Presentation on findings of evaluation of SDS local authority test sites in Scotland, including key findings and lessons from the study. Discussion about the wider implications for policy and practice in Scotland.
Contributor: University of Lancashire
Key Findings & Lessons from Evaluation studies of SDS Test Sites in Scotland (WS64)
1. Key Findings & Lessons
from Evaluation studies of
SDS Test Sites in
Scotland
DR JULIE RIDLEY & DR ANN ROSENGARD
SOCIAL SERVICES EXPO – 19TH MARCH 2013
2. 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
3. Overview of the
Test Sites
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
4. 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
5. Evaluation METHODS - 2009-
2012
Multi-method, participatory, developmental
•Literature review & documentary analysis
•Interviews
•Learning Sets
•Quarterly monitoring framework
•Questionnaire survey of care managers
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
6. 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
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
8. Leadership & Training
• ‘Transformational’ change
• Role of dedicated/ specialist resources
• Training – issues include: breadth,
depth; reach and resources
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
9. CUTTING ‘RED
TAPE’
• Irony - more bureaucracy to
reduce red tape...
• ‘Light touch’ monitoring (CIPFA)
overly bureaucratic
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
10. Bridging Finance
• BF was valued by all test sites
• But test sites struggled to use
BF
• Lack of clear information on
specific changes
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
11. Structures, approach & reach
of test sites
DUMFRIES & GLASGOW HIGHLAND
GALLOWAY
Personalisation Team SDS Team managed via SDS Team managed by
STRUCTURE Head of Mental Health Head of Children’s
managed by Senior and Adult Support & Services
Social Work Manager for Protection and Assistant Reporting to SDS Project
Wigtownshire. Reporting Director of Social Care, Board mainly of local
to Executive Group and Reporting to Health and authority staff.
Social Care Policy
multi-agency Development Committee.
Personalisation
Programme Board
Part of existing plans to Built on IB Pilot in East Specifically aimed to
APPROACH implement Glasgow with people with increase number of DP
Personalisation; learning disabilities; recipients;
Community development; Partnerships with Significant number of one
organic; bottom-up; voluntary organisations off payments
Developed separately Developed separately Developed separately
from DP from DPs from DPs
Adopted open criteria Targeted at people with Targeted at young
REACH/SCOPE with test site initially learning disability in East disabled people in
covering Wigtownshire of City but expanded transition.
but covering whole of before end of test site. Not geographically
region before end of test focused
site
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
12. 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
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
13. 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
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
14. CARE MANAGERS’
PERCEPTIONS OF SDS
ASSESSMENT
LOCAL HELPFUL UNHELPFUL DON’T KNOW
AUTHORITY
D&G 32% (17) 54% (29) 14% (8)
Glasgow 35% (37) 63% (67) 2% (3)
Highland 42% (14 39% (13) 19% (6)
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
15. 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
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
16. 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 working
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
17. OUTPUTS - individuals
with sds packages
T-S Evaluation Follow Up
Number Overall 132 1,011
Client groups 64% learning disability 59% learning disability
23% physical disability 19% physical disability
7% older people 6% disabled child
3% mental health 3% older people
1% disabled child 2% mental health
2% other 11% other
Gender 52% male 57% male
48% female 43% female
Ethnicity All white British/Scottish 4.3% BME groups
SDS option 107 DP 552 DP
(could be multiple) 24 ISF 858 ISF
Funding stream SW + client contribution SW + client contribution
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
18. 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
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
19. 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
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
20. CARE MANAGERS’ VIEWS – IS SDS
BEING USED TO MAKE CUTS?
LOCAL SDS USED NOT USED DON’T
AUTHORITY TO MAKE TO KNOW
CUTS MAKE
CUTS
Highland 29% (9) 32% (10) 39% (12)
(n=31)
D&G (n=56) 13% (7) 54% (30) 34% (19)
Glasgow 81% (84) 13% (14) 6% (6)
(n=104)
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
21. CARE MANAGERS’ VIEWS –
HAVE CUTS AFFECTED SDS?
