john palmer north harbour consulting march 2012

SP-FUNDED TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION FOR THE HOMELESS:

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Presentation to CRISPP/SP Homelessness Eventby

John PalmerNORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING

March 2012

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

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

North Harbour Consulting 2012


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

temporary accommodation– SP-funded hostels owned by NIHE (for families and single

people)

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

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

– Accommodation with family or friends

• This research focussed on the first three options



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 IN NI• Approximately 1,500 places in Supporting People-funded

temporary accommodation for homeless• The research found that the average length of stay is 7.5

months• Therefore temporary 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 included in this study, 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• 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 value for money tests – SPG per unit, SPG + HB per unit, SPG per user, SPG + HB per user



METHODS OF PERFORMANCE 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


Low result Lower Quartile Median Upper Quartile High result Mean0.00%

200.00%

400.00%

600.00%

800.00%

1000.00%

1200.00%

WomenHomeless FamiliesSingle HomelessAddictionsCriminal Justice


% PLANNED MOVES


Low result Lower Quartile Median Upper Quartile High result Mean0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%



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 either red or amber traffic lights, and in some cases a combination of the two, for one or more of the performance measures

– 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



SPG / UNIT / WEEK


Low result Lower Quartile Median Upper Quartile High result Mean£0.00

£100.00

£200.00

£300.00

£400.00

£500.00

£600.00

£700.00



SPG + HB / UNIT / WEEK



£100.00

£200.00

£300.00

£400.00

£500.00

£600.00

£700.00

£800.00



SPG / USER / WEEK



£100.00

£200.00

£300.00

£400.00

£500.00

£600.00

£700.00

£800.00



SPG + HB / USER / WEEK



£100.00

£200.00

£300.00

£400.00

£500.00

£600.00

£700.00

£800.00

£900.00



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

CalcCost 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 2123 16 38 35 22 18 38.5 3242 45 34 29 49 52 37.5 3154 59 46 41 51.5 57 45.0 4519 12 13 6 21.5 17 15.0 551 57 48 45 58 65 51.5 5416 9 29 19 35.5 35 42.0 3822 15 33 27 37 37 44.0 445 3 4 1 20.5 15 9.5 3

23 16 11 4 33 33 19.0 731 24 13 6 43 44 22.5 1221 13 28 18 8.5 6 24.5 1321 13 24 12 31 30 32.5 2345 51 50 47 42 42 45.0 4528 21 36 30 31 30 40.0 3348 53 55 53 53 60 58.0 6334 31 27 14 34.5 34 28.0 18


ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Your comments welcome



VARIABLES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES• Methodology

– Gives a good over-view – 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 (1)• The research has raised important issues about:

– the need for a whole systems approach that integrates needs analysis on both a socio-economic and spatial basis with commissioning, 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.


SP-FUNDED TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION FOR THE HOMELESS:

A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Presentation to CRISPP/SP Homelessness Eventby

John PalmerNORTH HARBOUR CONSULTING

March 2012

john palmer north harbour consulting march 2012

Documents

temporary accommodationnihe

homeless people

permanent housing

homeless ifthere

support needs

peoplefunded organisations

spg funds support costs

performance evaluationroutes