Disaffected but Ambitious?

Then this could be just the right time for you according to this post post by Max Chambers of the centre-right think tank Policy Exchange. 

 

"A true solution to reducing reoffending will seek to actually fix the fragmentation and perverse incentives in the public sector, and build on the expertise that is already there. Policy Exchange’s preferred model would be for the Government to introduce financial incentives to reduce reoffending (payment-by-results), but then go further and enable a mix of public sector professionals to come together with private providers and the voluntary sector to form a Public-Private Partnership, or a ‘Reducing Reoffending Mutual’.  Groups of disaffected but ambitious public service staff could club together and “spin out” from public sector agencies to form independent employee-owned social enterprises. Public sector staff with expertise in reducing reoffending could unite from across the range of services, while the private and voluntary sector could bring their own expertise to bear.  We believe this approach will inspire the most innovative approaches with a wide enough remit to make a difference and ensure chronic offenders stay on the straight and narrow."  (my emphasis)

Max feels that Ken Clarkes announcement of trying to achieve the aim of reducing the prison population by 3,000 has 'got everyone in the sector geed up' and Payment by Results will deliver coordination of services for offenders by the simple expedient of financial incentives.

"The argument for payment-by-results is quite simple: reducing reoffending requires the contribution of many different agencies to address issues such as accommodation, mental health, debt, employment, skills, and drug and alcohol addiction. The delivery of public services to address these issues for a small number of chronic criminals is fractured, bureaucratic, siloed, and ineffective.  By giving providers a direct financial incentive to reduce reoffending, you reward what works, and stop paying for what doesn’t.  The incentives will drive the private and voluntary sector to work together to better coordinate interventions and services for offenders, making sure they are sequenced properly, appropriate for individual circumstances, and more likely to reduce reoffending."

I have said previously that the idea has attractions and in my view is unstoppable particularly as it seeks to address a group which the probation service does not work with at the present time, except for a small number of seperately-funded initiatives. It's also clear that it has political momentum from a new government intent on getting to grips with a number of issues that previous administrations have been content to see slide. The main issue for me is how the probation community, Trusts, Unions, academics and friends respond beyond rubbishing the idea. We desperately need a slightly more nuanced approach in my opinion and I fervently hope that wise heads are currently engaged in that process. The background to this article is the recent report 'Carter but Smarter' published by Policy Exchange.