Case Study: An evidence informed approach to developing supported housing policy and provision

The evidence gap and service need

The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 places a duty on English local authorities to review supported housing accommodation and publish a Supported Housing Strategy, renewable every five years. Local authorities must consult with relevant stakeholders when developing the strategy. They are also required to implement licensing regulations, compliant with national standards.

A range of government enquiries and wider research have raised concerns about the cost, quality and effectiveness of supported housing provision, particularly non-commissioned supported housing in the exempt sector.

The Council’s Supported Housing Improvement Programme (SHIP) team identified two evidence gaps: a lack of known evidence on effective supported housing and a lack of local evidence on the service user experience in non-commissioned exempt accommodation. They needed:

User feedback on Bradford service users’ personal experiences and journey in non-commissioned supported housing.
A rapid review of the evidence on supported housing effectiveness, both UK and international evidence, which would support the development of evidence-informed policy and practice by developing the evidence base local authorities can draw on when developing supported housing strategy.

“While there is a large portfolio of evidence regarding the effectiveness or otherwise of Housing First, there is nothing similar for supported housing.”

SHIP Officer

Bridging the evidence gap

The SHIP team worked with an embedded research team from the Evidence into Policy and Practice Hub of Bradford Health Determinants Research Collaboration (HDRC), which is supported by the University of York. They worked closely to:

Conduct in-depth interviews with 15 service users, exploring their experiences and journey (as part of the ActEarly research collaboration).
Complete a rapid review of peer-reviewed, academic evidence on supported housing. The research is helping to bridge the evidence gap at both local and national policy levels.

At local authority level:

Drawing on the rapid review work, the research team produced a report which presented key findings and identified key policy recommendations and their practical implications. The report had been reviewed by the SHIP lead to ensure recommendations were tailored to the local authority context and evidence needs.
Drawing on the in-depth interviews, the research team produced an evidence brief to highlight main findings and an animation to highlight the most important finding - that shared accommodation residents had worse experiences and struggled in supported housing compared to those in single accommodation.

At national level, drawing on both pieces of research, the research team have written:

A one-page briefing For the Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Ending Homelessness. The briefing - Recognising the important public health role of supported housing and non-commissioned exempt accommodation - highlights key findings, policy and practice recommendations.
A briefing for the National Housing Federation - 4 Ways Housing Associations Can Support Better Supported Housing and Non-Commissioned Exempt Accommodation.

Lessons from the research: developing supported housing provision at local authority level

The following key findings emerged from the research evidence:

Tailor measures of success to the specific needs of the service user group and clearly define expected outcomes. Success depends on who is being supported and the type of provision.
Plan services around non-linear journeys. Moves in and out of supported housing and from one type of supported housing to another are common.
Focus service provision around supporting autonomy and personal dignity. This means being clear about understanding what this means to different service users.
Focus on the quality of relationships between service users and support professionals. This is key to the quality of provision and reinforcing individualised support, which reinforces autonomy.
Adopt a “whole environment” approach. This includes understanding how the physical quality of accommodation, the social communities of service users and the wider neighbourhoods/communities in which supported housing is set affect outcomes such as rehabilitation, life progression, and health and well-being.
Ensure all relevant strategic local boards and committees are aware of the challenges and complexity of supported housing issues.
Develop agreed ways to assess the local supported housing and non-commissioned exempt accommodation landscape.
Develop clear local guidance and expectations about what ‘good support’ means, developed and co-produced with residents.

The impact on policy and practice at a local authority level

The impact on policy and practice has been seen in the following four ways:

Provision of an independent evidence base on which to base policy and practice. The research filled a recognised evidence gap: there was no systematic and independent research on what good practice looked like.
Informing commissioning and service provision. Research findings have been shared around the council. They are being used to help develop understanding of the standards that most concern residents; inform the commissioning process and develop understanding of how to evaluate success in supported housing.
Identifying problems. The qualitative service user research uncovered issues around illegal eviction and homelessness. This has led to changes in priorities for policy and practice, and work to highlight the issue across the supported housing sector. The qualitative research findings were also fed into a national evaluation of supported housing
Supporting the Council in meeting statutory obligations. The research evidence has been used to support the local authority in meeting its regulation, commissioning and provision duties to secure the best health, wellbeing and socio-economic outcomes for service users – some of the most vulnerable groups in our society.

Lessons for evidence informed policy and practice in local government: building on windows of opportunity

For research and evidence to be relevant to local authorities, it must have use value. This means being grounded in fulfilling the statutory duties and democratic and place-based governance functions of local authorities. The relevance and use value of the supported housing research depended on five context specific policy and practice drivers. Together these created a window of opportunity for the research.

National legislation and policy drivers. Recent legislative change and national policy focus on improving the supported housing sector created a “window of opportunity” for research to influence local authority actions and approaches.
Local authority duties and responsibilities. National legislative and policy drivers highlighted issues in the sector and developed the existing duties and responsibilities of local authorities for supported housing. This reinforced the need to review and assess existing policy and practice.
Officer-driven demand based on a recognised evidence gap. The research was demand led. It was officers who had identified the evidence gap and how this affected policy and practice. The SHIP team identified specific areas they had a lot of evidence on, such as the research on Housing First. They also knew a lot about national policy and research addressing problems in the exempt accommodation sector and in broader supported housing. However, they identified the need for wider evidence on what works in supported housing and wanted this to include international evidence. They also identified the need for evidence on the user journey. Because the research was demand-led, policy and practice relevance were built into the research process.
HDRC capacity and expertise. The local authority lacked the capacity and resource to undertake the research – this included not having the time and research expertise to undertake the research to the same degree of methodological rigour as HDRC embedded researchers.
The credibility of research. For officers, the fact that the evidence was based on academic research was important. As noted, the local authority did not have the capacity to do this kind of research. For example, the rapid review was based on academic best practice for rapid reviews and included quality assurance checks and a traceable audit trail depicting what was drawn from which evidence sources and why. The review findings were based on a wide range of studies on supported housing, including international evidence. The research provided a detached “evidence voice” which could be drawn onto inform local practice so that it was not just officers making the case.