Supporting (Troubled) FamiliesThe Hampshire Ambition

Hampshire Senate19 September 2012

Paul Archer Director of Policy and Governance,

Hampshire County Council

Hampshire ‘Ambition’

• Commitment to scope of National programme relating to 1,590 families in

Hampshire (3,145 across HIOWLA)

• Provide early help for families

• Build on early experience of Family Intervention Programmes

• Not just more of the same

• Partnership project – Vital to us all…..’Let’s Achieve Together’

• Transformation for the whole system of preventative support for families

with multiple problems: Co-ordinated Plan for each family encompassing preventative

interventions for individuals within it Sharing of information Costing and resourcing of preventative interventions

• 3 year programme, 10 year ambition - lasting and sustainable change

Background – National Programme

• Civil unrest over 5 days of August 2011

• Public service costs/ Total Place

• Prime Minister’s commitment re 120,000 families costing approx £9bn p/a

• Troubled Family Unit – Communities and Local Government

• Sharing information• National pooled budget • Local programmes - engagement and intensive interventions• Payment by results investment• Network of Local Leads funded by CLG

• Links to DWP Work Programme

• Emphasis on Public Services (Local Authorities, Police, Health, Prisons, Probation, Schools, Housing, YOT, VCS) working differently together

National definition

Local discretion filters can also be used by partners to determine other attributes that are cause for concern e.g. substance abuse, domestic violence call outs, social care needs etc.

Troubled families are households who:

1. Are involved in crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB);

2. Have children not in school;

3. Have an adult on out of work benefits.

…..and as a result cause high costs to the public purse.

Families in receipt of statutory interventions within the social care, mental health, criminal justice system and benefit dependency

Families receiving regular specialist and targeted interventions for severe and/ or persistent problems

Families accessing universal/ community support services at vulnerable points in their lives e.g. school transition, adolescence, job loss, debt, esteem, relationship problems, lifestyle issues, stress etc

.

Family members coming into contact with police, social care, local authority, housing, primary and acute health services, school welfare – triggering agency assessments if presenting behaviours and symptoms of persisting or increasing problems

.

Troubled family cohort

££££££££ 80%

££ 20%

Troubled Families Cohort

Expected strategic outcomes

Personal and family (in spite of difficult circumstances)•Employment•Skills, qualifications and opportunities•Self esteem and aspiration•Prosperity•Reduced household debt•Addressing / recovery from addiction •Healthier/ more fulfilling lifestyles•Mental health•Safety•Reduced offending/ ASB•Family well being•Better environment for children to thrive•Positive contribution to the community

Society•Lower crime and anti-social behaviour•Lower public service costs•Stronger communities•Prosperous economy

“Preventing entry, re-entry or perpetuation within the justice, benefits, acute health and social care systems”

• Agree to collaborate on the cohort of families – resource input

• Agree to share (sometimes sensitive) information to ensure that there is a

holistic plan for each family

• Share the ambition to improve coordination between agencies working with

families

• Commit to on-going system transformation based on learning from the

programme

• Agree to evaluation of impact and cost effectiveness of the programme to

inform future mainstream investment

• Agree to make this happen operationally

• Agree to engage wider partners in the programme

• Contribute to programme and/or commissioning budget for “engagement

and intensive support” services

Challenge For Partners

Supporting (Troubled) FamiliesEstablishing the Programme in

Hampshire

Hampshire Senate19 September 2012

Ian Langley (Supporting Troubled Families Programme Strategic

Coordinator, Hampshire County Council)

The Approach• Coordinated Multi Agency Approach

– Local Coordination Groups based on District Boundaries

– Cross agency representatives (strategic and operational level)

– Bottom up approach for design and delivery (local input crucial)

• Importance of local discretion for identifying families

• Single family assessments and plans linked to outcomes

• Flexible delivery strategy – blend of intensive family support services and local

coordination / innovation

• Alignment with existing schemes (e.g. HCC FIP’s, ESF programme etc)

• Sharing funding risks and resources

• Ongoing performance review and local evaluation partner

• Long term transformational ambition – improving the way the public sector

works with families

Programme Structure and Governance

STFP Management Group

STFP Partnership Board

STFP Strategic Coordinator and Programme Team

HCC Accountable Body

DCLG Troubled Families Unit

Local Co-ordination Groups

Strategic Co-ordinators

• Ian Langley (Hampshire) assisted by Gary Westbrook & Volker Buck

• Zoryna O’Donnell (IOW)

• James Hill (Portsmouth)

• Lesley Hobbs (Southampton)

Finances

• DCLG payment by results funding – one off per family funding linked to

demonstrating outcomes

• Upfront “Attachment Fee” and in arrears “Reward Funding” based on

demonstrating successful outcomes

• Robust evidence / audit trail will be required to claim reward funding

• DCLG funding alone will not meet local need. Local resource contributions

will be critical for success and for the future sustainability of the programme

• Additional contributions already identified (HCC Leaders contribution, FIP

provision, Constabulary contribution)

Early Progress

• Strategic coordinators and teams appointed.

• Established all Local Coordination Groups and appointed Senior

Responsible Officers (SRO) for each group in July / August 2012.

• Formalised data sharing agreements in place for purposes of identifying

year 1 cohort.

• Significant progress made identifying year 1 cohort

• Local funding arrangements currently being designed (local set up funding,

central commissioning, local commissioning)

• Building links with other key stakeholders (Health, Housing, VCS, ESF

Pathways etc)

Next Steps

• Finalise year 1 cohort by end of September 2012

• Complete individual family assessments and plans

• Develop local strategies place based on individual assessments

• Release local funding to realise quick wins.

• Continued identification and engagement with key local partners (e.g.

Schools, RSL’s, VCS etc)

• Endorsement of the commissioning strategy by Partnership Board (28th Sept

2012)