National picture

• “Government’s commitment to turn around the lives of 120,000 of England’s most troubled families.”

• Prime Minister alongside the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, announced additional resources totalling £448m over the next three years for the programme

National expectationsAreas should get on with:

– getting coordination in place– Finding out who the (1,015) families are– Planning their service model– Making arrangements to refer to ESF

• To be confirmed:– Eligibility and success criteria– Requirements for participation (baseline, model)– Matched funding and attachment fee arrangements– Information sharing rules

Who Is Involved

Sussex Partnership Trust

East Sussex Hospitals Trust

ESCC Adult Social Care

Job Centre Plus

Action for change

Action in Rural Sussex

HomeworksFellowship

of St Nicolas

CRI

ESCC Children’s Services

District and Borough Local Authorities

Sussex and Surrey Probation Service

and more…

Sussex Police

Refuge

East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service

Sanctuary Carr Gomm

Southdown Housing

Schools (and a college)

YMCA

Deciding on a service model• TFU estimates 1,015 families, and turning them

around will cost £10k per family • We can claim money when we succeed in turning a

family around• We are expected to demonstrate 60% to claim 40%

back • Not all families will engage or succeed, so we’ll

need a keywork-based service model which works with at least 1,500 families over three years

• We won’t be able to claim for our work with some of families who need the most help and cost the most money

Where the 0-18s are

Where the adults are

Where they both are

As a % of the population (approx 3% overall)

Option A: Keep things as they are

Services Intensive family services

family keyworkers

Benefits

No disruption or change to manage

No expenditure

Some good practice already in place

Risks

Unlikely to be accepted by TFU

Low chance of success

Increasing numbers of families needing intensive support

Option B: Stand-alone service model

Benefits

Proven good practice model

Will meet TFU expectations

Good for family engagement

Risks

Requires significant investment from all

May take too long to agree pooled budget arrangements

Won’t change practice in existing services

Option C: Mixed economy embedded model

Keyworking coordination and referral

management

Benefits

Will make best use of existing services

Achievable without pooling budgets

Can make ‘Think Family’ normal for everyone

Risks

Requires whole system change to work

Will fail if workers aren’t given flexibility

Families may not engage with ‘enforcement’ services

Key Worker

• To undertake assessments which identify the root causes of complex problems families are experiencing.

• To co-ordinate intensive and structured support to help these families change.

• Work with families and other agencies to design and deliver effective interventions.

Core features of Key Work

• Focus on most problematic families• Whole family approach• Dedicated key worker• Practical and emotional support • Persistent and assertive working methods• Families agree to a contract and support plan• Sanctions are used• Multi agency working

Key worker requirements

• Supervision and support• Service identity• Assessment tool and recording system• Training• Resources- to support families• Resilience

8 critical features identified from the FIP Model

1. Recruitment and retention of high quality staff

2. Key worker model

3. Small case loads

4.Whole family approach

5.Stay involved as long as necessary

6.Use of sanctions with support

7.Scope to use resources creatively

8.Effective multi-agency relationships

–Get to the root of family’s problems

How do families experience the service?

• Regular contact with their key worker• Intensive practical and emotional support • Behaviour management • Organised activities • Supported referrals to other services• Monitoring through the support plan and

contract

Family feedback from FIP evaluation

• Emotional support • Helped them to manage their behaviour• Parenting advice and guidance• Organised activities for children and family• Supported referrals to other services• Practical help with household chores and financial

management• Contacting schools and getting children back into

education

DfE: Monitoring and evaluation of family intervention projects to March 2010

• 47% reduction in the number of families experiencing risks associated with poor family functioning, including poor parenting, marriage, relationship & family breakdown, domestic violence or child protection issues;

• 47% reduction in the number of families involved in anti-social behaviour and crime;

• 34% reduction in the number of families with health issues including mental or physical health and drug or alcohol problems

• 34% reduction in the number of families with education and employment issues.

