Piloting different approaches to personalised offender management in the English criminal justice system

Abstract

words max)Various approaches to personalisation are well-established in the UK social care sector and are now starting to 'travel' to othe sectors. In this paper we report findings from an evaluation of a pilot to test elements of personalisation in the management of offenders in probation services within the English criminal justice system. Following a review of evidence from social care, three different approaches to personalised-practice were developed and tested on a small-scale in three separate sites. The evaluation finds that all three approaches were implemented reasonably successfully, but challenges were identified including that personalised approaches are more time-consuming, that staff need support to exercise professional discretion and that balancing greater choice with managing criminogenic risk requires new ways of conceptualising the relationship between case manager and service user. Overall, 'deeper' approaches to personalisation such coproduction will take time to emerge. This paper makes two important contributions to the debate on personalisation in public services. First, it addresses the question of how transferable the concept of personalisation is from the social care sector to other sectors in the UK, in this case the criminal justice system. Secondly, it outlines a methodology for developing and evaluating personalisation pilots, prior to wider rollout. Person-centred Practice:Person-centred practices were adopted by selected and trained staff and managers within a single team managing a mixed caseload. A strong emphasis was placed on staff and service users co-producing a rehabilitation plan and professional discretion to tailor supervision to the holistic needs of the service user. The pilot explored the effect of person-centred practice on the process of co-production of rehabilitation plans for service users as well as on staff in the CRC. Person-centred Practice with access to an Enabling Fund:In addition to the model of personcentred practice implemented in the first pilot, this pilot also included an enabling fund, a form of personal budget. The enabling fund was designed to support rehabilitative goals that could not be progressed through existing services such as accredited or non-accredited programmes, welfare payments or referrals to other agencies. The pilot explored the effect of person-centred practice and access to a form of personal budget on the process of co-production for staff and service users.

The marketisation of rehabilitation: Some economic considerations

“…A more effective approach might involve mandated elements of co-production and co-creation of services. Such models have been developed in other sectors, most notably social care, and are being piloted in the criminal justice sector (Fox et al, 2018).…”

Co-creating rehabilitation: Findings from a pilot and implications for wider public service reform

“…The evaluation team worked closely with Interserve during the intervention design making use of empirical findings from earlier pilots (Fox et al, 2018), knowledge of relevant theory on desistance and a review of previous research on co-production and co-creation (Voorberg et al, 2015). Evaluation findings were reported and presented periodically to project leader and senior management throughout implementation.…”

“…As part of a large pan-European project on co-creating public services and building on previous piloting work in the UK (Fox et al, 2018), we supported the design of My Direction and then evaluated its implementation and impact. 1 My Direction sought to implement personalised, co-produced and co-created models of case management in a probation setting in England.…”

Probation supervision as a network of relationships: Aiming to be thick, not thin

“…These new models draw on the emerging evidence about post-TR community supervision. This evidence comes from two sources: the inspection of the work of CRCs carried out by HM Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) and the research studies (in journal articles and the grey literature) and comment pieces that address the developing practice of CRCs (see, for example, McDermott, 2016;Millings et al, 2019;Gray et al, 2016;Fox et al, 2018;Dominey, 2018;Kay, 2016).…”

“…HMIP 2019b(e.g. HMIP , 2019cFox et al, 2018;Dominey, 2018). The joint work bars in the model are a crucial aspect of post-TR thick supervision.…”