CrossRoads Association and Princess Royal Trust for Carers Applied Policy and Practice Research Unit

Agenda Policy Evaluation and Research Unit (PERU) Aims of the project Methodology Key findings Using the findings

Who are we? We are a multi-disciplinary team of evaluators, researchers, economists and ex-practitioners either based at or with links to Manchester Metropolitan University. We work regularly with a number of partners from the private, voluntary and public sectors.

What do we do? We undertake evaluations and applied research projects for clients in the public and voluntary sectors. We specialise in: Impact evaluations Economic evaluations Evaluations of new policy initiatives The sectors we do most work in are: Criminal justice Crime reduction Legal advice Young people’s services Substance misuse

Aim of the research Assesses the economic impact of Young Carer’s interventions that are targeted on Young Carers affected by parental substance misuse and parental mental health problems. Research has established that the implications of being a young carer include the risk of truancy, under achievement, isolation, mental and physical ill health, poverty and stress. Risks particularly acute for young people affected by parental substance misuse (250,000 young people in the UK), parental alcohol misuse (1·3m young people) and parental mental health problems (4·2m parents).

Three things we need to know The extra outcome achieved by the intervention compared with an alternative interventions The economic value of these outcomes The extra cost of implementing the intervention compared with an alternative interventions We’ll estimate this by looking at published research (Rapid Evidence Assessment) Data on the values of different outcomes such as school exclusion already exists Gather information from site visits

Overview of the project Logic model Working with stakeholders at a national, regional and project level the project team map out the logic model underpinning the intervention ie what outcomes it is expected to achieve and how is it expected to achieve them. Costing the interventions Visits to case study sites will be undertaken to undertake a bottom-up costing of the interventions. Evidence review Existing research and evaluation evidence is then reviewed using agreed criteria that defines how robust evidence must be to be included and allows for the review process to be replicated if it is repeated in the future. Modelling A model is constructed that is shaped by the logic model and populated with data from the review process. Stakeholder validation Key assumptions in the model can be tested and validated with stakeholders to ensure that there is a high degree of ‘sign-up’ to the outputs from the project. This is where the bulk of the project resource will be focused

Outcome domainShort-term manifestationsLong-term manifestations CaringReducing burden of care on young person Improved care provision for the family from statutory services Education and training Reduced truancy from school Improved school attendance Reduced school exclusion Attendance of vocational training Increased qualifications Increased chance of employment Less benefit claims More tax paid Mental healthReduction in incidence of self-harmingReduction in incidence of poor mental health Physical healthReductions in injuries or chronic conditions associated with heavy lifting Reductions in teenage pregnancy Reductions in teenage fatherhood Child protectionReductions in ‘looked after’ childrenSocial exclusion OffendingReduction in offending Substance misuseReduced substance misuse BehaviouralImproved personal hygiene Improved anger management Improved social skills Improved self-esteem as manifest by ability to form and sustain successful relationships with friends/partners/spouses Outcomes

Rapid Evidence Assessment The Government Social Research website describes a REA as: “... a tool for getting on top of the available research evidence on a policy issue, as comprehensively as possible, within the constraints of a given timetable.... REAs provide a balanced assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise the academic research literature and other sources of information.“

Key stages in an REA Agreed search strategy rigorously followed (eg defined search terms, list of databases and publications that will be searched) Criteria set for data quality and only data that meets criteria is included in the synthesis A REA report will provide overview of what evidence is saying. Sometimes data synthesis is undertaken if data being reviewed is quantitative and sufficient studies of an agreed methodological quality exist to make such an approach possible.

REA outputs The first search identified 1329 studies of which 81 were retrieved. No papers met theoretical and quality criteria The second search

The model

Costs What is covered? Key finding Set-up costs eg: Equipment (e.g. computers, activity equipment, mini-bus) Staff recruitment costs Running costs eg: Staff (FTEs) Volunteers (FTEs) Steering group Accommodation (rent) The average cost of an intervention per capita is £2,500.

Impact We estimate that young carers’ projects have a 11 per cent impact on reducing truancy among the young carers they work with. We estimate young carers’ projects have a 1 per cent impact on reducing the risk of the young carers with whom they work being taken into local authority care. We estimate that young carers’ projects have a 2·5 per cent impact on reducing the risk of the young carers they work with from becoming teenage parents.

Savings Cost BasePotential Saving per capita Appropriate caring£7,827 Cost of Local Authority Care Direct Cost£13,650 Extra Tuition£2,424 Risk of becoming NEET £34,500£50,574 Improved Schooling£47,931 Reduced risk of teen pregnancy£130,405

Key findings For every pound invested in a Young Carers’ project the saving to society is £6.72. A project working with 50 young carers a year would have to do one of the following to justify its funding (i.e. ‘break even’): prevent truancy occurring or the taking into LAC of 3 young carers who would otherwise have been at risk; or prevent one young person at risk of becoming a teenage parent from becoming a teenage parent.