SP9 – page 1

ITEM SP9

OXFORDSHIRE SUPPORTING PEOPLE COMMISSIONING BODY –

14 DECEMBER 2007

SERVICE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 2006-07

This paper is for information.

Summary

1.This paper analyses the performance workbooks submitted for 2006-07 by Supporting People funded services in Oxfordshire.

  • The calculations for all data items have been overhauled to correspond with the central Government method of calculation. This has an impact where large services have high or low performance scores.
  • The number of returns is lower because a number of older people services have been amalgamated from April 2006 onwards.
  • Staffing data (SPI 3) has not been included in the analysis.
  • Performance has improved compared to 2005-06 for all areas.
  • Move on departures from short-term services (KPI2) still presents the biggest challenge especially with the single homeless client-group.
  • The teenage parents services have scored well on the departure measures (KPI1 and KPI 2).
  • For 2006-07 the women’s refuges services have lower performance scores for three out of four of their measures compared to 2005-06.
  • Four services made no performance returns for 2006-07 (this is an improvement on 2005-06 where seven services made no performance returns).

Background

2.For 2006-07, the Government used the same set of performance criteria for supporting people as it had set up for 2004-05.

3.From the third quarter of 2005-06 the following services were required to submit quarterly performance returns for the first time but within a separate reporting framework:

  • community alarm and Alarm-only services;
  • home improvement agencies.

The framework for the community alarms data has been suspended by the Government.

4.This analysis is based on service returns that meet the following criteria:

  • All four quarterly performance workbooks were returned
  • There are no gaps within the 2006-07 performance returns data.
  • The capacity data on the performance workbook sheet matches the capacity data held on the contract

5.This data was extracted for all services with completed returns on 7 September 2007.

6.For this report, allcalculations have been altered to correspond with the way that central Government producesits statistics and comparisons. The average of averages calculation is no longer used. The actual calculation is used in all cases – including data per client-group, data per service type and data per provider. This has an impact where there are large services with high or low scores. This will apply to all future performance reports.

7.The list at Appendix 1 shows the calculation used for each measure.

Analysis of Performance Data

Comparison with 2005-06 Performance Data

8.There are two key messages in the analysis of this year’s performance indicator data:

  • There has been an improvement in performance compared to the last year in six out of the six measures
  • The performance for KPI 2 (planned move on) has improved slightly compared to the year before, but is still below 50% - well below the national and regional score for this measure.

Measure / 2005-06 / 2006-07 / Improvement?
Number of Returns / 303 / 260 / See Point 9
KPI 1 / Maintain independent living / 93.2% / 95.4% / Yes
KPI 2 / Planned move on / 46.8% / 49.5% / Yes
SPI 1 / Availability / 95.8% / 97.8% / Yes
SPI 2a / Utilisation (accomm) / 94.0% / 96.6% / Yes
SPI 2b / Utilisation (non accomm) / 97.6% / 103.4% / Yes
SPI 3 / Staffing / - / - / -
SPI 4 / Throughput / 142.5% / 144.5% / Yes

9.The 2005-06 data figures have been changed from the average of averages calculation to the actual calculation. This is to ensure that direct comparisons with our data can be made with central government data.

10.The number of returns has dropped mainly because a large number of older people services have amalgamated since April 2006 and partly because services where the capacity on the workbook does not match the capacity on the contract have been left out of the analysis.

11.The SPI 3 data has been left out of this report. For 2007-08 onwards, the Supporting People team will ensure that the baseline staffing hours on the worksheet (Contract Sheet – Column g) ties up with the contracted hours specified in the contract. This check did not take place for 2004-05 staffing data or for 2005-06 staffing data.

Data per Client-Group

12.The table at Appendix 2 contains performance data for each client-group, (as specified on the worksheet).The highest number of returns for a client-group included in this analysis is “learning disabilities” (123 returns) followed by “older people with support needs” (45 returns).The number of the “older people with support needs” returns for 2005-06 is higher at 94. Several major providers have amalgamated their older people services, including Banbury Homes.

13.The client-group with the highest combined capacity on the performance returns is “older people with support needs” (3,425) followed by “mental health problems” (435) and “learning disabilities” (417).

Data per Service Type

14.The table at Appendix 3 contains performance data for each service type, (as specified on the worksheet). The highest number of returns for a service type included in this analysis is from “supported housing”(164returns) followed by“sheltered housing with a warden”(38 returns) and “floating support service” (30 returns).

15.The service type with the highest combined capacity on the performance returns is “sheltered housing with a warden” (1,739 units) followed by “supported housing” (1,515 units) and “peripatetic warden” (1,216 units).

