The case for Supporting Leicestershire Families

1. The case for Supporting Leicestershire Families

2. Prime Minister & Leicestershire’s Ambition for Our Troubled Families“Last year the state spent an estimated £9 billion on just 120,000 families……that is around £75,000 per family.David Cameron 15th Dec 2011 Significantly improving outcomes for families and their children 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. Louise Casey Unit Ambition • “Success is bigger than the payment by results model…I want to see real system change…this is about changing the mainstream. The Programme needs to catalyse sustainable reform of services in order to prevent future families from becoming ‘TF’ and to deliver significant cost savings to the State” • “My ‘manna from heaven’ is that a 3 year focus on the family’s needs will result in the number of agencies involved with them will reduce from, say, 17 to 2” • “This will be different because it will focus on individual families and their needs, rather than individual services”

4. Founding PrinciplesApproved by Programme Board June 2011 • Place’ and ‘citizens’ before ‘organisation’ • Place shared vision, objectives and services • Pro-active co-design between partners in the place and between the place & Whitehall • Prevention by early and earlier intervention • Better outcomes at less cost • Fully understand the problem before defining a solution • Ambitious & if appropriate radical local innovation • Build on good practice /initiatives in place in Leicestershire i.e. Integrated Offender Model, Children’s Centres, YOS, Systems Change, many others • Decommission & reprioritise services when required • Pooled /aligned budgets around the theme/place

5. National Funding • Since the establishment of the Government’s ‘Troubled Families Unit’ a pooled budget from 4 Government departments totalling nearly £0.5bn has been created to support 152 local authority areas across the Country to improve services to Troubled Families in their areas • Government funding which is partly on a payment by results basis could provide Leicestershire with up to £2.6m over three years but it has been assumed that £2.2m will be achieved – the attachment fee for working with families and 50% of the reward • Leicestershire Target for Payment By Results = 400 families worked with 12/13; min 810 overall – may be opportunities to claim further • Louise Casey supportive of Leicestershire plan to work with 3300 Troubled Families: 1300 Most complex needs, 2000 ‘At Risk’

6. Local Funding • Local agencies have indicated funding on an ‘in principle’ basis subject to approval by Cabinets and Boards. This is set out in Appendix 8 of the Cabinet Report. Including the proposed County Council contribution this funding would mean: • Revenue funding (over three years) of £5.6m • Staff resources equivalent to £2.4m • In kind support providing at least the £300k assumed accommodation costs and additional support towards management costs

7. Family InsightA comprehensive approach The detailed Insight report is now published on the Leicestershire Together Website: www.leicestershiretogether.org/partnerships/communitybudgets

8. Barriers to Families

9. Earlier Intervention Politics / resources Re-training / attitude of workforce Advocate / Key Family Worker Shared vision and stronger leadership Better joint working Shared processes / systems Family-centric, not organisation-centric approaches to working Information sharing Community What Must Change From insight phase: practitioner event

10. Barriers highlighted by Aperia • The range of support and access to support is confusing, services are not joined up, are complex, and they don’t know what is available so they didn’t get the help that perhaps does exist • Services start and then stop and it is confusing – not one individual felt that their personal goals were clearly and openly aligned to the objectives of the services – hence they personally felt that nothing had changed, but services were stopped as the service felt that a goal had been achieved • People don’t listen, are too quick to judge and don’t really understand • Services are reactive, based on crisis prevention and short term interventions • Services are set up to dealt with single issues i.e. offending, domestic violence, mental health and not ‘whole family’ or ‘whole person’ approach • Families often feel services work against them, not with / for them

11. Barriers highlighted by Aperia • Lack of education - many attendees regretted that they felt unprepared and ill-trained for the lives that they live. This is both at an educational attainment level and also in terms of the skills to be able to manage and run their own homes • Their past / lack of role models – some people commented that it is hardly surprising that they are currently suffering the problems that they face given their experiences / lives to date. Some referenced directly that they feel there are not enough role models for them or their children. This was a very strong view from practitioners and echoed, although less precisely, by service users

12. Confusing landscape of public services 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 Domestic violence Poor parenting What we learned from the Insight Phase… Common issues for FCN • Difficulties maintaining relationships (incl. family, friends, peers, isolation & social marginalisation) • Lack of resilience (incl. capability, capacity, confidence & inability to cope) • Lack of or limited choice/control • Adverse effect on aspirations/ perception of social mobility

