Payment by results and social impact bonds in the criminal justice sector: New challenges for the concept of evidence-based policy?

Abstract

Payment by results allows the government to pay a provider of services on the basis of the outcomes their service achieves rather than the inputs or outputs the provider delivers. Social impact bonds (SIBs) are a form of payment by results which allow the financing of social outcomes via private investment. It is suggested that payment by results and SIBs will drive greater efficiency, innovation and impact in tackling social problems through focusing reward on outcomes and providing minimal prescription as to how these outcomes should be achieved. It is suggested that this may be achieved while also reducing risk for government. Here we set out the challenges likely to arise in developing payment by results models and SIBs in the criminal justice system of England and Wales. These include the uncertainty arising from defining outcomes, estimating the potential impact of interventions, measuring and attributing change, valuing benefits, demonstrating a fiscal return and getting interventions to scale. We conclude that, to a government trying to deliver ‘more for less’, payment by results may offer an attractive solution in some parts of the public sector. However, the case for this approach in the criminal justice sector, where the evidence base is contested and potential savings difficult to quantify and realize, is not yet proven.

The penal voluntary sector in England and Wales: Beyond neoliberalism?

“…In order to encourage greater efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery, the contractor's payment is linked to results achieved (Puddicombe et al, 2012;Maguire, 2012;Fox and Albertson, 2011). If results fall below an agreed performance threshold, the contractor may receive reduced or no payment.…”

Targeting prolific and other priority offenders and promoting pathways to desistance: Some reflections on the PPO programme using a theory of change framework

“…The value of such an approach might not only be in generating a better understanding of how the combination of PPO intervention and external life events can promote or hinder desistance, but also in beginning to establish a body of research literature in relation to our most prolific offenders that could better inform policy. The Breaking Cycle report outlines how offenders will be managed (through Integrated Offender Management) and how payment by results is to become central to the delivery of rehabilitation (Downy, Kirkby and Sherlock, 2010;Nicholson, 2011;Fox and Albertson, 2011). The impact of these reforms remains to be seen.…”

Hoping Against Hope: The Prison-to-Community Transition Experience of Men With Co-Occurring Severe Mental Illness and Substance Use Disorder

“…The policy has been widely criticised for putting a "progressive gloss" (Ryan, 2011, p. 519) on what is being viewed by some as a move to conservatism and essentially a cost-saving exercise (Collins, 2011;Fox & Albertson, 2011). For people with mental illness in prison-to-community transition, the policy (Ministry of Justice, 2010) commits to implementation of The Bradley Report recommendations, with the addition of a new approach, which is also being considered in the United States, of social impact bonds or "payment by results" (Fox & Albertson, 2011). This approach is when the provider of prison-to-community transition support services is paid only if they deliver results according to agreed indicators (Fox & Albertson, 2011).…”

“…The policy describes promoting fundamental changes in the criminal justice system with "radical and realistic reform", and there is a particular focus on prison-to-community transition. The policy has been widely criticised for putting a "progressive gloss" (Ryan, 2011, p. 519) on what is being viewed by some as a move to conservatism and essentially a cost-saving exercise (Collins, 2011;Fox & Albertson, 2011). For people with mental illness in prison-to-community transition, the policy (Ministry of Justice, 2010) commits to implementation of The Bradley Report recommendations, with the addition of a new approach, which is also being considered in the United States, of social impact bonds or "payment by results" (Fox & Albertson, 2011).…”

“…For people with mental illness in prison-to-community transition, the policy (Ministry of Justice, 2010) commits to implementation of The Bradley Report recommendations, with the addition of a new approach, which is also being considered in the United States, of social impact bonds or "payment by results" (Fox & Albertson, 2011). This approach is when the provider of prison-to-community transition support services is paid only if they deliver results according to agreed indicators (Fox & Albertson, 2011). The social impact bonds approach has not yet been evaluated; however, concerns have been raised as to how outcomes will be defined and measured, given the complexity of the prison-to-community transition process (Collins, 2011).…”