Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CJS Commissioning Report FinalFeb18 PDF
CJS Commissioning Report FinalFeb18 PDF
Charles Burke
January 2018
Contents
2. Framework Outline
Commissioning should be “the first stage in a process, which asks what are the
user’s needs, what are needs of the families and what are the problems we need to
address?”7. Procurement incorporates “the specific aspects of the commissioning
cycle that focus on the process of buying services, from initial advertising through to
appropriate contract arrangement”8. SC should create a process that shapes
services rather than the obverse; services available shaping SC. This ensures that
commissioners are given both the mandate and, perhaps more importantly, the
freedom to be bold, innovative and aspirational in their work. This would fit squarely
within a wider movement that is necessary for the success of the Scottish
Government’s ambitious Community Justice (CJ) agenda.
CJS does not hold any of the Scottish Government’s Community Justice budget and
therefore cannot commission CJ services directly. However, the National Strategy for
Community Justice (NSCJ) requires CJS to work with stakeholders and statutory
partners to develop a strategic approach to commissioning. This report represents
CJS’ initial research on SC and will inform the development of a SC framework.
Should CJS’ remit be expanded in future to include service commissioning, more
detailed analysis of the services provided within that remit must be undertaken in
order to assess the ability of those services to achieve the aims of the National
Strategy and what, if any, additional or reconfigured services are needed.
4 “A £25m Big Lottery Fund programme supporting the replication of evidence-based and promising
services designed to improve outcomes for children and young people”
5 Realising Ambition (2017). Commissioning Possible: Meeting the challenges of evidence-based
Commissioning, p. 2
6 House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (2008), Public Services and the Third
Sector: Rhetoric and Reality), p. 17
7 P. Hope MP, Evidence to Public Administration Select Committee, 20th November 2007
8 Cabinet Office (2006), Partnership in Public Services: An Action Plan
For Third Sector Involvement, p. 4
2. Framework Outline
NSCJ Principles11
Evidence-Based;
Outcomes-Focussed;
Community & Service User-informed;
Measured against Common Outcomes;
Wrap-around, tailored to the individual;
Preventative; both in terms of reducing the amount of reoffending, future victims of
crime and diverting ‘at-risk’ individuals from entering the criminal justice system in
the first instance by tackling underlying causes;
Centred on improving the life chances of both victims and perpetrators of crime,
acknowledging every individual’s status as an asset for the achievement of a more
just, equitable and inclusive society; and
Incorporate a prioritisation and facilitation of improvement
The SC framework will encourage the provision of services that are based on these
principles.
13 Gordon Murray, J., Towards a common understanding of the differences between Purchasing,
Procurement and Commissioning in the Public Sector, 3rd International Public Procurement
Conference Proceedings (2008) p. 89
14 Ibid., p. 91
15 Murray (2008), p. 94
16 Crowe, D., Gash, T., & Kippin, H. (2014), Beyond Big Contracts, Institute for Government, p. 43.
measurements”17. Furthermore, siloed working patterns in commissioning practice
present an additional risk when providing services which span multiple policy areas.
Indeed, interviews conducted with UK Government officials have revealed this
problem in numerous departments and have demonstrated that “commissioners
struggle to work together to design services…for users across different policy
areas”18. Being wary of and taking steps to prevent this in CJ services is especially
important given that service users have multiple, complex needs that are addressed
by services which extend across a range of providers in different policy areas who
aim, in effect, to deliver interdependent outcomes i.e. reducing reoffending and drug
rehabilitation.
In the decision making process, Procurement practices often place the greatest
weighting on monetary cost or cost savings when assessing services. This can have
Social Return (SR) is growing in importance within public services. This was
signalled in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 which required “public
authorities to have regard to economic, social and environmental well-being in
connection with public service contracts”21 This is especially relevant to CJ where
value and benefit in financial terms is notoriously difficult to calculate. The leading
methodology for calculating SR, Social Return on Investment (SROI), has attracted
criticism from both the public and third sectors for being overly complicated,
expensive22, unstandardized, used inconsistently23 and having limited guidance on
how to “operationalise” its practical use in “commissioning procedures”24.
