Invitation to Tender

Transcription

1 Invitation to Tender Contact: Project: Jacob Diggle, Research and Evaluation Officer Peer Support Programme Date: January 2015 Brief description: Mind has recently secured 3.2 million from the Big Lottery to increase access to peer support across England, evidence its effectiveness, and support its future sustainability. This programme will run for two years. One of the key objectives of the programme is to build the evidence base for peer support and we have dedicated significant resource to evaluation. We are seeking evaluation partners to deliver each of the programme s four evaluation strands: 1) Participant Outcomes 2) Process Evaluation 3) Economic Analysis 4) Commissioning Behaviour Applicants can submit bids for one or more strands. We strongly encourage partnership bids. Budget: Total budget of 280,000 (including VAT) Deadlines Deadline for applications: Partner(s) selected: Fieldwork start date: Fieldwork end date: Draft reports due: Final reports published: 20 th February th March 2015 May 2015 September 2016 November 2016 January

2 We re Mind, the mental health charity. We re here to make sure anyone with a mental health problem has somewhere to turn for advice and support. Our vision: We won t give up until everyone experiencing a mental health problem gets both support and respect. Our mission: We provide advice and support to empower anyone experiencing a mental health problem. We campaign to improve services, raise awareness, and promote understanding. Our values: Open We reach out to anyone who needs us. Together We re stronger in partnership. Responsive We listen, we act. Independent We speak out fearlessly. Unstoppable We never give up. Mind has a diverse portfolio of activities, including training, policy and campaigning, advice lines, and supporting our network of 150 local Minds. We also coordinate the delivery of large and innovative new services across our network. The local Mind network has a presence in every region in England and Wales, directly supporting around 420,000 people every year. By far the largest network of services and support for people with mental health problems in the country, its strength lies in its unique ability to draw on the skills and experience of a trusted national network, matched with strong local relationships, and the tailoring of services to local needs. 2

3 Programme Overview 1 in 4 people in England experience a mental health problem every year. The cost of this is huge; this week over 115 people will take their own lives, 2,000 people will be admitted to a mental health hospital, and 885,000 prescriptions will be issued for anti-depressants. The social exclusion associated with mental health problems disadvantages whole communities. We know that peer support helps to address this need. Peer support is based on the mutual exchange of advice and support amongst people with mental health problems. Previous research, including Mind s own inquiry, suggests that participants have more confidence about managing their condition, increased social capital, and reduced dependence on statutory services. Mind s aim is for everyone in England with a mental health problem to have access to peer support. With 3.2 million funding from Big Lottery, we have developed an ambitious programme that will raise awareness among 40,000 people, deliver online peer support to 6,000 people, and provide face-to-face peer support for 2,400 people. Over the next two years, we aim to achieve and evidence the following objectives: People who access peer support have improved mental health, more social capital, and greater levels of empowerment Grass roots peer-led groups and organisations have increased sustainability, leading to more high quality peer support Commissioners have increased awareness of the value and benefits of peer support and its contribution to commissioning outcomes People with mental health problems, their families and carers have more information about the benefits of peer support, leading to greater choice in how they live and recover Starting on 2 nd March 2015, the programme will be rolled out across nine regions of England. Working with a wide range of partners, including our five strategic partners (three local Minds, Depression Alliance, and Bipolar UK), we will: 1. Develop the peer support market o Establish nine strategic partnership peer support projects o Coach and mentor 216 grass roots peer support groups in total o Award grants to 45 of these grass roots organisations to fund effective delivery of peer support to new participants o Ensure peer support reaches black and minority ethnic (BME) and rural communities o Expand Elefriends (online peer support) 2. Increase the commissioning of effective community-based peer support o Evaluate the impact of peer support provision on user defined and clinical outcomes o Provide advice, information, and evidence for commissioners and policy makers o Facilitate events to bring commissioners and stakeholders together to share learning o Monitor commissioning behaviour, particularly the inclusion of peer support in the care pathway 3. Promote peer support o Raise awareness of the value of peer support and how to access it amongst 40,000 people o Provide information about peer support to people with experience of mental health problems, providers, and commissioners o Develop evaluation and influencing resources for the peer support sector 3

