service user involvement - Clinks

A REVIEW of service user involvement in prisons and probation trusts

service user involvement Supported by

A REVIEW of service user involvement in prisons and probation trusts Summary

3

1. Introduction

7

2. The vision

13

3. Models of service user involvement

17

4. Gaining involvement: Who is participating?

27

5. Elements: How rich is participation?

35

6. Barriers to meaningful service user involvement

41

7. What are the outcomes?

47

8. Looking forward 51 Bibliography 55 Appendix: Prisons and probation trusts interviewed 55

Published by Clinks 2011. © Clinks 2011. All rights reserved. Written by Clare Hayes. Researched by Clare Hayes and Petra Chapman-Gibbs with input from Tina Braithwaite, Kimmett Edgar, Gary Hill, Daniel Hutt, Richard Nicholls and Madeleine Rudolph. Clinks is a registered charity no. 1074546 and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales No. 3562176. Registered Office: 59 Carter Lane, London EC4V 5AQ.

Summary

service user involvement

3

A review of service user involvement in prisons and probation trusts

Our aspiration is to have active citizenship in service delivery. We believe service users will listen more to someone who has been there. It allows us to gain knowledge... we can’t be arrogant or believe that as a professional we know it all. The best people to know how to reduce

Prisons 84% have prison-wide consultations, in the form of committees or a prison council

reoffending are the offenders themselves.

20% of prisons have an

A probation trust

elected prison council

It provides the oil and cement for delivering transformational change – it provides a mechanism for people to talk to each other in a non-judgemental way, which provides solutions and the potential for change in organisations that have great difficulty in contemplating some changes. It’s one of the most important and potent tool. A Youth Offender Institution

Offenders engaged with the Criminal Justice System (CJS), whether they are in prison or under the supervision of a probation trust, are also citizens. Service user involvement refers to the process by which the people using a service become involved in the planning, development and delivery of that service to make changes and improvements. Over recent years, there have been efforts in the CJS to promote and develop the involvement of offenders in the services with which they engage. Desistance theory supports the view that playing an active role in one’s community and taking on a measure of responsibility can assist in the offender journey away from crime. This review investigates the extent and nature of service user involvement in prisons and probation trusts across England & Wales and raises a number of recommendations to improve quality and ensure sustainability.

86% run focus groups around particular functions or specific needs

96% have prisoner diversity representatives, most of whom contribute directly to staff meetings

Probation Trusts 30% have service user groups at the local delivery level

17% consult with service users at a trust level 33% run focus groups around particular functions or specific needs Only two of the 35 trusts spoke of service user contribution to staff meetings

The researchers interviewed staff at prisons and probation trusts to generate information on staff experiences of service user involvement and the perceived benefits and challenges of using different models. ✪✪ Prison and probation staff viewed service user involvement as a dynamic process with a number of benefits including voice and empowerment, a way of channelling difficult issues and reducing conflict, gaining expertise, and measuring quality of services.

Main findings Service user involvement was generally more developed in the prisons than the probation trusts in our sample. Of those prisons and trusts interviewed:

4

✪✪ There was evidence of Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) contribution to focus group and consultative committees, particularly in the prisons. However, there was uncertainty over the extent and nature of VCS provision

SUMMARY

in this area and this report calls for a further

involvement is a very useful mechanism for

mapping exercise and improved collaboration.

making services more effective, improving

✪✪ There was a perception that service user groups have been more successful and meaningful where they are co-designed and co-developed by the service users themselves and the offenders involved have a role in taking actions forward. ✪✪ More consistency is needed to ensure that service user representatives are genuinely representative and diversity is monitored. Prisons that have introduced Council elections have reported a transformation in the way that consultative bodies operate. ✪✪ More guidance is needed on recruitment, providing incentives and training for both service users and staff involved.

offender confidence and self esteem and assisting on the path to desistance. The review concludes that guidance and a more systematic approach to service user involvement is required. It is essential, particularly in a time of reducing budgets and competing priorities, that the learning from evolving service users projects is shared and capitalised upon. Offenders are a source of ideas, creativity and direct experience of NOMS services and service user involvement should be a priority for every prison and probation trust. This review has raised a series of recommendations in response to the identified challenges and barriers to service user involvement and

✪✪ Some organisations, particularly prisons,

staff views on how to set up and sustain an

have moved beyond communication

effective service user involvement project.

and consultation, to a more proactive model where offenders participate in taking solutions forward. Greater service user ownership precipitates a more sustainable and dynamic process. ✪✪ Wide-ranging changes have been seen in response to service user involvement projects.

Recommendations ✪✪ NOMS should establish a national forum for sharing best practice around service user involvement across prisons and probation trusts. ✪✪ NOMS/MoJ should identify service user involvement as a priority at strategic level

It’s like dropping a pebble into a pond – the conversation inside the room will result in hundreds of conversations outside the room. A Young Offender Institution

✪✪ Challenges to effective service user involvement include staff apprehension, the prevailing culture of criminal justice agencies, knowledge and understanding

and properly resource its development. ✪✪ Prisons and probation trusts should build service user involvement into their business plans. ✪✪ NOMS should produce guidance and clarification on different models of service user involvement and set minimum standards for all prisons and probation trusts to follow. ✪✪ Offenders should be involved in the design,

of the service users, reluctance of offenders

development and delivery of service user

to be involved and decreasing resource.

involvement within prisons and trusts.

✪✪ There is very little research on the outcomes

✪✪ NOMS should develop or commission a

of service user involvement in prisons

framework or toolkit indicating the first steps

and trusts. This is an area that requires

for setting up a council or service user group;

development to provide evidence for the

including recruitment of services users, different

widely held perception that service user

models and possible incentives for service users.

5


✪✪ Prisons and probation trusts would benefit from a template for training offenders for representative roles, using services users and former service users in design and delivery. ✪✪ A review of service user involvement services provided by the VCS should be undertaken as this appears to be an untapped resource. Prisons and probation trusts should be encouraged to consider VCS services in this area. ✪✪ Prisons and probation trusts should ensure that representative groups reflect the diversity of their service user population. ✪✪ The implications of service user involvement should be embedded in staff training and guidance and support available. ✪✪ Prisons and probation trusts should ensure there is a member (or members) of staff who have designated responsibility for developing service user involvement and this should be included in their job description. ✪✪ Prisons and probation trusts should ensure succession planning is part of the role description for the co-ordinator and that succession plans are in place for both staff and service users. ✪✪ Prison governors should ensure that wing officers are involved in some way in the functioning of the prison consultative committee or prison council. It should be required that that have an officer from each wing attends the meetings. ✪✪ Prisons and probation trusts should be proactive, filtering issues with lower level user meetings at the wing or local delivery unit level. ✪✪ It seems likely that service user involvement is ultimately a cost saving exercise but there is a lack of evidence. NOMS should drive an evaluation process or cost benefit analysis to demonstrate the outcomes of service user involvement.

6

INTRODUCTION

1.

Introduction


7


The active involvement of citizens in developing and being responsible for their local services is at the heart of the government’s goal to create the Big Society. The Big Society aims to provide better and more relevant public services, through involving the public (the ‘service users’) in their design, commissioning and delivery. Through this process the notion of citizenship and responsibility is expected to transform into a practice that members of the public feel is real and relevant to them. This background is crucial to understanding the concept of service user involvement with offenders

Service user involvement exists on a spectrum. Given the disparate environments that different categories of prison and urban and rural probation trusts operate from, service user involvement needs to be adapted in each distinct setting. The establishments and probation trusts interviewed were at various stages in the development of service user involvement projects. The evidence gathered in this review suggests that service user involvement works best where service users have some ownership of the process and the opportunity to contribute to the design and development of projects.

and ex-offenders. Offenders engaged with the Criminal Justice System (CJS), be they in prison or under the supervision of a probation trust, are also citizens. These citizens should be assisted to engage

This review raises a series of recommendations for widening the use of service user involvement and ensuring its effectiveness and sustainability.

positively in society and in the development of services aiming to assist them to desist from crime.

1.2 Background

Prisons in particular should aim to function as a

Service user involvement Service user involvement refers to the involvement of the people using services to improve them and make them more effective. For the purposes of this review, we focused on service users as offenders or former offenders, while recognising that prisons and probation trusts engage with a range of other service users (including but not limited to victims and families of offenders).

microcosm of the wider society. The vast majority of prisoners will at some point be released back into a community and one role of NOMS is to enable these people to function positively in their communities when this time arrives.

1.1 The project There is no definitive overview of service user involvement in prisons and probation trusts in England & Wales. This is a comprehensive report of service user involvement work taking place across prisons and probation trusts in England and Wales.

The World Health Organisation (2002) has formulated a useful working definition of service user involvement:

Service user involvement includes a number of different strands from offenders helping to review and monitor the service, to sitting on the Board, speaking at events or participating in delivering the service as employees, mentors and volunteers. This review focuses on dialogue-based approaches to service user involvement, such as service user groups, prison councils and service user

A process by which people are able to become actively and genuinely involved in defining the issues of concern to them; in making decisions about factors that affect their lives; in formulating and implementing polices; in planning, developing and delivering services, and in taking action to achieve change.

representatives. service user involvement through dialogue and discussion goes well beyond the required offender surveys and little is known about the extent or nature of its use in prisons and trusts.

8

Service user involvement is increasingly used across all public services, including health, education, social care and drug and alcohol

INTRODUCTION

services. Over recent years, there have been efforts

This report discusses the perceptions of prison

in the CJS to promote and develop involvement of

and probation staff on how to achieve meaningful

offenders in the services with which they engage.

service user involvement and the potential pitfalls.

Clinks’ Taskforce on Service User Involvement

Statutory background

was launched in 2006 to consult and consider

There are very few statutory requirements in place

good practice around service user involvement

to ensure input from offenders to the services

in the CJS. The Taskforce was formed partly in

delivered by prisons and probation trusts.

recognition of the theory that in other fields of work, services are more effective when users are

The Prison Service has issued a series of Orders

consulted about how they should be developed

that require prisons to consider the use of prisoner

and delivered. It was proposed that service

representatives in anti-bullying and race relations1.

user involvement can ensure that services:

In 2002, a Prison Service Order2 on Prisoners

✪✪ Meet the needs as experienced by the

Representative Associations was published stating:

person receiving the service rather than

The Prison Service encourages prisoners

what the assessor thinks is needed. ✪✪ Are delivered in ways that are trusted by the person receiving them. ✪✪ Are responsive and culturally sensitive to our increasingly diverse population.

to take responsibility for their actions and to help both themselves and fellow prisoners. Prisoner representative bodies are not new. Representative committees already exist in a number of guises in many establishments and are involved in a range of activities from race relations committees

As outlined by the Clinks and Revolving

to video clubs. Establishments have found

Doors Agency (RDA) Guide to Service User

committees to be an effective channel for

Involvement (2010), there is evidence that

communicating with, and getting feedback, from

service user involvement has positive benefits

prisoners.

for service users, from raising self-esteem to opening doors to paid employment. Probation

The PSO permits but does not require

Service Circular 10/2007 also indicates the

prisoner committees and councils,

benefits derived from service user involvement

subject to a number of restrictions.

for staff within criminal justice agencies. Probation Service Circular 10/2007 promotes Building better relationships with service

service user involvement as a way of improving

users, developing a deeper understanding

the quality and outcomes of services. It

of their difficulties and working with them

gives a series of examples of good practice

to solve problems can make staff feel their

in obtaining offender feedback and aims

work is more effective and enjoyable.

to provide a template to probation trusts for developing their own strategies.

The Clinks/RDA Guide highlights the critical question for organisations implementing

Previous studies

service user involvement: are you achieving

Although there is no comprehensive overview

meaningful results? There is the risk that

of service user involvement in prisons and

service user involvement is treated as a tick box

probation trusts in England & Wales, there

exercise, with no genuine change occurring as

have been a number of enquiries into aspects

a result of engagement with service users.

of service user involvement in the CJS.

