TR: PbR results - speakers who presented to Community Rehabilitation Companies and other justice sector employees

Community Rehabilitation Companies: PbR Results Event

Transforming Rehabilitation is the UK government’s programme of outsourcing probation services to new community rehabilitation companies. In a radical move, the government is now paying these new companies by the reduction in reoffending results they achieve. GtD is at the forefront of this by providing our cutting-edge social impact analytics to Sodexo Justice Services who manage a number of these new companies.

The first PbR figures were published last month and GtD has been active in informing the debate on their significance. As part of this debate, we recently hosted a sell-out event for senior management and practitioners working in community rehabilitation companies and the justice sector.

An expert panel comprising Prof. Darrick Jolliffe of Greenwich University (above left), Dr Sam King of Leicester University (above right) and GtD’s own Jay Hughes (above centre left), considered the initial findings and what to do next, with Jack Cattell (above centre right) setting out a new vision of how predictive analyses can be used by practitioners to improve performance.

Prof. Darrick Jolliffe – University of Greenwich

If you were unable to attend but would like to learn more about how GtD could support you in evaluating your social impact outcomes or for a free predictive analytic roadmap for your CRC, contact Jack Cattell  The event presentations can also be viewed via the link below:

Transforming Rehabilitation – Learning from the PbR results presentations

Dr Sam King – University of Leicester

 

Jack Cattell – GtD

 

We’ve also set up a LinkedIn group as a forum for shared learning and discussion, for individuals who work or have an interest in, the fields of probation, offender rehabilitation and Transforming Rehabilitation. Click here to request to join – Transforming Rehabilitation

Image to illustrate no data can mean no voice and no idea

No Data? No Voice, No Idea – The Importance of Data

The collection and analysis of data must never be allowed to fall by the wayside – it’s a founding stone, not a ‘nice to have’.

Of course, I would say that, wouldn’t I? But here are six concrete reasons why data is important, drawing on Get the Data’s recent work with the Advice Services Alliance (ASA) as a case study.

  1. Data Is the Great Persuader

There is no more powerful tool for influencing stakeholders than data, as I explained in more detail in this recent blog post on using data to influence stakeholders.

ASA works with its members – various associations who provide advice services – to capture and analyse data from the front-line. This gives weight to conversations with all of those who have an interest in ASA’s direction of travel, reassuring them that strategic decisions are being made in response to changing needs, and reinforcing the professionalism that underlies the work they and their partners do.

 

  1. Data Means Funding

In particular, data is invaluable in drawing in new sources of funding, and persuading potential funding providers. Faced with a choice of projects or programmes in which they might invest, with ever-tighter budgets, funding bodies will regard convincing data as a good reason to choose your work over others. ASA will use data to add weight to its funding applications for this reason.

 

  1. Data Gives You the Power to Lead the Debate

ASA seeks to lead thought, representing its members in national discussions by highlighting issues affecting the people who use advice services. The body of data and analysis to which ASA will refer confers authority and allows the organisation to direct the debate and steer collective thinking around youth issues.

 

  1. Data Defines Good (and Bad) Practice

Using data provided by its members ASA will be able to identify areas for improvement in front line practice and also to pinpoint what is working especially well so that good practice can be shared across the community. It informs training programmes, service improvements and helps determine how resources should be employed for maximum impact.

 

  1. Better data and measurement development 

Good data leads to better data. Use of data means we learn its limitations and how to outcome those. We also learn how to measure the right outcomes, better; particularly in how to measure informal outcomes along said formal attainment.

 

  1. Data Is Cheaper and Easier Than Ever

Cloud-based databases are cheap and easy to implement compared to the cumbersome systems of the past. They make it easier for people to enter data and share it. So there’s really no excuse for failing to collect and analyse data in this day and age.

If you would like to find out more about our cutting-edge approach to data capture and analysis please get in touch.

Scales of Justice representing Transforming Rehabilitation

Transforming Rehabilitation: Payment by Results Figures

Last week saw the release of the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) Payment by Results figures for the October to December 2015 cohort.

