#EXCLUDE#
#EXCLUDE#
#EXCLUDE#
#EXCLUDE#

Find prevention records by subject or service provider/commissioner name

  • Key to icons

    • Journal Prevention service example
    • Book Book
    • Digital media Digital media
    • Journal Journal article
    • Free resource Free resource

Results for 'volunteers'

Results 1 - 10 of 25

Age Friendly Island: local evaluation. Annual evaluation report 16/17

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR INCLUSION
2017

An evaluation of Age Friendly Island (AFI), a partnership of older people and voluntary and public sector agencies working together across the Isle of Wight (IOW) to reduce social isolation, empower older people and influence local culture so that older people are seen as assets rather than burdens. The evaluation covers the period April 2016 to March 2017, covering data gathered across Year 2 of the Programme. It looks at the impact of the 12 projects that make up the AFI, in relation to four outcomes: older people have improved connections within their local community and reduced social isolation; older people feel empowered to co-produce local policies and services; for older people to feel the Island is age-friendly; and an increased sense of health, wellbeing, and quality of life. The projects reported a total of 9,962 new participants in the period 2016-17, with an average of 1,594 people participating across the 12 projects each month. The evaluation found that participation in the Programme has helped older people to increase their social connections, meet new people, and has led to decreased social isolation for people involved. Participants also reported that involvement in the project led to a positive impact on the health, mental health, wellbeing or quality of life. Whilst there are good examples of genuine co-production, the evaluation identified the need for further progress to enable older people to feel empowered to influence projects, services and policies. The AFI Programme is one of 14 Fulfilling Lives: Ageing Better partnerships funded by the Big Lottery.

North London Cares and South London Cares

North London Cares and South London Cares

North London Cares (NLC) and South London Cares (SLC) are community networks mobilising young professionals to volunteer to spend time with and support their older neighbours in Camden and Islington (NLC) and Lambeth and Southwark (SLC), in order to reduce loneliness and isolation amongst older people (and young professionals alike); to improve the skills, confidence, wellbeing and resilience so that all participants can better navigate the rapidly changing modern world; and to reduce the division across social and generational divides in London.

ExtraCare's Wellbeing Programme

The ExtraCare Charitable Trust

ExtraCare’s Wellbeing Programme was developed in 2002, in partnership with older people who live at ExtraCare’s Schemes and Villages. The concept was launched following a survey, which highlighted that 75% of residents at one location had not accessed any health screening via their GPs or the NHS. A pilot screening scheme subsequently identified 122 previously undetected conditions amongst a population of just 136, highlighting a clear need for the Programme.

The impact of faith-based organisations on public health and social capital

NOVEMBER Lucy
2014

Summarises research evidence on the relationship between faith and health, and on the role of faith communities in improving health and reducing health inequalities. It also provides an overview of faith in the UK and the health problems prevalent within different ethnic and faith communities. The literature was identified through searches carried out on a range of databases and organisational websites, and was structured into two ‘strands’. Strand one looks at how faith based organisations represent communities with poor health outcomes, and provide an opportunity for public health services to access these ‘hard to reach’ groups. Strand two looks at how the social and spiritual capital gained by belonging to a faith community can result in physical and mental health benefits and mitigate other determinants of poor health. Findings from the review included that regular engagement in religious activities is positively related to various aspects of wellbeing, and negatively associated with depressive symptoms. There was also evidence to show that volunteering can positively affect the health and wellbeing of volunteers, and that faith communities represent a large proportion of national volunteering. The report provides recommendations for faith-based organisations and public health bodies, on how they might work effectively in partnership to realise the potential for faith groups of improving health and wellbeing.