1. PSO 1702 Anti-Bullying Strategy, PSO 2800 Race Relations Strategy. 2. PSO 4480

9


The Clinks Taskforce consulted with VCS

User Voice is a charity led and delivered by former

organisations, offenders, former offenders and their

offenders, who foster dialogue between users

families about service user involvement and its

and providers of services within the CJS. The

impact on reducing the likelihood of reoffending.

Power Inside: the role of prison councils (2010)

In considering why offenders and former offenders

argues that prison councils should be redesigned

should be more involved in the CJS, the Taskforce

around some of the principles and methods

found that responses revolved around five points:

used for other democratic forums. User Voice is

✪✪ Personalisation: there cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ approach to rehabilitation – individuals need to be involved in personalised plans relevant to their specific needs and situations. ✪✪ Influence: as policies, procedures and services in the CJS have such a big impact on lives,

currently piloting its own model of prison council. We set out to explore what role councils might play in changing the way offenders think about themselves and behave, and in making a positive change to prisons and to the lives of all those living and working inside them.

those on the receiving end should have a say to increase their chances of success. ✪✪ Ownership: having a stake in decisions that

There is less literature on service user involvement in probation trusts in the UK.

affect offenders, particularly while in prison,

Probation Circular 10/2007 provides a directory

gives them something to work towards.

of best practice examples of service user

✪✪ Responsibility: greater involvement increases personal responsibility for outcomes and increases engagement. ✪✪ Expertise: offenders and former offenders

involvement within probation, including user groups, surveys, service user input to business planning, training and events. It states that participation can improve rates of retention and compliance for offenders in programmes.

have a unique understanding of their needs. In 2010, Leicestershire & Rutland probation trust It was found that many organisations

commissioned User Voice to gain an insight from

throughout the CJS were making efforts to

service users into the effectiveness of probation

engage with offenders. However the Taskforce

services. This report recommended that the trust

concluded that much more could be done

consider implementing a probation council.

to make service user involvement more widespread and systematic in its application. In 2001, Prison Reform Trust’s (PRT) Barred Citizens surveyed all prisons in England &

10

1.3 Aims of research This report aims to fill the gap in knowledge related to service user involvement across NOMS. Until now, there has been no overall information

Wales to gather evidence about volunteering

available regarding the level and type of service

and active citizenship by prisoners. It was

user involvement taking place across NOMS. This

found that 27 prisons had functioning prison

position has been problematic as it does not

councils at the end of January 2001. This

allow the agency to learn from good and poor

report was followed up in 2004 with Having

practice, and may have led to the duplication of

Their Say, which explored prison councils in

work. There is currently no internal knowledge

more depth. Have Their Say recommended

or guidance resource to which any area of the

that a new Prison Service Order should be

organisation can turn in order to gain advice on

produced to require all prisons to have a prison

effective service user involvement; this report aims

council made up of elected representatives.

to be the first step in creating such a resource.

INTRODUCTION

This review aimed to ascertain the models of service

be extrapolated to those prisons and probation

user involvement currently in use across prisons and

trusts that did not participate in the review.

probation trusts in England and Wales. The research investigated the extent and nature of service user

Reliability

involvement in use. The survey was designed to

In the majority of cases, we were only able to

generate information on staff experiences of service

speak to one member of staff and they were

user involvement and the perceived benefits and

sometimes unable to provide a definitive answer

challenges of using different methods. From the

about other areas of the prison or trust. However,

information gathered, a series of best practice

we triangulated as far as possible within the time

examples were identified with a view to informing

frame, interviewing two or three members of staff

NOMS strategy and sharing good practice with

from different functions where their names were

other prisons and trusts. The review arrives at a

given. This does not mean that the information

range of recommendations for taking service user

given is inaccurate, but that all elements of service

involvement forwards in a more systematic way.

user involvement may not have been discussed

1.4 Methods Governing governors and chief executives of all

in every case. It is therefore likely that there is more service user involvement occurring than the authors were made aware of during interviews.

prisons and probation trusts were approached and asked to identify a relevant staff contact

No interviews were undertaken with service

with whom to discuss service user involvement

users in the first stage of the research. The survey

work. Telephone interviews were conducted

indicates attitudes and perspectives of a sample

and interviews lasted from half-an-hour to an

of NOMS staff working in prisons and probation

hour and followed a semi-structured format.

trusts. This will provide a starting point for NOMS to explore the types of service user involvement

We successfully interviewed 77% of prisons and

that have the greatest resonance with its service

probation trusts in England & Wales. Of the 121

users. In the selection of best practice examples,

public prisons that we approached, we were able

nine prisons and probation trusts were visited

to interview a total of 90, 74% of the overall figure.

and at this stage, we interviewed the offenders

Of the 35 probation trusts, we interviewed 30, 86%

and ex offenders involved in the projects.

3

of the total. The list of responding prisons and probation trusts can be found in the appendix. The researchers were assisted by an advisory group, membership of which included representatives from the Prison Reform Trust, User Voice, Revolving Doors Agency and West Yorkshire probation trust.

1.6 Structure of the report Following this introduction: ✪✪ Chapter 2 considers the theoretical background to service user involvement and the aims that interviewees expressed for service user involvement. ✪✪ Chapter 3 contains the quantitative

1.5 Limitations

findings of our research and an analysis of

Size of sample

the models of service user involvement in

With a short period for completion of this review,

use across prisons and probation trusts.

the size of our sample was limited to those who

✪✪ Chapter 4 considers the methods used by

responded within the three month window set

prisons and trusts for recruitment of service

aside for interviews. Findings cannot therefore

users and training of service users and staff.

3. Campuses within amalgamated sites were counted separately in order to distinguish between categories

11


✪✪ Chapter 5 considers the processes of service user meetings; including setting the agenda, defining the role of the offenders within the meetings and feeding back outcomes. ✪✪ Chapter 6 details the range of challenges and barriers to service user involvement identified by prison and probation staff. ✪✪ Chapter 7 considers outcomes monitoring and the perceived benefits of service user involvement. ✪✪ Chapter 8 looks forwards at the development of service user involvement. This chapter includes staff observations of how to get started and sustain a project, sharing good practice, areas for future research and recommendations arising from the review.

12

THE VISION

2.

The vision


13


This chapter briefly introduces models of thought behind service user involvement and the context for service user involvement in the CJS. We then discuss the vision that staff articulated around service user involvement work. We want to understand issues as ‘they’ see them. Service users can supply solutions that meet staff and prison criteria and it’s part of the rehabilitation process to give them ownership to represent other prisoners’ views.

The bottom rungs refer to processes limited to educating service users or communicating information, without genuine participation. The middle rungs allow the service users ‘to hear and to have a voice’ but they lack the ‘muscle’ to assure a change or follow-through. The upper rungs enable service users to have increasing degrees of ‘decision-making clout’, with the power to negotiate and engage in trade-offs. The underlying principle articulated by Arnstein remains as relevant now as it was in 1969:

A local prison

‘Nobodies’... are trying to become

2.1 The theory behind service user involvement The ladder of participation is one model for considering the development of service user involvement. The ladder was originally articulated by Sherry Arnstein, in 1969, to illustrate different levels of citizen participation in decision-making. The ladder of participation

‘somebodies’ with enough power to make the target institutions responsive to their views, aspirations and needs. Arnstein, 1969

Since Arnstein, theories have become more nuanced and participation is generally viewed as a complex and dynamic process. However the ladder remains a salient model for considering whether a service is climbing as far as it could in terms of the way it involves its service users.

FULL CONTROL

Service users control decision making at the highest level

As User Voice (2010) states, good practice in service user involvement entails using

SHARING POWER

Service users share decisions and responsibility, influencing and determining outcomes

‘the right rung for the right job’. More participatory processes do not necessarily mean a transfer of power, but the processes in themselves can still have value (CAG 2009).

PARTICIPATION

Service users can make suggestions and influence outcomes

A useful distinction is between service user involvement that is management centred and

CONSULTATION

Service users are asked what they think but have limited influence

service user involvement that is user centred (Service User Involvement 2007). Where service user involvement is management centred, the

INFORMATION

Service users are told what is happening but have no influence

agenda is set by service providers, while in the latter the agenda is set and driven forward by the users of the service themselves.

NO CONTROL

Service users are passive consumers

2.2 The NOMS context Implementing service user involvement within

Source: Adapted from Arnstein’s A Ladder of Participation, Hart & Groundswell

14

prisons and probation trusts will clearly be a complex and challenging process. However, the

THE VISION

basic principle of Arnstein’s model, that services

Offenders who find ways to contribute to

should be responsive to those marginalised in

society, the community, or their families,

the system, has much resonance within the CJS. The Responsible Prisoner by Stephen Pryor (2001), a former prison governor, invites the Prison Service to reconsider its approach to responsibility within prisons. Imprisonment is designed to take away choices, at least those choices which might endanger the public. It is therefore necessarily de-humanising. But it may also take away other choices, so that prisons can be run safely. There should be no need to take away yet further choices; doing so could weaken the person’s ability to cope with responsibility on release. Pryor believes that group prisoner consultation is one aspect of developing prisoner responsibility. Conversely, his research suggested that the denial of consultation leads directly to intimidation and repression.

appear to be more successful at giving up crime. For instance, the opportunity to mentor, assist or enhance the life of other people. If these achievements are formally recognised, the effect may be even stronger. Maruna, 2010

2.3 Why involve offenders? There was a widespread belief across prisons and probation trusts that service user involvement has a role to play in reducing reoffending and increasing compliance. Many probation trusts and establishments perceived service user involvement to be instrumental to their core business, whether it was expressed as decency, ‘listen to improve’ or identifying need and gaps in provision. Many interviewees felt that the need for effective service user involvement was heightened by the shift towards outcome-based commissioning. We’re going to be less tied by national

Prisoners are more likely to feel more responsible and behave more responsibly if they believe their opinions are taken seriously. Failure to encourage this and to suppress openness will

guidance to processes – this is an opportunity to think about how we can structure intervention to make it more accessible. A probation trust

lead to mistrust and irresponsible behaviour. The findings emerging from desistance research

Objectives articulated by the interviewees revolved around a number of themes:

identify a range of reasons which lead to desistance from offending. In several of these areas it is possible to see that service user engagement might have a positive influence; these include: ✪✪ Having hope and motivation ✪✪ Feeling that one has something to give ✪✪ Having a place within a social group ✪✪ Not having a criminal identity

An untapped perspective For many interviewees, the central purpose of service user involvement is to ensure that offenders are consulted on the quality and development of the services delivered to them. Within the context of the CJS, asking for the views of the offenders is still a fairly alien concept for many agencies and for the staff working within them.

✪✪ Being believed in.

You gain a lot of information as the prisoners are the best source of

Desistance theory supports the view that

information about what is going on and you can then

playing an active role in one’s community and

know how they feel they are being treated. The most

taking on a measure of responsibility can assist

logical people to ask are the prisoners.

in the offender’s journey away from crime.

A local prison

15


Given efficiency saving that must be made,

It’s about making sure that women who feel

it was observed that offenders are an under-

able to take on positions of responsibility are

valued source of ideas and solutions. We have to deliver quality at a lower cost and with less resource. We are trying to turn things around by not doing things to people, but letting them take ownership. A probation trust

Managing conflict Service user involvement is designed to make prisons safer, less violent places. As far as possible aiming to target services at need. It feeds into legitimacy – prisoners have a say to some degree on what they do with their lives in prison. A local prison

Particularly within the prisons, service user involvement is seen as a tool for defusing tension and potential conflict and therefore contributing to dynamic security. We find service user involvement very useful for maintaining security. We want to ensure that we can do what we need to do in the least conflicting way possible. A female prison

In the long term, service user involvement was felt to have the potential to transform enduring aspects of the culture within prisons and trusts. For example, reducing the ‘us/them’ tension between staff and

afforded that opportunity to minimise institutionalisation: being actively involved in decision making, promoting activities within the prison and having a say in the way the prison develops the service. It’s about confidence and esteem-building... it’s about knowledge building – with a thought to what they might want to do in the long term... General personal development... It’s not ‘them’ and ‘us’, we’re working together on some of these issues. A female prison

Culture change Some prisons saw service user involvement as an aspect of a larger vision of building an active community. It’s a decent thing to do given that we are a community and that everyone in a community has a right to have their voice heard and their concerns addressed... If you want people to buy into a community, you need to give them a stake in it. They will only feel part of it if they feel they can contribute. If you only do things to people, they will not contribute at all. A training prison

Service user involvement has many dimensions and representation, mentoring and volunteering have clear relevance to notions of citizenship and responsibility. Service user involvement can be seen as part of a wider transformation both for the way that services are delivered and for the offender journey.

offenders and the propensity for suspicion and fear.

