Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Matthew Ainsworth Katie Kelleher Salford City Council Seamus Lynch

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Matthew Ainsworth Katie Kelleher Salford City Council Seamus Lynch"— Presentation transcript:

1 Helping Families: From policy to design to delivery National Community Safety Network
Matthew Ainsworth Katie Kelleher Salford City Council Seamus Lynch 18th September 2013 Corralling

2 This slide pack outlines
The backdrop to the national policy focus on Troubled Families The rationale for Salford’s approach to ‘Helping Families’ and progress to date Learning from the programme Our understanding of the money flow Cost Benefit Analysis Sustainability plans

3 Background to Troubled Families
Pre election: Centre for Social Justice Green Paper on the Family – multi agency emphasis Coalition programme commitment to test a new approach to working with families with complex needs Cross Whitehall focus 16 Community Budget Areas focused on Complex Families (including GM) ESF for Complex families part of Welfare to Work agenda

4 Post riots: an extra push on delivery
England riots: Cameron to boost troubled-families plans Prime Minister David Cameron has said he will put "rocket boosters" under efforts to turn round 120,000 troubled families in the wake of recent rioting. Mr Cameron said bureaucracy had "held back" this work, and promised to "clear away the red tape". Ref: BBC.co.uk New ‘Troubled Families Unit’ and programme

5 National policy drivers
Government pledge to ‘turn around’ lives of the 120,000 most troubled families The Prime Minister has said that ‘turning lives around’ means getting parents into work, children attending school, reducing crime and anti-social behaviour and cutting costs for the State. These are typically families who have histories of intergenerational poor educational outcomes, low skills and worklessness. The challenge is to break this cycle and raise the ceiling of ambition for them. DWP ESF Support for families with multiple problems DCLG Troubled Families Programme Payment by results arrangement with Government for successes achieved 306k families with children with behavioural problems 290k families at risk of severe exclusion 120k families with 5+ disadvantages The complexity and inter-connection of issues faced by some families has been recognised nationally with the governments recent pledge to turn around the lives of the countries most troubled families. Locally, we are positioning the delivery of these programmes within the framework and approach set out within the family poverty strategy. 50k families with 5+ disadvantages AND children with behavioural problems 5

6 Defining ‘Troubled Families’
Original definition - five or more of: No parent in family in work Poor quality or overcrowded housing No parent with any qualifications Est. 117,000 families nationally Cannot afford a number of food and clothing items Mother with mental health problems Est. 835 in Salford Low family income (60% of mean) Poor individual outcomes Quality of life impact in neighbourhoods High costs to public services At least one parent with longstanding limiting illness

7 Who are ‘Troubled Families’?
The national Troubled Families programme will engage and support Salford families that have problems, including parents not working and children not in school, and causes problems, such as youth crime and anti-social behaviour. In identifying who we work with, families must meet two or more of the following criteria: Young person(s) involved in crime or member(s) of the family involved in anti‐social behaviour; Child(ren) in the family affected by unauthorised absence or exclusion from school; Adult(s) in the household out of work and claiming benefits. In Salford we know that families with these problems are also more likely to have other related problems, such as domestic violence, relationship breakdown and poor mental or physical health. Families with multiple, inter-related problems like this are more likely to have poorer outcomes and life chances. In turn, it means that a lot of time and money is spent by local service providers routinely responding to these problems. In identifying who we work with, families must meet two or more of the following criteria: Young person(s) involved in crime or member(s) of the family involved in anti‐social behaviour; Child(ren) in the family affected by unauthorised absence or exclusion from school; Adult(s) in the household out of work and claiming benefits. We know that families with these problems are also more likely to have other related problems, such as domestic violence, relationship breakdown and poor mental or physical health.

8 Case study: Rationale for Team around the Family approach.

9 ‘As is’ response: confusing, expensive, ineffective
(Nov 2009 to Oct 2010)

10 Highly reactive: crisis management (Nov 2009 to Oct 2010)
Universal Targeted planned Highly reactive: crisis management (Nov 2009 to Oct 2010) Reactive unplanned

11 Helping Families - Context
In Salford, we developed a Team around the Family (TAF) model and will work with 835 families over the lifetime of the programme. 479 Troubled Families were initially identified, 300 of whom we started to work with in year 1. Our delivery plan works on the principle of a case co-ordinator model, with more complex cases being intensively managed by workers with small caseloads (e.g. FIP) with less complex families being managed less intensively by workers with much larger caseloads. Locally, we’ve categorised these tiers as Super-Intense, Intense, Normal & Light. We made assumptions on what proportion of our cohort would be managed through which tier, which secondary services they would access and which outcomes would be achieved. These outcomes were apportioned to the relevant agency along with a corresponding financial value (fiscal benefit). This information formed our baseline Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) Our assumptions have subsequently been replaced by actual data for 300 families who have been supported and a refreshed CBA produced.

12 Delivery Model

13 Team around the Family Approach
Current situation New approach Multiple professionals involved with different family members Named workers for named families Agencies defeated by ‘resistant’ or hard to help’ families. Tendencies to pass cases on or pull resources if there is no progress or the family simply costs too much. Persistence with families backed up by sanctions Overlapping assessments and interventions, agencies efforts conflicting and unaligned with no overall objectives or agreement about what is being aimed for with a family A ‘common endeavour’ among agencies for each family, operating within agreed structures. Existing support services lack focus on work and meaningful activity. Defeatism about these families capacity to work or contribute. Meaningful activity is a consistent aim for the families Services look at individuals or single problems, no attention to how the family works as a system or family history. Rather than just ‘thinking family’ - ‘Doing family’

14 Financial Model The delivery model has been costed for the five years 2013/14 to 2017/18 The financial benefits of delivery have been calculated using a mix of modelled and actual data, based on the presenting needs of 300 families, some of whom now have cases closed, some of whom are still being worked with. Some agency benefits are still to captured. For each year of the programme the costs are expected to be circa £2.33m and the annual benefits peak at £3.89m. The cost of Salford’s delivery model is split between primary (Team around the Family) and secondary interventions and is a mixture of cash and in kind. The cost of the Team around the Family primary intervention is £1.18m/annum The cost of secondary interventions is £1.15m/annum The model includes the investment made by SCC for project management, commissioning, IT development, infrastructure support for Locality Panels and significant time of senior staff in design and monitoring of the programme.