Family intervention projects: a classic case of policy-based evidence

• interesting social engineering experiment which had the potential to help poor, very vulnerable families who failed to fit in to their communities. Instead the FIPs were marketed as a way of punishing ‘families from hell’. Desperately needed professional medical support has not been provided in most cases, often because of cost considerations. These families have been demonised to no good end and the FIPs have not delivered sustained reductions in ASB in the wider community

– Centre for Crime and Justice Studies

Dad liked the first Health

Visitor, but feels new one seems

ok.

Dad feels devastated, worried &

concerned. Dad with £20 to spend on living

per week despairs as

phone calls to sort things out have cost him £10 in phone

credit. Dad feels unsettled

again.

Child Tax Credit stopped whilst

review is undertaken

regards increasing payments

following the birth of Child 2.

Dad is frustrated

given he made the effort to

travel to Bridgwater

Dad feels annoyed and frustrated given he can

never get through on the phone. He has to travel

back home with no answers.

Dad is frustrated and feels he is going round

in circles.

Dad pleased house will soon be signed

off as safe.

Dad feels wary at first, but finds the Children’s Centre

supportive & they are helping him improve his

parenting skills

Dad feels pleased that someone is

taking an interest towards getting the

repairs done

Dad is both relieved and happy that the same person

will help him through the process.

Dad worried mum is

suffering from Post Natal Depression

Dad feels a sense of belonging and is

pleased he is learning new skills.

Dad relieved.

Dad overjoyed with Social Services’ decision

Dad feels frightened and nervous as he

believes someone is watching Child 1.

Dad feels scared that his relationship issues are the cause of a vendetta

against him.

Dad makes effort to coordinate repairs, but

feels frustrated and angry when relevant

agencies fail to keep their appointments.

Dad feels scared, confused and upset.

Single Dad with 2 Children under 3, living in Local Authority Housing

Think about how you would cope?Le

vel

of E

moti

on

Housing Support Worker becomes involved as poor

housing conditions are having a

negative effect on family.

Dad takes Child 1 to doctors, with

unexplained injuries. GP sends child to Bridgwater

Hospital who then transfer child to

Musgrove Hospital.

Dad feels scared, confused & upset

Social Worker meets with Dad, who offers to support

him through the investigation

Social Services GP

Social Worker

Hospital alert Social Services who then

initiate Investigation into Child abuse.

Child abuse investigation confirms no

suggestion of misconduct.

Dad supported by same Social Worker to become Child 1’s

main carer

Dad feels he is building trust in Social Worker. He is happy that she is a familiar face.

Requested intervention from Social Services by

Children’s Centre.

Decision made by Social Services that Child 1 is best

placed with Dad

Dad feels annoyed that he is again

being investigated, although he thinks

he understands why.

Dad arrested over allegations

regarding welfare of child 1. Social

Services investigating.

Different Social Worker raises new concerns

regarding home safety issues

Housing repairs have started.

Then two incidents of Anti- Social Behaviour

are targeted at the family home.

A 3rd Investigation into child abuse has now been initiated.

Dad travels to Bridgwater for appointments on debt issues. No one available to

see him.

Dad starts attending weekly Dad’s group at

Children’s Centre

Dad reports that he is concerned for the welfare of Child 1.

Dad feels pleased as there is noticeable

improvement in Child 1’s behaviour.

Child 1 has started attending Children’s Centre for 12 hours a week following award of nursery vouchers.

Dad’s Council Tax Benefit is stopped after he misses an appointment

Dad feels happy that things look like they will get

sorted.

Dad is offered help towards resolving the families

benefit issues and housing repairs.

District Council

Housing repairs, still not completed

Dad frustrated and feels that house will

now be judged unsafe for the

children once again.

DNA tests relating to

Child 2 being undertaken

CAB Housing Support Services

Different Health Visitor makes

contact from the one who helped

with Child 1

Police Solicitor

Health Visitor

DWP

2008 2009 2010

Children’s Centre

Birth of Child 2

Dad reports to Police that

Mum has left family home

and taken Child 1 with

her.

Dad stops attending Children’s Centre when the male family

Centre Worker leaves.

Hospital

Agency Touch points

Dad phones Social Services,

not knowing where else to

turn.

V3 5/11/10