Keep up-to-date with drugs and crime

The latest research, policy, practice and opinion on our criminal justice and drug & alcohol treatment systems

G4S head says payment by results providers must do what it says on the tin

Share This Post

This is the second in a series of short video interviews with key figures involved in PbR which will be running every Monday through September and October.

Sean Williams is the Managing Director of the Welfare to Work programmes delivered by G4S.

He is a strong proponent of PbR  saying it’s main advantage is that providers have to “do what it says on the tin” and produce the best results for taxpayers and service users.

What do you think about Sean’s view that PbR is the fairest way of  judging the performance of different providers?

Comments below please.


If you’d like to be interviewed for this PbR series, please get in touch – my contact details are at the top of the home page.


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

Related posts

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?

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.

Payment by Results
The 2nd Commandment of payment by results: Thy outcomes shall be few

Most payment by results pilot schemes are targeted at entrenched social problems. These problems – troubled families, long term unemployment, re-offending and drug dependency – are complex by nature. They require a coordinated response which addresses a wide range of issues. PbR funded interventions are a natural commissioning approach to tackle complex problems. However, PbR schemes quickly run into trouble when the outcomes themselves become complex.

3 Responses

  1. Astonished that G4S have the gall to talk about ‘payment by results’ so soon after the Olympic debacle, particularly when they are apparently claiming full payment for their non delivery of Olympic security staff!

  2. Really interesting piece and like the interview format. I think we should attempt not to approach PBR on political lines. As with any contract or service there will be good providers and bad providers. Sticking to the brief: I don’t really disagree with Seans views. PBR in theory – aligned to the right outcome measures – makes complete sense. As someone in the early days of delivering a PBR contract it brings a cultural shift to the team delivering it. You don’t need a team charter! The team has to deliver this and deliver it well. No argument. Looking forward to the other interviews.

  3. If Work Programme providers were only paid by results they would all be out of business. They are all getting millions in up-front attachment fees, and then most (if not all) of the so-called payments by results are for people who would have got jobs anyway. If politicians really want to end the something for nothing culture they should stop giving billions of taxpayers money to the fraudulent welfare to work industry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Get every blog post by email for free