Data per Provider

16.The table at Appendix 4 contains performance data for each provider, (as specified on the worksheet). The highest number of returns for a provider included in this analysis is from the following providers:

Provider / Number of Returns for 2006-07 / Number of Returns for 2005-06
Ridgeway Partnership (OLDT) / 57 / 32
Advance Housing and Support Ltd / 30 / 51
Home Group Ltd (Stonham) / 19 / 24
Cherwell Housing Trust / 18 / 18

17.Through service amalgamations the number of returns for two major providers has dropped – Banbury Homes Housing Association from 20 returns in 2005-06 to 6 returns in 2006-07 and Oxford City Council from 20 returns in 2005-06 to 2 returns in 2006-07.

18.There have been 28 services that have moved from the Advance Housing and Support provider to the Ridgeway Partnership OLDT provider during 2006-07.

19.The providers with the highest combined capacity on the performance returns included in this analysis are from the following:

Provider / Capacity
on returns
The Vale Housing Association / 901
Oxford City Council / 822
Banbury Homes Housing Association / 419
Oxford Citizens Housing Association / 397
Anchor Trust / 346
Cherwell Housing Trust / 212
Home Group Ltd (Stonham) / 188
Response Organisation / 175
Ridgeway Partnership (OLDT) / 165
Hanover Housing Association / 164

20.The combined capacity included in the analysis for Soha Housing for 2006-07 is 27 units. There are a number of capacity issues to be dealt with for this provider. Last year (2005-06) the number of units included in the analysis for Soha Housing is 910 units.

KPI1 – Establish and maintain independent living (long-term services and floating support services)

21.The maximum score is 100%. In terms of performance, the higher the score the better. The calculation for this KPI includes service users who are currently with the service at the end of each quarter as well as service users who have left the service during a quarter.

22.The data for KPI1 covers 218 services. Short-term accommodation-based services are excluded from this measure. The overall score for KPI1 is 95.4%.

  • Client-Group - The highest score is for “teenage parents” and “frail elderly” (both with a score of 100%).The lowest score is for “drug problems” (score of 76.9%).
  • Service Type – All service types with a KPI1 return are above 95% apart from “floating support service” (score of 90.7%).

23.The table below compares the Oxfordshire KPI 1 total score for 2006-07 with Government figures for quarter 4 of 2006-07.Oxfordshire has a lower KPI 1 score than England and the South East.

England
2006-07 Q4 / South East
2006-07 Q4 / Oxfordshire
2006-07 Q4
KPI 1 / Maintain independent living / 98.4% / 98.4% / 95.4%

24.The table at Appendix 5 compares KPI averages per client-group between England, the South East, and Oxfordshire. Compared to England and the South East Oxfordshire has a higher KPI 1 score for the “teenage parents” and the “young people at risk” client-groups. Oxfordshire has a lower KPI 1 score for the “drug problems” and the “offenders / people at risk of offending” client-groups.

25.There are 19 providers with a KPI 1 score of 100%. This includes Advance Housing and Support Ltd (SOLD) with 10 KPI 1 returns. This is an easier target to achieve a 100% score because persons who are currently signed up for the service count as maintaining independent living.

26.The following providers and services have a low score for KPI1:

Provider / KPI1 Returns / KPI 1
Score
OCC Oxford Physical Disabilities Team / 1 / 53.8%
A2 Housing Group / 1 / 74.4%
Connection / 2 / 78.5%
No / Service Name / Provider / KPI1 Score
502 / Marlborough Avenue / Advance Housing and Support Ltd / 50.0%
1004 / Oxford Physical Disability CSV Project / OCC Oxford Physical Disabilities Team / 53.9%
1076 / Quarry Road / Ridgeway Partnership (OLDT) / 66.7%
158 / Dolphin / Home Group Ltd (Stonham) / 70.0%
107 / Micklewood House / Oxfordshire MIND / 70.0%

KPI 2 – Move on in a planned way (short-term, accommodation-based services)

27.The maximum score is 100%. In terms of performance, the higher the score the better. The calculation for this KPI only includes the service users who have left the service during a quarter.

28.The data for KPI2 covers 42 services. The overall score for KPI2 is low at 49.5%. This is the measure with the lowest performance for 2006-07.

  • Client-Group - The highest score is for “teenage parents” (score of 100%), the next highest score is for “mental health problems” (score of 84.2%). All the other client-groups with a KPI2 return fall below a score of 80%.
  • Service Type - The highest score is for “accommodation for teenage parents” and “adult placements” (score of 100% for both). The lowest score is for “direct access” (score of 36%).

29.The table below compares the Oxfordshire KPI 2 total score for 2006-07 with Government figures for quarter 4 of 2006-07. Oxfordshire has a far lower KPI 2 score than England and the South East.