It means responsibility amongst prisoners and a drive towards citizenship and better behaviour. Prisoners have say in how we deliver.

Voice

A training prison

Articulated aims also included personal development for offenders and gaining new skills.

2.4 Initial conclusions

Many interviewees felt that the opportunity to

The expansiveness of the aims articulated by staff demonstrates the perceived efficacy of using service user involvement. It was clearly seen as a vehicle for transforming the way that prisons and probation trusts deliver services, the relationships between staff and offenders and the personal journey of the offender through the CJS.

have a voice has inherent value for the offender and can constitute an important aspect of rehabilitation. Contributing to decision-making and service design was seen to be empowering and tool for confidence-building and cultivating skills that could lead to training or employment.

16

MODELS OF SERVICE USER INVOLVEMENT

3.

Models of service user involvement


17


This chapter provides an overview of the models of service user involvement currently in use at prisons and probation trusts interviewed. The outcomes of the survey have been heavily influenced by the very different circumstances in which service user involvement has been implemented in prisons and probation trusts. Given that prisons and probation trusts balance competing demands in diverse operational environments, it is clear that there is no one size model that fits all. We found that there are broad symmetries in the

In some cases, this part of the interview also considered future plans for service user involvement.

3.1 Prisons We found that prisons have generally been using some form of consultative group for at least three or four years and many for over a decade. It therefore seems a timely moment to review progress and compare different models that have emerged at different types of establishment. Table 1.1 displays the percentage of prisons interviewed that are making use of particular types of service user involvement.

type of activities in place at prisons and trusts. However formats and processes differ radically.

Table 1.1 Type of involvement

% of prisons

Wing representatives

81%

be transferred across the estate with relative ease.

Function representatives

7%

However, interviewees also indicated that there is

Wing meetings

34%

involvement between prisons and probation trusts.

Prisoner consultative committee

63%

For this section, we draw from quantitative

Elected prison council

20%

Focus groups

86%

Diversity representatives

96%

Safer custody representatives4

64%

The fact that different establishments and probation trusts use similar models for service user involvement means that pockets of innovative practice could

very little information sharing about service user

data collected and comments by staff about the chosen models. Firstly, we consider the range of service user involvement activities used by prisons generally and the difference in approach by category of prison. We then consider service user involvement activities in place across probation trusts. Finally this chapter makes some initial observations about different models of service user involvement used in prisons and why service user groups are comparatively less developed in the probation trusts. The interviewees were asked to describe the range

(n = 85)

In terms of generic representation, most prisons have either wing representatives or prisoners that represent a particular function or theme within the prison e.g. canteen, gym, education. What is being used in different categories of prison? Table 1.2 displays the percentage of the prisons we interviewed of each category using different forms of consultative group.

of service user involvement initiatives currently in use at their establishment or probation trust. This included service user representatives, service user groups and service user contribution to meetings.

We expected to see a difference in the sort of model used, particularly given the type of population and length of stay at different prisons.

4. Includes Safer Custody or Violence Reduction representatives and prisons where Listeners attend the Safer Custody meetings

18


Table 1.2 Cat C trainers

Local

Wing meetings

36%

43%

Prisoner consultative committee

55%

Elected prison council

30%

Type of involvement

(33/44)5

Prisons used a variety of different terms to describe the type of meetings that are held with service prisoners. We consider some of the different models for structuring meetings – at what level they are located, the remit and type of prison. Wing meetings In most prisons where wing meetings occur, wing representatives meet with a Senior Officer or a group of wing staff and discuss day-today issues that have arisen in the residential area. Wing meetings are seen as a chance for prisoners to affect their living environment and for staff to feed down information about wider changes in the prison. For some prisons, wing meetings constitute the main forum for general prisoner involvement. For others, wing meetings are used as the first stepping stone in a series of consultative forums that reach from the landings up to strategic level. None of the open prisons that we interviewed held an equivalent to wing meetings while the high security prisons were the most likely to hold a lower level meeting. This could be explained by the more volatile environment of a high security prison and the need to defuse problems as early as possible. Staff expressed a variety of reasons behind holding meetings at the wing level. For some local prisons, holding meetings on separate wings avoids the resources required to co-ordinate a prison-wide meeting.

(8/13)

(10/12)

High security

0%

25%

30%

50%

67%

88%

75%

60%

100%

5%

13%

13%

10%

0%

Cat D

(21/36)

(8/10)

Women

YOI

(4/8)

For many other establishments, a lower level meeting acts as a filter. Issues on the wing can be dealt with quickly, leaving more complicated or radical suggestions to be considered in a consultative meeting with more senior staff. Two layers enables it to be raised at local level and resolved and then things that can’t be resolved can be taken upwards. A training prison

A number of prisons hold unrestricted wing meetings, which are open to attendance from anyone on the wing who wishes to attend. Where there is a very transient population, it is often not considered worthwhile within the time frame to select representatives and provide induction. It was highlighted by some local prisons that prisoners may have insufficient time to gather action points from their peers. We don’t have wing representatives – we tried it in the past but we find it’s best to open it up and let anyone attend who wants to attend because we have very high turnover. A local prison

Community meetings In a small number of prisons with a more settled population, wing meetings have been developed into ‘community meetings’ in order to engender a sense of community spirit and responsibility for the landing on which the prisoners lives. At HMP Isle of Wight, community meetings have been used to supplement the prison council, with the

5. Number of prisons in category interviewed / total number of prisons in that category

19


goal of achieving richer participation by directly

a way of injecting energy and dynamism into a

including the prisoners on the wing. This requires

previous meeting that had failed to capture staff

a high level of commitment from wing staff and

or prisoner imagination.

the initial stages are often relatively time intensive but it was felt that time was saved elsewhere.

An elected prison council is viewed as one model that generates a greater sense of prisoner ownership.

If we could get them engaging together they would be looking out for community problems. With the community meetings you really

Before Prisoner Council, we ran a Prisoner Consultative group but the Council takes

needed someone is absolutely dedicated to push and

it one step further in terms of their inclusion. Before we

push – have you had your meetings? Have you sent

were consulting but now we are including them in the

me the minutes? We needed someone driving it

decision making.

forward.

Young Offender Institution

A training prison

The council members are directly elected Committee and council meetings

from the wings or as members of a party. For

83% of the prisons that we interviewed have

example, the prison council at HMP Maidstone

some form of prison-wide consultation. These

has four parties: community and environment;

meetings come in different forms – some are more

diversity and equality; resettlement; training

staff directed, while some are largely prisoner led.

and education. Some prisons have a more

There was a distinction drawn by staff between a

modest form of voting, though nevertheless

prisoner consultative committee (PCC) and a prison

selecting a prisoner who has been chosen by his

council. There was no agreement over precisely

or her peers. For example, at HMP Haverigg, a

what constitutes a PCC and what marks one out as

spokesperson is nominated to the prison council

a prison council. Our interviews indicated that there

from those prisoners who attend wing meetings.

is substance in the distinction: prison councils are generally perceived to be more participatory than

The common feature of prison councils is

PCCs, which are generally limited to consultation.

the ethos of involvement and responsibility.

The current trend is to delineate between a

They often delegate a lot of responsibility

non-elected PCC and an elected prison council

to the council members in terms of asking

and we have chosen to use this categorisation

prisoners to chair meetings, collect action

but this choice is not necessarily prescriptive.

points and deliver upon decisions made.

A PCC generally takes the form of a monthly or bi-

Most elected prison councils in the

monthly meeting attended by wing representatives,

establishments interviewed are being run

a senior staff member and staff from relevant

in training prisons, although there are

functions. These meetings will address a range

examples across the prison estate. None

of issues arising across the prison, for example

of the high security prisons that were

canteen, wing issues, incentives and earned

interviewed in this survey were currently

privileges and facilities. Where possible decisions

using an elected body of prisoners.

are made by the staff present and staff or prisoners at the meeting are tasked with action points.

Focus groups A popular method for gathering feedback on

20

In some prisons, the PCC has been reworked into

specific issues and formulating solutions to niche

an elected prison council. This was described as

needs is to hold focus groups. 86% of prisons


interviewed hold focus groups, around a quarter

learning or health focus groups, ensure that they

of which hold groups on an ad hoc basis to give a

invite some prisoners who have never engaged

snap shot view of the prison when the need arises.

with these services to try and establish why not. This is an excellent way of ensuring that a diverse

A lot of prisons have used impromptu focus

mix of voices is heard, including those who feel

groups recently to consult prisoners in pursuit

negative or ambivalent about services provided.

of solutions to impending spending cuts. For other focus groups, prisoner representatives Many prisons hold thematic focus groups on

are appointed who are responsible for a particular

a weekly or monthly basis. The most common

issue. The advantage of having representatives

focus groups, in use at around 30% of prisons interviewed, were foreign national forums6 and older prisoner forums. Other prevalent forums were for lifers, disability and veterans in prison. Quite often, an external facilitator or organisation is invited to assist with the user group, particularly in the case of older prisoners, black and ethnic minority and veteran groups. For

or more regular meetings is that the service users can take a more active role in managing the content of the meeting, feeding in wider views and assisting with suggested changes. This engenders a sense of responsibility for community issues and hence a stake in the success of the group that they represent.

example, RECOOP deliver older prisoners forums

The lifer representatives help to set it up

in several of the prisons that we interviewed. Focus groups help to defuse issues that affect a particular sub-section of prisoners by allocating a specified time to discuss them. This avoids the same problems arising every week in a general consultative group. It also gives the time necessary to explore an issue in depth that may only affect one group of prisoners in the establishment and can therefore be easily overlooked. Our Veterans in Custody has been very successful, we offer an open invitation to all ex-servicemen in the jail and also invite guest speakers in. Prisoners are free to talk and share issues. They have identified some issues with post-traumatic stress disorder, pensions and injuries that otherwise

– they go around the indeterminate women a few days before and ask if there’s any particular issues to be raised and I make sure that the people who might be interested, have had a chance to answer those questions. Sometimes we task some of the women with the action points. A female prison

Prisoner contribution to staff meetings A form of service user involvement that is increasing is prisoner participation in staff meetings. Most prisons interviewed reported fulfilling their statutory responsibility by inviting service users to sit on their diversity meetings. It is also very common to have prisoner representatives sitting at the safer custody meetings. Some prisons have generic safer custody representatives or invite

would have gone unnoticed.

the prisoner listeners to their meetings, while

A training prison

others have more specific roles, such as violence reduction or suicide prevention representatives.

Some prisons randomly select the service users who will attend the focus groups while

Prisons often have at least one prisoner job

others systematically identify a range of service

assigned to diversity; a paid representative

users to ensure that all aspects of the issue

to help with communicating information,

are represented. Many prisons, particularly for

distributing material and offering peer support.

6. Number of prisons in category interviewed / total number of prisons in that category

21


HMP North Sea Camp: Diversity surgeries Every week we have a Diversity Surgery chaired by six Diversity Prisoner representatives, which anyone can attend. These issues are then fed up to staff meetings.

HMP Everthorpe: Scrutiny panel We have had 2 or 3 prisoners attending our Scrutiny Panel. We have a very tight confidentiality clause and blank out the names. We go through the Racist Incidents Reporting Form, picking numbers at random and question whether the investigation has been appropriately conducted, the outcomes were sensible and whether we feel that the right decisions have been made.

