Transcript Front Cover Sheet - London Safeguarding Children Board

Family Intervention Projects
London Safeguarding Board
8th December 2010
Carol Carruthers
Service Manager
Prevention & Intervention Services
Havering

Affluent with wards of deprivation
Child Population
Children with a Disability
53,000
1,200
Children from BAME
21%
Children Looked After
205
Children with a Child Protection Plan
138
Children with a Child Protection Plan




Neglect
Emotional
Physical
Sexual
48%
35%
17%
0%
Family characteristics of all of the above:
 Domestic Violence
 Alcohol use
 Drug misuse
 Parental mental health
Children entering Care
Predominantly:
 Under 3 years old
 12-14 years old
Wards:
 Harold Hill
 Rainham
Operating Model
IFIT,
PAT
Baby FIP, YCFIP in
RM3
These children receive appropriate
universal services and have no identified
targeted needs.
Why FIP?


Neglect is difficult to address as it is pervasive.
Entrenched; parents resistant to change; poor
outcomes for children; generational; differing
degrees; not an event or injury; a combination of
factors.

FIP is intensive.

FIP workers use recognised parenting programmes,
one to one.

FIP workers/Social Workers experience; skills;
change agents.

FIP plans are detailed, challenging but supportive
with transparent sanctions.
Structure of Services
Service Manager
Children’s
Centres
Parenting
Support Team
Duty &
Assessment
Provides
universal,
targeted and
specialist
services.
Baby FIP
Provides parenting
classes, universal &
targeted.
Direct one to one
parenting.
YCFIP
Think Fathers
BAME Participation
Worker
Social Care
threshold
CWD
CP/CIN/LAC
Children In Need
IFIT
CIN
PAT
Child Protection
Children In Need
Short Breaks
FIP Support Services

Researcher

Mental Health Practitioner

Drugs & Alcohol Practitioner

Relate Family Therapy

Think Fathers Advocacy Service
Brief of each FIP
Criteria:
o
YCFIP- young people aged 13-16 involved in youth crime.
o
Baby FIP- parents under 25, child under 5 years.
o
Parenting Assessment Team- Legal Consistency Panel
o
IFIT
o
Legal Planning
o
Family Group Conference
Antisocial behaviour and beyond parental control.
Domestic violence, parental substance abuse, parental ill
health.
YCFIP

Model

Practice

Impact & Outcomes


o
Number of families- 12 cases from Oct 2009-Present (7
currently open, 5 closed).
Outcomes for families- improved family relationships and
functioning, improved school attendance and
achievement, reduction in youth crime, improvement in
parenting skills .
Families view

‘They helped out with jobs with the property regarding the
council, also debt find it it hard to come to terms with my
past’, ‘the support the project has given her is second to
none’, ‘I can say NO more often to the kids now’.
YCFIP Example





















Background
The M family have been on and off with Social Services for 6 years.
Family consists of Mother, Father and 5 children aged between 3-17 years.
Referred to YCFIP in December 2009.
Issues
Noise nuisance, Antisocial behaviour
Risk of eviction
Underage sex, Mother has undiagnosed ADHD
State of family home
Education and attendance concerns
Work we did
Practical support from the FIP Worker in the family home (6-9 hours per week). Helped in
cleaning around the house and implementing age appropriate routines around mealtimes and
bedtime.
Liaised with school in promoting attendance and linked in universal health services for the
children.
Enrolled family on Strengthening Families programme.
Counselling with Relate for Mother around childhood issues and with whole family.
Outcomes
Better relationship between family members.
Reduced antisocial behaviour.
Family home is much cleaner.
Improvement in attendance and grades at school.
Predicted annual savings to society for this family is £205,529.84.
Baby FIP

Model

Practice

Impact & Outcomes



Number of families- 7 cases open, 2 closed (since January
2010).
Outcomes for families- 1 child is no longer on CP Plan, 3
cases resulted in positive engagement from the families,
with support services identified and put in place.
Family Views