4 There is a split between national and local delivery of the programme. Local delivery will take place in a specified hub area in every region. Each hub organisation will co-ordinate capacity building activity including regular communications, networking meetings, and experts on call sessions. These hubs will be co-ordinated by a local Mind. Further, in the area there will be a peer support project, run by one of our strategic delivery partners, plus up to five grant-funded peer support projects, run by local groups and organisations. For our strategic partner work, Depression Alliance will lead in three regions, Bipolar UK in three regions, and a local Mind will lead in each of the remaining three regions. At a national level we will be expanding our existing delivery of online peer support, through our Elefriends platform. We will also be increasing the information available about peer support through a national communications campaign and on-going policy work to influence the views of commissioners. Local Delivery Organisational capacity building through mentoring and workshops One strategic partnership peer support project in each region, delivered over two years Grant funding for up to five projects, per region, run by a wide range of groups and organisations some specifically with a focus on BME and rural communities. Promotion of Mind s online peer support community, Elefriends, to local service users Facilitating networking events and opportunities to link with local commissioners Promoting work to local media National Delivery Delivering Elefriends online peer support community and support to new members Distributing information about peer support Encourage local and national media stories Commissioning and overseeing programme evaluation this includes disseminating evidence and evaluation tools Developing guidelines for local commissioners Carrying out face-to-face briefings with senior commissioners 4

5 Building a robust evidence base for peer support is one of the core objectives of this project and we have allocated significant resource to this task. Our evaluation should measure the impact of peer support on user-defined and clinical outcomes, identify the principles that underpin high quality peer support, evaluate our process for increasing the availability and quality of peer support, and monitor commissioning practices relating to peer support. Therefore, we are seeking partners to deliver four evaluation strands. Applicants can submit bids for one or more strands. Participant Outcomes This evaluation strand will measure changes in participant outcomes (e.g. self-esteem, confidence in managing condition, empowerment, leadership skills etc) related to both giving and receiving peer support. Economic Analysis This evaluation strand will model the health economic impact of each component of the programme. This may include cost-utility analysis, simple decision analytic modelling, or other methods (dependent on availability of data). Process Evaluation This evaluation strand seeks to understand the principles that underpin effective peer support and the best way to support and expand the sector. Commissioning Behaviour This evaluation strand will monitor the attitudes of commissioners to peer support in general, and supported programmes in particular. It will involve regular monitoring with particular focus on changes in behaviour after local hub events, CCG briefings, guidance for commissioners, and the publication of our research findings. The other objective of our peer support programme is to increase awareness of peer support. However, this section of the programme including targeted online and media work - will be evaluated internally. 5

6 Strand 1: Participant Outcomes The development of this programme involved extensive scoping research. We have now evaluated the impact of our existing peer support work, mapped national provision, and conducted an initial literature review. We have found that the value of peer support is demonstrated in a number of sources but the UK evidence base is still limited. Evaluation Strand 1 will make a major contribution to the understanding of this area, exploring changes in participant outcomes (e.g. self-esteem, confidence in managing condition, empowerment, leadership skills, volunteering in the future etc) related to both giving and receiving peer support. Our programme involves a number of different vehicles for providing peer support. The evaluation partner for this strand should use appropriate but comparable methods for each of these approaches. The research method(s) should be designed from the start with people who have lived experience of mental health problems and experience of giving and/or receiving peer support. The scale and range of research subjects (outlined below) will make this a challenging project. Therefore, our chosen partner must have experience of successfully delivering complex and sensitive community-based evaluation projects. Experience of working effectively with peer researchers, people with mental health problems, and people from BME communities will be considered favourably by the tender selection panel. Key Deliverables Literature Review We have completed an initial literature review of peer support interventions. However, our evaluation partner should conduct a thorough review within and beyond mental health to identify evidence gaps and ensure that the chosen methodology is appropriate and comparable. Online Mind operates a large online peer support forum, called Elefriends. The community has over 16,500 members and will attract 6,000 new members as a result of this programme. We will also make a number of changes to the site including locally tailored content for the nine programme sites. Our chosen evaluation partner should build on our existing evaluation of Elefriends - updating those findings and assessing the impact of changes to the site. Importantly, any evaluation of Elefriends impact must be comparable with evaluations of the other vehicles for delivering peer support. Grant Projects In order to increase the availability and quality of peer support, we will be awarding grants to 45 grassroots organisations to further develop their peer support work. The evaluation partner should measure the effectiveness of these activities and the changes in outcomes for participants. Some groups may differ in the way they deliver peer support (e.g. one-to-one, groups, gender-specific etc) and we would like to compare the effectiveness of these approaches. We have identified two audiences that are particularly underserved by existing peer support provision; people from BME communities and those living in rural areas. We will ensure that at least 18 grants target these priority audiences so that expansion of peer support reaches those who need it most. At Mind, we have seen some of our own peer support services organically evolve to bias the needs of particular groups; top line demographic information from our online peer support service (Elefriends) indicates that it is most successful in reaching an older, female population. We would be especially interested in understanding the relative impact of peer support on different demographics. 6