Diversity representatives were a particularly

We do a weekly board for IEP – a lot of

well developed area in many prisons. HMP

prisoners thought this wasn’t as open as it

North Sea Camp have established a regular

could be. We started inviting prisoners to come and sit

session to give diversity issues visibility and

in as observers. This cleared a lot of things up.

ensure that all prisoners have a chance to feed

An open prison

in their suggestions to go to the staff meeting. This suggests that the statutory requirement

Several prisons invite prisoner representatives to

to involve service users as representatives on

a section of their senior management meetings.

diversity issues has made a considerable impact.

This demonstrates a willingness to engage

Service users can only attend sections of staff meetings that do not refer to personal details of other prisoners. HMP Everthorpe have developed an innovative way of involving prisoners in discussion of individual incidents, through scrutiny panels, where they go through the racist incidents reporting form and personal details are not disclosed. The role of service users in meetings varies. Some prisons assign prisoners with responsibilities such as drawing up monthly reports, keeping a diary on a particular issue or

22

with prisoners at the highest strategic level. Many interviewees expressed the ambition to involve service users in more of their meetings and this seems like an area that could benefit from more innovation. Probation This review found relatively few service user groups in place at probation trusts and service user involvement activity is on the whole much more sporadic. Most probation trusts complete

disseminating information to other prisoners.

the nationally required offender surveys but

Where there is less scope for involvement in

has developed unevenly. Several probation

decision-making and discussion, one prison

trusts spoke of service user groups that are no

commented on the value of having prisoners

longer running. Individual offender engagement,

present as observers. In this role service users

peer mentoring and peer support-groups

can help to demystify the decision-making

appear to be far more developed in probation

process for other prisoners and to reassure

trusts than service user groups set up for the

their peers that due process is taking place.

purpose of consulting on the service itself.

further dialogue-based service user involvement


Table 2 displays the percentage of probation trusts interviewed that are using service user groups, followed by a break down of different types of service user group.

own sentence plan and developing the quality of one-to-one work with offenders through the Offender Engagement Programme. Tailoring more on what the offender

Table 2 Type of involvement

needs on an individual level and being % of probation trusts (n = 30)

responsive to that offender... We want to develop the services they need – not slot them into what we already have. A probation trust

Service user group

57%

Local delivery units

30%

Trust level

17%

Focus groups

33%

Contribution to staff meetings

7%

Nevertheless, there is certainly the aspiration in many trusts to mainstream consultation and gain more feedback from offenders on the service as a whole; even more so in the current financial climate. We have diminishing resources, and from

Over half of the probation trusts that we interviewed currently have some form of service user group active within their area. For the purpose of this review, user group was defined broadly to include groups at trust level, groups operating in one or more local delivery unit and focus groups. In reality, the extent of representative service user involvement in many of these probation trusts is slim. Service user groups take a variety of different formats; many are chaired by probation staff, some are facilitated by independent providers or researchers and there are a few examples of groups facilitated by peer mentors. Many user groups had five or less service users attending on a regular basis but there were some examples where numbers were closer to ten or fifteen.

a commissioning point of view, one of the reasons we are looking into consulting more with service users is because probation services are now up for competition and we need to look carefully at our processes... A probation trust

A small number of probation trusts have now built service user involvement into their annual strategic plan and are looking to set up groups in the near future. On the whole, service user groups are at a more embryonic stage than consultative committees in prisons. Local delivery unit user groups All probation trusts are broken down into local delivery units (LDUs), which are co-terminous with local authorities and aim to enable better partnership work with others on a local level.

The fact that representative service user involvement is relatively less developed in probation trusts reflects the different applications service user involvement can have in different settings. Probation trusts so far approach service user involvement on a more individual basis – in terms of the individual offender’s opportunity to make decisions about his or her

In some LDUs, there is a regular user meeting while others run ad hoc focus groups. Some probation trusts will have groups currently running in only one of their LDUs but most have plans to build on the model in their other LDUs. Local user groups are more practical for very large or geographically dispersed probation trusts.

23


It is common for LDU user groups to have

However for most probation trusts, strategic

emerged from different areas of work; from an

consultation remains an aspiration.

independent provider delivering drug services, housing support or women–only provision.

Focus groups

One explanation for the uneven landscape in

Only a third of probation trusts spoke about

probation trusts is the way that service user

running focus groups. These were often

groups have developed from dispersed projects.

used to explore issues that have been raised through feedback from national surveys.

User groups have tended to have a community focus at the LDU level, with an emphasis

We dip in and out, it depends on what

on peer support and volunteering. In many

we’re doing. For example, they wanted to

cases, service user involvement in this context is generally less consultative and more about telling the user’s story to magistrates, sentencers and the community. LDU groups are therefore often focused outwardly rather than inwardly at the service. Trust level groups There were only five probation trusts in our sample that are currently running service user groups at a trust level. On the whole, these probation trusts tended to involve more strategic consultation. Leicestershire and Rutland probation trust formed a service user strategy group to assist with putting together a toolkit to roll out service user groups in its local delivery units. Hertfordshire probation trust has shared strategic aspects of its service delivery with its service user reference group, such as the annual business plan and also consultation on the Breaking the Cycle Green Paper.

focus on developing communication between Offender Managers and offenders. So a focus group was set-up – then when the piece of work was completed, the group was closed. A probation trust

One fifth of probation trusts have womenonly groups, which were the most common type of focus groups. Other focus groups have emerged from various aspects of probation, for example experience of the drug rehabilitation requirement, approved premises residence meetings and integrated offender management. These examples of consulting offenders offer an opportunity to learn more widely within probation trusts. There are pockets of innovative practice within probation trusts, despite the more fragmented environment. There were at least two examples of using World Cafe events; an interactive format for hearing from a large group on a single occasion. In order to engage with service users beyond the premises, User Voice, on behalf of London probation trust, has used a virtual platform to engage with women offenders.

Greater Manchester probation trust has

24

used their service user group to consult on

Many probation trusts reported that they used

practical aspects of service delivery such as

to undertake more of their own surveys but

reviewing letters, leaflets and the website. For

stopped due to low return. A particular problem

example, the group produced a guide about

was trying to gather feedback from offenders

‘What Works’ from a service user point of

who failed to complete their order. South

view, which was distributed to all probation

Yorkshire is developing an idea for gathering

officers and will be used at training events.

feedback from those who have breached.


We’re planning to run focus groups in

sparked from an idea of the health trainers.

prisons with those who are there for

Peer mentors also helped to put together the

breaching their licence... You enter into a dialogue

toolkit in Leicestershire and Rutland. Most of the

with a focus group, by enabling people, you get much

probation trusts with more developed groups

better quality information.

have used peer mentors to help to formulate the

A probation trust

group, advertise it and sometimes facilitate.

Service user inclusion in staff meetings

3.3 Voluntary and Community Sector

This was very uncommon in the probation trusts; only two of the thirty probation trusts discussed including service users in meetings. In the 10/2007 Circular, there was evidence of service user input to business plans and design of questionnaires. Strategic input does seem to have continued but to a very limited extent and there is a lot of room for improvement. Attendance at events One of the most common methods for disseminating service user feedback more widely is to invite a service user to speak at conferences

There were many examples of Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) organisations assisting with focus groups, particularly in the prisons, but also within some probation trust LDUs. For example, Fate He have contributed to cultural awareness, attending BAME and foreign national forums and safer custody meetings. ACOOP were credited by several prisons for facilitating older prisoner forums. ACOOP runs a monthly forum for older prisoners – they have an over-50s

and events, especially magistrates training.

representative and a forum meeting that elects its

There were examples of service users from

the Governor or to outside bodies through ACOOP.

particular sections of probation, for example approved premises, talking to communities or sharing experiences with young offenders. This was cited as an excellent way to inform stakeholders of the experience of probation from an offender perspective. However, this kind of engagement is very limited in terms

own Chair. When the forum raises issues, they go to A training prison

The VCS can provide a crucial link to the community for offenders, both in terms of resettlement and informing national policy. Women in Prison have conducted policy consultations with prisoners in HMP

of the number of service users who can be

Holloway. A number of prisons identified the

involved and frequency during the year.

VCS as a route for offender representatives considering resettlement needs.

Co-design and co-development The remits of user groups within Probation are

This is a huge development area for diversity

therefore diverse, with some offering more

in terms of community work. The diversity

opportunity for user-led involvement then

representatives are actively involved in trying

others. A positive development in Probation

to engage with the People’s Kitchen and other

is the readiness to work with service users to

organisations who can help women on release.

design and develop models of service user involvement. Some existing user groups

There was also evidence of VCS providers

have evolved from peer mentoring projects.

attending prison-wide meetings, for

A good example was in Hampshire, where

example Partners of Prisoners attended

the service user group in Southampton LDU

the PCC at HMP Buckley Hall.

25


Roughly 20% of prisons, and a small number of probation trusts, spoke of involving the VCS in service user involvement. We think there is more provision then we were made aware of, as staff interviewed were often uncertain but thought there was consultation taking place. Prisons and probation trusts could improve communication by making the VCS working in the prison or local community aware of the service user involvement meetings taking place and offer a staff contact. The VCS has a long history of considering the needs of its users in a participatory style and could be an excellent partner in helping to develop and facilitate service user groups (Service User Involvement 2007). It would be useful to know how many VCS organisations are operating service user involvement schemes and whether they could be delivered in partnership with prisons and probation trusts to assist in fostering community values in service user involvement work. The track record of the VCS working with offenders indicates a unique capacity to engender trust and credibility with their service users and prisons and probation trusts should be encouraged to involve the VCS in their service user involvement projects.

3.4 Comparison Service user involvement work is far more developed in prisons, where there is a captive audience. Probation could learn from Wing Meetings held in prisons in terms of using lower level consultation within the LDUs. Currently service user involvement seems to be occurring in pockets within the probation trusts without permeating more widely. Notwithstanding this, it is likely that service user involvement in probation trusts will develop differently from that which is functioning well in prisons. This should be shaped principally by the offenders receiving probation services and their views on where involvement would be most beneficial. There is need to clarify the terms used to describe different models that fall under service

26

user involvement. There is currently no agreed terminology to describe what constitutes a prison consultative committee, a prison council or a consultative service user group. NOMS should offer guidance on service user involvement, recommending a minimum standard that prisons and probation trusts should comply with and including more clearly defined terms. This would assist with drawing more meaningful comparisons across different prisons and probation trusts.

GAINING INVOLVEMENT: WHO IS PARTICIPATING?

4.

Gaining involvement: Who is participating?


27


In this chapter we look at how effective service user involvement should have resonance for the whole community of service users. An important consideration for genuine service user involvement is whether all service users have access to representation. Who is choosing to get involved – do they truly represent their peers? Do all services users feel that they have a valid contribution to make? To what extent are service user representatives felt to be accountable?

or Safer Custody representatives, typically require a security check and more rigorous application procedure. Many prisons also use staff recommendation to identify likely candidates. A fifth of prisons surveyed use some form of election for some of their representatives. Self-selection is fairly common – and this is particularly relevant to open prisons, where the onus is on the prisoners to put themselves forward. A variety of different considerations were

There was a perception amongst the prisoners that the ones on the committee were favourites with the staff and prisoners wanted to pick their own. Prisoners now perceive this [new elected prison council] to be fairer system and it has given them greater ownership. Some staff were sceptical and thought it was a joke at first, but when they actually heard prisoners doing their sales pitch, they realised that this was very good and that the prisoners were taking it very seriously.

cited by staff for deciding on suitability of

A training prison

reception at the time; or via being asked by the

4.1 Recruitment of representatives

A probation trust

Prisons and probation trusts use a variety of methods to recruit service users to representative forums, and many use more than one strategy. The process impacts on service user buy-in and the effectiveness and utility of meetings.

representatives and these vary greatly depending on the type of establishment or trust. Ad hoc recruitment Within the probation trusts, recruiting representatives is often not yet a systematic process. Recruitment for these offender groups can be random – just asked as they are in offender manager.