Volunteering and social action and the Care Act: an opportunity for local government

VOLUNTEERING MATTERS
2016

This paper provides advice and guidance for councillors and chief officers to help them respond to the Care Act 2014 by working together with partners in their local communities to develop volunteering and social action. The paper identifies Care Act duties placed on local government and partner organisation, which are to promote wellbeing; prevent reduce or delay needs by building on the resources of the local community; the provision of information and advice; and shaping a diverse and sustainable local market of providers for care and support. It then highlights the role volunteering can play in helping to fulfil these duties; why the VCSE sector is a useful partner for local authorities seeking to deliver their Care Act responsibilities; and identifies Care Act duties where volunteers can make a contribution. It also identifies shared features of initiatives which are effective building community capacity and promoting voluntary action. These are that they are co-produced, respond to local context, human in scale, strength-based; build in learning; build in sustainability; and adaptive, able to learn from their experience. It concludes with the challenges that need to be addressed to make the most of community capacity and build services which are ‘prevention-focused’. These are to provide community leadership and strategic direction; replicate and scale up good practice; prioritisation versus competing demands; commissioning practice; facilitate choice and control through micro-commissioning; supplement not displace paid work; and measure the impact of volunteering. Includes links to additional resources and sources of information.

The benefits of making a contribution to your community in later life

JONES Dan, YOUNG Aideen, REEDER Neil
2016

Reviews existing evidence on the benefits for older people of volunteering and making unpaid contributions to their communities in later life. The report covers ‘community contributions’ to refer to this whole spectrum of unpaid activity, including individual acts of neighbourliness, peer support, formal volunteering and involvement in civic participation. The report looks the state of the current evidence base; the main areas of benefit for volunteering in later life, who currently benefits from volunteering and in what circumstances. The review identifies good evidence that older people making community contributions can lead to benefits in: the quantity and quality of their social connections; an enhanced sense of purpose and self-esteem; and improved life satisfaction, happiness and wellbeing. The evidence was less clear on the impact on health, employment and social isolation. The review also found that people aged 50 with fewer social connections, lower levels of income and education, and poorer health may have the most to gain from helping others. However, the people most likely to volunteer are those who are already relatively wealthy, in good physical and mental health, and with high levels of wellbeing and social connections. The report makes recommendations for organisations, funders and commissioners working with older volunteers. These included: maximise the benefits of volunteering by focusing on engaging older people who are relatively less well connected, less wealthy and less healthy; avoid an over reliance on volunteering alone to tackle serious issues related to physical health, frailty, social isolation or employability; and ensure that older people engaged in volunteering have meaningful roles, with opportunities for social interaction.

The power of peer support: what we have learned from the Centre for Social Action Innovation Fund

GRAHAM Jullie Tran, RUTHERFORD Katy
2016

This report looks at the value of peer support and the part it can play in a people-powered health system. It also shares practical insights from 10 organisations involved in Nesta’s Centre for Social Action Innovation Fund on how peer support can be effectively scaled and spread to benefit more people. The ten case studies provide details of the peer support innovations and evidence of their impact to date. The peer support models developed included one-to-one peer support, group peer support and digital approaches. From the ten peer support innovations, the report highlights key learning about the realities of delivering peer support across a range of conditions and with very different groups of people. These covers engaging people in peer support; recruiting, training and supporting peer facilitators; and evaluating and improving peer support. The report finds that peer support has the potential to improve psychosocial outcomes, behaviour, wellbeing outcomes, and service use. It also found that reciprocity was an important motivator for volunteers and that the most effective volunteers were trained and well supported. It concludes with what the future might hold for those working with and commissioning peer support in England. Recommendations include developing relationships with public service professionals to help them understand the value of peer support and embedding peer support alongside existing services.

North and South London Cares. Evaluation and development through the Centre for Social Action Innovation Fund