These challenges and criticisms are embodied by the vague wording of the Public
Services Act (2012) which states organisations merely have to “give regard” to social
return. The practical ramifications of this were found by an Audit Commission
Study25 and articulated by the Third Sector Research Centre, which established low
“utilisation of the methodology [SROI] amongst local authority commissioners and it
is, to date, unclear how consistently SROI… has been, or will be, adopted and
utilised in practice by public sector commissioners and Third Sector Organisations”26.
Indeed, a degree of wariness is evident from partners consulted on the subject of
their prior experience of demonstrating social value. Partners from the Criminal
Justice Voluntary Sector Forum (CJVSF), a membership intermediary organisation
representing Third Sector organisations with an interest in criminal justice, said that
while “welcoming the recommendation for wider social value to feature more
prominently in the commissioning and subsequent processes” also stressed caution
in the use of SROI methodology. Qualifying this, the CJVSF highlighted a number of
An inclusive process that utilises the expertise of practitioners and service providers
across all sectors, where partners meet and develop a mutually beneficial and
actionable methodology for measuring SR, should be an ambition for the provision of
CJ services in Scotland. While the challenges are significant, and the provision of
person-focussed services complex, the shared needs of this population are
substantial and the outcomes desired for their future similar. The fact that “social
value remains somewhat elusive and complex to measure”28 should not negate the
need for doing so. Indeed, this attitude, which has been lamented by the think tank
Reform and referred to as the tendency for organisations to adopt the “diktat of what
can easily be measured” has led, in part, to the “poor on-the ground expansion” of
outcomes-focussed approaches to commissioning (of the type necessitated by the
NSCJ)29.
27 Research Conducted for the production of this paper at a meeting between representatives from
Community Justice Scotland & partners from the Criminal Justice Voluntary Sector Forum (August
2017)
28 Harlock, J. (2014) p. 8
29 Ibid., p. 9
30 Ibid., pp. 6-15
31 Ibid., p. 9
(however common they are within a particular cohort) in a holistic way that
addresses the challenges that contribute to offending and reoffending. To establish
the use of evidence and outcome based commissioning, considerable cultural
change is absolutely necessary32 33.
Outcomes, with input from both commissioners and service providers, be co-
designed prior to the procurement phase and the ability to achieve these given
greater weighting in the commissioning process than merely the volume of
processes and activities to be carried out.
This cultural change must be extended beyond merely how the success of a service
is measured into the service design phase. CJ is itself an innovative solution with the
aim of offering those who have committed crime a better opportunity to recover and
function as part of society. Community-based provisions are intended to replace
short-term custodial sentences which have failed, by any measure, to achieve the
strategic aims around reducing reoffending set out in the NSCJ. It follows that the
culture for commissioning services in this space must reflect this, and Services and
the commissioning process used to identify and procure them must, for instance,
reflect evidence-based practice. It would be unfair to ignore the effect austerity
measures have had on the concept of innovation generally in the public sector and
more specifically in local authorities. Innovation is held by some to be analogous to
greater expense and is seen as difficult to justify in an era of tight budgets and a
relentless search for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. CJS is aware of the
significant shift in approach that would need to take place within budget-holding
organisations to achieve more innovation in the design and implementation of
services. This is a shift that requires commissioners and procurement practitioners to
be comfortable with taking risks as part of their decision-making processes and
incorporates an increased comfort with the management of risk as a means of
enabling the increased commissioning of innovative services with ambitious goals.
This is a bold shift that is absolutely necessary to achieve the wide-ranging agenda
set out in the Government’s strategy.
In light of this, the Scottish Government should consider whether the requirement for
CJS creating a SC framework should also incorporate a Procurement Framework to
ensure a consistent approach, working to the same overarching strategic goals. As
this carries significant resourcing and legislative implications, it is for Government to
decide whether or not it is comfortable with this risk or, alternatively, whether it will
resource research into the production of a bespoke Procurement Framework for CJ
services.