Those who try to select randomly within probation trusts have often found it difficult to retain service users. Getting ad hoc offenders. This doesn’t

In the probation trusts, the most common method for recruiting representatives is through staff recommendation, normally via the offender manager. It was also very common to find service users volunteering or self-selecting for the role. Overall, recruitment in many probation trusts is not yet systematic. For some trust user groups, ‘everyone can be involved’, while others follow a risk assessment.

work great, they say they want to be involved and then you only get 2 or 3 offenders turning up. A probation trust

Prisons with a very transient population often use more flexible and loose forms of recruitment. Local prisons are more likely to have an open or ad hoc process in place. This is where word of mouth is particularly common.

Prisons most commonly recruit representatives via an application process. Representatives who hold a full-time position or are regarded to be more formal roles, such as Diversity

28

On the other hand, some local prisons choose to select on the basis of those who will be staying longer.

SECTION

They have to be here for some length of

This raises questions about service user perceptions

time – at least six months – then they get

of representatives. There is a danger that other

a good idea of what’s expected and can see progress

service users will be disenfranchised by this system

being made.

and may choose not to take up the opportunity

Young Offender Institution

to feed issues up through the representative.

Existing skills and personal characteristics Many staff members, particularly from the prisons, were concerned to ensure that representatives had demonstrated good behaviour, for example selecting those with enhanced status. Personal skills and characteristics, like confidence and good meeting skills, were a critical factor. Not everyone can be a wing rep because we want individuals who are able to compose themselves well in meetings. Normally they’d be recommended by staff but we wouldn’t deter them from applying. A training prison

However, there were interviewees who have deliberately selected a mix of different service users in order to more truly reflect the make-up of the population: At the prisoner forum – i selected all types – including ones on basic regime so we didn’t just have ‘good prisoners’. A local prison

The ones who are proactive are the ones who have better education, more eloquent – more capable of putting forth a reasoned argument. Whether they are listening on the wings to those who are less endowed – whether they are impartial and equitable – that is difficult to know. We expect them to act equitably but we don’t know... we trust them to access all prisoners within wing activity. A training prison

However, staff input is important for ensuring that representatives are not being bullied or victimised in their position. It was highlighted that representatives need to have the resilience to deal with negativity from other prisoners on their wings where desired changes cannot be made. Prisoners who have shown themselves more inclined to support the social infrastructure of prison and will generally be enhanced prisoners. We would expect them to be robust enough to be representatives. We all have to be clear that they are going to take quite a lot of flak on the wings if they can’t engineer the changes that are suggested. It tends

Prisons often seemed more willing to include service users indiscriminately for one off events and focus groups. It is suggested that this may be a good way to test the water without disrupting a meeting that relies upon commitment on a regular basis.

to be the same people who are the representatives for different prisoner consultative committees. A high security prison

Multi-representatives You can end up with various functions

It was common to find that the decision was delegated to wing staff or Offender Managers to make the selection or recommendation:

within the prison fighting over one prisoner who would be good at most things. A women’s prison

...who the wing office believes are the

In many prisons and probation trusts, a

most ‘relevant’/’appropriate’ person to

few particularly active service users were

take any issues forward, the most confident.

occupying several representative positions.

A local prison

This was sometimes due to difficulty in

29


recruiting willing service users. Some prisons

Nevertheless, there is very little evidence of

found it easier to recruit service users

monitoring taking place to ensure that all offender

already in peer mentor roles as they had the

groups are represented on forums, especially general

training and clearance to be involved.

prison councils and committees and service user groups. A number of prisons commented on this

The phenomenon of multi-representatives raises

shortfall and identified it as an area for improvement.

the concern that access to be involved is only ...what we could be better at is getting

open to a small subsection of service users.

more diverse representatives. We probably We normally get the ‘good lads’ coming to

do not have good representation of everyone across

the meetings. Sometimes get the same reps

the board. We tend to get willing volunteers but we

coming to several meetings – I want it to be more real.

could do with a more diverse audience.

An open prison

An open prison

This was identified as a problem even in places where

Elections

the process of recruitment is more service user-led.

Holding elections for representatives is one way to ensure that the wider prison population have some

Sometimes we have overlap between

ownership of the process and that there is a sense

representatives – we can’t stop this

of accountability between service users. It is not the

because of elections – but we would expect there to

answer in all contexts but prisons that have recently

be a wider representation.

introduced elections report a transformation in

A Youth Offender Institution

the way that their consultative bodies operate.

Training and guidance about service user

HMP Kingston designed their prison council

involvement, particularly from former

model with the input of their prisoners.

offenders, is vital for attracting a wider range of offenders to representative roles.

It [PCC] lost a bit of its teeth because some of those on the wing lost confidence in

30

Diversity

those who sat on that committee because they felt

Prisons and probation trusts were asked to

that they stood for their own agenda and were not

identify whether there were subsections

taking a holistic view of prisoner’s needs and concerns.

of their population that they found hard

If a particular representative was on the committee

to reach. A number of probation trusts use

and their issues was gymnasium then all they seemed

women-specific consultation in the form of

to do was champion gym. The idea [of an elected

a women-only survey or focus groups. Both

prison council] has been batted about in the system

probation trusts and prisons were concerned

and so we took the plunge. We got Prisoner feedback

about their capacity to engage with offenders

on how they’d like to see it going ahead. We took their

with learning disabilities and those with

ideas and formulated into a workable proposition.

very low levels of literacy and numeracy.

A training prison

Travellers, veterans, black, Asian and ethnic

Prisons that have election processes in place

minority (BAME) and gay prisoners were all

described the input necessary during the

identified as groups that can be hard to reach and

development process. Most had at least one

many prisons had set up specific focus groups

member of staff nominated to monitor progress

to address unmet need and potential isolation.

and address potential challenges. Guidance and

SECTION

training for offenders was particularly important,

Information collected from suggestion boxes

in terms of shaping expectations and introducing

and surveys can be used to indicate whether

and reinforcing the core principles of service user

there are unmet needs. HMP Lewes has

involvement. One model, delivered by User Voice

formalised a system of collecting wider input.

in partnership with participating prisons, has a well developed training package. Training is delivered

4.3 Incentives

by a former offender prior to the first elections,

Prisons rarely offer a monetary incentive for attending

including for example guidance on canvassing, acting as a representative and public speaking skills.

4.2 How representative are the representatives?

forums or focus groups. About 10% of prisons offer pay for full-time representative positions or a bonus for attendance at council meetings. That figure is likely to be much higher for diversity representatives, which are very often full time positions.

How do you make sure you get the right

Around half of probation trusts running service

people representing the groups? You get

user groups offer travel expenses to participants

the people who come forward. We would like to have

but no trust was in a position to offer monetary

time to talk to more individuals about whether they

remuneration. In the past, some probation trusts

are happy with the person representing them. We do

have offered shop vouchers to participants.

our best but this is the hardest thing to get right. Often,

Interviewees voiced concern about service

we have the same prisoner representing a lot of

users’ motivation to be involved.

groups. It wouldn’t be any easier in the real world. But it would be nice to have more interaction to ask

My concern would be that paying people

prisoners if what has been discussed in consultative

might skew people a bit in terms of

group reflects what they feel.

motivation for becoming involved.

A training prison

Probation trust

Perhaps the most important aspect of recruitment

In a community, people give their time

is to ensure that there are checks and balances

willingly to support the community so we

in place; established channels for the wider

wouldn’t encourage that.

population to feed into the consultative process.

Training prison

This is important both in terms of widening the net of participation and also as a quality

There was less consensus from the probation

control mechanism to ensure that the issues

trusts, where many interviewees questioned

arising in the meeting have wider currency.

why more service users do not get involved.

HMP Lewes: Prisoner contribution sheets Prisoners who are not representatives can contribute directly to the meetings. They write down their observations and issues and give them to their Landing Officer – they are then collated and given to ‘ residential managers. It also gives evidence to see how well the prisoner consultation group meeting is working. When we started off, we were getting 60/70 [contribution sheets] a month and now it is down to a dozen a month. Then we can ask the prisoner representatives: ✪✪ What do you think is not working if other prisoners are submitting this? ✪✪ Are you getting enough training?’

31


In light of the commitment required of service

As long as you are clear at the start so

users, often travelling a considerable distance

that you don’t raise expectations above

to be involved in their own time, it was felt that

what can be delivered. This is where we can come

some form of incentive may well be a practical

unstuck – a lot of things they come up may not be

way to increase service user involvement.

feasible because it’s a prison and there is a lack of financial resources.

This review offers no recommendation on

A training prison

financial remuneration; however travel expenses should be paid where possible for service users attending trust user groups. Probation trusts should be aware of potential benefits complications for service users accepting financial (and other) remuneration. Please refer to the Clinks/RDA Guide for guidance on incentives. Opportunities for recognised training qualifications would improve the process of engagement itself and offer a tangible incentive to service users.

It was emphasised that expectations have to be managed and the terms of reference must be clear on the scope of meetings and where there is room for manoeuvre. See Service User Involvement: For organisations working with offenders, ex-offenders and their families (Clinks/ Revolving Doors Agency, 2010) for a sample terms of reference and service user involvement policy.

4.5 Training Prisons and probation trusts were asked

4.4 Definition of role and terms of reference More needs to be done in prisons and probation trusts to formalise the role of service users and remit of meetings that take place. Just under half of prisons interviewed had a terms of reference in place for committee or council meetings and only a third had a role description for some of the representative roles that prisoners perform. The figure was less for Probation – only a third of probation trusts had a terms of reference for service user meetings and very few trusts had a role description. Those who did have a terms of reference often used a compact to clarify principles, for

if they deliver any training for service users performing representative roles. Around a fifth of prisons discussed some form of training. A minority included a specific training package for representatives. Diversity representatives typically receive the most comprehensive training, often participating in the ‘Challenge it, Change it’ training package with staff. For most, induction consisted of shadowing or a briefing from a previous representative. Training for representatives was lower in Probation at 10%. Generally training in this context was for peer support roles. Lack of resource was the most frequently cited reason for being unable to train service users.

example that personal issues ought to be dealt with through the complaints procedure.

Training for service users could offer a way to deal with some of the questions around representation.

32

Many prisons and probation trusts discussed

It would offer less confident or experienced

the risk of raising expectations beyond

service users a chance to put themselves forward

what can be delivered. There can be great

as representatives for their peers. Representative

disappointment when suggested changes are

roles are an opportunity to develop transferable

deemed unfeasible or unrealistic and it can be

skills such as canvassing for opinion, diplomatic

demoralising for the service users involved.

skills, facilitating or chairing meetings and

SECTION

communication skills. Listening skills and

4.7 Staff involvement

customer service skills were included in the sort

For meaningful service user involvement, where substantive changes may be made to the service, it is essential to have buy-in from all levels of staff. This area is frequently neglected in both prisons and probation trusts.

of training that staff suggested could be helpful. Shadowing is a cheap and effective way to ensure continuity and learning between past and present service users. A lot depends on the model of consultation operating in the prison or trust – for some shadowing will be adequate, while for others it may provide a real impetus to provide more formal training. Shadowing and buddying could be developed further and there are a number of prisons where service users themselves have delivered training, which is very good practice. Is there any national training for these reps? We did go through a stage where prisoners were bringing their own training forward. A training prison

It is also important, given the nature of the role, to give some training and support in terms of dealing with bullying or negative pressure. A lot of the representatives are seen as either do-gooders by the peers or always talking to prison officers. Training for prisoners for how to deal with that sort of negative peer pressure would be good. Whatever you do to try and represent it won’t be representative of everyone.

Only a couple of interviewees described the delivery of specific training, guidance or support to staff about service user involvement. It was recognised that many staff, particularly below management level, are not aware of the meaning of service user involvement, why it is useful or how to run an effective forum. Training is important because often you open up a can of worms... You have to be able to allow it to work its way through without panicking about consequences. If you try and get a quick fix, you worry you’ll never be able to put it right again. You need facilitators who understand it and are prepared to go through with it. Youth Offender Institution

Examples of good practice included asking service users to present on their forums in staff meetings and inviting staff to attend service user meetings. HMP Risley has demonstrated that service user involvement can be a process that has the capacity to be transformative for staff and prisoner relationships.