England
2006-07 Q4 / South East
2006-07 Q4 / Oxfordshire
2006-07 Q4
KPI 2 / Planned move on / 64.1% / 66.1% / 49.5%

30.The table at Appendix 5 compares KPI averages per client-group between England, the South East and Oxfordshire. Compared to England and the South East, Oxfordshire has a higher KPI 2 score for the “mental health problems” “young people at risk” and “teenage parents” client-groups. Oxfordshire has a far lower KPI 2 score for the “single homeless with support” client-group.

31.There has been some improvement in the KPI 2 score for Oxfordshire over 2006-07. In quarter 1 of 2006-07 Oxfordshire was near the bottom of the Government league table with a KPI 2 score of 35%

32.There are 2 providers with a KPI 2 score of 100%

Provider / KPI2 Returns / KPI2 Score
Bromford Housing Group / 7 / 100%
Life Housing / 2 / 100%

The services with the highest KPI 2 score are as follows:

No / Service Name / Provider / Number of planned move on cases / KPI 2 Score
9 / Rachel House / Banbury Homes HA / 21 out of 21 / 100%
325 / Abingdon Road / English Churches Housing Group / 12 out of 12 / 100%
1152 / The Miles Project / Home Group Ltd (Stonham) / 10 out of 10 / 100%

33.The services with the lowest KPI 2 score are as follows:

No / Service Name / Provider / Number of planned move on cases / KPI 2 Score
1122 / The Hedgerows / Home Group Ltd (Stonham) / 0 out of 3 / 0%
87 / Oxford Night Shelter / Oxford Night Shelter / 211 out of 759 / 28%
83 / Simon House / Cherwell Housing Trust / 61 out of 123 / 50%
76 / Roken House / Home Group Ltd (Stonham) / 2 out of 4 / 50%
1000 / Sahara (Banbury) / Sahara Asian Women's Project / 5 out of 10 / 50%
104 / Lucy Faithfull House / English Churches Housing Group / 60 out of 116 / 52%
326 / Drug Recovery Project / English Churches Housing Group / 11 out of 20 / 55%

34.The Oxford Night Shelter service accounts for nearly half of the KPI 2 departures, (759 out of 1,572).

35.This is an area of work that Oxfordshire must make an improvement in, as central Government publishes quarterly league tables on the KPI 1 and KPI 2 data showing the performance for each local authority area.

SPI1 – Service Availability (accommodation-based services only)

36.Services are aiming for a score at or near to 100%. In terms of performance, the higher the score the better. Four services have slightly exceeded the 100% score.

37.The data for SPI1 covers 228services. The overall score for SPI1 is 97.8%

  • Client-Group - Each client-group has aSPI 1 score of over 95%. The only exception is the “young people at risk” group with a SPI 1 score of 92.6%.
  • Service Type - Each service type has aSPI1 score of over 95% apart from “supported lodgings” with a SPI 1 score of 79.8%.

38.There are 28 providers with aSPI 1 score of 100% or above. The four services that have recorded a score of over 100% are in the table below.

No / Service Name / Provider / SPI 1 Score
77 / Osney Court / Home Group Ltd (Stonham) / 108%
111 / West Court / Methodist Homes Housing Association / 105%
184 / Kingsgate / English Churches Housing Group / 105%
31 / Soha Temporary Accommodation / Soha Housing / 104%

39.The following providers and services have a low score for the SPI1 measure (availability).

Provider / SPI 1 Returns / SPI 1
Score
A2 Housing Group / 1 / 36%
BYHP (Supported Young People in Housing) / 2 / 80%
No / Service Name / Provider / SPI 1 Score
160 / Royal Berkshire Court / A2 Housing Group / 36%
503 / Gloucester Place / Advance Housing and Support Ltd / 50%
150 / Gateway Project - Vale District Council / Cherwell Housing Trust / 60%
676 / Moorland Road / Advance Housing and Support Ltd / 67%

SPI 2a Utilisation levels (accommodation-based services)

40.Services are aiming for a score at or near to 100%. In terms of performance, the higher the score the better. Three services have slightly exceeded the 100% score.

41.The data for SPI2a covers 228 services. The overall score for SPI2a is 96.6%.

  • Client-Group –The highest score is for “homeless families with support needs” with a SPI 2a score of 100% followed by “generic” with a score of 99.8% and “single homeless with support” with a score of 99%. The lowest SPI 2a score is for “women at risk from domestic violence” with a score of 81%.
  • Service Type - All service types have a SPI2a score of above 90% apart from “women’s refuge”which has a score of 81%.

