Cost effectiveness
and economic analysis
Commissioners, other stakeholders, and service users overwhelmingly
describe the case study services as providing value for money. Stakeholders
and service users see home improvement services as trusted providers,
they have a good reputation built up over their years of operation.
They often help to support wider strategic objectives (e.g. for local
authorities and the NHS).
The positive established reputation enabled them to deliver complementary
services beyond those commissioned through the local authority and
generate additional funds.
The integrated, collaborative, and multidisciplinary way in which the
services operated was seen as being efficient, and therefore likely to be
more cost-effective than if services were provided separately. Home
improvement services had worked to become more efficient over time by
streamlining their delivery model to maintain the quality and range of their
services despite budget constraints.
One-stop-shop services were also felt to offer cost efficiencies as they
supported multiple local authority priorities within a single, integrated team,
allowing DFG obligations to be fulfilled alongside other services, e.g. those
tackling the climate emergency.
From the perspective of local authorities, where funding is often under
pressure, the fact that home improvement services can generate income
from other sources, is beneficial for councils and appreciated by
commissioners.
The case study services were also viewed as good value for money by those
receiving them. Even service users who were utilising paid-for services
not covered by grant funding felt that they were cost-effective. Some had
compared the prices with other contractors and found the Home
Improvement Service to be cheaper. Service users preferred to utilise
the Home Improvement Service as it was endorsed by the council and
is a not-for-profit rather than a private contractor. Service user satisfaction
ratings are also very high, where this data is collected.