Loneliness data pilots la briefing workshop 190123

Preparing & discovering local service data
Introduction, background, vision
Tim Adams
Programme Manager (LGA)
@DrTimAdams
January 2019 www.local.gov.uk/lginformplus

www.local.gov.uk/lginformplus@LGInformPlus
The issues
• Do we know what is out there?
• Difficult to collect
• Unreliable data
• Diversity: 350 councils & 1000s of partners
• Unable to work across boundaries
• Hard to discover and re-use

The solution
• Make use of the crowd
• Use standard schema
• Develop data collection guidelines
• Align with national taxonomy
• Use a consistent means of publication

The benefits
• Frontline can use reliable data to raise
awareness of preventative services
• Easier data discovery
• Geographical and organisational boundaries
cease to exist
• Efficiency and effectiveness of data collection
improved

The legacy: LG information standards
standards.esd.org.uk

The local government business model
standards.esd.org.uk/LGBM

Progress
• We have completed:
- Local service schema (Paul will explain)
- Taxonomy of needs and circumstances (Nicki will explain)
- Product backlog for collection software (Ian will explain)
- Initial trials in NW region & now in Bristol (Beccy will explain)
• We are completing
- software development (Jan-Mar)
- existing data migration (Jan-Mar)
- exploring data consumers (Jan–Mar: NHS 111, CCG, ADL,
SPEAR, Housing, Loneliness app, Need assessment)

Next step
• Prove it on the frontline:
-Organisations can align to the taxonomy
-Organisations will adopt the service description
standard (or migrations)
-Data collection can be streamlined across the place
-Frontline organisations and applications will
consume the created data e.g. loneliness initiatives

Further work
• This is only step one as we know we have to
do more but that will come after we prove this.
-Taxonomy helper & publication tools
-Service quality (gatekeeper)
-Consider a Booking platform
-Usage metrics
-Rating
-Look at gaps and over capacity in an area

Place-based Directory of Service
Background info
January 2019

Directory of Service
• A Directory of Services seeks to empower ‘prevention’ through
knowledge of support services
• However we need to work as a ‘place’ to gain the full benefits
Self-help
Family & friends
Early intervention/
Prevention/
Long term condition
Management
Aiming to help people help themselves
££££
Statutory Services
• Adult social care
• GP appointments
• A&E admissions
• Mental health
• Debts (non-payment)
£££
Carers, advocacy &
befriending
££
£
– which in turn increases Quality of Life

What’s the Problem
• Too many Service Directories
• Costly to maintain
• Duplication
• Can’t rely on the data
• Confusing rather than helpful
to the frontline

• Work as a place to ‘prepare the data’ once then
allow people to ‘consume many’ times:
• collect the service information once but use many
sources
• tag services consistently across the place based on
personal situation e.g. strengths, aspirations, issues,
needs, circumstances
• pay a custodian to assure the data on behalf of the place
• aggregate the services into a place directory
• feed the data to those that have a frontline purpose for it
and, likely, a target audience
• This will stimulate the market for more and better
applications to use the reliable place data
• The end result should be better support for citizens and
reduced costs for the public sector
What’s the solution?

Solution analogy – National rail service data
NRE Data Feeds
National Rail Enquiries (NRE) support the principle of transparency and contribute to the wider
industry agenda by making data openly available in the public domain. NRE have a selection of APIs
and XML feeds that are available for use by third party developers to create their own
applications. The data feeds are derived from our three primary engines; Darwin, KB and OJP.

IN SCOPE
Citizen needing
support
Frontline
applications
Place Directory
Digital Place Directory of Service
Live Well
Directory of
Services
I Worry App
Council
A voice for
victims of crime
& ASB
Housing tenant support

What are the benefits?
1. Savings
• Cheaper to collect once (and pay custodian)
• Possibility to generate income from making data available to apps
• Public sector may not need to develop apps themselves
2. Quality of service
• Data can be relied upon
• Services can be aggregated (no admin/geography boundaries)
3. Productivity
• Frontline workers should be able to find services more easily
• Citizens should be able to help themselves more
4. Strategic
• Can better understand supply & demand
• Should be easier to monitor what works