13. What Parents said they want most from Services • Stability, support, encouragement, consistency • To be listened to and acknowledged • People to do what they say they’re going to do and to get back to them • Freedom from prejudice/social marginalisation • Services to work for and not against them • Have their own needs addressed as well as their children’s

14. 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 14

15. Troubled Family Risk Factors Involvement in crime/ASB Poor parenting No parent in the family is working Family lives in poor-quality or overcrowded housing Truancy, exclusion or low educational attainment No parent has any qualifications Family in debt Drugs or alcohol misuse Mother has mental health problems At least one parent has a long-standing limiting illness, disability or infirmity Marriage, relationship or family breakdown Family has low income (below 60% of the median) Domestic violence Family cannot afford a number of food and clothing items Child protection issues Risk factors attributed to families with 5 or more disadvantages (from) Families At Risk: Background on families with multiple disadvantages, Social Exclusion Taskforce Research Report, 2007 Additional risk factors from families supported through family intervention (NatCen, Mar 2010). Child Behavioural Problems Limited support network Child is a carer Child Substance abuse problems Adult with learning difficulties Communications problems NEET Teenage Parent(s)

16. Local Definition for Leics Troubled Families • Out of 23 potential risks/issues • More than 5 risks/issues = Troubled Family • Any family with an open Child Protection Plan not in the above = Troubled Family • Add to this any family not in the above but has 2 or more of:- • Alcohol Misuse • Drugs Misuse • Violence or abuse • Crime/ASB • Mental Health Any family presenting 2-4 risks not in the TF category = a At Risk Family e.g. at risk of becoming Troubled

17. Sources of Family Data • Children’s Social Care – Framework i • CAF – CAF Access database • Free School Meals -CAPITA One • Unauthorised absences from school – CAPITA One • Exclusions– CAPITA One • Family Intervention Projects – Manual return from FIP Records/Key Worker knowledge • Children's Centres Manual return from Outreach Worker knowledge • Pupil Referral Units – CAPITA One • Attendance Improvement Service – CAPITA One • Statements of Educational Needs– CAPITA One • Probation Service – manual trawl through casework files • YOS/YISP - RAISE • District Councils – manual returns from Community Safety • Children’s Centres – manual returns from non-CYPS staff 12500+ households known across these datasets

18. Of 1300 Troubled Families… • 1 in 2 are reported to be involved in ASB/crime • 25% are proven youth offenders • 57% solely or heavily reliant upon state benefits • 75% of families in receipt of some benefit • 26% are in receipt of Free School Meals • 96% have some family dysfunction risk: • 66% of families affected by violence and/or abuse in the home • 64% have educational risks: • 25% have at least one child with >15% unauthorised absence from school • 13% have had at least one exclusion in 2011 • Only 5% have a child with a Statement of Educational Needs but TFs account for 14% of SENs with BESD/ASD • 1 in 2 of households have some form of mental health problem • 33% have drug misuse problems • 28% have alcohol misuse problems • 36% of families have a limiting physical health condition

19. Troubled Families Profile: 1300 49% of households have some form of mental health problem Rises to 81% with Alcohol & Drug misuse 64% have educational risks truancy, >15%, SEN, exclusions, class behaviour, PRU 57% solely or heavily reliant upon state benefits 75% actually in receipt of benefits 1 in 2 families involved in crime / ASB 96% have at least one family dysfunction risk DV, Behaviour, Poor Parenting, Safeguarding, unstable relationships etc 36% of families have a physical health condition 19

20. Troubled Families make up… 77% of Domestic Violence Casework Sourced from pilot work Summer 2010 70% of families assessed by children’s social care are either TF or Threshold (Initial or Core) 79% of Youth Offending Service Casework 96% of CAF CasesTF (69% of casework) Threshold (27% of casework) 48% of Attendance Improvement Service cases 100% of Probation Casework where probationer is a parent 20

21. 21

23. At Risk and Troubled Families by Postcode N.B. Each point may represent more than one family

24. 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%

25. Evaluation Highlighted 8 Core Features Viewed as Critical to FIP Success • Recruitment and retention of high quality staff who can work in an empathetic way, build trust whilst maintaining professional boundaries (the relationship with families is key) • Small caseloads (no more than 6 at any one time) • Dedicated key worker who works intensively with each family in the home & community and outside of ‘office hours’ • A whole family approach • Consistency of key worker with family and longevity • Having the scope to use resources creatively i.e.. personal/flexible budget • Using sanctions alongside support/incentives for families • Effective multi-agency relationships/working and information sharing