Posts

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.

GtD Transforming Rehabilitation Event

Transforming Rehabilitation: Learning from the PbR results

Transforming Rehabilitation challenged Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) to reduce reoffending significantly and October will see the publication of the reoffending rates of the first Transforming Rehabilitation cohort.

These results are an important test of the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation agenda and the success of the new CRCs. Some CRCs will be happy with their results, while others will need to improve. The published results also provide opportunities to commission new services for offenders.

Besides the implications for policy and practice, the results also present an opportunity for your organisation to learn how best to reduce reoffending with the tools at your disposal. You might want to increase a CRC’s performance, identify “what works?” and roll that out across all your CRCs, or prove that your specific service will make the difference.

Come join our experts at our TR PbR event, to discuss what needs to be learnt, what is within your control, and how embedding impact analytics in your CRC or service delivery organisation will help you to reduce reoffending.

Transforming Rehabilitation: Learning from the PbR results

Tuesday 28th November

2 – 4.30 pm

The Space Centre

94 Judd St, Kings Cross, London WC1H 9NT

SPEAKERS:

Professor Darrick Joliffe, University of Greenwich

“How to measure the quality of relationships between offenders and probation officers.”

Darrick is Professor of Criminology at the University of Greenwich. Darrick is interested in the broad areas of developmental life-course criminology, programme evaluation, prison research and psychology, individual differences and offending. He has developed tools to measure the satisfaction of offenders and the quality of their relationships with probation officers, and has estimated the association between relationship quality and reoffending. Darrick will also chair a discussion after the presentations.

 

Dr Sam King, University of Leicester

“What is high quality offender management?”

Sam is an expert on offender management and rehabilitation, and has contributed significantly to developments in desistence theory. His talk will discuss the latest evidence on what makes high quality offender management and what can be implemented to reduce reoffending. Sam has published widely on probation work and desistence theory, and has helped CRCs to implement innovative offender management tools to measure offender motivation.

 

Jack Cattell, Get the Data

“Predict your PbR results and continuously learn how to improve them before they happen.”

Jack is an expert on the prediction of reoffending rates, and the analysis of how a probation service can audit and improve its reoffending rate. He has worked for the Ministry of Justice, former probation trusts and Sodexo Justice Service’s six CRCs on research and analysis projects. He heads up GtD’s thought leadership on the use of predictive analysis to improve adult and youth offender management.

Free event – register today! Places are limited.

 

Headed by Jack Cattell, Get the Data is located in the UK and USA. We are an international thought leader on how to reduce reoffending through high quality analyses of offender management data. We have delivered high-profile projects for the Ministry of Justice, HMPPS (formally NOMS), and the police. We are proud to provide our Social Impact Analytics service to Sodexo Justice Service’s six CRCs.

 

Databse word cloud

Choosing a Database? Just Keep It Simple

When choosing a database for your project or programme, made to measure software or flashy online tools aren’t necessarily the right choice.

If you’re going to gather and analyse data in a serious way of course you need a database of some sort and, having spent much of my academic and professional career buried in them, I’m very much an advocate. But I too often see evidence of the database itself being regarded as the end rather than the means – as the solution to the challenge at hand rather than a tool for addressing it.

Perhaps that’s because we all so often feel under pressure, either external or self-imposed, to demonstrate what we have delivered in concrete terms. A specially commissioned database, perhaps with a catchy name and fancy interface, is something a project manager can point to and say, ‘I made this.’

The problem is that it takes huge amounts of time, resources and testing to create excellent software from scratch or to implement a powerful online tool, meaning that in practice these products all too often become clunky, creaky and frustrating. And products that don’t work well don’t get used.

As always, the answer is to focus on what you want to achieve. That will help you understand what kind of data you need to collect, who will be collecting and managing it and, therefore, what kind of system you need to house it.

Sometimes, of course, a custom-designed database or powerful online application are absolutely the right choice but, in my view, those occasions are actually very rare. More often than not the humble, rather plain Microsoft Access, or a similar tried and tested generalist professional product, is not only cheaper but also better suited to the task. Remember, these programmes have been worked on over the course of not only years but decades, and have huge amounts of resources behind their development and customer support programmes. Standard software also makes sharing, archiving and moving between systems faster and easier in most cases.

It is also possible to customise Access databases to a fairly high degree, either in-house using the software’s in-built features, using third-party software, or by hiring developers to create a bespoke front end interface without getting bogged down in the complicated underlying machinery.

And cloud data storage has made all this easier and cheaper than ever.

