Putting payment-by-results under the microscope

19 July 2010 1 min read Howard Williamson Social Care Youth Work

So the new high ground in the funding of public policy for young people is "payment-by-results". It is so easy to say, so immediately appealing that one can hardly argue against it. Quite naturally, in the difficult fiscal times to come, people will want value for money.

But when things are examined more closely, it becomes apparent that it is going to be difficult to execute. On which criteria is performance going to be judged? Over what period of time? What proportion of funding will be held back, subject to positively-evaluated performance? One can anticipate that hell for the small organisations facing catastrophic cash-flow implications will be heaven for those administering, judging and funding a policy programme.

And there is a further matter that should be of deep concern to us all. When large-scale youth unemployment first set in during the late 1970s, the government allocated funding for youth training according to the places made available, allowing for considerable experimentation with a diversity of provision that was likely to respond to a different range of needs. Only after a few years was this considered to be something of a luxury; places had been funded whether or not they were filled. Subsequently the funding regime was based on occupancy which, though certainly a more rational use of public resources, did send some of the more creative and specialist provision to the wall.

Register Now to Continue Reading

Thank you for visiting Children & Young People Now and making use of our archive of more than 60,000 expert features, topics hubs, case studies and policy updates. Why not register today and enjoy the following great benefits: