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?