1. Personalised Outcomes
Phil Saunders

2. The Wider Context Prevention and Savings
Personalisation and Commissioning
Supporting People - Select Committee and Audit Commission

3. Select Committee and Audit Commission
QAF
Outcomes
Independent Living Charters
The Limits of Procurement
Range of Services

4. A Quote….
“The QAF and Outcomes Framework have proven their worth in ensuring quality, promoting effective and consistent local and regional commissioning, and providing an unambiguous evidence base of the value of Supporting People services”

5. QAF Refreshed for 2009/10 Assessment and Support Planning Combined
Support and Risk Management Planning
“consistent and comprehensive”

6. Level A
Users involved in designing the procedure, not just in planning their own support
Appropriate and accessible plans
Assessments and plans should complement those of other agencies
Regular reviews

7. Client Involvement Should be “at all levels of the service”
Level A requires strategic involvement…
But flexibility and choice also important (clients as customers)
Inspectorates to prioritise?

8. Outcomes Monitoring Hard outcomes Data has helped to justify SP
Fuzzy overlap with National Indicators etc
Not much use at the operational level?
Lack of feedback and analysis

9. Don’t say “soft”! - Outcomes and Personalisation
Outcomes Star
Non-Linear Progress
Attitudes, beliefs, skills…internal perceptions
Core, Choice Based and Personalised Services
up2us

10. Charters for Independent Living
Complaints and Redress
Standards
Accessibility
Expectations

11. Getting Commissioned Cashable savings versus added value
Innovation and sticking to the brief
Hard data on soft outcomes
Specific examples of client led change
Localism and partnership
User focus