Transcript Developing new professional knowledge and practice in

The early help challenge for LSCBs
Professor Nick Frost
[email protected]
The aims of the presentation




To consider the role of early help in
LCSB practice
Family support, early intervention or
early help?
The process and outcomes of early
help
A positive role for LSCBs inearly
help?
Family support: a ‘slippery
concept’



attempts to prevent the emergence, or worsening, of
family challenges on order to promote better outcomes for
young people.
is based in theories of change. The aim of any family
support intervention aims to result in some desirable
change and draws on a belief that change is achievable.
also aims to generate wider social change and benefits.
Such results may be saving in public expenditure, a
decrease in social problems or a reduction in measurable
outcomes such as the number of children coming into care
Early intervention






Early in the life of the child (brain
development)
Early in the life of the problem
Evidence–based
19 top programmes
Authoritative
[Allen Report]
Early help



“Early help is an ambiguous term, referring both to help in
the early years of a child or young person’s life and early in
the emergence of a problem at any stage in their lives”
“From a child or young person’s point of view, the earlier
help is received the better. Research on children’s
development emphasises the importance of the early
years on their long-term outcomes so preventative
services to help parents are a key strategy”
[Munro Report]
Key research example – Perry
High Scope




Michigan in the 1960’s
African American 3-5 years olds
2.5 hours of day care for the children
during the week/active learning/childcentred model/home visiting program
15/19/27/40 years of age research follow
up – control and intervention group
Key research example – Perry
High Scope
Perry High Scope – 40th birthday follow up suggest $1
invested saves $12.90. The intervention group:

Are less likely to be arrested 5 times or more (36% as
opposed to 55% of the control group)

More likely to earn $20k plus (60% as opposed to 40%)

More likely to graduate from high school (77% as opposed
to 60%)

Achieve more highly at 15 (49% as opposed to 15%)

Complete homework (61% as opposed to 38%)

Have an IQ of 90+ at 5 (67% as opposed to 28%)
(Schweinhart et al, 2005, p.2)
Key research example – Perry
High Scope

Bellfield et al undertook an overall
Cost Benefit Analysis and estimate
that $12.90 is saved from public
costs for every $1 invested and
argue that ‘program gains come
mainly from reduced crime by
males’
LARC findings

A range of support interventions were put in
place to help families. Most commonly help was
given to enhance parenting strategies; improve
engagement in education; develop emotional
health and resilience; engage in positive
activities and promote physical health
management. Families reported that the informal
help and support given by lead professionals
helped them manage their situations. (Local
Authority Research Consortium (England) 4,
Summary)
LARC findings

The researchers estimate that the ‘potential
future outcome costs’ of the cases they explored
were between £400 and £420,000. The cost of
undertaking the ‘CAF and the intervention costs’
were between £1,500 and £27,000. It is argued
that ‘potential savings’ range from £6,800 and
£415,000. This evidence suggests that this form
of early intervention is cost effective.
C4EO ‘Grasping the nettle’ (2011)
The best start in life
 Language for life
 Engaging parents
 Smarter working, better
services
 Knowledge is power

Key judgement

Children and young people who are, or who
are likely to be, at risk of harm or who are the
subject of concern are identified and
protected. Help is provided early in the
emergence of a problem and is well
coordinated and recorded through multiagency arrangements. Thresholds between
early help and statutory child protection work
are appropriate, understood and operate
effectively.
Key judgement

. The DCS works closely with the
LSCB chair and the chief executive
holds the LSCB chair to account for
the effectiveness of the LSCB.
Key judgement

The LSCB is able to provide
evidence that it coordinates the
work of statutory partners in
helping, protecting and caring for
children in its local area and there
are mechanisms in place to
monitor the effectiveness of those
local arrangements.
Key judgment

Regular and effective monitoring and
evaluation of multi-agency front-line
practice to safeguard children identifies
where improvement is required in the
quality of practice and services that
children, young people and families
receive. This includes monitoring the
effectiveness of early help.
Outstanding?

The LSCB is likely to be outstanding if, in addition to
meeting the requirements for a good judgement, it
provides evidence of being a highly influential
strategic arrangement that directly influences and
improves performance in the care and protection of
children. That improvement is sustained and extends
across multi-disciplinary practice with children, young
people and families.
Group work



What do LCSBs need to do immediately
to address the early help challenge?
How do we need to be resourced?
What should be our medium / longterm goals in relationship to early help?
Issues and debates







Working relationship with DCS
Data gathering and analysis
Multi-professional approaches
‘Highly influential’
Focus on outcomes (but don’t forget process)
Public expenditure restrictions?
Resourcing Boards