1 / 33

Market Engagement Event

Market Engagement Event. Thursday 8 th June 2017. Aims of Today. Outline research findings – Value for Money Re-cap on future intentions Phase 1 – Apr 2018 to Mar 2020 Phase 2 – after Mar 2020 Finalising proposed ‘Emotional Support and Advocacy Service’ (age 18+) specification.

fberger
Télécharger la présentation

Market Engagement Event

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Market Engagement Event Thursday 8th June 2017

  2. Aims of Today • Outline research findings – Value for Money • Re-cap on future intentions • Phase 1 – Apr 2018 to Mar 2020 • Phase 2 – after Mar 2020 • Finalising proposed ‘Emotional Support and Advocacy Service’ (age 18+) specification. • Expected demand • Understanding of fraud • ‘Standard risk’ victims of Domestic Violence and Abuse • Exploration of ‘Complex Needs Collaborations’

  3. Value for Money (VfM) Research How do we conceptualise, account for and determine VfM in commissioned services for victims of crime?

  4. Research Aims

  5. Phase One - Methodology • Cost per contract • Cost per referral • Cost per supported and declined victim • Gender • Ethnicity • Location • Outcomes

  6. Phase One - Findings • Measuring VfM purely on referral numbers can be a big red herring • The population of victims supported contained a disproportionally high percentage of female victims • Victims from BME backgrounds are less likely to access support • Interventions are being delivered geographically across Thames Valley • Measuring outcomes fails to demonstrate societal change.

  7. Phase Two - Methodology • A Commissioners Survey (17 participants). • An [adapted] Stakeholders Survey (25 participants). • A discussion group for young victims with eight participants and one-to-one interviews with three consenting victims.

  8. Phase Two - Findings

  9. Phase Two - Findings

  10. Victim’s Survey Victims were asked four questions: • How has the support you have received been of value to you? • What has changed for you as a result of the support you have received? • What are you doing differently as a result of this change? • What will you do differently in the future, as a result of have support?

  11. Phase Two - Findings • The most likely approach used is Cost Benefit Analysis. The least likely Cost Effective Analysis – if any methodology is applied at all. • The benefits realised to commissioners are firmly rooted in SV identifying Social Return on Investment should be the preferred analysis to evidence VfM. • A lack of clearly mapped strategy regarding VfM. • Although economic analysis tools were used, the metrics were often engrained in number of referrals, cases and victims supported for both commissioners and stakeholders. • Behind the facts, figures and analysis there are victims.

  12. Phase Three - Methodology • Cost Comparison • Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) • Social Return on Investment

  13. Cost Comparison - Findings • Categorised as staffing, buildings and overheads. • OPCC spent approximately £1.653m for the first year of the contract. • From this approx. 70% went on staffing costs, 11% on property costs and 19% on overheads.

  14. Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) - Findings • The direct contract price was precise – whilst the indirect costs to deliver the contracts are best estimates. • With the indirect cost applied the added cost to deliver the contracts is £124,265. This is an average of £24,853 per contract. • BAU costs were applied. • A variety of sources have been used to apply a monetary value. • At most, using CBA evidenced two services were not good VfM, two services were VfM and one service was able to demonstrate some VfM.

  15. Social Return on Investment (SRoI) - Findings Only two services provided outcomes that could be measured in terms of Social Value. For every £1 invested in one service, the estimated SRoI generated is £3.55. For another for every £1 invested, the estimated SRoI generated is £2.43. Hence both were considered good VfM. Understanding SV has wider benefits for the OPCC

  16. Phase Three - Findings • The efficacy of competing accountancy analysis such as CBA depends on two key aspects. First, it is necessary to gather accurate information on the costs/intervention provided. Secondly, all the benefits must be measured in monetary terms (Belfield et al., 2007). • The process was time consuming, open to miscalculations and interpretation.

  17. Recommendations for the OPCC • Where current contracts are in place, providers should ensure they are attractive to all demographics. However, regarding informing future commissioning strategies, the research does not recommend the OPCC commission services exclusively for men for example; this could result in an analogous situation. • To consider the fact SRoI is likely to evidence VfM in contracted services for victims of crime. Attempts should therefore be made to gather appropriate data and apply SRoI techniques within the contract timeframe. • Further research is needed to understand the impact of support for victims of crime. This recommendation supports Weatherburn (2009) and recommends a longitudinal study tracking victims of crime who report to the police against those that receive support from a support service and those who don’t (control sample).

  18. Research into VfM Thank-you! Wendy Walker (OPCC) 01865 541952 07837 496532

  19. Victims Services Re-design • Re-design involves:- • New Victims First Hub (one front door) • Interim arrangements for (non-Hub) specialist services (Apr 2018 – Mar 2020) • Longer-term arrangements for (non-Hub) specialist services (post-Apr 2020) • Community access points.