‘Baby FIP helped with budgeting, informed me of groups
such as Cook & Eat. I could confide in the FIP Worker and
would urge other families to go for it, ideal if your having
relationship or money worries, child's behavioural problem
etc. Very useful!’
Baby FIP Example




















Background
Family consists of Mother, Father, two children aged 1 and 3
Issues
Domestic Violence
Alcohol abuse
Child hygiene problems
Lack of support network for Mother
Finance & budgeting issues
Lack of supervision of children
Work we did
Arranged sessions with Women’s Aid and Community Alcohol Team.
Mother given advice and practical support on guidance and boundaries and dealing with
challenging behaviour, including tantrums.
Practical support regarding hygiene within the home.
Mother and Father enrolled on appropriate parenting courses.
Mother provided with a budget chart and routine charts.
Outcomes
Children more compliant with Mother.
Mother regularly attending Children’s Centre classes.
Reduction is Police involvement.
Home is being maintained.
Gill Nash
Manager- IFIT, PAT & CIN
IFIT- Introduction

Primary goal of IFIT is to assist families in avoiding
progressing from pre-stage PLO into legal proceedings.

IFIT formed in November 2009- we initiated this pilot as a
response to the governments “Think Family” agenda.

The team with children at the greatest risk in Social Care
teams.

The program requires a very high level of commitment
from the families as well as from professionals.

Ultimately, it is the family’s choice to engage and make
appropriate changes and work hard towards moving
forward in a positive way.
Referral Criteria
IFIT only accept cases that meet the following criteria:

Significant history of involvement with CYPS (where previous
interventions have not worked).

Must be subject to a child protection plan.

Must be subject to pre-stage PLO or a Child Protection Plan over
13 months with no significant progress.

Either Domestic Violence, Substance Misuse or Mental Health
must be prevalent within the family.

At a point where the Local Authority are considering care
proceedings.

Parents/family must have consented to the referral.
Organisational Structure- IFIT
Gill Nash
Team Manager
Advanced Practitioner
Advanced Practitioner
Advanced Practitioner
Family Support Worker
Researcher
Administrator
Advanced Practitioner
Organisational Structure- Parenting
Assessment Team (PAT)
Gill Nash
Team Manager
Deputy Manager
Parenting Assessment
Worker
Parenting Assessment
Worker
Parenting Assessment
Worker
Administrator
Timeline of Involvement
WEEK 1



IFIT representative attends Legal Planning Meeting; explains programme and obtain
consent from the family.
Phone family to see if they have any questions (within three days).
Decision to accept the case (within one week).
WEEKS 2–3


Referral signed by parents and given to IFIT (within two weeks of Legal Planning
Meeting).
Allocate a lead IFIT worker (within three days of referral).
WEEKS 4–5

Professionals Meeting (within two weeks of referral).
WEEK 6

Complete whole Family Core Assessment (within four weeks of referral).
WEEK 8



Contract Meeting (within six weeks of referral).
Review Meetings (every six weeks).
Core Group Meetings (every four weeks; can be combined with Review Meetings).
6–9 MONTHS


Family Group Conference (if necessary) and ending work.
Disruption Meeting (when/if family misses three scheduled appointments and/or nonengagement.
Cost Effectiveness
The graph shows the actual costs incurred to LBH, and the costs to LBH should
IFIT not have been involved, and the children were placed in Local Authority
Care.
Cost Effectiveness- until December 2010
£644,706.31
£700,000.00
£600,000.00
£500,000.00
£400,000.00
Cost
£240,243.86
£300,000.00
£200,000.00
£34,343.69
£100,000.00
£0.00
Actual Placement
Cost
Estimated In-House
Cost
Estimated Private
Sector Cost
Actual Cost/Type of Residence
Cost Effectiveness
The below graph shows the costs to the Local Authority should IFIT not have
been involved, and the children went into a Care Placement (from when case
was open to IFIT until child is aged 18):
Cost Effectiveness- Placement Costs Until Aged 18
£11,185,150.00
£12,000,000.00
£10,000,000.00
£8,000,000.00
£5,182,750.74
Cost £6,000,000.00
£4,000,000.00
£527,421.98
£2,000,000.00
£0.00
Forecast Costs for Current
Children in Placement
Estimated In-House Cost
Type of Placement
Estimated Private Sector
Cost
Parenting Assessment Team
The PAT undertake in-house assessments. Parenting assessments are also completed
independently. The average cost for an independent assessment is between £5-6k.
The diagram below shows the number of parenting assessments by LBH and through
independent agencies.
Number of Parenting Assessments by Havering
CYPS in 2010/11
(compared to 100% externally provided assessments in
2008/09)
12
29%
Independent Parenting
Assessments (External)
Parenting Assessment
Team (Internal)
30
71%
Example- Family ‘X’
























