Download - Improving outcomes for Families
Improving outcomes for Families
Kris Krasnowski,Director for London
Inclusion
Outline
Defining “troubled” families Rationale What works? Discussion points
Definition
Significantly poorer life
outcomes for children
Parent based disadvantages:
5 or more
A troubled family is one that has serious problems, that has immediate social and intergenerational impacts and costs local services a lot of time and money to respond or correct.
But a recent study has questioned the use of these figures as the basis of the Govt intervention, see http://www.poverty.ac.uk/sites/default/files/trouble_ahead.pdf
Using Govt’s definition...
Almost one fifth of the troubled families are in London
= 120,000
Rationale
Reduced life chances Children aged 13-14
from troubled families are 36 times more likely to be excluded from school;
Six times more likely to be in care or to have contract with police
Cost to society CLG estimate cost at £9bn
annually, or £75,000 per family, per year
Almost £1.6bn in London £8bn spent on reactive
measures Only £1bn spent
preventative measures
“I'm committed to transforming the lives of families stuck in a cycle of unemployment, alcohol abuse and anti-social behaviour, where children are truants from school - troubled families who cause such negativity within their communities and who drain resources from our councils...”
Prime Minister, March 2012
The Govt Programme£448m investment led by CLG’s Troubled
Families Unit working closely with LAs. National network of co-ordinators / trouble
shooters (3 year funding settlement)Payment by results scheme operated by
CLG with LAs (40% Govt funded 60% LA and partners)
£200m ESF Families programme led by DWP
Spotlight on CLG’s PbR approach
PbR criteria are:– 85% attendance at school and fewer than 3
exclusions– 60% reduction in anti-social behaviour across the
family– 33% reduction in youth offending – Payment: £3,900
Plus:– Progress towards work (WP or ESF Troubled
Families provision) = Payment: £100 Or:
– One adult in family moving off benefits and into work = Payment: £4,000
What works? Personalised and family focussed. Range
of interventions built around a family and its needs.
Strong partnerships across local areas drawing on range of expertise from police and social workers to housing providers and job centres.
Central co-ordination and local control – usually led by LA to indentify suitable families and maintain oversight.
Realistic objectives. Equipping parents and families to cope and move beyond existing barriers one step at a time (but it doesn’t exclude work)
Family Recovery Project
1. Whole view of the family - Meeting the needs of both adults and children2. Team around the family - Unified service response 3. Two lead professionals for adults and children4. Integrated Family Care Plan adult and children’s needs - Focused on outcomes and consequences5. Real time intelligence function through Information Desk6. Capacity building - Encouraging resilience 7. Swift access to adults services – Domestic Violence, Substance Misuse and Mental Health workers8. Intensive outreach - Fast, intensive, targeted9. Multi agency response to crime and ASB - Both victims and perpetrators10. Co-located, multi-agency team - All in one project
Source: Westminster Council
Questions / observations The evidence base draws on secondary analysis of the
Families and Children Study (FACS) in 2004 data – is it an accurate reflection of need? Have problems gotten worse?
Obvious differences between CLG’s approach and DWP’s – (devolved vs centralised) what issues does this raise? Can the two approaches work together?
Is there a fair funding allocation to London? £24m for ESF scheme, yet London has 19% of families = £38m?
Anecdotally, rumours suggest DWP’s provision is underperforming – teething trouble or something more substantial?
If it is underperforming what happens to underspend?