Missing the Point?

Responses to the governments Green Paper on reducing reoffending are beginning to emerge and the most interesting by far is this report published by the CentreForum liberal think tank. If you're a probation employee worried about what might happen to your job, a senior manager in a 'third sector' organisation thinking of bidding for some of our work, or just someone who can't get their head around all this Payment by Results stuff, I would urge you to read this report.

Unlike that from the Confederation of British Industry that basically says the government ought to hurry up and just hand the work over to big business - oh and without any of the irritatingly expensive pension liabilities - this is a pretty good analysis of the opportunities, but also trials and tribulations that lie ahead if the government goes down the PbR route to any great extent. I think it sets out in pretty clear language what the key issues are, observed from what I feel is a reasonably neutral and dispassionate standpoint. To be honest I'm less depressed as a result of seeing in black and white what the considerable pitfalls are and that the whole thing might just prove far to risky for small players and far too expensive to entice the big boys.

Apparently the problem lies with a lack of information so that capitalist forces can accurately assess their exposure to the risk that they might not make the return of about 20% that they would require. It seems that the 2 million completed OASys assessments (yes well done everybody) could offer the opportunity of putting a 'price' on each offender, but there is some doubt being cast on their accuracy, omg. In fact, according to this reports author, it might just prove to be the equivalent of taking a punt on the 2.30 at Haydock - a huge gamble that runs the risk that a provider either goes bust or makes obscene profits. Apparently the public might get concerned about either of these outcomes.

I have to say I found the report a hugely refreshing read. Written as it is by a political economist rather than a probation academic, it's both free of the usual in-house pseudo tech speak whilst at the same time describing our work in plain terms that possibly only an outsider could use. It states the blindingly obvious that clients typically suffer from multiple problems that just might make a Payment by Result system difficult, especially in relation to intractable problems like drug and alcohol abuse. In fact a payment by activity method might be preferable for this and similar groups of offenders. It discusses the inherent danger of contractors being tempted to do a bit of charmingly termed 'creaming and parking' or what we might call 'cherry picking' and that clients might have to be subject to 'segmentation' - yuck. 

Apart from having to get used to a whole new lexicon, this report reminds me that probation could be doing all this for clients now if only we had adequate access to training, jobs, treatment, counselling and accommodation for our clients. There wouldn't be a need to invent a complicated new payment method at all,  just fund some provision. But I guess I'm missing the point again.