John Palmer BA CIH Member NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING

John Palmer BA CIH Member NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING
SUPPORTING PEOPLE-FUNDED TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION FOR THE HOMELESS: A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Presentation to the Housing Studies Association Conference 19 April 2012 John Palmer BA CIH Member NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING This research is primarily a review of the standards that Supporting People-funded organisations achieve in the provision of temporary accommodation services for the homeless in Northern Ireland. But the research also raised questions about the way in which the statutory homelessness system operates in the assessment of homelessness and support needs, and the allocation of temporary accommodation. There is a lot to cover, and I will move quickly through most of the slides. I would be grateful if you would hold your questions until the end.

TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION FOR THE HOMELESS: A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
HOMELESSNESS IN NI NIHE is the statutory homelessness agency for NI 18,000 to 21,000 households per annum applied to NIHE for assistance between 2003/04 and 2010/2011 6,500 to 9,000 p.a. awarded ‘full duty applicant’ status Households are defined as ‘homeless’ if there is no accommodation that they are entitled to occupy; or they have accommodation but it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy this accommodation NIHE has a duty to consider their immediate needs and offer temporary accommodation with support if appropriate If they are ‘roofless’ and ‘vulnerable’ North Harbour Consulting 2012

ROUTES INTO TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION NIHE has four main options for the provision of temporary accommodation Supporting People-funded hostels owned by NIHE (mainly for families) SP-funded accommodation provided by the voluntary sector (mainly for single people) Private sector accommodation not SP-funded (families and single people) Accommodation with family or friends This research focussed mainly on the first two options funded by SP Grant The family and friends category basically means that ‘we have nothing suitable to offer you, can you find somewhere yourself on a temporary basis’ There is an interesting follow-up study to be carried out which looks at what happens to people who have temporary accommodation with private landlords, or with family and friends. North Harbour Consulting 2012

FUNDING TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION Two main sources Housing Benefit funds housing costs Supporting People Grant funds housing-related support SP funding for ‘temporary accommodation’ is provided on the basis that It is not permanent housing and is normally provided for 1 year or less However, this aim can be frustrated by: Non-availability of permanent move-on accommodation Resident’s continuing need for intensive support Quality of temporary accommodation vs permanent accommodation (consumer preference) Provider’s performance These funding streams have eligibility rules that aim to ensure among other things that there is no duplication in funding for housing and support. HB funds eligible housing costs fur the duration of the tenancy or license; whereas SPG funds support costs in schemes for homeless people on the basis that it is temporary accommodation while permanent accommodation is identified and where issues associated with the individual’s ability to sustain a tenancy are addressed. North Harbour Consulting 2012

SIZE OF THE SP-FUNDED HOUSING SECTOR 1,500 places in Supporting People-funded temporary accommodation for homeless Average length of stay is 7.5 months SP-funded emporary accommodation provides for approx 2,500 households each year - far fewer than the 6,500 to 9,000 households accepted as FDA This results in significant use of the private rented sector It puts a premium on provider performance in SP- funded accommodation – the focus of the research North Harbour Consulting 2012

STATISTICS 110 providers of SP-funded accommodation elderly, disabled, mental health specialist services, and homeless services 38 providers with temporary accommodation for the homeless providing 96 schemes 1460 units of accommodation (the term covers houses, flats, bedspaces in shared accommodation etc) Contract value in 2010/2011 = £23,073,000 North Harbour Consulting 2012

AIMS OF THE RESEARCH To develop and apply performance measures that are appropriate for different providers and schemes To form a basis for benchmarking ‘good’ and ‘weak’ performance To form a basis for comparing the performance of providers / schemes on a like for like basis To inform the strategy for Supporting People funding and reviews of the Homelessness Strategy North Harbour Consulting 2012

PERFORMANCE MEASURES ADOPTED Success in meeting capital funding and environmental health requirements (where relevant) Standard of accommodation assessed through survey Providers’ success in meeting SP funding requirements maximising use of their accommodation (‘occupancy’) demonstrating that accommodation is being provided on a temporary basis (‘length of stay’) ensuring that people leaving temporary accommodation do so on the basis of a planned move minimising the risk of repeat homelessness (‘% leaving on basis of a planned move’) Four simple to apply value for money tests SPG per unit, SPG + HB per unit, SPG per user, SPG + HB per user North Harbour Consulting 2012

METHODS OF MEASUREMENT % score against a minimum standard or benchmark set by SP team Ranking of scheme against other comparable schemes on % score Rank of ranks (a cumulative score) across Management indicators Financial indicators Management plus financial indicators Traffic light system to highlight good and weak performers North Harbour Consulting 2012

