Newsletter no 4: Partnerships for Older People:
Posted July 30th, 2008 by clair
Background
POPP is a national programme initiated by the Department of Health to explore new ways of partnership working, focused on prevention, to deliver improved outcomes for older people. In total 29 pilot sites have been funded for a two year period: 19 in Round 1 (2006-08) and 10 in Round 2 (2007-09). The Evaluation Trust has been working with North Somerset POPP, a Round 2 site, since January 2007. This project has 5 strands working across both the voluntary and statutory sectors:
Key Evaluation Issues
2. Focus on North Somerset as client
In order to avoid being overwhelmed by the above we have concentrated on our responsibilities to North Somerset as the principal client and sought to develop an evaluation approach which was relevant and beneficial locally. In essence this has involved:
3. Challenges / Benefits of Long Term Evaluations
It is always a great privilege to work on a long term project and be part of the planning process, and in the case of POPP our ongoing involvement has yielded many benefits for both ourselves and the clients:
Evaluation Trust Newsletter
POPP – Partnerships for Older People
POPP – Partnerships for Older People
Background
POPP is a national programme initiated by the Department of Health to explore new ways of partnership working, focused on prevention, to deliver improved outcomes for older people. In total 29 pilot sites have been funded for a two year period: 19 in Round 1 (2006-08) and 10 in Round 2 (2007-09). The Evaluation Trust has been working with North Somerset POPP, a Round 2 site, since January 2007. This project has 5 strands working across both the voluntary and statutory sectors:
• Four locality-based Community Development Workers employed by Age Concern Somerset;
• One Community Development Worker employed by Somerset Race Equality Council (SREC);
• New flexible packages of respite for older carers provided by North Somerset Crossroads;
• Integration of community health and social care through four locality-based multi-disciplinary teams;
• A pavement repair scheme.
• One Community Development Worker employed by Somerset Race Equality Council (SREC);
• New flexible packages of respite for older carers provided by North Somerset Crossroads;
• Integration of community health and social care through four locality-based multi-disciplinary teams;
• A pavement repair scheme.
Key Evaluation Issues
1. National Programme
As POPP is part of a National programme there are many aspects to the evaluation which would not normally feature as part of an individual piece of work. Many of these were unexpected, have proven to be very time consuming and are not always of any particular benefit to the local project. They have also made a significant dent in the evaluation budget.
As POPP is part of a National programme there are many aspects to the evaluation which would not normally feature as part of an individual piece of work. Many of these were unexpected, have proven to be very time consuming and are not always of any particular benefit to the local project. They have also made a significant dent in the evaluation budget.
• Prescriptive approach: The DoH set down clearly defined monitoring and reporting requirements for all POPP sites. The Evaluation Trust is thus accountable in its work to both North Somerset and the DoH;
• National Evaluation: The overall POPP programme is being evaluated by a national research team led by the University of Hertfordshire, who also require completion of standardised tools on all POPP sites (e.g. a comprehensive Quality of Life Questionnaire to be administered to a sample of older service users at two time points). The national team also takes an ongoing interest in all evaluation work taking place locally;
• Ethics: There was a national requirement for all local POPP evaluators to submit their plans for ethical approval by local Research Ethics Committees - a complex and demanding process;
• Meetings in London / Leeds/ Birmingham: The evaluators are required to attend numerous meetings with other POPP sites, convened by the DoH / national research team, often requiring overnight stays;
• Majority of local POPP evaluators from Universities: All the other local evaluators are taking a much more academic, as opposed to pragmatic, approach – and the contrasting methodologies can be a little unnerving!
• National Evaluation: The overall POPP programme is being evaluated by a national research team led by the University of Hertfordshire, who also require completion of standardised tools on all POPP sites (e.g. a comprehensive Quality of Life Questionnaire to be administered to a sample of older service users at two time points). The national team also takes an ongoing interest in all evaluation work taking place locally;
• Ethics: There was a national requirement for all local POPP evaluators to submit their plans for ethical approval by local Research Ethics Committees - a complex and demanding process;
• Meetings in London / Leeds/ Birmingham: The evaluators are required to attend numerous meetings with other POPP sites, convened by the DoH / national research team, often requiring overnight stays;
• Majority of local POPP evaluators from Universities: All the other local evaluators are taking a much more academic, as opposed to pragmatic, approach – and the contrasting methodologies can be a little unnerving!
2. Focus on North Somerset as client
In order to avoid being overwhelmed by the above we have concentrated on our responsibilities to North Somerset as the principal client and sought to develop an evaluation approach which was relevant and beneficial locally. In essence this has involved:
• Working with each project strand from day 1 to identify their own success criteria and to develop evaluation tools that were relevant, pragmatic and in place as soon as the project became operational;
• Ensuring monitoring systems were put in place at the beginning which would deliver both the DoH requirements and any additional evaluation data required, in as straightforward and undemanding a way as possible;
• Tailoring our approach / tools / processes for each client and adjusting as the projects have developed where these have not worked as originally intended (e.g. our original intentions to use the same monitoring forms for SREC and Age Concern Somerset proved very difficult in practice, as BME older people were so concerned about having their details recorded. We are therefore now using focus group discussions instead to capture the required information).
• Ensuring monitoring systems were put in place at the beginning which would deliver both the DoH requirements and any additional evaluation data required, in as straightforward and undemanding a way as possible;
• Tailoring our approach / tools / processes for each client and adjusting as the projects have developed where these have not worked as originally intended (e.g. our original intentions to use the same monitoring forms for SREC and Age Concern Somerset proved very difficult in practice, as BME older people were so concerned about having their details recorded. We are therefore now using focus group discussions instead to capture the required information).
3. Challenges / Benefits of Long Term Evaluations
It is always a great privilege to work on a long term project and be part of the planning process, and in the case of POPP our ongoing involvement has yielded many benefits for both ourselves and the clients:
• Opportunities for the evaluators to participate in the project planning process and to incorporate monitoring and evaluation from day 1 has given all the strands of the project a sense of ownership and involvement in the evaluation work;
• Close working has enabled them to understand the reasons for different evaluation approaches and why some things have needed to be changed (e.g. the approach to monitoring within SREC);
• Good relationships have been established with the local projects and overall client;
• Our reports appear valued, we feel trusted and the clients seem to take notice and respond to the issues we raise.
• Close working has enabled them to understand the reasons for different evaluation approaches and why some things have needed to be changed (e.g. the approach to monitoring within SREC);
• Good relationships have been established with the local projects and overall client;
• Our reports appear valued, we feel trusted and the clients seem to take notice and respond to the issues we raise.
