We have previously highlighted the importance of effective performance metrics as a means of assessing progress in implementation.60 The JCDU has developed the National Outcomes Framework as a basis for assessing progress towards outcomes of reduced 48 C&AG’s Report, para 9 49 Q 3 50 Q 59; C&AG’s Report, Figure 8 51 Qq 57, 58 52 Q 57; C&AG’s Report, para 2.10 53 Q 18 54 C&AG’s Report para 1.6 55 Ev RHD0005 56 Qq 73, 101, 115, 136 57 Q 3 58 Q 80 59 Q 101 60 Committee of Public Accounts, Improving outcomes for women in the criminal justice system, Fifty-First Report of Session 2021–22, 28 April 2022, para 6 14 Reducing the harm from illegal drugs drug use, drug-related deaths and crime.61 However, Mr Trace expressed concerns that performance measures created an obsession with the numbers and did not focus on the outcomes being sought.62 After the session, Mr Trace provided supplementary evidence that local authorities are incentivised to offer a minimal level of service to a maximum number of people, rather than measuring the numbers of people they have helped to recover from their addiction.63 He argued that the current framework creates perverse incentives and risks micromanagement at the local level.64 When challenged, DHSC told us that process indicators are necessary for long-term conditions as they help focus on what is needed to improve services, such as the workforce and numbers of people in treatment.65 Mr Trace also stated that measures of enforcement activity were still too focused on process rather than outcomes, and that that law enforcement bodies should prioritise outcomes, such as reducing the availability of drugs and lowering drug-related violence.66 Targeting treatment and recovery services