7 In particular, we would like to know whether peer support led and delivered by people from specific BME and rural communities leads to different outcomes. Strategic Delivery Partners We will be delivering the programme in partnership with commissioning stakeholders, grass roots organisations, and strategic partners. Depression Alliance and Bipolar UK are established providers of peer support for people with mental health problems (running over 180 existing groups). They will each work in three regions, establishing new peer support groups in at least two. We will also be partnering with three local Minds to deliver the strategic aspect of this work. They will establish new projects in each of the remaining three regions. Our evaluation partner will work with each of these partners to evaluate the impact of their projects. In total, the nine strategic projects and 45 grant funded projects will provide face-to-face peer support to at least 2,400 people over the course of the programme. This is in addition to the 6,000 receiving online peer support. Control Group We would like to establish a representative control group of people experiencing mental health problems but not accessing peer support as part of this programme. The control will help us to isolate the impact of this programme s activities from other variables. The delivery of our strategic partners could allow for a wait list control. Alternatively, a control group could be recruited in a region outside the project s scope. These control participants would not be receiving peer support as part of our programme but they could still be receiving informal peer support from friends, family etc. We will work with our Research Advisory Group and evaluation partner to define selection criteria and ethical controls. Economic Data Collection The third strand of the Peer Support evaluation focuses on the economic impact of our programme. This is dependent upon data about participant s use of statutory services, clinical outcomes, and referral pathways. Whilst the economic analysis will be conducted by our partner for Strand 3, the majority of data collection will be the responsibility of our partner for Strand 1. We require both partners (if they are separate organisations) to work closely together to co-ordinate this data collection and analysis. Peer Researchers Mind strongly believes that people's experience of mental health problems and service provision must inform and influence everything we do. Therefore, our evaluation partners may wish to collaborate with user/survivor researchers as part of this work. We will specifically require our evaluation partner to train and coordinate peer researchers as part of their data collection strategies. Mind has employed this peer research model in a number of projects, with great success. These researchers must be people who have given or received peer support as part of this programme. They will be responsible for recruiting participants and collecting data via questionnaires. Each Peer Researcher should receive suitable training on how to recruit participants and conduct research. They must be able to access on-going advice and support. In addition to their help with measuring the impact of peer support groups, we want to understand the effect of this role on peer researchers (e.g. self-confidence, social capital). Therefore, a tailored assessment of their outcomes should also be made by our evaluation partner. 7

8 Legacy Tools We require our evaluation partner to develop tools that can be sustainably used by the participating organisations after the end of the programme. These tools should allow groups to monitor on-going progress against the baselines established by this evaluation, evidence their impact to commissioners, and continue to refine their work. We would also like to share these tools with the rest of the peer support sector. Outcomes Our evaluation partner will be responsible for devising their research methodology and the outcomes they will measure. However, a number of key areas for the funder and Mind are: Mental wellbeing Social capital Self-efficacy Attitudes towards mental health Confidence to give and receive peer support Use of statutory health services Symptoms of depression, anxiety, and psychosis (if appropriate) Project Management Programme Manager, Mind Research and Evaluation Officer, Mind Research Advisory Group (RAG) Lived Experience Reading Panel The Peer Support Programme Manager will oversee delivery of the whole project. They will be responsible for on-going co-ordination of the evaluation partners and ensuring that they fulfil contractual obligations. They will also provide regular updates about the progress of each evaluation strand to the Programme Management Board comprised of senior staff from across Mind. The evaluation partner will be commissioned and supported by Mind s Research and Evaluation Officer. This officer will ensure that the research is consistent with Mind s evaluation framework and strategy. They will also ensure consistency and co-operation between different evaluation strands. The Research Advisory Group (RAG) will be comprised of experienced researchers with expertise in peer support and mental health. The RAG will help to shape the programme s evaluation plan and provide comments on chosen partners research methodologies. They will also provide an on-going advisory role throughout the project and provide feedback on research reports. The Reading Panel will be made up of people with lived experience of mental health problems who have given and/or received peer support through this programme. They will include participants from a range of the peer support activities (e.g. grass roots, strategic delivery partners, online). This group will review the final research reports. Timeline Below are some of the key milestones and deadlines. Our chosen evaluation partner will have to convert these into a more detailed project plan. Activity Deadline 8

