Measuring outcomes for the Supporting People programme

1
Measuring outcomes for the Supporting People
programme

• Using a distance travelled approach

2
Today I will be.
3
Presentation outline

• Background to development of new Supporting
  People outcome framework
• Why choose a distance travelled model?
• How the model works
• Initial findings from pilot
• How does it fit with wider Scottish Government
  thinking on outcome agreements?

4
Key aims for framework

• Build upon costs / benefit research to show what
  programme achieving
• One national framework - avoid 32 different
  versions
• Take lead in moving to outcome focussed
  monitoring
• Maximise synergy with other national reporting

5
Development

• DTZ appointed to
• Review pros and cons of different models in use
  in Scotland, England and elsewhere
• Make recommendations to a Research Advisory Group
  of key stakeholders
• Develop a Scottish framework

6
Soft outcomes - Distance travelled

• Strengths
• Assesses outcomes for individuals
• Clients endorsement
• Shows progress over time
• Can be linked to individual client needs
  assessment and review
• Potentially useful for service providers and
  those commissioning services locally

• Potential weaknesses
• Potentially subjective
• Comparability across Scotland
• Impact lost by averages
• Potentially time consuming
• Integration with other reporting requirements

7
Hard outcomes

• Strengths
• Easier to count
• Avoids subjectivity
• Consistency
• Comparability
• May be easier to integrate cross-government
  initiative

• Weaknesses
• No client endorsement
• No evidence of impact on individuals
• May only offer a snapshot
• Temptation to measure outputs, processes or
  inputs
• Still difficult to show causal relationship

8
Why adopt distance travelled?

• Hard national targets already existed for some
  client groups
• Desire to test a framework that might be relevant
  for other funding streams
• Best at demonstrating impact on individual lives

9
Overview of framework
10
(No Transcript)
11
Piloting the model

• Now being piloted in 7 council areas
• Independent evaluation
• Consistency / reliability of assessments
• Burden for providers
• Usefulness for national reporting
• Potential wider roll out in 2007-08?

12
Initial evaluation findings

• 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

13
Other initial messages

• Works best where improvement expected e.g.
  homeless
• Less appropriate for other groups e.g. frail
  older people?
• Less frequent reviews for some clients?
• Sufficient scope to tailor model?
• Client endorsement more accurate or too time
  consuming / intrusive?

14
How does it fit with wider thinking on outcome
agreements?

• Scottish Government seeks new outcome agreements
  with CoSLA and local government, based around
• A few high level outcomes, and a limited number
  of performance indicators
• Greater flexibilities / less ring fencing
• Two alternative views of where SP outcomes
  framework fits with this

15
Housing Support team celebrate landing new SP
outcomes matrix
16
Or a sacred cow mapping the way forward?
17
Wider outcome agreements possible scenarios

• Housing support reflected in new outcome
  agreements / indicators agreed with COSLA etc
  no need for separate ring fencing on SP?
• Housing support not visible in new outcome
  agreements so ring fencing continues?
• Not visible in new outcome agreements but SP
  ring fencing ends to secure a deal?

18
Possible scenarios for SP

• SP ring fencing continues and framework judged a
  success rolled out everywhere in 2008-09?
• SP ring fencing ends March 2008 outcome
  framework left as good practice model?
• SP ring fencing continues for 2 years, and SP
  outcome framework provides further evidence of
  case for investing in housing support?
• SP ring fencing continues for 2 years, but
  outcome framework ditched?

19
Conclusions

• Ring fencing will go at some point
• SP outcome framework might demonstrate importance
  of housing support to help secure future
  investment locally and nationally
• Key questions remain
• How well SP outcome framework works?
• How well distance travelled model fits with
  outcome agreements based on hard outcome
  indicators?
• What will flow from discussions with CoSLA?
• How to safeguard preventative services without
  ring fencing or a separate SP framework (if not
  visible in national indicators)?
• Many programmes face these same challenges
• Some aspects should become much clearer soon

20
An uncertain ride, but never dull!
21
Contact details

• Stephen Sandham
• Head of Housing Support team
• Scottish Government
• Area 1G, Victoria Quay
• EDINBURGH
• EH6 6QQ
• Tel [phone]
• Email Stephen.Sandham_at_scotland.gsi.gov.uk