Further benefits?
Once a place has hyper-local service information available then a
number of benefits become possible:
• Social prescribing
• 50% of patients attending GP surgeries need non-clinical services.
• GP practices need to know what services are out there so that they
can ‘socially prescribe’
• Prevention
• empower citizens, family, friends, carers, charities to access support
services to avoid crisis and statutory services
• Homelessness
• once in a home an ex-homeless person is likely to move on when a
problem comes up.
• More likely to stay if embedded in local support and community
activity so homelessness support want to know what’s out there
• Loneliness
• befrienders are capable of bringing people out of loneliness by
embedding them in the local community but they need to know
what community activities exist

What are the risks?
• Existing data will need migrating into LGA standard
• Existing applications will need application changing
• No-one may be interested in consuming the data
they’ve not collected
• There might be competition to be an assurer
• People may not be prepared to pay others to assure
• Expectations of ‘perfect’ data may be raised
• More awareness will risk services not coping with
demand
• Quality of the service is not assured and left with
application providers

Outline business case
The business case is predicated on the fact that collecting, tagging and assuring
the service information once is the most efficient way of working.
It has been estimated that collecting, tagging and assuring a service costs
approximately £30 per annum. A large council might have 10,000 services in
their directories and therefore if only one other organisation in the place/area
duplicated 50% of this work that would waste £150,000.
Having accountable assurer(s) to the whole place who are adequately resourced
will enable many organisations to have access to aggregated data that they can
rely on to support residents/citizens on a prevention agenda. This is likely to
maximise early intervention and support and thereby minimising the demand on
statutory services.

Costs to maintain service info over 3 years
Step Notes Year Duration Worker
hourly rate
Expenses Frequency for
one service
per year
Costs for
one service
per year
Initial call Could take a few calls to get through 1 15mins £7.50 10p per
call
1 £2
Initial email Could take some time to find email 1 15mins £7.50 None 1 £2
Assurance visit Unknown organisation may need a
visit
1 3 hours £9 Travel
costs
1 £35
Identify service
information error
Could mean dealing with email or
phone call or frontline
2 15 mins £7.50 None 2 £4
Add service information 1,2 15 mins £7.50 2 £4
Amend service
information
2,3 30 mins £7.50 3 £12
Improvement visit Looking to improve their service,
maybe become a social prescription
etc
3 3 hours £12 Travel
costs
1 £45
£104

An example business case
Income & Expenditure assuming 10,000 services paying assurer £5 per service Unit Unit cost Amount
A custodian e.g. AgeUK, Citizen Advice, CVS could be paid to assure each
service.
10,000 £10 - £100,000
A data consumer could be charged to receive the assured data that they need.
Note – it is cheaper to contribute to a central place-based data collection than
have your own team doing it.
- Housing 5000 £5 £25,000
- Police 5000 £5 £25,000
- Fire 5000 £5 £25,000
- Charity/Voluntary/Not for profits x 4 (many) 5000 £1 £20,000
- NHS 111 5000 £5 £25,000
- API license to private sector x 10 (many) 1000 £10 £100,000
There may be a license charge to use the place-based software system as part of
national infrastructure
1 £20,000 - £42,000
Programme management - £50,000
Balance +£28,000

Bristol’s Aim
Maintain a single reliable place-based directory of hyper-local services
which can feed the service data to many frontline applications seeking
to help people and frontline professionals find appropriate support
services.

Conceptual Model
Service User
Citizen, Carer, Professional
AssurerService ProviderVolunteer data
collector
Service Data
Consumer
HOMELESS
SUPPORT
Data assurance partner
Service Data
Consumer
AGE UK
Service Data
Consumer
WELL AWARE
Service Data
Consumer
LONELINESS
APP
Service Data
Consumer
SOCIAL
PRESCRIBING
Data is collected, tagged and assured once on behalf
of the place
Place Administrator
Governs the
configuration of the
place i.e. assurance
definition, meta tags
Bulk Service data
provider
Contributes a larger
list of services
collected by another
means
Service Data
Consumer
NHS 111
The hyper-local services data is made available to many frontline
application for them to use it for their own purposes
Citizens, carers and frontline workers can choose which
application they want to use
Data Quality Assured
Local Services
Directory