9 ITT deadline 20 th February 2015 Tender selection panels 4 th 6 th March 2015 Partner confirms methodology with Mind 20 th March 2015 Fieldwork begins April 2015 Peer researchers recruited and trained June July 2015 Fieldwork ends September 2016 Draft report due November 2016 Reading Panel provides comments November 2017 Final reports published from all strands January 2017 Budget The budget for this evaluation strand is 160,000. This budget includes all travel expenses and VAT. Each applicant must make their own decision about what is a financially viable costing for the project. This could include full cost recovery or exclude some costs (e.g. on-costs). Whilst we will not be selecting partners solely on cost, value for money is one of our selection criteria. Applicants may also recover costs from other sources. However, supplementary funding cannot have conflicting research aims or requirements. Any additional funding must be specified in your proposal and is subject to written permission by Mind. Applicants who are submitting a bid as a partnership should specify the cost breakdown and key deliverables of each partner. Application Details Please outline the following: Your understanding of our research needs Your experience of evaluating mental health services Your experience of evaluating peer support services, if applicable Your plan for engaging people with lived experience in all aspects of your work Your proposed research methodology (including sampling approach) Your proposal for recruiting and managing a control group Your plan for evaluating the grant funded projects, focusing on BME and rural communities Your plan to recruit, train, and co-ordinate project-based peer researchers Your proposal for developing legacy tools Your partners and their roles, if applicable Your approach to project management and quality assurance An indicative budget for this piece of work, outlining the resource required for each stage of the project. (Please show the day rate for each team member) Ability to start fieldwork by May 2015 Please include CVs of the research staff who will be responsible for this work Please supply an electronic copy of your proposal by 12 noon, 20 th February 2015 Selection Process The following criteria will be used to evaluate the tenders: Criteria Weighting % Track record of excellence 20 Value for money 20 9

10 Experience working with people with mental health issues 15 Experience working with BME and/or rural communities 15 Alignment with Mind s values and principles 10 Experience working with peer researchers 10 Creativity 10 Submissions should be made electronically to the Jacob Diggle, Research and Evaluation Officer (j.diggle@mind.org.uk) Questions may be submitted to the same address. In the interest of fairness, face-to-face meetings will not be given at this stage. The selection panel will include representatives of the Peer Support Programme team. The chosen partner will be selected by 6 th March

11 Strand 2: Process Evaluation Whilst developing this new programme, we have carried out research into the state of peer support provision in England. Our inquiry has shown peer support to be a heterogeneous practice, with many groups having emerged organically and operated in isolation. Whilst there is a growing understanding of what underpins effective peer support, we wish to develop this further by providing practical information and organisational support. Practitioners are concerned that applying a rigid structure to peer support groups would, whilst improving consistency, risk undermining the diversity of peer leadership that is so intrinsic to their value. This conclusion has been echoed in our review of the published evidence base. One proposed solution is to identify peer support principles that can underpin a variety of models. Our evaluation partner for Strand 2 will be responsible for identifying these key principles of effective peer support. Consistent with this approach, our programme will provide grants and capacity building to strengthen existing groups and organisations delivering peer support, rather than dictating their structure or programmes. We would like to evaluate the impact of this support on organisational sustainability. We would also like to examine how groups and organisations can build effective working relationships with local commissioners in particular through the strategic delivery partner projects (three local Minds and two other mental health charities). Our programme will take place in nine regions, each co-ordinated by a local hub organisation. Each region will include a strategic project (delivered by one of our strategic partners) and up to five grant-funded projects. This is in addition to delivery of online peer support, media influencing, and work with commissioners in each area and nationally. We require an evaluation partner to assess the efficiency and efficacy of our partnerships and organisational support. Importantly, this evaluation strand is not concerned with participant outcomes (see Strand 1), but understanding what principles underpin effective peer support, what capacity building is most useful and effective, and how groups can develop strategic relationships with commissioners. Key Deliverables Literature Review We have completed an initial literature review of peer support interventions. Our evaluation partner for Strand 1 will also be undertaking a comprehensive literature review. Our evaluation partner for Strand 2 should build on this research and conduct a supplementary review, focusing on the principles of peer support and improving the organisational sustainability of small heterogeneous groups. Their priority should be to identify evidence gaps and ensure that their chosen methodology is appropriate and comparable. Models of Peer Support Peer support is a very heterogeneous practice. We would like our evaluation partner to map these different models of peerness. We are particularly interested in capturing the different mechanisms used by peer supporters to engage people and provide support. We would also like to investigate how they draw on their own lived experience. Finally, we would like to understand whether the approach taken by each group is influenced by the nature of training, supervision, and support. This research will be informed by the literature review but it should also include depth interviews with group leaders and participants, feedback from hub events, views of commissioners etc. Key Principles 11