RENAISI
2016

This report presents the findings from research and impact measurement of key projects undertaken by the North London Cares and South London Cares, demonstrating how the charities meet their core objectives of reducing isolation and loneliness amongst older people (and young professionals alike); improving the wellbeing, skills, resilience and connection of all participants; and bridging social and generational divides. The main projects comprise: Love Your Neighbour, supporting one-to-one friendships across social and generational divides; Social Clubs, aimed at older people who can still get out of the house, and want to interact with other older neighbours as well as local young people; Winter Wellbeing, a pro-active outreach effort that helps older neighbours to stay warm, active, healthy and connected during the most isolating time of year; and Community Fundraising, involving volunteers in major community fundraising effort through a ‘networked approach’. Drawing from the responses to a survey of new members (and follow up surveys), the report shows that there were little change for the scores for wellbeing for those who answered all surveys, except for an increase in anxiety. When looking at all responses, regardless of whether they stayed in contact for 12 months, the happiness score appears to be increasing, suggesting that some of those who were least happy dropped out of the survey. In the loneliness questions there was a decrease in the computed social loneliness score (questions about other people), but an increase in the emotional loneliness (questions about their sense of loneliness). The report also develops a new theory of change for the organisation, and sets out how to go about measuring impact against theory. The theory is based on five outcomes, which apply equally to both volunteers and older neighbours, and include: reducing isolation, improving wellbeing, increasing the feeling of belonging in the local community, living richer lives, and building bridges across social and generational divides.

Evaluation of the Reducing Social Isolation and Loneliness grant fund: evaluation final report

ROBERTS Lauren
2016

Final evaluation of the Reducing Social Isolation and Loneliness Grant programme, designed to encourage the voluntary and community sector (VCS) to develop innovative approaches to reduce social isolation and loneliness amongst Manchester residents aged 50 plus. The programme was commissioned and funded by North, Central and South Manchester Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), and administered and managed by Manchester Community Central (Macc). It awarded nine large (£10,000-£50,000) and eighteen small grants (less than £10,000) to local VCS organisations across Manchester's three Clinical Commissioning Group areas. This report provides an overview of the programme and discusses evidence of impact in the following areas: reducing social isolation and loneliness; improving confidence and independence; and improving health, wellbeing and quality of life. It also looks at learning from the project around identifying socially isolated and lonely people and engaging with, and retaining, people's involvement in initiatives. The evaluation reported increased social connections, with almost all respondents (97 per cent) meeting new people through the project; the creation of new friendships; increased quality of life; and improvements in self-reported health. It demonstrates that VCS-led model are capable of delivering desired outcomes and also highlights the importance of effective partnership arrangements between VCS umbrella organisations and CCG funders. Individual case studies showcasing learning and impact evidence from the individual projects are included in the appendices.

Evaluation of Prevention Matters

APTELIGEN, et al
2015

An evaluation of Prevention Matters, a whole county change programme designed to facilitate access to frontline community services and groups in Buckinghamshire. The programme targets those whose needs are below the substantial need threshold for adult social care, building on a referral system, rather than on direct support. Fourteen Community Practice Workers (CPWs) are aligned to the seven GP localities in Buckinghamshire, and lead on the referral process, from first contact with the users to final review and exit. The CPWs are supported by seven Community Links Officers who ensure that the necessary resources are available in the community to meet users’ needs, including identification of opportunities to build new capacity. A wide network of frontline community services and groups provides direct face-to-face support to users through activities such as befriending, transport, fitness, and lunch clubs. The evaluation found that the potential to maintain independence and delay access to adult social care may be less than originally intended as a result of the complexity of the needs and frailty of some programme users. Nonetheless, nearly half of all programme users reported improvement in their satisfaction with the level of social contact they had and a third of programme users reported that their quality of life was better at the review stage compared to the time of their baseline assessment. In addition, the evaluation concluded that the programme has been particularly successful at facilitating access to information. The analysis indicates that the benefits associated with the programme are £1,000 per user per year, including the value of the improvements in health suggested by the impact evaluation (£500), and estimated spill-over effects on the need for informal social care (£492). The report also highlights the positive impact on organisations and systems, and increased volunteering capacity and sets out a series of recommendations to strengthen the delivery of the programme.

Results 1 - 10 of 25

#EXCLUDE#
Ask about support on integration, STPs and transformation
ENQUIRE
Related SCIE content
Related NICE content
Related external content
Visit Social Care Online, the UK’s largest database of information and research on all aspects of social care and social work.
SEARCH NOW
Submit prevention service example
SUBMIT
What do you think about SCIE's work?
FEEDBACK
#EXCLUDE#
#EXCLUDE#
#EXCLUDE#