Transcript Slide 1

The case for Supporting
Leicestershire Families
Prime Minister & Leicestershire’s Ambition for
Our Troubled Families
“Last year the state spent an estimated £9 billion on just 120,000 families…
…that is around £75,000 per family.
David Cameron 15th Dec 2011
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
Louise Casey Unit Ambition
 “Success is bigger than the payment by results model…I want to see
real system change…this is about changing the mainstream. The
Programme needs to catalyse sustainable reform of services in order
to prevent future families from becoming ‘TF’ and to deliver
significant cost savings to the State”
 “My ‘manna from heaven’ is that a 3 year focus on the family’s
needs will result in the number of agencies involved with them will
reduce from, say, 17 to 2”
 “This will be different because it will focus on individual families and
their needs, rather than individual services”
3
Founding Principles
Approved by Programme Board June 2011
 Place’ and ‘citizens’ before ‘organisation’
 Place shared vision, objectives and services
 Pro-active co-design between partners in the place and between the place
& Whitehall
 Prevention by early and earlier intervention
 Better outcomes at less cost
 Fully understand the problem before defining a solution
 Ambitious & if appropriate radical local innovation
 Build on good practice /initiatives in place in Leicestershire i.e. Integrated
Offender Model, Children’s Centres, YOS, Systems Change, many others
 Decommission & reprioritise services when required
 Pooled /aligned budgets around the theme/place
4
National Funding
 Since the establishment of the Government’s ‘Troubled Families Unit’ a
pooled budget from 4 Government departments totalling nearly £0.5bn
has been created to support 152 local authority areas across the Country
to improve services to Troubled Families in their areas
 Government funding which is partly on a payment by results basis could
provide Leicestershire with up to £2.6m over three years but it has been
assumed that £2.2m will be achieved – the attachment fee for working
with families and 50% of the reward
 Leicestershire Target for Payment By Results = 400 families worked with
12/13; min 810 overall – may be opportunities to claim further
 Louise Casey supportive of Leicestershire plan to work with 3300
Troubled Families: 1300 Most complex needs, 2000 ‘At Risk’
5
Local Funding
 Local agencies have indicated funding on an ‘in principle’ basis subject to
approval by Cabinets and Boards. This is set out in Appendix 8 of the
Cabinet Report. Including the proposed County Council contribution this
funding would mean:
– Revenue funding (over three years) of £5.6m
– Staff resources equivalent to £2.4m
– In kind support providing at least the £300k assumed accommodation
costs and additional support towards management costs
6
SECONDARY
RESEARCH
PRIMARY
RESEARH
Family Insight
A comprehensive approach
Practitioner
Insight
Family
Insight


