A miracle! And a good idea

Nickle

It's very simple. Introduce a multiplier.

So for a first offence the multiplier is 1.

If on release, you reoffend, the multiplier is 2. Your jail sentence is doubled. The judge doesn't even get told prior to sentencing. It's administered by the jails.

Third offence, its 3 times the sentence.

What this achieves is that repeat offenders are taken out of society. It doesn't have the flaws of the three strikes, where people are jailed for life for trivial offences. It self optimises. It takes those that cause the most damage out of society so society can benefit.

Nick

Del

Thats a very good idea from Nickle.I would suggest that at some point the multiplier would have to stop. Its a good idea to keep the multiplier information seperate from the preciding judge but maybe after say 3x the judge is informed and compelled to increase the tarrif to a maximum sententance for the current crime with an additional term applied for the anti-social element of repeat crime which the defendant had obviously ignore despite 3x increased previous sentencing.

Philip Walker

I think it is very much an example of the Big Society in action. Government paying for results, charities delivering the service, private investors taking on the risk and stumping up the cash.

The scheme is taking in £5mn, and if it is a success then investors could be paid up to £8mn including repaid capital. That would be about 8.1% p.a. over six years, which isn't too bad. Of course, the risk will ensure that the bonds aren't commercially attractive: but nevertheless, it is a clever way to attract financing for things which will either save money or earn extra revenue.

Bumpkin

We could develop the multiplier further. Instead of the 3 x multiplier why not transport to a developing country which could be contracted to imprison serious offenders. The chances are that treatment there would be less sympathetic and more effective as a deterent.

Rabyrover

A lot of charity funding comes from the tax payer. Can we be sure that the charities funding this scheme are not being bank rolled by the govnment?

denis cooper

But I find this started in March:

http://www.socialfinance.org.uk/services/index.php?page_ID=15

"On the 18th March 2010, Social Finance announced the launch of the first Social Impact Bond with the Ministry of Justice.

This first issue will fund social organisations working to reduce the re-offending rates of short sentence male prisoners leaving Peterborough Prison. The Ministry of Justice has agreed to make payments to investors in the event that re-offending is reduced below an agreed threshold."

So it's totally misleading to connect it with Clarke and Cameron's so-called "Big Society".

Philip Walker

Denis Cooper: Only if you think that politics is only ever and always purely partisan, or that everything a politicians says is narrowly ideological. In the real world, meanwhile, it is entirely possible to see a Labour programme as a good example of the sort of thing a Conservative Prime Minister might want to see more of.

London Calling

For many inmates re-offending is a life choice, no drawn blinds at the cell windows to view for those passing the prison on their journey to and from the job centre, yet the unemployed are being made feel like criminals whilst private sector finance is pulled out of the hat and directed into job training and mental health support for inmates. Whilst I applaud this and any support to help offenders, outside of the prison walls is the bigger picture that this coalition is axing away at, that will create more criminals as a consequence and a skeleton police force to cope…

denis cooper

But I find this started in March:

http://www.socialfinance.org.uk/services/index.php?page_ID=15

"On the 18th March 2010, Social Finance announced the launch of the first Social Impact Bond with the Ministry of Justice.

This first issue will fund social organisations working to reduce the re-offending rates of short sentence male prisoners leaving Peterborough Prison. The Ministry of Justice has agreed to make payments to investors in the event that re-offending is reduced below an agreed threshold."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9dca292-32f6-11df-bf5f-00144feabdc0.html

"Jack Straw, justice minister, told the Financial Times: "It's the short-term prisoners who have the highest propensity to reoffend.

"This bond will help to moderate increases in the prison population and produce a benefit for society." "

So it's misleading to connect it with Clarke and Cameron's so-called "Big Society".

Think This

I do agree that payment by results is a good idea. An even better one seems have been suggested by Nickle, it sounds like superior version of America's three strikes rule.

denis cooper

Apologies for that partial duplication.

denis cooper

In any case, I have serious concerns about the way "charities" are in effect becoming arms of the state, and about the way political campaigning has become accepted as "charitable" work, and in this case about the confusion between "donations" and "investments" - especially as the return on the investment will be funded by taxpayers.

I note on page 20 here:

http://www.socialfinance.org.uk/downloads/Towards_A_New_Social_Economy_web.pdf.

