Scottish Government

Social Work Research Findings No. 39The One Door Initiative - An Evaluation

Susan Hunter, Bill Whyte and John Hart

This study evaluates The One Door Initiative (ODI) - a national demonstration project commissioned by The Scottish Office in 1994 to promote interagency responses to the needs of homeless young people.

Main Findings

• The collaborative approach of the One Door Initiative (ODI) enabled the expertise of a range of agencies to be pooled at the policy and practice levels. Partner agencies from the statutory and voluntary sectors identified advantages in the collaborative approach adopted.
• Informal partnerships resulted in a number of practical developments which enabled agencies to respond more effectively to the needs of young homeless people. These included the production of practical assessment tools for use by a range of agencies in their work.
• Limitations were identified on the ability of some agencies to participate fully in the partnership arrangements. These limitations were most evident in relation to the health service.
• The ODI were in contact with 1,546 young people through its city centre based Advice Service in the period 1994-97. Just over two thirds were in temporary or insecure accommodation and one tenth were roofless.
• Young people who made use of the ongoing support available through ODI were vulnerable in many ways in addition to being homeless. Most of the young people interviewed approximately one year after first receiving support from ODI reported positive personal changes and had found stable accommodation.
• Ongoing support was very much more expensive to provide than brief advice. The average costs, based on a sample of 21 users, were £148 for use of the advice service and £3,015 for the support service. Costs varied greatly between individual users. However high resource use was not necessarily an indicator of high need.

The One Door Initiative

The One Door Initiative (ODI) is a national demonstration project started in 1994 with Scottish Office funding. The ODI was established to promote inter-agency responses to the needs of homeless young people and with the following objectives:

1. to provide a one door entry into the networks of emergency and long-term services;

2. to develop an effective collaborative model of practice which could be replicated;

3. to provide a readily accessible and acceptable route through the co-ordination of services and the resulting synergy between partner agencies;

4. to promote the development of consistency in both assessment and access to resources;

5. to develop an integrated referral system;

6. to develop a safety net for homeless young people.

The Study

The aim of the study was to evaluate the development of the ODI, its key features and its replicability. It set out to examine:

• the methods adopted by ODI and whether these could be readily put into practice elsewhere;
• how effective ODI was in harnessing the co-operation of other agencies to provide short and longer term support for homeless young people;
• comparative costs of providing advice and support services.

The evaluation took place over a 2 year period (1995-97). It involved interviews with key ODI staff and with 20 representatives of the partner agencies; observation of ODI structures in operation; an examination of the records of 41 young people using the Advice Service; interviews with 30 young people using the support services, followed up 10-12 months later; and an examination of comparative costs of Advice and Support services.

Key features of the ODI

The ODI was essentially a consortium or network of partner agencies drawn from the statutory, voluntary and private sectors. It was hosted by the Bridges Project, a specialist voluntary agency working with vulnerable young people in Edinburgh.

Management of the ODI was in the hands of a committee made up of the Bridges management committee, the Directors of Shelter (Scotland) and the Scottish Council for Single Homeless and a representative from The Scottish Office. A city centre based Advice Service was funded by a Scottish Office grant. A Support Service funded by Bridges was available at the same site and an Education and Training Scheme was being developed. These services were designed to provide longer term support in housing, education/ training and personal development in order to assist young people establish a settled and sustainable lifestyle.

Partnership meetings were established to create links at a strategic and policy level with a wide range of agencies. The initial and core partners in the ODI are listed below:

• The Scottish Office (Social Work Services Group, Social Work Inspectorate and the Homelessness Division of the Environment Department)
• Lothian Region and Edinburgh District Councils (they were replaced by the City of Edinburgh Council in 1996)
• Lothian Health Board and local NHS Trusts
• the Benefits Agency
• the Citizens Advice Bureau
• Scottish Homes
• Scottish Federation of Housing Associations
• the Careers Service
• the Employment service
• Lothian Homelessness Forum
• Community Care Interest Group (representing voluntary organisations)
• Scottish Business in the Community
• GrandMet Trust (original training arm of Grand Metropolitan plc)

Subgroups, comprising mainly operational staff, were established to undertake development work in the areas of housing, assessment and health. Regular liaison and briefing meetings were also held with partners.