12 The diversity of peer support provision is one of its great strengths. However, practitioners have asked us to identify the common principles that underpin successful delivery. These might include recovery focus, mutuality, authenticity etc. Our evaluation partner must identify the common principles that underpin the success of grantees, strategic partners, and the online community. This will help to inform the development and sustainability of peer support provision beyond the life of this programme and to encourage high quality provision. Relationships with Commissioners We will be delivering the programme in partnership with commissioning stakeholders, grass roots peer support organisations, and our strategic partners (including Depression Alliance and Bipolar UK). Depression Alliance and Bipolar UK are established providers of peer support for people with mental health problems (running over 180 existing groups). Our evaluation partner for Strand 2 must evaluate how these different groups and organisations build relationships with commissioners. We are particularly interested to find out whether strategic partners and grantees - who will receive guidelines and attend network events focused on commissioning - become more effective at building strong relationships with commissioners. Organisational Sustainability We will award grants to 45 grassroots organisations to further develop their peer support delivery. Grants will average 12,000 and we estimate awarding five grants per region. The grass roots grants recipients will also have access to up to four days support from experts by experience to improve their sustainability. These experts will provide face-to-face, telephone, and support to help with problem solving, sharing learning across grants programmes, and reporting for funders. We will provide networking opportunities and a telephone mentoring service to 162 peer support groups some of whom will be receiving financial support. This support will be delivered through a hub in each of the programme s nine regions. Each hub, co-ordinated by a local Mind, will also host three events to bring together groups and organisations in their area who are interested in developing peer support. The events will include the nine strategic projects, grant recipients, other groups and organisations interested in developing peer support, local commissioners, and other stakeholders. In addition, these hubs will be responsible for developing tools that enable groups and organisations that deliver peer support to engage with local commissioners. Finally, the local hubs will host oneto-one expert on call sessions in each area. These sessions will support groups and organisations that do not receive grants to develop their projects and organisations e.g. governance, fundraising, marketing and communications, employment, and volunteer management etc. The specific areas of support will be determined by local need. We would like to understand the impact of these capacity building activities on organisational sustainability. In particular, we would be interested in comparing the success of groups that engage with hub activity compared to those that do not. Using depth interviews with group leaders and other stakeholders (e.g. GPs, local Minds), our evaluation partner should also be able to assess whether our support has any impact on how these organisations are perceived by local stakeholders. We would like our evaluation partner to provide on-going feedback to participants, in addition to an end of project report. This formative feedback will help them to refine their activity and help us improve our support offer before the end of the programme. Outcomes 12

13 Our evaluation partner would be responsible for devising their research methodology and the outcomes they will measure. However, a number of key areas for the funder and Mind are: Principles underpinning effective peer support Organisational sustainability of grant recipients Organisational sustainability of groups engaging with hub activities communications, experts on call, networking meetings Confidence of organisations to deliver peer support after hub events Strength of relationships with commissioners Strength of relationships with and between local groups and organisations Project Management Programme Manager, Mind Research and Evaluation Officer, Mind Research Advisory Group (RAG) Lived Experience Reading Panel The Peer Support Programme Manager will oversee delivery of the whole project. They will be responsible for on-going co-ordination of the evaluation partners and ensuring that they fulfil contractual obligations. They will also provide regular updates about the progress of each evaluation strand to the Programme Management Board comprised of senior staff from across Mind. The evaluation partner will be commissioned and supported by Mind s Research and Evaluation Officer. This officer will ensure that the research is consistent with Mind s evaluation framework and strategy. They will also ensure consistency and co-operation between different evaluation strands. The Research Advisory Group (RAG) will be comprised of experienced researchers with expertise in peer support and mental health. The RAG will help to shape the programme s evaluation plan and provide comments on chosen partners research methodologies. They will also provide an on-going advisory role throughout the project and provide feedback on research reports. The Reading Panel will be made up of people with lived experience of mental health problems who have given and/or received peer support through this programme. They will include participants from a range of peer support groups (e.g. grass roots, strategic delivery partners, online). This group will review the final research reports. Timeline Below are some of the key milestones and deadlines. Our chosen evaluation partner will have to convert these into a more detailed project plan. Activity Deadline ITT deadline 20 th February 2015 Tender selection panels 4 th 6 th March 2015 Partner confirms methodology with Mind 20 th March 2015 Fieldwork begins May 2015 Peer researchers recruited and trained June - July 2015 Fieldwork ends September 2016 Draft report due November 2017 Reading Panel provides comments November 2017 Final reports published from all strands January 2017 Budget 13

