Key Findings & Lessons from Evaluation studies of SDS Test Sites in Scotland (WS64)

Key Findings & Lessons from Evaluation studies of SDS Test Sites in Scotland

DR JULIE RIDLEY & DR ANN ROSENGARD

SOCIAL SERVICES EXPO – 19TH MARCH 2013

Purpose of This Session

1. To provide an overview of the test sites

2. To present key findings of our evaluation

3. To highlight emerging lessons for policy & practice

Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard

Overview of the Test Sites


Evaluation of SDS test sites in scotland

Review of Test sites 2009-2011:

Clarified development of 3 Test Sites, processes of implementation, and the impact of SDS

Follow up study 2012:

Assessed continuing development and longer term impacts, including the impact of financial context on SDS Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard

Evaluation METHODS - 2009-2012

Multi-method, participatory, developmental

•Literature review & documentary analysis

•Interviews

•Learning Sets

•Quarterly monitoring framework

•Questionnaire survey of care managers


Samples

Test sites :

•22 national stakeholders interviewed

•93 test site stakeholders interviewed

•30 SDS case studies (service users, carers and care managers)

•60 participants at Stakeholder event March 2011

Follow-up :

•67 local & S-G stakeholders interviewed

•213 questionnaire responses from care managers in 2012


Different Entities


Leadership & Training

• ‘Transformational’ change

• Role of dedicated/ specialist resources

• Training – issues include: breadth, depth; reach and resources


CUTTING ‘RED TAPE’

• Irony - more bureaucracy to reduce red tape...

• ‘Light touch’ monitoring (CIPFA) overly bureaucratic


Bridging Finance

• BF was valued by all test sites

• But test sites struggled to use BF

• Lack of clear information on specific changes


Structures, approach & reach of test sites

DUMFRIES & GALLOWAY

GLASGOW HIGHLAND

STRUCTURE Personalisation Team managed by Senior Social Work Manager for Wigtownshire. Reporting to Executive Group and multi-agency Personalisation Programme Board

SDS Team managed via Head of Mental Health and Adult Support & Protection and Assistant Director of Social Care, Reporting to Health and Social Care Policy Development Committee.

SDS Team managed by Head of Children’s ServicesReporting to SDS Project Board mainly of local authority staff.

APPROACHPart of existing plans to implement Personalisation; Community development; organic; bottom-up;Developed separately from DP

Built on IB Pilot in East Glasgow with people with learning disabilities;Partnerships with voluntary organisationsDeveloped separately from DPs

Specifically aimed to increase number of DP recipients;Significant number of one off paymentsDeveloped separately from DPs

REACH/SCOPEAdopted open criteria with test site initially covering Wigtownshire but covering whole of region before end of test site

Targeted at people with learning disability in East of City but expanded before end of test site.

Targeted at young disabled people in transition. Not geographically focused


Promotion & awareness of SDS• Range of promotional activities

• Increased awareness coupled with uncertainties and anxieties

• Discrepancy between aspirational presentation and reality

• Increasing promotion had implications for capacity of SDS Teams

• Test site information aimed at learning disability

• Whilst receiving training, care managers generally felt they were not suitably trained to access SDS


assessment

• Systems - ‘too learning disability orientated’

• SDS & Single Shared Assessments

• On-going development as SDS rolled out

• Test sites developed supported self assessment & outcomes based support plans

• Initially, little involvement of independent advocacy evident

• Emphasis should be on the process rather than forms


CARE MANAGERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF SDS ASSESSMENT LOCAL AUTHORITY

HELPFUL UNHELPFUL DON’T KNOW

D&G 32% (17) 54% (29) 14% (8)

Glasgow 35% (37) 63% (67) 2% (3)

Highland 42% (14 39% (13) 19% (6)


resource allocation• RAS (In Control) in D&G and Glasgow, equivalency

model in Highland

• Development of RAS highly complex

• Challenge in terms of equity and system to meet different needs

• Emphasis on transparency, however, D&G found upfront allocations stifled creativity

• Systems still being tested

• Strategic choices re risk


Summary findings - process

•Promotion is critical and can increase uptake

•Good quality information as well as flow and reach key to increasing control & choice

•Strategic choices re implementation have import for processes and outcomes

•Taking a ‘Project’ approach brings gains and limits

•Pace of implementation affects processes/ experience

•Need integrated collaborative approach, but slow movement – e.g. DP & SDS systems; SDS & AP; Cross-boundary workingSocial Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard

OUTPUTS - individuals with sds packages

T-S Evaluation Follow Up

Number Overall 132 1,011

Client groups 64% learning disability23% physical disability7% older people3% mental health 1% disabled child2% other

59% learning disability19% physical disability6% disabled child3% older people2% mental health 11% other

Gender 52% male48% female

57% male43% female

Ethnicity All white British/Scottish 4.3% BME groups

SDS option(could be multiple)

107 DP24 ISF

552 DP858 ISF

Funding stream SW + client contribution SW + client contribution


service users and carers PERCEPTIONS OF PROCESS

• 30 case studies

• Assessment felt to be comprehensive & inclusive

• Most service users and carers felt SDS expanded choice and control

• However, may reflect extra resources during pilot?

• Variation in flexibility- e.g. employing relatives, legitimate activities

• Variation in cross-boundary/ joint working


SUMMARY FINDINGS – OUTCOMES & IMPACTS

• Importance of independent advocacy to increasing control and choice

• Inequalities of access - phase one, but slowly being addressed

• Measuring SDS outcomes is complex - requires attention to monitoring

• SDS may be strongly influenced by wider developments e.g. cuts and benefits changes

• Financial constraints impact on SDS – need clarity, transparency, flexibility in managing resources


CARE MANAGERS’ VIEWS – IS SDS BEING USED TO MAKE CUTS?

LOCAL AUTHORITY

SDS USED TO MAKE CUTS

NOT USED TOMAKE CUTS

DON’T KNOW

Highland (n=31)

29% (9) 32% (10) 39% (12)

D&G (n=56) 13% (7) 54% (30) 34% (19)

Glasgow (n=104)

81% (84) 13% (14) 6% (6)


CARE MANAGERS’ VIEWS – HAVE CUTS AFFECTED SDS?

LOCAL AUTHORITY

CUTS AFFECT SDS

CUTS DON’T AFFECT SDS

DON’T KNOW

Highland (N=31)

45% (14) 10% (3) 45% (14)

D&G (N=55) 20% (11) 27% (15) 53% (29)

Glasgow(N=106)

91% (96) 3% (3) 7% (7)


SOME Key lessons• Implementing SDS involves transforming social care in a

challenging and very uncertain context

• Promotion and communications are critical and on-going issue

• SDS expertise and capacity need to be developed to enable co-production

• Must support and involve user led organisations

• Sophisticated info systems needed to support/ capture SDS

• Need clarity re funding and eligibility to support


Group Discussion

What are the opportunities and challenges to implementing SDS in your area?

Are these similar or different to the test sites?

Each table is asked to agree on ONE key issue or to highlight an area you feel needs further exploration. Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard

Further information

Ridley, J., Spandler, H, Rosengard, A. et al (2011) Evaluation of Self-Directed Support Test Sites in Scotland - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/358197/0121078.pdf

Ridley, J., Spandler, H, Rosengard, A. with Menhennet, A (2012) – Follow-up Evaluation of Self Directed Support Test Sites in Scotland - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0041/00410610.pdf

Contact Dr Julie Ridley:

Email- [email protected] Tel - 01772 893402


Documents

Key Findings & Lessons from Evaluation studies of SDS Test Sites in Scotland (WS64)