1 / 14

Supporting (Troubled) Families The Hampshire Ambition

Supporting (Troubled) Families The Hampshire Ambition. Hampshire Senate 19 September 2012 Paul Archer Director of Policy and Governance, Hampshire County Council. Commitment to scope of National programme relating to 1,590 families in Hampshire (3,145 across HIOWLA)

rhea-chandler
Télécharger la présentation

Supporting (Troubled) Families The Hampshire Ambition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Supporting (Troubled) FamiliesThe Hampshire Ambition Hampshire Senate 19 September 2012 Paul Archer Director of Policy and Governance, Hampshire County Council

  2. 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 Hampshire ‘Ambition’

  3. 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 Background – National Programme

  4. National definition Troubled families are households who: • Are involved in crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB); • Have children not in school; • Have an adult on out of work benefits. …..and as a result cause high costs to the public purse. 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.

  5. Troubled Families Cohort ££££££££ 80% Families in receipt of statutory interventions within the social care, mental health, criminal justice system and benefit dependency Troubled family cohort ££ 20% Families receiving regular specialist and targeted interventions for severe and/ or persistent problems 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 . 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 .

  6. 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 “Preventing entry, re-entry or perpetuation within the justice, benefits, acute health and social care systems” Expected strategic outcomes • Society • Lower crime and anti-social behaviour • Lower public service costs • Stronger communities • Prosperous economy

  7. Challenge For Partners • 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

  8. Supporting (Troubled) FamiliesEstablishing the Programme in Hampshire Hampshire Senate 19 September 2012 Ian Langley (Supporting Troubled Families Programme Strategic Coordinator, Hampshire County Council)

  9. 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 The Approach

  10. Local Co-ordination Groups STFP Partnership Board DCLG Troubled Families Unit STFP Management Group HCC Accountable Body STFP Strategic Coordinator and Programme Team Programme Structure and Governance

  11. Strategic Co-ordinators • Ian Langley (Hampshire) assisted by Gary Westbrook & Volker Buck • Zoryna O’Donnell (IOW) • James Hill (Portsmouth) • Lesley Hobbs (Southampton)

  12. 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) Finances

  13. 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) Early Progress

  14. 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) Next Steps

More Related