The overall result was encouraging, and defy the view that Transforming Rehabilitation’s radical changes to probation, and the ensuing problems, would result in increased reoffending – though it is very important that I point out that this is just the first set of results of many and overall judgement should be reserved for at least a year. The reoffending rate for all CRCs was 45.6% compared to a 2011 baseline rate of 47.5%. I had to make some (conservative) assumptions to estimate the baseline rate but I think it is also safe to say that the difference was statistically significant, suggesting reoffending rates have reduced under TR. Please see the the note at the end of this blog to understand better how I completed the analysis.

 

Transforming Rehabilitation – CRC Performance

The chart below describes each CRC’s reoffending rate in relation to the baseline 2011 rate. The grey line represents the range of reoffending rates that would indicate no change from 2011 (the baseline confidence interval). If the CRC’s rate is outside this range, we are confident in statistically terms to state that the CRC’s performance was either better or worse than the reoffending rate achieved in 2011. The green bars represent the reoffending rates of CRCs that outperformed 2011, the orange bars represent those that performed the same as 2011 and the red bars present those that performed worse than 2011.

Chart to show CRC Performance

Source: Ministry of Justice Final Proven Reoffending Rates TR (Oct to Dec 2015 cohort).

Thirteen of the CRCs beat the baseline rate. The best performing CRC was Cumbria and Lancashire, which beat the baseline rate by 8.2% (49.9% to 41.7%). The nest best was Hampshire and the Isle of Wight which beat the baseline by 5.4% and the third best was Northumbria with a better rate by 4.3%. Two of the CRCs performed worse than the 2011 baseline. Warwickshire and West Mercia recorded a reoffending rate 3% worse than the baseline rate, and South Yorkshire’s rate was 2.8% worse. With most CRCs, however, outperforming the reoffending rate form 2011, the figures are a promising set of results.

 

Transforming Rehabilitation – Comparing CRC performance

Now that the baseline rates have been published, we can better understand how well each area was performing in 2011 and whether a CRC is now being asked to better good or bad performance achieved in that year. The chart below describes the difference between the actual baseline rate and the 2011 baseline’s OGRS score (in other words their expected rate of reoffending). A negative result in the chart means the area performed better in 2011 than the OGRS score expected.

Chart showing the difference between a CRC's actual baseline rate and the 2011 baseline’s OGRS score

Source: Ministry of Justice Final Proven Reoffending Rates TR (Oct to Dec 2015 cohort).

The charts highlights that six of the CRCs are being asked to beat better than expected performance in 2011 (in other words to be better than good). Whereas other CRCs, notably London and Wales, are being asked to outperform potentially poor performance in 2011. It it interesting that South Yorkshire and, Warwickshire & West Mercia – the two areas that recorded poor performance for TR – are being asked to beat good performance from 2011. Merseyside and Cheshire & Greater Manchester, however, are equally being asked to beat good performance from 2011 and were able to do so for the October to December 2015 cohort. The OGRS score does not allow for area effects, which will exist and could explain the differences between the OGRS score and the baseline rate. It not possible now to conclude whether payment by results will be easier in some areas than others, but, going forward, I will monitor the impact of whether a CRC is being asked to perform better than good or poor performance from 2011 on their ability to achieve payment by results bonuses.

 

Notes on analysis

The latest Ministry of Justice bulletin released more data than was previously available and I was able to complete a statistical analysis of the impact of TR. This could only be completed with making conservative assumptions that would make finding a statistically significant result less likely. The following actions were taken:

  • I assumed the spread of offenders across CRCs in 2011 was exactly the same as it was in the October to December 2015 cohort. This would not be the case but any analysis would want to weight the two samples so they represented each other so the impact of this assumption is minimal.
  • The 2011 sample size was assumed to be the same as that of the October to December 2015 cohort. The 2011 sample will be considerably bigger, so this assumption meant the standard error used for the analysis was larger than it should be.
  • A t-test with unequal variances assumed was used to test the difference between the cohort’s and the baseline’s reoffending rate. The t statistic result was 4.6.

Blog originally guest posted on http://www.russellwebster.com 31st October 2017 with additional commentary from Russell Webster.