4.3 Funding
Cultural change will be impossible with the current standard arrangement of annual
funding cycles. Annual funding cycles make it extremely difficult for budget-holding
organisations and the services they fund to plan for longer-term outcomes, fund
evidence-based services and achieve the subsequent cost savings over the longer
term. Partners at the CJVSF highlighted a number of substantial issues with this
approach, including its direct impact on service users as short-term funding reduces
the sustainability and availability of support users rely on, impacts on staff by
creating uncertainty around employment year-to-year, and affecting morale and staff
turnover as longer funding periods better enable investment in staff and training and
development opportunities. The CJVSF also outlined the effect short-term funding
has on developing and delivering services by making it harder for organisations to
invest in a service, develop the relevant organisations and embed delivery with
“huge amounts of resources wasted on re-tendering, recruiting and retraining staff”37.
In order for services to be commissioned strategically and achieve the aims set out
in the National Strategy funding cycles must be extended from the current annual
approach to a multi-year model.
As the evidence base for the efficacy of a particular service grows so too should the
willingness to fund it over the longer term; if a service is producing strong outcomes
with one or two-year funding arrangements, outcomes can be improved upon by
extending funding for longer periods of time to help for the kind of ‘expansion’ and
‘certainty’ outlined as ambitions in the Program for Government.
Innovative new services, when underpinned by a sound evidence base and focussed
on outcomes over outputs, can be cheaper to run, make savings in the longer term,
and offer considerably greater SR. Even in the event such services are more costly
to run, the longer term savings and SR mean that a cheaper service is not
necessarily less expensive.
This cultural shift in understanding the approach to service provision enables what
Health Scotland recently articulated as the “treatment of individuals and communities
as ‘assets’ [that]…boosts their value to society”41 . Moreover, with a focus on
outcomes and evidence, partners are better placed to achieve an agenda of
“prevention, mitigation and resilience” which have been proven “central to keeping
people away from the criminal justice system or achieve their removal over the long
term”42.
A key tenet of service provision in community justice, in line with the directions of the
National Strategy, is that the most appropriate service for the individual must be
available in a location that is accessible to that individual. Commissioners must also
be mindful of the so-called ‘postcode lottery’ of fragmented service provision and
Priorities in service provision are often defined by a utilitarian approach, where the
conditions that present most often in a population are catered for. The vast majority
of the CJ cohort fall into what Glen Bramley and Suzanne Fitzpatrick define as the
group of “severe and multiple disadvantages” (SMD)43. This group is often
characterised by a presentation of homelessness, substance misuse and crime 44
and with “poverty and mental-health problems being nearly universally present”45.
Despite the fact that many of the cohort share the same needs “the design of
services by different commissioning bodies can lead to…poor information sharing,
differing priorities and a lack of clarity as to who is responsible for interventions and
outcomes”46. Too often this means that gaps in service provision appear
immediately. There is also an argument that there is not the budget to provide what
are perceived to be niche services for those out with the majority of the service user
cohort. Frustratingly, there can also be simultaneous duplication of services across
geographical areas of close proximity, with different organisations offering service
provision that cuts across multiple policy areas (i.e. health and justice). As Harwich
et al summarise, in this landscape, “with so many bodies funding services for similar
needs, responsibility for commissioning services can become unclear”, the major
consequence of which being “services not being delivered at all”47.
Those in the criminal justice system, who are often homeless or have substance
abuse issues, were estimated by HM Treasury in 2015 to represent a cost of
£23,000 a year48 individually across all services when adjusted for 2016-17 prices49.
If needs continue to go unaddressed, as is the case when services are not provided
or when they are provided inefficiently (for example, when organisations fail to share
information across providers to ensure an individual is treated holistically) costs to
the taxpayer continue to accumulate. Moreover, this does not take into account the
opportunity cost of a rehabilitated individual living a fulfilling, prosperous life,
contributing to the economy by working, spending income and paying taxes, versus
the extensive social costs of service failure in relation to individuals, families and
communities. This, as is argued in Faulty by Design “creates a clear and compelling
case for the integration of services for people who require assistance from numerous
service providers”50, a definition which encompasses the vast majority of those who
come within the remit of community justice.