1. ANALYSIS BY CLIENT GROUP Big differences on some measures In this next group of slides, we present the results of the analysis comparing the performance of the schemes that make up the five client groups against each of the performance measures. The analysis is quite detailed and I will focus only on the main points. North Harbour Consulting 2012

PROPERTY SURVEY Client Group Number of schemes in each traffic light category N = Vulnerable single homeless 2 5 6 22 35 Homeless families 4 21 27 Women escaping domestic violence 9 14 People involved with the criminal justice system People who abuse drugs and alcohol 11 TOTAL 7 15 65 89 Percentage 2% 8% 17% 73% 100% In the majority of properties (65 out of 89 properties, or 73%), no problems of unfitness, unfitness for multiple occupation, identifiable housing health and safety hazards or other issues requiring any comment were found. These properties were tagged as ‘Green’. Those with very minor comments were tagged as ‘Light Yellow’. Seven properties (8%) were found to be in breach of one or more of the standards. These were tagged as ‘Amber’. The most common failing was a breach of the Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) standard for ‘means of escape in case of fire’ with associated fire hazard risks. Other failings were in respect of the HMO ‘kitchen facilities standard’ with associated food safety risks, or the HMO ‘personal washing facilities standard’ with associated personal hygiene risk. There was one case of overcrowding. Two properties were identified as giving ‘serious cause for concern’ and were tagged as ‘Red’. A hostel with the capacity to house sixty men failed both fitness and HMO standards, including means of escape in a fire. Another scheme failed the HMO standards for escape in case of fire and other fire precautions. North Harbour Consulting 2012

OCCUPANCY This chart compares occupancy levels in each of the five client group data sets. The lowest value identifies the worst performers in respect of occupancy. 57 schemes (62%) achieved the Housing Executive’s current benchmark for occupancy of 90% or more. 26 schemes (28%) achieved between 75% (the minimum performance standard) and 90% occupancy in 2009/2010; 9 schemes (10%) did not achieve the minimum standard of 75% occupancy. North Harbour Consulting 2012

THROUGHPUT Throughput is calculated as the number of people who left the scheme during the year plus the number of people in residence at the end of the year. 90 schemes (97%) met the Housing Executive’s minimum standard of a 100% throughput or more 74 schemes (80%) achieved or exceeded the Housing Executive’s benchmark standard of 120% with throughput of up to 300%, with an average stay of between ten and four months 12 schemes (13.0%) had a throughput of residents of between 100% and 120% (the performance benchmark) giving an average stay of between eleven and twelve months Four schemes (4%) had a throughput of more than 300%. This group included a direct access hostel that had a throughput of 1575% giving a length of stay of around one month. However, the rate of planned moves in this scheme was very low at 0.5% (see next section). Three schemes had a throughput of less than 100%, and one scheme had a throughput of only 44%, which was worse than in 2008 when it achieved a throughput of 58%. This scheme also had low occupancy at 43%. Comparisons with the 2008 data show that performance on the throughput of residents has fallen. The average throughput per scheme for all schemes in 2008 was 305%, suggesting an average length of stay of around 4 months. In 2009/2010 the average throughput was 164%, suggesting that the average length of stay had increased to more than seven months. This change is relatively consistent across all client groups, suggesting that there has been a tightening in the availability of move-on accommodation. North Harbour Consulting 2012

% PLANNED MOVES The percentage of leavers whose move was planned as part of a support plan is a relatively recent performance measure. The SP team defines the performance benchmark as 75% of all departures being based on a planned move. A minimum standard has been set that 65% of all departures should result from a planned move. 41 schemes (45%) had a planned move-on rate of 75% or more and therefore met the Housing Executive’s benchmark. In seven cases the rate of planned moves was more than 90%. However, more than half of all the schemes under review failed to achieve this benchmark: These results, taken together with the fall in throughput between 2008 and 2010 suggest that a substantial number of schemes are not meeting the requirement to plan move-on with their scheme users. This may partly reflect difficulties in the wider housing market, but the absence of evidence of planning for move on in many schemes suggests that there are also internal management issues within provider organisations. North Harbour Consulting 2012

OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE 26% either had green traffic lights for all the assessments, or a combination of green and light yellow (signifying minor issues only) 74% had a red or an amber traffic lights for a performance measure 28% had a red traffic light for one of their performance measures 2 schemes had two red traffic lights for management performance one scheme had three red traffic lights for performance and has since been closed NIHE has responded swiftly to these results, and in the worst cases has put the scheme under Close management, or in one case, closed the scheme. North Harbour Consulting 2012