14 The budget for this evaluation strand is 60,000. This budget includes all travel expenses and VAT. Each applicant must make their own decision about what is a financially viable costing for the project. This could include full cost recovery or exclude some costs (e.g. on-costs). Whilst we will not be selecting partners solely on cost, value for money is one of our selection criteria. Applicants may also recover costs from other sources. However, supplementary funding cannot have conflicting research aims or requirements. Any additional funding must be specified in your proposal and is subject to written permission by Mind. Applicants who are submitting a bid as a partnership should specify the cost breakdown and key deliverables of each partner. Application Details Please outline the following: Your understanding of our research needs Your experience of evaluating mental health services Your experience of completing process evaluations Your experience of evaluating peer support services, if applicable Your experience of working with health commissioners Your plan for engaging people with lived experience in all aspects of your work Your proposed research methodology (including sampling approach) Your partners and their roles, if applicable Your approach to project management and quality assurance An indicative budget for this piece of work, outlining the resource required for each stage of the project. (Please show the day rate for each team member) Please include CVs of the research staff who will be responsible for this work Please supply an electronic copy of your proposal by 12 noon, 20 th February 2015 Selection Process The following criteria will be used to evaluate the tenders: Criteria Weighting % Track record of excellence 25 Value for money 20 Experience conducting process evaluations 15 Alignment with Mind s values and principles 10 Experience working with people with mental health issues 10 Experience working with BME and/or rural communities 10 Creativity 10 Submissions should be made electronically to the Jacob Diggle, Research and Evaluation Officer (j.diggle@mind.org.uk) Questions may be submitted to the same address. In the interest of fairness, face-to-face meetings will not be given at this stage. The selection panel will include representatives from the Peer Support Programme team. The chosen partner will be selected by 6 th March

15 Strand 3: Economic Analysis We are not just interested in improved outcomes for users of peer support. We would also like to understand the broader impact on the health economy of each region. This is a key tool for demonstrating the value of peer support to commissioners. Key Deliverables Economic Modelling Using the data from evaluation Strands 1 and 2, we are looking for an evaluation partner to model the health economic impact of each component of the programme. This may include cost-utility analysis, simple decision analytic modelling, or other methods (dependent on availability of data). The regional nature of our peer support programme should facilitate comparison between the economic impact of local peer support economies that are receiving support (mentoring or grants) and those that are not. We are keen to commission our evaluation partner for Strand 3 early on in the programme in order to ensure that we collect suitable data in Strand 1 and 2 to facilitate a comprehensive economic analysis. Data Collection This evaluation strand is dependent upon data about participant s use of statutory services, clinical outcomes, and referral pathways. Whilst the economic analysis will be conducted by our partner for Strand 3, the majority of data collection will be the responsibility of our partners for Strand 1 and 2. We require both partners (if they are separate organisations) to work closely together to co-ordinate this data collection and analysis. We will be recruiting our partner for Strand 3 well in advance of field work starting in order to facilitate this information exchange. Literature Review We have completed an initial literature review of peer support interventions. However, our evaluation partner should conduct a thorough review within and beyond mental health to identify evidence gaps and ensure that the chosen methodology is appropriate and comparable. Our evaluation partners in other strands will also be undertaking literature reviews. Our evaluation partner for Strand 3 should build on this research and conduct a supplementary review, focusing on the economic effect of social support and the role of non-clinical interventions in a local health economy. Patterns of Referral In addition to modelling the overall effect of our programme on the regional health economy, we would like our evaluation partner for Strand 3 to map patterns of referral throughout the programme. For example, how people with mental health problems get referred to peer support groups, how individuals accessing face-to-face support use online peer support and vice versa, how participants interact with statutory services whilst receiving support etc. This mapping of people s pathways through care and peer support will be helpful for modelling the economic impact of the programme, but it will also inform service design and the development of support packages (e.g. information provision, face-to-face support etc). Outcomes Our evaluation partner will be responsible for devising their research methodology and the outcomes they will measure. However, a number of key areas for the funder and Mind are: 15

