Improving outcomes for Families

1. Improving outcomes for Families Kris Krasnowski, Director for London Inclusion

2. Outline • Defining “troubled” families • Rationale • What works? • Discussion points

3. 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. Definition Parent based disadvantages: 5 or more Significantly poorer life outcomes for children 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

4. Using Govt’s definition... = 120,000 Almost one fifth of the troubled families are in London

5. “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 Rationale Reduced life chances 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 • 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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)

9. Family Recovery Project 1. Whole view of the family - Meeting the needs of both adults and children 2. Team around the family - Unified service response 3. Two lead professionals for adults and children 4. Integrated Family Care Planadult and children’s needs - Focused on outcomes and consequences 5. Real time intelligence function through Information Desk 6. Capacity building - Encouraging resilience 7. Swift access to adults services – Domestic Violence, Substance Misuse and Mental Health workers 8. Intensive outreach - Fast, intensive, targeted 9. Multi agency response to crime and ASB - Both victims and perpetrators 10. Co-located, multi-agency team - All in one project Source: Westminster Council

10. 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?