An open prison

interviewees talked about publicity as a good way

...some good and active management attention had been aimed at improving relationships. This included the development of training for officers and a specific staff and prisoner engagement policy aimed at encouraging and promoting mutual respect and establishing a framework to improve the quality of life at Risley. One of the main vehicles for this was through improved consultation with prisoners through a change to improve strategy with regular wing-based consultative meetings, monthly community action team meetings for the whole prison and discussion forums on specific topics.

to boost the profile of service user involvement.

HMCIP 2011

4.6 Identifying representatives and advertising events In many of the prisons, representatives have custom-made t-shirts to identify them to their peers and photographs on the wings or TV screens. Some probation trusts advertise service users groups in the waiting room but this was identified as an area for improvement. It is important for widening engagement that meetings and forums are visible and perceived to be inclusive. Many

33


Consulting on the wings or in the LDUs not only opens up consultation to more service users but also includes more staff, particularly those who have the most face-to-face contact with service users on a daily basis. Often you can resolve things at the lowest level possible – little things aren’t allowed to become big things. This creates good dynamic security with the officers involved too. A training prison

4.8 A more systematic approach A variety of models of recruitment have evolved in the different settings. More could be done to ensure that diversity on service user groups is monitored and that the selected service users genuinely represent their peers. A more systematic approach to recruitment and training would help to widen the net of involvement. It is vital that staff involvement is also considered a priority and appropriate guidance, training and support is provided.

34

ELEMENTS: HOW RICH IS THE PARTICIPATION?

5.

Elements: How rich is the participation?


35


The format and management of service user groups are critical to whether there is a constructive and active process or whether meetings are perceived as tick box exercises. The extent to which service users have a sense of ownership, which we examine in this chapter, has serious implications for sustainability and credibility. 5.1 Setting the agenda The way the agenda is set will shape service users’ first impression of the meeting, the topics under discussion and their role within it. In some meetings, the agenda is set by staff while in

Service user meetings, committees and councils come in many different guises. Most well established user groups have evolved and changed incrementally in response to staff and service user suggestions. At first I ran it, set the agenda and invited guests but then I handed over to them to lead and chair and I would be invited to attend for part of it. So it is very much their group. I also go to them with stuff – like running the reception survey. A probation trust

Communication The process is very often about facilitating good

others, items are submitted solely by service users.

quality, two-way communication. In the context

Staff emphasised the importance of clear

on which it is not possible to involve service

boundaries for meetings to avoid descending into a complaints session. Management input to the agenda indicates which topics are ‘up for discussion’ and therefore where the most constructive conversations can take place. Most meetings use an ‘AOB’ section but it would be interesting to know how much time is dedicated to allow service users to bring up new topics at this stage. Some prisons and probation trusts have a set agenda but consult periodically on the items that should go on it; in this way maintaining some continuity and structure but ensuring that service users can input regularly. Service user involvement can offer a genuine opportunity for service users to table their concerns in a more equitable context. The way that meetings are structured can assist with striking a balance between management and service user agendas.

5.2 Process

of a secure environment, there will be many issues users in decision-making. Staff discussed the value of giving a reasonable explanation. Taking the time to explain and consult service users on unwanted change can help to dissipate unrest: You can bring in quite significant changes to service users lives without just enforcing and not telling them. A high security prison

A recurrent theme was the significance that small changes could have for service users. All arguments are considered – the best people to tell us the impact of any decision on the prisoner is the prisoner. Something that seems quite trivial and insignificant to us – might be a big thing when you’re living in the prison. A Youth Offender Institution

Beyond consultation In some settings, service user involvement had moved beyond information and consultation to participation and a degree of power sharing. A role in decision-making – albeit in a circumscribed

You are more likely to get stuff done

way – was reflected upon by staff with enthusiasm,

where you have some prisoner ownership.

as a process that was empowering and

A high security prison

36

transformational for the service users involved.


Prisoners never thought that they would see themselves in a position like this. One prisoner on election day... had been in and out of jail

There was evidence in some prisons that service user involvement had precipitated a different culture of collaborative working.

all his life... he said his family is really proud that he has been elected onto the prison council... Prisoners are proud of what they’ve achieved here. A training prison

Some of the interviewees spoke of the broader benefits of using service user involvement to give offenders a voice. Notions of citizenship, responsibility and democracy were interwoven with much of the discourse around process, particularly for prison councils. Participation also means a role in delivering change. The way that meetings are structured can put the onus on the service users to make changes, for example having service users administering the meetings, bringing agenda items and taking action points forward. They were querying the body of information that was available at reception for women coming in with an IPP sentence. I asked the women to write this themselves. We’ve then

A staff member of each department will meet with the representative weekly – and only if it can’t be dealt with there will it be brought to the council meeting. It’s ‘proactive rather than reactive’. So council meeting is less about day-to-day issues. It empowers the council members to do it themselves. A training prison

Dialogue An innovative form of service user involvement is staff and prisoner dialogue sessions, described by one governing governor as a ‘conversation in a container’. Dialogue is a form of authentic and candid conversation that builds healthy relationships... The objective is to provide a safe space which offers an open forum for people to enquire into what matters to them, with the responsibility to take others seriously even when they do not agree with them. Thus through experiment with those involved, alternatives are developed influencing individuals and, through them, the establishment as a whole. Prison Dialogue

gone back to look at the work they’ve done on that leaflet. I then put in some bits about PSOs. In this sense, we had something from both ends. A women’s prison

Unlike many other forms of service user involvement, dialogue sessions are reflective rather than task focused. YOI Portland has used dialogue sessions to address particular tensions in the prison.

Proactive rather than reactive Tiered meetings, for example on the wings or in LDUs or specific focus groups, mean an opportunity to tailor the extent of service

YOI Portland: Dialogue sessions We use dialogue a lot around diversity. In 2006,

user-led forums filtering issues up to formal

‘Measuring the Quality of Prison Life (MQPL) had YOI Portland performing as the worst prison for the relative

consultation with senior management.

perception of BAME prisoners as opposed to white prisoners.

user involvement. One example given was of

There was a significant gap across every measure about BAME The prisoner’s forum that the prisoners

prisoner’s perceptions to the point that it impacted on the

run discuss the main issues. Then the

whole view of the prison. I appointed a manager who has been

wing representatives attend a formal Prison

using dialogue since he has been here. I think this it has caused

Consultative meeting and put the issues on the

a huge shift. We have improved communication and dialogue.

agenda.

It’s probably the most significant thing that we have done.

High security prison

37


Changes made after dialogue sessions

Menus put on different coloured paper which made it easier to read for dyslexic prisoners.

Cat C prisoners now have privacy keys for their cells. We still have overall controls but during association, they’re able to lock their own cell and go in and out when they want.

We now have womenonly reporting sessions.

An example of community decision making is from the skills workshops in which there is a woodwork workshop now undertaking some of the maintenance work around the prison.

Feedback was given via the annual user surveys which are conducted at the end of the order. An offender gave feedback to say that the induction booklet was ‘too wordy’, ‘too complicated’, now Trust is working on a redesign and offenders are actually being involved with this process.

38

Consultation of noise levels – prisoners are involved in writing the new policy on this.

ROTL dropin clinic for prisoners.

Reviewed standard letters – changed these, simpler, better language, more direct. Reviewed website. The group were consulted – gave service user perspective and input to leaflets.


HMP Risley: ‘You said, we did’ feed back

Foreign Nationals can’t understand the canteen and what they need to buy for day-to-day living.

New pictoral canteen leaflets have been produced which show a picture of the product and the canteen order number.

HMP Wayland: ‘Have your say’ notice boards Co-ordinated in Education, we feed information from all meetings into a central point. Staff pick out ‘common themes from the meetings and ask prisoners if these are the main issues. We enter into debate about what the most important issues are.

5.2 Communicating outcomes

Everything is answered and reasons given as to why not, so prisoners feel it’s been

Prisoners realise that they have a voice within the establishment that is not just paid lip service to – we actually take notice. By receiving minutes and being able to see exactly what is being done, it gives a feeling of value to the prisoners. A Youth Offender Institution

One of the most important processes identified was the timely feedback of outcomes achieved as a result of service user consultation. Publishing the actions points and outcomes brings credibility to the Council or service user group with service users on the wings or in the LDUs. Other service users can see for themselves that the consultative structure takes their perspectives into account and achieves real change.

looked into, we need to empower them. A Youth Offender Institution

Prisons and probation trusts use a variety of methods to feed back: displays on dedicated notice boards or the information channel, publication in newsletters, on intranet or in the library. A good practice way of feeding back results of meetings is to use the ‘You said, we did’ format (see above). The record for good and timely feedback was patchy in both prisons and probation trusts. Some leave the information to be fed back to other service users or prisoners via attendees of meetings. This inevitably limits the reach of the involvement.

39


Some prisons have gone further to analyse and prioritise cross-cutting issues arising in meetings (see HMP Wayland on page 39).

5.3 Pushing the boundaries Offender participation takes a variety of different forms. What seems critical is to ensure that the process stretches participation as far as possible within the constraints of the environment and the issues under discussion. Greater service user ownership precipitates a more sustainable and dynamic process. It is important that the processes for setting the agenda and feeding back are consistent and transparent to ensure legitimacy and accountability with the wider offender population.

40

BARRIERS TO MEANINGFUL SERVICE USER INVOLVEMENT

6.

Barriers to meaningful service user involvement


41


This chapter considers the barriers to meaningful service user involvement identified by the review. There was a strong sense that many of the challenges could be overcome with time and perseverance. 1. Staff apprehension The most frequent challenges alluded to staff apprehension.

with offenders, ex-offenders and their families (Clinks/Revolving Doors Agency, 2100): ‘Staff can sometimes be wary of service user involvement because they haven’t been consulted themselves’. This problem was implied in much of what interviewees reported of staff apprehension: I bet lots of the prison officers don’t understand why we have [service user] committees – some might be less informed than prisoners. A high security prison

Why ask them – they are in prison? Particularly in the early stages of a service user involvement project, some interviewees reported a lot of staff resistance. It’s hard to change the culture of an establishment – it’s a long term goal, from both prisoners and staff perspective. A training prison

Most spoke of staff apprehension in terms of scepticism and cynicism rather than direct resistance or opposition. It was reflected upon that many staff members are uncertain about the meaning or purpose of service user involvement. We always have some members of staff who don’t understand why we’re doing it but it’s a case of getting them to come to meetings and see. The fear is often that prisoners will just dictate what should happen. A decent prisoner forum won’t do that. A Youth Offender Institution

It is important to communicate clearly to staff about what service user involvement involves and why it is happening. Many interviewees invited doubtful staff to service user meetings

In the prisons, apprehension from uniformed staff was frequently remarked upon. It was also noted, especially in the probation trusts, that some staff members perceived a threat to their job position from service user volunteering. Involving staff in the process was suggested as an effective way of overcoming some of these barriers. For example, encouraging staff, as well as service users, to vote in council elections and giving wing officers a role in recruiting prisoner representatives. Proper guidance and training for staff as well as service users is vital to empower staff to have a role in the process. It could also be made mandatory for wing officers to attend prison council meetings and for more probation staff to be involved in the running of service user groups. More staff involvement could be an important tool for embedding service user involvement in the core work of criminal justice agencies. What is up for discussion? A common reason for concern within staff teams was the perception that service users were in a position to criticise staff or to deviate from the terms of the meetings.

for them to see for themselves and allay any

It can be used as a means of individuals

concerns about the content of meetings.

circumventing processes that they should be using.

There is a danger of marginalising staff from


the process. Staff members may feel a sense of disempowerment, as observed in Service User Involvement: For organisations working

42

Staff concern about the remit of service user meetings reinforces the importance of a very


clear terms of reference and role description for service users and a procedure for new agenda items, so that individual complaints are properly dealt with outside of service user involvement. It is vital to avoid the appearance of not going through the official procedures.

