The report provides an overview of the evaluation as a whole and draws out key messages for policy and practice. A process evaluation of the accommodation-based or floating support established with the assistance of funding under the SCSHF and the ADP pilots was conducted.

The report evaluates the outcomes of the provision in terms of meeting the housing and support needs of vulnerable households. It assesses the success of the support provided in terms of outcomes for all client groups relative to the cost of provision.

In October 2002 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now called Communities and Local Government ) commissioned a research team from the University of Bristol, to evaluate the Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund (SCSHF) and the Approved Development Programme (ADP) Pilots for Teenage Mothers.

Both streams of funding provided accommodation-based support to vulnerable households. The SCSHF also funded schemes providing floating support. SCSHF schemes were intended to provide housing related support to young people at risk, those with drug and alcohol problems, ex-offenders and those at risk of offending, and victims of domestic violence.

The research involved a postal survey of all organisations that received funding for either programme during the first two funding rounds. A set of case study schemes was selected, with three rounds of visits to each scheme incorporating interviews with service users and staff exploring how circumstances had developed and changed and the users’ views on the contribution, impact and effectiveness of the schemes. The evaluation included six case studies drawn from the thirteen schemes for teenage parents funded under the 2000/01 round of the ADP.

The Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund and the ADP pilots for teenage mothers represented an attempt to direct resources towards support for diverse vulnerable households.

The research identified a concern that a policy focus on these user groups may be fleeting rather than long term. There was a pervasive sense of vulnerability within a revenue funding regime which is perceived as highly uncertain.

The conclusion drawn is that the type of short term funding that was available, though welcome, was not the most effective way to support schemes in a context where alternative resources for mainstreaming successful services are very tightly constrained.

Communities and Local Government
Phone: + 44 20 7944 4400
Contactus@communities.gsi.gov.uk

//

01/01/2007

A team from the School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol.

research

Urban Policy > Housing

Housing policy