Transcript No Slide Title

Family Recovery Project
From Pathfinder to Service
Transformation:
lessons and recommendations
Tanya Kemp
Service Manager
Kelly McSherry
Substance Misuse Consultant
Building a team
Bid to the DCSF
One City funding
Beg, steal or borrow – MET Police, Housing, Mental Health,
Education, DAT – Children’s Social Work, Community
Protection, Action for Children
Family Recovery Project – The Process
May 2010
Page 4
Who are we? FRP is a co-located multi agency team..
What do we do..?
FRP work with families who have a history of non-engagement with
services, or where, even with multi-agency support, positive change
has been limited or not
sustained….
FRP persistently support and intervene with families who are at
risk of losing their children, home and/or liberty…
FRP work to improve the experience of both the family and
the communities in which they live…
FRP work in a targeted and phased way to support a family’s capacity
for change and to embed and sustain changes within the family…
The Team: Family Perspective
We work with around
80 families at any
one time
Families are referred
to us from across the
borough, existing panels such as
ASBAG, MARAC etc
tend to generate most referrals
We aim to work
intensively with a
Family for around
12 months
How do we work with Families.. Consent..?
Consent based model…
Consent is a two step process –
1 - Initial explicit informed consent from the
family for FRP to share information
2 - Post TAF, the family ‘consent’ to the
Careplan contract
This facilitates a positive, transparent working relationship
with families..
Not required for statutory cases, but sought regardless
Overview of process
Family referred to project – do they meet threshold?
Consent (for information sharing) gained from family
Information Gathering - Information desk provides detailed overview of family
TAF - Multi agency meeting of all involved with family – information shared
Contract with consequences (Careplan) – agreed by family
Intensive working 3-4 visits a week outcome focussed, gets things moving quickly
Regular TAF reviews – Highlighting any risk, performance against Careplan, worker
supervision, information sharing and Family Involvement
Closure – Hand off to lower tier or community services
The Information Desk
The Information Desk:
• Senior Analyst
• Analyst
• Police officer x 2
• ASB case worker
The information desk draws information from a number of
sources through either direct access or contacts within partner
agencies, providing a rounded view of the family unique to FRP.
Training
and work
Probation
Police
Intelligence Report Provides an accurate and up to date
summary of all relevant family information,
highlighting presenting issues or risks,
flagging any intelligence gaps.
Initially used to inform the TAF meeting
and Careplan. Following this to provide
up to date information as and when
required.
Children’s
services
Immigration
Information
desk
Community
protection
Schools
Health
Adult
Services
What is the purpose of the Intelligence Report..?
Providing accurate information on:
• Who the family are? Where they live, the family composition, a detailed breakdown of all
immediate and significant family members / friends. Specifically highlighting any risks to worker
• What are the presenting issues / risks?
• What are the information gaps? What do we not know about this family that is either a
presenting issue, a risk or a potential barrier to change
• Who is already working with the family?
• What has worked and what hasn’t, to avoid duplication of costly interventions.
The information desk can draw information from a number of sources, providing a rounded view
of the family unique to FRP.
Information gathering, collating and sharing is key to ensuring safe, accurate and efficient
decision making.
Presenting multi agency information in a new way..
Timelines..
How do we store / share this information..?
SharePoint
Online Data repository, accessed on a
permission led basis by all team members and
partner agencies working with FRP.
Used to store a variety of information, including;
Individual family caseload ‘sites’ (access is restricted to team members working with the family only)
Team information ‘sites’ (such as leave calendars, training information, announcements etc)
Information can be uploaded (by individual team members) and disseminated quickly and efficiently.
Sharepoint represents the change in working cultures in relation to sharing information
“The teams use of Sharepoint is phenomenal, don’t underestimate what an achievement this is”
Trish Kearney SCIE
Case Study.. Family A
Background:
14 year history of serious DV; poor school attendance, mother’s depression/low mood;
teenage pregnancy; overcrowding, debt/rent arrears; poor parenting; single parent; father
convictions for violence, ASB by child and rent arrears leading to Notice of eviction
Case Study - Careplan..
What we will do:
• Intensive intervention with mother, regarding parenting and routines to improve
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
boundaries and school attendance for younger children.
Individualised benefits/debt advice
ASB caseworker to coordinate with safer neighbourhood team
Eldest engaged with youth services; mentor
Address housing and overcrowding issues
Address experience of DV with mother and provide support around impact
Offer family therapy
Work with father around contact with children
Father to be offered DV risk assessment
Health Visitor to check new baby’s progress
Case Study - Outcomes..
Results:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dramatic reduction in ASB
Improved school attendance
Father DV assessed and intervention in place
Alcohol treatment for father in place
Oldest child and her baby re-housed
Debt addressed
Victim support for mum
The Model: what’s different about FRP..?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Whole view of the family
Team around the family
Two lead professionals for adults and children
Integrated Family Care Plan – adult and children’s needs –
focused on key areas
Quick information through Information Desk
Capacity building
Focus on adults needs – DV Worker, substance misuse
worker
Intensive outreach – fast, intensive, targeted
Outcomes and consequences – speedy decision making –
relevant professionals in the team
All in one project
Family Recovery Project –
Learning so far and Evaluation
May 2010
Page 19
Formal evaluation
– the who and the what
University of East Anglia – led by Prof. June
Thornburn.
