1. Key Messages A Community Budget for Supporting Leicestershire’s Troubled Families Strategic Outline Case

2. 2 Leicestershire’s Ambition for Our Troubled Families 1.Significantly improving outcomes for families and their children 2.Reducing the current costs of public services “ Our heart tells us we can’t just stand by… Our head tells us we can’t afford to keep footing the monumental bills for social failure. we have got to take action to turn troubled families around” David Cameron, 15th December 2011

3. NATIONAL UPDATE 3

4. PREVALENCE OF TROUBLED FAMILIES IN LEICESTERSHIRE 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. Troubled Families Profile: 1300 8 1 in 2 families involved in crime / ASB 57% solely or heavily reliant upon state benefits 75% actually in receipt of benefits 96% have at least one family dysfunction risk DV, Behaviour, Poor Parenting, Safeguarding, unstable relationships etc 64% have educational risks truancy, >15%, SEN, exclusions, class behaviour, PRU 49% of households have some form of mental health problem Rises to 81% with Alcohol & Drug misuse 36% of families have a physical health condition

9. Troubled Families make up… 9 77% of Domestic Violence Casework Sourced from pilot work Summer 2010 48% of Attendance Improvement Service cases 100% of Probation Casework where probationer is a parent 79% of Youth Offending Service Casework 70% of families assessed by children’s social care are either TF or Threshold (Initial or Core) 96% of CAF Cases TF (69% of casework) Threshold (27% of casework)

10. District prevalence of TF families across domains (1300) 10 80431 66 277127235 68

11. Services that know families with crime/ASB issues 11

12. Common issues for Families  Confusing landscape of public services  Isolation in their communities  Public services ‘ do to them ’  Lack of or limited choice/control  Public services in then out  Adverse effect on aspirations/ perception of social mobility  Domestic violence  Poor parenting  Difficulties maintaining relationships (incl. family, friends, peers, isolation & social marginalisation)  Lack of resilience (incl. capability, capacity, confidence & inability to cope)  Poor/overcrowded housing (incl. homelessness)  High risk behaviours (incl. substance misuse)  Poverty (incl. debt & unemployment)  Health (incl. mental health & disability)  Crime (offending and experience of)  Lack of education/ attainment What we learned from the Insight Phase… 12

13. Reoccurring Themes from Evidence Base, Current Literature and National Policy on What works:  Early intervention  Building resilience  Stability, continuity and transitions  Effective parenting and supporting families  Tackling educational performance  Tackling worklessness  Tackling poor health  Tackling poverty  Involving communities and building social capital  Building capabilities, resilience and skills development 13

14. “Many families were resigned to their situations, and did not appear to take responsibility for trying to improve them. One family had no sense of personal responsibility at all, and another’s primary responsibility was to get services out of their lives and would do and say things with that in mind”. “Families saw limited value in just being told or taught how to do something. They all wanted much more practical and hands on support, and wanted someone to actually come in and actually show them how to do things. They all appeared perfectly happy for someone to practically work with their children on behalf or in front of them”. “There is a real divergence between families’ own perceptions of themselves and how they perceive that professionals view them. Families use words such as caring, tight, coming together to sort their problems out etc. They say that professionals would see them as hectic, needy, chaotic, trouble etc. Families can’t see any recognition from many professionals of their strengths and just feel they are viewed in the negative”. 14 Common Perspectives from Families

15. Leicestershire’s Proposed Troubled Family Model

16. Targeted Services Universal Services Specialist Services Family Improved outcomes Increased resilience, strengths & independence Improved outcomes Increased resilience, strengths & independence Co-located locality service: Permanent core team members inc Family Worker P/t Co-opted team members Personalised family budgets Co-located locality service: Permanent core team members inc Family Worker P/t Co-opted team members Personalised family budgets Approved Family Model Role: Whole family approach Delivers direct support Co-ordinates other services Outreach in home/community Assertive intensive support Small caseloads Role: Whole family approach Delivers direct support Co-ordinates other services Outreach in home/community Assertive intensive support Small caseloads 16

17. Review of National Family Intervention Project (FIP) Released Dec 15 th with Troubled Family Announcement  FIP 4 year Programme  Independent Study by NAT CEN  8.8k families Profile & Risk factors at Referral (Multiple factors)  Family functioning - 81% families  Poor parenting – 67%  Relationship/family breakdown – 32%  Domestic violence – 30%  Child protection – 30%  Crime/ASB – 39% /79%  Child Behavioural problems – 60%  Health Problems – 49%  Mental health – 39%  Physical health – 10%  Not in Employment, Education & Training (over 18s) – 65% 17

18. NAT CEN FIP RESEARCH: Outcomes for families exiting FIP Outcome Improvements Recorded:  Families involved in ASB  A Reduction of 58% to 34%  Families involved in Crime  A Reduction of 41% to 20%  Children with behavioural /truancy problems  A Reduction of 53% to 28%  Risks from poor family functioning (DV, family breakdown, child protection)  A Reduction of 47% to 16%  Child protection plans  A Reduction of 34% to 18%  Health risks including mental, physical health and substance misuse problems  A Reduction of 34%  In worklessness (ETE)  A Reduction of 14% to 58% 18

19. © 2011 Deloitte MCS Limited. Private and confidential. 19 Partners have agreed the twin aims of improving outcomes for the families and their children and reducing the cost to the public sector of supporting the families through system change.