Research and analysis

Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership: final evaluation report (summary)

Published 29 August 2025

Applies to England

This is the third and final report of a 5-year processes evaluation of the Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership (KBOP).^{[footnote 1]} The evaluation has investigated how using a social outcomes partnership (SOP) influenced management and delivery by commissioners and providers, compared to the previous “fee-for-service” contract. 

The Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership (KBOP) was one of the 29 SOPs in the Life Chances Fund (LCF). The LCF was a £70 million programme funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), supporting locally-commissioned SOP projects across England. It ran between 2016 and 2025 and is the largest outcomes fund launched to date in the UK. The LCF was designed to tackle complex social problems across policy areas including child and family welfare, homelessness, health and wellbeing, employment and training, and more. 

KBOP sought to improve outcomes for adults with housing-related support needs through education, training and employment, accommodation, and health and wellbeing. KBOP brought the delivery of services from multiple providers under a single outcomes contract – with payment tied to the achievement of certain outcomes. Bridges Outcomes Partnership coordinated and oversaw service delivery as the intermediary between the service providers and the contracting authority (Kirklees Council).

The evaluation asked: what mechanisms within the SOP contributed to changed services and successful social outcomes? The first interim evaluation identified 4 mechanisms by which the SOP model may influence service delivery and user outcomes. These are:

1. enhanced market stewardship
2. strengthened and data-led performance management 
3. cultivation of cross-provider collaboration 
4. enhanced flexibility and personalisation of frontline services.

This report examines the implications of these mechanisms, particularly for the delivery of complex, person-centred public services.

The findings set out below come from a longitudinal process evaluation. Outcome performance data for KBOP will be provided in the final LCF Primary evaluation, which will be published later in the year. An impact assessment of the KBOP programme can also be found on the Government Outcomes Lab website.

Key findings

Market Stewardship

• The evaluation found that KBOP filled important gaps in the Council’s ability to effectively steward the market - i.e., create the necessary conditions in the provider market to deliver successful outcomes.
• This included providing effective market and performance oversight; coordinating and mediating between providers and commissioners; and influencing service design based on data and provider insights.
• The main limitation of this intermediary role was the loss of direct contact between commissioners and frontline providers, with possible implications for the Council’s long-term capacity to fulfil a stewardship role.

Performance management

• The SOP design enabled a strong focus on performance management through the outcomes contract itself, the use of payment-by-results, managerial tools (particularly the centralised data platform), and the increased capacity and expertise provided by the KBOP team.
• However, some stakeholders felt it was challenging to balance KBOP’s user-centred strengths-based approach with adherence to outcomes-driven targets and their accountability and administrative requirements.

Provider collaboration

• Collaboration among service providers was significantly greater under KBOP than under the legacy fee-for-service contract. A key driver of this improvement was the establishment of the KBOP team as a dedicated network coordinator and the collaborative infrastructure built into the SOP programme. 
• Enhanced collaboration was, however, felt more strongly at the managerial level than among frontline staff and the collaborative ethos was undermined by the anticipation of programme closure where organisational self-preservation took precedence over collective goals.

Flexibility & personalisation 

• KBOP led to enhanced tailoring and personalisation in service provision through the implementation of a ‘person-led, transitional and strength-based’ (PTS) delivery model, in part enabled through the flexibility provided by the SOP framework (e.g., by focusing on outcomes, and facilitating initiatives like the Personalisation Fund).
• Other aspects of the SOP model, however, contributed to increased caseloads and administrative burden, which meant there were mixed views about the compatibility of a strengths-based approach within an outcomes contracting model.

Background

The Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership (KBOP) launched on 1 September 2019 and sought to improve accommodation, employment, stability and wellbeing outcomes for vulnerable adults who were in need of support to live independently. Users may have faced multiple challenges, including homelessness or the immediate risk of becoming homeless, mental health or substance misuse issues, experience of domestic abuse and offending.

Kirklees Council funded 70% of the total contract value for the outcome payments, with the remaining 30% covered by the Life Chances Fund. Figure 1 summarises the key  stakeholders in the SOP. The service was commissioned by Kirklees Council, which set the initial outcome measures for the programme (see table 1). Bridges Outcomes Partnerships sourced upfront investment from 10 social investors. Bridges also established and owned the SOP’s ‘social prime’ (Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership, or KBOP), which was responsible for the overall design and coordination of delivery. Ongoing funding was generated through outcome payments from Kirklees Council and the LCF based on outcome achievements.

