supporting people-funded temporary accommodation for the homeless: a performance evaluation

SUPPORTING PEOPLE-FUNDED TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION FOR THE HOMELESS:

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Presentation to the Housing Studies Association Conference19 April 2012

John Palmer BA CIH Member

NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING

TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION FOR THE HOMELESS: A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

HOMELESSNESS IN NI• NIHE is the statutory homelessness agency for NI

• 18,000 to 21,000 households per annum applied to NIHE for assistance between 2003/04 and 2010/2011

• 6,500 to 9,000 p.a. awarded ‘full duty applicant’ status

• Households are defined as ‘homeless’ if– there is no accommodation that they are entitled to occupy; or – they have accommodation but it is not reasonable for them to

continue to occupy this accommodation

• NIHE has a duty to consider their immediate needs and offer temporary accommodation with support if appropriate If they are ‘roofless’ and ‘vulnerable’

North Harbour Consulting 2012


ROUTES INTO TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION• NIHE has four main options for the provision of

temporary accommodation– Supporting People-funded hostels owned by NIHE (mainly for

families)

– SP-funded accommodation provided by the voluntary sector (mainly for single people)

– Private sector accommodation not SP-funded (families and single people)

– Accommodation with family or friends

• This research focussed mainly on the first two options funded by SP Grant



FUNDING TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION• Two main sources

– Housing Benefit funds housing costs– Supporting People Grant funds housing-related support

• SP funding for ‘temporary accommodation’ is provided on the basis that– It is not permanent housing and is normally provided for 1 year

or less• However, this aim can be frustrated by:

– Non-availability of permanent move-on accommodation– Resident’s continuing need for intensive support– Quality of temporary accommodation vs permanent

accommodation (consumer preference)– Provider’s performance



SIZE OF THE SP-FUNDED HOUSING SECTOR• 1,500 places in Supporting People-funded temporary

accommodation for homeless• Average length of stay is 7.5 months• SP-funded emporary accommodation provides for

approx 2,500 households each year - far fewer than the 6,500 to 9,000 households accepted as FDA

• This results in significant use of the private rented sector• It puts a premium on provider performance in SP-

funded accommodation – the focus of the research



STATISTICS• 110 providers of SP-funded accommodation

– elderly, disabled, mental health specialist services, and homeless services

• 38 providers with temporary accommodation for the homeless providing– 96 schemes– 1460 units of accommodation (the term covers houses, flats,

bedspaces in shared accommodation etc)

• Contract value in 2010/2011 = £23,073,000



AIMS OF THE RESEARCH

• To develop and apply performance measures that are appropriate for different providers and schemes

– To form a basis for benchmarking ‘good’ and ‘weak’ performance

– To form a basis for comparing the performance of providers / schemes on a like for like basis

– To inform the strategy for Supporting People funding and reviews of the Homelessness Strategy



PERFORMANCE MEASURES ADOPTED• Success in meeting capital funding and environmental health

requirements (where relevant)– Standard of accommodation assessed through survey

• Providers’ success in meeting SP funding requirements– maximising use of their accommodation (‘occupancy’)– demonstrating that accommodation is being provided on a temporary

basis (‘length of stay’)– ensuring that people leaving temporary accommodation do so on the

basis of a planned move minimising the risk of repeat homelessness (‘% leaving on basis of a planned move’)

• Four simple to apply value for money tests – SPG per unit, SPG + HB per unit, SPG per user, SPG + HB per user



METHODS OF MEASUREMENT• % score against a minimum standard or benchmark set

by SP team• Ranking of scheme against other comparable schemes

on % score • Rank of ranks (a cumulative score) across

– Management indicators– Financial indicators– Management plus financial indicators

• Traffic light system to highlight good and weak performers



1. ANALYSIS BY CLIENT GROUP

Big differences on some measures



PROPERTY SURVEY


Client GroupNumber of schemes in each traffic light category

N =

Vulnerable single homeless 2 5 6 22 35

Homeless families 0 2 4 21 27

Women escaping domestic violence

0 0 5 9 14

People involved with the criminal justice system

0 0 0 2 2

People who abuse drugs and alcohol

0 0 0 11 11

TOTAL 2 7 15 65 89

Percentage 2% 8% 17% 73% 100%


OCCUPANCY



THROUGHPUT



% PLANNED MOVES



OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE– 26% either had green traffic lights for all the assessments, or a

combination of green and light yellow (signifying minor issues only)

– 74% had a red or an amber traffic lights for a performance measure

– 28% had a red traffic light for one of their performance measures

– 2 schemes had two red traffic lights for management performance

– one scheme had three red traffic lights for performance and has since been closed



SPG / UNIT / WEEK



SPG + HB / UNIT / WEEK



SPG / USER / WEEK



SPG + HB / USER / WEEK



TRAFFIC LIGHT ANALYSIS – OVER-VIEW


Contract bedspaces Property Survey Traffic Lights

Occupancy 2 year Average Q1 2009 - Q4 2010 (%)

