Conclusions Introduction The sections above outline the key findings from the analysis of the data collected by Keepmoat as part of their delivery of the Warm Homes initiative. This provides indicative findings regarding the extent and nature of outcomes derived from the project. The overall picture is of a positive impact on fuel poverty and health and wellbeing across all demography and socio-economic groups. However, some of these results - notably the changes in GHQ-12 scores and an associated question on life satisfaction - are beyond what would normally be expected of any single public policy intervention and as such need to be treated with some caution. Outcomes In summary, the monitoring and questionnaire data indicate the following key positive outcomes for the project: it was predicted that three-quarters of participants would move out of fuel poverty as a result of the initiative 60 per cent of respondents with a physical health problem felt that the initiative had a positive impact on their health four-fifths reported that the project had a positive impact on their general health and wellbeing almost all (48 out of 50) of those who self-reported as 'high risk' of mental illness through completion of the General Health Questionnaire moved to 'low risk' following the initiative (although, see above for discussion regarding a number of caveats to this) 96 per cent of respondents agreed that their home was easier to heat as a result of their involvement in the project; and 84 per cent agreed that they now spend less on their heating. This gives an initial indication that the project was successful across financial, health and wellbeing, and comfort criteria. Further analysis and triangulation with data collected through the second phase of the evaluation will generate a fuller picture of the extent of these outcomes. There were very few significant differences across different population groups affected by the project. This is perhaps not surprising: there is no particular reason to suggest that any one population group would report different outcomes for this kind of intervention. Nonetheless, it provides reassurance that the project did not 'favour' (for want of a better term) any one population group in terms of the quality and impact of support received.
Conclusions Introduction The sections above outline the key findings from the analysis of the data collected by Keepmoat as part of their delivery of the Warm Homes initiative. This provides indicative findings regarding the extent and nature of outcomes derived from the project. The overall picture is of a positive impact on fuel poverty and health and wellbeing across all demography and socio-economic groups. However, some of these results - notably the changes in GHQ-12 scores and an associated question on life satisfaction - are beyond what would normally be expected of any single public policy intervention and as such need to be treated with some caution. Outcomes In summary, the monitoring and questionnaire data indicate the following key positive outcomes for the project: it was predicted that three-quarters of participants would move out of fuel poverty as a result of the initiative 60 per cent of respondents with a physical health problem felt that the initiative had a positive impact on their health four-fifths reported that the project had a positive impact on their general health and wellbeing almost all (48 out of 50) of those who self-reported as 'high risk' of mental illness through completion of the General Health Questionnaire moved to 'low risk' following the initiative (although, see above for discussion regarding a number of caveats to this) 96 per cent of respondents agreed that their home was easier to heat as a result of their involvement in the project; and 84 per cent agreed that they now spend less on their heating. This gives an initial indication that the project was successful across financial, health and wellbeing, and comfort criteria. Further analysis and triangulation with data collected through the second phase of the evaluation will generate a fuller picture of the extent of these outcomes. There were very few significant differences across different population groups affected by the project. This is perhaps not surprising: there is no particular reason to suggest that any one population group would report different outcomes for this kind of intervention. Nonetheless, it provides reassurance that the project did not 'favour' (for want of a better term) any one population group in terms of the quality and impact of support received.
warm_homes_interim_evaluation_report.docx