National picture

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

2. 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

3. Who Is Involved ESCC Children’s Services Sussex and Surrey Probation Service District and Borough Local Authorities Sussex Police East Sussex Hospitals Trust East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service CRI ESCC Adult Social Care Job Centre Plus Schools (and a college) Sussex Partnership Trust Refuge Action in Rural Sussex YMCA Action for change Southdown Housing Fellowship of St Nicolas Homeworks Sanctuary Carr Gomm and more…

4. 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

5. Where the 0-18s are

6. Where the adults are

7. Where they both are

8. As a % of the population (approx 3% overall)

9. Option A: Keep things as they are family keyworkers Intensive family services Services

10. Risks • Unlikely to be accepted by TFU • Low chance of success • Increasing numbers of families needing intensive support • Benefits • No disruption or change to manage • No expenditure • Some good practice already in place

11. Option B: Stand-alone service model

12. Risks • Requires significant investment from all • May take too long to agree pooled budget arrangements • Won’t change practice in existing services • Benefits • Proven good practice model • Will meet TFU expectations • Good for family engagement

13. Option C: Mixed economy embedded model Keyworking coordination and referral management

14. Risks • Requires whole system change to work • Will fail if workers aren’t given flexibility • Families may not engage with ‘enforcement’ services • Benefits • Will make best use of existing services • Achievable without pooling budgets • Can make ‘Think Family’ normal for everyone

15. 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.

16. 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

17. Key worker requirements Supervision and support Service identity Assessment tool and recording system Training Resources- to support families Resilience

18. 8 critical features identified from the FIP Model 1. Recruitment and retention of high quality staff 2. Key worker model 3. Small case loads

19. 4.Whole family approach 5.Stay involved as long as necessary 6.Use of sanctions with support

20. 7.Scope to use resources creatively 8.Effective multi-agency relationships –Get to the root of family’s problems

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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

25. Think about how you would cope? Single Dad with 2 Children under 3, living in Local Authority Housing 2008 Decision made by Social Services that Child 1 is best placed with Dad 2009 2010 Dad starts attending weekly Dad’s group at Children’s Centre Child 1 has started attending Children’s Centre for 12 hours a week following award of nursery vouchers. Dad is offered help towards resolving the families benefit issues and housing repairs. Social Worker meets with Dad, who offers to support him through the investigation Child abuse investigation confirms no suggestion of misconduct. Dad overjoyed with Social Services’ decision Dad feels a sense of belonging and is pleased he is learning new skills. Dad feels happy that things look like they will get sorted. Dad is both relieved and happy that the same person will help him through the process. Dad feels pleased as there is noticeable improvement in Child 1’s behaviour. Dad relieved. Dad supported by same Social Worker to become Child 1’s main carer Dad feels he is building trust in Social Worker. He is happy that she is a familiar face. Different Health Visitor makes contact from the one who helped with Child 1 Housing Support Worker becomes involved as poor housing conditions are having a negative effect on family. Dad liked the first Health Visitor, but feels new one seems ok. Dad feels pleased that someone is taking an interest towards getting the repairs done 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. Level of Emotion Dad pleased house will soon be signed off as safe. 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 travels to Bridgwater for appointments on debt issues. No one available to see him. Then two incidents of Anti- Social Behaviour are targeted at the family home. Dad reports that he is concerned for the welfare of Child 1. Housing repairs, still not completed Dad feels scared, confused & upset Dad arrested over allegations regarding welfare of child 1. Social Services investigating. Child Tax Credit stopped whilst review is undertaken regards increasing payments following the birth of Child 2. Dad phones Social Services, not knowing where else to turn. Dad reports to Police that Mum has left family home and taken Child 1 with her. Dad frustrated and feels that house will now be judged unsafe for the children once again. Dad feels frightened and nervous as he believes someone is watching Child 1. Dad feels annoyed and frustrated given he can never get through on the phone. He has to travel back home with no answers. Dad feels scared that his relationship issues are the cause of a vendetta against him. Dad worried mum is suffering from Post Natal Depression Dad feels annoyed that he is again being investigated, although he thinks he understands why. Dad’s Council Tax Benefit is stopped after he misses an appointment Dad feels devastated, worried & concerned. Dad stops attending Children’s Centre when the male family Centre Worker leaves. Dad with £20 to spend on living per week despairs as phone calls to sort things out have cost him £10 in phone credit. Hospital alert Social Services who then initiate Investigation into Child abuse. A 3rd Investigation into child abuse has now been initiated. DNA tests relating to Child 2 being undertaken Different Social Worker raises new concerns regarding home safety issues Dad is frustrated given he made the effort to travel to Bridgwater Dad is frustrated and feels he is going round in circles. 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. Dad feels unsettled again. Agency Touch points Hospital Social Worker District Council CAB Housing Support Services Health Visitor Social Services GP Police Children’s Centre DWP Solicitor V3 5/11/10