6.2 Culture

Service users may also experience negative reactions from their peers for participation in service user involvement projects. A number of prisoners were subject to poor reaction from some areas. Prisoners were seen as being a bit too close to management. Particularly in a long term prison, you have some prisoners who are very anti-management. There will

The barriers are cultures. The prison culture, by nature of the work it does, and by it’s primary aim does tend to a less consultative and more directive regime. However, once people start to see the benefits of consulting prisoners and creating a community... providing people with an insight about how prisoners work – and what their role is – I think the benefits are soon seen. Once it starts to become seen in a positive light, it takes off. A training prison

Many interviewees spoke of making service user involvement ‘the norm’ in order to overcome some of the barriers. NOMS needs to do more to enshrine service user involvement in its culture. The review demonstrated the need for a holistic approach to service user involvement, interwoven in strategy and embedded into the working model of all prisons or probation trusts.

always be that barrier. There can be stigma. It’s an individual thing as well – some of the prisoners have the sort of personality that can ride over the top of it because they are interested in what the committee is doing or have a passion for rights. But it is an occupational hazard. A training prison

Interviewees referred to time and perseverance as the best strategy for normalising service user involvement. As service user involvement becomes mainstream within services, the expectations of staff and service users alter and participation becomes more welcome. Using ex-service users to assist with educating and training offenders about service user involvement could help to give it more credence with offenders.

6.3 Personal agenda A frequently voiced concern was the tendency

Without general staff buy-in, the practical hurdles are numerous and service user involvement is treated as an additionality or tick box.

for service users to bring personal issues to

When people feel that they are juggling a lot of things, it needs to be ensured that service user involvement is not seen as something additional but an integrated part of what we do. We want to increase the interest of our staff to engage with it... We need to make sure that we commission the right approach.

users have abused their position for their

A probation trust

meetings or use their role as a representative to their own advantage. Some interviewees commented on incidences where service own gain or to manipulate other prisoners. They can have their own vested interest and they can claim to represent the wider prison community but in reality be out for their own ends. They can struggle in terms of being actually representative. There can be nefarious ends as well...

Stigma

there have been times when listeners and diversity

They’re seen as screw-boys, and some people are looked down on for that... but it varies a lot from site to site.

reps have abused their position – where they have free

A training prison

A training prison

access to wings etc. For example, using it to pass on messages, see people, organise things...

43


This situation was unusual but needs to be

Foreign national prisoners without good English

safeguarded against with clear processes for

are clearly disadvantaged and this was of real

dealing with problems where they arise.

concern for a lot of interviewees. Some prisons use a separate foreign national prisoner forum.

Meetings and forums need to be carefully managed

It might be useful to consider how the role of

to ensure that all voices are heard and that solutions

offenders as translators could be increased.

are suitable for the collective, as well as the small group of prisoners immediately consulted with.

6.5 Reluctance to be involved

Many interviewees spoke of the benefits of a change

Nothing will change

of ethos in their service user meetings towards a more solutions focused approach that includes the service users directly in taking actions forward. Originally, the prisoners wanted to see it as a complaints opportunity. We now try to treat it as an issues-and-solutions meeting – we expect the prisoners to be part of the solutions as well as complaints. We want them to view the meeting as a positive experience. A training prison

Staff interviewed believed that offender reluctance to be involved was typically due to the perception that nothing would change as a result of consultation. The most effective way to overcome this pessimism is to provide evidence that things have changed in response to service user feedback – keeping minutes, action-planning and feedback. We’ve put stepping stones for things

6.4 Knowledge and understanding As well as a clear terms of reference, it is important to furnish service users with the skills needed to fulfil a representative role. As we have found, there is very little training available for offenders performing representative functions. Problems identified by interviewees ranged from inadequate understanding of the terms of reference to limited knowledge of the subject matter. Interviewees highlighted training and support as a key area for development. I’ve got a couple who are quite able and trained – one was in for fraud. But at the

being minuted, monitored... we have an audit trail for the whole thing. Now they can see it going to SMT – they know they have an avenue to the top table. A training prison

Consultation fatigue There is a very real danger of saturating particularly active prisoners with consultation while failing to engage with other prisoners: You have to avoid consulting with the same people all the time – avoid consultation fatigue. In order to allay people’s [staff]

other end, I’ve had ones who have struggled. The

fears, if you do go for service users who are going to

service users that get engaged tend to be the ones

engage positively – there’s a danger you are always

who are more academically gifted. I think you have to

consulting them.

be mindful about this. We hope to encourage some

A training prison

more into the group to keep the balance. And also

44

make sure that they are supported by their offender

Training and support are again vital

managers to attend.

for widening the net of engagement

A probation trust

beyond a select group.


Worries about backlash

a service user group and which offenders to

...they tend to be sceptical, they think

invite. Many probation trusts find it very difficult

that it might get back to their Offender

to maintain a sizeable group – commonly only

Manager if they say something negative and that

three or four offenders regularly attend:

there will be a backlash for them. We explain to offenders that what they say to them won’t get fed

The idea was for a stable group of

back to their offender manager and that the

offenders to speak to Board members

feedback is anonymous. A probation trust

and Offender Manager groups; however this group was sporadic and the consistency was not there. A probation trust

Particularly emphasised by probation trusts, service users are nervous about ramifications

The majority of probation trusts who are

for their relationships with other staff members.

using service user groups are delivering

It is important to have a designated member

them at the local delivery unit level,

of staff that service users feel they can express

which may offer a more practical solution,

their concerns to without possibility of

particularly in larger geographical areas.

repercussions (Clinks/RDA 2010). This is where an external facilitator and venue could be

Sustaining service user involvement

very helpful for providing a neutral space.

Several probation trusts reported service user groups that were no longer occurring

I envisage looking for a venue away

because a project had finished or because

from Probation Office so I would

the leading member of staff had left.

imagine that we would want someone outside to facilitate those meetings so that people feel very

The wish and the desire is there but the

confident to talk and confident of anonymity. We

difficulty is getting it up and running

aim to provid a forum to speak more freely.

again. The person who was running it has left... she

A probation trust

used to spend two hours every month planning,

6.6 Probation specific barriers

doing the outcomes and leading the group and it was in their own time! People are not rushing to take

There were a number of challenges that

this on.

particularly impacted upon probation trusts. Here

A probation trust

we devote some space to discuss the barriers to setting up service user groups in the trusts.

Consultative processes within the probation trusts are often attached to particular projects.

Dispersed audience

Given the large and diverse caseloads that

We’re very, very rural – largest

probation trusts deal with, specific groups

geographical trust in the country. It’s a

seem a positive development in terms of

catch 22 – we’d want to talk to people about how

addressing niche needs. However, where

difficult it is the access the services.

there is no trust level coordination, there

A probation trust

is the risk that the practice of service user involvement is not shared generally and

Unlike prisons, probation trusts do not have

so when project funding ends, groups end

a captive audience and report more difficulty

with it. Probation trusts need to share the

in the set up of service user groups. There

learning more widely and ensure succession

are many questions around where to locate

planning for when staff members move on.

45


From prison to probation The transition from prison to the community is particularly problematic for service user involvement within probation trusts. Interviewees reported that service users, particularly those who are successfully completing, often no longer wish to be involved in consultation. One of the problems is that people’s lives move on if you are successful – there is a shelf life. Whether people have an appetite to get engaged is the issue. I think it’s only going to be a handful. A probation trust

NOMS and probation trusts may need to consider investing resource to provide a greater incentive for service user involvement within trusts, for example recognised training qualifications. A lot of resource is lost at the point where services users who have been active within the prison setting transfer onto probation. A group of prisoners that we spoke to while collating the best practice report for this review suggested the possibility of using offenders on ROTL to contribute to facilitating and setting up user groups in probation trusts. This could be an interesting way to transfer the learning within prisons to probation trusts.

6.7 Resource Concerns for the future of service user involvement within both prisons and probation trusts revolved around the tightening of resource. Interviewees talked about the need to make service user involvement a requirement, to ensure that resources are directed there. Problem we’re increasingly going to have is that there’s a reluctance to engage with consultants and the funding is not going to happen. Best way would be to try and mainstream it so we regard it as something that is essential in the way that you run your prison. I’m hoping that people recognise that in any prison – communication is the big problem. It should almost be mandatory that you do something like this. A Youth Offender Institution

46

In many of the best practice examples that we have selected, there is a nominated staff member allocated to the project. In probation trusts, user groups have often required staff availability beyond normal office hours. This is a concern around service user involvement being treated as tokenistic, particularly where it has relied upon staff members volunteering their time. Probation trusts also discussed concerns that resource restrictions would make it difficult to safeguard against harm. The risk that offenders may pose to other group members and each other, we’ve had no problems so far but it does have to managed. Managed and aware of the risk to the women in the group. A probation trust

Existing service user involvement is also threatened in prisons, where staff resource is required to ensure that prisoners can be escorted to meetings at the correct time and staff are available to facilitate groups. A couple of prisons mentioned groups no longer taking place due to lack of staff time and conflicting priorities for the prisoners. Service user involvement is not free; it requires time and staff commitment. Many interviewees expressed concern for the future of groups running in their probation trusts and establishments. Service user involvement requires investment to ensure that it remains a priority. Many staff felt that service user involvement would save money and resources in the long term, both providing cost effective solutions and improving service outcomes.

WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES?

7.

What are the outcomes?


47


In this chapter we look at measuring the outcomes from service user involvement 7.1 Outcome monitoring It was very uncommon to find prisons or trusts evaluating the outcomes of running service user groups. This was identified as a difficult area in terms of resource and identifying concrete outcomes to measure. Aspects of service user involvement are occasionally surveyed as part of a safer custody or learning and skills needs analyses. Some prisons have used a comparison between the number of complaints and the introduction of a PCC or Council to monitor effectiveness, while probation trusts spoke of increased compliance since the introduction of a user group. Some have monitoring processes in place, particularly where there are action plans to track or as a matter of course at the beginning of departmental meetings or SMT meetings. The aforementioned prisoner contribution sheets or suggestion boxes are a useful way to monitor whether issues arising in committee meetings are reflective of the wider population. Monitoring is an area that really needs development to demonstrate the value of service user involvement and evidence outcomes. It would be instructive to compare different models and uncover which ones work the most effectively. It would also be useful to investigate in more depth which models have been the most effective in different categories or prisons and urban and rural probation trusts.

Staff perceptions about the benefits of service user involvement indicated conviction that it does improve the way that services are designed and delivered, in such a way as to impact on hard outcomes; such as improved compliance and reductions in reoffending. Voice Service user involvement gives service users an opportunity to voice their concerns and in a functioning model, to feel that they are listened to and where possible changes are made. Gaining a voice from service user involvement is a twoway process, which also gives staff a chance to articulate the reasoning behind decisions that are all-too-often opaque to service users. I think prisoners feel more involved in the day-to-day running of the prison and they have a voice. They feel they’re not being-doneto, they’re part of taking this prison forward. A training prison

Interviewees reported that giving service users a sense of ownership of day-to-day decisions had transformative results for self-esteem, respect and compliance. If you involve prisoners in decision making, they take ownership. They are the ones who know best how things might be for them. A training prison

Empowerment We’re empowering prisoners to have a

7.2 Benefits

say in their own destiny - they have to live here and in consultation with staff, they have

It [Dialogue sessions] provides oil/cement

the opportunity to make a difference.

for delivering transformational change – it

A training prison

provides a mechanism for people to talk to each other in

48

a non-judgemental way, which provides solutions and

The space for empowerment that service user

the potential for change offered in organisations that

involvement can bring has clear implications for

have great difficulty in contemplating some changes. It’s

rehabilitation and resettlement. It can help to reverse

one of the most important and potent tool.

the sense of marginalisation that is magnified for


many offenders both in prison and in the community.

WHAT ARE THE OUTCOMES?

...they don’t feel excluded. They’re not

When changes happen, prisoners have

just prisoners in a cell, they’re actually

an opinion. Rather than just force

involved in what we do.

change which can lead to disruption and problems

A women’s prison

within the jail, we recognise that it’s really good to consult. Sometimes you get some really good ideas.