LOCAL CUTS CUTS DON’T
AUTHORITY AFFECT DON’T KNOW
SDS AFFECT
SDS
Highland 45% (14) 10% (3) 45% (14)
(N=31)
D&G (N=55) 20% (11) 27% (15) 53% (29)
Glasgow 91% (96) 3% (3) 7% (7)
(N=106)
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
22. 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
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
23. 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
24. 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- JRidley1@uclan.ac.uk Tel - 01772 893402
Social Services Expo 2013 - Dr Julie Ridley & Dr Ann Rosengard
Editor's Notes
Three TS chosen, three themes Leadership and training The leadership and training theme would seek to develop a means of increasing awareness, knowledge and confidence about promoting self-directed support on the part of front-line staff, social work middle and senior management and local authority finance officials. Cutting red tape This theme will seek to enable a local authority to cut non-essential red tape surrounding self-directed support provision. This would allow more front line staff to concentrate on their core job and therefore improve the user experience, which we expect to help drive demand for self-directed support. A local authority would be expected to apply a “ light touch ” monitoring process. Investing to save This theme will seek to double fund buildings-based care within a local authority to enable remodelling of the care facilities, while encouraging those clients who use the facilities to adopt other forms of social care in the community, in particular, self-directed support. Local authorities have argued that additional funding is required to “ double fund ” facilities to enable the transition from buildings-based care to more personalised care. (From Letter to test sites from Deputy Director (Adult Care and Support) Primary and Community Care Directorate, December, 2008)
Assess process and impact of SDS in Test Sites: Describe SDS policy, activity, and practice Develop tools and frameworks with Test Sites Examine implementation Assess impact Identify implications & lessons Assess continuing and longer term impacts: Assess continuing uptake Identify activities to further promote and increase awareness of SDS Identify system wide change Assess shift towards greater involvement and co-production Understand impact of wider financial context
Literature review – published earlier this year Learning sets – attempt to involve those most closely linked with the test sites from different perspectives in reflecting on the test sites and making evaluative judgements. Quarterly monitoring framework – based on each test site ’ s action plan plus cohort form to capture info on individuals thru the test site Case studies – to explore direct experience of new processes Range of respondents/informants involved – Service users and carers – case studies, learning sets Test Site Project Teams/Programme Boards Heads of Service in LAs DP Teams in LAs and support organisations Care managers/social workers Finance & Adult Protection leads Commissioning staff Providers Service user and carer organisations National bodies including SPAEN, SDS Scotland, In Control, Independent Living Scotland, ADSW, People First, SCLD, Alzheimer Scotland, VoX, Community Care Providers Scotland
Test Sites set own parameters – set own action plans. Evaluation tied into local plans Definitional issue re SDS – evolved during evaluation period Comparing different approaches Evolving approaches – need to focus on processes Not presenting league tables. By and large didn ’ t set targets – some set in relation to nos of people they would do SDS packages with but notional. not comparing apples with apples, but rather apples and oranges and pears! The TS were therefore unique although they were held together by the common focus on three themes.
Impact depends on reach and engagement – some planning, resources, some to circumstances
In time available not addressed Finance bound to be the big issue Does there need to be a different mechanism to BF?
Talk about role of the specialist teams – promotion and awareness, designing new systems, support to practitioners, involved in cases, troubleshooting
Cohort form to capture some client characteristics and as measuring SDS not just DPs, to record type of SDS option chosen as well as funding mix Not going into detail, an overview, info in the report 132 – D&G 35, Glasgow 57 and Highland 40. Each site had in the pipeline cases at early stages of SDS process engaging with around 100 people in each. Recruitment to TS different methods – geographical, specific groups, people self selecting – all of these will have impact. D&G adopted open criteria and had widest range altho ’ largest group LD. Gender – proportions differed between test sites with nearly twice as many men as women in D&G, while this reversed for Glasgow. Age – range greatest in D&G, more yp in Highland not surprisingly – 73% under 25 yrs All white no BME SDS option chosen predominantly DPs, ISF did not play a major part in the SDS packages despite the test sites adopting broad definitions of SDS. Few had mixed packages – only D&G recorded this. However the case studies showed more prevalent than the cohort form suggests.