Measuring outcomes has become increasingly important under Supporting People. The
London Housing Foundation started working in earnest on this in late 2005 and within this section of Homeless Outcomes you will find
details of our work in this area.
Of current interest to homelessness service providers will be the measurement of Supporting People outcomes at national, local and service level -
why was this needed, how did it come about and
what are the implications for service providers? An outline of the framework is given on this page.
This information was originally produced as a report that has been integrated into this website. You can browse the contents of this section, or download the report (PDF).
Measuring Supporting People Outcomes
There are four elements in the measurement of Supporting People outcomes at national, local and service level, which in our view make up a reasonably comprehensive and effective framework for Supporting People outcomes:
- A high level set of outcomes
- A national outcomes monitoring form
- A basket of additional indicators
- Distance travelled tools for service providers
A high level set of outcomes
The CLG defined the high level outcomes for the Supporting People programme as being to enable clients to:
- Have economic well-being
- Enjoy and achieve
- Be healthy
- Stay safe
- Make a positive contribution
The CLG deliberately chose the same high level outcomes as are used for the Every Child Matters Programme in order to move in the direction of consistency across government departments and initiatives. This high level set of outcomes has provided an overarching framework for the measurement of national and local outcomes.
National outcomes monitoring forms
The CLG working group developed two (very similar) outcomes forms for service providers to complete – one to be completed by short-term services when the client leaves, and one which will be completed by a sample of long-term services. Each form asks for outcomes data on 14 outcomes within the five high level outcome areas described above.
Within each of the 14 outcome areas, providers are asked to report three main things:
- Whether the client needed support in that area
- If so, was the desired outcome achieved (with outcomes specified in each case)
- If not, why not (with a list of reasons covering factors to do with the client, the service or external circumstances)
The data is held on a web-based system and made available to the CLG and local authorities and providers. It serves three primary purposes:
- It provides the CLG with national data on the achievements of the Supporting People programme
-
It provides local authorities with data on the outcomes of their SP programme overall
-
It supports effective contract monitoring for local authorities by providing outcomes data on individual services, with the facility to benchmark with data for similar services with the same primary client groups.
The data may also be used in other ways:
- By CLG for monitoring local authority performance; outcomes for each local authority will be benchmarked against national and regional outcomes
- By local authorities to take an overview of the achievements of their Supporting People programme – also benchmarking, including sub-regionally or against specific local authorities with similar needs and client groups
- By service providers to understand and learn from their own outcomes - probably in conjunction with information collected through distance travelled outcomes tools such as the Outcomes Star
- For research purposes; for example to explore links between certain types of services or client groups and positive outcomes
A basket of additional indicators
The information collected through the CLG form should provide the main outcomes information that local authorities require for the routine monitoring of services. However, for some authorities and in some service areas, there are circumstances in which an authority might want further information. For example, authorities may want additional outcomes information in relation to pressure on local health services and/or if there were concerns about a service’s performance.
Authorities can choose from a basket of additional indicators when seeking further information from services circulated by CLG. The intention is that by having a national basket, local authorities are saved the work of defining meaningful indicators and providers are spared the potential administrative nightmare of reporting similar information to different authorities in different ways. However, it seems likely that the majority of local authorities will rely on information gathered through teh national CLG outcomes form, possible combined with data from providers own tools.
Distance travelled tools for service providers
Providers are increasingly being encouraged to use distance travelled tools such as the
Outcomes Star, as part of good practice in working with clients. Such tools build up a much more detailed picture than the CLG form allows of the ways in which their clients are progressing, including evidence of progress made towards key outcomes even when end goals are not achieved. This is valuable management information for service providers and can contribute significantly to improving service provision.
Service providers are free to choose whichever tool best meets their needs and to develop their own tools if necessary. As well as meeting provider needs for detailed outcomes information as a basis for learning and service improvement, local authorities will be able to draw on this information as part of contract monitoring if and when they require a more detailed picture of the service’s achievements. Such tools can also be used by providers to evidence some of the 14 outcomes in the CLG form. For example, the Outcomes Star measures improvement in physical and mental health and substance misuse issues, the key CLG health outcomes.
Putting the pieces together
Together these different elements add up to a national framework that:
- provides the national data that CLG requires
- ensures consistency across local authorities together with the flexibility to gather additional information when needed, and
- enables providers to carry out detailed outcome monitoring in their own way.
Author: Joy MacKeith and Sara Burns
Date: 21 June 2007
Updated: 30 November 2007