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.
Tags are keywords. I put tags on every post to help you find the content you want. Tags may be people (Dominic Raab, say), organisations (The Howard League, PRT), themes (women offenders, homelessness) or specific items (heroin, racial disparity, ROTL). If you’re looking to research a particular issue, they can be invaluable.
First in a series of infographics which demystify the jargon and technical terms associated with the payment by results commissioning model.
Latest post in Payment by Results: Lessons from the Literature series examines what the research tells us about PbR’s capacity to save public money.
Once again, the intensely party political shaping of public policy makes for uncomfortable results. It takes a politician with the drive and uncompromising approach of Chris Grayling to effect change within a five year cycle. But there is not sufficient time to establish a properly thought-through model which has a decent chance of delivering improved public services. In some ways Transforming Rehabilitation crystallises this problem – the payment by results pilots were cancelled in order to focus on a rapid roll-out of a completely untested model.
Jane Mansour international payment by results expert argues that much of the current debate about the Work Programme and the justice re-offending commissioning confuses cost with value. Chris Grayling has described many of his reforms in both employment and justice as “delivering value for money for the taxpayer”. It is difficult, however, to find evidence of the consideration of ‘value’ in recent and planned changes. Instead, as discussions about public services become increasingly polarised, cost and value are conflated. The nuance of what those terms mean and how they are measured is lost.