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

June 07

Supporting People – Outcomes Monitoring Framework

Pre-Pilot Workshop

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

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

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

Existing Models – Distance travelledStrengthsAssesses 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

WeaknessesSubjective 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

Existing Models – Hard outcomesStrengthsProvides 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

WeaknessesMay 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

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

Issues Influencing Design

Lack of baseline

Lack of counterfactual

Variations in outcomes

Consistency in assessment

Attribution to Supporting People


Demonstration of Model

Outcomes matrix

Monitoring data

Assessment and scoring

Reporting


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

Documents

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