From 2020 onwards, after a change of leadership within KBOP, the programme pivoted to personalised service provision, based on a strengths-based approach, known as ‘person-led, transitional and strength-based (PTS)’ response developed by the Mayday Trust.^{[footnote 2]} The ambition (from both commissioners and the KBOP team) was to disrupt a perceived deficit culture of ‘fixing’ by shifting the focus from users’ deficiencies to their strengths, encouraging users to shape their support journey

Figure 1. Stakeholders’ responsibilities in the Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership SOP

Figure 1 shows the stakeholders involved in the KBOP SOP including outcomes payers (DCMS and Kirklees Council), the intermediary or “social prime” (Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership/ Bridges Outcomes Partnerships), impact investors, and provider organisations.

Table 1. Payment outcomes of the KBOP service

Outcome	Payment trigger
Wellbeing	1st Wellbeing assessment
	2nd Wellbeing assessment
	3rd Wellbeing assessment
	Wellbeing improvement – 1st to 2nd assessment
	Wellbeing improvement – 1st to 3rd assessment
Managing money	Financial resilience outcomes
Emotional & mental health; Drug & alcohol misuse	Accessing services
	Mental health sustained engagement with services
	Drugs/alcohol sustained engagement with services
Accommodation	Prevention/relief/entry into suitable accommodation
	3 months accommodation outcomes
	6 months accommodation outcomes
	12 months accommodation outcomes
	18 months accommodation outcomes
Education, training and employment (ETE)	Entry into education and employment
	Part completion of Ofqual approved qualification
	Completion of full Ofqual approved qualification
	Entry into employment [footnote 3]
	6.5 weeks equivalent employment F/T
	13 weeks equivalent employment F/T
	26 weeks equivalent employment F/T
	Entry into volunteering
	6 weeks volunteering
Prevention of domestic abuse	Reduction in risk of domestic abuse
	Accessing rights to legal protection
	Empowering and promoting independence

Methodology and limitations

The evaluation of the KBOP SOP addressed three research questions:

1. What was the quantitative impact of services commissioned by the KBOP SOP on the targeted social outcomes?
2. What mechanisms within the KBOP SOP contributed to changed services and successful social outcomes?
3. Did the benefits of the KBOP SOP approach outweigh any additional costs associated with this model, when compared with legacy contracting arrangements?

This report focuses on question 2, and is the final report within a mixed-method longitudinal process evaluation.^{[footnote 4]}  The main methods used in the final wave of research are as follows:

• 49 semi-structured interviews with provider managers (23), frontline staff (14), KBOP staff (9), and local commissioners (3).
• A three-wave longitudinal survey of provider staff, with wave 3 delivered in late 2023/ early 2024, and achieving 39 complete responses. 
• System mapping with provider staff to explore causal relationships within the KBOP system. The system maps were developed through workshops with frontline staff, managers, and operational leads, and followed the mapping methodology developed by CECAN (Centre for the Evaluation of Complexity Across the Nexus).   
• Peer-led research by a team of 4 KBOP service users who were supported to develop research tools, and conduct 4 semi-structured interviews with KBOP users, and their own personal ‘vignettes’ describing their experience of KBOP support.

Limitations

The findings are specific to the KBOP SOP and not all findings are generalisable to other SOP projects. Some data resources, such as frontline staff interviews and survey data, rely on small sample sizes, self-reported information and a mix of cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Interview data from delivery organisations may feature positive or negative bias. Potential bias was mitigated by incorporating the perspectives of local government commissioners and a large number of interviews overall.

1. Market stewardship

Hypothesis: The SOP might enable an enhanced practice of market stewardship ^{[footnote 5]}, including increased constructive performance competition, a central data and performance management system to record performance and service demand, and a stable, long-term contracting environment. 

In relation to this hypothesis the evaluation found: 

1.1. Improved but shifting market stewardship functions: Wave 3 findings confirmed that KBOP addressed key limitations experienced by the Council in the previous fee-for-service contract, thereby mitigating barriers that had constrained the Council’s ability to operate as an effective market steward:

• Market intelligence and service insights: KBOP enhanced market intelligence and service oversight. It proactively scrutinised provider performance and strengthened quality standards in implementation, assisting underperforming providers with targeted support through dedicated performance improvement plans. 

• Market influencing: KBOP acted as a proactive market influencer, using its position as an intermediary to mediate between the Council and the providers. The KBOP team incorporated multiple provider perspectives and service insights through a centralised data management system, and co-developed solutions with the Council, effectively shaping both current and future service provision.

