Agenda item

 

(1)   Disadvantaged Areas and Troubled Families report;

(2)   For information: Cabinet Report, 20^th June, Disadvantaged Areas;

(3) For information: Cabinet Report, 20^th June, Troubled Families Initiative.

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Housing and Neighbourhoods and the Think Family Co-ordinator, Safeguarding Children and Families Services which provided information for the Select Commission on two ongoing programmes of action, and the overlaps between them i.e. the Troubled Families’ Initiative and Disadvantaged Areas. 

 

Cabinet reports in relation to both areas of work were submitted for information providing an overview of the work programmes/initiatives: -

 

Troubled Families’ Initiative: - 

 

• A National Government programme located in the Troubled Families Unit within the Department for Communities and Local Government.  However, funding contributions would be sourced from six Government Departments; 

 

• Aim of the project was to address the needs of families with multiple problems to significantly reduce the demands they made of public services;

 

• The initiative categorised ‘troubled families’ as those experiencing such problems as worklessness, truancy, drug and alcohol addiction, and that caused problems such as anti-social behaviour; 

 

• Under the initiative,  Central Government would provide 40% of the cost of interventions to help turn the families’ lives around, payable on achievement of successful outcomes;

 

• The Local Authority had been asked to provide a list of 730 families to fit the funding formula provided by the Troubled Families Unit.  There were three given criteria, and the potential to apply one locally agreed filter.   The given criteria were: -

 

 

 

 

• It was expected that the number of families that met all three criterion would be below a total of 730;

 

• It was expected that the number of families that met two out of the three criterion would be higher than 730.  In this case, the Local Authority could apply a fourth filter, based on local discretion;

 

• Rotherham had compiled a list of families using attendance, anti-social and youth offending data, and had submitted this list to the Department for Work and Pensions to confirm if a family member or a member of the household was claiming an out of work benefit;

 

• The payment by results model that was proposed was considered; the Department for Communities and Local Government would make £4,000 available for each troubled family, part to be paid up-front as an ‘attachment fee’ to work with the family, and the remainder to be paid once positive outcomes had been achieved with the family. 

 

Disadvantaged Areas: -

 

• The Indices of Multiple Deprivation (2010) had highlighted a worsening of deprivation in the Borough;

 

• There was a concentration of people in the eleven most deprived neighbourhoods in the Borough whose quality of life was significantly below the norm in other parts of the Borough;

 

• In the main, these areas had suffered the effects of multiple deprivation and were not accessing opportunities to improve their quality of life;

 

• Within the communities there was consistent evidence of low aspiration, characterised by a sense of resignation that poor living standards and ill health were normal, coupled with a low opinion of public services;

 

• The Council and its partners recognised that not all of the eleven areas were the same and the causes and effects of deprivation differed in each one;

 

• Single agency responses to individual issues no longer represented a sustainable way forward;

 

• There would be a need to co-ordinate the activities of the Council with Partner organisations that had a specific interest in the local area(s) and who could make a difference;

 

• The work would complement the Health and Wellbeing Strategy;

 

• It would be vital to track improvements on an individual and community level;

 

• There already existed a broad range of initiatives to improve the quality of life of people in Rotherham.  What was required was an overriding approach to enable the initiatives to fit better together: -

 

 

• Utilisation of ‘community anchors’, including schools and the Borough’s learning communities;

 

• The work required a principled approach so that the Council and its Partners could commit to address disadvantage.  The parameters of the principled approach should include: -

 

 

·        Frameworks from existing and previous projects would be used to develop Rotherham’s model, including the Chesterhill project undertaken through the Local Ambition Project.  Lessons learned already included the need to avoid total reliance on external funding.  The desire of Disadvantaged Areas work was that a long-term approach would be developed that would survive changes in Government and work within the policy direction of the time;

 

·        An action plan in relation to the Disadvantage Areas work had been developed: -

 

o       Act now;

o       Develop a clear understanding of the area – a baseline;

o       Engage people through action;

o       Long-term strategies;

o       Measure change in practical ways.  

 

Commonalities: -

 

There were common themes to the work strands and initiatives: -

 

·        Utilising the local knowledge of Ward Members, police officers, RMBC housing and anti-social behaviour officers, GPs and learning communities to tap into their understanding of the characteristics of areas and individual families;

 

·        There was a need to work to re-brand the initiatives to convey a more positive message: Troubled Families would become ‘Think Family’/‘Families for Change’.  Disadvantaged Areas work would aim to promote the collective commitment and a good, strong identity;

 

·        There was real recognition of the need to work with local people and to identify with them the changes that were needed; the Council and Partners needed to listen and respond effectively and use ‘customer insight techniques’.

 

The overview report referred to other linkages between the initiatives: -

 

• Governance: -

o       A Disadvantaged Areas Strategic Group would be formed;

o       This group would guide officers on the ground and govern policy and resource areas;

o       The membership would bring together and engage all Partners, including Voluntary Action Rotherham, Department for Work and Pensions, Job Centre Plus and NHS representatives;

o       The Think Family Co-ordinator would be a member to advocate family priorities.

 

·        Identification of Rotherham Families: -

o       Data analysis and matching would be undertaken jointly between the two initiatives;

o       Identification of families would contribute to creating a detailed baseline of areas.

 

During discussion the following points were raised: -

 

·        Clarification of the eleven identified areas;

·        Importance of ‘doing with’, rather than ‘doing to’;

·        Importance of minimising any forms of stigmatisation;

·        Role of local Members and safeguarding the information they share;

·        Community leadership role of Ward Members;

·        There were families who would require help who did not live in one of the eleven areas – reaching all who needed help;

·        The payment by results approach that the Central Government had taken appeared to given the wrong message about Partner’s motivations for undertaking the work.

 

 

Resolved: -  (1)  That the report be accepted and its content noted. 

 

(2) That the Improving Lives Select Commission receive further reports in relation to the progress of the Disadvantaged Areas and the Families for Change (Troubled Families) initiatives. 

 

(3)  That the training and support requirements relating to the Member role in these agendas be referred to the Members’ Training and Development Panel for consideration.

 

(4)  That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board requests that Cabinet considers establishing a Member Working Group to determine the role of non-executive Members outside of the eleven deprived neighbourhoods, in the Family for Change agenda.