In conclusion, I’d like people to recognise that the real deliverable isn’t necessarily software, and that there’s no shame in off-the-peg. After all, a database is only as good as the information it holds and a clean set of useful, appropriate data is what people should really be proud of.

A lightbulb of cogs to illustrate service innovation

Service Innovation – Segment and Conquer

Supermarkets use data to sell us more of the things we want, and even things we don’t yet know we want – a real world example of service innovation through segmentation that we can learn from.

In social policy, we all know that there is no one programme or service that will work equally well for everyone in the target cohort. Even if it is having an impact across the board there will be some people for whom it works better than others and that’s where extra value can be squeezed out.

We might roll our eyes at the buzz-phrase ‘customer segmentation’, and of course there’s a difference between tailoring public services and selling sausages, but both require a similar approach to gathering data, analysing it, and in a sense letting it lead the way.

In the case of Tesco it’s about working out what shoppers want and selling it to them – a far easier job than convincing them to buy things in which they have no interest, a win for both parties. With public services it’s a matter of thinking in broad terms where we want people to end up – or not end up, as the case may be – and then letting what bubbles up from the data determine the most efficient route, and even the specific end point.

For example, working with one client that specialises in tackling youth offending, our data analysis found that though their intervention was effective overall, it was less effective at reducing offending among 12 to 13-year-olds than among young people of 15 and 16. By treating these two segments differently the overall impact of the intervention can be improved and more young people can be set on the right path at the right moment in their lives.

This approach challenges current orthodoxy which would have us determine our theory of change and set out clearly how we will achieve a given outcome before starting work. This can lead people to impose an analysis on the data after the fact, forcing it to fit the predetermined course. It also implies that all service users need more or less the same thing and we know very well that they don’t. The orthodox approach has its place, of course, once data has been collected and analysed, when we can start to make predictions based on prior knowledge.

Equally, it’s not efficient to design a bespoke service for every single end user, but there is a sweet spot in which we can identify sub-groups and thus wring out more value from programmes with relatively little additional time, manpower or funding. I’ll finish with another example: we have been designing approaches to impact management with a number of providers of universal services for young people and adult disability services. These agencies work with different sorts of people, with varying needs, and for whom different outcomes are desirable. Advanced statistical analysis can help us identify groups within that complex body and lead to service innovation which is both tailored and general.

Influence through Data

“Yeah, Says Who?” – Influence Through Data

You know you’ve achieved results – the data tells you so – but how do you influence sceptics to believe it?

It can be a rude awakening to take the findings of a study outside your own team or organisation, where trust and mutual support are more or less a given. In front of a wider audience of funding providers or other stakeholders, you will inevitably in my experience find yourself being challenged hard.

This is as it should be – scrutiny is a key part of a healthy system – but, at the same time, it’s always a shame to see an impactful project or programme struggle purely because its operators fail to sell it effectively.

Fortunately, while there are no black-and-white rules, there are some things you can do to improve your chances.

Confidence = Influence

When I present findings I do so with a confidence that comes with experience and from really understanding the underlying mechanics. But if you’re not a specialist and don’t have that experience there are things you can do to make yourself feel more confident and thus inspire greater confidence in your audience.

First, make sure you have thought through and recorded a data management policy. Are you clear how often data should be entered? If information is missing, what will you do to fill the gaps? What are your processes for cleaning and regularising data? Is there information you don’t need to record? A professional, formalised approach to keeping timely and accurate data sends all the right signals about your competence and the underlying foundations of your work.

Secondly, use the data as often as possible, and share the analysis with those who enter your data so that they can understand its purpose, and own it. Demonstrating that your data is valued and has dedicated, accountable managers hugely increases its (and your) credibility.

Thirdly, take the initiative in checking the reliability and validity of your own tools. If you use well-being questionnaires, for example, take the time to check whether they are really measuring what you want to measure in most instances. In other words, try to find fault with your own approach before your stakeholders so that when they find a weak point you have an answer ready that not only reassures them but also underlines the objectivity with which you approach your work.

Own Your Data’s Imperfections

Finally, and this might feel counterintuitive, you should identify the weaknesses in your own data and analysis and be honest about them. All data and analysis has limitations and being clear about those, and the compromises made to work around them demonstrates objectivity which, again, reinforces credibility.

In conclusion, the better you understand your own data and analysis, flaws and all, the more comfortable and confident you will feel when it, in turn, comes under scrutiny.

Impact Management Programme Logo

GtD Approved Provider for Impact Management Programme

Get the Data are pleased to announce that we are an approved provider to the Access Foundation’s Impact Management Programme.