“[…] with KBOP, when it comes to performance management, it is easier to look at improvement plans because the contract and the expectations are really clear. Whereas some of the other services that I have [gives named example of a neighbouring local authority] it is a lot more ambiguous…it is fuzzier and greyer, less clear in terms of what are you wanting us to change” 

Provider

1.2. Key features of KBOP’s market stewardship: The following features were identified as key to KBOP’s functioning as a market steward:

• Local credibility and connectedness: KBOP successfully leveraged local knowledge to build trust among providers and influence Council policies.   

• Confidence in learning through data: KBOP implemented and effectively used a central data and management system (CPDSoft) to improve performance monitoring and data-driven decision-making.

• Ability to spot opportunities for change: KBOP proactively identified systemic challenges and mediated solutions, leading to service improvements and enhanced cross-sector collaboration.  

• Ability to test, adapt and learn proactively: KBOP used service delivery insights gathered through performance management to implement service innovations and performance adjustments.

“[…]it’s a difficult one because I think there’s pros and cons for it.
I think being a step removed it’s been easier to facilitate change because going through KBOP is very easy: one route into nine providers. […] I think the lack of contact with them [providers] has meant we’re a step removed and I think the difficulty from that for me is that you don’t always hear the problems at ground level…We may not be seeing as much of the negative stuff, so I suppose that’s the only – not criticism – but the only negative point”

Local commissioner

1.3. Limitations of the intermediary role: While KBOP strengthened provider oversight and service adaptation it reduced the direct engagement of Council commissioners with providers, with the following implications:

• Concerns persisted about loss of direct voice and contact between Council commissioners and frontline providers.

• The lack of contact with providers may have implications for the Council’s long-term capacity to fulfil a stewardship role.

“I’m basically operating as the enabler for change…and I’m the one that’s there to create that environment of trust and support and collaboration, but also there as that point of accountability to make sure that all of us have that shared vision and that it’s happening in the way that we all committed to that happening…”

KBOP staff

2. Performance management

Hypothesis: The SOP might facilitate enhanced performance management as contracts would be managed through a single external entity and payment tied to the achievement of sustainable outcomes.

In relation to this hypothesis the evaluation found: 

2.1. Facilitators of collaborative performance management included: 

• The social outcomes contract: which aligned stakeholders and established shared accountability across providers. 

• Payment-by-results mechanism: The payment-by-results mechanism, involving pre-defined outcome targets and a strict outcomes verification process, led to enhanced accountability and transparency for service success.  

• Enhanced data quality and responsiveness: The central data management infrastructure improved data quality. It also allowed for responsiveness to performance issues, facilitated the identification of best practices, and helped with these practices’ dissemination across providers.

• Increased capacity through the social prime: The dedicated resource of the KBOP team brought enhanced capacity in terms of size and skills, which improved the collection and use of performance data by providers. Frequent performance reviews engaged various stakeholders across technical skills and managerial levels, fostering immediate and comprehensive discussions on challenges, insights and learnings.

“The SOP actually helped us to focus and really pin down what we were trying to deliver, how we needed to evidence it and how we need to come out the other side.”

Provider

2.2. Tensions or challenges of the model also occurred, and included: 

• Balancing accountability and administrative burden: While the strict outcomes verification process enabled learning and enhanced accountability and transparency, providers expressed concerns about the administrative burden associated with the reporting requirements. This  challenge was partially alleviated towards the end of the contract through adjustments such as automated data checks.

• Balancing target pressures with a strengths-based approach: Tensions persisted between implementing a holistic, user-centric strength-based approach and pursuing outcomes-driven performance targets and accountability requirements.

“I find it quite contradictory because KBOP says, ‘Make sure the outcomes come organically[…]’ But they are setting targets every week that we have to meet every month. It’s always in the back of your mind about the outcomes. I find it a bit contradictory.”

Provider

3. Provider collaboration

Hypothesis: The SOP might enable enhanced collaboration between providers by improving information sharing and co-working towards a shared interest in achieving outcomes.

In relation to this hypothesis the evaluation found: 

3.1. Collaboration among service providers was significantly higher under the KBOP SOP than it had been under the legacy fee-for-service contract, with key enablers including:

• KBOP leadership and collaborative infrastructure: The KBOP team implemented a collaborative leadership approach supported by infrastructure designed to foster trust-based relationships and transparency in governance. This included regular meetings, training sessions and informal opportunities for knowledge exchange and collective learning. 

• Shared outcomes framework: The shared outcomes framework aligned provider goals through common, measurable outcomes. It provided a sense of mutual accountability and collective success, reducing competition and encouraging providers to utilise their specialisms.