SPG / UNIT / WEEK All of the schemes for homeless people analysed for this study are funded on the basis of the block grant system – that is a fixed level of grant for each unit of accommodation in management regardless of whether it is occupied or not. This diagram shows the distribution of schemes by the cost of SPG per unit per week. There are very substantial differences in the median level of SPG per week per household space between client groups, There are also wide differences in the amount of SPG per household space between schemes within each client group, where the costs can appear either very low or very high compared with the median value. North Harbour Consulting 2012

SPG + HB / UNIT / WEEK The same is true for SPG + HB per unit. There is an underlying pattern in these results that provides evidence of a trade-off between the level of SPG and the level of HB. Schemes that have a low level of SPG per household space per week, (i.e. values up to the first quartile) tend to have levels of HB that are in the upper quartiles; while schemes that have a relatively high level of SPG per week tend to have levels of HB that fall into the lower quartiles. What is the explanation? My personal view is that this result is due to the way Transitional HB was calculated in 2002/2003 which tended to build in historical anomalies. There is a case to be made for requiring providers to be much clearer about their real housing management and support costs, then benchmarking these costs as a basis for funding decisions. My own view id that the Housing Executive should promote a standard budget and accounting model that makes income and spend on the different activity streams transparent. That was the approach that the Housing Corporation in England adopted prior to 2001/2002. It meant that the accounts of each provider and each scheme could be evaluated on a comparable basis. However, the HC dropped this system when Supporting People was introduced. North Harbour Consulting 2012

SPG / USER / WEEK The analysis of SPG per household space showed a very wide degree of variation between the levels of payment within client groups. However, when SPG per resident is taken as the measure, the results are broadly comparable across the homeless families, single homeless, domestic violence and substance abuser schemes up to the median level, after which they diverge. The trend here is that a higher cost per unit is mitigated by a faster throughput of residents in some schemes which brings the median level of funding per resident well below the median per unit cost. Our conclusion is that SPG per user is a better performance measure than SPG per unit of accommodation. Contracts are based on units of accommodation in management, however, so monitoring systems need to be able to capture data on both measures. The three schemes for offenders appear on the basis of these results to be more expensive in both per household space and per scheme user terms than the schemes for other client groups. North Harbour Consulting 2012

SPG + HB / USER / WEEK This table shows broadly similar results to the previous one. When the levels of SPG plus HB are compared on a per user basis, there is: a close correlation between payments in schemes for single homeless, homeless families, women’s refuges and substance misuse schemes up to the median level if the higher costs in family accommodation are taken into account; and higher combined payments of SPG and HB in schemes for offenders. So once again, offender schemes appear expensive. North Harbour Consulting 2012

TRAFFIC LIGHT ANALYSIS – OVER-VIEW Contract bedspaces Property Survey Traffic Lights Occupancy 2 year Average Q Q (%) Throughput 2 year AverageQ Q (%) Planned Moves 2 year Average Q Q (%) 08/09 Weekly SP Unit Rate £ Average HB per unit contracted - weekly rate 2008/09 total weekly cost (SPG + HB) per unit Weekly cost per user - SPG Weekly cost per user HB (£) Weekly cost per user SPG + HB 12 G 94.52 183.33 82.61 £430.86 £65.92 £496.78 £130.19 £19.92 £150.11 11 76.04 213.64 60.77 £281.25 £47.12 £328.37 £29.27 £4.90 £34.18 LY 78.50 192.05 99.17 £560.87 £42.82 £603.69 £128.65 £9.82 £138.47 7 91.82 126.13 100.00 £214.00 £99.53 £313.53 £103.58 £48.18 £151.76 86.17 229.28 88.59 £264.40 £64.39 £328.79 £53.82 £13.11 £66.92 62.89 178.57 87.99 £490.54 £52.40 £542.94 £162.32 £17.34 £179.66 6 72.30 185.42 76.40 £502.16 £53.77 £555.93 £59.58 £6.38 £65.96 20 94.25 179.38 38.99 £306.16 £93.90 £400.06 £54.42 £16.69 £71.11 93.73 270.63 84.02 £281.53 £64.72 £346.25 £26.87 £6.18 £33.05 13 91.09 220.19 99.22 £409.59 £56.82 £466.41 £69.06 £9.58 £78.64 94.12 212.50 98.08 £466.40 £62.32 £528.72 £88.22 £11.79 £100.01 60 R 93.31 148.75 68.32 £82.79 £145.11 £34.74 £26.15 £60.88 14 93.41 266.33 41.59 £344.60 £65.19 £409.79 £63.63 £12.04 £75.66 A 97.98 161.43 32.69 £264.96 £64.64 £329.60 £102.06 £24.90 £126.95 18 90.47 236.05 41.09 £288.76 £63.80 £352.56 £71.20 £15.73 £86.93 19 91.27 179.70 44.19 £313.39 £87.16 £400.55 £104.22 £28.99 £133.21 15 96.38 200.00 57.09 £320.44 £51.19 £371.63 £88.01 £14.06 £102.07 This is a snapshot of a much larger spreadsheet that sets out the results for each scheme against each variable and converts them into a traffic light system. It provides a look-up table for SP officers to assess each scheme or provider performance in its own terms against the benchmarks that have been set, highlighting weak performance. North Harbour Consulting 2012

