Transcript Supporting Troubled Families

A Community Budget for
Supporting Leicestershire’s
Troubled Families
Strategic Outline Case
Key Messages
Leicestershire’s Ambition for Our
Troubled Families
1. Significantly improving outcomes for families and their
children
2. Reducing the current costs of public services
“Our heart tells us we can’t just stand by… Our head
tells us we can’t afford to keep footing the
monumental bills for social failure. we have got to
take action to turn troubled families around”
David Cameron, 15th December 2011
2
NATIONAL UPDATE
3
PREVALENCE OF TROUBLED
FAMILIES IN LEICESTERSHIRE
4
Total Troubled Families
Oadby & Wigston, 68
Blaby, 80
North West
Leicestershire, 235
Charnwood, 431
Melton, 127
Hinckley & Bosworth, 277
Harborough, 66
5
Total Threshold Families
Oadby &
Wigston, 156
Blaby, 172
North West
Leicestershire, 354
Charnwood, 635
Melton, 161
Hinckley & Bosworth, 390
Harborough, 150
6
Count of Troubled Families and
Threshold Families
Oadby & Wigston, 224
Blaby, 252
North West Leicestershire,
589
Charnwood, 1066
Melton, 288
Hinckley & Bosworth, 667
Harborough
, 216
7
Troubled Families Profile: 1300
49% of households have some
form of mental health problem
64% have educational risks
Rises to 81% with Alcohol & Drug misuse
1 in 2 families involved in
crime / ASB
96% have at least one family
dysfunction risk
DV, Behaviour, Poor Parenting, Safeguarding,
unstable relationships etc
truancy, >15%, SEN, exclusions,
class behaviour, PRU
57% solely or heavily reliant upon
state benefits
75% actually in receipt of benefits
36% of families have a physical
health condition
8
Troubled Families make up…
77% of Domestic Violence
Casework
70% of families assessed by
children’s social care
Sourced from pilot work Summer 2010
are either TF or Threshold (Initial or Core)
79% of Youth Offending
Service Casework
48% of Attendance
Improvement Service cases
96% of CAF Cases
TF (69% of casework)
Threshold (27% of casework)
100% of Probation Casework
where probationer is a parent
9
District prevalence of TF families across
domains (1300)
Families with Criminal Justice Issues
Families with Employment Issues
Families with Education Issues
Families with Family Functioning Issues
Families with Mental Health Issues
Families with Physical Health Isssues
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
80
431
66
277
127
235
Hinckley &
Bosworth
Melton
North West
Leicestershire
68
0
Blaby
Charnwood
Harborough
Oadby &
Wigston
10
Services that know families with
crime/ASB issues
Common Assessment Framework
Youth Offender Service
Probation Data
District Council
Children's Centre
Family Intervention Project
Frameworki Children's Social Care
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Blaby
Charnwood
Harborough
Hinckley &
Bosworth
Melton
North West
Leicestershire
Oadby &
Wigston
11
What we learned from the Insight Phase…
Common issues for Families








Confusing landscape of public
services
Isolation in their communities
Public services ‘do to them’
Lack of or limited choice/control
Public services in then out
Adverse effect on aspirations/
perception of social mobility
Domestic violence
Poor parenting








Difficulties maintaining relationships
(incl. family, friends, peers, isolation
& social marginalisation)
Lack of resilience (incl. capability,
capacity, confidence & inability to
cope)
Poor/overcrowded housing (incl.
homelessness)
High risk behaviours (incl. substance
misuse)
Poverty (incl. debt & unemployment)
Health (incl. mental health &
disability)
Crime (offending and experience of)
Lack of education/ attainment
12
Reoccurring Themes from Evidence Base,
Current Literature and National Policy on What
works:
 Early intervention
 Building resilience
 Stability, continuity and
transitions
 Effective parenting and
supporting families
 Tackling educational
performance




Tackling worklessness
Tackling poor health
Tackling poverty
Involving communities and
building social capital
 Building capabilities, resilience
and skills development
13
Common Perspectives from Families
“Many families were resigned to their situations, and did not appear to take
responsibility for trying to improve them. One family had no sense of personal
responsibility at all, and another’s primary responsibility was to get services out
of their lives and would do and say things with that in mind”.
“Families saw limited value in just being told or taught how to do something.
They all wanted much more practical and hands on support, and wanted
someone to actually come in and actually show them how to do things. They
all appeared perfectly happy for someone to practically work with their
children on behalf or in front of them”.
“There is a real divergence between families’ own perceptions of themselves
and how they perceive that professionals view them. Families use words such
as caring, tight, coming together to sort their problems out etc. They say that
professionals would see them as hectic, needy, chaotic, trouble etc. Families
can’t see any recognition from many professionals of their strengths and just
feel they are viewed in the negative”.
14
Leicestershire’s Proposed
Troubled Family Model
Approved Family Model
Specialist
Services
Co-located locality
service:
• Permanent core team
members inc Family
Worker
• P/t Co-opted team
members
• Personalised family
budgets
Family
Family
Improved outcomes
Increased resilience, strengths &
independence
Role:
Universal
Services
Whole family approach
• Delivers direct support
• Co-ordinates other services
• Outreach in home/community
• Assertive intensive support
• Small caseloads
Targeted
Services
16
Review of National Family Intervention Project (FIP)
Released Dec 15th with Troubled Family Announcement
 FIP 4 year Programme
 Independent Study by NAT CEN
 8.8k families
Profile & Risk factors at Referral (Multiple factors)
 Family functioning - 81% families
 Poor parenting – 67%
 Relationship/family breakdown – 32%
 Domestic violence – 30%
 Child protection – 30%
 Crime/ASB – 39% /79%
 Child Behavioural problems – 60%
 Health Problems – 49%
 Mental health – 39%
 Physical health – 10%
 Not in Employment, Education & Training (over 18s) – 65%
17
NAT CEN FIP RESEARCH:
Outcomes for families exiting FIP
Outcome Improvements Recorded:







Families involved in ASB
 A Reduction of 58% to 34%
Families involved in Crime
 A Reduction of 41% to 20%
Children with behavioural /truancy problems
 A Reduction of 53% to 28%
Risks from poor family functioning (DV, family breakdown, child protection)
 A Reduction of 47% to 16%
Child protection plans
 A Reduction of 34% to 18%
Health risks including mental, physical health and substance misuse problems
 A Reduction of 34%
In worklessness (ETE)
 A Reduction of 14% to 58%
18
Partners have agreed the twin aims of
improving outcomes for the families and
their children and reducing the cost to the
public sector of supporting the families
through system change.
19
© 2011 Deloitte MCS Limited. Private and confidential.