Desk based
research

Other Insight

Full day practitioner workshop
Ethnography
3 Workshops
Individual
family
consultation
9 families
21 adults, 13 CYP
9 families
- 135 practitioners, cross agency
Customer
Journey
Needs
Assessment
Customer
Journey maps
Craig's story
(Beacon project)
Child Poverty
Mental Health
Evidence base for family models
Melton Family Model
Current/emerging policy
Mapping Families
LIFE - Swindon pilot
The detailed Insight report is now published on the Leicestershire Together
Website: www.leicestershiretogether.org/partnerships/communitybudgets
Barriers to Families
8
What Must Change
Earlier Intervention
Re-training
/ attitude of
workforce
Shared vision and
stronger leadership
Family-centric, not
organisation-centric
approaches to working
Advocate /
Key Family
Worker
Shared
processes /
systems
Politics /
resources
Better joint
working
Information
sharing
Community
From insight phase: practitioner event
9
Barriers highlighted by Aperia
 The range of support and access to support is confusing, services are not
joined up, are complex, and they don’t know what is available so they
didn’t get the help that perhaps does exist
 Services start and then stop and it is confusing – not one individual felt
that their personal goals were clearly and openly aligned to the objectives
of the services – hence they personally felt that nothing had changed, but
services were stopped as the service felt that a goal had been achieved
 People don’t listen, are too quick to judge and don’t really understand
 Services are reactive, based on crisis prevention and short term
interventions
 Services are set up to dealt with single issues i.e. offending, domestic
violence, mental health and not ‘whole family’ or ‘whole person’ approach
 Families often feel services work against them, not with / for them
10
Barriers highlighted by Aperia
 Lack of education - many attendees regretted that they felt unprepared and
ill-trained for the lives that they live. This is both at an educational attainment
level and also in terms of the skills to be able to manage and run their own
homes
 Their past / lack of role models – some people commented that it is hardly
surprising that they are currently suffering the problems that they face given
their experiences / lives to date. Some referenced directly that they feel there
are not enough role models for them or their children. This was a very strong
view from practitioners and echoed, although less precisely, by service users
11
What we learned from the Insight Phase…
Common issues for FCN
 Confusing landscape of public
services
 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
 Domestic violence
 Poor parenting
 Difficulties maintaining
relationships (incl. family, friends,
peers, isolation & social
marginalisation)
 Lack of resilience (incl. capability,
capacity, confidence & inability to
cope)
 Lack of or limited choice/control
 Adverse effect on aspirations/
perception of social mobility
What Parents said they want most from
Services
 Stability, support, encouragement, consistency
 To be listened to and acknowledged
 People to do what they say they’re going to do and to get
back to them
 Freedom from prejudice/social marginalisation
 Services to work for and not against them
 Have their own needs addressed as well as their children’s
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
14
Troubled Family Risk Factors
Involvement in crime/ASB
Poor parenting
No parent in the family is working
Family lives in poor-quality
Truancy, exclusion or low
Child Behavioural Problems
or overcrowded housing
educational attainment
Limited support network
No parent has any qualifications
Child is a carer
Family in debt
Child Substance abuse problems
Mother has mental health problems
Adult with learning difficulties
At least one parent has a long-standing
limiting illness, disability or infirmity
Drugs or alcohol misuse
Communications problems
Marriage, relationship
or family breakdown
NEET
Family has low income
(below 60% of the median)
Teenage Parent(s)
Family cannot afford a number
of food and clothing items
Domestic violence
Child protection issues
Risk factors attributed to families with 5 or more disadvantages (from) Families At Risk: Background
on families with multiple disadvantages, Social Exclusion Taskforce Research Report, 2007
Additional risk factors from families supported through family intervention (NatCen, Mar 2010).
15
Local Definition for Leics Troubled Families
 Out of 23 potential risks/issues
– More than 5 risks/issues = Troubled Family
– Any family with an open Child Protection Plan not in the
above = Troubled Family
– Add to this any family not in the above but has 2 or more
of:•
•
•
•
•
Alcohol Misuse
Drugs Misuse
Violence or abuse
Crime/ASB
Mental Health
Any family presenting 2-4
risks not in the TF category
= a At Risk Family
e.g. at risk of becoming Troubled
16
Sources of Family Data




Children’s Social Care – Framework i
CAF – CAF Access database
Free School Meals -CAPITA One
Unauthorised absences from
school – CAPITA One
 Exclusions– CAPITA One
 Family Intervention Projects –
 Probation Service – manual trawl through
casework files
 YOS/YISP - RAISE
 District Councils – manual returns from
Community Safety
 Children’s Centres – manual returns from nonCYPS staff
Manual return from FIP Records/Key Worker knowledge
 Children's Centres Manual return from
Outreach Worker knowledge
 Pupil Referral Units – CAPITA One
 Attendance Improvement Service
– CAPITA One
 Statements of Educational Needs
– CAPITA One
12500+
households known
across these
datasets
17
Of 1300 Troubled Families…















1 in 2 are reported to be involved in ASB/crime
25% are proven youth offenders
57% solely or heavily reliant upon state benefits
75% of families in receipt of some benefit
26% are in receipt of Free School Meals
96% have some family dysfunction risk:
66% of families affected by violence and/or abuse in the home
64% have educational risks:
25% have at least one child with >15% unauthorised absence from school
13% have had at least one exclusion in 2011
Only 5% have a child with a Statement of Educational Needs but TFs account for
14% of SENs with BESD/ASD
1 in 2 of households have some form of mental health problem
33% have drug misuse problems
28% have alcohol misuse problems
36% of families have a limiting physical health condition
18
Troubled Families Profile: 1300
49% of households have some
form of mental health problem
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
64% have educational risks
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
19
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
20
Leicestershire’s Troubled Families –
c1300
Oadby & Wigston, 68
Blaby, 80
North West
Leicestershire, 235
Charnwood, 431
Melton, 127
Hinckley & Bosworth, 277
Harborough, 66
21
Count of Troubled Families and
Threshold Families – c3,300
Oadby & Wigston, 224
Blaby, 252
North West Leicestershire,
589
Charnwood, 1066
Melton, 288
Hinckley & Bosworth, 667
Harborough, 216
22
At Risk and Troubled Families by Postcode
N.B. Each point
may represent more
than one family
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%
24
Evaluation Highlighted 8 Core Features Viewed
as Critical to FIP Success
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Recruitment and retention of high quality staff who can work in an
empathetic way, build trust whilst maintaining professional boundaries
(the relationship with families is key)
Small caseloads (no more than 6 at any one time)
Dedicated key worker who works intensively with each family in the
home & community and outside of ‘office hours’
A whole family approach
Consistency of key worker with family and longevity
Having the scope to use resources creatively i.e.. personal/flexible
budget
Using sanctions alongside support/incentives for families
Effective multi-agency relationships/working and information sharing
25