  20. Victim’s Hub Aims of Victims’ Hub :- • provide a single access point into support services for victims; • receive and collate third party reports for Hate Crime; • conduct an initial needs assessment to identify vulnerability and support needs; • Provide short-term telephone support to those who request it; • liaise with and work in partnership with statutory agencies when required; • with consent, refer to the most appropriate place for support (PCC funded services where available); • coordinate access to Specialist Counselling if appropriate;

  21. Beyond the Hub Interim Arrangements

  22. Emotional Support and Advocacy Service • To receive adult referrals via the ‘Victims First Hub’; • To manage any self-referrals made directly to the service; • Deliver high quality emotional support services tailored to individual needs (including Face to Face) • Where appropriate, advocate on victims’ behalf to access further support; • Ability to support victims of fraud; • Ability to support victims of standard risk domestic violence. • Ability to demonstrate individual and service outcomes.

  23. Interim arrangements for DV Services • PCC intention is to avoid duplication and encouragement to disinvest. • Increase funding invested in existing DA services to enhance provision for:- • Medium Risk safety planning • Complex Needs (mental health/substance misuse) • BAMER (subject to VAWG bids) OR • LGBT+ OR • Male clients • Medium Risk - Would existing contracts/providers have capacity to allow a member of DA staff to operate out of DAIU and conduct safety planning? (Reading, Newbury, Aylesbury, Bletchley, Oxford/Banbury)

  24. Medium Risk Demand – 2016-17

  25. Beyond the HubPost 2020

  26. Complex Needs Collaborations The purpose of the Complex Needs Collaborations is:- • To meet the needs of vulnerable victims of crime across Thames Valley who have, or have developed, more complex needs requiring long-term, specialised support and/or have multiple support needs that require intervention from more than one agency. • To provide support that is appropriate to individual needs regardless of crime type (however, the majority of complex needs victims are expected to arise from domestic and/or sexual abuse). • To provide a menu of service options. • To receive referrals from the PCC’s Victims’ First Hub.

  27. Complex Needs Collaborations(cont’d) • To demonstrate individual and service outcomes, including service exit. • To provide opportunity to other Commissioners (e.g. Local Authority, CCG) to purchase services from the menu, or fund local enhancements. • To use appropriate funding options for different types of services, including fixed price elements (where steady volume of referrals expected) or tariff arrangements (fixed price up to agreed number of referrals, with option of additional funding for excess demand) or spot purchase arrangements (where cases are fewer and volume is less predictable).

  28. Up-dated Timetable May 2017 – Final decision on location of Victim’s Hub. May 2017 – Meeting with Local Authority DA services commissioners to agree co-commissioning options for DA. Jun 2017 – Negotiate and agree any contract extension periods with existing PCC providers. July 2017 (Oct) – Release tender for Emotional Support and Advocacy Service. Aug 2017 (Oct) – Release any other tenders where contract extension not agreed (including DV if co-commissioning with Local Authorities not feasible). Dec 2017 – Award contracts resulting from all tenders. Oct-Dec 2017 – Advertise match funding/grant funding opportunities for modern slavery etc. Nov - Jan 2018 – advertise and recruit Hub staff. Apr 2018 – Hub goes live Apr 2018 - All contract extensions/new commissioned services/grant funded services go live.

  29. Table Top Discussions Scenario 1: • William is a man in his late forties who lives alone in a housing association flat. William has poor mental and physical health. • William was criminally exploited by a drug dealer; his benefits were taken from him as soon as he received them in order to pay ‘debts’. He was awakened at all times of day and night in order to do drug ‘runs’ for his exploiter. He was forced to harbour goods which had been left with his exploiter in lieu of payment by other drug users. Although his exploiter is in prison, he remains perpetually afraid, feels hopeless about the future and often expresses suicidal thoughts. Scenario 2: • Gentleman in 30s who is homosexual; has suffered numerous physical assaults, harassment, homophobic abuse from local gang and was subject to paedophile rumour. Mental health and alcohol issues.

  30. Feedback

  31. Feedback from providers • Identify risk and need at the very start and build trust (with a key worker) • The first response needs to be very quick • Provide a trusted (generalist) worker to offer help, who is linked to specialists but ensures the victim is not just passed on from service to service • Ensure locality-based working and the value of locality-based services • A collaborative approach: clear roles and responsibilities, shared values and drivers, and clarity of 'voice' for the victim in that process • Look to value for money (VfM) approach that provides more money directly to the victims needs

  32. Thank you

  33. Victims First WebsiteFront Page www.victims-first.org.uk

More Related