Frequently asked questions from the briefing sessions to community justice strategic groups to the Care Inspectorate.

Questions/Points raised Response
Will the model use a 6 or 4-point evaluation scale? From on-going discussion, we recognised that a 4-point scale might simplify the model and allow for different language but overall, it was felt a 6-point scale would be more helpful in being able to evaluate and see improvement over time.  Using improvement language was viewed as being beneficial.
As different partnerships are at different stages in development, there was some reservation about capacity to undertake this work and what the expectations were to undertake self-evaluation. A second phase of the project has been proposed which would focus on building capacity and confidence in partnerships in undertaking meaningful self-evaluation. Partners thought this was required and as well as support locally, there may be benefits for specific support for some partners on a national basis.  The OPI Framework does not specify requirements specifically about undertaking self-evaluation. However, embarking on this work will be externally valuable for partnerships in helping strive for continuous improvement and  excellence and establishing a strong sense of performance and key priority areas for action.  It will also enable partners to identify key strengths.  When Community Justice Scotland comes into being, they may wish to offer further views on this.
We sent the initial correspondence for the briefing to chairs of Community Planning Partnerships; this has not always resulted in it being passed on. We took this approach at the end of March 2016 as we recognised strategic partnerships were at different stages in development and CPP chairs were the one constant.  We then followed this up by ensuring we copied all transitions leads in to subsequent correspondence about the briefings and this proved more successful.  Subsequent dialogue with local areas has resulted in the decision that we will make all chairs of strategic groups the main contact point with the transition leads copied in to all communication. This should make communication flow easier and more consistent.
Partners felt strongly that the language should have an improvement tone. We agree and will endeavour to ensure the model reflects this.
Partners had some reservations about expectations of performance against the quality indicators within the self-evaluation model.  This was based on the transition stage and the timing required to embed community justice and how this may reflect performance evaluations.

We understand there are reservations and there are a couple of elements to consider.

  1. The intention will be to ensure the model is able to balance transition and stabilisation to ensure it is both a model that everyone can use straight away but also has longevity, standing the test of time, possibly with some adaptions over time.  This is the challenge for us in getting the balance right and will continue to be considered within the reference group and wider consultation. 
  2. At the same time, this will be an improvement model, which will mean the expectations regarding performance evaluations will be different at different stages.  It is important that partners are supported to openly reflect that they may not yet, at a given point in time, be at the level they aspire to be at. We expect this will be the case across many of the indicators to start with. We may still be developing practice in some quality indicator areas in the early stages of community justice and evaluations will reflect that.  However, partners should see progress against these evaluations over time.  
Are you speaking to other groups as well as statutory partners? Yes, we have an extensive approach to engagement and involvement, which will be happening during summer 2016. This will involve a staff survey, service user focus groups and stakeholder focus groups/meetings.
Some partners were slightly apprehensive that the staff survey would ask questions about community justice that may still be new or unknown to many staff and were unsure how this would be interpreted and used. The staff survey is for us to develop the self-evaluation model only.  This will be to ensure that a wide range of staff have an opportunity to give their views and influence what the self-evaluation model looks like.  The survey is confidential and we will not use it for any other purpose
Will partners be able to use the survey questions for their own use? There is no reason why partners can’t use the content of the Care Inspectorate survey with their staff locally to help gather views and opinions about community justice.  They may want to consider amending some or all of the questions to meet local needs
Has there been any research done in developing the model? The proposed model is based on the EFQM framework which is widely known and used and highly regarded across a very wide range of public and private sector organisations. Frameworks based on EFQM have been used to inform scrutiny models in Scotland for many years. In developing this model we are also drawing on existing research, policy and strategy including ‘Reducing reoffending in Scotland’ and ‘Commission on Women Offenders’. 
Whilst a self-evaluation model is helpful the demand on time was highlighted in respect of evidence.  Is there any way to reduce this? We will consider this when developing the model and plan to include some tips about approaches to gathering evidence. In all of the models we have developed, we encourage partners to use evidence they need to gather anyway, either for the purposes of routine reporting or for ongoing service improvement, rather than undertaking self-evaluation for its own sake. 
Some partners were slightly concerned about the plans for future inspection of community justice and them being over scrutinised. The OPI Framework states the intentions for any future inspection of community justice. The Care Inspectorate recognises the need for any scrutiny work to be proportionate, risk-based, targeted and firmly directed at supporting improvement in outcomes for people.