Payment by results
Innovation pilots
11 August 2011
Crispin Blunt MP
Minister for Prisons and Probation
Ministry of Justice
Helen Judge
Director, Sentencing and Rehabilitation
Ministry of Justice
Today’s event
• Update you on the payment by results programme
• To set out the details of the innovation pilots
• To discuss with you some of the opportunities and challenges
• To hear your views
• To help you consider whether you want to put your proposals forward
for these pilots
What has been committed to:
The coalition Agreement stated the Government’s intention to:
“pay independent providers to reduce reoffending, paid for
by the savings this new approach will generate for the
criminal justice system”
The Green Paper outlines what this will mean in practice:
New approach paying providers to reduce reoffending
Ambition to apply the principles to all providers by 2015
At least six new pilots – with innovation pilots on top of this
Supported by wider reforms over the next two years
Payment by Results is really about…..
A focus on Outcomes rather than process.
Risk Transfer – ensuring that the financial risk for reductions in
reoffending is transferred to the provider and not borne by the taxpayer
Innovation – encouraged by giving increased discretion to providers and
engaging a wide range of providers
Principle is ‘we should pay for what works’
Innovation underlines our commitment to open up the payment by
results market. We want to give you an opportunity to bring your ideas to
us. We want to use these pilots as an opportunity to expand our
understanding of what works.
We have defined 4 pilot types…..
• Prisons
• Community
• Justice Reinvestment
• Innovation
Progress so far……
Launched:
• HMP Peterborough - Social Impact Bond
• HMP Doncaster – Private Sector model
• ‘Justice Reinvestment’ pilots in Greater Manchester and five London
Boroughs
In progress:
• We have begun the innovation pilots programme
• We are working with public sector prisons to consider a PbR pilot
• We are working with probation trusts to consider a pilot working with
offenders on licence and community sentences
Luke Edwards
Deputy Director, Reducing Reoffending:
Payment by Results and Localism
Ministry of Justice
Why innovation?
We must ensure our commissioning model harnesses the creativity and expertise that
independent providers can bring. This includes small and specialist providers and social
enterprises. Breaking the Cycle Green Paper, Page 41
• Enthusiasm for the sector but concerns about applying traditional commissioning routes
• Aim of the pilots are to:
• Genuinely test whether the enthusiasm and confidence can translate into concrete
investment
• Build the evidence base by testing different delivery models
• Build a wider provider base with a demonstrable track record at reasonable scale
• Enabling the potential new funding models to emerge
• Enable the voluntary and other sectors to potentially engage in a different way with
the process
Innovation Pilots
• We are proposing two opportunities for people to provide their ideas:
 Proposals focusing on those offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in custody
 Genuinely innovative ideas focusing on different types of offenders
• We are interested in both innovative ways of:
 Delivering services;
 Commissioning services.
• Intention is to compete over the summer for the ‘under 12 month proposals’, which
means we will draw together a more detailed specification
• Informal submissions for ‘other’ proposals for policy consideration in the autumn
• Aim is to move into implementation phase for the under 12 months pilots from April 2011
depending on the nature of the proposal
Offenders sentenced to less than 12 months
• Ambition is for one or two pilots – depending on nature and size of
proposals
• We will be expecting ‘bidders’ to lead on the pilots - done with and not
done to
• Partnerships and investment will need to be secured by the bidders –
we may provide a small amount of upfront investment to deliver the pilots if a
rationale for this demonstrates it is necessary
• We will pay on success. £20m has been allocated for success payments
What will you need to think about?
Measurement and attributation
• Innovation is key but value for money remains a paramount consideration
Cohort
• You will need to define which offenders are you planning on working with? Will the pilot be
sufficiently large to test your interventions at scale?
Delivery model
• What is your proposed model? Is it scalable and responsive? Is it supported by an evidence
base?
Funding
• The first outcome payments are likely to be made in the third year. Working capital is critical.
There is some scope for MoJ to provide initial working capital potentially linked to attachments or
interim outcomes.
Working in Partnership
• Which organisations will be delivering your pilot? How will you work with the public sector? Have
you considered consortia?
Brian Farthing
Economic Adviser, Analytical Services
Ministry of Justice
Key pilot design issues to consider…
Which offenders should we
focus on?
• Focus is on offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in custody.
• The cohort should be of sufficient size for payment and evaluation purposes.
• The pilot should avoid overlap with other PbR initiatives.
Which measure should we
use?
• Focus on outcome measures rather than inputs or outputs.
• The measure should be aligned with a reduction in reoffending.
• The measure should be SMART.
How should we determine
success?
• The baseline should also be SMART.
• Careful about factors that invalidate the baseline.
• Changes from the baseline should be attributable (within reason) to interventions.
How should we pay for
success?
• Our focus is on outcome based payments, with some scope for working capital outlays.
• The timing of outcome payments should align with the measurement of outcomes.
• Payment structures should incentivise intervention across the offender cohort.
• Payments should offer value for money.
Examples of existing payment by results schemes
Peterborough SIB
Doncaster prison
Which offenders are
focussed on?
• Male offenders discharged from Peterborough
prison sentenced to less than 12 months in
custody.
• Three cohorts of 1,000 offenders built up over
a maximum of two years each.
• Offenders discharged from Doncaster prison.
• Annual offender cohorts estimated at 1,300.
Which measure is used?
• Average number of reconviction events across
the offender cohort.
• One year reconviction follow up period from
date of discharge.
• Percentage of offenders reconvicted across
the cohort.
• One year reconviction follow up period from
date of discharge.
How is success
determined?
• Matched ‘control group’ forms baseline.
• Historic reoffending data forms baseline.
• Threshold of success is established (i.e.
outcome 10% lower than control group).
• Threshold of success is established (i.e.
outcome is 5% lower than baseline).
How are payments for
success made?
• Outcome based payments made by MoJ/BLF.
• Financing raised by Social Finance to fund
interventions.
• Fixed price per success beyond the threshold.
• Total payments are capped.
• Entire prison contract paid upfront.
• 10% subject to payment by results and
recovered by MoJ if threshold not met.
• Extra fixed payments beyond threshold.
• Total payments are capped.
Session One
Discussion about what you have heard:
 What are the key issues for you?
 What opportunities might this present?
Ian Poree
Director, Commissioning & Commercial
National Offender Management Service
Wider Context
The Payment by Results pilot programme is a fundamental component of the
recently published ‘Competition Strategy for Offender Services’.
Further competitions in the first year include:
• Custodial competitions - Further nine prisons to be competed this year
• Community Competitions - Underway is the competition for community payback
services in London. We will hold a competition to replace the existing Electronic
monitoring services contracts due to expire in March 2013
Opportunities
The Competition Strategy and the PbR pilots provide us with an opportunity
to:
• Move away from focusing on how providers deliver a particular service, and
concentrate on what outcomes are required from a particular service
• Deliver better outcomes for the taxpayers for less
• Develop a diverse market of potential providers of Offender services
• Stimulate providers from all sectors to innovative and better value services
Innovation – longer term
• Need to consider the policy/operational impacts of other proposals outside
of the under 12 month group
• We have a good understanding of the impact of tackling under 12 month
offenders – and we would need to do the same for others
• We need to do this on a longer timescale and consider the fit with the
wider policy and delivery direction
• We want both to hear your ideas and to engage with you on these
proposals