Agenda item

Councillor G. A. Russell welcomed the Families for Change Co-ordinator, the Workforce, Strategy, Planning and Development Manager and the Director of Safeguarding Children and Families (all of the Safeguarding Children and Families, Children and Young People’s Services Directorate) to the meeting.  The Officers had been invited to attend the meeting to update the Improving Lives Select Commission on Rotherham’s Families for Change initiative.

Minute No. C23 (Troubled Families Initiative) of the Cabinet meeting held on 20^th June, 2012, provided authorisation for Rotherham to undertake the Central Government’s Troubled Families Initiative.  

The Troubled Families Co-ordinator explained how Rotherham had re-branded the Central Government’s ‘Trouble Families’ initiative to ‘Families for Change’ in order to emphasise the positive aspirations of the programme in Rotherham.  A similar approach had been taken by other local authorities.  No parts of Rotherham’s workstream were delivered under the name ‘Troubled Families’, as the intentions of partnership and co-operation were guiding principles, and all provision was done ‘with’ families, rather than ‘to’ them.  The Troubled Families’ Co-ordinator had retained the job title to ensure clarity and accountability to the funding stream. 

Rotherham has been asked to work with 730 families during the three year programme (April 2012 – April 2015); at this stage of the programme 415 families were working with Families for Change, including both the adults and children within the family. 

Families were identified as being eligible to work with the programme through a number of criterion: -

• Education – children in the family being classed as ‘persistently absent’ with attendance figures of less than 85%, or who had been temporarily excluded three or more times in a year, or permanently excluded;
• Crime and Anti-social behaviour as factors in the family;
• Adult/s in the family claiming unemployed Benefits.

If a family displayed evidence of all three factors, then Families for Change would engage them through family support.  In accordance with the Troubled Families Financial Framework, Rotherham had also elected to apply a local filter to concentrate efforts in the eleven most deprived neighbourhoods, and to identify families affected by factors including poor mental health, drug and alcohol misuse and domestic abuse. 

Children and Young People’s Services Continuum of Need, shows the services and provision available from the ‘Universal’ to ‘Acute’ stages was referred to.  The majority of the families that were involved in Families for Change were in the middle ‘Vulnerable’ and ‘Complex’ stages. 

A map of the Borough highlighted the incidence of contacts with the Families for Change and how there was a high correlation to the eleven most deprived neighbourhoods. 

Key aspects of the provision through Families for Change were the Family Intervention Factors, including: -

·        A dedicated worker, dedicated to a family to ‘grip their problems’;

·        Practical ‘hands on’ support;

·        A persistent, assertive and challenging approach;

·        Considering the family as a whole – gathering the intelligence;

·        Common purpose and agreed action: All professionals working with a family were aware of the other agencies involved;

·        The Family Common Assessment Framework in place for the family: -

o   Recognised a family’s strengths and needs;

o   Appointed a Lead Worker, who was the co-ordinator of all provision and professionals;

o   Delivered a process for a managed ‘step-down’ of cases from social care into  support from the programme.

o   There were close links with Deprived Neighbourhood Lead Workers, and links through secondment to the Job Centre Plus.

·        The Family Recovery Programme contract was delivered under the Families for Change project, to provide intensive family support;

·        A contract awarded to the YWCA provides a dedicated lead worker for the Family Common Assessment Framework as well as the family intervention factors. 

The financial structure of the Families for Change programme was considered, including the differing loading on each of the three years for the attachment fee and the payment by results percentage. 

Payment by results had to be determined on a reversal of the identification criterion: -

• Improved school attendance sustained over three terms;
• A reduction in crime;
• Adults in employment or on a pathway to employment.

The time-limited nature of the Troubled Families funding was noted.  There had been no announcement about what funding would be available after 2016. 

Discussion ensued on the issues within the presentation and submitted report.  The following issues were considered: -

• Wasn’t this just a Whitehall idea?  How well is it working in practice; are families engaging and how long do they want to remain engaged? – Working fantastically well for many families - the case studies included in the submitted report demonstrate this.  Some families are much more difficult to engage but Services can often find a way to engage with them, sometimes statutorily.  The first case study submitted demonstrated multi-agency working to help employment and school attendance. Engagement times could last between eight-weeks to twelve months’.  The Families for Change initiative represented a sustainable way for professionals to work with families;
• What other information is there to support whether the scheme is a success? – Payment by results and audit and analysis of case files, including case studies.  Wider evaluation will be led by Central Government.  Long-term outcomes, sustained beyond payment by results, will be looked at relating to school attendance and attainment, presentation at Accident and Emergency and so on.  Local work with the Safer Rotherham Partnership, will seek to evidence the impact of the work on anti-Social Behaviour within neighbourhoods.
• Are we engaging with newly arrived families?  Case studies?  European Funding? – Yes, if they met the criteria for Families for Change.  After the first twelve months a Families for Change, a Co-ordinator with language skills was recruited.  European Union funding- joining up all of the funding available, this is a continuing piece of work at the City Region. The financial Framework was already optimising European Structural Funding provision through Wiseability. There would be not ability to match fund or duplicate.     
• There are families that are too hard to deal with?  Do we only work with families that attract funding? -  Absolutely not the case in Rotherham.  Family Recovery Programme worked with 80 families per year.  Rotherham was not only directing this intervention to families that would be classed as ‘easy win;’ but also working with families with complex and multiple needs. 
• City Region – how does Rotherham compare to other areas across the region?  Alcohol audit – how do you do this accurately?  Sustain over three-terms – what happens at 4^th term? Along with other local authorities a strong group of regional networks had been established to share good practice.  Rotherham came 7^th in Yorkshire and the Humber, who, overall, had the highest number of outcomes across the country.  Rotherham was organised to counter its own challenges; challenges were different in larger cities.  Public Health used an agreed tool that did not just look units of alcohol consumed but asked more detailed questions that relied on the skill of the professional completing the audit.  It was key that a skilled professional delivered the questionnaire.  Attendance across three terms, the Programme was not exiting from families just because payment by results objectives had been met but was supporting families until they could sustain themselves through accessing universal services. 
• Difference between now and previous schemes?  Families living in poverty – this will get worse, how will poverty be minimised given Welfare Reforms.  Many jobs now available were temporary contracts on zero hours.  Working families also need help.  Families for Change Co-ordinators will ensure that work-based initiatives were appropriate.  This would include the individual being part of a process, engaging with professional support and learning the pathways to work.  Case study demonstrated work, accessing skills and training.
• Working together – different areas of the Authority can conflict with one another, e.g. fines to families may not be supportive in this context – Families for Change were using a model that supported multi-agency working and information sharing protocols. 
• At three-year point there will be the skills and knowledge but no money for the initiative – how does the Local Authority retain the workers’ skills and knowledge – By alignment with other work and ensuring that succession planning was in place to sustain provision. A very good evidence base for this type of approach was being built up.
• Pupil Premium – welcome new funding stream direct to schools, the Local Authority was working in partnership with schools to deploy the funding.  Analysis was being undertaken to look at the educational outcomes relating to the Families for Change initiative. 

Councillor Russell thanked the Officers for their informative presentation and contribution to the discussion. 

Resolved: -  (1)  That the report be received and its content relating to the Rotherham’s Families for Change programme and referral routes, be noted. 

(2)  That the Improving Lives Select Commission monitor the outcomes and benefits of the Families for Change programme in one year’s time.