RANKING ANALYSIS – OVER-VIEW Cost per user rank of Ranks Calc Cost per user rank of Ranks RANK OF RANKS: Property, management & cost per user (Calc) RANK OF RANKS: Property, manage-ment & cost per user Overview Finance Calc Overview Finance RANK OF RANKS RANK OF RANKS - ALL INDICATORS calc RANK OF RANKS - ALL INDICATORS 32 27 20 9 46.5 49 30.5 21 23 16 38 35 22 18 38.5 42 45 34 29 52 37.5 31 54 59 46 41 51.5 57 45.0 19 12 13 6 21.5 17 15.0 5 51 48 58 65 35.5 42.0 15 33 37 44.0 44 3 4 1 20.5 9.5 11 19.0 7 24 43 22.5 28 8.5 24.5 30 32.5 50 47 36 40.0 53 55 60 58.0 63 14 34.5 28.0 This is a snapshot of part of a much larger spreadsheet that lists the performance of each scheme against each variable, then ranks each scheme for each variable, then assembles a rank of ranks for scheme performance on property management and service delivery, financial performance, and overall performance. Like the traffic light summary, it provides a look-up table for SP officers to assess each scheme or provider’s performance in its own terms against the benchmarks that have been set, and also in comparison with other schemes and providers. North Harbour Consulting 2012

ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS North Harbour Consulting 2012

VARIABLES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Methodology Gives a good over-view of performance at a scheme level Allows relevant comparisons between types of scheme and providers But is essentially quantitative and misses quality Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) method available But labour intensive Suggest QAF is used as a basis for Peer group reviews by providers to raise standards and promote good practice Targeting weaker performers for review by NIHE This approach gives a good over-view of performance BUT with the exception of the property survey, it is essentially quantitative. A qualitative assessment of management performance in delivering positive outcomes for service users in terms of support and resettlement is also needed. The new version of the Quality Assessment Framework (‘QAF’) updated by SITRA provides a basis for this type of analysis. However, a QAF assessment for each scheme across the SP portfolio is labour intensive. activity. With pressure on staff budgets it may not be possible to carry out the exercise for all schemes and all providers. The QAF process is intended to be used by providers for self assessment. I believe that this should be encouraged because a self assessment exercise perhaps linked to a system of peer group reviews would allow each provider to compare what they are doing with others, and would help to raise performance and encourage good practice. The results of peer reviews would be shared with the SP team. Meanwhile,. the methodology we have developed can be used by the SP team to prioritise schemes where a QAF assessment needs to be carried out more directly. Each of the approaches tested in this research could be incorporated into a standardised reporting format linked into the SPOCC record system. North Harbour Consulting 2012

INFORMING THE SP & HOMELESS STRATEGIES The research has raised important issues about: the need for a whole systems approach that integrates socio- economic and spatial needs analysis with commissioning of new services and recommissioning of existing ones so that the clustering of schemes in particular localities – a feature of much provision outside Belfast – does not lead to significant gaps in provision shortcomings in the systems, processes and procedures through which different types of homeless person have their needs assessed, and are then assigned to an accommodation- based scheme funded by SPG or one in the private sector where standards vary and support is often not available. The research has also compared performance between providers on an area basis. This part of the research involved a brief review of how the homelessness system operates in different parts of Northern Ireland. I am not reporting on this part of the research today because of time constraints. But the research has generated questions that will be addressed as the Housing Executive updates its homelessness policy, and also prepares for reorganisation with services for the homeless being one of a number of functions that will be incorporated into a new regional housing authority for Northern Ireland. North Harbour Consulting 2012

John Palmer BA CIH Member NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING
SUPPORTING PEOPLE-FUNDED TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION FOR THE HOMELESS: A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Presentation to the Housing Studies Association Conference 19 April 2012 John Palmer BA CIH Member NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING I am happy to take questions

John Palmer BA CIH Member NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "John Palmer BA CIH Member NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

John Palmer BA CIH Member NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "John Palmer BA CIH Member NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback