying for funding in years 2/3 were expected to demonstrate how services delivered by the partnership would continue once Change Fund support ended. The Guidance stated:

'We expect that the outcomes and targets previously detailed have been agreed by all partners. Please confirm that should these outcomes be met, the public sector partners have agreed to continue to fund the service beyond March 2015. A letter from the relevant public sector partners demonstrating that they have realistic and considered plans for the continuation of the service would be advantageous'.

6.5 Commitments for continued financial support were expected to be based on positive discussions with public sector partners and other potential funders. The survey of PSP partners demonstrates that sustainability discussions had been positive, as 56% of respondents reported that the PSP had adequately considered how it will maintain services beyond March 2015 and 54% reported that they were confident the services will be maintained by public sector partners beyond March 2015 if the outcomes are met (see Appendix 7). However, although a majority of respondents agreed with the two statements, the strength of agreement was the lowest of all of the survey questions. In addition, 17% of respondents felt that sustainability had not been given adequate consideration by their PSP and a similar proportion did not have confidence that the services would be maintained beyond 2015. These were the highest rates of dissatisfaction registered on the PSP survey.

6.6 Interviews and a review of the MoUs showed that sustainability was addressed during the development of the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs. Interviewees highlighted that Development Funding enabled the lead organisations to work with partners to understand their requirements and develop proposals that could be supported in principle by public partners.

6.7 In 13 of the 14 PSPs, the Community Justice Authorities provided formal written commitment to underwrite services^[14] if specific conditions are met. Written commitment from other public sector partners was limited - three PSPs secured written commitment from local authorities, one PSP secured written commitments from local Alcohol and Drug Partnerships, and one PSP secured a written commitment from the Scottish Prison Service.

6.8 In all cases the formal written commitments of support to sustain services had caveats attached. In most cases, support is committed subject to the outcome of the 2014/15 UK spending review. Potential funders also highlighted the need to await the outcome of the services pilot and any evaluation of the scheme, to draw on lessons learned prior to any decision on the services going out to tender in 2015. All MoUs highlight the fact that the proposals would have to be reviewed and possibly redrawn prior to then going out to tender via normal procurement regulations in 2015. And for some organisations, such as the CJAs, support is subject to a review of the service itself.

Sustainability and CJAs

6.9 The CJAs role included working with local authorities, SPS and other partners to prepare local joint area plans focusing on tackling reoffending, monitoring and reporting on the effectiveness of joint working across all sectors, and ensuring that funding is being used effectively to improve the management of offenders. Interviewees from the third and public sectors highlighted that the CJAs were proactive in supporting the development of PSPs and were central to discussion on sustainability - as highlighted above only one PSP did not secure a written commitment to underwrite the service subject to specific conditions.

6.10 Partners across PSPs welcomed the CJAs' input to the sustainability discussions. Interviewees highlighted the willingness of the CJAs to develop a form of wording which confirmed their support for the PSPs whilst recognising the limits of that support and setting out requirements for the PSP to demonstrate and prove impact. The form of wording found across the PSPs was as follows.

'On behalf of the public sector partners within this partnership, the CJA will underwrite and ensure the continuity of funding, contingent upon the outcome of the next Spending Review in 2014/15 and the evaluation of the service. This will ensure that resources are in place to ensure the continuity of proven services. The final specification and terms of the future procurement process will be discussed between and agreed by the public sector authorities who will bear a responsibility for funding the service.

The CJA believes that - if the anticipated outcomes for this service are achieved - this will transform support for offenders, and consequently result in significant savings across local and national justice partners. We will therefore also work with all relevant partners throughout 2013-15 to identify savings and beneficiaries and to negotiate an appropriate partnership-based package of funding'.

6.11 A number of the CJA interviewees highlighted that they felt they were the most appropriate public sector organisation to provide this commitment as it fitted their role. A number of other stakeholders emphasised highlighted the importance of the CJAs input particularly given they faced some of the same uncertainties as other public bodies as well as the added uncertainty of the ongoing review of community justice structures. A small number of interviewees felt the CJAs were left to take on this role by the absence of some other public sector partners from the PSP development process, and the reluctance of some other public sector partners to commit to underwriting.

Sustainability and local authorities

6.12 As highlighted above only three PSPs secured a written commitment from local authorities to underwrite PSPs in the future subject to specific conditions. One local authority was instrumental in instigating and developing two of these PSPs and the wording of their commitment in both MoUs was:

'In the event of there being funding available within (the) Council's budget for the continuation of the project at the end of the initial period the Council will consider whether it is appropriate to allocate funding to allow for the services to be procured under the relevant procurement rules'.