This assertion is supported by research from the Economic & Social Research
Council which, in 2010 estimated that there is a “25 to 35 per cent overlap in one or
43 Bramley, G., Fitzpatrick, Z., Hard Edges: Mapping Severe and Multiple Disadvantages, England¸
Lankelly Chase Foundation, p. 6
44 Ibid
45 Harwich et al (2017) p. 21
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Hard Edges, p. 79
49 Harwich et al (2017) p. 21
50 Harwich et al (2017) p. 21
more local service streams doing the same things”51. With the extensive overlap of
needs within the CJ cohort, the risk associated with this duplication is substantial and
within an austerity climate there is clear impetus to address this issue. Moreover, a
study by HM Treasury identified significant duplication in services directly related to
the community justice agenda with, for example, the police, A&E, GPs, Community-
based organisations and voluntary organisations all providing similar services for the
treatment of drug addiction and alcohol rehabilitation. The use of devolved spending
arrangements with strategic oversight in the case of “devolution to Manchester, West
Cheshire, Essex and three west London boroughs in 2013 is forecast to save £800
million over five years, mainly by reducing duplication in related public services”. The
major challenge, then, is for services to be available ‘nationwide’ but not
commissioned ‘nationally’ unless there is a clear need, structure of responsibility and
budgetary reasons and methods for doing so. This would involve leveraging
economies of scale to offer a better quality service with better outcomes for service
users at a lower price, freeing up resources to address gaps in service provision by
diverting funding previously allocated to a duplicated service.
This Network’s on-going task would be the population of current services to reveal
any service gaps and duplication. When an area or organisation is planning on
establishing a particular service, proposals can be shared on the database and offer
interested parties an opportunity to collaborate effectively.
Contributions would also be sought from domains on the periphery but out with direct
Community Justice budgets such as health and the police.
It must be noted that a similar database, that sat with the Scottish Government was
attempted in the past but was not maintained. It is hoped that the establishment of a
voluntary network and a compelling narrative for joining will lead to greater success
at this attempt.
5.2 The unique benefits of small local organisations and the risks of
processes modelling them out in the Commissioning process.
51 Dunleavy, P., The Future of Joined-up Public Services, The Economic & Social Research Council,
p. 21
52 Harlock, J. (2014), From Social Value to Evidence based Commissioning?, Third Sector Research
Centre, p. 7
ability of the Third Sector to meet local needs 5354. These are of particular benefit
when working with a cohort of service users who in many cases have lived out with
social norms for an extensive period of their life and may show an endemic mistrust
for the kinds of formal and statutory organisations and relationships which they
perceive to have failed them in the past.
Smaller local organisations (and indeed local organisations more generally) often
have stronger links to the community, relationships with those who inhabit it, and a
more intimate understanding of the specific problems they face. This approach has
been identified as crucial in achieving the aims of the NSCJ.
Realising Ambition further noted that “delivery organisations [highlighted] that they
often perceive local commissioners as being too stretched to have the time to
appropriately implement an evidence-based commissioning process’ and “other
factors, such as pressure to support existing local service providers make this even
more difficult”57.
53 Ibid.
54 Billis, D., and Glennerster, H. (1998), Human services and the voluntary: towards a theory of
comparative advantage, Journal of Social Policy, 27 (1), pp. 79-88
55 Commissioning Possible: Meeting the challenges of evidence-based Commissioning, Realising
Ambition (2017) p. 2
56 Realising Ambition (2017), p.2
57 Ibid.
While it must be noted that there is an opportunity to better assist individuals who
have already received custodial sentences to prepare them for the challenges of life
post-release (i.e. in-prison services), it is also important to be mindful of the nature of
the ‘community’ in which an individual will access CJ services and have their
community disposal aligned. Indeed, as the all-parliamentary Local Government
Group on Justice in Communities highlighted in 2009 “it is true that more could be
done in prisons but the reality is that the problems offenders have which increase
their chances of offending started while they were in their local community. Solutions
must therefore be rooted in their community. Creating the illusion that problems are
dealt with by removing offenders only moves the problem to another day”58. The
major threat to addressing individual and less commons needs or those that are
localised or differ from the norm is homogenous national service provision and the
‘one size fits all’ approach.
