Supporting People Housing Support Outcomes matrix

1
Supporting People (Housing Support) Outcomes
matrix

• Stephen Sandham
• Scottish Government
• 25 June 2008

2
Presentation outline

• Original aspirations for developing / piloting
  SP outcomes matrix
• Brief review of how the tool works
• Changed context for evaluation
• Methodology
• Findings / recommendations / conclusions

3
Original aims for framework

• Move towards outcome rather than output focused
  monitoring
• Build upon costs / benefits research to show what
  programme achieving
• Measure outcomes for individuals, through
  capturing distance travelled, but also allow
  national reporting
• One national framework - avoid 32 different
  versions

4
Overview of framework
5
Accommodation elements
6
(No Transcript)
7
Changed context

• Concordat greater flexibility / less reporting,
  geared around Single Outcome Agreements
• Removal of ring fencing less focus on housing
  support in isolation
• Pressure to reduce SP reporting burdens, while
  still monitoring impact on services
• Even more important to show what housing support
  achieves and greater willingness of providers
  to engage in that

8
Piloting / evaluating the model

• Piloted for 6 months in 7 local authority areas
• Rural / urban mix
• 33 providers (small / big mix)
• Variety of client groups
• 2 assessments start / end of pilot
• Independent evaluation
• Consistency / reliability of assessments
• Burden for providers
• Usefulness for national reporting

9
Research methodology

• Initial stakeholder interviews
• Baseline and follow up survey of all providers
• Telephone interviews with all providers
• Site visits to 14 providers (included observation
  of assessments and talking to service users)
• Interviews with SP Lead Officers in the 7 pilot
  local authorities

10
Baseline survey at start of pilot

• 94 understood framework
• 74 approved distance travelled approach
• 71 approved of measuring prevention
• 55 positive about link to support plans
• 54 worried about additional time burden
• 31 worried about IT aspects

11
Final evaluation findings (1)

• Strong support for framework from providers and
  councils (esp distance travelled approach)
• Framework resonates with wider Govt focus on
  outcomes with potential for use beyond housing
  support
• Lack of consistency in way framework interpreted
  need for better guidance and training
• Consistency better between support workers from
  same provider than between different providers
• Worked best with younger people and chaotic
  lifestyle clients where progress was more evident

12
Final evaluation findings (2)

• Frustrations with IT but solvable
• Measuring prevention difficult
• Very difficult to assess where client would be
  without support
• Distress to client
• Flexibility required in frequency of review
• Less often where situation unlikely to change
  (older people / learning disability)
• De-motivating where progress anticipated but not
  achieved

13
Recommendations (1)

• Framework should be promoted as tool with
  potential for measuring impact of low level
  preventative services
• Ownership should rest locally, with LAs or
  providers (but LAs better placed to promote
  consistency)
• Scottish Government (SG) to lead on further
  development of tool and its promotion
• SG to explore alternative approaches to
  incorporating the preventative benefits within
  the matrix

14
Recommendations (2)

• SG, with LAs and providers, to develop better
  guidance
• Better IT platform (using Access) to be developed
• Better training before providers use tool
• Personal identifier for service users to track
  progress between providers
• Make terminology more appropriate to different
  client groups (e.g. learning disability groups)
• Sampling may be more appropriate than use for all
  clients

15
Final reflections

• Despite difficulties evaluation showed strong
  support from local authorities providers for an
  outcomes approach
• Good for demonstrating value of housing support,
  less suited to national performance management
• Potentially useful in demonstrating locally what
  works in delivering Single Outcome Agreements
• SG will improve / promote tool and synergies with
  reporting on community care
• Evaluation clear about local ownership but
  leaves danger of different versions appearing (or
  no take up)

16
Contact details

• Stephen Sandham
• Homelessness, Housing Support, Advice and
  Standards
• Scottish Government
• Area 1H, Victoria Quay
• EDINBURGH
• EH6 6QQ
• Tel [phone]
• Email Stephen.Sandham_at_scotland.gsi.gov.uk