6.13 The commitment of other local authorities varied. In one PSP, a Criminal Justice Social Work Partnership - covering three local authority areas - signed the letter of support from public sector partners alongside the CJA and two ADPs, although the CJSW Partnership's commitment was less than the other signatories, who committed to underwrite the PSP financially should circumstances allow. Other local authorities which were members of PSPs and had signed the MoU, demonstrated support for PSPs without providing a written commitment to underwrite services. By signing the MoUs there was a form of commitment to sustainability but one that was less than the formal commitment to underwrite services described above.

6.14 In most MoUs signatories including local authorities have committed to the following statement:

'It is understood by all parties to the PSP that, at the end of any agreed pilot, the Public Sector will competitively tender the services covered by the MoU, under normal procurement rules, contingent upon the pilot demonstrating its success. The final specification and terms of this procurement process will be discussed between and agreed by the public sector authorities who will bear responsibility for funding the service'.

6.15 Those PSPs that secured the strongest local authority support were said to have done so by engaging local authorities early in the process and maintaining close links with the local authorities.

6.16 A number of interviewees including local authority, COSLA and ADSW representatives were of the opinion that it was difficult for local authorities to commit to future funding at a time of funding pressure, and an impending spending review. Interviews with local authorities highlighted that some would consider sustaining the services if they were proven to be successful and funding allows in 2015 but they felt they were not in a position to provide a firm written commitment at this stage. In some cases it was also reported that some PSPs led by large third sector organisations had approached local authorities seeking commitment to underwrite their bids without adequate consultation and the local authorities were unwilling to support such bids.

6.17 A small number of interviewees felt some local authorities focused on reasons not to sustain the services rather than take the more proactive approach highlighted above taken by the CJAs. These interviewees felt this could have stemmed from concerns about the prescribed leadership role for third sector organisations and the perceived secondary role for local authorities.

6.18 Interviewees including those from COSLA and ADSW highlighted that fiscal savings would accrue to a range of public sector agencies not just local authorities, and felt that these organisations needed to be involved in the PSPs and sustainability discussions as well. Some of these interviewees suggested that Community Planning Partnerships might be a more appropriate forum to discuss outcomes and sustainability.

Sustainability and other public sector partners

6.19 A small number of interviewees from the CJAs, local authorities and the third sector, felt that limited involvement of other public sector partners could affect the sustainability of some PSPs. These interviewees emphasised that the PSP model is based on public sector partners investing in the short term to save in the longer term. The involvement and financial commitment of other public sector partners is summarised below.

6.20 As highlighted in Chapter 3, the NHS was effectively leading the development stage of one PSP and was a named partner in another three PSPs. It is widely accepted that mental health and substance misuse are prevalent issues among offenders, see for example the Scottish Prisoner Survey 2011^[15]. No firm commitments to support the PSPs beyond 2015 were in place from the NHS and only one PSP had secured written commitment from ADPs to underwrite services if specific conditions were met. ADPs were involved in other PSPs without providing the commitments to underwriting.

6.21 Only one PSP secured written commitment from the Scottish Prison Service to underwrite services if specific conditions are met. A number of PSPs reported that they developed or built upon strong existing links with SPS.

6.22 Those partnerships which worked with the police, reported that they had constructive relations and received support at an administrative, operational and strategic level. However they also highlighted that the police were not in a position to commit to underwrite services in the future, because of limited funding for such initiatives, financial pressures, and the restructuring of the Police Service of Scotland.

Challenges

6.23 Interviewees from the lead organisations and public and third sector partners highlighted that PSPs have, to different extents, faced challenges in addressing the sustainability of services at this stage of the PSP development process. The key issues faced were:

• Inviting and engaging all public sector partners - lead organisation interviewees and a number of other partners highlighted that not all public sector partners that could potentially benefit from long term financial savings as a result of reduced reoffending were engaged in the PSP process. The police, prisons, courts, housing, health, and employability providers were among the main potential beneficiaries identified yet there were no firm commitments of funding post 2015 from these agencies, with the limited exceptions highlighted above. Interviewees highlighted that in a number of cases this was because the public sector partners were not invited to join the PSP rather than a refusal on their part to take up an invitation.
• Timescale - the relatively short timescale for the PSP development process was seen as a challenge to sustainability as it limited the opportunity to engage new partners, including the wider public sector partners highlighted above, and the time available for partners to work through issues around sustainability. For example, one CJA interviewee stated that it was unable to provide a commitment to underwrite a PSP led by a large third sector organisation because there had been insufficient time to address all of their concerns.
• Working across administrative borders - PSPs proposing services in more than one area highlighted the added complexity of engaging multiple public sector partners (predominantly CJAs and local authorities) some of which they did not have established relationships with. Interviewees felt that were they were able to adopt a locally sensitive approach they would be more likely to secure financial and in-kind commitments. The role of the CJAs in co-ordinating consultation with providers and across PSPs was noted by stakeholders including those working across administrative boundaries.
• Funding and policy environment - interviewees highlighted the pressure public sector partners were under to reduce or cap spending, the uncertainty of future budgets in light of the 2014/15 spending review and the ongoing consultation on the Scottish Community Justice system as factors that impacted on public sector partners ability to commit to future financial support for the PSP. In some cases this prevented public sector partners committing to underwriting services, and in others these factors became caveats on their commitments to underwrite services.

