Success in Social Work Practice The Troubled Families Programme. A roaring success and a total failure

The Programme Stage One 2012 (DCLG 2012a) Eligibility criteria Model of intervention Payment by results (PBR) (DCLG 2012b) Varied implementation models Are involved in crime and anti-social behaviour • Have children not in school Have an adult on out-of-work benefits • Cause high costs to the public purse ─ Local discretion… to add other families.8 A key worker was usually assigned to each family as a coordinator with various state services and families said had worked for them, the guide noted five key factors: 1. A dedicated worker, dedicated to a family 2. Practical ‘hands-on’ support 3. A persistent, assertive and challenging approach 4. Considering the family as a whole – gathering the intelligence 5. Common purpose and agreed action.10 The aim of the programme was to ‘turn around’ the lives of these families. This would be achieved either when: • They achieve all 3 of the education and crime/anti-social behaviour measures set out below where relevant: ─ Each child in the family has had fewer than 3 fixed exclusions and less than 15% of unauthorised absences in the last 3 school terms; and A 60% reduction in anti-social behaviour across the family in the last 6 months; and Offending rate by all minors in the family reduced by at least 33% in the last 6 months.; OR • At least one adult in the family has moved off out-of-work benefits into continuous employment in the last 6 months

Government Success Story 99% of families engaged with were ‘turned around’(Bate (House of Commons) 2016) Ontology and ‘being turned around’ Rhetorical epistemology PBR returns as evidence of success

The Research Failure Story Process, impact and economic evaluations Impact study ‘unable to find…any significant impact’ (Day et al 2016: 38) Quantifying outcomes ‘Gross’ and ‘net’ positive change Empirical approaches to success in social work

But, Families’ Views 22 families, semi-structured interviews improved coping skills and resilience; widened access to entitlements and specialist support; improved financial circumstances; improved parenting confidence; improved social confidence; and crisis avoidance (Blades et al 2016)

Service Users, Practitioners and Success Smaller, local studies; semi-structured interviews of staff and families, ethnographic approaches Stories of transformation, help and hindrance (Jones et al 2015 in Davies 2015, Thoburn 2013)

Towards a definition of success… What is success in social work? Who is in a position to identify success? How do they evidence success? Are success and effectiveness the same thing? Open group discussion and comment

References Bate, A. (2016) House of Commons Briefing Paper 07585 The Troubled Families Programme (England). London. House of Commons Library. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7585/CBP-7585.pdf (3 3 17)

References Blades, R., Day, L. and Erskine, C. (2016) National Evaluation of the Troubled Families Programme: Families Experiences and Outcomes. London. Department for Communities and Local Government.

References Day, L., Bryson, C., White, C., Purdon, S., Bewley, H., Kirchner Sala, L. and Portes, J. (2016) National Evaluation of the Troubled Families Programme: Final Synthesis Report. London. Department for Communities and Local Government

References Davies, K. (2015) Social Work with Troubled Families: A Critical Introduction. London. Jessica Kingsley. Department of Communities and Local Government (2012a) Working with Troubled Families: A guide to the evidence and good practice. London. DCLG.

References Department of Communities and Local Government (2012b) The Troubled Families Programme: Financial Framework for the Troubled Families programme’s payment-by-results scheme for local authorities. London. DCLG.

Thoburn, J. , Cooper, N. , Brandon, M. and Connolly, S Thoburn, J., Cooper, N., Brandon, M. and Connolly, S. (2013) The place of “think family” approaches in child and family social work: Messages from a process evaluation of an English pathfinder service. Child and Youth Services Review 35 228-236