DCSF / York consulting.
WCC Cost Avoidance
FIP – Natcen evaluation
Plus separate measures for NHS and Police
Findings
: Child Protection
Outcome/Progress
Outcome progress
Control
CP
FRP A
No progress and managed under PLO
No progress and managed
under PLO
CP A
FRP B
Progress and heading to being
removed from plan
Progress and no longer subject
to CP plan
CP B
FRP C
Progress and heading to being
removed from plan
No progress and in care
proceedings
CP C
FRP D
Progress and heading to being
removed from plan
Little progress and Child Likely
to come into care – high cost
placement
CP D
FRP E
Child Removed from CP Plan
CP Plan continued – Risk being
managed
CP E
FRP F
Progress and heading to being
removed from plan
Child no longer subject to CP
plan but had
CP F
FRP/CP
to go through proceedings to
get there
FRP G
No Progress and Long term CP
registration
No Progress and managed
under PLO
CP G
FRP H
Managed under PLO following long
period of superficial engagement.
Now engaging very well.
No longer CP plan in place
CP H
FRP I
CP Plan in place but engaging very
well and heading for de-plan
No progress and in care
proceedings
CP I
No Progress and Long term CP
Findings : Child Protection themes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Capacity building in families seem clearer and more of a priority
DV support for parents have helped them – empowered and equipped to cope
Practical support for parents who had never been parented invaluable
IOW/DV provides support these parents don’t have friends
Parents feel contained and so can focus on issues pertaining to children
Better, quicker, and more effective information sharing between SW and FRP
saves time – no need to chase multiple agencies as all services in house
under one roof
Time saved by not having to try to consult on issues SW don’t really know
about – e.g. chasing housing, benefits, etc
Serious case reviews show that often SW too focused on adult needs rather
than focusing on child’s needs and this approach shows SW can come back
to focusing on child
Need to address less in monthly visits – visit content more manageable
De-stress – knowing work is manageable and cases are safe and under
control
2 people available to deal with crises – Lead professional for child AND adult
SW doesn’t necessarily need to drop everything for every crisis as Lead
Prof/IOW available to support family in difficult times and contain risks
Family Recovery Project – Cost avoidance
May 2010
Page 23
Cost avoidance
An over-riding objective for the Council was to measure
the cost ‘avoidance’ of this new way of working, to
understand how much this intensive type of work would
cost and how could this preventative work help avoid
future costs to Westminster, its partners and public
purse.
Three costs to consider:
• What could the family cost in a ‘do nothing”
scenario
• Actual cost of FRP intervention – based on unit cost
or time spent with each family–£15-20k per family
• Avoidance of future cost to public purse
Cost avoidance: existing costs to services
• Challenging, some agencies do not collect data at service user
•
•
•
•
•
level, costs of interventions unknown
Short term v long term costs – e.g. long term and secondary
impacts not measurable
Children’s Social Care - a child in care costs £50k annually
Criminal justice – annual costs for a male prisoner = £27k/female
prisoner = £48k
An unemployed family of four in rented accommodation costs £30k
annually
NHS:
Obesity
Mental illness
Substance misuse - £47k pa per user
Early death
Cost avoidance: the model
This model is based on:
• nationally available figures on the cost of
various negative outcomes
• projecting the likely cost for each family based
on our assessment of their needs
• the actual cost of the FRP intervention
• using the recommended DCSF FIP success
rates to forecast outcomes and hence
• produce an estimate of the probable avoided
costs
Cost avoidance: the numbers
Domain
Housing
Anti-social
behaviour,
criminality
Example costs
Temp
accommodation, rent
arrears, evictions and
dealing with noise.
Police and court
costs, imprisonment.
Educational
failure
Worklessness
Young people without
employment.
Benefits dependence
of adults in family.
Poor
parenting (inc
domestic
violence)
Social work
investigation,
assessment,
interventions and
cost of care for a
child.
Long term impact of
mental ill-health,
physical ill health,
substance misuse.
Health - adult
and child
TOTAL
Less costs of
FRP service
Year 1 Net
Total cost avoided
for 60 families in
Year 1
£243k
£650k
£80k
£150k
£503k
£407k
£2,033,000
£1,200,000
£ 833,000
Whose budget?
Evictions cost to landlords.
Noise and nuisance to WCC
and RSL’s.
Housing benefit - DWP.
A small amount of the cost is
incurred by WCC for
responding to ASB, but the
majority is to the criminal
justice system - Police, Home
Office, Ministry of Justice.
Dept of Work & Pensions
(DWP)
DWP - based on 5 adults who
have started work following
FRP intervention.
WCC Children Services costs
based on preventing 8 children
coming into care, domestic
violence interventions and
other social care costs.
NHS and WCC - further work is
planned with NHS to obtain
more robust data.
Potential further saving to DWP
if adult is unable to work.