6.24 Chapter 3 highlighted that some partners were of the opinion that the challenges around sustainability had impacted on partnership working.

Views on sustainability

6.25 As highlighted above 54% of PSP survey respondents reported that they were confident the services would be maintained by public sector partners beyond March 2015 if the outcomes are met. Although a narrow majority, a further 17% of respondents said that they did not have confidence that the services would be maintained beyond 2015. Interviews confirmed mixed views exist among PSP partners about the likelihood that services would be sustained after the Change Fund ends.

6.26 On balance interviewees were unsure about whether the services developed through the PSP model would be sustained after the Change Fund ends. The reason for the uncertainty was the caveats attached to the commitments to underwrite the services. Generally partners were hopeful the services would be sustained but were not able to say for sure that they would be. Despite the uncertainty and the caveats, lead organisations and partners welcomed the requirement for public sector partners to commit to underwrite the services in the future as they felt it gave them something tangible to use during future discussions. They were generally of the opinion that the commitments were something they could use to hold partners to account, while recognising it was not a guarantee of funding. They also felt that without these commitments they would be less confident that the services would be sustained after the Change Fund ends.

Other sustainability issues

6.27 The final section of this chapter summarises a number of other issues highlighted by interviewees during discussions about sustainability. The issues are competitive tendering, delivering best value, sourcing additional funding, and non-financial sustainability.

Competitive tendering

6.28 All interviewees were aware of the requirement for the public sector to competitively tender the services at the end of the pilot period and this is laid out explicitly in the MoUs. Some interviewees, including most large third sector organisations, reported that they had no issues with this requirement, highlighting that competitive tendering was part of the funding environment. There was some concern among a minority of partners, particularly but not entirely from third sector organisations, about the potential impact on partnership working this tendering could have. Some of these interviewees described a fear that PSPs, led by the third sector, could deliver projects for two years, gather and share learning only for it to then be lost to private, public, or other voluntary sector contractors who would use this learning to then undercut the sector and undermine the ethos of partnership working.

Delivering best value

6.29 A concern voiced by some interviewees from the public sector was the requirement for organisations to commit now to fund services which had not yet proven their worth which they felt was not helpful, even if a funding commitment included a caveat that the service had to be successfully evaluated. These interviewees were of the opinion that the services, and the organisations delivering them, should first demonstrate that they can make a real difference. They felt that asking for a commitment from them now to continue funding at the end of the Change Fund period was futile. Moreover, to ask now for committed funds was to ignore other demands on future funding and the possibility of more effective services being developed before 2015, or indeed, more effective services or elements of services being delivered elsewhere as part of the Change Fund.

6.30 The importance of sharing learning among PSPs and to be open about monitoring and evaluation was deemed essential by interviewees from all sectors. This meant encouraging learning from what works and what does not work as well. A strong evaluation could then leave public funders to decide whether and how best to proceed with committing further funding to the projects. Some partners voiced concern that they felt unable to discuss shared monitoring and evaluation processes with other PSPs during the development process and were keen to ensure that maximum sharing of learning was encouraged. Chapter 3 highlighted there were some reservations about the degree of learning within the PSPs to date.

Sourcing additional funds

6.31 As cross sector partnerships the Reducing Reoffending Change Fund PSPs had the ability to draw upon wider sources of funding. Within the programme, some third sector partners were already seeking new sources of funding to deliver or expand opportunities

6.32 The majority of the PSPs that were not awarded years 2/3 delivery funding were considering alternative funding options. Partners indicated that they did not want to waste the amount of work and the strength of the relationships that went in to the PSPs and they would seek other funding. It is noteworthy that some of the CJAs expressed a desire to support the local PSPs in their search for additional funding.

Non-financial elements of sustainability

6.33 A number of interviewees highlighted that sustainability goes beyond funding. Scottish Government Guidance on PSP development suggested that forming the partnership should be an ongoing process, which should ideally continue beyond the delivery of a service and become embedded in the strategy of partner organisations. There was evidence that some partnerships had embarked on such a process. Feedback from the PSP survey and interviews with stakeholders point to high levels of satisfaction with partnership working. Indeed, such had been the success of some PSPs in building relations that they had plans to continue in some format regardless of the funding decision.

6.34 One PSP's proposal included a large element of match funding in-kind from partners across the public and third sectors. This included ADSW and SPS agreeing to develop, implement and sustain the procedures, protocols and processes which underpin effective service delivery and partnership working. All partners committed to providing services in kind, which were estimated at £237,000 per annum. Another PSP had a similar commitment from a local authority.