Transcript Slide 1

National picture
• “Government’s commitment to turn around
the lives of 120,000 of England’s most
troubled families.”
• Prime Minister alongside the Secretary of
State for Communities and Local
Government, Eric Pickles, announced
additional resources totalling £448m over
the next three years for the programme
National expectations
Areas should get on with:
–
–
–
–
getting coordination in place
Finding out who the (1,015) families are
Planning their service model
Making arrangements to refer to ESF
• To be confirmed:
–
–
–
–
Eligibility and success criteria
Requirements for participation (baseline, model)
Matched funding and attachment fee arrangements
Information sharing rules
Who Is Involved
ESCC Children’s
Services
Sussex
Police
East Sussex
Hospitals Trust
ESCC Adult
Social Care
Refuge
Job Centre
Plus
Action in
Rural Sussex
Sussex and Surrey
Probation Service
District and Borough
Local Authorities
East Sussex
Fire & Rescue Service
Schools
(and a college)
YMCA
Fellowship
Homeworks
of St Nicolas
Sussex Partnership
Trust
Action
for change
Sanctuary
Carr Gomm
CRI
and
more…
Southdown
Housing
Deciding on a service model
• TFU estimates 1,015 families, and turning them
around will cost £10k per family
• We can claim money when we succeed in
turning a family around
• We are expected to demonstrate 60% to claim
40% back
• Not all families will engage or succeed, so we’ll
need a keywork-based service model which
works with at least 1,500 families over three
years
• We won’t be able to claim for our work with
some of families who need the most help and
cost the most money
Where the 0-18s are
Where the adults are
Where they both are
As a % of the population (approx 3% overall)
Option A: Keep things as they are
Services
Intensive family
services
family
keyworkers
Benefits
Risks
 No disruption or
change to manage
 Unlikely to be
accepted by TFU
 No expenditure
 Low chance of
success
Some good practice
already in place
 Increasing numbers
of families needing
intensive support
Option B: Stand-alone service model
Benefits
Risks
 Proven good
practice model
 Requires significant
investment from all
Will meet TFU
expectations
 May take too long to
agree pooled budget
arrangements
Good for family
engagement
 Won’t change practice
in existing services
Option C: Mixed economy embedded model
Keyworking
coordination
and referral
management
Benefits
Risks
 Will make best use
of existing services
 Requires whole
system change to work
Achievable without
pooling budgets
 Will fail if workers
aren’t given flexibility
Can make ‘Think
Family’ normal for
everyone
 Families may not
engage with
‘enforcement’ services
Key Worker
• To undertake assessments which identify
the root causes of complex problems
families are experiencing.
• To co-ordinate intensive and structured
support to help these families change.
• Work with families and other agencies to
design and deliver effective interventions.
Core features of Key Work
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Focus on most problematic families
Whole family approach
Dedicated key worker
Practical and emotional support
Persistent and assertive working methods
Families agree to a contract and support plan
Sanctions are used
Multi agency working
Key worker requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
Supervision and support
Service identity
Assessment tool and recording system
Training
Resources- to support families
Resilience
8 critical features identified from the
FIP Model
1. Recruitment and retention of high
quality staff
2. Key worker model
3. Small case loads
4.Whole family approach
5.Stay involved as long as necessary
6.Use of sanctions with support
7.Scope to use resources creatively
8.Effective multi-agency relationships
–Get to the root of family’s problems
How do families experience the service?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regular contact with their key worker
Intensive practical and emotional support
Behaviour management
Organised activities
Supported referrals to other services
Monitoring through the support plan and
contract
Family feedback from FIP evaluation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Emotional support
Helped them to manage their behaviour
Parenting advice and guidance
Organised activities for children and family
Supported referrals to other services
Practical help with household chores and
financial management
• Contacting schools and getting children back
into education
DfE: Monitoring and evaluation of family
intervention projects to March 2010
• 47% reduction in the number of families
experiencing risks associated with poor family
functioning, including poor parenting, marriage,
relationship & family breakdown, domestic
violence or child protection issues;
• 47% reduction in the number of families involved
in anti-social behaviour and crime;
• 34% reduction in the number of families with
health issues including mental or physical health
and drug or alcohol problems
• 34% reduction in the number of families with
education and employment issues.
Family intervention projects: a classic case
of policy-based evidence
• interesting social engineering experiment which
had the potential to help poor, very vulnerable
families who failed to fit in to their communities.
