Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 15/10/2012, 19.00 - Meetings ...
Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 15/10/2012, 19.00 - Meetings ... Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 15/10/2012, 19.00 - Meetings ...
4 BACKGROUND, INCLUDING POLICY CONTEXT, AND ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS4.1 In December 2011 the Prime Minister announced additional funding for localgovernment of £448 million over 3 years to turn around the lives of 120,000 TroubledFamilies in England. Troubled Families are a Government priority because of both thepoor outcomes experienced by these families and their impact on the communitiesthey live in, and because of the huge cost they impose on the public sector.4.2 The DCLG Troubled Families offer is that if local authorities can intervene in the mosttroubled families and secure positive outcomes in terms of gaining employment,reducing youth offending and anti-social behaviour and improving educationalattendance, they will receive a success payment. Authorities are expected to maketheir own investment in services that will ‘turn around the behaviour and lives’ ofTroubled Families.4.3 We have confirmed to (DCLG) that the three boroughs will establish a service that will:4.3.1 oversee and account for successful engagement with Troubled Familiesin the area over the next 3 years, for which we will be eligible for funding.4.3.2 provide a figure of the number of families we aim to start working withwithin 2012-13 and the number of upfront attachment fees we will beclaiming4.3.3 agree to work closely with European Social Fund (ESF) and workprogramme providers4.3.4 support and take part in research, learning and evaluation of theprogramme4.3.5 appoint a Troubled Families Co-ordinator to run the programme locally.4.4 Tackling the issues surrounding Troubled Families is not new. We have undertaken avariety of programmes across the Tri-borough area in the last 4 years - Westminster’sFamily Recovery Programme and Kensington and Chelsea’s Family InterventionProgramme focus on a small number of the highest need, high cost families, and theHammersmith and Fulham localities approach deals with a larger number of less highneed families. There is ample evidence that these approaches work. However therehave been insufficient funds to scale up provision to address the needs of all thefamilies potentially in scope.5 OPTIONS TO DELIVER SUSTAINABLE WORK WITH HIGH COST FAMILIES5.1 Analysis has provided us with insights into the make-up of the Troubled FamiliesProgramme cohort; their needs and likely service requirements. It important to notethat the Troubled Families Programme cohort and a wider group of Families withComplex Needs are different and that there are varying degrees of need within each ofthe two cohorts. Some will simply need advice and signposting whilst others will havea complex network of support and have many unmet needs. There will therefore needto be a range of interventions to support these families – both to deliver the results toobtain the PBR and equally to enable families to make and sustain changes thatimprove their lives and reduce the demands, risks and costs to local and nationalpublic services.Page 295
5.2 The ‘cohort’ for the Troubled Families Programme is not homogenous. Not only do the‘problems’ presenting vary in their degree and intensity within each family, but themain services who interact with the families vary (e.g. the Youth Offending Team,Children’s social care, Housing and Anti-Social Behaviour teams).5.3 Design criteriaThe steering group endorsed some design principles for the service offer:That it should work with the grain of existing service delivery and support statutoryservices and not seek to replace it or create another delivery silo.5.4 That it should maximise the opportunities for cross council and partner working and beable to flex to deal with any implications, maximising the opportunities from the WholePlace Community Budget (the Families and Justice themes in particular).5.5 We agreed the service should be structured to: offer a triage/ assessment process(particularly in relation to the DCLG Troubled Families Cohort as it is likely that 75%are current statutory services clients, and additional services may not be appropriateor needed) to ensure that need is met in an proportionate way. We agreed the keyfeatures of the intervention (based on the RBKC Family Intervention Project (FIP) andWCC Family Recovery Project (FRP) should be: intensity and persistence; practicalwhole family support – e.g. housing, parenting coaching, substance misuse, domesticviolence and mental / emotional distress, debt management, affordable childcare,referral to ‘family friendly’ employment support, interventions to prevent youthoffending and anti-social behaviour; highly effective identification and monitoringsystems – particularly the use of the intelligence desk; seamless support: access torelevant support which families respect: the community and voluntary sectors,mentors, restorative approaches, conflict resolution, education support. Finally, giventhe focus on the issues of offending, anti-social behaviour and non-school attendance,sanctions and rewards will be part of the offer, including the use of robust familyagreements and strong monitoring and enforcement of persistent youth offending andASB.6. THE PROPOSED SERVICE DESIGN AND THE COMMUNITY BUDGET CONTEXT6.1 The success of the Troubled Families Programme will be dependent on a range ofagencies working collaboratively together: they will need to share local intelligence inorder to identify the families and then re-shape and deliver co-ordinated services to thefamilies. The key local partners are the three Councils (in particular Community SafetyTeams, Children’s Services, Skills and Employment Services, Housing, SubstanceMisuse , Mental Health Services, Early Years and Childcare Services), Health (PublicHealth, Primary Care and Acute Services), the Metropolitan Police, Probation Service,Job Centre Plus, Reed Employment (providers of the DWP ESF provision), schoolsand voluntary sector organisations. They have been consulted throughout the designof the programme. The Community Budget team have been working on this aspectand preparing a case for government to sustain the PBR approach beyond the end ofthis programme.6.2 The new service designEach Troubled Families service offer will be based on the assessed needs of thefamily in relation to achieving the DCLG Troubled Families outcomes and turning theirlives around. This will vary according to the families’ need and circumstances.Page 296