A collaborative model of practice

The collaborative approach of the ODI enabled expertise to be pooled at a policy level through the Partnership Meetings and at a practice level, particularly through the work of Housing and Assessment subgroups. Evidence from interviews suggested that a culture of learning generated through this collaboration assisted staff from different agencies to respond in a consistent, informed and sensitive way to homeless young people.

A number of significant practical developments were also achieved. These included:

• an integrated housing and social work assessment framework;
• an accommodation vacancies register;
• special arrangements with partners to adapt standard procedures to the needs of homeless young people;
• a 'young homemaker' advice pack.

Specialist tools were developed collaboratively to assist in assessing and planning provision for homeless young people. Guidance drawn up for use by generalist staff in mainstream agencies seemed to assist a more effective response to young people when they appeared at a range of agencies. These developments had still to be fully tested by the end of the study period.

There was overwhelming agreement from respondents from the statutory and voluntary sectors that one of the most important outcomes of ODI was the information generated on the characteristics of homeless young people in Edinburgh. The database which was developed contributed to Edinburgh Council's bid for additional resources from Europe and central government to address young homelessness and was also used in community care plans.

The intention was that the management model be based on consensus, negotiation and goodwill. Respondents from partner agencies felt that the ODI was able to keep homeless young people high on the agenda of local authorities and to promote change, despite some conflict between agency priorities and the objectives of the ODI. Partners from the statutory agencies expressed the view that it was unlikely that the collaboration and its positive effects would have been achieved without specialist staff dedicated to championing the cause of homeless young people.

It is difficult to conclude that a collective identity was achieved by the Initiative or that there was a radical change in the culture of practice within the respective partner agencies. Interview responses suggest that some agencies were ambivalent towards the concept of collective or collaborative responsibility implied by being part of the Initiative. The clearest example of this was in the area of Health and in the functioning of the Health subgroup. All three Health Service respondents identified difficulties. None felt that they were able to represent the Health Board or the Health Trust in any meaningful way. They did not have any delegated authority to make commitments, in principle or otherwise, yet felt that they were under pressure to do so within the working groups.

Respondents believed that financial and professional backing from The Scottish Office had an important influence in encouraging participation in the partnership arrangements. The grant was necessary to start the process, but the heavy commitment made by partner agencies, both in terms of staff time and financial resources was also essential.

Outcomes for young people

In the period 1994-97 1,546 young people were in contact with the ODI of whom 97% used the Advice service. About half of these people were under 18 years old. There were slightly more males than females. Just over two thirds were in temporary or insecure accommodation and about one tenth were roofless. Almost a third had been 'in care' away from home at some time in their

The Advice Service

The Advice Service operated as a co-ordinating gateway providing access to a large range of services through the network of partner agencies established by ODI. Use of the Advice Service demonstrated the need for a city centre access point responsive to young people's needs.

In the 41 cases examined in detail, 17 people contacted the advice service on a 'one-off' basis and information about the long term benefit to the young person was not available. ODI staff and respondents from partner agencies took the view that many young people, in spite of their apparent needs, seemed reluctant to make sustained use of services. This suggested that the Advice Service, in itself, was not enough to engage young people in maximising their welfare benefits and other resources.

The level of support needed by many of the young people contacting the Advice service was very high. As a consequence, the ODI approach to advice giving evolved during the course of the study away from a 'rights based' approach to a more directive approach. The Advice and Support services were brought closer together and it was possible for a 'fast track' community care assessment to be arranged where it was clear that the young person needed housing with support.

The eventual appointment of an Education and Training Officer resulted in the development of pre-access education, training and social skills programmes. By the end of the period of evaluation, ODI staff were indicating that increasing numbers of young people were making contact through this route. It was clearly more acceptable to many young people to make contact through the normal channels of leisure and education rather than by seeking advice on a specific 'problem' or in crisis.