Conceptual Model
Service User
Citizen, Carer, Professional
AssurerService ProviderVolunteer data
collector
Service Data
Consumer
HOMELESS
SUPPORT
Data assurance partner
Data Quality Assured
Local Services
Directory
Service Data
Consumer
AGE UK
Service Data
Consumer
WELL AWARE
Service Data
Consumer
LONELINESS
APP
Service Data
Consumer
SOCIAL
PRESCRIBING
Data is collected, tagged and assured once on behalf
of the place
Place Administrator
Governs the
configuration of the
place i.e. assurance
definition, meta tags
Bulk Service data
provider
Contributes a larger
list of services
collected by another
means
Service Data
Consumer
NHS 111
The hyper-local services data is made available to many frontline
application for them to use it for their own purposes
Citizens, carers and frontline workers can choose which
application they want to use

Thank you
Any Questions
ian.singleton@digitalgaps.co.uk
Providing capacity & capability to bridge your digital gaps

The loneliness cross government
initiative
The perspective from DCMS
Olivia Field
Dept. of Digital, Culture, Media & Sport
@oliviamayafield
January 2019

Case Study: Bristol
Beccy Wardle
Director of Individual Services, The Care Forum

Background
• WellAware – web based searchable directory of
local and hyper local services relating to health
and wellbeing
• Years of delivery means we have learned what
the challenges are

Is it comprehensive?
• You don’t know what you don’t know
• Custodian/assurer role must be embedded in the
VCSE sector
• It’s about relationships - ‘two way’
• Don’t forget the hyper-local – experience shows us
these are the ones that make a real difference to
loneliness

Is it up to date?
• One of the biggest challenges!
• It’s a very quickly changing landscape
• Data is only meaningful to support loneliness (or any
need) if it is maintained
• The ideal – that services take ownership (but the
reality is slightly different)
• Importance of resourcing assurance

Geographic boundaries
• People don’t think about local authority areas
• CCG – STP – WECA
• People want to find information based on
needs/circumstances/eligibility

Multiple directories
• NHS – Mental Health Charities – older people –
DWP – localities (and more)
• Very quickly out of date
• Confusing

Bristol – PBDoS
Partnership - BCC/WellAware
• LGA/iStandUK – mapping existing data
• Develop relationships across the place
• Software – collect/assure/tag (PFIKS)

Bristol Next Steps…
• MVP – end of March 2019
• Continue work with LGA on the standard
• Migrate existing data
• Test and use the software
• Data published on Bristol Open Data Platform
• Continue work with neighbouring authorities

Publishing Service Information using
a Standard Schema
LGA Loneliness Pilots
January 2019
36
Paul Davidson, CIO Sedgemoor District Council
Director of Standards for iStandUK

Introduction to iStandUK
• Operating since 2006
– Formerly known as LeGSB
– All personnel are employees of local authorities, and central government departments.
– Board representatives from DCLG, DWP, LGA, SOCITM, NHS Digital, Government
Digital Service, Various Councils.
• Funded by Central Government Departments – currently
– Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
– Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)
– Projects with LGA
• Mission
– To promote Standards for Efficiency, Transformation, and Transparency of Local
Services
– Bridging the Information Gap
• http://www.iStandUK.org
37

Requirements and Approach
• A standard format to describe locally delivered services.
• Enough information for person to judge if a service is relevant to
their needs.
• Part of the family of data formats developed and supported by the
LGA’s transparency programme.
• Derived from existing standards.
• Learning from suppliers, and local authorities.
• The pilots will bring content together using the LGA’s Locally
Delivered Services Schema and an ‘application profile’ that fits
‘loneliness’ – so that it is republish-able to other standards, and
reaches a wider audience. 38

Scope
• Central Government Services that are accessed locally.
• Commercial wider than social care (gardening, handyperson, cleaning)
• Advice
– financial, making good buying decisions, volunteering and other ways to take
part in your community.
39

Related Data Standards
• Smart City Concept Model – http://www.smartcityconceptmode.com
• schema.org - http://schema.org/
• open311 - http://www.open311.org/
• openReferral - https://openreferral.org/
• Local Links - http://www.localdigitalcoalition.uk/links-support/
• European Community ‘SERVICE’ core vocabulary -
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/catalogue/distribution/cpsv-documentation-pdf
• OpenReferral - https://openreferral.org/ 40

A look at the schema
• Guidance document
– https://docs.google.com/do
cument/d/1PmltkDwjocYsIi
5Lv_0uWRZMhH-EU3t-
h1cFg9swa_c/edit?usp=sh
aring
• LGA’s Schema Validator -
http://beta.validator.opendat
a.esd.org.uk/servicedirector
yschema
41

Local Services for Loneliness
• Live Events
– Leaving Care
– Becoming Homeless
– Becoming a Parent
– Living in an Abusive
Environment
– Bullying
– Being a Victim of
Crime
– Children Leaving
Home
– Retirement
– Moving into Care
– Divorce / Relationship
breakdown
– Living with a Disability 45
• What Works?
– What type of local service
is relevant to what trigger
for Loneliness?

