The Challenges of Outcome Measurement for Arts Practitioners in the Criminal Justice Sector
| Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Published date | 01 December 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/hojo.12183 |
| Author | KATHERINE ALBERTSON,CAROLINE O'KEEFFE |
The Howard Journal Vol55 No 4. December 2016 DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12183
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 496–513
The Challenges of Outcome
Measurement for Arts Practitioners
in the Criminal Justice Sector
CAROLINE O’KEEFFE and KATHERINE ALBERTSON
Caroline O’Keeffe is Senior Research Fellow and Katherine Albertson is Senior
Lecturer, Sheffield Hallam University
Abstract: Arts activities have long been used to help rehabilitate offenders and there is
anecdotal evidence to support their transformative power, yet providers have struggled to
provide ‘hard evidence’ of their effectiveness. The UK government has introduced Pay-
ment by Results (PbR) as a principal component of its public sector reforms. Thus arts
projects within criminal justice are now required to engage with an outcomes-based com-
missioning process. This article uses an evaluation of the Writers in Prison Foundation
(WIPF) to explore the challenges and possibilities presented by this political landscape
and to suggest approaches to outcome measurement which will help arts practitioners to
survive and flourish.
Keywords: arts-based projects; offenders; outcome measurement; Payment by
Results (PbR)
Creative and Artistic Endeavours in Prisons – Benefits and Barriers
There is a long-established programme of arts-based projects working with
offenders in prison and in the community.These include projects in the ar-
eas of: drama, dance, music, film, radio, and writing (see McLewin (2011)
for a detailed and comprehensive summary). Some projects have had the
objective of assisting with the resettlement process (Harkins et al. 2011)
and specifically assisting with the transition into education, training and
employment (Nugent and Loucks 2011), others have had a looser brief,
aiming to enable prisoners to express themselves and make a change in
their life (Wilson, Caulfield and Atherton 2009; Caulfield 2015), or to
promote self-improvement (Van Maaen 2010). A wide range of benefits
of engaging in arts-based projects has been reported for offenders and
those at risk of offending. Some of the reported impacts relate to hard
outcomes such as rates of transfer into education, training and employ-
ment (Miles and Strauss 2011), and also encouraging literacy development
amongst traditionally reluctant learners (Hurry et al. 2014). More often,
496
C
2016 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
The Howard Journal Vol55 No 4. December 2016
ISSN 2059-1098, pp. 496–513
there are soft outcomes, such as increased self-esteem, improved social
skills, enhanced relationships, taking increased responsibility for offend-
ing behaviour, and positive changes in self-perception (see, for example,
Hughes 2005; Arts Alliance 2010; Fletcher and Dalgleish 2012; Cursley
and Maruna 2015). Despite the numerous reported benefits of engaging
with the arts for offenders, introducing arts-based projects into custodial
settings is a notoriously difficult proposition. Some of the barriers to effec-
tive delivery of such projects can be practical, for example lack of access
to resources, lack of suitable physical space to accommodate project work,
bureaucratic prison processes (Nugent and Loucks 2011), but may also be
ideological. Often, the criminal justice system itself can be apathetic and
suspicious when it comes to the contribution the arts can make. As a result,
arts activities in prisons are sometimes marginalised and are often poorly
and inconsistently funded, resulting in them being small-scale, opportunis-
tic and short-lived (Miles and Clarke 2006). In addition, public and victim
sensitivity issues abound. The idea of offenders taking part in creative arts
projects involving music, writing, or contemporary dance, sits uncomfort-
ably for many and can negatively influence policy and practice (Parkes and
Bilby 2010; Scottish Prison Service 2015).
Evidencing the Impact of the Arts
There has always been anecdotal evidence to support the transformative
power of the arts, particularly in prison, and yet providers have tradition-
ally struggled to provide ‘hard evidence’ of their effectiveness (Miles and
Clarke 2006; Hughes 2005). The validity of studies which have aimed to
demonstrate the impact of arts interventions has sometimes been com-
promised by a failure to develop models and theories which can explain
effects in specific contexts and also by a lack of both stakeholder and ben-
eficiary motivation to be engaged in impact measurement activity (Daykin
et al. 2011). The rise in the prison population, high reconviction rates, the
sharp increase in costs within criminal justice in recent years alongside
significant budget cuts, have resulted in significant shifts in the sector’s ter-
rain, in terms of management, accountability,and effectiveness. Ultimately,
these drivers have influenced the government’s policy framework towards
an evidence-based approach to assess reducing reoffending performance,
which adopts a largely positivist standpoint and prioritises quantitative
measures (see Home Office (2010) for further details). Furthermore, un-
der the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, the UK government has in-
troduced Payment by Results (PbR) across public services (Cabinet Office
2011; Ministry of Justice 2013). The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) committed
itself to rolling out PbR to all providers by 2015 and it was envisaged that, in
this new approach to commissioning, there would be a greater diversity of
providers from the public, private and voluntary sectors, thus creating an
increasingly competitive provider marketplace. The introduction of PbR
into the criminal justice arena has provoked widespread critical debate,
particularly around its potential for reducing reoffending. The unrealisti-
cally short timescales within which reoffending needs to be demonstrated
497
C
2016 The Howard League and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
To continue reading
Request your trial