The Support Service

Young people who made use of the ongoing support available through ODI were vulnerable in many ways in addition to homelessness. Most were unemployed and just under a quarter had a care background. Most of the 30 young people interviewed who had a more sustained involvement with ODI reported positive personal changes over a 10-12 month period and were successful, at least in part, in achieving stable accommodation. Despite these positive changes there had been little improvement in their economic or financial situation. The overwhelming majority remained unemployed, dependent on state benefit and socially isolated.

The young people emphasised the importance of having reliable and sympathetic support to develop personal skills, to establish a home base or to complete training. Most of these people were over 19 years of age by the time of the follow up interview. Age and maturity seemed to be an important factor in the young people's willingness or ability to make sustained use of provision.

Comparative costs

There were important resource cost differentials between providing brief advice and ongoing support. The average costs, based on a sample of 21 users, were £148 for use of the advice service and £3,015 for support.

While high costs were directly related to high service take up, highest use was not necessarily related to highest need. Young people with the highest need seemed often to lack the capacity or skills to benefit from available opportunities. Finding imaginative ways of providing personal help and support to maximise the use of the opportunities available remained a challenge, particularly in relation to those under 19 years old.

Replicability

The findings indicate the potential of the ODI approach for coordinating service provision for young homeless people effectively. From the study findings it would appear that the ODI model could be replicated elsewhere on the basis of particular key characteristics. These characteristics relate to the host organisation, in this case The Bridges Project, and to the partnership approach adopted.

Bridges was seen to have a combination of features considered important in hosting the collaborative venture:

• specialist staff with dedicated time for the task;
• membership of an existing network of key players;
• professional credibility/expertise in youth homelessness;
• an exclusive focus on vulnerable young people;
• the status of 'honest broker' - Bridges was not in competition with other providers;
• the ability to access funds from a variety of sources, private or public, in cash or in kind, in a way not open to the statutory sector;
• financial independence from partner agencies and consequently few constraints on their ability to 'influence the agenda' with professionals, officials, and politicians;
• freedom from the stigma attached to social services in the eyes of young people.

Agencies have endeavored to work jointly without notable success for many years. A number of characteristics of the ODI partnership arrangements which were found to contribute to their effectiveness could be replicated elsewhere. These included:

• a managed and multi-layered process built on local features with dedicated specialist staff to influence the agenda for change;
• opportunities for voluntary agencies to enter a dialogue with statutory agencies leading to shared learning;
• the creation of practical professional tools to assist the co-ordination of assessment and provision;
• good information on young people to assist the task of joint planning.

The ODI today

Since the fieldwork for the evaluation was completed in 1997 the ODI has continued to operate in the way described in this report. Many of the practical tools developed have been replicated by local authorities and voluntary organisations in Scotland and the north of England.

In partnership with others the ODI has developed and disseminated further initiatives which include:

• Bridges to Progress - a system for measuring individual progress towards self reliance;
• a system for monitoring referrals of all homeless people to accommodation agencies;
• Doorways - an integrated referral scheme for young single homeless people seeking supported accommodation.

The ODI is currently developing, with funding from Scottish Homes, a methodology and tools for partnerships in developing youth homelessness strategies.

The study was conducted by Susan Hunter, Bill Whyte and John Hart at the Department of Social Work, University of Edinburgh. It was funded by the Scottish Executive. A full copy of the report is obtainable from the authors.

If you wish further copies of this Research Findings or have any enquiries about the work of CRU, please contact us at: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, Room J1-0, Saughton House Broomhouse Drive EDINBURGH, EH11 3XA/ Email: cru.admin@scotland.gov.uk Web site: www.scotland.gov.uk/cru This document (and other CRU Research Findings and Reports) and information about the work of CRU may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/ The site carries up-to-date information about social and policy research commissioned and published by CRU on behalf of the Scottish Executive. Subjects covered include transport, housing, social inclusion, rural affairs, children and young people, education, social work, community care, local government, civil justice, crime and criminal justice, regeneration, planning and womens issues. The site also allows access to information about the Scottish Household Survey.