Of all the Coalition’s new ideas regarding how to cut reoffending, and how to inspire foundational behavioural change in offenders, payment-by-results (PBR) is probably the initiative that has gained the most attention, both in academic and media circles.

At present, PBR pilots are currently operational in a number of establishments across England and Wales, including HMP Peterborough and HMP Doncaster. As well as these prison trials, there are a number of community, work programme and innovation pilots that have been announced by the Ministry of Justice.[1]

For those that are unsure exactly what ‘payment-by-results’ is, it can be defined as ‘providers from the private, public and voluntary sectors working  in partnership with the government to innovate and invest in programmes that work to rehabilitate offenders  and are paid by the results they deliver.’[2]

At the outset, this raises an obvious question. Can an initiative aiming to bring about widespread reductions in reoffending and seeking to attribute change in an offender’s behaviour to a particular programme be compatible with desistance theory? That is, the notion that the individual ultimately owns their own change, or potential change in offending behaviour, thus meaning that any programme can only create the
environment to encourage change, and not actually ‘own’ it outright?

This rather meaty query was discussed at length at the recent Safe Ground symposium at the House of Lords,[3] at which Richard Garside, Director of the Centre of Crime and Justice Studies, stated that he was sceptical that payment by results could deliver desistance because of the way in which some of the smaller charities operate. That is, due to these smaller voluntary organisations having very tight cash-flows, it is perhaps difficult for them to operate in an environment when payment isn’t given until ‘results’ can be seen to have been achieved. He also commented that payment by results would mean that ‘risk’ is transferred from the public sector and larger organisations in the private sector to the smaller voluntary sector organisations. He noted that ‘results’ could be hard to quantify, particularly in the short term. Finally, Richard expressed concern that a ‘black box’ approach would mean that information sharing regarding best practice would be hard to realise in a ‘payment by results’ environment which is primarily concerned with ‘what works’ rather than ‘how’ or ‘why’.

Digby Griffith, Director of National Operational Services for NOMS, on the other hand, gave tentative support to payment by results arguing that the ‘market’ could introduce and drive innovation in terms of desistance, although he stopped short of saying that this approach would definitely work. He confirmed that up-front payment would be provided for the service with extra 5-10% awarded if the particular intervention ‘works’, although exactly how reoffending will be measured remains up for discussion. Digby also added that larger providers in order to provide a desired integration of services might have to conduct business with some of the smaller organisations.

Indeed, the issues raised by both panellists have come to the fore recently, as the Greater London Authority has robustly denied that it covered up findings of a draft report into a reoffending scheme at Feltham Young Offenders Institution backed by current mayor Boris Johnson which criticised the payment-by results model as the scheme lacked sufficient up front funding.[4]Interestingly, the report said that members of the organisation, Rathbone, sometimes felt conflicted between pushing for their targets to be reached (in terms of reoffending) and meeting the needs of the young involved with the particular programme.

At such an early stage, it is impossible to know whether the payment-by-results model can deliver reductions in reoffending.  With the prison population continuing to escalate, the need for innovative policies is all too apparent yet there remain serious question marks over the models compatibility with desistance theory and with a criminal justice system still reeling from the Chancellor’s axe.  A report on the planning and early
implementation of the Social Impact Bond at HMP Peterborough allayed concerns over the attribution of results where several agencies are delivering interventions in overlapping areas and it is inevitable that the metrics selected to define success will be contested by some as partial or insufficient.[5] This sense of uncertainty was reflected in a questionnaire completed by over 50 attendees representing a broad range of agencies at Safe Ground’s symposium, in which 24% agreed that PBR and desistance theory could operate harmoniously, 48% disagreed and 28% felt undecided.

Certainly there are many issues to be clarified, some of which will take time as the system finds its legs. Yet if evaluations of the pilots demonstrate so much as a modicum of success, it is likely to pre-empt a seismic shift in the delivery of criminal justice in this country, for better or for worse.

For a serving prisoner to be present at a policy conference in the House of Lords, is unusual.

For a serving prisoner to be a key speaker alongside senior representatives from the National Offender Management Service, voluntary sector organisations and leading academics, is very unusual.

For a serving prisoner to talk about his experience of prison is expected.

For that experience to include a loving relationship with a prison officer, is not.

All these things happened at the Safe Ground Policy Symposium on 19^th March 2012.

The ‘Delivering Desistance?’ Conference brought together practitioners, prisoners and family members, policy makers, writers, and academics, to consider the potential for interventions to impact people’s lives.

It was a day of work about ‘how change happens’.

Two Safe Ground programme graduates presented on the day: Scott and Michael.

Scott had been a panel member at the conference last year (‘Reading, ‘Riting and Relationships’) and is working now, so could only stop in briefly in the morning to present his thoughts and reflections on how Family Man has impacted his life before getting back to his day job.

Michael is a serving prisoner, graduate of Fathers Inside[i], father, son, ambitious community programme director.

Michael was released on temporary licence for the day to attend the Safe Ground event.

Michael co-facilitated the interactive activities with the audience in the morning- asking people to think about and experience some of the challenges of change.

In the afternoon, Michael was a panel member, alongside Digby Griffiths, NOMS Director of National Operational Services, Diane Curry, CEO of Partners of Prisoners, Richard Garside, Director of the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, Shadd Maruna, author of Desistance Theory[ii] and Tim Bateman, Reader in Social Policy at the University of Bedfordshire.

It was during the panel discussion that Michael made one of the most exciting policy contributions I have heard for a long time.

Michael was talking about his own experience and how for him, many elements of his life combined to encourage him to change his attitudes and lifestyle.

For Michael, those elements included his son being sent to prison, the fact that he is getting older, his sister refusing to visit him or send him money whilst in prison; but insisting he take responsibility for his situation and think about others rather than himself.

Michael said Fathers Inside had made a difference and had an impact on him.

Michael pointed out an audience member and explained that James was a Prison Officer who had been his tutor on Fathers Inside. The two men had known each other as prisoner and prison officer before, during and after the programme. What Michael then went on to say, was that James had been another element that impacted on his life.

The ultimate element in helping him to develop, was, in fact, Michael’s sense that James loved him, despite the strict boundaries and traditional roles between them.

Michael immediately qualified his comments and pointed out that for James to  ‘love’  him would be ‘unprofessional’, but that he had always felt James had ‘cared’ about him.

A few weeks later, our sources reveal, Michael’s policy contribution made its way to the NOMS conference, where Crispin Blunt and Michael Spurr (both long standing colleagues and allies of Safe Ground and family relationship programmes in prison), were present.

“Should English prisons be loving?” was the question from the floor- referencing Michael and the Safe Ground Symposium.

Given that many MPs and many senior representatives in NOMS and the MoJ are sympathetic to the idea of prisons that can actually be part of rehabilitation processes, what are the other elements are necessary for a change in the way prisons operate and the results they produce? [iii]

Just in case anyone thinks this all sounds a bit simplistic, Michael was the first to point out that love is not all we need. We need prisons that are fit for purpose[iv], with clear boundaries, routines, systems and operational standards. We need prisons that understand most prisoners are also people with severely complex needs and have often been victims themselves. We need prison staff who understand the role and purpose of prison; to keep the public safe and to punish and offer prisoners the opportunity to effectively reintegrate to the society in which they have committed crime.

Michael said that Prison Officers have really difficult jobs.

His second policy point was that all frontline staff and senior managers should be expected to take part in clinical supervision sessions as a minimum professional standard.

Clinical supervision is a resource often used in public and voluntary sector organisations to ensure staff productivity and development. It is a way of ensuring that staff responsible for dealing directly with people who have complex needs, are able to separate the personal from the professional, identify their own emotional issues and therefore avoid being manipulated or abusing their own authority.

Michael seems to be suggesting it is possible to love professionally; and, that when we do, we change our own lives and those of the people we work with. As a concept, particularly within the traditional culture of the prison service, this may seem unimaginable, yet was such a shift achievable the results might well be worth paying for.

Another prominent topic of discussion was the importance of the family as part of the desistance process. Diane Curry OBE, CEO of POPS (Partners of Prisoners Families) and a member of our panel, iterated the need for a supporter network around the prisoner. This was echoed in Professor Shadd Maruna’s speech, which posited that a feeling of responsibility and an increasing concern for others is key to desistance whilst serving the sentence, and upon release.

