The Changing Futures programme is a £91.8 million joint funded initiative between Government and The National Lottery Community Fund, the largest community funder in the UK. The programme funds local organisations working in partnership in 15 local areas across England to better support those who experience multiple disadvantage.
Over the last year, MEAM has brought the local programme leads together for regular discussions about key aspects of the work. In this series of blog posts, we reflect on some of the topics covered, drawing on their insight and input from others in the Changing Futures programme and the wider MEAM Approach network.
In this latest blog for the “reflection and learning” series, we explore how and where we use data to improve responses for people experiencing multiple disadvantage:
Data plays an essential role in helping local areas to understand and address the needs of individuals experiencing multiple disadvantage. It permeates every aspect of service delivery, from monitoring access to services and measuring change to designing interventions and securing funding. Yet, recognising the centrality of data is not enough; we must also ask whether the data we collect is accurate and how data should shape the way we work, the decisions we make, and the systems we create. To answer these questions, we must explore both the opportunities and challenges data presents and how it can be used to drive meaningful change.
Is data telling the whole story?
Data, in various forms, is often used to shape services and measure the impact of services. In theory, this allows local areas to decide what to commission and to track whether interventions improve lives and deliver value. Data helps commissioners decide which services are needed, monitor how many people are accessing services, whether referral mechanisms are effective, and whether people’s outcomes improve over time. It also enables organisations to provide evidence of their impact to commissioners and funders. However, the data we collect is often incomplete or biased, raising important questions about what stories we are really telling. Inaccuracies in collection, inconsistencies in recording, and a lack of data about individuals who are not well-connected to services undermine the reliability of what we know. Furthermore, the prioritisation of service-relevant data, such as outputs and operational performance, over person-centred data, such as lived experiences and long-term well-being, creates a narrow and sometimes misleading picture of what is working.
The implications of this are significant. If we rely on incomplete or service-driven data, we risk perpetuating a system that does not fully understand or address the needs of the individuals it serves. This makes it more likely that services will replicate the same approaches, even when they are not effective for everyone. Addressing this requires a more nuanced and person-centred approach to data collection and interpretation, one that values qualitative insights and lived experiences as much as quantitative measures. By doing so, we can develop a more holistic understanding of what works and for whom.
A lack of focus on long-term change
Another major challenge with data is the tension between the need to deliver trauma-informed, person-centred services and the realities of the commissioning environment. Research shows that approaches such as the MEAM Approach, Changing Futures, and Housing First are effective in helping people transition from crisis to stability. These models emphasise long-term, relational support tailored to individual needs. Yet, local areas often operate within a commissioning system that prioritises short-term outputs and financial savings over long-term impact. To secure funding, services must provide evidence that aligns with these priorities, often relying on traditional quantitative data that may not capture the full value of their work. This creates a reactive commissioning cycle in which services spend significant time and resources proving their worth rather than focusing on systemic long-term change.
The consequences of this cycle are far-reaching. Beneficiaries are at risk of losing support if services cannot meet funding criteria or if funding is not sustained. Moreover, the focus on short-term metrics can lead to an undervaluation of relational support and qualitative outcomes that are essential for addressing complex needs. For example, a service may need to spend many months working to build trust with an individual before any traditional “outcomes” in a commissioning framework can be achieved. In traditional commissioning models, little value is given to this important trust-building work.
Breaking this cycle requires bold and collaborative action. Commissioners must work with services to develop funding models that prioritise relationship-building with individuals and long-term, person-centred outcomes. They must also recognise the value of qualitative data and create safe spaces for services to share their full range of evidence, including setbacks and challenges. This shift in approach would not only support more effective services but also foster a culture of learning and improvement.
The stories we tell
Another significant issue is the way data is used to tell stories. In competitive funding environments, there is often pressure to present only the successes and avoid highlighting challenges or failures. While this can help secure funding, it creates a false picture of what works, undermining opportunities for local systems to learn and improve. For example, data about individuals who do not engage with services or who experience setbacks is often excluded from reports, even though this information could provide valuable insights into how to better meet their needs. Similarly, structural barriers within the system may go unrecognised if data is not shared transparently across organisations. To counter this, we need a culture of honesty and transparency in how data is collected, shared, and used. Services and commissioners must value the entirety of the story, including setbacks and mistakes, and use these insights to inform future practice. This requires trust and collaboration between all stakeholders, as well as a commitment to systemic change.
Sharing data
One of the most significant barriers to effective use of data is the lack of cohesive data sharing across services and systems. People experiencing multiple disadvantage often interact with multiple services, yet cultural and privacy concerns frequently prevent the flow of information between organisations. A lack of knowledge about data sharing and a fear of ‘getting it wrong’ are regular barriers to effective data sharing. This creates fragmented systems in which individuals must repeatedly share their story, which can be retraumatising. Critical information, such as healthcare needs during transitions (e.g., from prison to community), may be lost, disrupting continuity of care.
What sort of innovations are we seeing?
Innovative solutions are emerging to address these challenges. For example, in some Changing Futures and MEAM Approach areas, commissioners are taking broader approaches to the data they collect and how they interpret it. They are seeking to use data as a source of learning, rather than a ‘truth’ about a person or a system; and they are exploring how data can help shape system change initiatives. Some areas have implemented “data passports,” which empower beneficiaries to own their data and reduce the need for repetitive storytelling. Others are using journey mapping to visually represent an individual’s path through multiple systems, highlighting barriers and opportunities for change. These tools not only improve operational practice but also provide richer evidence for commissioning decisions.
What do we need to do to change our approach to data?
Ultimately, harnessing the power of data requires cultural as well as technical change. This includes adopting trauma-informed approaches to data collection, ensuring that beneficiaries’ voices are at the centre of the process, and fostering trust between services and commissioners. Informed consent and transparency are also crucial. Beneficiaries should understand how their data is used and why, with regular feedback and the ability to opt out. Additionally, commissioners must take a collaborative approach to funding and to co-designing processes that prioritise long-term, person-centred outcomes.
To achieve this, the system must shift its values. Commissioners and services must move away from a culture of competition and risk aversion toward one of trust, shared learning, and commitment to systemic change. This includes recognising the value of qualitative data, such as personal stories and relational outcomes, and using these insights to inform commissioning decisions.
As services and systems, we need to re-think how we collect, interpret, and apply data to ensure it reflects the realities of people’s lives. We need to use data to drive systemic change rather than simply feed the demands of the system. And we need to value long-term impact over short-term outputs.
By embracing these values and principles, and by building a culture of collaboration and transparency, we can build a more compassionate and effective approach to supporting people experiencing multiple disadvantage, ensuring that no one is left behind.