Minutes:
Further to Minute No. 151 of 23rd May, 2012, Jenny Lingrell, Troubled Families Co-ordinator, presented an analysis of the impact the above Initiative had had on Service delivery and on families.
The Year 1 cohort had been identified and included all families that met the 3 criteria (attendance, anti-social behaviour and in receipt of benefits) plus families who met 2 criteria and were resident in the Borough’s 11 most disadvantaged areas and/or were affected by the Benefits cap (due to be phased in during 2013).
The analysis completed to date was intended to provide a guide that would enable the Service to plan its capacity to respond and ensure that the most appropriate practitioner was identified as the main point of contact or leadworker for the family:-
- Approximately 15% of the families were known to Children’s Social Care, 85% were likely to be receiving some form of early help intervention and approximately 10% included a child where a child CAF was active
- 11 families in Year 1 cohort included children on a Child Protection Plan. The Troubled Families Co-ordinator would work with Social Care Area Service Managers and Lead Social Care Practice Consultant to understand the best to support families to change
- 41 families in Year 1 cohort included Children in Need and should have an allocated Social Worker. Further analysis was required to understand the length of time Services had been involved and whether a co-ordinated non-statutory whole family approach would provide an effective way to work with them and enable them to sustain change and thrive
- Families for Change Co-ordinators would provide caseload oversight for how agencies collectively engaged with families. 6 full-time Co-ordinators plus 1 further full-time equivalent commissioned from Rotherham and Barnsley MIND would be based notionally in the 7 Area Assemblies
- Commissioned Early Help Services – Rotherham and Barnsley MIND had been commissioned to undertake the FfC co-ordination role for Maltby and Wickersley. This would enable continuity of service between the Intensive Family Support work they were already commissioned to deliver without overlap or duplication
- 7 families identified in Year 1 cohort were currently working with the Family Recovery Programme; a further 4 were already on the waiting list. The Programme had funded 4 additional outreach workers
- 14 families in Year 1 cohort included children who had been identified as ‘at risk of sexual exploitation’
- Priority to put in place a system that would record multi-agency engagement with families and track outcomes in order to report centrally to release results-based payments and locally to provide assurance that cost avoidance and cost savings were being achieved
Discussion ensued with the following points raised/clarified:-
o A number of Programmes all had different thresholds of which some overlapped. Troubled Families were those that had a clear route in through the Social Care and Early Help Team. Their Programme Priority was dictated by which Services they received
o There were a number of current projects/pilots which all had different referral routes.
o A number of agencies “saw” the child but did not look at the family. If they had more time/incentive to look at the complete family it would save time/resources and improve the health outcomes/opportunities
o The principles were set by Government
o There were families that worked with agencies every day and took up a huge amount of resources – better co-ordination of the provision of services would see a reduction in resources. Early intervention would stop families reaching crisis point and not need as much help
o Co-ordination of Early Help to back up the individual organisation would vary and the beneficiaries of such would differ per family
o Mapping of services had taken place
o If it was felt that further filters were needed to meet local need, the Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group could contribute decision
o The opportunity should be taken to transform the services in light of the Government initiative.
Agreed:- (1) That the analysis of families identified using the Troubled Families Financial Framework be noted.
(2) That agencies commit to work closely with Families for Change Co-ordinators to ensure appropriate engagement with the families identified.
(3) That any barriers to agency engagement would be addressed by officers prioritising resolutions from working with the Troubled Families Co-ordinator.
(4) That it be noted that any future commissioning decisions would be made in the context of the Families for Change Delivery Plan and the Payment by Results Financial Framework.
(5) That a report be submitted to the next Partnership meeting on transforming the Early Help Service and Support for Families.