Http:// Over 600 people from 11 evaluations : Ongoing and active live count 75 local authorities.

http://www.in-control.org.uk/evaluationreports

Over 600 people from 11 evaluations : Ongoing and active live count 75 local authorities

How well is the SDS being implemented ?(CRE )

What decisions are people making when they control a personal budget ?

What effect has SDS on key stake holders ? ◆ People who need support ◆ Their families ◆ Staff working closely with people

(Assuming the purpose of social care is improved Citizenship)

How many people are accessing SDS ?

What progress is being made where ?

Key questions the approach begins to address

Uptake and activity (keeping count of what happening where simple web based reporting)

Understanding the effect of transforming social care Local evaluation (structured interviews)

User friendlyapproach

Clear understanding of Personal Budgets

and SDS

How well is SDS Being implemented

What effect isSDS having on peoples lives.

Including the experiences of key

people

Improving over timeKeeping core elements

Phases i- iii

Sharing InformationOpenly to improve

Understanding

Deliverable and relevantlocally not imposed.

(Not a distant academic pursuit)

Simple Evaluation process

Control groupPre & post interventionSingle retrospective

Low Transaction

Securely Embedded

In Controls approach to evaluation

An approach Developed in Partnership (Stakeholders, LA members, Lancaster University.)

◆ The evaluation methods should be low-cost (including the cost of evaluation measures, the cost of collecting information and the cost of analysing the information).

◆ The evaluation methods should impose a minimal burden in terms of time on the people being asked to provide information.

◆ The questions being asked in the evaluation should be recognised as important by every group involved in the evaluation (impact of sds; outcomes for people).

◆ The information provided should be analysed and reported in ways that can be used by the groups of people taking part and others interested in Self- Directed Support.

◆ Evaluation methods developed using this process should be freely available for use by others.

◆ An approach that can be brought to scale

Important components of In Controls approach to evaluation

The uptake of personal budgets

In Control’s monitoring of personal budgets includes only those people who:

◆  Know how much money they can have for their support ◆  Are able to spend the money in ways and at times that make sense to them ◆  Know what outcomes must be achieved with the money

Monitoring the uptake of personal budgets

Local Authorities are at different stages in their work to make personal budgets available to people. The vast majority (92%) of local authorities reported having made personal budgets available to fewer than 1000 people, with slightly less than one third (31%) reporting that they had made personal budgets available to more than 200 people.  

Monitoring the uptake of personal budgets

Just over two thirds (68%) of the 75 reporting Local Authorities included a breakdown by social care group. Just over one third (36%) of these reported uptake of personal budgets by all 4 social care groups.

Fifteen local authorities reported making personal budgets available to family carers, and 8 local authorities reported making personal budgets available to children.

◆ Do you understand the thing the council now expects you to achieve with your personal budget ? ◆ Can you now control how your personal budget is spent ? ◆ Since having an individual budget have you now changed the way you are supported ?

How well is self directed support being implemented

The Self-Directed Support process

Almost everyone reported that they felt they had control over how their Personal Budget was spent (97%[91%])

Vast majority felt they understood what they were supposed to be achieving with their Personal Budget (91%[92%]).

Most people (82% [91%]) also reported that they had changed how money for their support was spent, with no differences across social care groups or according to the length of time they had been using Self-Directed Support.

How well is SDS being implemented

Phase ii evaluation (2003-5)Barnsley (2009)

Some Important variables

•Demographics (Age, ethnicity, gender) •Social care group•Help to plan (and who from)•Deployment of budget•Time in receipt of budget•Receiving traditional support before personal budget•Number of hours in caring role

◆ had support from their family and/or friends to plan their Self-Directed Support◆ did not have support from a social worker to plan their Self-Directed Support.

Overall, people were more likely to report improvements in time spent with people they liked if they:

Measuring the effect of SDS using a simple 3 point scale

•Yes•More than before•Improved•Better•Helped•Got better

•Not sure•Same as before•No difference•Stayed the same

•No•Less than before•Worse•Fewer•No difference•Got worse

Better Same Worse

To what extent if any has the personal budget had on your [area of enquiry]....

The exact wording of the scale is sensitive to the context of each question, and has in some cases has changed slightly as the framework has been adopted in different local authority areas.

What effect is self directed support having on peoples lives ?

◆Your health & well being (1)◆Being with people you want ◆Quality of life (2)◆Taking part in your local community (3)◆Choice and control over important things (4) ◆Feeling safe (5)◆Dignity from those who support you (7)◆Standard of living. (6)

•People who need support•Family Carers•Staff working closely with people

2007 Our health, our care, our say.1. Improved health and emotional well-being.2. Improved quality of life.3. Making a positive contribution.4. Increased choice and control.5. Freedom from discrimination or harassment.6. Economic well-being.7. Maintaining personal dignity and respect.

People who need support

People who need support

More than two-thirds of people using personal budgets reported that the control they had over their support (66%) and their overall quality of life (68%) had improved since they took up a personal budget.

A majority of people reported spending more time with people they wanted to (58%), taking a more active role in their local community (58%), feeling that they were supported with more dignity (55%), and feeling in better health (51%) since they took up a personal budget.

More than half of people reported no change after they took up a personal budget, in the domains of feeling safe (58%) and standard of living (52%),

Less than 10% of people reported any domain of their life getting worse after they took up a personal budget.

Between 399 and 522 people from 11 evaluations

Family Carers

Family Carers

Between 68 and 74 family cares from five local authorities

More than three quarters of family carers reported they had become more of an equal partner in planning (77%) since their relative had taken up a personal budget.

A majority of family carers also reported improvements in their quality of life (63%), the support they got to carry on caring and remain well (62%), their choice and control over their lives (57%), their health and wellbeing (57%), their finance situation (55%), and their relationship with a significant other (54%).

Around equal numbers of family carers reported either improvement or no change in their relationship with their relative (48% improved; 46% no change); and their leisure and social life (49% improved; 44% no change).

Most family carers reported no change in their capacity to undertake paid work (60%).

Less than 10% of family carers reported any domain of their life getting worse after their relative took up a personal budget.(Except for the domains of their capacity to undertake paid work (19%) and their health and wellbeing (10%)

Staff working closely with people

Staff working closely with people

Between 55 and 73 professionals involved in implementing personal budgets from five authorities

Around three quarters of professionals reported that people had more control and choices about their lives with personal budgets (79%), supports were more tailored to individuals (77%), personal budgets had made a positive difference to lives of people using them (75%) and that professionals could plan more creatively (74%). More than half of professionals reported improvements in people maintaining their existing support networks (59%), people taking a more active part in their local communities (58%) and getting the right amount of help to people (53%).

Around equal numbers of professionals reported either improvement or no change in getting help to people in a timely way (46% improved; 34% no change), their professional skills and knowledge (45% improved; 48% no change), allocating resources fairly (42% improved; 44% no change) and them staying motivated in their work (38% improved; 39% no change).

Less than 10% of professionals reported things getting worse in 9 of the 12 domains;

More substantial minorities of professionals reported things getting worse with regard to allocating resources fairly (15%), getting help to people in a timely way (20%) and staying motivated in their work (23%).

Capturing information

◆ One off retrospective evaluation: Richmond Worcestershire ULO Input ◆ Ongoing sampling: Richmond ◆ Adapting review tools: Lincolnshire

◆ Specific evaluation (Cambs follow up, Richmond MH focus)

Sharing and Understanding the findings

◆ Analysis of data Chris H ◆ Seminars ◆ Public Reports

http://www.in-control.org.uk/evaluationreports