Agenda item

6.1

The Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, submitted a report containing an overview and update on the Building Successful Families Programme, which had commenced in Sheffield in April 2014, in response to the Government’s national ‘Troubled Families’ Programme.

6.2

In attendance for this item was Dawn Walton, Assistant Director, Prevention and Early Intervention, Children, Young People and Families.

6.3

The report set out details on the Programme’s aims, the delivery model, the referral routes and the progress made to date, together with information on its impact and the innovative approach adopted by the Local Authority in connection with the organisation of the Programme.  Ms Walton stated that Sheffield had recently been named as one of the top three performing local authorities under the Programme.  

6.4

Members of the Committee raised questions and the following responses were provided:-

·                The streamlining of referrals through the Prevention Assessment Teams (PATs) was still in the process of being developed, and this was to support the process of tracking and monitoring the support being provided, and its impact. The Council aimed to work proactively with all partners to ensure that this was effective for parents.

·                In terms of data collation regarding the families involved in the Programme, strict protocols had been established with all parts of the organisations involved, both external and internal, and information on the families would be fed to the Council through the PATs.  Information on families would be passed on using robust systems, through Multi-Agency Allocation Meetings.  Specific consideration had been given to ensure that the families involved were not labelled in any way, and strict systems were in place to ensure that, when providing management data to Government, none of the families could be identified individually.  Officers were looking at how information on families could be shared with other agencies from an early stage, as part of a preventative measure.

·                The assessment and effectiveness of the long-term impact of the Programme, relating specifically to those families who had been successfully ‘turned around’, would continue to be considered as part of the Programme.  Work with some families referred under the Programme was based, in some cases, on a 12-month intervention which, depending on the level of difficulties involved, was not considered long enough.  It was hoped that additional funding would be available as part of Phase 2, which would give the Authority more time to work with families.

·                A cost savings analysis would be undertaken after a specific period, whereby officers would review the collective data, which would involve the increased time children in the families spent at school, which would hopefully result in a reduction in crime, as well as helping to improve their employment prospects.  The aim of the Programme was to introduce some level of sustainability in terms of the attitudes of the families involved.  The three main criteria used by the Government in terms of measuring the success of the Programme included school attendance, anti-social behaviour and employment, and the Authority would receive funding from the Government in respect of those families who had been ‘turned around’ based on this criteria.  The Authority used a further 12 ‘local discretion factors’, some of which were considerably more difficult to measure in terms of success. 

·                The long-aim target for the Programme was to reduce the involvement of the number of agencies working with families at any one time, which would ultimately result in cost savings.

·                In addition to the involvement of the various agencies, investment received through the Programme had also gone into some voluntary service sectors, such as Families Together, Southey Owlerton Area Regeneration, Manor Castle Development Trust and Family Action. 

·                The Local Authority had to operate under the normal rules in terms of access to medical records in that such records could only ever be accessed with the informed consent of the individual patient concerned.

·                There was good local engagement with the Police, who regularly referred families to local Multi-Agency Support Teams.

·                The main role of the Key Worker was to build relationships with the family and have connections with the various agencies involved in order to co-ordinate the work under the Programme.  Specialist services, such as the NHS, Job Centre and Housing, would remain responsible and accountable for the interventions they provided.  The Key Workers would receive comprehensive training, which would focus initially on early attachment and contact issues with the families.  Their initial contact with the families would involve a month-long induction programme, following which they would be supported by a senior staff member, up until such time as they gained sufficient knowledge and experience to work independently.

·                It was hoped that by the end of July/early August, 2014, the Local Authority would receive instructions in terms of Phase 2 of the national Programme, and that Members would be updated on this accordingly.  Phase 2 was due to start in 2015 nationally, but it was hoped that Sheffield, together with a number of other local authorities, would be selected to act as “early adopters”, and begin work on Phase 2 in Autumn 2014.

·                Whilst the Programme had been successful in that 889 (53%) families had been ‘turned around’, it was hoped that the remaining 47% of the 1,844 families identified as meeting the relevant criteria would be ‘turned around’ in the final year of the first phase of the Programme.  It was envisaged that considerably more families would be included as part of Phase 2.  In terms of the employment criteria, a number of Job Centre Plus staff had been seconded to the Local Authority, meaning that they could work more closely with Council officers.  In addition to this, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had agreed data-sharing processes with the Local Authority.

·                The Local Authority does not report on data in terms of the nature of employment undertaken by families under the Programme, but the nature of the employment was most likely to be low skilled/low paid work.  The nature of the employment undertaken by family members could be a point of further investigation for the next stage of the Programme.

6.5

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the information now reported and the responses provided to the questions raised; and

(b)       requests the Executive Director, Children, Young People and Families, to circulate a written briefing to Members in October, 2014, outlining ongoing progress with the Programme and an update on the outcome of the bid to be an “early adopter” site for Phase 2.