Throughput 2 year AverageQ1 2009 - Q4 2010 (%)

Planned Moves 2 year Average Q1 2009 - Q4 2010 (%)

08/09 Weekly SP Unit Rate £

Average HB per unit contracted - weekly rate 2008/09

total weekly cost (SPG + HB) per unit

Weekly cost per user - SPG

Weekly cost per user HB (£)

Weekly cost per user SPG + HB

12 G 94.52 183.33 82.61 £430.86 £65.92 £496.78 £130.19 £19.92 £150.11

11 G 76.04 213.64 60.77 £281.25 £47.12 £328.37 £29.27 £4.90 £34.18

11 LY 78.50 192.05 99.17 £560.87 £42.82 £603.69 £128.65 £9.82 £138.47

7 G 91.82 126.13 100.00 £214.00 £99.53 £313.53 £103.58 £48.18 £151.76

11 G 86.17 229.28 88.59 £264.40 £64.39 £328.79 £53.82 £13.11 £66.92

7 G 62.89 178.57 87.99 £490.54 £52.40 £542.94 £162.32 £17.34 £179.66

6 G 72.30 185.42 76.40 £502.16 £53.77 £555.93 £59.58 £6.38 £65.96

20 G 94.25 179.38 38.99 £306.16 £93.90 £400.06 £54.42 £16.69 £71.11

20 LY 93.73 270.63 84.02 £281.53 £64.72 £346.25 £26.87 £6.18 £33.05

13 LY 91.09 220.19 99.22 £409.59 £56.82 £466.41 £69.06 £9.58 £78.64

12 LY 94.12 212.50 98.08 £466.40 £62.32 £528.72 £88.22 £11.79 £100.01

60 R 93.31 148.75 68.32 £82.79 £62.32 £145.11 £34.74 £26.15 £60.88

14 LY 93.41 266.33 41.59 £344.60 £65.19 £409.79 £63.63 £12.04 £75.66

20 A 97.98 161.43 32.69 £264.96 £64.64 £329.60 £102.06 £24.90 £126.95

18 LY 90.47 236.05 41.09 £288.76 £63.80 £352.56 £71.20 £15.73 £86.93

19 G 91.27 179.70 44.19 £313.39 £87.16 £400.55 £104.22 £28.99 £133.21

15 LY 96.38 200.00 57.09 £320.44 £51.19 £371.63 £88.01 £14.06 £102.07


RANKING ANALYSIS – OVER-VIEW


Cost per user rank of Ranks

Calc

Cost per user rank of Ranks

RANK OF RANKS: Property,

management & cost per user

(Calc)

RANK OF RANKS: Property, manage-

ment & cost per user

Overview Finance Calc

Overview Finance RANK

OF RANKS

RANK OF RANKS - ALL INDICATORS

calc

RANK OF RANKS - ALL

INDICATORS

32 27 20 9 46.5 49 30.5 21

23 16 38 35 22 18 38.5 32

42 45 34 29 49 52 37.5 31

54 59 46 41 51.5 57 45.0 45

19 12 13 6 21.5 17 15.0 5

51 57 48 45 58 65 51.5 54

16 9 29 19 35.5 35 42.0 38

22 15 33 27 37 37 44.0 44

5 3 4 1 20.5 15 9.5 3

23 16 11 4 33 33 19.0 7

31 24 13 6 43 44 22.5 12

21 13 28 18 8.5 6 24.5 13

21 13 24 12 31 30 32.5 23

45 51 50 47 42 42 45.0 45

28 21 36 30 31 30 40.0 33

48 53 55 53 53 60 58.0 63

34 31 27 14 34.5 34 28.0 18


ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS



VARIABLES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES• Methodology

– Gives a good over-view of performance at a scheme level – Allows relevant comparisons between types of scheme and

providers– But is essentially quantitative and misses quality

• Quality Assessment Framework (QAF) method available– But labour intensive

• Suggest QAF is used as a basis for – Peer group reviews by providers to raise standards and

promote good practice– Targeting weaker performers for review by NIHE



INFORMING THE SP & HOMELESS STRATEGIES • The research has raised important issues about:

– the need for a whole systems approach that integrates socio-economic and spatial needs analysis with commissioning of new services and recommissioning of existing ones

• so that the clustering of schemes in particular localities – a feature of much provision outside Belfast – does not lead to significant gaps in provision

– shortcomings in the systems, processes and procedures • through which different types of homeless person have their

needs assessed, and are then assigned to an accommodation-based scheme funded by SPG or one in the private sector where standards vary and support is often not available.


SUPPORTING PEOPLE-FUNDED TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION FOR THE HOMELESS:

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Presentation to the Housing Studies Association Conference19 April 2012

John Palmer BA CIH Member

NORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING

supporting people-funded temporary accommodation for the homeless: a performance evaluation

Documents

single people accommodation

temporary accommodationnihe

homeless services

homeless ifthere

spfunded families

spfunded housing sector1

provider performance

performance evaluationroutes