June 07 Supporting People – Outcomes Monitoring Framework Pre-Pilot Workshop

Page 1 Presentation Structure Finding a sustainable model  Background to the research  Methodology  Existing models – distance travelled  Existing models – hard outcomes  Conclusions  Issues influencing model design Matrix Model – How it works  Outcomes matrix  Monitoring data  Assessment and scoring  Reporting

Page 2 Background to research Research aim: “ To find a model that can be introduced consistently at local authority level, to capture useful information locally, that can then be used as a means of public and ministerial reporting nationally.” Research objectives: To recommend and outcomes model that:  could be introduced consistently at local level  provides useful info for national public and ministerial reporting  measures outcomes for individual clients  measures impacts of the programme across LAs  does not place excessive data collection burdens  sets out responsibilities of stakeholders – e.g LAs, providers, clients

Page 3 Methodology Literature and document review Consultation:  Angus  Edinburgh  Dumfries & Galloway  East Ayrshire  South Ayrshire Follow-up of leads:  Scottish Executive – Joint Futures, Justice, Local Government, Education & SW, GIRFEC Evaluation  DCLG  English models – Yorkshire & Humberside, Greater Manchester  NHS Images from Supporting People website

Page 4 Existing Models – Distance travelled Strengths Assesses quality of outcome for individual Client’s endorsement of the assessment Shows progress over time on individual basis Client centred approach Can be linked to individual client review process / needs assessment Operational tool for service providers Good practice needs assessment tool Potentially relatively straightforward to record Weaknesses  Subjective judgement at local and national level  Given above, issue of comparability of results across Scotland  Impact of distance travelled lost by averages  Time consuming if over and above any existing assessment process  How integrate with a cross-government initiative  If paper systems used will be cumbersome and does not allow for sharing of information across agencies

Page 5 Existing Models – Hard outcomes Strengths Provides count of hard outcome If clear about definition of individual outcome should avoid subjectivity Consistency at local and national level Therefore can compare benefit of SP across Scotland Snapshot indicator of performance at service and LA level to trigger discussions IT systems – opportunity for comprehensive database and sharing client information May be easier to integrate cross- government initiative Weaknesses  May or may not require client endorsement  Does not provide evidence of quality of experience for individual  Provides a snapshot rather than tracking gradual progress over time  Temptation to move into measuring process and ‘busy-ness’ of services  Time consuming if over and above any existing assessment process  IT systems – if comprehensive database approach taken will mean considerable lead in and buy-in process - therefore time and cost

Page 6 Summary and Conclusions Summary  Relative infancy of outcomes measurement across central/local govnt  Plethora of outcome agenda discussions underway  Two routes – distance travelled and hard outcomes Conclusions  Distance travelled model preferred  DTZ asked to develop model based on CEC model  Modified to allow measurement of change over time  Need to allow for reporting at the national level

Page 7 Issues Influencing Design  Lack of baseline  Lack of counterfactual  Variations in outcomes  Consistency in assessment  Attribution to Supporting People Images from Supporting People website

Page 8 Demonstration of Model Outcomes matrix Monitoring data Assessment and scoring Reporting Images from Supporting People website