The Impact Management Programme aims to build the capacity of charities and social enterprises to manage their impact. This will help them to increase their social impact and diversify income.

Get the Data will support organisations to build impact measurement tools, develop impact plans, report performance, manage data, analyse data and design a theory of change. Please contact jack.cattell@getthedata.co.uk to learn how to take advantage of the fund.

Training is being held at locations across the UK for organisations who wish to participate in the programme:

  • London 9th February
  • Liverpool 23rd February
  • Birmingham 1st March
  • Bristol 23rd March

Visit http://accessimpact.org/events/ for further information or to book onto a training session.

Jack Cattell - Director, Get the Data

Jack Cattell presenting at the PPMRNC at Rutgers

Jack Cattell will be presenting at the Public Performance and Management Reporting Network Conference at Rutgers University later this month. Addressing the theme “Data Driven Decision Making: Navigating the Data Glut”, Jack will focus on GtD’s work in rationalising an organisation’s data to provide clear performance indicators. The conference has attracted speakers from across North America, Europe and Asia and takes place on the 22nd and 23rd September.

Impact Evaluation and Social Impact Bonds

How Rigorous Impact Evaluation Can Improve Social Impact Bonds

Social Impact Bonds

In recent years, Social Impact Bonds are being increasingly used by the British government to deliver public services via outcomes based commissioning. They are also becoming increasingly common in the U.S. By linking payments to good outcomes for society, SIBs are used not only to provide better value for money, but also as a driver of public sector reform. In the words of guidance published by the British government’s Cabinet Office:

“[Social Impact Bonds] are … designed to help reform public service delivery. SIBs improve the social outcomes of publicly funded services by making funding conditional on achieving results. “

While SIBs are not without their critics, their proponents argue that the bonds are a great way to attract private investment to the public sector while focusing all partners on the delivery of the desired social outcomes. This new way of commissioning services also encourages prime contractors to subcontract delivery of some service to the community and voluntary organisations, who bring their own experience, expertise and diversity to the provision of social services.

GtD have completed evaluations that have helped shape social impact bonds, and through our work we have identified five key questions that should be asked by anyone thinking of setting up a SIB or is looking to improve the design of their SIB:

1. Will it work?

Some services delivered by SIBs fail before they start because the planned intervention cannot plausibly achieve the desired outcome. In other words, just because an intervention reduced the number of looked after children entering the criminal justice system doesn’t mean it should work for all young people at risk of offending. That said, if the evidence base around a particular intervention is weak that does not mean one should not proceed – but it should promote a SIB design that includes an evaluation that can state quickly whether the SIB is delivering the hoped for outcomes.

2. Who can benefit from this intervention and who can’t?

We all want to help as many people as possible. However, we can quickly lose sight of who we are seeking to help when we are simply meeting output targets. In other words, if public services are funded by the number of clients they see, then providers could be tempted to increase numbers by accepting referrals of people for whom the service was not intended. So to achieve your outcomes – and receive payments – it’s vital to monitor intelligently the profile of your beneficiaries and ask yourself, “If my targeting were perfect are these the clients I would want to work with to deliver my intended outcomes?”

3. Are we doing what we said we were going to do? And does it work?

Interventions can fail simply because they don’t do what you said you were going to do. If, for example, you are working with young people to raise career prospects and your operating model includes an assessment of need (because the evidence base suggests that assessments increase effectiveness) then it should be no surprise that you did not meet your outcome targets if an assessment was completed with only half of your clients. Identifying your key outputs, monitoring their use and predicting outcomes based on their use can give you much greater confidence in achieving your intended impact.

4. What do we need to learn and how do we learn quickly?

All SIBs we have seen collate a lot of data about their beneficiaries and the service provided but few use those data to their full potential. With predictive analysis, we can monitor who appears to respond best, who is not benefiting and what form of service delivery is the most effective. In other words, is one-to-one work or group work more cost effective? As such you can learn how to define your referral criteria better or learn how to improve your operating model, even within the first months of a SIB.

5. How can we build a counterfactual?

A counterfactual is an estimation of what outcomes would have been achieved without the SIB. Comparing your SIB’s outcomes to the counterfactual can highlight some areas for learning and how to improve over time. Consideration should be given to the counterfactual at the commencement of the SIB. Full advantage can be taken of the publically available data sets to construct the counterfactual: for example, the National Pupil Database, Justice Data Lab or the Health Episode statistics. (Top tip: consent from beneficiaries to use these data sources is generally required).

To discuss how GtD’s impact evaluation can help improve your organisation’s SIB, please contact Jack Cattell, jack.cattell@getthedata.co.uk