Background
The X family have extensive history with Children’s Services.
Family consists of Mother, two children (aged 2 & 8) and one unborn.
Multiple episodes where the children have been made subject to CP plans.
IFIT began to work with the family in June 2010.
Issues
Domestic Violence
Emotional Abuse
Mental Health
Neglect
One child with disability
Work we did
Sent Mother & children to Refuge, then re-housed with security provision.
FSW provided in house and community based support 2/3 times per week.
One to One counselling with Social Worker on a daily basis.
Maintained appointments via planning tool and support.
Improved healthcare for Mother.
Counselling with Relate.
Outcomes
Non-Molestation Order.
8 year old child removed from CP register in November 2010.
Improvement in children’s behaviour.
Better self-esteem and increased standard of parenting and coping strategies.
Improved relationship between Mother and Maternal Grandmother.
Client Feedback

Is the IFIT way of working different from previous social work
involvement with your family and why?
“Yes, more understanding”, “Trust her more as she does not twist my
words”, “Come to an agreement rather than forced into something”,
“Feel less pressured than in previous social work teams”, “More
intense work”, “Does not judge”.

Is there anything that could have been done differently?
“No, done everything for us”, “Done more than any other of the social
work teams”.

What have been the positives/negatives for you?
“Social Worker has helped to get partner involved with Dad’s club”,
“helped me realise the issues surrounding domestic violence”, “Helped
me put in boundaries/discipline measures with the children which I
have never done before”, “Talk to me and ask for my opinion” “All
been positive”.
Client Feedback

Please give one example of how the IFIT support has helped you to
make the changes you wanted to achieve?
“Social Worker goes out of her way to help, has even rung me when she has
been on sick leave”, “Honest”, “Positive”, “Got me in a woman’s refuge, which
gave me the kick I needed”, “Has helped with my drug misuse, taking out an
injunction and moving house”.

Has there been a time when you have not agreed with Social Worker and
how was this addressed?
“At the beginning I didn’t agree with something that the Social Worker said, was
resolved by a meeting with the Manager of the team and an agreement was
reached, since then have got on better”.

Have your children noticed the difference?
“Yes definitely all of my children love her”, “Have noticed a difference with my
children, better behaved” ,“Children are more content, behaviour has improved”.

If you had a friend that is involved with Children’s Services and IFIT
was offered to them, what advice would you give them?
“To join IFIT as they are friendlier”, “Join IFIT as they have changed my life and
will help you, they wont judge you just help”, “Recommend them, they listen
more as they have families of their own”.
Savings



Baby FIP
YCFIP
IFIT
Outcomes for the Child (amalgamation of 3 teams)
 67% remain with parents
 12% remain within family
 12% in Care.
 9% in proceedings
 Attendance and educational attainment improved
 Health improved
 Children report they have more friends
Outcomes for Staff




Stable workforce
Skilled workforce using recognised parenting
academy programmes
London College Evaluating Programmes
Morale excellent
This is what I came into Social Work to do
Outcomes for the Authority

Child Protection Plans increased- better
identification and early intervention

Number of Looked After remained stable- 200
Future

Increase YCFIP

Increase Baby FIP

To roll out across Social Care subject to Munro
review findings

Social Workers on Newly Qualified Scheme shadow
and work alongside IFIT to enhance their practice

To obtain Advanced Social Work status for IFIT staff

Triage System
Questions