Agenda item

(To receive a report from Jo Kavanagh, Head of Service Families Working Together and Lincoln and West Lindsey, which provides the Committee with an update on the progress of Lincolnshire's response to the Troubled Families Programme)

Consideration was given to a report of the Executive Director of Children's Services, which provided an update on the progress of Lincolnshire's response to the Troubled Families' Programme and invited the Committee to consider and comment on the contents of the report.

Jo Kavanagh, Head of Service – Families Working Together, introduced the report and referred members to papers tabled which provided further updated information to that provided in the published report and relevant issues were highlighted.

During discussion the following points were noted:-

·         Feedback received from the Executive Support Councillor for Children's Services following attendance at the launch of the Housing Strategy was positive.  The key discussion points at the launch had focussed positively about the journey, prior to the launch, over the previous 18 months and the collaborative working across relevant teams.  The national speaker had suggested that Lincolnshire was a leading figure in this particular area.

·         58 referrals to the service had been made so far. Of those referrals, 41% had returned home, 29% were in supported accommodation, 15% stayed with parents, as the cases had been resolved immediately, and a small proportion were staying with friends through "Friends Arrangements".

·         The target for working with people to find a resolution was in the region of eight weeks, however Families Working Together would remain involved with the family until other provision had been arranged.

·         Although not noted in the report, as the information provided was at the request of the Department for Communities, it was confirmed that traveller families and ethnic minorities were also able to access these services, and have done.  It was agreed to provide a breakdown of groups accessing services to members following the meeting.

·         Members requested details of case studies to provide information regarding good practice and how frontline workers deal with such cases.  It was confirmed that case studies were available and these would be circulated outside the meeting. An invitation was also extended to those members who would like to see the process first hand.

·         No specific guidance had been received from the Families Working Together programme about how to apportion the funding.  As Lincolnshire wanted a different approach, a larger proportion of families meeting the criteria now have access to a range of other services. 

·         Shared learning was undertaken through secondments between teams.  For example, the Youth Offending Service had a huge proportion of their caseload linked to Families Working Together therefore four members of their staff were seconded to the FWT team in order to strengthen links.

·         Any claims made were now subjected to detailed scrutiny by the DLC and the team currently had 36 claims being scrutinised.  In addition to this external audit, internal scrutiny arrangements were also in place to ensure compliance.

·         Families in need were supported whether a funding/monetary claim could be made or not. 

·         All staff were trained in safeguarding issues and all families linked to safeguarding could be provided with help should that be requested.  Information sharing was clear in localities due to colocation of different teams and the increased understanding of each other's roles as a result.  There was also a mechanism in place for escalation and joint visits undertaken where uses were raised as a concern by more than one team.

·         It was confirmed that all Practice Supervisors were leads on Signs of Safety and this was working well.  Audit processes were also in place as well as systems to ensure ease of accessibility to result data.  Staff were also trained in using the police computer system so information sharing had improved considerably as a result.

·         There were a limited number of key workers in the County and, in order for them to work with families to the intensity level required (8-10 hours per week with one family), a caseload of 8-10 was a suitable level for each key worker.  Members were asked to consider that this caseload was based on a family which could potentially have more than one child or differing issues so complexity was also a factor when allocating cases.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.