15 Year 1: Cohort Segmentation
Youth Crime and ASB 25 225 49 Worklessness Education 180

16 Year 1: Cohort Distribution

17 Year 1: Lead Professional Distribution
300 families have been tracked through the TAF process and their distribution is: Tier No of Families Cost (£) Super Intense 36 189,000 Intense 145 802,695 Normal 59,561 Light 83 129,516 Total 300 1,180,772 Super Intense = FIP / Salford Foundation FIP Intense = Social Workers/YOS Normal = Family Support Workers / EIP Skills & Work Advisors / Probation Light = All others

18 Presenting Issues Troubled families have a wide range of presenting needs, examples of which are detailed below Presenting Issues

19 Defining success for families
Crime/ASB 33% reduction in proven offending for all under 18s in household in the last 6 months, compared to the previous 6 months At least a 60% reduction in anti-social behaviour incidents across the household in the last 6 months Education All school age children in household have had fewer than 3 fixed term exclusions and less than 15% unauthorised absences in the last 3 consecutive terms, AND All school age children who were not on school roll have moved into school, PRU or alternative provision and have had fewer than 3 fixed term exclusions and less than 15% unauthorised absence in last 3 consecutive terms Worklessness An adult in the household has volunteered for the Work Programme or has been attached to ESF Family Support provision in the last 6 months, OR An adult in the household has moved off benefits and into continuous employment (if not already on ESF or Work Programme provision)

20 Year 1: Outcomes Achieved
Youth Crime and ASB 7 52 7 Worklessness Education 58

21 Who pays and who benefits?

22 Cost Benefit Analysis The cost benefit analysis (CBA) shows a Cost Benefit Ratio (CBR) of 1:1.38 over a five year period. That is for every £1 spent in the year of intervention there will be a £1.38 benefit spread over five years. The CBA has been prepared by looking at the total annual costs and the indicative results for 300 families. Where actual data is not available prudent modelling assumptions have been used (see benefits assumptions). The CBA will change as more families are supported through the programme and more actual data is collected. A broader range of agencies have agreed to align their resources to year 2 delivery and this will be reflected in the costs base of the next iteration of the CBA. The range of beneficiaries will also increase as the programme develops.

23 Case Study Background: M-14 year old, ADHD, not attending school, history of self harming, physical violence displayed towards Mum, posed a risk to the younger siblings in the house, resulting in a Child Protection Plan. To protect the younger children, Step Dad and 2 siblings moved into a different house.    Support: Mum was reluctant due to the family previously engaging with other agencies, the family were fed up telling agencies all about their family history, working with them for a short period of time then pulling out with no other support been put in place. The FIP worker started visiting the house a few times a week in order for M to become familiar with her, and over a course of sessions M started to speak openly about her past and the reason to why she was not attending school. An intensive package of support was implemented. Lack of engagement in education, so arranged for the school to provide homework which was collected from the school and taken home.  Mum engaged with a parenting worker, helping with enforcing boundaries and exploring methods to help with parenting, and is attending counselling at Salford Foundation. Outcomes (so far): A suitable education placement was found for M & the FIP worker helped her prepare for the new school & supported integration back into education, focusing on expectations and establishing routines beforehand.  She has now started attending fulltime. Work around the family has continued, focusing on M’s relationship with Mum and her siblings, the family have become a lot closer,  with M and mum’s relationship improved significantly. Mum is now confident when enforcing boundaries and sticking to them. The Child Protection Plans for all the children has now been lifted and the family is now happily living together again under the same roof.  Mum and Step Dad are keen to gain full time employment and are being supported by a dedicated Skills & Work Advisor. Mum has now enrolled on a college course.

24 6 months prior to intervention 6 Months post intervention start
Case Study 6 months prior to intervention 6 Months post intervention start Presenting issue Unit Cost Number of instances Total Cost Child Protection 1113 3 3339 Persistent absence 1832 1 Worklessness 8285 2 16570 Domestic Violence 13832 Mental Health 230 Cost of intervention FIP  1 3913 Skills & Work 308 Parenting Course 1000 35,803 21791 Difference -14,012

25 Improving the system We are looking to address a number of considerations in order to maximise the benefits of the Helping Families programme, which include the need for: An intelligent and integrated process to identify, screen, triage and allocate and families who are already troubled or at risk of becoming troubled. This needs to be underpinned by an ICT platform and consistent data sharing processes. Resources (capacity & capability) and processes to support performance management, evaluation and CBA development Governance (accountability and regulatory) to drive integrated working and a ‘family approach’ Workforce reform to engender integrated working, moving towards more generic/homogenous roles In order to make sustainable changes (and save money in the long term), the focus needs to shift from a reactive agenda of turning around the lives of troubled families to a more preventative agenda focussed on early help.

26 Questions?


Download ppt "Matthew Ainsworth Katie Kelleher Salford City Council Seamus Lynch"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google