Data sharing for delivery: worklessness Pilot scheme evaluation

1
Data sharing for delivery worklessnessPilot
scheme evaluation

• Emerging findings presentation
• Friday 19th June 2009
• Kai Rudat Phil Copestake
• Lauren Roberts Tim Vanson

2
Contents

• Scoping interviews emerging findings
• Pilot sites and local leads
• The role of the LIA
• The role of the JCP
• The role of DWP / CLG
• Implications of the findings
• For our evaluation
• For the national roll-out
• Evaluation framework
• Cost implications of the pilots

3
Scoping interviews summary of progress

• Interviews undertaken with 14 stakeholders
• Semi-structured approach
• Face-to-face and telephone

DWP Joe Clease Kay Wilmer Amanda Hillman
CLG Robert Rutherfoord
Local leads Jacqui Ward - Leeds Sue Jarvis
Liverpool Sue Wynne - Kent
JCP Leads Donald McInnes National Angela Newton
- Leeds Gary Foulkes Liverpool Tony March - Kent
LIAs Derrick Johnstone - Leeds Carol Hayden
Liverpool Tom Smith - Kent
4
Emerging findings local pilot sites

• Passionate about the pilot schemes
• Sense of waiting for legal issues to be
  resolved at a national level - powerlessness
• Lack of clarity about what data could be
  requested how ambitious the business cases
  could be - and what detail needed to be included
  within the business cases
• Pilot sites dont necessarily understand DWP and
  legal barriers to data sharing
• Timescales for data share critical
• Recognise that these are not ambitious new
  initiatives, but strong preference to start
  small
• Keen to share learning across the pilot sites

5
Local pilot sites - Kent

• Senior level buy-in within local authority
• Funding supporting the pilot
• The pilot is focussed upon establishing the most
  effective methods of engaging clients
• Generating learning
• Current provision provider competition
• JCP / LA / Education provision is fragmented
• LIA scepticism about the business case not
  ambitious enough to demonstrate real impact
• Challenges
• Lack of certainty and confidence regarding
  legality of the business case
• Concerns about public perceptions

6
Local pilot sites - Leeds

• The business case process helped to raise
  awareness and understanding by the local lead
  about DWPs stance towards data sharing greater
  understanding of the barriers
• Good partnership working between local lead, JCP
  and LIA
• Aiming for a cultural shift within communities
• Realistic approach and expected outcomes
• Currently no clear process for evidence
  collection about the impact of the pilot would
  welcome a steer from OPM
• Local evaluation
• Focus on the added value of interventions for
  clients
• Focus on improving partnership working at local
  level and with national level partners

7
Local pilot sites - Liverpool

• Local leads very enthusiastic about the
  proposal
• Highlighted wider implications for other areas
• View the data share as vital to deliver MAA
  outcomes
• Require all of the data requested in order to
  conduct local analysis, and inform the strategy
  and commissioning plan for the next 10 years
• Frustration with business case and approval
  process
• Concerned that they wont be able to access any
  data
• Aware that their business case doesnt fit into
  a box as neatly as the Kent and Leeds proposals
• No process yet for capturing evidence of impact
• Uncertainty at national level about aims and
  intentions outlined in the business case
• Legality not yet considered

8
Emerging findings the role of the LIAs

• The LIAs have brought expert knowledge to the
  pilot sites, and have effectively supported the
  local leads to develop the business cases
• So far, their input has been focussed on
  developing the business cases
• Act as a mediator, a gatekeeper, and undertake
  liaison between national and local partners
• LIA support has been welcomed by local leads
• Local leads were not sure what to expect in terms
  of LIA support
• Lack of clarity about the role of the LIA going
  forward (Kent and Liverpool)

9
Emerging findings the role of Jobcentre Plus

• Local JCP leads are enthusiastic about the pilots
• Recognise the potential benefits of the data
  share
• JCP motivation impact upon communities /
  clients
• Varying involvement in the pilots
• Inconsistent approach
• Benefits of greater and earlier involvement in
  developing business cases (Leeds example)
• Lack of senior JCP involvement / steer
• Not driving the pilots from a national level
• Involvement based on personal relationships
• Reluctance to take on additional work as a result
  of the pilot scheme
• Communication role of JCP internally and with
  providers / other partners

10
Emerging findings the role of Jobcentre Plus (2)

• Challenge identified ensuring smooth hand-over
  between pilot and JCP core offer
• Impact of national issues upon JCP capacity for
  active involvement
• Economic downturn
• National staff shortage
• Links with DWP lack of clarity about who holds
  what data and who owns the data
• Need to ensure consistency between LAs efforts
  and JCPs efforts complimentary and adding
  value, rather than duplication or conflict
• Potential for improved partnership working,
  sharing data about provider performance etc

11
Emerging findings the role of DWP

• Recognise the potential benefits of sharing data
• Aim of improving outcomes for clients
• Cautious about data sharing
• Limited capacity to handle requests
• Challenge of responding to inappropriate requests
• Confusion amongst local authorities about what
  data is held by DWP, what is held by HMRC etc
• Confusion about DWP processes amongst local
  authorities
• Business case forms were initially daunting and
  complex for pilot sites to complete
• DWP focus on quantifiable impact and outcomes
  will be vital to ensure the case is made for a
  national roll-out
• Contrast with pilot sites evidence of impact
  appears to be a lower priority for the local
  partners
• Different perspectives from CLG / DWP different
  outcomes expected from the pilot scheme,
  different driving factors

12
Implications for our evaluation

• Disconnect between local and national level
  partners regarding the Liverpool business case
• Challenge of separating costs directly relating
  to the pilots from other costs
• Some local data management and security
  developments taking place in parallel to the
  pilots
• Some client-facing events taking place anyway
• We need to provide clarity regarding what to
  include
• How to consider the implications of not sharing
  data costs saved as a result of the data share
• Patchy baseline data difficulty in
  demonstrating value added
• Pilot sites need clear guidance regarding impact
  measures
• Will the demonstrable impact of the pilots be
  sufficient?

13
Key lines of enquiry

• Core evaluation
• Value for money, costs and benefits
• Differentiating between
• Data and capacity e.g. skills factors
• Broader issues e.g. state of partnership working
• Systems learning
• Improving awareness of what data sets are held by
  whom at national and local levels
• What should the process look like?
• How does data sharing fit in local contexts?
• What next?
• Key actions at local and national level

14
Systems mapping needs assessment
15
Systems mapping scoping process
16
Needs assessment and scoping process key
challenges

• Lack of customer insight
• Segmentation and motivation
• Different levels (LA, JCP etc) and types of
  providers
• Access points / influential agencies
• Identifying who knows what
• Pathways out of worklessness
• Gaps / barriers to accessing employment
• How can the data help
• Exactly what data is needed?
• How will the benefits from accessing additional
  data be realised?
• Knowledge of the data available by partners at
  local level
• Availability of relevant performance data
• Analytical capacity and capability to handle
  data requests and make effective use of the data