Evaluation of Tom Harrison House

Heard something about Tom Harrison House recently?...

http://tomharrisonhouse.org.uk/

https://www.facebook.com/Tom-Harrison-House-136402619863607/timeline/?ref=hl

… but do you know exactly what THH does?

a specialist facility providing abstinence-based addiction

treatment exclusively to military Veterans, reservists, emergency

personnel, and their families

provide trauma-informed addiction treatment through a ‘sensory and wellbeing’ model of care, support,

therapy and education.

“a residential environment for Veterans that supports physical

and emotional healing from substance misuse”

This evaluation looked to develop understanding around three key areas….

The number and type of successful ‘completions’, and why the service

is successful for certain service users?

The number and type of discharges and relapses, and why the service is

unsuccessful for certain service users?

What recommendations are there on what (if anything) could be done

differently, and what suggestions can be made to support future

longer-term outcome evaluations?

We evaluated the service from Oct’14 to July ‘15, using a variety of methods & techniques:

One-to-one interviews, including

VoiceBox (VB) interactive video

conversations.

Desktop analysis - examination of THH monitoring

records, including

Outcome Star results.

Process and outcome

evaluation – meshing

together the primary and secondary analysis.

What commonly characterised many of THH service users in the first year?

Predominantly middle-aged, male and ex-army. •9% RAF, 6% navy & 6% emergency services – almost 80% being ex-army. 49% of SUs between 45 and 64 years of age. A further 43% between 30 and 44 years of age.

Family history of addiction.•47% declared a family history of addiction. Only one of 13 SUs who left before completing treatment stated did not have a family history of addiction.

Homelessness.• 38% ‘no fixed abode’ on admission, reflecting

the referral route for many.

Criminal Justice System experience• almost half of SUs to date had been in prison

(47% admissions).

And what type of addictions were they battling?

Alcohol as primary ‘drug of choice’. • 94% of First Stage

admissions (n=32) listed alcohol as a ‘drug of choice’ on entry to THH.

• of the 63 substances referred to by SUs, alcohol makes up over half (51%) of the substances listed.

• Cannabis, heroin and cocaine next most prevalent ‘drugs of choice’.

People found their way into THH through a variety of referral ‘pathways’ in…

Addaction 11% Aigburth Drive Hostel 3% Basement 17% Brook Place 3%

Cathedral Archer Project 3%

Derbyshire Alcohol Service

3%

Flintshire Council3% LCAS 3%

Merseyside Fire Rescue Service

3%

Pennine Care6%

Royal British Legion 3% Self 29%

Shared Care Wirral 3%

Whitechapel6%

Windsor Clinic 3%

Wirral Alcohol Service 3%

And when they’re in they link through to many organisations and support….

Addaction Art & Soul Brink Everton in the Community

Independence Initiative

Liverpool Community

College

New Start Homes

Potential 4 Skills

Royal British Legion Shy Lowen Transit Whitechapel

Windsor Clinic X Roads YMCA

Length of treatment and support varied:

Green ‘bars’ indicate successful completion >

Gold stars indicate when beneficiary completed First Stage (‘12 week’ ) programme

Grey bars are ongoing service users (July’15)

Outcome evaluation: Case studies provide vital qualitative insight into the 3 main treatment outcomes >

“‘I know he’s safe here and doing well, and now so are we - we can relax a bit more and get back into his life” (Mother of service user)

“a number of life changing results” (referral agency) - including a man 20 years street drinking and homeless, who is now thriving.

“Some of the things that have come out here, that I’ve done, would never come out - that’s always been my problem.” (THH Service User)

Drug and Alcohol

Outcome Star - Ten Areas /

Scales

Drug Use

Alcohol Use

Physical Health

Meaningful Use of Time

Emotional Health

Accommodation

Money

Offending

Community

Family & Relationships

Outcome evaluation:Outcome Star findings add impact metric..

Abstinence from alcohol & substances

Improved family

relationships

Reduced anxiety & increased

confidence;

Overall improvement in scores, between initial Star assessment and 3rd assessment: Greatest % changes shown >

+35%

+29%

+20%

+22%

Conclusions:

Design and implementation – key questions in the process evaluation:

Is the service design adequately implemented?

the model appears to work very well for people in the quasi-residential service – though less effective for those people who were day users of the service.

Is the service design appropriate for the population being targeted and the problems

faced?

The service design appears highly appropriate to the needs of the people who took part in the evaluation.

Conclusions:

Areas for further work

Post-service tracking • Biggest gap in the evidence base =

systematic way to track how well SUs progress once they have left the THH service.

Regular recording of Star data• Continued impetus and momentum

is required - to develop robust longitudinal outcome monitoring system.

Value for money analysis• scale and scope of evaluation did not

allow for a value for money assessment - required to inform a rigorous impact evaluation.

Conclusions:

Effective engagement at THH highlights 6 main ‘ingredients’…

1. Initial engagement bond

6. Family-basedinterventions

3. Responsive staff

2. ‘Blended’programme

5. Militaryfocus – for trust & sharing

4. Ethos / community culture

Effective engagement

Amanda ClaysonAmanda is the founder of VoiceBox Inc and deeply committed to the core values of ‘curious connected co-creation’.

Michael LloydMichael is Principal Researcher and owner at MLR, and has 20 years experience of delivering social research.

Like to know more?

Access the webpage or contact the Project Managers

www.researchmlr.co.uk/thh-evaluation michael@researchmlr.co.uk

amanda@voiceboxinc.co.uk