Diane Curry stressed that the families of prisoners needs are of equal importance and require just as much support. This is because they themselves go under a process of change while their loved one is in prison. However, there is a dearth of measures in place that support that change. Seeing the family as part of the solution, not part of the problem is essential. It is often the case that a family is not kept informed with news of their relative. Diane suggested the need to evaluate where families fit, and where a community fits, in the road to re-integration. Families are a vital part of desistance.

Michael, our Fathers Inside graduate and panel member, provided a personal example. Explaining that his mother had to concede a loss, he said: “My eldest brother had to step in and take the role of my dad. My dad distanced himself. My youngest brother
didn’t want to talk to me. I grew my own son into a life of crime. Now he’s confused as to why I’m giving him different advice. Prison changes family relationships all the time, and if they don’t have that support then they have to find a way. The roles for brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, continues to change in the environment we are in now”.

So how do we at Safe Ground fit into this? Scott Whitnall, a Family Man graduate and speaker at the event, touched on the subject when he spoke about Family Man and its impact. We support prisoners like Scott to enhance or develop relationship skills that empower a change in attitude towards family responsibilities. Family Man requires a supporter, who is usually a family member, to be part of the participant’s action plan and decision making, in a controlled environment. Hear Scott talk about his experiences in the clip below.

Ellie Budd
Marketing and Communications Officer (Volunteer)

Scott Whitnall, Safe Ground Graduate speaking about Family Man, House of Lords 19.03.12

In the keynote speech, Professor Shadd Maruna  highlighted factors critical to desistance, including the importance of a stable, supportive environment. He explained that rehabilitation is associated with feelings of self-efficacy and hope. There is a sense of being in control of one’s future, a self-conception of being ‘better’ than one’s offences or more than just an ‘offender’. Yet being released back into a community where perceptions of prisoners are overwhelmingly negative will most likely create an additional obstacle on the road to ‘going straight’.

Another key factor for desistance is stable employment. However, as Professor Maruna humorously pointed out, going to prison ‘is a bad career move’. A comment from one guest (who is an ex-prisoner himself) explained that the right not to be judged is conducive to a move towards desistance. Yet to gain employment, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 automatically means that a prisoner is constantly judged solely on their offence. We heard that rehabilitation should create a sense of being better than one’s offenses, so this is some food for thought.

Later on in the day, there was a panel discussion. This was chaired by Dr Tim Bateman, University of Bedfordshire, and the panellists were Richard Garside – Director for the Centre of Crime and Justice Studies, Professor Shadd Maruna – Queen’s University Belfast, Digby Griffith – NOMS Director of National Operations Services, Diane Curry OBE – CEO of Partners of Prisoners & Families Support Group (POPS), and Michael – serving prisoner and Safe Ground programme graduate.

A question was put to the panel asking what we can do to change public opinion of prisoners. Crime and justice are deeply emotive issues, said Professor Maruna. Richard Garside echoed this, saying that the more someone knows about the contents of the offence, the more human they are about it. Having a personal relationship with an individual who has previously committed a similar offence can be particularly effective in reducing stigma and building empathy.

We need humanly rational decisions around crime, as then one starts to realise we all have pasts and we all have reasons for making mistakes. This makes public attitude less harsh towards the prisoners as a rejected group when they consider the story behind the crime.

The media portrays prisoners in a very negative light, with predictable impact on public opinion on offenders. However Digby Griffith argued that this is not as clear-cut as it first appears, drawing on existing research suggesting there is something of a disconnect between what the media project and what the public believe. Results from the Ministry of Justice’s ‘You be the Judge’ website demonstrate that typically the public penalise crimes with a much lower sentence than an offender would actually receive in court. They do humanise the issue.

This discussion, and points made throughout the days events, highlight that having emotional attitudes towards prisoners is a good thing. They are more than just their offence.

Find below the audio of Professor Shadd Maruna’s presentation at the House of Lords. More sound clips from the day will follow soon.

Ellie Budd
Marketing and Communications Officer (Volunteer)

Shadd Maruna Presentation on Desistance, House of Lords, 19.03.12