The local community must be consulted on the provision of a particular service and
contribute to the service design phase of the commissioning process. This
consultation, ensuring communities are involved in shaping services locally, fits
squarely with the national strategy59 and embodies the viewpoint that communities
represent ‘experts in their own needs’ as the 2015 Scottish Parliamentary report on
the Community Empowerment Bill articulates60.
58 All Party Parliamentary Local Government Group, Primary Justice: An Inquiry into Justice in
Communities, 2009.
59 National Strategy, p. 4, 12
60 2nd Report, 2015 (Session 4): Stage 1 Report on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill,
The Scottish Parliament (2015)
6. Section 4: Building rigour into the system; Outcomes,
Monitoring & Evaluation
The key features of the design of a robust monitoring and evaluation process are the
indicators of success and outcomes criteria. A collaborative approach to designing
outcomes will rely on collaboration between prospective service providers, those with
lived experience of the respective services or issues and, where appropriate, the
local community. The involvement of these groups will help decide a on a set of
outcomes that work for budget holders, providers and those who will actually rely on
the achievement of these outcomes to improve their day-to-day life. Crucially, a
collaborative approach shares the burden of service design evenly while making
sure it is meaningful to all parties. Indeed, it is designed to avoid the “absence of a
clear steer” to service providers which interviewees from local authorities in England
reported in the Third Sector Research Centre’s study into outcomes-based
commissioning61.
Evidence gathered for this paper corroborate with this view in Scotland today, with
respondents from the CJVSF reporting that “there can often be a lack of
understanding among commissioners…around what outcomes are and the area of
influence over an initiative”62 or, alternatively, “some commissioners are asking
services to design their own outcomes” after the service has been in operation
“rather than commissioning on an outcomes basis [pre-defined]”63. A collaborative
process will benefit both commissioners and practitioners by offering an expert CJ
opinion on the appropriateness of outcomes, improving the shared understanding of
practice specialists and aims relevant to a specific policy area. Moreover, this
process helps to ensure greater accountability and buy-in for service providers as
they will have had a direct hand in the formulation of the outcomes they are
attempting to achieve. Funding bodies must however be wary of what has been
described as the ‘burden of evaluation’ being shared unevenly; agreed outcomes
should be considered in relation to the feasibility and proportionality in terms of
recording and analysis, and any resulting resource implications.
61 Harlock, J. (2014), p. 14
62 CJS & CJVSF, (2017) p. 3
63 Ibid.
Successful service provision relies on robust evaluation and monitoring of outcomes,
robust monitoring and evaluation relies on all sides of the commissioning process
both buying into an outcomes focus and also taking responsibility for their
contributions whether it be an equitable involvement in the outcome design process
or a transparent approach to monitoring that admits failings as readily as successes
and interrogates these failings to improve in the future.
See the overall outcomes and indicators for these designed collaboratively; ensuring
representation and accountability of all relevant parties, benefitting from a range of
expertise to define suitable outcomes to genuinely benefit the lives of service users.
This will also share the administrative burden of this process fairly, offer
commissioners expert input to the unique aspects of CJ service provision and give a
clear steer to service providers from the date of inception.
This monitoring must be translated into evaluation at a regular and previously agreed
interval that is not disproportionately burdensome on funders or providers. This
evaluation should;
Look deeper than simply whether outcomes are being met to ask are they having a
genuine affect for service users, are they the right outcomes? Is this the right
service?;
www.communityjustice.scot