42.There are 11 providers with aSPI 2a score of 100% or above. The three services that have recorded a score of over 100% are in the table below.

No / Service Name / Provider / SPI 2a Score
87 / Oxford Night Shelter / Oxford Night Shelter / 112%
493 / Simmonds Walk / Advance Housing and Support Ltd / 108%
1110 / Vale Of White Horse Foyer / The Guinness Trust / 104%

43.The following providers and services have a low score for the SPI2a measure (utilisation levels for accommodation-based services). Two of these providers cover women’s refuge type services.

Provider / SPI 2a Returns / SPI 2a
Score
James Butcher Housing Association / 1 / 55%
BYHP (Supported Young People in Housing) / 2 / 73%
Sahara Asian Women's Project / 1 / 76%
Oxfordshire Women's Aid / 1 / 80%
No / Service Name / Provider / SPI 2a Score
676 / Moorland Road / Advance Housing and Support Ltd / 50%
682 / RetreatGardens / Ridgeway Partnership (OLDT) / 50%
502 / Marlborough Avenue / Advance Housing and Support Ltd / 52%
80 / Waltham Court / James Butcher Housing Association / 55%
505 / Broughton Road / Advance Housing and Support Ltd / 59%

SPI 2b - Utilisation levels (non-accommodation based services)

44.Services are aiming for a score at or near to 100%. In terms of performance, the higher the score the better. There are 13 services that have exceeded the 100% score. These service returns indicate that their utilisation is greater than their capacity.

45.The data for SPI2b covers 32 services. The overall score for SPI2b is 103.4%

46.Only two client-groups fall below 90%, these are “physical or sensory disability”with a SPI 2b score of 69% and “single homeless with support” with a SPI 2b score of 81%.

47.There are six services a SPI 2b score of over 120%, these services are listed in the table below.

No / Service Name / Provider / SPI2b Score
648 / Connection - Floating Support, South / Connection / 177%
799 / Gateway Project - Oxford Floating Support / Cherwell Housing Trust / 165%
638 / DISH project / Connection / 146%
892 / Banbury Outreach / Cherwell Housing Trust / 146%
891 / Gateway Project - Vale District Council - Floating / Cherwell Housing Trust / 132%
6 / Cotefield House / Banbury Homes Housing Association / 122%

48.The following services have a low score for the SPI2b measure (utilisation levels for non accommodation based services).

No / Service Name / Provider / SPI2b Score
1001 / Oxfordshire Physical Disability Team / OCC Physical Disability Team / 62%
158 / Dolphin / Home Group Ltd (Stonham) / 76%
156 / Windmill House Move-on / Home Group Ltd (Stonham) / 76%

SPI 3 – Staffing levels

49.The staffing levels data is not included in this analysis. This will be included in future analysis once the base-line staffing data on the contract tab of the work book matches the base-line staffing data held on the contract for each service.

SPI 4 – Throughput

50.There is a large amount of variation here. The maximum score can be over 100%; and in some cases, well over 100%. If there are six clients in the service at the start of the quarter and six users in the service at the end of the quarter with no leavers the score is 100%, add one leaver and the score becomes 117%.

51.The data for SPI4 covers 260 services. The overall score for SPI4 is 144.5%

  • Client-Group – All client-groups have aSPI 4 score of over 100% apart from learning disabilities which has a SPI 4 score of 99%. The highest throughputs are for “single homeless with support” (score of 501%) followed by“women at risk from domestic violence” (score of 326%) and “drug problems” (309%).
  • Service Type – The service type with the highest throughput is “direct access” with a SPI 4 score of 859% followed by “women’s refuge” with a SPI 4 score of 326%. The service type with the lowest throughput is “almshouses” with a SPI 4 score of 102%.

52.The following services have thehighest score for the SPI4 measure (throughput).

No / Service Name / Provider / Departures 2006-07 / Capacity / SPI4
Score
87 / Oxford Night Shelter / Oxford Night Shelter / 759 / 50 / 1630%
871 / Temporary Accommodation - Floating Support / Soha Housing / 32 / 4 / 1325%
641 / The Bridge Project / The Bridge (Oxford) Limited / 110 / 20 / 655%
892 / Banbury Outreach / Cherwell Housing Trust / 19 / 4 / 625%
326 / Drug Recovery Project / English Churches Housing Group / 24 / 5 / 580%
799 / Gateway Project - Oxford Floating Support / Cherwell Housing Trust / 19 / 8 / 450%

53.Five of the providers fall below 100% for SPI4. The two of the largest providers in this table (Advance Housing and Ridgeway Partnership) both cover the learning disability client-group where the throughput is lower compared to other client-groups.