“We have the regular Ops meetings where information is shared and what’s going well within each service, and then we can take that back and reflect. If there’s any questions on things, we feel that we can openly talk about that in those meetings.”

Provider

3.2. Despite overall improvements in collaboration compared to the previous contract, there were some challenges, in particular in relation to the project closure: 

• Challenges for frontline staff: Research found that the impact of collaborative design and infrastructure was more strongly felt at the managerial level than amongst frontline staff. This included the experience of the outcomes framework, which frontline staff reported pressurised performance expectations and a sense of competition.

• Project closure: The approaching conclusion of the KBOP SOP contract created uncertainties that posed challenges to collaboration between service providers. Provider staff increasingly shifted their focus from collective goals to organisational self-preservation. This undermined the collaborative ethos that had been cultivated as staff – particularly senior managers – expressed concerns over diminished cooperation and resurging competitive pressures. The looming contract end impacted staff morale and trust. Research participants feared a regression to pre-KBOP dynamics where competition overshadowed collaboration.

“It does feel a little bit more of a partnership, but not totally because obviously funding goes, there is a potential that we might all be competing against each other for the available pots of money that are going to be left. I think that’s inevitable, really…[We] will then go back to…a bit more of a competitive tendering process”

Provider

4. Flexibility and personalisation

Hypothesis: The SOP might bring enhanced flexibility in service delivery through autonomy for providers in service design and an adaptive approach to management by the social prime, KBOP.^ 

In relation to this hypothesis the evaluation found: 

4.1. The KBOP delivery partnership allowed for greater flexibility regarding the mode, frequency and length of support than the legacy fee-for-service arrangements had provided.  Frontline staff survey data suggests that service users were substantially more able to influence the nature of their support under the KBOP SOP arrangement. Personalisation was enabled by:

• Personalisation Fund: The availability of flexible, responsive funding (in form of the ‘Personalisation Fund totalling £250,000’) to allow for bespoke support. Outcomes for users supported by the personalisation fund were found to be nearly 70% higher than the KBOP average; these users achieved 0.5 more ETE outcomes, 1.4 more accommodation outcomes and 2.1 more wellbeing outcomes.

• Peer mentor model: Co-production interventions were used to enhance service user voice. They included the integration of a peer mentor model and the continuous involvement of users in the development of the service, including focus groups and frontline staff recruitment.

• Person-led, transitional and strength-based (PTS) approach: Personalisation was cultivated by providing staff with dedicated training in a strengths-based way of working. This personalisation was underpinned by the principles of professional discretion for frontline staff and user empowerment. Tailored support with caseworkers was supplemented through access to specialists – such as expert mental health support – to enhance the service offer. Figure 2 presents findings from Wave 3 of the survey of frontline staff, showing that staff felt that a service users preferences and their own judgement influenced delivery more than outcomes targets.

“I felt like I was 10 feet tall. This supportive and affirmative interaction with [name of support worker] empowered me. It transformed a potential setback into a stepping stone for further personal growth.”

Service user

Figure 2. How influential are the following factors in determining what activities are included in the support you provide?

Influence	Very of extremely influential	Moderately influential	Rarely or slightly influential	Total
Service user preferences	96%	4%	0%	100%
My own judgement	68%	18%	14%	100%
Answers to standard assessment questions	61%	32%	7%	100%
Need to get an outcome	46%	39%	14%	100%

Source: Wave 3 longitudinal survey data on KBOP frontline staff, respondents = 41.

4.2. There were, however, mixed and changing views over time on the compatibility of the strengths-based, personalised approach, with an outcomes contracting model: 

• Caseloads: The outcomes-based contract was reported to have brought increased flexibility in delivery. This adaptability was somewhat constrained by an increased caseload (see table 2), although high caseload challenges were alleviated through more effective caseload management.

Table 2. How many service users are you currently supporting?

Survey wave	Mean number of users	Minimum	Maximum
Wave 1: Legacy contract	14	3	28
Wave 2: KBOP	19	4	31
Wave 3: KBOP	21	4	31

Source: Longitudinal survey of KBOP frontline staff. Respondents = 57 (Wave 1); 47 (Wave 2); 41 (Wave 3)

• Administrative burden: Figure 3 shows that the weekly percentage of time spent by frontline staff with users dropped in the transition from the fee-for-service contract (55%) to the SOP arrangement (44% at Wave 2 and 46% at Wave 3). This difference is likely linked to the higher caseload in the SOP arrangement and to changed working practices. Interviewees reported that KBOP’s more adaptable approach to caseload management, coupled with increased flexibility in engagement methods (such as in-person and virtual support), facilitated more effective resource and time management, thereby ensuring the continued quality of support provided.

