Masterclass Hot Topics in Education Troubled Families – Where Next? John Johnson Assistant Director of Education & Social Services (Education, Performance and Planning) 27 th November 2014

30 of the most challenging families failing to engage or make progress with existing services children subject to a CPP, on the edge of care, or subject to care pre-proceedings multiple and complex problems throughout the family which may cover rent arrears, ASB crime, mental health etc. What is FRP?

Troubled Families Troubled Families are those that have been identified as having multi-faceted problems and causing problems to the community around them, putting high costs on the public sector. For the purposes of the Programme, the Government defines Troubled Families as households which: –are involved with crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB); –have children not in school; –have an adult on out of work benefits; –cause high costs to the public purse. To be included in the Programme, a family need to meet either all three of the national criteria (in bold above) or two of the national criteria plus one locally defined criterion

New service enabled locally by: Clear political priority Shared ambition from Partners – Police, Health, JCP, Housing Associations etc. Commitment of multi agency resources (cash and staff) to a pooled “community budget” Family Recovery Project – launched November 2011 Aspirations Programme – raising aspirations and improving social mobility - Physical regeneration of the most deprived estates in the borough. Mentoring programme for BME young men Supporting local people into jobs Targeted health interventions - challenge and reward local people in adopt healthier lifestyles FRP is embedded in a clear local policy context Family Recovery Project

Building on success – FRP into TF By October 2014 Wandsworth was ranked: Ranked 1st in London for percentage of families turned round out of all troubled families and 14th nationally. Ranked 1 st in London for percentage of families turned round out of all troubled families worked with so far and 18 th Nationally. Intervention intensity

What makes it work? TURNING ROUND LIVES Payment By Results Co-located multiagency team “Marigolds” Outreach workers from all career backgrounds Strong management Shared objectives Outcome - focussed Governance Data driven – shared intelligence

Expanded Programme – Post April 2015 To be eligible for the expanded programme, each family must have displayed at least two of the following problems:- parents and children involved in crime or anti-social behaviour; children who have not been attending school regularly; children who need help; adults out of work or at risk of financial exclusion and young people at risk of worklessness; families affected by domestic violence and abuse; and parents and children with a range of health problems. NB All eligible families must include dependent children

Case Study Family One - This family comprises of Mum and Dad who are in their late 20s, three sons aged 5 – 10 years old and a daughter (4 years old). Mum and Dad are not married but have been in a long term relationship for 14 years. Mum has disclosed since working with FRP that she is 3 months pregnant. The family live together in a local authority property near Wandsworth Town Centre. All four children have recently been placed under Child Protection by Children’s Services for the following reasons:  Serious injury suffered by one of the boys in the family home which involved a fractured skull and possible brain bleed.  Concern regarding the boys school attendance.  Concerns regarding the boys travelling to school unaccompanied  A multitude of other problems exist within the family:  Dad has a history of depression and mental illness.  Both Mum and Dad do not work and have some problems with reading and writing.  High rent arrears.  Mum has a suspected history of drug abuse.  The children have outstanding immunisations and a number of minor health issues.  The children are prone to accident and injury at home.  Low level crime committed by both Mum and Dad although nothing recently.  The whole family including the wider extended family have a history of Children’s Services involvement going back decades.

Case Study Progress since Family Recovery Project involvement: All 4 children removed from Child Protection Plans as no longer deemed necessary. Both parents attended Strengthening Families Strengthening Communities (SFSC) which is a parenting class once a week focusing on improving parenting skills. School attendance has improved for all three of the children whom attend school, from an average of 83.6% to currently 100% attendance for all children. As well as the attendance improving, the children’s punctuality at school has also improved. This is largely attributed to the intensive support provided by the team in creating a workable and better early morning and evening routines. No Police call outs since project involvement (3 in the 12 months prior to the project’s involvement) The family has significant rent arrears from a previous address, which they are now paying off and is reducing – reduction of £153 after 3 months. Children’s Specialist Services closing the case.

Questions With the new expanded TF criteria, which new families should be targeted? Are the potential short term savings and longer term reductions in demand on public services significant? Have we identified the right cohorts? (next slide) Are there others? What steps should we consider to take forward this agenda?

Wider cohort of families and individuals with ‘complex dependency’? Those who are homeless. This could include households in temporary accommodation and rough sleepers. Those that suffer from drug or alcohol addiction. (34,850 in drug treatment in London (2010 data). More recent data shows that nationally: 109,683 clients aged 18 and over in contact with treatment due to alcohol in In addition 193,575 clients nationally aged 18 and over were in drug treatment during Individuals with mental health conditions (in particular, support to obtain and remain in employment). Those subject to the benefit cap, who do not have clear routes out of dependency. (12,543 capped households to date in London, which includes at least 34,724 dependents). Families and individuals in low pay or no pay cycles that may also have complex needs. Persistent adult offenders. Approx 3,636 offenders in London. Youth Offending Team – Preventative Services