Applying situational analysis to examine the impact of VOICES on people experiencing multiple disadvantage Konstantinos Spyropoulos, Christopher James Gidlow, Fiona McCormack, Andy Meakin, Rachele Hine and Sophia Fedorowicz
Abstract Purpose – This paper reports the use of situational analysis as a systems methodology to evaluate the voices of independence change and empowerment in the Stoke-on-Trent (VOICES) partnership project. Design/methodology/approach – Using situational analysis and drawing on a range of secondary data sources, a three-stage conceptual mapping process provided a detailed picture of both the non-linear interlinkage and complexity of the local system that VOICES was working to influence, as well as the processes that shaped the experiences of those who act within the situation. Findings – Data highlighted the systemic challenges facing VOICES customers (e.g. stigma and marginalisation and lack of legal literacy), progress made by VOICES in each of their priority areas and an overarching theme of VOICES promoting equity (rather than equality) to address failure demand in the system of support for people with multiple needs and disadvantage. Originality/value – The authors present the novel application of situational analysis to demonstrate a substantial impact of VOICES while demonstrating the value of this methodology for complex systems thinking research and evaluation. Keywords Multiple disadvantage, Situational analysis, Fair access, Housing First, Systems thinking, Failure demand Paper type Research paper
Introduction Multiple disadvantage Multiple disadvantage has been defined as “experience of two or more of homelessness, offending, substance misuse and mental ill health” (Lamb et al., 2019, p. 5). Similar to terms such as “severe and multiple disadvantage” (Bramley et al., 2015) or “multiple and complex needs” (Harland et al., 2022), multiple disadvantage is used to describe a population at the extreme margins of social disadvantage (Bramley et al., 2015). Under these circumstances, people tend to have much worse health and quality of life compared with other low-income and vulnerable people and can place disproportionate demands on certain public services (e.g. emergency health care and the criminal justice system), with considerable societal costs. A key focus of the National Fulfilling Lives programme was on changing systems that can enable sustainable improvements in the lives of people experiencing multiple disadvantage. These systems can be considered a complex non-centrally controlled system of interdependent, autonomous parts that are expected to (but often do not) function as a coherent whole (Rutter et al., 2017). Through taking a systems focus, Fulfilling Lives recognised that multiple disadvantage is less a product of an individual’s beliefs and
DOI 10.1108/HCS-02-2022-0006
Konstantinos Spyropoulos, Christopher James Gidlow and Fiona McCormack are all based at the School of Health, Science and Wellbeing (CHAD), Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Andy Meakin is based at the VOICES Stoke-on-Trent, Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Rachele Hine is based at the Expert Citizens CIC, Stoke-on-Trent, UK. Sophia Fedorowicz is based at the School of Health, Science and Wellbeing (CHAD), Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Received 1 February 2022 Revised 22 April 2022 Accepted 27 May 2022 This research was funded by The National Lottery Community Fund through VOICES. The authors would like to acknowledge all those who contributed directly or indirectly, including: Sharon Sharman and other members of the VOICES team for their support; Expert Citizens; the evaluation Steering Group members; VOICES Partnership Board; and other local stakeholders and individuals who contributed to the projects and activities that were considered here.
© Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1460-8790
j HOUSING, CARE AND SUPPORT j