Instead the FIPs were marketed as a way of
punishing ‘families from hell’. Desperately
needed professional medical support has not
been provided in most cases, often because of
cost considerations. These families have been
demonised to no good end and the FIPs have
not delivered sustained reductions in ASB in the
wider community
– Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
Think about how you would cope?
Single Dad with 2 Children under 3, living in Local Authority Housing
Decision made by Social
Services that Child 1 is best
placed with Dad
2008
Social Worker meets with
Dad, who offers to support
him through the
investigation
Child abuse
investigation
confirms no
suggestion of
misconduct.
Level of Emotion
Dad is both relieved and
happy that the same person
will help him through the
process.
Dad phones
Social Services,
not knowing
where else to
turn.
Dad overjoyed with Social
Services’ decision
Dad relieved.
Dad feels scared,
confused & upset
Dad reports to
Police that
Mum has left
family home
and taken
Child 1 with
her.
Dad feels
devastated,
worried &
concerned.
Hospital alert Social
Services who then
initiate Investigation
into Child abuse.
Dad is offered help towards
resolving the families
benefit issues and housing
repairs.
Dad feels happy that things
look like they will get
sorted.
Dad feels pleased as
there is noticeable
improvement in Child
1’s behaviour.
Different Health
Visitor makes
contact from the
one who helped
with Child 1
Dad liked the
first Health
Visitor, but feels
new one seems
ok.
Requested intervention
from Social Services by
Children’s Centre.
Dad feels wary at first, but
finds the Children’s Centre
supportive & they are
helping him improve his
parenting skills
Housing repairs
have started.
Dad pleased house
will soon be signed
off as safe.
Then two incidents of
Anti- Social Behaviour
are targeted at the family
home.
Dad arrested over
allegations
regarding welfare
of child 1. Social
Services
investigating.
Dad feels scared that his
relationship issues are
the cause of a vendetta
against him.
Dad feels annoyed
that he is again
being investigated,
although he thinks
he understands
why.
Dad feels scared,
confused and upset.
Dad makes effort to
coordinate repairs, but
feels frustrated and angry
when relevant agencies
fail to keep their
appointments.
Agency Touch points
Social Worker
GP
Child 1 has started
attending Children’s
Centre for 12 hours a
week following award
of nursery vouchers.
Dad feels he is building trust in
Social Worker. He is happy
that she is a familiar face.
Different Social Worker
raises new concerns
regarding home safety
issues
Hospital
2010
Dad feels a sense of
belonging and is pleased
he is learning new skills.
Birth of
Child 2
Dad takes Child 1 to
doctors, with
unexplained injuries. GP
sends child to Bridgwater
Hospital who then
transfer child to
Musgrove Hospital.
Dad worried
mum is
suffering from
Post Natal
Depression
Social Services
Dad starts attending
weekly Dad’s group at
Children’s Centre
Dad supported by same Social
Worker to become Child 1’s
main carer
Housing Support
Worker becomes
involved as poor
housing conditions
are having a
negative effect on
family.
Dad feels pleased
that someone is
taking an interest
towards getting the
repairs done
2009
Dad feels frightened
and nervous as he
believes someone is
watching Child 1.
A 3rd Investigation
into child abuse has
now been initiated.
Dad feels annoyed and
frustrated given he can
never get through on the
phone. He has to travel back
home with no answers.
Dad stops attending Children’s
Centre when the male family
Centre Worker leaves.
CAB
Children’s Centre
Housing repairs, still
not completed
Dad’s Council
Tax Benefit is
stopped after
he misses an
appointment
Dad is
frustrated
given he made
the effort to
travel to
Bridgwater
Dad is frustrated and
feels he is going round
in circles.
District Council
Police
Dad travels to Bridgwater
for appointments on debt
issues. No one available to
see him.
Dad reports that he is
concerned for the
welfare of Child 1.
Child Tax Credit
stopped whilst
review is
undertaken
regards
increasing
payments
following the
birth of Child 2.
Dad frustrated and
feels that house will
now be judged
unsafe for the
children once again.
Dad with £20 to
spend on living
per week
despairs as
phone calls to
sort things out
have cost him
£10 in phone
credit.
DNA tests
relating to
Child 2 being
undertaken
Dad feels
unsettled
again.
Housing Support Services
DWP
Health Visitor
Solicitor
V3 5/11/10