A sense of community and responsibility was a

A training prison

strong theme in discussions around service user involvement. For service user representatives,

Expertise

their role encompasses balancing different

We can’t do what we say we do without

perspectives and being accountable to their

that person contributing. The one person

peers. Bringing greater transparency to decision

who holds that information about what will work for

making helps service user’s to understand the

them is the service user.

factors that influence all aspects of their lives.

A probation trust

A vent

As expressed in the aims of service user

service user involvement provides an outlet

involvement, it is clear that staff are increasingly

for addressing issues that could escalate

keen to utilise the information offered by service

in a non-confrontational atmosphere.

users. Very often, service users find one of their peers more approachable then a staff member.

There’s an advantage in terms of order

Additionally, particularly within the prison

and control. If there’s a major issue,

context, it was identified that prisoners are a great

they’ll bring it up and it’s very clear, for example with

resource for helping to engage with unheard

canteen. It’s a vent to some degree.

voices. Many interviewees referred to needs that

A local prison

been identified through service user involvement, that were previously been below their radar.

Through a process of dialogue, the us/them relationship between staff and offenders can be

Quality measure

deconstructed. The discussion demystifies the

...We are trying to deliver services but

factors that contribute to the decisions made and helps counter rumour and suggestion.

actually, are we delivering those services? Sometimes you think it’s happening but without user feedback, it might not be happening!

It really dissipates potential unrest. Where two sides feel they’re either sides of the barrier, they fight constantly. But this is a way

It’s given us a level of assurance that prisoner concerns and issues are being addressed. A training prison

of getting consistent messages across. A high security prison

Service user involvement is recognised as a mechanism for monitoring the quality of

Interviewees spoke of the value of explaining and

services in probation trusts and prisons.

justifying procedures to service users, particularly where sudden changes were taking place. Although

Gives a measure of how well we are

there is very little flexibility around enforcement

doing. Often we are subjecting these

within the service, consultation has considerable

people to our rules and regulations all the time so

salience for deciding how things are done.

this is like a quality measure. Engaging with

Often small adjustments can make an enormous

prisoners is paramount to measuring where we are.

difference to the offenders on the ground.

A local prison

49


Those trusts and establishments that have well developed channels for service user involvement had an established way of tuning into the mood on the ground.

50

LOOKING FORWARD

8.

Looking forward


51


In this chapter we look at how prisons and probation trusts can take forward improvements to service user involvement. 8.1 Getting started and sustaining

Strategic support Staff support from all levels was identified as being particularly important to getting service user involvement work running, particularly Senior Management support. Some probation trusts and prisons have built service user involvement

The review considered factors that helped

into their Business Plans, which has helped

some prisons and probation trusts to set up

to ensure that plans are put into motion.

an effective service user group and sustain them. Succession planning is very important.

While recognising that champions can be critical at the moment of starting a project, it

National policy

was apparent that in many probation trusts and

It was acknowledged by interviewees that one

prisons, service user involvement had become

of the main drivers for service user involvement has come from central direction. This offers some explanation for why user involvement is less developed in probation trusts, where there is less statutory guidance. This highlights the fact that service user involvement needs to be identified as a core strategic priority. Champions Most of the establishments and probation trusts with the most well developed service user involvement had at least one staff member nominated to drive it forward. Embedding service user involvement into the job description of a member of staff is key to ensuring that it is seen as integral to the work of the trust or prison. Sometimes you have to be an individual champion if only to get the participation going. Show the prisoners – however many notices you like but there will always be some who never read them or weren’t aware. You need sometimes to bang the drum a bit for that particular issue. A training prison

overly reliant on the efforts of one individual. When that individual; whether a staff member of a service user moves on, groups often fold or fail to continue to function effectively. It is therefore critical to build in a succession plan so that service user involvement will continue to function when the initial people have left. Shadowing for staff and offenders is an excellent way to ensure that learning is shared and continuity is maintained. In places where effective succession planning has been installed, service user involvement has become embedded in the culture and ethos of the trust or establishment. Service user ownership Offender ownership of the process was identified by some interviewees as the core component for both meaningful involvement and sustainability. Many prisons mentioned prisoners who had bought ideas from other establishments. We recognise the value of the work that prisoners can do and that sustains itself. It’s very important. A lad can listen to a lad of his own age rather than an older person who’s reading it off a book

[X] who is the ‘champion’ of this work and has an identified service user involvement role highlights to staff the importance of this work and

– I think that self sustains. This black sweat-top is almost like a merit badge. It’s seen as a huge stepping stone. A Youth Offender Institution

that it is core business to invite feedback from your

52

service users in order to improve the service delivered.

Staff should be clear that their role is as

A probation trust

facilitators rather than owners. A group that

LOOKING FORWARD

is engaged and responsive to its service users

Further research should explore different

will have its own dynamism to transition

areas of the Probation workload, for example,

when the staff and users change.

residential meetings in approved premises.

8.2 Sharing good practice

There are numerous VCS organisations operating

The review found that there is an overwhelming lack of consistent sharing of experience of service user involvement between probation trusts and prisons. There were many comments about the reducing number of portals for sharing information and also less regional meetings. Despite many similarities between models in use across trusts and prisons, there seemed very little opportunity for discussion about what works and addressing common challenges. A recommendation from this report is therefore that NOMS should ensure there is a national forum or portal for discussing service user involvement work and comparing practice in different probation trusts and establishments. There is also far more potential for staff and service users to make visits to observe different models in practice.

in the CJS who have a long tradition of more participatory work. Research is required to map VCS provision in this area and establish where there are opportunities for prisons and probation trusts to collaborate with independent providers.

8.4 Conclusions Since the Clinks Taskforce report, Unlocking Potential, was published in 2008, practice has developed in both the statutory sector and the VCS. However, policy and strategy around service user involvement in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) remains piecemeal and the evidence base unsubstantiated. A more systematic approach to service user involvement is required. The evidence suggests that service user involvement works best where service users have

8.3 Future research

some ownership of processes and contribute to

The findings of this survey need to be qualified by

individual setting. Offenders are a source of ideas,

interviews with service users, preferably involved in different types of service user involvement from design and delivery to evaluation. It would be interesting to know the areas of service user involvement that service users prioritise at different stages. Comments made by interviewees suggested offenders on different

developing service user involvement within the creativity and direct experience of the service and their involvement is comparatively cheap. Tapping into the expertise of current and former offenders in terms of guidance and training for representative roles could offer greater credence to service user involvement and help to dispel stigma from other offenders and staff members.

length of sentence appreciate contributing to different forms of service user involvement. For

The vision

example, a prisoner on a life sentence may be

The service user perspective is often an untapped

interested in committing to a Prison Council in

and underused source of expertise and solutions.

the middle of his sentence but in the later stages

Service user involvement is believed to assist with

may be more interested in peer mentoring and

managing conflict and breaking down the us/

volunteering. There is an urgent need for research

them culture of prisons and probation trusts. The

into the outcomes of service user involvement,

expansiveness of the aims that staff articulated

where there is so far only anecdotal evidence.

by service user involvement demonstrates the perceived efficacy of its use. It was clearly seen as

It is likely that there are more examples in

a vehicle for improving the way that prisons and

probation than this review was able to uncover.

probation trusts deliver services, the relationships

53


between staff and offenders and the personal journey of the offender through the CJS. Models of service user involvement Service user involvement work is far more developed in prisons, where there is a captive audience. Probation could learn from Wing Meetings held in prisons in terms of using lower level consultation within local delivery units. Notwithstanding this, it is likely that service user involvement in probation trusts will develop differently and this should be shaped by the offenders receiving probation services. There is a need to clarify the terms used to describe different models that fall under service user involvement. This would assist with drawing more meaningful comparisons between different models and establishing minimum standards. Gaining involvement A variety of models of recruitment have evolved in different settings. More could be done to ensure that diversity on service user groups is monitored and that the selected service users genuinely represent their peers. A more systematic approach to recruitment and training would help to widen the net of involvement. It is vital that staff involvement is also considered a priority and appropriate guidance, training and support is provided. Elements and process Offender participation takes a variety of different forms. What seems critical is to ensure that the process stretches participation as far as possible within the constraints of the environment and the issues under discussion. Greater service user ownership precipitates a more sustainable and dynamic process. It is important that the processes for setting the agenda and feeding back are consistent and transparent to ensure legitimacy and accountability with the wider offender population.

54

LOOKING FORWARD

Bibliography

Appendix Prisons and probation trusts interviewed

Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP. V. 35, No. 4. pp. 216 – 224. CAG Consultants. 2009. Participation: A theoretical perspective. Online: http://www. cagconsultants.co.uk/resources/communities/ Participation_Theoretical_Frameworks.pdf Clinks and Revolving Doors. 2010. Service User Involvement. Online: http://www.clinks.org/ assets/files/PDFs/VOLUNTEERING%20GUIDE%20 -%20Service%20User%20Involvement.pdf Clinks Taskforce. 2008. Unlocking Potential: How offenders, former offenders and their families can contribute to a more effective criminal justice system. Online: http://www. clinks.org/publications/reports/unlocking-potential HMCIP. 2011. Report of an announced inspection of HMP Risley, 7 – 11 February 2011. Online: http:// www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/ inspectorate-reports/hmipris/Risley-2011.pdf Maruna, S. 2010. Understanding Desistance from Crime. NOMS Rehabilitation Services Group. Prison Reform Trust. 2001. Barred Citizens. Prison Reform Trust. 2004. Having Their Say. Online: http:// www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Publications/vw/1/ItemID/81 Prison Reform Trust. 2011. Time Well Spent: A practical guide to active citizenship and volunteering in prison. Online: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/ Documents/Time%20Well%20Spent%20report%20lo.pdf Probation Circular 10/2007. Offender Engagement Good Practice Guide. National Offender Management Service. Pryor, S. 2001. The Responsible Prisoner. Online: http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmiprisons/docs/the-responsible-prisoner-rps.pdf Service User Involvement. 2007. Empowerment, Employability and Service User Involvement: A Review of the Literature. Online: http://www.serviceuser.org/show.php?contentid=69 User Voice. 2010. The Power Inside. Online: http://www.uservoice.org/our-work/library/ publications/the-power-inside/ World Health Organisation. 2002. Community participation in local health and sustainable development. Online: http://www.euro.who.int/__ data/assets/pdf_file/0013/101065/E78652.pdf

Prisons Albany Askham Grange Aylesbury Bedford Birmingham Blantyre House Blundeston Brinsford Buckley Hall Bullingdon Bure Camp Hill Canterbury Cardiff Channings Wood Coldingley Deerbolt Downview DrakeHall Durham EastSutton Park Eastwood Park Elmley Erlestoke Everthorpe Exeter Featherstone Feltham Ford Frankland Full Sutton Garth Gartree Glen Parva Gloucester Grendon Guys Marsh Haverigg Hewell High Down Hollesley Bay Huntercombe Isis Kennet Kingston Kirkham Kirklevington Grange Leeds Leicester Lewes Leyhill Lincoln Littlehey Liverpool Low Newton

Maidstone Manchester New Hall Northallerton North Sea Camp Norwich Nottingham Onley Parkhurst Portland Prescoed Preston Ranby Reading Risley Rochester Shepton Mallet Shrewsbury Spring Hill Stafford Standford Hill Stocken Styal Swaleside Swinfen Hall The Mount Thorn Cross Usk Wandsworth Wayland Wealstun Whatton Whitemoor Wormwood Scrubs Wymott

Probation trusts Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Cheshire Cumbria Derbyshire Devon & Cornwall Essex Gloucestershire Greater Manchester Hampshire Hertfordshire Humberside Lancashire Leicestershire & Rutland Lincolnshire London Merseyside Norfolk & Suffolk Northumbria South Yorkshire Staffordshire & Wests Midlands Surrey & Sussex Teeside & Durham Thames Valley Wales Warwickshire West Mercia West Yorkshire Wiltshire York & North Yorkshire

55

Clinks 59 Carter Lane | London | EC4V 5AQ 0207 248 3538 [email protected] www.clinks.org