Figure 3: Work time allocation of KBOP frontline staff

Task	Wave 1: legacy contract	Wave 2: SOP	Wave 3: SOP
Contact with service users	55%	44%	46%
Admin tasks	26%	29%	31%
Public sector service providers	7%	10%	8%
Voluntary sector service providers	9%	10%	10%
Working with employers	3%	7%	6%

Source: Longitudinal survey of KBOP frontline staff. Respondents = 57 (Wave 1); 47 (Wave 2); 41 (Wave 3)

• Harder to reach participants: the research found no evidence of ‘creaming and parking’ – focusing on easier-to-engage users and neglecting harder-to-engage users – in mid or late implementation of the KBOP SOP. Frontline staff were vocal in calling for more explicit recognition (in the rate card) of the work required to maintain engagement from some users.

• Outcomes framework: most interviewees found the KBOP outcomes framework sufficiently broad to tailor to individual user need. However, the design of specific evidence requirements could act as a barrier by either straining the relationship between staff and user or catering insufficiently to the user’s interests.

“Undoubtedly, there is pressure and I’m aware it’s easy for me to sit here as a manager saying all the great things about it [KBOP] because I’m not the one that maybe had a case load of 12 that then became 14,
that then became 16 and suddenly is 18.” 

Provider

Recommendations

Recommendations for policy and practice from the final report are set out below across the outcomes framework/ rate card design and the SOP mechanisms discussed above. High-level recommendations from across the 5-year evaluation are also provided below. 

Outcomes framework

• The outcomes framework/rate card should feature a simple design with a limited number of meaningful outcome measures to enable flexible tailoring of support. 
• Rate card design should account for varying levels of engagement and support need, recognising the importance of flexibility in support. 
• The rate card should be flexible and designed with a ‘test-and-learn’ approach in mind. 

SOP Mechanisms

• Programmes should appropriately resource the development of a co-designed central data system and a dedicated team for coordination and performance management, ensuring an appropriate skills mix within the central team. 
• Mitigation strategies should be used to reduce administrative burden and target pressure on frontline staff - this could include co-designing evidence requirements, automated outcomes checks through the use of administrative data and dedicated training for provider managers.
• Appropriate resource should be provided for network co-ordination to support greater cross-provider interaction and collaboration. 
• Flexible funding mechanisms (like KBOP’s personalisation fund) should be designed and implemented to address individual service user needs and enhance service delivery. 
• Mainstream the strengths-based and experts-by-experience delivery model to empower service users by focusing on their strengths rather than deficits.

High-level policy recommendations

Policy recommendations derived from across the KBOP evaluation reports are set out below. Some of these recommendations may be more readily facilitated by outcomes-based contracting, but they are not necessarily limited to this approach. 

1. Focus on building meaningful cross-sector partnerships: Contracts should be designed to support collaboration through structures that promote shared problem-solving.   

2. Enable flexibility and adaptation (test-and-learn) through contracting and governance: Contracts should be designed to facilitate adaptation as partners learn more about what is required from the service via an explicit process for change. 

3. Use data for accountability and learning: Projects should implement a shared data system and use it actively and appropriately to support effective decision-making. 

4. Focus on individual service user needs, enabling personalised support through flexible funding: Projects should find ways to enable flexible funding to meet service users’ diverse needs, which may be more easily achieved when personalised services and purchases are made by non-government partners in an outcomes-based funding arrangement. 

5. Ensure long-term contractual and funding stability: Contracts should be sufficiently resourced and cover a time period appropriate to the service, with clarity around the process for future rounds of contracting. 

6. Cultivate the right partners and mindset and a culture of trust and learning: Successful contract implementation relies on partnerships with organisations that share a commitment to collaboration, adaptability and continuous improvement.

Annex: Peer-led research

Figure 4: A different voice – KBOP user perspectives and stories of transformation. Findings from a peer-led research project.