- Page 250 and 251: 3.9 Child Death Overview PanelThis
- Page 252 and 253: 3.12 Budget 2011-2012(This follows
- Page 254 and 255: Page 249Quality of provisionThe con
- Page 256 and 257: Page 251Disabled Children’sTeamFo
- Page 258 and 259: Page 253and AlcoholService (CDAS)CN
- Page 260 and 261: Page 255borough. However, wedo moni
- Page 262 and 263: able to provide greater evidence in
- Page 264 and 265: 21%Organisational Profile of applic
- Page 266 and 267: Review of participation data and qu
- Page 268 and 269: New and Discontinued CPP 2005-20128
- Page 270 and 271: • There continues to be high numb
- Page 272 and 273: 4.66 Removals from CP PlansDe-regis
- Page 274 and 275: Page 269• Rate of re plans (re re
- Page 276 and 277: 4.69 Categories of CP PlansQuarterE
- Page 278 and 279: 6%8%5%36%0 - 34 - 67 - 1213 - 1828%
- Page 280 and 281: Page 275.CPP Ethnic groups 2005 - 2
- Page 282 and 283: R e fe rrals R ate per 10,000 popul
- Page 284 and 285: No. of children 1st time registered
- Page 286 and 287: 4.91Child PopulationCurrently there
- Page 288 and 289: Across the borough the proportion o
- Page 290 and 291: 5. How does the LSCB Monitor Activi
- Page 292 and 293: • offer support services• alloc
- Page 294 and 295: Page 289Housing3-borough Child Deat
- Page 296 and 297: continue to be refined and develope
- Page 298 and 299: Agenda Item 12Tri-borough Executive
- Page 302 and 303: 6.3 TriageAll troubled families who
- Page 304 and 305: The learning from this may be utili
- Page 306 and 307: 9.4.3 Current/future costsCurrent/f
- Page 308 and 309: Making decisions about working in o
- Page 310 and 311: RefRisk description"If.., then.."be
- Page 312 and 313: No. Issue Mitigation RAG impact onp
- Page 314 and 315: APPENDIX 2: Definition of a Trouble
- Page 316 and 317: HammersmithFulhamKensingtonChelsea&
- Page 318 and 319: 1. BACKGROUND, INCLUDING POLICY CON
- Page 320 and 321: 3.4 Although the provision is sligh
- Page 322 and 323: Agenda Item 15London Borough of Ham
- Page 324 and 325: 2. THE APPOINTMENT OF CBRE AND THEI
- Page 326 and 327: ationalisation or additional invest
- Page 328 and 329: 13. EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS13.1 It is
- Page 330 and 331: CBRE | LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMIT
- Page 332 and 333: APPENDIX 2 - Strategic Review of Sh
- Page 334 and 335: appropriate for residents’ needs.
- Page 336 and 337: 6.2.2 Recommendation 2: HRD and ASC
- Page 338 and 339: 6.7.1.3 Option 3: Provide accommoda
- Page 340 and 341: APPENDIX 3 - STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SH
- Page 342 and 343: It be noted by Cabinet that Phase 1
- Page 344 and 345: Agenda Item 16London Borough of Ham
- Page 346 and 347: 1. SUMMARY1.1 Cabinet approved a re
- Page 348 and 349: prevention methodology that meets l
4 BACKGROUND, INCLUDING POLICY CONTEXT, AND ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS4.1 In December 2011 the Prime Minister announced additional funding for localgovernment of £448 million over 3 years to turn around the lives of 120,000 TroubledFamilies in England. Troubled Families are a Government priority because of both thepoor outcomes experienced by these families and their impact on the communitiesthey live in, and because of the huge cost they impose on the public sector.4.2 The DCLG Troubled Families offer is that if local authorities can intervene in the mosttroubled families and secure positive outcomes in terms of gaining employment,reducing youth offending and anti-social behaviour and improving educationalattendance, they will receive a success payment. Authorities are expected to maketheir own investment in services that will ‘turn around the behaviour and lives’ ofTroubled Families.4.3 We have confirmed to (DCLG) that the three boroughs will establish a service that will:4.3.1 oversee and account for successful engagement with Troubled Familiesin the area over the next 3 years, for which we will be eligible for funding.4.3.2 provide a figure of the number of families we aim to start working withwithin <strong>2012</strong>-13 and the number of upfront attachment fees we will beclaiming4.3.3 agree to work closely with European Social Fund (ESF) and workprogramme providers4.3.4 support and take part in research, learning and evaluation of theprogramme4.3.5 appoint a Troubled Families Co-ordinator to run the programme locally.4.4 Tackling the issues surrounding Troubled Families is not new. We have undertaken avariety of programmes across the Tri-borough area in the last 4 years - Westminster’sFamily Recovery Programme and Kensington and Chelsea’s Family InterventionProgramme focus on a small number of the highest need, high cost families, and theHammersmith and Fulham localities approach deals with a larger number of less highneed families. There is ample evidence that these approaches work. However therehave been insufficient funds to scale up provision to address the needs of all thefamilies potentially in scope.5 OPTIONS TO DELIVER SUSTAINABLE WORK WITH HIGH COST FAMILIES5.1 Analysis has provided us with insights into the make-up of the Troubled FamiliesProgramme cohort; their needs and likely service requirements. It important to notethat the Troubled Families Programme cohort and a wider group of Families withComplex Needs are different and that there are varying degrees of need within each ofthe two cohorts. Some will simply need advice and signposting whilst others will havea complex network of support and have many unmet needs. There will therefore needto be a range of interventions to support these families – both to deliver the results toobtain the PBR and equally to enable families to make and sustain changes thatimprove their lives and reduce the demands, risks and costs to local and nationalpublic services.Page 295
Change language