16 Cost/benefit of investment in peer support Cost/benefit of different models of delivering peer support Efficacy of participant referral routes through peer support and other services Changes in use of statutory services as a result of peer support Project Management Programme Manager, Mind Research and Evaluation Officer, Mind Research Advisory Group (RAG) Lived Experience Reading Panel The Peer Support Programme Manager will oversee delivery of the whole project. They will be responsible for on-going co-ordination of the evaluation partners and ensuring that they fulfil contractual obligations. They will also provide regular updates about the progress of each evaluation strand to the Programme Management Board comprised of senior staff from across Mind. The evaluation partner will be commissioned and supported by Mind s Research and Evaluation Officer. This officer will ensure that the research is consistent with Mind s evaluation framework and strategy. They will also ensure communication and co-operation between different evaluation strands. The Research Advisory Group (RAG) will be comprised of experienced researchers with expertise in peer support and mental health. The RAG will help to shape the programme s evaluation plan and provide comments on chosen partners research methodologies. They will also provide an on-going advisory role throughout the project and provide feedback on research reports. The Reading Panel will be made up of people with lived experience of mental health problems who have given and/or received peer support through this programme. They will include participants from a range of peer support groups (e.g. grass roots, strategic delivery partners, online). This group will review the final research reports. Timeline Below are some of the key milestones and deadlines. Our chosen evaluation partner will have to convert these into a more detailed project plan. The phasing of this evaluation strand can be negotiated with our chosen partner, subject to availability of data. Activity Deadline ITT deadline 20 th February 2015 Tender selection panels 4 th 6 th March 2015 Partner confirms methodology with Mind and phasing of Strand 3 20 th March 2015 research agreed Economic analysis begins May 2016 Draft report due November 2016 Reading Panel provides comments November 2016 Final reports published from all strands January 2017 Budget The budget for this evaluation strand is 40,000. This budget includes all travel expenses and VAT. 16

17 Each applicant must make their own decision about what is a financially viable costing for the project. This could include full cost recovery or exclude some costs (e.g. on-costs). Whilst we will not be selecting partners solely on cost, value for money is one of our selection criteria. Applicants may also recover costs from other sources. However, supplementary funding cannot have conflicting research aims or requirements. Any additional funding must be specified in your proposal and is subject to written permission by Mind. Applicants who are submitting a bid as a partnership should specify the cost breakdown and key deliverables of each partner. Application Details Please outline the following: Your understanding of our research needs Your experience of evaluating mental health services Your experience of completing economic analysis of voluntary sector services Your experience of evaluating peer support services, if applicable Your plan for engaging people with lived experience in all aspects of your work Your proposed research methodology (including sampling approach) Your partners and their roles, if applicable Your approach to project management and quality assurance An indicative budget for this piece of work, outlining the resource required for each stage of the project. (Please show the day rate for each team member) Please include CVs of the research staff who will be responsible for this work Please supply an electronic copy of your proposal by 12 noon, 20 th February 2015 Selection Process The following criteria will be used to evaluate the tenders: Criteria Weighting % Track record of excellence 30 Value for money 20 Experience working with people with mental health issues 15 Alignment with Mind s values and principles 15 Experience plotting service user journeys 10 Creativity 10 Submissions should be made electronically to the Jacob Diggle, Research and Evaluation Officer (j.diggle@mind.org.uk) Questions may be submitted to the same address. In the interest of fairness, face-to-face meetings will not be given at this stage. The selection panel will include representatives from the Peer Support Programme team. The chosen partner will be selected by 6 th March

