Keep up to date with Drugs & Crime

Funding PbR Outcomes: it’s complicated

Share This Post

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

Some things in life are complicated. Take, for example, deciding the causes of the August riots. The government,  Metropolitan Police and the Guardian/LSE  are just three bodies who have published their analysis recently.

Depending on who you listen to, the root cause of the disturbances was:

  • Broken Britain, a lack of family values and feckless parenting OR
  • Social media – particularly the Blackberry messaging service OR
  • The antipathy between young people and the police OR
  • The slow response by the police/government OR
  • The recession and cuts in public services.

The key, of course, is that there is some truth in all these explanations although we will never know exactly how they interacted to cause the events of the 6 – 10 August 2011; it’s just too complicated.

 

Some things in life need to be complicated. Measuring reducing reoffending outcomes in payment by results schemes is one of those things. However, not everybody agrees.

It is clear from his recent speeches and, in particular, the publication of the roundtable discussion organised by @reformthinktank that Crispin Blunt and the government favour a simple binary approach to measuring reoffending for the range of PbR criminal justice initiatives (full details in my free-to-download resource pack).

“Binary” is a term of jargon that I don’t find particularly helpful. In this case, it simply means that a project’s success would be measured on how many offenders committed further offences – typically in a one year period following their release from prison.

A binary approach is very attractive, predominantly because of its simplicity – easy to measure, and easy to understand. If a released prisoner does not commit a crime, (or, rather, does not get caught and convicted), the project gets paid. If s/he is convicted, the project doesn’t get paid.  A binary measurement is also particularly attractive to government because anyone who does not reoffend incurs no costs whatsoever to the criminal justice system.

The problem with a binary approach is that it is unlikely to reward payment by results projects which truly focus on those offenders who we all want most to stop offending – those with entrenched criminal histories who commit large numbers of crimes. We have an increasing evidence base on what we now term “desistance” but which, in normal English, means the process by which people give up committing crime. All the research (which mirrors what we know about the processes of recovering from addiction) clearly shows that “desistance” is an  uneven process typically marked by a reduced frequency of offending and/or a reduction in offence seriousness before someone gives up crime for good. You can find good explanations of desistance via @ben_jarman or by reading: Changing Lives: Desistance and Offender Management by @fergus_mcneill  and Beth Weaver.

There is an alternative to the binary approach, known by the shorthand of “frequency”, this measures the reduction in the number of “reconviction events” (sometimes several offences are dealt with in one court appearance) compared to either what is expected from a profile of the client group that the project is working with or compared to a similar cohort in another area. Although the “frequency” approach is a more reliable indicator since it accurately measures a reduction in crime, it is more complicated and, therefore, more expensive to measure and not so straightforward to communicate to the general public.

Interestingly, the best known payment by results project, the ONE Project which provides a resettlement service to short-term prisoners at HMP Peterborough (and whose one-year report was published last week and is reviewed here) is being measured by the frequency approach.

However, the payment by results contract operated by Serco and its partners, Turning Point and Catch-22, at HMP Doncaster will be measured using the binary method. Helpfully, Kate Steadman, from @Sodexo_UK characterised the Doncaster model as a “penalty by results” rather than payment by results system since Serco needs to achieve a 5% reduction in reoffending rates in order to keep its contract.

I am aware of a number of projects which use both measures and the most effective ones tend to succeed on both binary and frequency measures. There is a strong argument for applying the binary measure to projects who work with high risk offenders where the priority must be to avoid further victims at all costs. But if we apply that approach to schemes aimed at short term prisoners or drug using offenders who characteristically commit large numbers of minor offences, we will be building in a disincentive to work with large numbers of this group the moment that they commit one further offence.

Rather than binary of frequency, perhaps we should be adopting a “horses for courses” approach.

 

Subsequently, I wrote another post on this issue, looking arguing the particular inappropriateness of binary measures when Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPOs) are included in PbR cohorts.

 

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?

Featured
Peterborough Prison PbR pilot results improving, but still below target

However, if the offender population in Peterborough is typical of local prisons, these results are promising although they do not reach the 10% target figure which would release the full PbR payment (the number of reconviction events would need to be 148 per 100 offenders rather than the current 155).

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

keep informed

One email every day at noon