Figure 4 presents a pictorial representation of findings from a series of peer-led co-production workshops conducted by the Government Outcomes Lab evaluation team with KBOP users in between October 2023 and June 2024. It shows how participants felt before and after the programme, the services and support they received, and how it felt

‘The story of our lives: how KBOP’s approach changed everything’ by Michael Peoples

The graphic [Figure 4] tells the story of the common themes from many diverse journeys. Everybody who took part has experienced significant adversity in their lives. The legacy of trauma can manifest in a variety of ways such as addiction, poor mental health; but the beliefs and feelings experienced by individuals can be similar: hopelessness, low self-esteem, shame and feeling isolated and completely disconnected. Frequently, our experiences with recovery, mental health or other support services reinforced and exacerbated negative self-perceptions. Professionals just didn’t seem to care. This perpetuated problems instead of resolving them. Services often felt like a revolving door or a hamster wheel, very often leaving us stuck or back at square one: retraumatised, relapsing and lost and in need of even more support. 

Our lives did not get any better.

Our experience with KBOP was in marked contrast. The person-centred, strengths-based approach helped us develop a trusting relationship with our workers who genuinely cared about us. They demonstrated this repeatedly by their tenacity and compassion. The fact that support was bespoke to us as individuals made a huge impact. We felt respected and valued. We started challenging some of the toxic narratives we held about ourselves for such a long time. KBOP also enabled profound meaningful connections with peers with similar lived experiences. Peers proved that change was both possible and achievable and gave us real tangible hope for the first time that our lives could get better. They had done it, so why couldn’t we? Our beliefs gradually changed as we made progress. Our confidence in ourselves improved.

KBOP believed in us until we could believe in ourselves.

And our lives got better.

We are now living proof that this model works! If we could make four recommendations based on this project they would be:

1. Services should be relentlessly focused on people’s strengths, not their deficits.
2. Tailored support should prioritise the individual’s need above everything else.
3. Workers’ suitability assessments should give at least equal weight to their characters and values as they do their skills and experience.
4. Lived experience is a major catalyst for inspiration, hope and transformation, and programmes such as coproduction and peer support should be embedded throughout organisations from top to bottom.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The authors also acknowledge the National Lottery Community Fund, which administered the Life Chances Fund. We are particularly grateful to the KBOP peer researchers and to Michael Peoples, the KBOP peer mentor coordinator who helped to deepen our understanding of the service by bringing together KBOP service users and facilitating the peer-led research. Michael provided support throughout data collection and interpretation and made a crucial contribution by describing the delivery experience from a service user perspective.

We would like to thank KBOP service users who generously shared their experiences of services and enabled their user voices to be taken into account. We are also very thankful to staff in Kirklees who provided access to documents and participated in numerous research activities over the multi-year evaluation period. We are grateful for the ongoing research project support provided by specific Kirklees Council staff who wish to remain anonymous. Equally, we are extremely thankful to the Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership team for having been so engaged in our research project. Special thanks are due to the partnership’s Director, Sarah Cooke, for allowing the authors to observe meetings, access documents, repeatedly participate in shaping the research, build connections with the delivery partners and provide detailed comments on a draft of the report. We thank Bridges Outcomes Partnerships for their continuous support as research participants, granting access to contracts and meetings and providing detailed comments on a draft of the report. Furthermore, the research would not have been possible without the participation of all KBOP delivery partners, who revealed in-depth insights into their delivery experience and were extremely generous with their time.

Contribution statement

• Franziska Rosenbach authored this report. She contributed to the research design, developed the conceptual report design and oversaw data collection and analysis. Franziska also led on initial drafting and design of visuals.

• Dr Felix-Anselm van Lier co-authored this report. He supported data collection and analysis and drafted section 4.3 of the report. He also co-edited and provided overall oversight for the final version of the report.

• Maria Patouna co-authored this report. She conducted data cleaning and analysis of longitudinal survey data and prepared figures 2-4, 7 and 9.

• Dr Eleanor Carter co-authored this report. She designed the overall research strategy, supported data collection and analysis and drafted section 4.1 of the report. Eleanor co-edited the report and is responsible for overall research quality.

• Jessica Reedy authored the Executive Summary, co-edited the report and co-developed the policy recommendations. She also supported final reviews, formatting, and quality assurance processes.

• Michael Gibson co-edited the report and co-developed the policy recommendations.

1. Outcomes analysis and a full impact and economic evaluation are provided in upcoming reports.  ↩

2. Mayday Trust, Person-led, Transitional and Strengths-based Response ↩

3. A ‘second entry into employment’ outcome was introduced during COVID to reflect employment instability, as some users required support to re-enter employment multiple times. ↩

4. Questions 1 and 3 will be answered by the outcomes analysis and impact and economic evaluation mentioned above.   ↩

5. a set of functions in order to create the conditions for the market to deliver the desired outcomes of the service. ↩