18 Strand 4: Commissioning Behaviour To increase the sustainability of peer support, we need to engage an array of statutory commissioning stakeholders. At a local level these will include Health Watch, Health and Wellbeing Boards, Mental Health Trusts, Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), and social care commissioners. A core objective of our programme is build the peer support evidence to further engage these groups. Key Deliverables Benchmarking We are looking for an evaluation partner to monitor the attitudes of commissioners to peer support in general, and supported programmes in particular. Our evaluation partner should assess current levels of peer support commissioning. This would give a baseline for the outcome of commissioners' likelihood to fund peer support in the future. Regular Monitoring We require regular monitoring with particular focus on changes in commissioning behaviour after local hub events, commissioner briefings, and the publication of our guidance documents and research findings. This monitoring could take a range of forms including interviews, surveys, and document reviews. There are a wide range of potential commissioners in each area. However, we are particularly interested in the behaviour of CCGs as they have the largest budgets for commissioning this type of service. Local Hub Guidance Our chosen evaluation partner for Strand 4 must provide guidance to the local hubs on commissioner s attitudes, commissioning trends, and other influencing recommendations. This will help local hubs to develop tools for grass roots peer support organisations to effectively engage with local commissioners during the lifetime of the programme. Outcomes Our evaluation partner would be responsible for devising their research methodology and the outcomes they will measure. However, a number of key areas for the funder and Mind are: Commissioners awareness of peer support Commissioners perception of the efficacy of peer support Commissioners perception of the cost effectiveness of peer support Commissioners perception of Mind Commissioners perception of Mind s strategic partners Commissioners perception of grassroots peer support groups and organisations Commissioners likelihood to commission peer support in the future Inclusion of peer support in the care pathway Project Management Programme Manager, Mind The Peer Support Programme Manager will oversee delivery of the whole project. They will be responsible for on-going co-ordination of the evaluation partners and ensuring that they fulfil contractual 18

19 Research and Evaluation Officer, Mind Research Advisory Group (RAG) Lived Experience Reading Panel obligations. They will also provide regular updates about the progress of each evaluation strand to the Programme Management Board comprised of senior staff from across Mind. The evaluation partner will be commissioned and supported by Mind s Research and Evaluation Officer. This officer will ensure that the research is consistent with Mind s evaluation framework and strategy. They will also ensure consistency and co-operation between different evaluation strands. The Research Advisory Group (RAG) will be comprised of experienced researchers with expertise in peer support and mental health. The RAG will help to shape the programme s evaluation plan and provide comments on chosen partners research methodologies. They will also provide an on-going advisory role throughout the project and provide feedback on research reports. The Reading Panel will be made up of people with lived experience of mental health problems who have given and/or received peer support through this programme. They will include participants from a range of peer support groups (e.g. grass roots, strategic delivery partners, online). This group will review the final research reports. Timeline Below are some of the key milestones and deadlines. Our chosen evaluation partner will have to convert these into a more detailed project plan. Activity Deadline ITT deadline 20 th February 2015 Tender selection panels 4 th 6 th March 2015 Partner confirms methodology with Mind 20 th March 2015 Strand 4 fieldwork begins May 2015 Strand 4 fieldwork ends September 2016 Draft report due November 2016 Reading Panel provides comments November 2016 Final reports published from all strands January 2016 Budget The budget for this evaluation strand is 20,000. This budget includes all travel expenses and VAT. Each applicant must make their own decision about what is a financially viable costing for the project. This could include full cost recovery or exclude some costs (e.g. on-costs). Whilst we will not be selecting partners solely on cost, value for money is one of our selection criteria. Applicants may also recover costs from other sources. However, supplementary funding cannot have conflicting research aims or requirements. Any additional funding must be specified in your proposal and is subject to written permission by Mind. Applicants who are submitting a bid as a partnership should specify the cost breakdown and key deliverables of each partner. Application Details Please outline the following: 19

20 Your understanding of our research needs Your experience of monitoring the attitude of health commissioners Your experience of providing public affairs guidance to community organisations Your plan for engaging people with lived experience in all aspects of your work Your proposed research methodology (including sampling approach) Your partners and their roles, if applicable Your approach to project management and quality assurance An indicative budget for this piece of work, outlining the resource required for each stage of the project. (Please show the day rate for each team member) Please include CVs of the research staff who will be responsible for this work Please supply an electronic copy of your proposal by 12 noon, 20 th February 2015 Selection process The following criteria will be used to evaluate the tenders: Criteria Weighting % Track record of excellence 25 Value for money 20 Experience working with health commissioners 15 Alignment with Mind s values and principles 15 Experience providing public affairs guidance to small organisations 15 Creativity 10 Submissions should be made electronically to the Jacob Diggle, Research and Evaluation Officer (j.diggle@mind.org.uk) Questions may be submitted to the same address. In the interest of fairness, face-to-face meetings will not be given at this stage. The selection panel will include representatives from the Peer Support Programme team. The chosen partner will be selected by 6 th March