http://www.in-control.org.uk/evaluationreports
Over 600 people from 11 evaluations : Ongoing and active live count 75 local authorities
Key questions the approach begins to address
Uptake and activity
(keeping count of what happening where simple web based reporting)
How many people are accessing SDS ?
What progress is being made where ?
What decisions are people making when they control a personal budget ?
Understanding the effect of transforming social care
Local evaluation (structured interviews)
How well is the SDS being implemented ?
(CRE )
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)
In Controls approach to evaluation
Clear understanding
of Personal Budgets
and SDS
Simple Evaluation
process
Control group
Pre & post intervention
Single retrospective
Including the
experiences of key
people
Low Transaction
Deliverable and relevant
locally not imposed.
(Not a distant academic
pursuit)
User friendly
approach
Improving over time
Keeping core elements
Phases i- iii
Securely Embedded
How well is SDS
Being implemented
Sharing Information
Openly to improve
Understanding
What effect is
SDS having on peoples
lives.
An approach Developed in Partnership (Stakeholders, LA members, Lancaster University.)
Important components of In Controls approach to evaluation
◆ 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
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.
How well is self directed support being implemented
◆ 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 SDS being implemented
Changes
Yes
Achieve
Phase ii evaluation (2003-5)
Barnsley (2009)
No
Control
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
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.
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
Overall, people were more likely to report improvements in time spent with people
they liked if they:
◆ 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.
Measuring the effect of SDS using a simple 3 point scale
To what extent if any has the personal budget had on your [area of enquiry]....
Better
•Yes
•More than before
•Improved
•Better
•Helped
•Got better
Same
•Not sure
•Same as before
•No difference
•Stayed the same
Worse
•No
•Less than before
•Worse
•Fewer
•No difference
•Got worse
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 ?
•People who need support
•Family Carers
•Staff working closely with people
◆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)
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
Standard of living
Dignity in support
Feeling safe
Control over support
Taking part in community
Quality of life
Being with people you want
Health
0%
10%
20%
30%
Improved
40%
Same
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Worse
Between 399 and 522 people from 11 evaluations
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.
Family Carers
Family Carers
Leisure & social life
Capacity to undertake paid work
Health and Wellbeing
Quality of life
Support to carry on caring and remain well
Equal partner in the planning
Choice and control over your life
Relationship with Sig other
Relationship with the person you care for
Finance Situation
Family Carers
0%
10%
20%
30%
Improved
40%
Same
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
worse
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
Staying motivated in work
Support tailored to individual.
Control & choices about their lives
Managing Risks
Active part in their community.
Maintain existing support networks
Allocating resources fairly
Your own skills and knowledge
Help to people in a timely way
Right amount of help to people
Plan creatively
Positive difference to lives
0%
10%
20%
30%
Improved
40%
Same
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Worse
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