Joining-up to improve outcomes: lessons from USDL and MyGo service integration models 07 SEPTEMBER 2016 DR JANE COLECHIN, SENIOR RESEARCHER
STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION • Universal Credit & policy response Universal Support Delivered Locally (USdl) • Evaluation lessons from USdl trial delivery • MyGo – case study of integrated partnership to deliver EET outcomes for young people
THE CONTEXT: UNIVERSAL CREDIT • Universal Credit (UC) - ambitious and challenging • Bringing together all out-of-work and in-work benefits – streamline and simplify • Designed to emulate the ‘working experience’: • Accessed through a digital platform – UC gateway • Monthly payment of benefit (including housing benefit) paid into a (transactional) bank account • Generates support needs: • Online/digital capacity; • Vulnerabilities for those with debt issues/managing monthly payment;
THE RESPONSE: UNIVERSAL SUPPORT DELIVERED LOCALLY • Universal Support Triage delivered locally (USdl) – evolution of Local Services Support Framework Partnership • 11 trials across the UK working (Argyll & Bute/Dundee) Additional Digital JCP/DWP support Inclusion • Delivering Sept 2014 – Local Authority VCS support August 2015 services • Learning and Work Commissioned to deliver a full programme evaluation Financial inclusion
A COMMON THEORY OF CHANGE…. Programme-level theory of change
….BUT DIFFERENT MODELS…
LEARNING FROM USDL SERVICE DESIGN
LESSON 1: BUILD SERVICE ON LOCAL NEEDS & PROVISION
CO-LOCATION VERSUS HUB/SPOKE Dispersed HUB and SPOKE model Centralised co-located HUB Benefits: a one-stop-shop; efficiency & knowledge transfer Benefits: local access to support for Challenges: maintaining distinctiveness isolated customers of services within HUBs; creating Challenges: presenting a whole private spaces for vulnerable customer support journey; maintaining customers/issues co-ordination of support
LESSON 2: INTEGRATE & SEQUENCE SUPPORT
ENGAGING & REFERRING CUSTOMERS TO SUPPORT • Take up of support was challenging (1 in 3 of those referred did not take up support • Simple model often led to high drop-outs, often evolved into staged model with active follow-up and re-referral Multiple staged referral model Simple referral model
INTEGRATION & SEQUENCING Integrated support & referral model Integrated support & referral model ‘I have an adviser, they invited me here for a ‘If they’ve got the bailiffs knocking on their door, or session or sessions, they explained it to me, we they’ve got a possession hearing coming up, then went through certain worksheets – you know, that’s what you’ve got to deal with first. .....It’s a test how it would work, how I would manage, hook that I think, because, I’m sure you’ll ask about what help we can get. I can always contact her this later on, but because of the big issue of take up, if I need any advice and they directed me to that’s the hook that actually gets people coming in to other information sources.’ see somebody’ (Claimant interview, Islington) (USdl Staff interview, Derby)
LESSON 3: CASE MANAGEMENT & MONITORING IS KEY
CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Different levels of customer monitoring: • MI tracker/web referral systems (Argyle Bute) – simple, actionable – relies on partner goodwill ‘Yes the speed and the fact that you can’t ignore it ...So in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of making a referral it’s good.’ (USdl operational staff interview, Argyle Bute) • Derby – E-CINS system / Northumberland & South Tyneside Hanlon system ‘ I can sit down and look at somebody’s profile on E -CINS and I can work my way through their ten assessments and I can see exactly where it’s improved, what they’ve engaged with and you can see patterns.’ (USdl project manager, Derby) • Caseworkers ‘In an ideal world, everybody who has complex needs would have a particular caseworker to follow up for them and track their case, make sure they’re moving on effectively. And that’s an ideal world and that’s not going to happen because there just isn’t the resource or funding available.’ (USdl Staff interview, Derby) Key success factors: partnership management and data- sharing agreements
LESSON 4: GOOD GOVERNANCE
PARTNERSHIPS, MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE • Partnership working a key aspect of all trials • Most successful where underpinned by good project management – Project managers were key – commitment, vision, consistency and problem resolution • Governance characterised by equal partnership between JCP and LA(s) • Good governance included: – Committed leadership – Open communications – Wider steering groups – strategy and operations • Delivery of wider partnerships more variable: – Often good links with VCS, skills, housing – Service level agreements would have helped – Health services notable in their absence • Partnerships have stood trials in good stead for UC implementation
MYGO – A CASE STUDY
MYGO • A joint partnership between Suffolk CC, JCP & People Plus to deliver holistic EET support services for young people 14-24. • Ambitious, transformative service, bringing together JCP services (work coaches) careers services, complex needs support for young people NEET. • A range of service levels and provisions for young people defined by triage on entry, support built around the core caseworker support model
THE MYGO CENTRE • Co-location in a neutral location • Fully integration of staff and services – using MyGO branding • Open-plan flow
AMBITIOUS TARGETS Delivering support - November 2014 to December 2016 Project outcomes: • Youth unemployment halved in Greater Ipswich within 2 years • Increased off flow rates for young people (more people into work) • Decreased average time on benefit for Young People • Reduction in number of repeat claims within 6 months • Young people securing suitable learning or work within three months • Medium term earnings progression of participants Participant outcomes • Through the caseworker service a: • Minimum of 3,500 young people supported into work • Minimum of 2,200 into sustained work, six months or more
INTERIM OUTCOMES • Successful implementation of a new model of support for young people in a single hub • 3219 referrals (LMH) 3195 registrations 2741 engaged • Overall job outcomes 27% (27% 3 months/ 43% by 12 months) • JSA rates 46%, ESA 16% - programme compares favourably to local programmes for disadvantaged groups – unclear if has additional impact
KEY LESSONS • Co-location works well to support a range of services, holistic provision, warm-handovers • Central model relies on additional outreach – but not equal access for all • Lack of private spaces, creates challenges for vulnerable/complex needs “Open places with a lot of people, I just don’t like it… I need to concentrate of talking to someone” (Female MyGo non-engager, 25 years old) • Fluidity of the centre/coaching approach makes it difficult for some young people to understand the ‘whole support journey’ or secure a fixed appointment • Case management system in place, but • Data-sharing agreements in place through secondment/strong partnership working, however, resource/time intensive • Managing secondments and competing organisational priorities is an ongoing challenge
Thank you Questions?
Recommend
More recommend
