Finally, by trying to move the system’s purpose (towards equity, not equality), VOICES aimed to effect profound changes in local systems for people experiencing multiple disadvantage. This was attempted through the efforts to:
a) Reinstate legislation’s inclination toward equity, either by raising awareness through legally-informed documentation (i.e., Gatekeeping report; Care Act toolkit) or by intervening in the internal structure of organisations via the model(s) of specialist welfare Benefits Adviser and WBLL model to the frontline teams. b) Implement a pilot Housing First programme for immediate, permanent and unconditional tenancies for people experiencing multiple disadvantage, regardless of compliance with services[31].
5.
Strengths and limitations of the evaluation The strengths of this summative evaluation include
We were able to draw on a wealth of information in reports from discrete projects, activities, evaluations, and research projects undertaken throughout the VOICES period (many of which are summarised in Section 2). Situational Analysis offered a methodology that could draw on information from these discrete projects, but also a range of other sources (Appendix 1). The evaluation team included Expert Citizens, who provided an invaluable contribution of both lived experience and first-hand knowledge and experience of VOICES. Moreover, the inclusion of the Get Talking training for Expert Citizens and CHAD researchers helped to develop this relation and facilitate feedback on the evaluation.
Through undertaking numerous research and evaluation projects for VOICES, having representation on the Partnership Board and Housing First Steering Groups, the research team have engaged with many of the key stakeholders considered in this work, and had good oversight of work and challenges in this area. To some extent, this ongoing engagement with the situation under investigation (since 2016) helped to mitigate some of the limitations of relying primarily on secondary data sources.
The weaknesses of this summative evaluation include We were unable to engage with some key partner organisations, such as those from the health care sector. Although symptomatic of VOICES’ experience, including the voices of a wider range of health care representatives in the Situational Analysis would have strengthened the work.
A reliance on retrospective and secondary data. With more time, further primary data gathering would have helped to explore key discourses that were identified.
49
