Supporting Troubled Families

A Community Budget for Supporting Leicestershire’s Troubled Families Strategic Outline Case

Key Messages

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 2

NATIONAL UPDATE

3

PREVALENCE OF TROUBLED FAMILIES IN LEICESTERSHIRE

4

Total Troubled Families Oadby & Wigston, 68 Blaby, 80

North West Leicestershire, 235 Charnwood, 431 Melton, 127

Hinckley & Bosworth, 277

Harborough, 66

5

Total Threshold Families Oadby & Wigston, 156

Blaby, 172

North West Leicestershire, 354 Charnwood, 635 Melton, 161

Hinckley & Bosworth, 390 Harborough, 150

6

Count of Troubled Families and Threshold Families Oadby & Wigston, 224

Blaby, 252

North West Leicestershire, 589 Charnwood, 1066 Melton, 288

Hinckley & Bosworth, 667

Harborough , 216

7

Troubled Families Profile: 1300 49% of households have some form of mental health problem

64% have educational risks

Rises to 81% with Alcohol & Drug misuse

1 in 2 families involved in crime / ASB

96% have at least one family dysfunction risk DV, Behaviour, Poor Parenting, Safeguarding, unstable relationships etc

truancy, >15%, SEN, exclusions, class behaviour, PRU

57% solely or heavily reliant upon state benefits 75% actually in receipt of benefits

36% of families have a physical health condition 8

Troubled Families make up… 77% of Domestic Violence Casework

70% of families assessed by children’s social care

Sourced from pilot work Summer 2010

are either TF or Threshold (Initial or Core)

79% of Youth Offending Service Casework

48% of Attendance Improvement Service cases

96% of CAF Cases TF (69% of casework) Threshold (27% of casework)

100% of Probation Casework where probationer is a parent 9

District prevalence of TF families across domains (1300) 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

450 400 350 300 250 200

150 100 50

80

431

66

277

127

235

Hinckley & Bosworth

Melton

North West Leicestershire

68

0 Blaby

Charnwood

Harborough

Oadby & Wigston

10

Services that know families with crime/ASB issues Common Assessment Framework

Youth Offender Service

Probation Data

District Council

Children's Centre

Family Intervention Project

Frameworki Children's Social Care

350 300 250 200

150 100 50 0 Blaby

Charnwood

Harborough

Hinckley & Bosworth

Melton

North West Leicestershire

Oadby & Wigston

11

What we learned from the Insight Phase… 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

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

Common Perspectives from Families “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

Leicestershire’s Proposed Troubled Family Model

Approved Family Model Specialist Services

Co-located locality service: • Permanent core team members inc Family Worker • P/t Co-opted team members • Personalised family budgets

Family Family

Improved outcomes Increased resilience, strengths & independence

Role:

Universal Services

Whole family approach • Delivers direct support • Co-ordinates other services • Outreach in home/community • Assertive intensive support • Small caseloads

Targeted Services

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

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.

19 © 2011 Deloitte MCS Limited. Private and confidential.