Thank you
46
- Paul Davidson
- paul.davidson@sedgemoor.gov.uk
- Director of Standards for iStandUK
- http://www.iStandUK.org

Taxonomies for a local Service
Catalogue
Nicki Gill / Mike Thacker
http://esd.org.uk/standards
LG Inform Plus

Document
type
Process
Organisation
type
Power/Duty
Function
Need
Circumstance
Metric
Service
Record
classification
Channel type
Interaction
type
Legislation
Life event
Contains
Has
subject
Changes
Addresses
Allows/
Requires
Confers
Confers on
Has
Same as
Performs
Is part of
Defines eligibility for
Conducted
via
Delivered
via
Implies
preference
for
Grouped
by
People and
places
Organisation
scope
Organisation
Web menu
structure
Accessed from
Retention
defined by
Local Government Business Model (LGBM)
© esd-toolkit 2009
Diagram may be re-used subject to crediting the source as
esd-toolkit
Determines
Has
Local Government Business Model
Issues and
benefits
Defines
Has subject Arises
from

Addressed byService type
e.g. Fishing
Circumstance
types
e.g. Female,
Wheelchair
user
Circumstance
types
e.g. Female
Types of
Need
e.g. Hobbies
and interests
Life events
e.g.
Bereavement
Has Has
Defines
eligibility
for
Has
Has
Specific
circumstances
e.g. 58 years old,
BS8 1RL
Filter services by
1. service types meeting the customer’s
2. need
2. eligibility criteria
3. geographical location where relevant
ChangesChanges
Service
e.g. Avon women anglers
Customer

Wider discussion
Implementation Plan, Risks, Success Criteria
The LGA Team and its Partners
January 2019

Outcomes
• Frontline applications with access to reliable hyper-local
data
• Savings from public sector spend on data collection
• Ability to aggregate data across organisational and
geographical boundaries

Objectives
• Adoption of service schema
• Local categories aligned to national taxonomy
• Data migration paths from and to existing repositories
• Assurance levels agreed
• Assurers working together across the place
• Applications consuming the hyper-local data
• Frontline workers contributing to data collection and maintenance

Outputs
• Hyper-local data set
• Refined service schema – service types
• Refined need & circumstance taxonomy
• Lessons learned report

Implementation – Key steps
1. Discover existing data sources and potential data consumers
2. Adopt the LGA local service schema
3. Map place categories against LGA taxonomy
4. Decide how the data will be consumed
5. Identify software to collect data including migrations
6. Agree the level of assurance required
7. Obtain expressions of interest from assurers with a service scope
8. Consider what management information will be collected
9. Pilot the collection, consumption and application usage in a locality
10. Go live across the place

Risks
• Existing data will need migrating into LGA standard
• Existing applications will need application changing
• No-one may be interested in consuming the data they’ve not collected
• There might be competition to be an assurer
• People may not be prepared to pay others to assure
• Expectations of ‘perfect’ data may be raised
• More awareness will risk services not coping with demand
• Quality of the service is not assured and left with application providers

User story groupings/epics
• Finding a service
• Collecting and maintaining service data
• Assuring data quality
• Informing of service quality
• Consuming service data
• Accessing services
• Referring services

Assurance levels
• How regular is it ‘assured’
• Which fields are mandatory
• SLA on receiving an error report
• Completion of ‘heads up’ response/check (will be here next quarter)
• Record confidence factors for exception reporting
• Last logged in/ last assurance visit
• Last updated service
• Quality mark within recent time
• Number of errors over last 12 months
• Time allowed on warning after failed assurance

Pilot
• Outcomes
• Objectives
• Timelines
• Outputs
• Success indicators

Timelines
• Programme starts:
• Pilot projects initiated –
• Pilots set up
• Pilots run
• Pilots reviewed
• Programme concludes

Success indicators
• Inclusion of place partners
• % of services in service schema format
• Number of interested consumers

Loneliness data pilots la briefing workshop 190123

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Featured

Featured (20)

Loneliness data pilots la briefing workshop 190123