troubled families march 2012-3
DESCRIPTION
In December 2010 the Prime Minister set out that he wanted troubled families’ lives to be turned around by the end of this Parliament. The priority was to help families who were stuck with many problems, often responsible for causing problems, and also costing society a large amount of money in terms of services. The report draws upon interviews with families carried out in May and June 2012 by Louise Casey. Six local authorities in England assisted with providing access to families.TRANSCRIPT
Key Messages
A Community Budget for Supporting Leicestershire’s Troubled FamiliesStrategic Outline Case
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
National Update
3
Prevalence of Troubled Families in Leicestershire
4
5
6
7
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
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 CasesTF (69% of casework)
Threshold (27% of casework)
District prevalence of TF families across domains (1300)
100
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Blaby Charnwood Harborough Hinckley & Bosworth
Melton North West Leicestershire
Oadby & Wigston
Families with Criminal Justice Issues Families with Employment Issues
Families with Education Issues Families with Family Functioning Issues
Families with Mental Health Issues Families with Physical Health Isssues
80 431 66 277 127 235 68
Services that know families with crime/ASB issues
11
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Blaby Charnwood Harborough Hinckley & Bosworth
Melton North West Leicestershire
Oadby & Wigston
Common Assessment Framework Youth Offender Service Probation Data
District Council Children's Centre Family Intervention Project
Frameworki Children's Social Care
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
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
“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
Leicestershire’s Proposed Troubled Family Model
Targeted Services
Universal Services
Specialist Services
FamilyFamily
Improved outcomesIncreased resilience, strengths &
independence
Co-located locality service:
•Permanent core team members inc Family
Worker•P/t Co-opted team
members•Personalised family
budgets
<-Cultural
Shift -> <-Act Family->
<-Cultural Shift -> <-Act Family->
Approved Family ModelApproved Family Model
Role:
Whole family approach•Delivers direct support
•Co-ordinates other services•Outreach in home/community•Assertive intensive support
•Small caseloads
16
Review of National Family Intervention Project (FIP)Released Dec 15th 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
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
© 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.