Agenda item

(To receive a report which outlines Phase 1 of the national "Troubled Families" programme, led by the Department of Communities and Local Government; progress to national targets during Phase 1; an outline of the requirements of Phase 2 of the "Troubled Families" programme; and a summary of families that would have been visited by Members of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee)

Consideration was given to a report which outlined Phase 1 of the national "Troubled Families" Programme, led by the Department of Communities and Local Government; progress to national targets during Phase 1; the requirements of Phase 2 of the "Troubled Families" Programme; and a summary of families that would have been visited by Members of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee.

It was reported that the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had identified 120,000 'troubled families' across the country, and 1370 of these were in Lincolnshire.  The Troubled Families Unit was set the task by the Prime Minister of 'turning around' these 120,000 families by March 2015.

Troubled families were characterised by there being no adult in the family working, children not being in school and family members being involved in youth crime and anti-social behaviour.  Lincolnshire's response to the national Troubled Families Programme was "Families Working Together" (FWT) which was a team consisting of 48 Key Workers alongside a Performance and Management team.  Key Workers were either directly employed by Lincolnshire County Council or seconded from partner organisations.

Members were advised that Lincolnshire had identified and worked with 100% of the 1,370 families, and by May 2015 had "turned around" 100% of the families.

Members of the Committee were provided with the opportunity to ask questions to the officers present in relation to the information contained within the report, and some of the points raised during discussion included the following:

·         Over 800 families had been identified for Phase 2, which would have a broader remit;

·         £200million had been made available by the Government for Phase 2, and Members were advised that once it was agreed how many families Lincolnshire would work with, a proportion of that funding could be applied for on a payment by results basis.  It was thought that this could bring up to £5million into Lincolnshire if the programme was successful;

·         One member commented that they had met with one of the families in the programme, and were very impressed with the progress which had been made, particularly in relation to the relationship which had developed between the Key Worker and mother, as the Key Worker had provided a service tailored to the needs of the family;

·         Concerns were raised regarding the sustainability of this service, and whether there would be the time available to give to each family.  However, members were advised that officers were confident that the time involved was becoming less, as Key Workers gained more experience into which methods worked best.  Staff were now able to go into a family and get an understanding of what was going on within the family much quicker than in the past;

·         It was important that there was a focus on outcomes, and what needed to be achieved for the family;

·         It was noted that the approach would be broadened to include other staff, and would include focusing on the importance of work, as getting parents work ready would have a raft of benefits;

·         The secondments from partner organisations were highly valued, and it had recently been confirmed that the district council secondments would be extended;

·         It was noted that from 1 November 2015, all frontline staff would move to become Early Help Support Workers, following the restructure.  This was to ensure greater flexibility in the frontline staff;

·         The team had become bigger and bigger and more opportunities were developed, and now the approach would be expanded across to other groups of staff, but the brand of 'Families Working Together' would be retained;

·         The outcome plans were designed to provide clarity to staff on what needed to be achieved for each family.  It was considered positive to have a clear framework around outcomes;

·         This was a five year programme and officers were trying to make it as broad and as flexible as possible.  There would be an individual plan for each family which would set out what it was that needed to be achieved;

·         It was noted that other authorities had used this funding to 'prop up' other services, but Lincolnshire had not done this, and was still committed to having the same number of people doing this work.  But there had been a need to bring it into the Locality Teams;

·         Members were advised that almost all authorities had achieved 100% of the families turned around.  However, Lincolnshire had achieved the required level by October 2014 and so was selected as an early adopter for Phase 2.  However, it was commented that there were some advantages to not being the first, but Lincolnshire was still seen as a leading authority, as it was doing something different;

·         Members commented that the team should be congratulated;

·         In terms of following up with families, it was reported that towards the end of the period, staff would start working with the family on how they would continue when the support ended, and each family would have an exit plan which would set out how they would move forward and how the changes would be sustained.  Staff would also follow up with the family after four months.  Families would be provided with the contact details for their Key Workers, so they would still be able to contact them, if needed.  It was important to ensure that when a Key Worker left a family, they were prepared for it;

·         Members had found it positive to experience some of the things that the Team did.  In particular it was highlighted how the staff developed trust with the families.  It was also noted that signs of safety was clearly in use within the team;

·         The team in Grantham was also congratulated, however, there were some concerns regarding the PCSO secondment and it was queried what the criteria for seconding a PCSO was, as some only seemed to focus on the one aspect of crime and anti-social behaviour.  Members were advised that having all partners on board was beneficial, and crime and anti-social behaviour was a big issue.  However, a lot had been learned about what training was required, and an induction programme was being developed by the practice supervisors;

·         It was felt that it was a key development for the service to be able to benefit from having members of the Police Force as a part of the team, and good links had been developed;

·         Members were advised that it was originally intended for full time police officers to be seconded to the team, but a decision was reached that it would be better if PCSO's took up this role;

·         There was often a catalogue of issues which impacted on a family and they could not see a way out of it.  The Key Worker would work with them to help them resolve these issues;

·         It was queried whether there was an element of this programme which would focus on elderly family members.  It was noted that this would only be picked up if elderly family members were living in the family home;

·         Members were informed that Lincolnshire was chosen as of the areas to have an independent review, and there would be a report published shortly.  DCLG was very keen to ensure that authorities were providing value for money in terms of this programme.  It was agreed that a copy of the report would be circulated to members once it had been published;

·         It was difficult to measure the cost savings of preventative work;

·         Concerns were raised regarding whether there was sufficient staffing capacity to take on another 800 plus families in Phase 2.  However, members were advised that this was why officers were looking to embed this approach within the locality team, and spread this across all families which were experiencing need.  Officers were confident that this could be managed within the existing case load, and it would include the families that the authority was already in contract with;

·         As part of the national programme, there was a need to demonstrate that the turned around families had sustained this approach for at least six months;

·         It was noted that those families who had been turned around were acting as peer supporters, however, this was an arrangement which needed to be formalised.

RESOLVED

            That the comments made in relation to the Families Working Together Service be noted.