"By bringing new money into the system without increasing public debt, Social Impact Bonds should make it easier to develop and expand preventative services"

"Social Impact Bond investors fund the up front costs of interventions and provide working capital until outcomes are achieved. Government has no obligation to pay investors unless savings are made."

Even so, it seems unlikely that such bonds will not end up being counted as part of the national debt, like the liabilities incurred through PFI contracts.

On page 24 there are recommendations for tax incentives, which would be concentrated on those with high net worth and higher rate taxpayers.

On page 45:

"The final determinant in raising investment for Social Impact Bonds is the maturity of the Social Impact Bond market itself. Investment is most likely to be available at scale if:

The Social Impact Bond mechanism has an established track record of delivering social and financial returns;

There are appropriate opportunities to invest at scale;

Investments can be traded and hence sold before the end of the Social Impact Bond period (market liquidity); and

Investors could spread the risk of their investment by investing in multiple Social Impact Bonds simultaneously (through a fund of funds or similar mechanism)."

It's difficult to see how the investments will stay in the hands of "socially-motivated investors" if they can be traded on an open market.

Finally on the last page after the Appendices:

"Government debt is raised from investors through the issuance of gilts offering a fixed term and fixed return to investors. Funding raised in this way can be used to fund any public sector programmes, but does not, in itself, create new incentives to innovate to provide the best services. Debt can most effectively be used when additional funding is required to roll-out interventions with an established track record. Where there is a low risk that interventions fail to achieve the target outcomes, this may be the most cost-effective way to fund these programmes.

A Social Impact Bond is a contract in which the public sector commits to pay for improved social outcomes. On the back of this contract, investment is raised from socially-motivated investors. This investment is used to pay for a range of interventions to improve the social outcome. The financial returns investors receive are dependent on the degree to which outcomes improve."

My rather cynical take on this is:

1. For decades the Tory and Labour parties have been unable to supply government ministers who are capable of governing properly, allowing various social ills to develop at massive cost and to the great detriment of the people of this country, and especially those who lack the resources to protect or insulate themselves from those ills.

2. Now it's suggested that having proved themselves chronically incompetent government ministers should hand over the task of remedying those ills to other people outside government.

3. Because through their past incompetence government have made it impossible to now fund the necessary projects out of current taxation or through conventional borrowing by the issue of normal government bonds, the projects will instead be financed by higher risk, higher return "Social Impact Bonds" designed to cream off some of the huge amounts of money which could be saved by remedying the social ills to those who have been able to ensure that they have suffered least from them, preferably with tax incentives designed to reduce their risk and enhance their return, rather than have all of those savings accrue to the people as a whole.

4. Unless the terms of those Social Impact Bonds are always very carefully written, then like the PFI contracts they could expose the government to unexpectedly high liabilities.

denis cooper

Philip Walker -

Did I write an article ignoring the fact that this started under the Labour government?

No, that was David Blackburn.

Did I suggest that "Perhaps this is what David Cameron means by the Big Society", or "it is very much an example of the Big Society in action"?

No, that was David Blackburn, and yourself.

So if you're looking for partisan motivation, don't look in my direction.

Baron

Clarke , Howard & co and their bonds galore will be as effective cutting re-offending as were all the other initiatives before. Until committing crime ceases to pay we are stuck. The bond scheme is likely to turn into yet another conduit for milking the public purse.

Nickle’s suggestion @11.22 sounds a pretty good start that could cut recidivism and reduce the number of prisoners, it will not get a look-in what with the ‘uman Rights Act and stuff. And as for the excellent extension of the multiplier offered by Bumpkin @ 1.38? The chance of this ever being considered by the pseudo-liberal governing elites are about as high as that of bears learning to defecate in public toilets.

Noa Zrk

The involvement of charities in this experiment is a matter of potential concern. Witness for example, the quasi-police powers of entry and arrest assumed by the RSPCA and the legitimate concerns expressed about the campaigns and behaviour of the NSPCC, the only UK charity which has been granted statutory powers under the Children Act 1989, allowing it to apply for care and supervision orders for children deemed at risk.

It is unlikely the experiment will prove anything. If it fails Liberals will place the blame for its failure on the commitment of insufficient resources. Success will be equally seen by those in favour of imprisonment as the result of cherry picking programme candidates and the commitment of resources better used elsewhere.
It is difficult to evade the conclusion that Nickies approach would yield better value for less commitment.