The Howard League asks whether we have the right outcomes for re-offending payment by results schemes

Share This Post

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on email

In this latest in a series of short video interviews on payment by results, Andrew Neilson, Director of Campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform, gives his views on PbR in the criminal justice system.

Andrew welcomes the focus on outcomes that PbR brings but wonders whether the current pilots are really about payment by results.

He cautions that the road to desistance from crime can be slow and that a simple binary measure of re-offending (a simple Yes/No recording of whether someone has been reconvicted in the year following an intervention) may be inappropriate.

Do you think the criminal justice PbR pilots are going to herald a new approach to commissioning services for offenders?

Please comment below.

You can follow Andrew on Twitter – @NeilsonAndrew

 

You can see all the video interviews in this series with a wide range of viewpoints pro and con PbR from different perspectives here.

Share This Post

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Related posts

Payment by Results
PbR jargon demystified (1) A-F

First in a series of infographics which demystify the jargon and technical terms associated with the payment by results commissioning model.

Payment by Results
Can payment by results improve outcomes?

The idea is that by commissioning outcomes rather than outputs, commissioners allow provider to work in any way they see fit, safe in the knowledge that if the outcomes are not achieved, they do not have to make payment. But do PbR schemes achieve better outcomes?

Payment by Results
What did we learn from the Doncaster prison PbR reoffending pilot?

Sodexo and NACRO are the new partnership running the South Yorkshire Community Rehabilitation Company and it will be interesting to see whether they can have a positive impact on reducing the reoffending of released prisoners – their results will also be subject to a payment by results contracting approach, this time using both a binary and frequency (but not severity of offence) payment model.

Disappointing outcomes for Peterborough and Doncaster prison PbR pilots

These are very disappointing results for the MoJ. Normally, there would be an expectation of a high level of performance from pilots with such public exposure where the partners had chosen to participate and, indeed, had championed and driven the initiative from the outset. Therefore, it is an extremely worrying sign for the new private providers of probation whose revenue will be, to an increasing extent, dependent on reducing reoffending rates, that these high-profile pilots are performing so poorly.

Commissioning
It’s time we did something about commissioning

Reform argues that the current system does not encourage innovation or quality. Whether provision is public or private it is typically a local monopoly with limited or no incentives to improve performance. Too often national and local commissioners prioritise price over effectiveness.

On Probation
Did Peterborough and Doncaster reoffending pilots succeed?

So what do we make of these results? To me they represent a mixed picture, there’s no denying that reoffending has been reduced. However, we would normally expect a high level of performance from such a high profile pilot where the partners had chosen to participate and indeed championed and driven the initiative from the outset. On the other hand, there has been significant learning about how best to co-ordinate pre-and post-release activity, use mentors effectively and co-ordinate a multi-agency approach to preventing reoffending.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

keep informed

One email every day at noon